What do people think about the death penalty in a bubble? Seperate from any issues of cost, of guilt, and on purely ethical grounds, is the death penalty something that you'd support using? Why or why not?

The person being sentenced is 100% without a doubt guilty and the cost is meaningless. The crime is whatever you think would result in the severity of a death penalty.

I think the punishment should fit the crime. The only punishment that fits murder, is death.

The government has no standing to kill any of its citizens, or decide who deserves to live or die.

And it cannot be trusted with such power.

I think the punishment should fit the crime. The only punishment that fits murder, is death.

I agree with that, the only problem I have (on a practical, rather than theoretical level) is that juries make mistakes, as do judges after innumerable appeals, prosecutors and police are potentially overzealous, and public defenders (and other defense counsel) are often really, really bad at their jobs.

I'm happy enough to see murderers be killed, but I'm not sure what "error rate" I'm comfortable with where the "errors" are innocent people being executed. To be honest, I don't think I require "zero" errors (since that's impossible), but I have to imagine I'd change my tune on that were I the target of a trial gone wrong, or were someone I know personally.

I agree with that, the only problem I have (on a practical, rather than theoretical level) is that juries make mistakes, as do judges after innumerable appeals, prosecutors and police are potentially overzealous, and public defenders (and other defense counsel) are often really, really bad at their jobs.

I'm happy enough to see murderers be killed, but I'm not sure what "error rate" I'm comfortable with where the "errors" are innocent people being executed. To be honest, I don't think I require "zero" errors (since that's impossible), but I have to imagine I'd change my tune on that were I the target of a trial gone wrong, or were someone I know personally.

The question, for the purposes of this thread, is supposed to be answered with a "zero error" assumption. I personally am against the death penalty as a part of our law because of the points you raised. When the death penalty is in a bubble however, I'm not sure when I stand.

Is death ever an appropriate punishment for any crime?

iceaura: As I mentioned to Pandaemoni, the government and it's power is really irrelevant to the discussion.

The question, for the purposes of this thread, is supposed to be answered with a "zero error" assumption. I personally am against the death penalty as a part of our law because of the points you raised. When the death penalty is in a bubble however, I'm not sure when I stand.

Is death ever an appropriate punishment for any crime?

iceaura: As I mentioned to Pandaemoni, the government and it's power is really irrelevant to the discussion.

Assuming zero error (as I did when I voted), then I'd say that the death penalty is appropriate. Assuming zero error, I'd also say that lottery tickets are a great investment.

And what's your reasoning behind that? As a deterrent for anyone ever committing murder?

How about when we bring crimes of passion into consideration. Under our current legal system, these tend to be viewed in a more sympathetic light and are given lighter sentences. Or perhaps when someone commits a murder as revenge, ie. a victim killing her rapist after the rape in a premeditated attack.

Which crimes would you consider appropriate for a death sentence?

What do people think about the death penalty in a bubble? Seperate from any issues of cost, of guilt, and on purely ethical grounds, is the death penalty something that you'd support using? Why or why not?

The person being sentenced is 100% without a doubt guilty and the cost is meaningless. The crime is whatever you think would result in the severity of a death penalty.

I think the thing that most people fail to take into account is ....Why should any society want to keep such people as murderers in their midst? ...even if in prisons?

What good are murderers to any society on Earth?

Baron Max

So you would give the death penalty to any and all murderers, no matter the circumstance?

So you would give the death penalty to any and all murderers, no matter the circumstance?

You're trying to stretch things here, but the answer in a word is ....yes.

No human society needs such people in their midst ...and that includes wives who've been abused and beaten, etc, who then decide to kill the husband in his sleep in some misguided ideal of protecting herself. No society needs a person like that ...yes, the death penalty.

Baron Max

Would you have any exceptions?

Killing someone in self defense doesn't count as murder so I'm obviously excluding that.

Death is more humane than solitary confinement for life I'd think. Putting

someone in a 10 foot cubicle and allowing no contact to the outside world is

more of torture than death itself.

Death is more humane than solitary confinement for life I'd think. Putting

someone in a 10 foot cubicle and allowing no contact to the outside world is

more of torture than death itself.

Some would view torture as the proper punishment with death being too easy.

So you believe that imprisonment is worse than death. Is giving the death penalty to murders then an act of mercy on your part?

Some would view torture as the proper punishment with death being too easy.

So you believe that imprisonment is worse than death. Is giving the death penalty to murders then an act of mercy on your part?


I'd say it's a better way to deal with people that do heinous crimes so that

they are never again going to be part of society. No , not mercy but justice.

I'd say it's a better way to deal with people that do heinous crimes so that

they are never again going to be part of society. No , not mery but justice.

So then you're valuing the efficiency of the death penalty in punishment over the not-so-efficient but more punishing imprisonment.

I can see the logic in that.

I wonder if anyone will end up voting no. After hearing several views from the yes camp, I'd love to hear what the other side thinks.

I know of two innocent people who were hanged in my lifetime. I also know of three people who were wrongly convicted of murder after the death penalty had been aboloished. They were subsequently released, one after almost twenty years incarceration. when fresh evidence came to light.

