Capital Punishment: Should the Death Penalty Still Exist In A 'Civilised Society'?

(framing the death penalty as "the state executing citizens" is exactly why it's so horrifying beyond the usual argument of whether this person who committed awful acts "deserves" to live or die. whether you think they deserve to, the state being the arbiter of it is unconscionable)

https://media.giphy.com/media/WKuM740nMxuH6/giphy.gif

that's a good argument. sorry for saying i don't care.

but you can read virtue signaling the other way around as well. having an inflexible stance on state violence lest they think you "a frikkin squish".

no doubt there are a lot of emotions tied up in reactions to this kind of thing. that's fine, it's natural. imo the state plays a part in this too, and this public act is highly symbolic, however much we'd like to pretend it's an impartial and emotionless actor.

given the nature of the royal family they should have to suffer a symbolic execution imo, guillotine the figurehead, make the queen read a speech saying how sorry she is and how glad she is the people have executed her

upper classes more generally to be stripped of possessions and made to live in caves doing crafts

exile them to Siberia Grimsby imo

It's A Royal Knockout. To the death.

Barbarism (xp)

ignoring the economic argument lads

I don't think the fact that sentencing people to death is more expensive than sentencing them to life in prison is relevant, unless you're so deep in the bureaucratic burrow that administrative efficiency has replaced morality entirely (see also: arguments about incentive)

youre presupposing the relative expenses there tbh

as are you; seems no point in playing research tennis when even if you're right its irrelevant

true!

its only an interesting debate in theoretical terms.

gbx otm

The main reason: Innocent people being executed. Secondly I don't think it is a very effective way to control crime anyway. Thirdly for financial reasons (although not always applicable).

not a fan of the Value For Money theory of ethics. it's totally ridiculous in the case of capital punishment where economics is too variable and unstable to provide a defensible basis for issuing death sentences, but more broadly it's not applied consistently and there's always a [deeper/political/ideological] reason why people start to worry about the cost of any given thing. it acts as a cloak for impulses people are too ashamed to own up to

private murder is morally preferable to the death penalty imo; plus it expects results

private murder can be done at no cost to the state and very little to the individual if you do it right

problem is ogmor you yourself are starting from a definite position of not wanting to execute people, which then informs your reasoning. its a real doozy i admit.

Yeah, I think the financial argument is silly. Hence my last reason not to do it.

Lately I have getting into a "grey" zone. I can understand why one would be pro cap punishment.

so can I: for bantz

overpopulation tackling measure

My economy teacher once suggested killing pensioners. Good idea, lets start with the prisoners first.

killers
music bloggers
other violent criminals
nonviolent but repeat criminals
bloggers
unemployed
pensioners
students

now you must agree youd be a long way down that list (and a long way towards alleviating the housing crisis) before this discussion actually needed to kick in in any serious way

firstborn always seemed p sound to me, people serious about parenting will try again and the others will secretly be happy to have the "out"

there isn't a serious discussion to be had about the death penalty,V the death penalty is solely for bantz

the death penalty is bad and unacceptable, is what i'm saying here

i understand the arguments against the death penalty (particularly when they're pragmatic ones like concern of executing innocent people (nb not an issue regarding dylan roof)) but i feel like these definitive, incessantly otm'd statements, fail to understand the converse argument even tho it is intuitive and simple - karmic retribution; that which you visited upon another is now visited upon you. iirc this was an argument that arendt either recounted from the eichmann trial or forwarded herself (google wasn't able to turn it up) - because he did not have room to allow his victims to live upon this earth, our society does not have room for him to live as well. it is the most kind of comprehensible response to murder and can only imo be brushed aside by these more pragmatic interventions (concern of innocents, concern that allowing the State to kill even within justice will give it the reigns to kill outside the domain of justice) but i think this implicitly understood anti-death penalty sentiment coming from k3v is rooted in a Catholicism that forbids death in any circumstance, a sort of intervention into our naturally felt sentiment along a continuum of turning the other cheek when your body calls instead to slap the offender back.

I'm open to breaking it down, but my conviction that govts and courts do not have the authority to kill people is my starting position afaict. it's borne less of empathy with the executed (though that can be there ofc) than finding the executions themselves acts of unjustifiable brutality. you could argue it's informed by a scepticism of authority, but I'm happy to defend that all day

do not feel the state can administer karma wtf

I think there's a moral space - a big moral space imo - between karmic or personal impulses to revenge and state execution

intervention into our naturally felt sentiment is what keeps us all from spitting on children in bars

i found the quote

Just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations--as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world--we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to share the world with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang (see Eichmann in Jerusalem, "Epilogue" -- part one and part two").

I'm open to breaking it down, but my conviction that govts and courts do not have the authority to kill people is my starting position afaict.

