Death Penalty. Yes or No

[Lucio]

Interesting point, that. Kill a killer and you've guaranteed that he'll never kill again, you're also guaranteed that there's no chance of rehabilitation or attonement what so ever...

Ah, but then you're discounting the myriad of reasons that someone kills. You forget that statistically speaking, you are far more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a complete stranger. Typically this would be because the other person has done, or is believed to have done something that the murderer thinks needs them to be put to death. It's pretty much the same reasoning that people use to say that rapists and paedophilles should be killed actually...


In other cases, where someone is mentally disturbed, then you perhaps have a better point about them being killed to prevent re-offending, but then again, isn't that just a form of genocide? Killing people because you believe that they are a threat to society is a dangerous line to walk.


Finally, let's not forget that to enact the death penalty, someone has to actually do the killing, even if you found some way to get the convict to kill themselves, someone must deliver the impliments. Who could you get to do that? People who would relish the thought, perhaps fall under the "mentally disturbed group" and would then need to put themselves to death....


Yes, it's an understandable knee jerk reaction to say that some people don't deserve to live, but there's really no way you can design a proper system to get rid of those people, whilst sparing the ones who might not deserve it.

[Salazaar]

Ah, but then you're discounting the myriad of reasons that someone kills. You forget that statistically speaking, you are far more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a complete stranger. Typically this would be because the other person has done, or is believed to have done something that the murderer thinks needs them to be put to death. It's pretty much the same reasoning that people use to say that rapists and paedophilles should be killed actually...


In other cases, where someone is mentally disturbed, then you perhaps have a better point about them being killed to prevent re-offending, but then again, isn't that just a form of genocide? Killing people because you believe that they are a threat to society is a dangerous line to walk.


Finally, let's not forget that to enact the death penalty, someone has to actually do the killing, even if you found some way to get the convict to kill themselves, someone must deliver the impliments. Who could you get to do that? People who would relish the thought, perhaps fall under the "mentally disturbed group" and would then need to put themselves to death....


Yes, it's an understandable knee jerk reaction to say that some people don't deserve to live, but there's really no way you can design a proper system to get rid of those people, whilst sparing the ones who might not deserve it.

I was actually trying to argue against the death penalty, not for it. I agree with you.

By enacting a death sentence, you're not just punishing them for their actions but precluding anything they may subsequently do. Doing this in the name of preventing further crimes is assuming guilt for those uncommitted crimes, which totally defies the 'innocent until proven guilty' ethos. It also precludes any possibility that the offender could ever do anything to even attempt to make up for his crimes.

Look up Stanly 'Tookie' Williams, he committed some terrible crimse but he also made in-roads to stopping some of the worst gang violence in LA, before he was executed.

[Splash]

Kill a killer and be done with it.

So Bob kills Jim. To exact justice Phil kills Bob. To exact justice Mike kills Phil. To...

See where I'm going with this?

[Sinizter]

So Bob kills Jim. To exact justice Phil kills Bob. To exact justice Mike kills Phil. To...

See where I'm going with this?

No.

........................

[Splash]

No.

........................

Ok, to simplify my thoughts further...

Someone killing someone is a bad thing, yes?

How is someone else then killing them not also a bad thing?

[Sinizter]

Ok, to simplify my thoughts further...

Someone killing someone is a bad thing, yes?

How is someone else then killing them not also a bad thing?

Killing someone, who against the law of the land, killed another human being is not a bad thing - just gets rid of the trash. Babysitting trash till the end of time is not something I am interested in.

If someone killed someone close to you, I guess you would want them fed, sheltered and kept in comfort for the rest of their life. Oh, wait a minute, just for a few years - and then they are back on the streets.

If someone slapped you maybe you would offer the other cheek. I wouldnt. Let's agree to disagree on the whole concept because there is no argument you can come up with that will make me not support the death penalty. These arguments have come and gone and come again on a few different forums. Its my mistake to be drawn into similar discussions again.

[directhex]

Killing someone, who against the law of the land, killed another human being is not a bad thing - just gets rid of the trash. Babysitting trash till the end of time is not something I am interested in.

If someone killed someone close to you, I guess you would want them fed, sheltered and kept in comfort for the rest of their life. Oh, wait a minute, just for a few years - and then they are back on the streets.

If someone slapped you maybe you would offer the other cheek. I wouldnt. Let's agree to disagree on the whole concept because there is no argument you can come up with that will make me not support the death penalty. These arguments have come and gone and come again on a few different forums. Its my mistake to be drawn into similar discussions again.

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." -- Mahatma Gandhi

[Sinizter]

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Only if half the world went and poked the other half in the eye with a sharp object.

[TheAnimus]

yes, if you killed half, how could they blind you.