My vote is NO. And that is the vote of all those civilized countries which have abolished the seath penalty.

I may have missed it, but I have seen no discusion of the pros and cons of the tax-dollar cost of execution versus inprisonment.

There is also the smal point that in putting a person to death means society is descending to the same level as a murderer.

That's because you missed the gist of the entire thread. The premise is that guilt is 100% confirmed and money is not a factor; the death penalty in a bubble so to speak.

Would your views change under those circumstances?

[QUOTE=ashura;1645041]That's because you missed the gist of the entire thread. The premise is that guilt is 100% confirmed and money is not a factor; the death penalty in a bubble so to speak.

Would your views change under those circumstances?




No

And your reasoning for that view?

I think our entire legal system was developed to keep people from being wrongly convicted of crimes and yet it still occurs. While it is bad enough that a person can be unjustly imprisoned, it at least can be reversed. Death can not be. For those who don't believe that those errors occur you need only look at the number of convictions that have been overturned by DNA evidence in recent years.

Again, this thread assumes an "error-free" death penalty. And it only concerns the idea of death being a punishment, not the implementation of the death penalty in any body of law.

maxq, does your answer stay the same under those circumstances? If so, why?

That's because you missed the gist of the entire thread. The premise is that guilt is 100% confirmed and money is not a factor; the death penalty in a bubble so to speak.

Would your views change under those circumstances?

I don't see the point in considering such a hypothetical unless you can tell me how such a situation could exist.

Still I problems with the State determing who should live and who should die, so even in such a bubble I wouldn't trust the judgement of the State to determine what warrants execution and what doesn't.

The state isn't a part of this discussion one bit. This is just to see what your personal views are on death as a punishment.

The state isn't a part of this discussion one bit. This is just to see what your personal views are on death as a punishment.

So you're asking would I want to put people to death? No. Odd question.

[QUOTE=ashura;1645056]

And your reasoning for that view ?

It's barbaric. You may also like to consider the possible motivation of the voters of all the countries which have done away with the death penalty.

Look at the nations which have retained it ,and ask whether you feel comfortable being aligned with them on this question.

And what's your reasoning behind that? As a deterrent for anyone ever committing murder?

How about when we bring crimes of passion into consideration. Under our current legal system, these tend to be viewed in a more sympathetic light and are given lighter sentences. Or perhaps when someone commits a murder as revenge, ie. a victim killing her rapist after the rape in a premeditated attack.

Which crimes would you consider appropriate for a death sentence?

My reasoning is that there is a very basic sense in me that reciprocal punishments are fair, and that getting vengeance for a family that has lost a loved one is not a bad thing. While some might claim that vengeance doesn't make the aggrieved family feel any better, I'd suggest that it makes a lot of people feel at least a little bit better (though it doesn't completely compensate for the loss obviously.

To me, denying that vengeance for the family of the murder victim is a good thing is simply to deny a basic (if ugly) fact of human psychology.

As for which crimes warrant the death penalty, it would have to be deliberate killing, without mitigating factors (or a lesser form of murder if there were aggravating factors). "Heat of passion" crimes have some mitigation, because by their nature the killer was not thinking clearly at the time of the act. There I would balance the desire for vengeance of the family against the need of individuals in society to know that they will only be condemned to death for the actions over which they had control/

A rapist killing her attacker would also have a mitigating factor. Again, people tend to find reciprocal punishments "fair." If a rapist killed her attacker, that might be going beyond reciprocity, but not far beyond it. So the punishment inflicted is only "a little unfair" (Again, though, this is assuming no error on the part of the killer.)

It's barbaric. You may also like to consider the possible motivation of the voters of all the countries which have done away with the death penalty.

Look at the nations which have retained it ,and ask whether you feel comfortable being aligned with them on this question.

Singapore, I think, has the least amount of crime in the whole world, and they adhere to the death penalty as well as harsh punishments for crime.

Yes, I would align myself to that society with ease and pleasure. But you, on the other hand, seem quite content to keep vicious criminals alive in little prison cells. Why?

Baron Max

As for which crimes warrant the death penalty, it would have to be deliberate killing, ...
A rapist killing her attacker would also have a mitigating factor.

There's a big difference between murder and killing in self-defense.

Baron Max

So you would give the death penalty to any and all murderers, no matter the circumstance?
I agree with Max. The answer is yes. But, as you noted, not all killing is murder. Sometimes it's self defense, sometimes it's manslaughter. But if they're convicted of murder, they should be put to death.

No it's not a punishment compared to life in prison, I much rather drift off painlessly then spend the rest of my life in prison. I'm just aginst people.

[QUOTE=Baron Max;1645136]Singapore, I think, has the least amount of crime in the whole world, and they adhere to the death penalty as well as harsh punishments for crime.

Yes, I would align myself to that society with ease and pleasure. But you, on the other hand, seem quite content to keep vicious criminals alive in little prison cells. Why?