They clearly do have the authority. What you mean is you don't think they should.

i don't think the economic argument is totally without moral worth when in other spheres of government a lack of funds can have life or death consequences for the sick or the poor. that does presuppose a government capable or willing of using those cost savings for good ends though and not just frittering it away on missiles or PFIs or on nothing very much at all

that said, state executions are still ugly and gross and basically a sneaking expression of some sort of murderous stoneage mindset that doesn't even deserve to be peed on

again these comments "murderous stoneage mindset" all beg the question

i'm not a practicing catholic, but the upbringing definitely influenced my politics. that aside, i disagree that that moral defense of the death penalty you outlined can be countered only by practical arguments. i see no reason why a ethic that respects the value of all human life, even those of killers, necessarily has to yield to one that channels our animalistic impulses. killing is wrong. that is the most powerful argument against the death penalty. that said, the death penalty by definition is an act carried out by the state; wishy-washy "practical" considerations have to enter the equation. we're not talking about the morality of a man killing another man who killed his brother. we're talking about how society should treat killers, even those whose guilt is not in doubt. thus, practical arguments -- most importantly, that the death penalty does not deter the crime it punishes - it brings no material benefit to society -- are central to deciding what is the best policy.

they clearly don't automatically have moral authority unless they have the power to self-validate nixon-style

you could argue there is something stoneage about locking someone under constant surveillance and cut off from society for the rest of their lives until they die.

Moral authority != authority. Authority = the ability to carry out one's wishes. This moral authority is some flimsy thing in the eyes of the observer. They could be guillotining you even while you're judging them for doing it.

i feel like these definitive, incessantly otm'd statements, fail to understand the converse argument even tho it is intuitive and simple - karmic retribution; that which you visited upon another is now visited upon you.

hammurabi's code, and an idea Exodus borrowed from (and the new testament later rebukes in matthew 5:38-39 fwiw)

it's an old idea and it reflects the basest instincts of humanity, but i would hope we've made some progress on this in the last 3800 years

incidentally my ppl don't respect the NT's interventions into the OT

haha, i know, i'm just saying that an eye for an eye has been around a preeeetty long time, and we should think about whether we want to favor systems of punishment that warring nomads from 4000 years ago would wholeheartedly support

and don't make me bust out my warring nomad friend on this thread to offer his anecdote because he is very cranky

you could argue there is something stoneage about locking someone under constant surveillance and cut off from society for the rest of their lives until they die.

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:21 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes, but where does that get us> I'm for rehabilitating the rehabilitatable, but what else do you do with a Manson? A Dahmer? A Gacy?

adam has already said he would have them executed

'killing is wrong' is an absolute statement with little or no authority when set against some pretty common sets of recurring circumstances

'a state execution of a killer is in itself an equivalent' or 'cheapens life' are similarly discountable sentiments

allowing for bad convictions (the best argument against the death penalty), but the posited certain conviction of a murderer of 9 random ppl should be examined in context. theres no great utilitarian argument for ending himin and of itself.

the financial one gets wishy washy with ppl insisting on paying for a lengthy legal process.

but the posters arguing that there is an inherent and proven moral argument for *not* disposing of the fella, thats alien to me. this is not the hill you want to chose imo.

yes it is

also i would argue that this old idea was in response to an even older idea - one where society did not provide justice for crimes and did not pursue criminals. where if there was any justice at all it only existed within the realm of vigilantism. and that this newer idea - that we punish people in accordance with the crimes they've committed - is an idea that still holds relevance, vis-a-vis that a society without this sort of justice is not a society that can protect its members. i don't know if the death penalty does not deter the crime it punishes- presumably punishment does deter crime, certainly for non-psychopaths the threat of consequences prevents actions - we are not all servants to our better angels. and i'm not sure it doesn't bring material benefit to society. i think that a society that punishes its criminals is a society that is more just than one that does not. if we discovered [in our new sciences] that punishing criminals whatsoever (with jail time, or corporal punishment, or fines, or shaming) did not deter crime, and that it brought no material benefit to society, would it be just to allow crimes to just occur without society's intervention? i think that clearly breaks down and then the only question becomes whether the death penalty is a legitimate way for society to redress crime and without starting from a position of "the sacredness of life means that even a murderer does not deserve to die" - one absolutely rooted in theology (since nothing materially cries out for us to respect sanctity of life for any one, let alone a murderer) - i think it makes perfect sense to say that it is legitimate.

imo, imo

would a karmic view of execution allow for severe assault as punishment for severe assault, rape as punishment for rape, killing somebody's child as punishment for killing a child?

wins putting words in my mouth

imo mental health is a big factor in those cases and the field of mental health still needs massive reform. perhaps we rely on violent measures cos we are unequipped to deal otherwise. the war on drugs and big pharma's reliance on pain killers two big contributors here.