The Death Penalty

[NotBlinded]

I would have to say that I am pro death penalty, not out of morality or any kind of religion.

 

I am pro death penalty because I feel that some crimes (murder), or should I say the way the crime was carried out, should be differenciated in the penalty phase. However, in the Clemency phase of the appeals process (the last appeal before the Death Warrant is issued, it means stepping down the penalty), clemency should be granted.

 

To me there is a difference between the Death Penalty and actaully executing the individual.

Wow...I never thought of that. I think that would have a huge psychological effect on the person...almost worse than death. They would still have to stay in prison probably wishing they could have died.

[redross]

There's a lot of talk about the US and its stance on the death penalty, and also on court fees, actual prison systems, etc. This is exactly the type of thing that made me start this thread: too many people avoid the actual issue. The issue I want to discuss is the morality of administering the death penalty to criminals (or those who commit heinous acts, if you prefer).

 

I want to stay purely in the theoretical realm with no reference to real-world applications because things like laws have nothing to do with morality. By staying in the realm of theory we are able to isolate the moral issue at hand, in this case it is the death penalty.

 

So, in moral terms and with moral reasoning without regard to laws or the freaking United States, why do you people who oppose the death penalty believe it is an immoral act?

[Taphophilia]

Redross,

 

It's your wording. Death penalty means something entirely different. It is the highest penalty that can be imposed on an individual. You should have said, "Capitol Punishment" which is different.

 

However, getting to the gist of what you mean, no, I do not believe that a state or a government should execute or put to death an individual. Capitol punishment is the most premeditated of murders and it causes governments to be above and beyond their own laws.

[Antlerman]

I want to stay purely in the theoretical realm with no reference to real-world applications because things like laws have nothing to do with morality. By staying in the realm of theory we are able to isolate the moral issue at hand, in this case it is the death penalty.

 

So, in moral terms and with moral reasoning without regard to laws or the freaking United States, why do you people who oppose the death penalty believe it is an immoral act?

I would consider capitol punishment as ineffective, and ultimately unhealthy for a society to be collectively responsible for killing another human being with no other purpose than a notion of justice with vengeance at its heart (as the research seems to indicate).

 

So to try to put it in moral terms: To act deliberately towards another human being with a destructive purpose for the sake of vengeance would not qualify as a moral action. So in that sense it is immoral, but I would rather call it irrational and ineffective for a society to do collectively. The question of capitol punishment is much less about the criminal and the nature of his crime, as it is a question about the society that practices it. Morality should be about promoting and preserving life, not practicing a sanctioned destruction of it with no benefit. It's about collective values. It's about a society's view of itself.

[redross]

I would consider capitol punishment as ineffective, and ultimately unhealthy for a society to be collectively responsible for killing another human being with no other purpose than a notion of justice with vengeance at its heart (as the research seems to indicate).

 

So to try to put it in moral terms: To act deliberately towards another human being with a destructive purpose for the sake of vengeance would not qualify as a moral action.

 

Sure it is, otherwise it would be amoral.

 

I would rather call it irrational and ineffective for a society to do collectively. The question of capitol punishment is much less about the criminal and the nature of his crime, as it is a question about the society that practices it. Morality should be about promoting and preserving life, not practicing a sanctioned destruction of it with no benefit. It's about collective values. It's about a society's view of itself.

 

I disagree wholeheartedly. We're not talking about killing people just for the sake of it, we're talking about killing those who have violated the rights of others. If a society promoted and preserved the lives of rapists and murderers I would question the sanity of anyone who looked upon that society favourably.

 

Taphophilia: I used the word death penalty because that's what it is. Explain to me how it is different than capital punishment.

 

Off topic, but how do you quote multiple people/sections per post? I can't figure it out

[Taphophilia]

I had a boyfriend who was in law school, who I might add taught me many very useful things. It comes down to symantics. The Death Penalty is the sentence, Capital Punishment is the sentence being carried out.

[redross]

Capitol punishment is the most premeditated of murders and it causes governments to be above and beyond their own laws.

 

This is just false. Capitol punishment is not murder as it is not a wrongful killing. Explain why executing a criminal is wrong

[Asimov]

Capitol punishment is the most premeditated of murders and it causes governments to be above and beyond their own laws.

 

That's begging the question. You're assuming that it is immoral to kill criminals for violating moral conduct.

[Taphophilia]

Premeditated Murder means the killing of a human being with malice and/or aforethought.

[Antlerman]

I would rather call it irrational and ineffective for a society to do collectively. The question of capitol punishment is much less about the criminal and the nature of his crime, as it is a question about the society that practices it. Morality should be about promoting and preserving life, not practicing a sanctioned destruction of it with no benefit. It's about collective values. It's about a society's view of itself.

 

I disagree wholeheartedly. We're not talking about killing people just for the sake of it, we're talking about killing those who have violated the rights of others. If a society promoted and preserved the lives of rapists and murderers I would question the sanity of anyone who looked upon that society favourably.

I never suggested in what I say that it's just for the sake of killing. It would be for the sake of vengeance. Again, scientific data does not support that it has any other benefits, such as a deterrent to crime, which is often used as a justification for it. There is no rational support for it.

 

I'm going to call you on making a statement that is completely fabricated on your part. You said "If a society promoted and preserved the lives of rapists and murders". Pray tell how can you possibly take what I said above about a society "promoting" life, to making sound like I said "promoting" murderers and rapists?