If it is your wish to align yourself with a repressive regime by all means do so. May I suggest that you spend some time in Singapore. You will be welcomed with open arms because you have the " right " attitude. Be careful what you say, though, as they are not in favour of fredom of speech. You don't know when you are well off.

So you're asking would I want to put people to death? No. Odd question.

Obviously I'm not asking you if you want to kill people on a whim. I'm asking specifically in terms of punishment for a crime. Is there any crime where you feel a death penalty is appropriate? If so, why? If not, why not?

No it's not a punishment compared to life in prison, I much rather drift off painlessly then spend the rest of my life in prison. I'm just aginst people.

But what about the efficiency argument brought up earlier? Wouldn't it be better for society as a whole if the death penalty were implemented for such criminals?

(again, assuming zero error, no money worries, etc.)

It's barbaric. You may also like to consider the possible motivation of the voters of all the countries which have done away with the death penalty.

Look at the nations which have retained it ,and ask whether you feel comfortable being aligned with them on this question.

Please be a bit more specific. Why exactly is it barbaric?

My reasoning is that there is a very basic sense in me that reciprocal punishments are fair, and that getting vengeance for a family that has lost a loved one is not a bad thing. While some might claim that vengeance doesn't make the aggrieved family feel any better, I'd suggest that it makes a lot of people feel at least a little bit better (though it doesn't completely compensate for the loss obviously.

To me, denying that vengeance for the family of the murder victim is a good thing is simply to deny a basic (if ugly) fact of human psychology.

As for which crimes warrant the death penalty, it would have to be deliberate killing, without mitigating factors (or a lesser form of murder if there were aggravating factors). "Heat of passion" crimes have some mitigation, because by their nature the killer was not thinking clearly at the time of the act. There I would balance the desire for vengeance of the family against the need of individuals in society to know that they will only be condemned to death for the actions over which they had control/

A rapist killing her attacker would also have a mitigating factor. Again, people tend to find reciprocal punishments "fair." If a rapist killed her attacker, that might be going beyond reciprocity, but not far beyond it. So the punishment inflicted is only "a little unfair" (Again, though, this is assuming no error on the part of the killer.)

Very good points. I'd be interested to see what the rebuttal from someone in the "No" camp to this would be.

No it's not a punishment compared to life in prison, I much rather drift off painlessly then spend the rest of my life in prison. I'm just aginst people.
Complete bullshit. Look how hard prisoners fight to avoid the death penalty. No one wants to be put to death. Death is the ultimate punishment.

Complete bullshit. Look how hard prisoners fight to avoid the death penalty. No one wants to be put to death. Death is the ultimate punishment.

For some. For others, death is the easy way out. It's very subjective.

That's why I like the efficient vs inefficient punishment rationale mentioned earlier in the thread. That's definitely seems like the objective way to look at it.

Obviously I'm not asking you if you want to kill people on a whim. I'm asking specifically in terms of punishment for a crime. Is there any crime where you feel a death penalty is appropriate? If so, why? If not, why not?

But you stated that you meant executions without State involvement--I took this to mean you were asking whether people here were willing to put other people to death after they've committed a crime. So my answer is no, I believe killing other people should only be undertaken as a last resort (e.g., to defend my own life) & I'm not willing to put someone to death if there are other options.

And the reasoning behind this is?

What do people think about the death penalty in a bubble? Seperate from any issues of cost, of guilt, and on purely ethical grounds, is the death penalty something that you'd support using? Why or why not?

The problem is that issues of guilt, at the very least, must come into any judgment made on ethical grounds. You can't really make ethical judgments "in a bubble". You need to take all the relevant factors into account.

I think whether or not the death penalty is justified, even with 100% assurance of guilt, depends on the kind of society you're living in. If keeping the criminal in prison for life (for example) would simply be too much of a drain on the society's resources (as it might be in a tribal community), then I can understand invoking the death penalty. I can also understand it in situations where justice is administered under a system where everybody knows everybody else, and retribution is a major motive for the punishment.

But in a modern nation, where the justice system is supposed to be set up to deal with offenders impartially, where trial is before a jury or judge previously unknown to the offender, and where the state's resources can easily stretch to keeping the offender imprisoned, I can't see any good justification for the death penalty. And in the real world, where guilt is seldom 100% certain, I can see lots of reasons not to have it.

Blood is blood no matter who's it is.

There can be no doubt in my mind that there are people who deserve to die.

However, from a juror's standpoint thats not a decision I feel it's my place to make.

For some. For others, death is the easy way out. It's very subjective.

It's not that subjective. The only case I know of where someone condemned to execution forgoed all appeals was the first person executed after the death penalty was reinstated in the seventies. He just wanted to be first. I can't remember his name.

There may be a few other such cases, but the vast majority of people prefer life, even in prison, to death.

[QUOTE=ashura;1645351]]

Please be a bit more specific. Why exactly is it barbaric?

If you have to ask that, there is no way you would understand my answer

And in the real world, where guilt is seldom 100% certain, I can see lots of reasons not to have it.

