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

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.

the state already controls my finances, can put a lien on my house, signs my university paycheck – I oppose the death penalty but "The state should not decide if I should die" has never washed with me.

the state shouldn't kill people as a punishment, a child could understand the reasons why.

gwan

ehhhhhhhhh, I mean . . . legalizing pot and coke and what have you aren't going to turn a Richard Ramirez or Ted Bundy into something else. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

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.

I don't think there's a way to bake an "if and only if" into the law that allows for executing the latter type but not the former.

the more ppl not going to move from nor examine their starting positions the better says i xp

fwiw I used to be extremely pro-death penalty

xp agreed phil iirc the earlier incarnation of this thread p much all agreed that the high chance of bad convictions and the lamentable frivolous allowance of appeals spoiled the discussion completely

maybe the second part is mro

just trying to avoid any implication you might have an inflexible stance on state violence adam

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?

It is not that karma should guide our position on this - imho and from my frame of reference I defer to my community's historical texts regarding crime and punishment - but that karma is an intuitive concept so these protestations that the death penalty is prima facie invalid run counter to what has been established human intuitive for quite a long time. Killing somebody's child as punishment for killing a child makes no sense because it punishes the child for the crimes of the parent (so it's not a true eye for an eye). Severe assault we can presumably punish w/ corporal punishment which iirc I made a defense of during a previous bump of this thread. The rape question obv intuitively strikes me as a poor deduction tho i can't immediately put my finger on why - sexual perversion should not be met w/ state-sponsored sexual perversion. If you fuck my goat it's not karmic for me to go fuck your goat. In some sense tho I do think that does make the most problematic parallel. Still I think State generated execution has a dignity to it that rape inherently cannot, even if you do not accept OT morality regarding sexual morality.

the state shouldn't kill people as a punishment, a child could understand the reasons why.

ironically childish

Still I think State generated execution has a dignity to it that rape inherently cannot,

amazing

mordys on my side here but im sitting the far end of the bench

the state shouldn't commit a crime to enforce the law.

and there is no purpose in the state killing someone. if someone isn't a danger to society they should be free, i suppose once they've "paid their debt" by whatever nominal amount of time we want to put on that. there are murderers who have been rehabilitated, many of them. in any case, murdering a human being via a judicial/legislative process is inherently vile.

state execution patently not a crime

not inherently vile

sure it's not a crime if the government does it.

cant pay the debt

how can those who make the laws be guilty of a crime

darragh otm. execution performed by the state is not the same thing as murder performed by an individual. calling it a crime again begs the question.

as anyone who's ever been part of a beleaguered minority knows, the state can and does exercise the power of life and death

we already did the Nixon thing itt

the purpose argument is the only one that shows promise as a debate in any way tbh and it would be good if we could tease that out rather than wallflower this with right, wrong and aramaic justifications which yknow are either boring or sorry mordy nuts

state execution is a crime, if you believe murder is a crime.

as anyone who's ever been part of a beleaguered minority knows, the state can and does exercise the power of life and death

for sure. i find it amazing people can say "state execution is not a crime" given the narrow and broad definitions of execution and all the space in between.

as anyone who's ever been part of a beleaguered minority knows, the state can and does exercise the power of life and death

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, January 11, 2017 12:46 PM (forty-five seconds ago)

this. doesn't. mean. they. should.

mordy/dmac otm tho that calling it a "crime" is not helpful

"cant pay the debt" is an aramaic justification as i ever heard one - if you don't want to talk justice/morality then we're just going to have to shrug and maybe post articles we google up about whatever recent social science supports our position which is much less interesting to me than a first principle conversation

xp to lg pick one you like, instance it and start enjoying yourself man

Whether the state should isn't the question though; I'm saying The State's authority isn't a factor in my opposition to the death penalty.

if murder is a crime in a state then execution is a crime by the same definition.

i cannot lock someone up in my house. that's a crime. but if the state convenes a tribunal and judges the person guilty they can lock the person up and it isn't a crime. similarly with seizing assets. similarly with execution. misunderstanding the difference between state execution and interpersonal murder - conflating them as tho because they both end up with a corpse they're both the same thing - is a fundamental misunderstanding imo of the role of the state in pursuing justice / punishing crime.

why not kill yerman, wolfy shooterson or whatever his name is? dudes a worthless animal unworthy of food, not feeding him in custody is cruel, releasing him from custody is dangerous. theres only one option.

i wouldn't want to question the State's authority to execute but i think i would want to make protecting all its citizens from violence as an overriding duty of a legitimate state, and extend that duty to the most heinous of criminal citizens

lets get away from "in what way is the state not the same as a citizen?" because cmon

by that rationale anything the state did would be justifiable... xpost to mordy

if we're going to use on the karmic argument, do we get to murder the president or whoever every time an innocent person is executed?

i agree that the State's primary task is protecting all its citizens from violence and even protecting those slated for execution from the violence of the mob. the state should have an exclusive monopoly here.

LG, no, by that rationale we have to find other ways of weighing whether what the state does is justifiable or not. it just makes it more difficult than the superficial conclusion rendered above.

anyway this has been an interesting discussion but i think we all know where we stand on the issue so i'm not sure rehashing this argument every year or so is really helping anyone. NV's follow-up i think got to the heart of why the karmic argument is so false and hollow. ironically according to surveys jews are probably the least likely people in the world to support the death penalty (tho a majority probably still do) and i suspect that deep down mordy is closer to our side than the side he's taking itt for devil's advocate purposes

executive function vs legislative function aha aha

if we're going to use on the karmic argument, do we get to murder the president or whoever every time an innocent person is executed?

i think there's a case to be made that a court that executes an innocent man has blood on their hands. i find the risk of executing the innocent to be one of, if not the most persuasive argument against the death penalty. it's also not an argument that is applicable to eichmann or dylan roof.

lets get away from "in what way is the state not the same as a citizen?" because cmon

it's not about that. it's about the state following the standards it sets for its citizens. using killing as a punishment for killing is a practice that undermines itself.

LG, no, by that rationale we have to find other ways of weighing whether what the state does is justifiable or not. it just makes it more difficult than the superficial conclusion rendered above.

what rationale do you suggest?

why not kill yerman, wolfy shooterson or whatever his name is?

Because if they can just take him out back and shoot him or whatever, then they can take any of the people currently awaiting execution -- some of whom are certainly innocent, and some of whom were convicted via means that constitute a miscarriage of justice -- and shoot them too. And I do not want my government doing that.

what rationale do you suggest?

whether it is just? executing an innocent man is not just. executing a man for stealing bread is not just. executing a man for murdering 9 people in cold blood is just.

there are compelling contextual reasons why that is not so, phil