[Sinizter]

yes, if you killed half, how could they blind you.

Who killed half then ? You seem to getting a bit mixed up.

[Splash]

<snip> These arguments have come and gone and come again on a few different forums. Its my mistake to be drawn into similar discussions again.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, merely that these are my feelings. There seemed to be a lot of people in the "string 'em up" gang so I thought I might add a little balance.

[Splash]

Who killed half then ? You seem to getting a bit mixed up.

Nope, I think it's you who is misinterpeting.

It only takes one person to kill someone, and another to kill that person. Then another person pulls out "an eye for an eye" and kills the second person, and so on and so forth until the entire world is "blind"

Don't get me wrong - Murder is an utterly abhorrent crime and is totally inexcusable, but capital punishment endorses state-sponsored murder in revenge, and to me this is just as evil.

[Sinizter]

Nope, I think it's you who is misinterpeting.

That was a joke - going on from the ill-fated blind world post.

[Saracen]

Ok, to simplify my thoughts further...

Someone killing someone is a bad thing, yes?

How is someone else then killing them not also a bad thing?

Is it? Is killing a bad thing, I mean? If so, why?

To illustrate, I'll use the hackneyed old "example of extremes" technique.


A terrorist has a nuclear bomb in a city centre, and has indicated that he is going to trigger it. If he detonates, millions will die. A marksman has terrorist in his sights and can kill him, and nobody else can get to the terrorist in time to prevent the detonation in any other way? Is it wrong to pull the trigger and kill the terrorist? For reference, if I were that marksman, I'd fire. Would you?

I defy anyone to credibly argue that, however regrettable it may be, it is worth risking the lives of millions of people doing nothing more than going about their daily business to avoid killing one terrorist that, after all, has willingly put himself in that position in the first place.

So .... if it's worth killing one terrorist to save millions, is it worth killing a dozen or so if it would have saved thousands in the World Trade Center?

And if so, what about killing the London Underground bombers to save dozens?

And if so, what about killing one person if it's the only way to save another? After all, that is legal.


Besides, why is killing wrong? It's legal - you can use force, even deadly force, to defend yourself, other people and your property. Police marksmen are trained, as I understand it, to fire if an armed suspect gets to a position where the life of the officer, or other people, is in danger. So when a bloke with a gun starts to raise it to point it at that officer .... or in the direction of bystanders .... bang. Sure, they aren't trained to shoot to kill (ignoring the de Menezes case), but they are trained to shoot to eliminate the threat to life, which means a torso shot, which is quite likely to end up as fatal.

Even the Bible's stance on whether killing is wrong is the subject of debate. There are scholars that will insist that while modern interpretations say "Thou shalt not kill", a strict translation says "Thou shalt not murder", and doesn't prohibit killing as such, in self-defence, for example.

And murder, of course, is a legalistic distinction. It excludes killing in self-defence (of self, or others), it eliminates many accidental killings (which may still be manslaughter) and, by definition, it eliminates killing by the state as a result of due process, because such a killing is not illegal and, therefore, by definition, can't be murder.


So, back to my original question. You say killing is wrong. Is it? In all circumstances?

Because I'd say that to answer that it is wrong in absolutely all circumstances is absurd. And if there are circumstances where it, if not right is at least less wrong that not doing so, then we've eliminated the possibility that it's some moral absolute and are down to the fact that there is a line and we're actually discussing where the line is. When is a wrong less wrong than another perhaps bigger wrong.

And the argument can be made, whether we each accept it or not, that executing prisoners might save lives ..... and one of those saved lives just might be the person that was going to discover the cure for cancer or the solution to carbon-free energy or how gravity works.

In a "civilised" society, perhaps we all have an implicit contract not to harm each other. And perhaps a "civilised" thing to do is to have a penalty that says that if you commit the ultimate harm and deliberately and illegally deprive another individual of their life, then you lose the right to be part of and protected by that society, precisely because of the duty we all owe to not harm each other. If a known and convicted murderer is EVER allowed into a situation where they kill again, then society to has failed in it's duty to it's members.

That is NOT, in my view, an argument for executing all murderers. It's more complex than that. But it might be an argument for executing those for whom there is no likelihood of rehabilitation, where they'll be an on-going risk.

[Sinizter]

<snip>(ignoring the de Menezes case)</snip>

Atleast one reply not ignoring that will be posted here to attempt to counter your points.

That was a very well thought out and constructed post. My thoughts are pretty close to that except that I would not have managed it quite so eloquently.

[Sinizter]

Splash,

If a gunman was holding your family hostage and fully intended to kill them, the only way to save them was to kill the gunman, I assume you would just watch it from a distance be smug in the knowledge that killing is abhorrent and that you did not kill ? Or would you kill the gunman and be happy that your family is safe?