I agree with this which is why I'm against the death penalty in the real world.

But I don't understand why it's so hard to look at the death penalty as meant by this thread. I'm just looking for personal opinions as to why people think death would ever be a suitable punishment for a crime (or why they think death is never a suitable punishment). Like you, I can understand why certain societies might choose to have the death penalty, or why they would choose not to have it. But I'm interested in what you personally feel about death as a punishment.

I wasn't able to get that bit of info with all the extra implications of cost and guilt that were attached to your post.

Blood is blood no matter who's it is.

There can be no doubt in my mind that there are people who deserve to die.

However, from a juror's standpoint thats not a decision I feel it's my place to make.

So, you would say you're against the death penalty because you don't feel any human has the right to take the life of another human, no matter the circumstance? (for the sake of the discussion, let's leave war out of the picture)

It's not that subjective. The only case I know of where someone condemned to execution forgoed all appeals was the first person executed after the death penalty was reinstated in the seventies. He just wanted to be first. I can't remember his name.

There may be a few other such cases, but the vast majority of people prefer life, even in prison, to death.

I meant subjective to everyone, not just to the prisoners. For example, the relatives of one murder victim might prefer the death penalty while the relatives of another murder victim might prefer the murderer to rot in jail for the rest of his life.

If you have to ask that, there is no way you would understand my answer

Indulge me?

[QUOTE=ashura;1645878]

Indulge me

However an execution is carried out it degrades the executioner and, in turn, the society of which he is a member.
It also means that we are stooping to perform the type of action for which we are executing someone else. And we are doing so in cold blood

It boils down to a question of standards.

It's not that subjective. The only case I know of where someone condemned to execution forgoed all appeals was the first person executed after the death penalty was reinstated in the seventies. He just wanted to be first. I can't remember his name.

There may be a few other such cases, but the vast majority of people prefer life, even in prison, to death.

For me, faced with a choice between a swift death or being anally raped on a regular basis for the rest of life, with no possibility og parole (and dealing with prison gang politics to avoid being beaten on top of that), death sounds appealing. Being electrocuted or suffocated to death would be bad though...so I'd prfer the gas chamber, hanging or a firing squad.

That said, on death row you don't have that stuff. I'd think that if you had to be in prison, the ideal would be to be on death row, where you're relatively safe, for as long as possible.

So, you would say you're against the death penalty because you don't feel any human has the right to take the life of another human, no matter the circumstance? (for the sake of the discussion, let's leave war out of the picture)

I'd say that if they deserve to die I cannot be the one to say.
It's not a choice I'm comfortable making.

I can't imagen a single situation where I would gain any pleasure knowing that someone who done me or a other wrong is sentenced to sit a couple of years in a cell to be killed at the end of it's sentence. Yust knowing that he's getting punished and can never harm again is good enough for me. The entire ID that the state has reviewed your exictence and has concluded that your unfit for live to be executed and the end of the litte nice letters of the document where no one will be held responsible for the murder.
Death penalties remind me to much of NASI shit.

This doesn't mean that I don't understand pasion murders (non of those Turkish macho shit like you had sex with my sister and didn't marry her)

It is wrong to ask someone as a part of their job, (even if very willing- Judges, Wardens,etc.) to kill or hurt someone.
It offends more than the original offense itself.

My sentiments entirely

iceaura: As I mentioned to Pandaemoni, the government and it's power is really irrelevant to the discussion. Not if you are talking about capital punishment, as opposed to vengeance killing or some other personal death-dealing.

The very essence of the evil of capital punishment is that it is done by a government, in cold blood, as a formal legal procedure for which there are no consequences to any of the people involved, to one of its citizens. None of the justifications that rest on the crime committed, or the character/guilt of the criminal, are relevant to a moral or ethical evaluation of whether a government should be allowed to kill its citizens.

Governments have no standing to make decisions about who deserves to be killed. Morally, ethically, they are in about the same position as hired assassins.

And from a practical point of view, no government can be trusted with that kind of power.

I think the punishment should fit the crime. The only punishment that fits murder, is death.

I'm surprised no one's addressed this (or did I miss it?), but: What is your reasoning?

I'm surprised no one's addressed this (or did I miss it?), but: What is your reasoning?
Is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime a novel one to you? It's one of the oldest theories of law.

Just as it is offensive when a record company manages to impose a $250,000 fine on a girl for downloading five songs, it is offensive when a murderer gets off with an eight year sentence.

Why? The magnitude of the punishment should, as closely as possible, equal the magnitude of the crime.

When someone takes a iife, or worse, multiple lives; they have commited the ultimate crime. They can never repay that which they have taken. The only way the scales of justice can come close to balancing is for them to lose their own lives.

Murderers should be killed. Every breath they take is an affront to justice. Every meal they enjoy that their victim doesn't get to enjoy just puts things that much further out of balance.

Is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime a novel one to you? It's one of the oldest theories of law. It's also one of the first theories of law to be condemned by the wise and the prophets.

Because it is impossible, in the first place. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" is an observation of fact.

