The Death Penalty - Why Not?

To the extent that there's anything less-than-completely-straightforward about his statements, it's that he's mocking you. As he's now made explicit, even this is making a point, in Baron's gruff way: he's suggesting that your assessment of the costs of the death penalty (accidental killing of innocent people) is exaggerated, given your apparently unequal regard for the vastly larger number of lives lost due to transport infrastructure. Maybe there's a good reason to care more about the former category, but I haven't seen the argument made here. Instead there's a lot of tap-dancing around the meaning of "accidental."

Of course, there are larger rhetorical reasons for Baron to pursue such a line of argument: in order to respond honestly, you must either take the (extreme) position that all traffic deaths are unacceptable, or you must accept that the forseeable, large-scale loss of innocent lives is an acceptable price to pay for important policies. In the former case, you're reduced to a kook, and in the latter you cede the moral high ground of being "protector of the innocent," and the issue is reduced to a technical question of what the benefits of the death penalty (if any) are.

Your only other option is to avoid giving an honest response, which is probably what Baron is hoping for, as it suggests that your position on (and interest in discussing) the subject derives from something considerably less admirable than clear-eyed analysis and elevated moral concern.

He did. He's stated quite clearly (and repeatedly) that he thinks society's interest in permanently disposing of certain criminals is more important than the accidental loss of innocent life associated with that process. He hasn't made a particularly compelling case for this, but it's all right there. Say whatever else you want about Baron; he doesn't mince words and he can tell when you are evading him. And, favoring direct confrontation as he does, such evasion only energizes him. It should be easy enough to present a vastly more compelling case for your position, and to avoid throwing red meat to Baron in the process, if that's what you're interested in doing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NOT ONCE have I referred to 'what if they get it wrong' as my point yet that seems to be the basis of your entire counter-argument. My point was rather concerning the worth of human life, remember? Remember the quote about 'nothing more than revenge' from Albert Pierrepoint? Am I talking to myself here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then you should be far, far more concerned about auto deaths than the very, very few deaths in the DP cases.

But you aren't, are you? So, ...what does that lead me to think about your statement above?????

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I assume you are also more concerned about auto deaths than terrorism

 

Er no Max, it's about the Death Penalty. You keep trying to draw the debate with your inaccurate analogies, but that's all it's about.

Now, if you can, stick to the topic.

 

Me? Why does my personal feelings have anything to do with anything? Are you implying that one can't discuss some issue without first having a firm stance on that issue?

Baron Max

 

Can one talk about, say war, without death being a part of that discussion?

Can one talk about, say abortion, without the definition of "life" being part of the discussion?

Can one talk about, say death, without talking about the various causes?

Can one talk about, say the death penalty, without talking about death?

It's all interconnected, and the worse thing one can do is to try to separate something out and attempt to discuss it singly, without considering the various outside influences and/or possible results.

Baron Max

 

Can Max, talk about the death penalty, without lapsing off on tangents?

I should be grateful though, at least he's stopped mentioning 'little girls' at every opportunity like he he used to.

 

Sure, let's talk about it. What would you like to say?

By the way, before you post anything, please read Quadraphonics' post above. He used lots and lots of words, but I think it was a good, interesting post. Please, .....take time to read it.

Baron Max

 

The worth of a life is questioned when it can be taken from you as a punishment. Have we not found more effective policies than 'an eye for an eye'?

 

Why do you say that? I mean, if that's just your opinion, that's fine. But otherwise, do you have some "justification" for your beliefs or opinions?

Like ...what? Why should any society on Earth want to keep vicious, evil murderers and such criminals in their midst? ...and, yes, "midst" still can mean in some prison.

Baron Max

 

A life is not a commodity to be fined as a punishment - we would never enslave criminals yet we see fit to murder them.
Is logic enough justification for you? I know you are slightly unfamiliar with it.

Baron Max[/quote]

Being in the midst of society is far from being in existence.

 

Why not? The murderer took it upon himself to kill someone ...isn't that like treating life as a commodity?

Execution is not murder, it's killing. There's a big, big difference.

Hmm, cute little saying ....but what's it mean?

Baron Max

 

That doesn't make any sense. How can you justify your point with hypocrisy? Isn't that usually thought of as an undesirable trait?

That big difference you are referring to, it wouldn't be the fact the state condones it, would it?
Governments across the world and throughout history have practised and enforced bizarre and/or brutal laws that we in the West would consider to be wrong and unnecessary. Is stoning a 13-year-old girl to death for adultery right just because her government says so?

Do you have to have everything spelt out for you? You said people in prison were in the midst of society. If you understood what 'midst' meant, you would know that immediately as a logical fallacy.

 

So you just saying that the death penalty is wrong is enough? You don't have to make any justifications for your opinions? Just saying something is enough to make it true and factual?

No, it isn't. A society is a group of people who form their society based on what they think of as right and wrong. That's how it works ...whether you like it or not. See? Our society has deem execution as proper and legal, so that's how it is.

Yes, it is. That's how societies and cultures operate. How would you like it if some other society began telling you how to run your own society? See? You're trying force your own opinions of right and wrong onto some other culture/society ....and that ain't very nice of you.

Baron Max

 

Funny, I don't remember saying that. In fact, I think I was making a point about the hypocrisy of state executions.
Yet again you veer off on some unrelated tangent.

I live in the UK, where we haven't executed a criminal since the 60s. Not even every state in a America has the DP - what proof do you have that society sees it as 'right'?

Right and wrong like hell. So you believe her death was right? Why?

 

Okay, you don't support the death penalty. I'm okay with your right to hold that opinion. Fair enough?

Baron Max

 

Agreed, this so-called debate is becoming detrimental to my health.

 

Well, you were telling the other person what they should be concerned about and using an argument based on statistics. I asked a question - to help you learn and think before....as you would say. And no I was not implying what you are asking me if I am implying? I was wondering if you had more concern, not a stance. It's right there in the question. I was wondering if your concern followed the logic you thought his conern 'should'.

Stances are a related subject. Feel free to bring it up in the answer, but I was focused on your concern.