And because governments should not be allowed to make such judgments, or treat their citizens as criminals treat their victims, in the second.

Murderers should be killed. Every breath they take is an affront to justice Then justice has already been affronted hundreds of thousands of times, before the government gets a chance to do its own killing. It's too late.

And because governments should not be allowed to make such judgments, or treat their citizens as criminals treat their victims, in the second.

Please. The best definition of government I've read is the body that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a given geographic area.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Men with guns come and throw you in jail. If you resist, they'll kill you.

Yet you consider it beyond the pale for that same government to execute a convicted murderer?

What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Men with guns come and throw you in jail. If you resist, they'll kill you.

Yet you consider it beyond the pale for that same government to execute a convicted murderer? If the convicted murderer, a suspected tax evader, or anyone else, is trying to kill a government agent, that agent can kill them in self defense.

And that agent will be personally accountable for the decision.

Executions are not at all the same situation, morally.

[QUOTE=madanthonywayne;1647289]

What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Men with guns come and throw you in jail. If you resist, they'll kill you.


Here in the UK if we fail to pay our taxes, men with guns do not come to throw us into jail.

Too many guns in the US ? I think so.

Yes, I support death penalty -- for multiple murderers who repeatedly demonstrated callous disregard for human life, in other words, clearly see other humans as prey. My reasoning is neither punishment nor deterrent -- it is removing from society an element which is too dangerous to be allowed to exist. It is the prey species' responsibility to protect itself from predators. As far as I am concerned, executing suchj people is no more a "punishment" than putting down a rabid dog is a punishment.

I would not execute anyone who killed only once. OTOH, I do not believe there should be a distinction between murder and attempted murder. Each knowingly tried to take a human life. No reason to reward the incompetent one. So there may be theoretically a situation where I would support executing someone who did not actually kill anyone -- just tried really hard and repeadely.

if murder is wrong then so be it, the death penalty is wrong aswell.

Please. The best definition of government I've read is the body that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a given geographic area.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Men with guns come and throw you in jail. If you resist, they'll kill you.

Yet you consider it beyond the pale for that same government to execute a convicted murderer?

I'm more of a "social contract" man myself. I don't pay my taxes because I'm afraid of being shot. ;)

I think the punishment should fit the crime. The only punishment that fits murder, is death.

I want some child abusers put to death as well. And torturers. You hold a person captive for a week, rape them, burn them, beat them....I want you gone.

if murder is wrong then so be it, the death penalty is wrong aswell.

Well put.

I want some child abusers put to death as well. And torturers. You hold a person captive for a week, rape them, burn them, beat them....I want you gone.
While I certainly wouldn't lament the execution of people who commit those crimes, some thought must be given to the fact that making the penalty for kidnapping/child abuse etc the same as for murder might encourage the criminals to kill their victims.

Or discourage them from doing anything at all

Or discourage them from doing anything at all

Heh, or both. A stronger deterrent and, for those who still commit the crime, a more compelling reason to murder.

A long prison sentence isn't stopping them. Death will.

if murder is wrong then so be it, the death penalty is wrong aswell.

Some people hold the view that murder is wrong because it infringes upon a person's right to live. A justification for the death penalty might be that by committing murder, someone has given up all of their rights including their right to live.

It is wrong to ask someone as a part of their job, (even if very willing- Judges, Wardens,etc.) to kill or hurt someone.
It offends more than the original offense itself.

Does that include the military?

Governments have no standing to make decisions about who deserves to be killed. Morally, ethically, they are in about the same position as hired assassins.

Well, how about you? You're not a hired assassin (I assume). Is there any crime that you think deserves death as a punishment?

Does that include the military?

There is no global authority(U.N - please don't make me laugh.)

Supposidly Democracies have militaries purely for self defense, also allowed by any reasonable nations laws.

Now then if we say the state's act of killing or harming is justified, that tells us that killing or harming is also justified by the public.

There is no global authority(U.N - please don't make me laugh.)

Supposidly Democracies have militaries purely for self defense, also allowed by any reasonable nations laws.

Now then if we say the state's act of killing or harming is justified, that tells us that killing or harming is also justified by the public.

So you would say you're against the death penalty because you're completely against the idea of ever killing another human being, except in self defense?

Well that would sure work if everyone rolled that way. Mostly, i'm just not interested in any government being in charge of killing or hurting people.

Well that would sure work if everyone rolled that way. Mostly, i'm just not interested in any government being in charge of killing or hurting people.

So how about on a personal level. Is there ever anything which you think deserves death as a punishment?

Well we are not talking about me. My problems are quite different from a government or societies problems.

There might be situations where it is personally advantageous for me to act outside this society's morals. I also can expect society to react. The Government should not be given such power of legitimate harm to citizens. The Government must not be allowed to act immorally. Heh, at least outside the morals it imposed upon it's citizens.

Is there ever anything which you think deserves death as a punishment?

Deserve, has nothing to do with my argument. I used to be very PRO-capital punishment, until I realized it is a moot point. Many societies today do not even incarcerate, they are rehabilitating. At least they say they are...

Well we are not talking about me. My problems are quite different from a government or societies problems.

There might be situations where it is personally advantageous for me to act outside this society's morals. I also can expect society to react. The Government should not be given such power of legitimate harm to citizens. The Government must not be allowed to act immorally. Heh, at least outside the morals it imposed upon it's citizens.

But... I am talking about you. :confused:

I think I might have poorly worded my OP/entire thread. I'm trying to find out what someone's opinion is on a personal level on what they think about death as a punishment.

Oh...sorry. Ok On a personal level i'm all for it, just don't want the government doing it.

:mufc:

Oh...sorry. Ok On a personal level i'm all for it, just don't want the government doing it.

:mufc:

Can you explain why you're for it?

Also, is there anyone else who might have mistakenly voted no, when they really think yes, or vice versa, because of my poor wording?

Personal vengence I believe in(and I even know its wrong), Not Government vengence.

Can you elaborate? Do you mean you are pro-personal vengeance even though it's wrong?

Personal vengence I believe in(and I even know its wrong), Not Government vengence.

I see government killing as a compromise between personal vengeance and human decency. If the family of the victim wants vengeance on a killer, the state steps in and exacts it for them, in a relatively humane way. Left to their own devices, an aggrieved parent or spouse might well torture the killer prior to executing him, but the state has no personal interest in making the death especially gruesome or terrible.

Plus, it goes without saying everywhere save in this thread (since the OP asks that we assume "no errors") that a grieving family member is more likely to kill the wrong person hastily than the state after it's long drawn out process.

I see government killing as a compromise between personal vengeance and human decency. If the family of the victim wants vengeance on a killer, the state steps in and exacts it for them, in a relatively humane way. Left to their own devices, an aggrieved parent or spouse might well torture the killer prior to executing him, but the state has no personal interest in making the death especially gruesome or terrible.

Plus, it goes without saying everywhere save in this thread (since the OP asks that we assume "no errors") that a grieving family member is more likely to kill the wrong person hastily than the state after it's long drawn out process.
Exactly right. The natural response to a murder if there were no government would be for the family of the victim to take vengeance. Then vise-versa and on and on.

So we create governments to bring some order to the situation. But we still expect justice, that is vengence, to be served.

But we still expect justice, that is vengence, to be served. Unless "we" are adults, and can distinguish justice from vengeance with little difficulty - and prefer justice.

Once again: whatever the criminal deserves is irrelevant. We are not playing god, but empowering government. We do not want to empower government to organize vengeance. We want to get rid of vengeance, not organize it.

Irregardless of empowering government, is there any act you think deserves death? Any instance where you feel death would be appropriate while still understanding we shouldn't give that authority to governments?

Some people hold the view that murder is wrong because it infringes upon a person's right to live. A justification for the death penalty might be that by committing murder, someone has given up all of their rights including their right to live.

no one should take a life, even if that person has killed someone there should be a differant punishment for them, perhaps a secure unit where they can live they're life under the care of professional people

no one should take a life, even if that person has killed someone there should be a differant punishment for them, perhaps a secure unit where they can live they're life under the care of professional people

why? Why should we pay to house, clothe, feed them and give then medical care when they have killed all three of your children?

why? Why should we pay to house, clothe, feed them and give then medical care when they have killed all three of your children?

I'd like to keep that out of this. If you have a problem with her reasons for being against death in general, address that specifically and don't bring our current death penalty system into this.

why? Why should we pay to house, clothe, feed them and give then medical care when they have killed all three of your children?

so you think 2 wrongs make a right?

so you think 2 wrongs make a right?

Its justice

Its justice

no its not, it gives certain people the right to kill.

no its not, it gives certain people the right to kill.

which certain people?

I was about to respond the same way, but I think she might've really meant "it gives people the right to kill", which follows her line of thinking that no one should kill.

which certain people?

goverment appointed killers. And would you really want the goverment incharge of who lives and who dies?

goverment appointed killers. And would you really want the goverment incharge of who lives and who dies?

Looks like I assumed wrong.

Is there any crime that you think deserves death, even if you wouldn't give the government the power to enforce the death penalty?

EDIT: Nevermind, you already mentioned you're against all killing. But please keep the government out of it. I'm just talking about death as a punishment, even if you wouldn't give the government the power to execute it.

Looks like I assumed wrong.

Is there any crime that you think deserves death, even if you wouldn't give the government the power to enforce the death penalty?

EDIT: Nevermind, you already mentioned you're against all killing. But please keep the government out of it. I'm just talking about death as a punishment, even if you wouldn't give the government the power to execute it.

how can you keep the goverment out of it, they will ahve to decided who kills the killers :bugeye:

Simple, enforcement isn't the issue. It's what you feel about death as a punishment. For example, nietzschefan thinks death can be appropriate as a punishment, but he'd never give that authority to the government.

What do people think about the death penalty in a bubble? Seperate from any issues of cost, of guilt, and on purely ethical grounds, is the death penalty something that you'd support using? Why or why not?

The person being sentenced is 100% without a doubt guilty and the cost is meaningless. The crime is whatever you think would result in the severity of a death penalty.

Voted yes.

People should lose the right to life if they go around raping and murdering others.

I see government killing as a compromise between personal vengeance and human decency. If the family of the victim wants vengeance on a killer, the state steps in and exacts it for them, in a relatively humane way. Left to their own devices, an aggrieved parent or spouse might well torture the killer prior to executing him, but the state has no personal interest in making the death especially gruesome or terrible.

Plus, it goes without saying everywhere save in this thread (since the OP asks that we assume "no errors") that a grieving family member is more likely to kill the wrong person hastily than the state after it's long drawn out process.

Again, I argue it is immoral for the state to ask someone to kill someone else as part of your job. If you are an individual and seek vengence, it would be much more "satisfying" to do it yourself...and then face the punishments for your own offenses. It is rediculous to have a system to "satisfy" people. It is law and order, rules that should be followed by the government and the people.

Simple, enforcement isn't the issue. It's what you feel about death as a punishment. For example, nietzschefan thinks death can be appropriate as a punishment, but he'd never give that authority to the government.

so the way forward for the world is to kill the people who kill, to just please the majority of people, i know the priginal question was "without a doubt" but there will be mistakes made, and who will bring back the innocent people?

so the way forward for the world is to kill the people who kill, to just please the majority of people, i know the priginal question was "without a doubt" but there will be mistakes made, and who will bring back the innocent people?

If you're not interested in discussing the validity of death as a punishment, why are you even bothering to post? The issue of giving the government the power to use a death penalty is a separate one.

Also, I never said that I'm pro-death penalty in a bubble. I'm actually neither pro nor against as I can't seem to find a good solid stance. I am however anti-death penalty when it comes to giving the power to the state.

Should I receive the death penalty, then, if ...

• ... I run a red light because my girlfriend/wife is yelling at me and distracting me, with the result that I strike another car and someone dies?

• ... I run a mining company and miners die because of dangerous practices intended to suck every last bit of resource I can get out of part of the mine?

• ... I run a chemical processing company and people die in an explosion that can be shown to result from a lack of safety spending?

• ... I lie to Congress, the people of the United States, and the United Nations in order to send my soldiers abroad to kill people?

• ... as a prison guard, I turn a blind eye to certain activities in the prison and someone dies as a result (e.g. drugs, ritual violence, HIV transfer during rape, &c.)?

• ... as a D.A. I convict someone improperly, and that person dies in prison?

• ... as a police officer I shoot an unarmed, innocent man to death?

• ... as a restaurant employee I do not wash my hands properly, with the result that a child or elderly person dies of E. coli infection?

• ... as a smoker my spouse dies of lung cancer?

• ... &c., ad nauseam

Should I receive the death penalty, then, if ...

• ... I run a red light because my girlfriend/wife is yelling at me and distracting me, with the result that I strike another car and someone dies?

• ... I run a mining company and miners die because of dangerous practices intended to suck every last bit of resource I can get out of part of the mine?

• ... I run a chemical processing company and people die in an explosion that can be shown to result from a lack of safety spending?

• ... I lie to Congress, the people of the United States, and the United Nations in order to send my soldiers abroad to kill people?

• ... as a prison guard, I turn a blind eye to certain activities in the prison and someone dies as a result (e.g. drugs, ritual violence, HIV transfer during rape, &c.)?

• ... as a D.A. I convict someone improperly, and that person dies in prison?

• ... as a police officer I shoot an unarmed, innocent man to death?

• ... as a restaurant employee I do not wash my hands properly, with the result that a child or elderly person dies of E. coli infection?

• ... as a smoker my spouse dies of lung cancer?

• ... &c., ad nauseam

That's what this thread is meant to ask you. Do any of these options match a crime that you think deserves death?

yes, how's that for an answer. :rolleyes:

How about if I get drunk and fall on my kid, breaking their neck.

Depends Tiassa, are you someone the government doesn't like? Perhaps the Jury didn't like, perhaps the prosecuter didn't like?

Argh, I can't seem to get away from this idea of government involvement.

How about revising the hypothetical once again. In a society where the death penalty is not legal and will never ever ever be legal because society understands that giving government this power is a bad idea, is there any crime which you think the criminal deserves death even though you know he's/she's not going to get it no matter how much you may want the government to give it to him/her?

When you say "crime" you are involving the government(laws-breaking laws - crime). Society, we are in this together - here's the rules we agree upon so we all "get ahead".

If you are talking about individuals in a "bubble", there is only emotions, passions and thoughts as fleeting as the inumberable possiblities that come to mind. The answer is as chaotic as the question. It depends.

Certainly every single individual person, has a breaking point where they say "I cannot continue to exhist...while you do..."

When you say "crime" you are involving the government(laws-breaking laws - crime).

If you are talking about individuals in a "bubble", there is only emotions, passions and thoughts as fleeting as the inumberable possiblities that come to mind. The answer is as chaotic as the question. It depends.

Certainly every single individual person, has a breaking point where they say "I cannot continue to exhist...while you do..."

I understand this, but I'm limiting the government to the point where it can't execute a death penalty. The bubble I've placed these individuals in includes this government. It's sort of like how I can wish for different drug laws, and get people's ideas about drugs under those laws.

Again, I argue it is immoral for the state to ask someone to kill someone else as part of your job. If you are an individual and seek vengence, it would be much more "satisfying" to do it yourself...and then face the punishments for your own offenses. It is rediculous to have a system to "satisfy" people. It is law and order, rules that should be followed by the government and the people.


Why is it ridiculous? The only good reason to have a government is to make people happier than they would be living in a state of unregulared anarchy. Trach pickups occur because it "satisfies" people more than letting garbage pile up on the streets. Water is purified and pumped around because it "satisfies" people more than collecting it from a well or river and then boiling it to kill off microbes. Police exist people having a system of crime prevention and punishment makes people feel better than the alternative.

The only difference in the case of executions is that the benefit is very much focused at the family and friends of the victim, rather than generally made available to large swathes of society.

As for it being immoral to make someone kill another person as part of their job...do you include the military in that assertion? Is it immoral to have a military given that killing is a large part of the job for many of them? Suppose the army were composed of conscripts who had no choice in the matter? IMO, if it is not immoral to kill in the first place, then it is not immoral to kill by proxy, or to be that proxy. Bear in mind that state executioners aren't conscripts. They volunteer to work in that position, knowing full well what it entails.

Personally, I'd have no problem letting a friend ort family member pull the lever that ends the convict's life, so long as the state supervised to make sure that the method of execution was reasonably humane. That the state does not let family members do it is not a big deal to me.

so you think 2 wrongs make a right?
But executing a murderer is not wrong. Allowing him to live is wrong.

Should I receive the death penalty, then, if ...
• ... I run a red light because my girlfriend/wife is yelling at me and distracting me, with the result that I strike another car and someone dies?Sounds like involuntary manslaughter at most, so no.
• ... I run a mining company and miners die because of dangerous practices intended to suck every last bit of resource I can get out of part of the mine?Certainly not anything that sounds like first degree murder. So no. Might be criminal negligence, not murder.
• ... I run a chemical processing company and people die in an explosion that can be shown to result from a lack of safety spending?
Almost the exact same situation as the above. No.
• ... I lie to Congress, the people of the United States, and the United Nations in order to send my soldiers abroad to kill people?
Now you're really reaching.
• ... as a prison guard, I turn a blind eye to certain activities in the prison and someone dies as a result (e.g. drugs, ritual violence, HIV transfer during rape, &c.)?That would depend on the exact situation. If you turned a blind eye to the extent that you were involved in the crime (i.e. paid off or something), perhaps. I've seen situations like that on OZ (great HBO show about prison). Such as a guard letting guys into the cell of a guy in solitary so they can kill him. Clearly, that guard was a part of the crime. But if it's just general lax monitoring that allows shit to happen, then no.
• ... as a D.A. I convict someone improperly, and that person dies in prison?No. The death penalty should not be imposed for an error. Only intentional murder. Now if the DA knew the guy was innocent but railroaded him, maybe.
• ... as a police officer I shoot an unarmed, innocent man to death?Probably not. Totally depends on the situation. Again, death should not be imposed for errors. If the cop was a psycho and just outright murdered the guy for no reason, then yes.
• ... as a restaurant employee I do not wash my hands properly, with the result that a child or elderly person dies of [i]E. coli infection?How many times can I say it. If it's just an error or poor judgement, no. If the intent was to make people sick, then yes.

• ... as a smoker my spouse dies of lung cancer?Absurd. First, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the spouse's smoking that caused the cancer? Second, the spouse clearly knew of the risk yet continued to co-habitate for years. There's no crime here.

The death penalty should be imposed when someone deliberately takes the life of another. Not for errors or stupidity. Some of the other situations you described may still be crimes, but not first degree murder.

But executing a murderer is not wrong. Allowing him to live is wrong.

of course its wrong, if its wrong to kill,

Irregardless of empowering government, is there any act you think deserves death? I think there are some situations - and not just self-defence - in which a person deserves to be able to kill; how about that?

There is no person who knows whether anyone "deserves death". Pretending to that sort of knowledge is explicitly forbidden to Christians, and I believe other religionists, and should be obviously a matter of doubt and reflection for anyone who is alert.

As one quote puts it: "If we all got what we deserved, we'd all be hung".

Or nobody.

I think there are some situations - and not just self-defence - in which a person deserves to be able to kill; how about that?

Nope, not the same thing and you know it. :)

There is no person who knows whether anyone "deserves death". Pretending to that sort of knowledge is explicitly forbidden to Christians, and I believe other religionists, and should be obviously a matter of doubt and reflection for anyone who is alert.

As one quote puts it: "If we all got what we deserved, we'd all be hung".

Or nobody.

By deserves, I mean from your personal judgement of course. Not some rule that should be universal.