 

Do you think if you don't slice the hand off of a thief that you are somehow promoting thieves? Do you think if you don't slice the fingernails off of women who paint them, that you are promoting prostitution (ask the Taliban about that one)? Do you think if you don't hang a CEO who commits white collar crimes you are promoting stealing people's retirement money? Do you think if you don't execute people, and instead imprison for life those who are the greatest threats to society, that you are somehow promoting (or encouraging) murder and rape in a society? Can you provide any statistics to support that point of view? Can you show where those societies who don't kill their criminals having higher crime rates? Based on your comment, you should be able to.

 

I think you're smarter than this. Is this some sort of game, role-playing a response to see what sort of answers we may give? If so, I would suggest you state that up front. I have no objection to that exercise, but I won't participate in some sort of personal game.

 

I look forward to your answer.

[redross]

I never suggested in what I say that it's just for the sake of killing. It would be for the sake of vengeance. Again, scientific data does not support that it has any other benefits, such as a deterrent to crime, which is often used as a justification for it. There is no rational support for it.

 

I'm going to call you on making a statement that is completely fabricated on your part. You said "If a society promoted and preserved the lives of rapists and murders". Pray tell how can you possibly take what I said above about a society "promoting" life, to making sound like I said "promoting" murderers and rapists?

 

Do you think if you don't slice the hand off of a thief that you are somehow promoting thieves? Do you think if you don't slice the fingernails off of women who paint them, that you are promoting prostitution (ask the Taliban about that one)? Do you think if you don't hang a CEO who commits white collar crimes you are promoting stealing people's retirement money? Do you think if you don't execute people, and instead imprison for life those who are the greatest threats to society, that you are somehow promoting (or encouraging) murder and rape in a society? Can you provide any statistics to support that point of view? Can you show where those societies who don't kill their criminals having higher crime rates? Based on your comment, you should be able to.

 

I think you're smarter than this. Is this some sort of game, role-playing a response to see what sort of answers we may give? If so, I would suggest you state that up front. I have no objection to that exercise, but I won't participate in some sort of personal game.

 

I look forward to your answer.

 

Well that was quite the rant.

 

First off, I don't need any scientific data to support the claim that the execution of criminals is justified. It is justified by virtue of the fact that the executed are criminals.

 

I also can't believe you quoted me, then still proceeded to misunderstand said quote. I plainly state that a society that doesn't execute criminals is promoting the lives of those criminals. I didn't refer to society endorsing criminal activity, I just pointed out the flaw in your thinking that society should promote life in all cases. I assume you meant promote in your statement to mean 'further' or 'sustain'; how then can you shift the meaning of the word when I use it to mean 'endorse'?

 

And thank you, I am smarter than that

 

 

Premeditated Murder means the killing of a human being with malice and/or aforethought.

 

No, first degree murder is the wrongful killing of a human with forethought and intent. Stop equating killing and murder. Murder = wrongful!

[Asimov]

Premeditated Murder means the killing of a human being with malice and/or aforethought.

 

One can kill another person with premeditated intention and with malice and still be justified in killing that person...hence my use of "immoral killing of another human being" to refer to murder.

[dibby]

Capitol punishment is the most premeditated of murders and it causes governments to be above and beyond their own laws.

 

This is just false. Capitol punishment is not murder as it is not a wrongful killing. Explain why executing a criminal is wrong

[redross]

dibby, can you please repost? I'm not sure what you wanted to say

[HuaiDan]

Premeditated Murder means the killing of a human being with malice and/or aforethought.

 

In that case war would be murder. Is it? I don't know.

[redross]

The killing of civilians during wartime would be murder. The killing of voluntary soldiers would not be. The killing of involuntary soldiers, no (self defense).

[smellincoffee]

Not really; you drop a bomb somewhere, you're not actually trying to kill anyone in particular. Just whoever's having an unlucky day.

[HuaiDan]

WHat about if you're a sniper? Then you're trying to kill someone in particular. Aside from war, it wouldn't matter if you knew your victim or not, it would still be murder. If I threw a hand grenade into a crowded church, I wouldn't be targeting anyone in particular, but I still be guilty of (mass) murder.

 

ahahahahahahahahahah

 

5 crutches lame, I know.

[redross]

We're getting a little off topic here.

 

In moral philosophy murder is defined as 'wrongful killing', so let's use that definition. Now, what makes the execution of criminals wrong? So far people have suggested that it's wrong because it reflects badly on society, a decent society wouldn't condone it, and any premeditated killing is wrong. I think I've shown all of these to be false (or at least questionable).

 

So, any other reasons why it might be wrong to execute a criminal?

[HuaiDan]

So, any other reasons why it might be wrong to execute a criminal?

 

Where would the line be drawn between crimes that earn the death peanalty when committed, and ones that do not? Who decides where that line is drawn? Perhaps you would like to see rapists executed, where in another society rape isn't so bad or even condoned. Amputation of the hands for a theft offense could potentially be a lethal injury if not promptly treated.

 

If the legal justice system can't definitively establish which criminals should be executed and which ones not, with 100% consistency, shouldn't the criminal, regardless of how heinous his crime, be given the benefit of the doubt?

 

Also, for the hell of it, I'll throw out the finite sin/infinite punishment argument that so many of the members here use against the idea of hell.

 

If I murder an individual, then I have committed a finite crime against society, and it's society that's trying and punishing me, not the victim (obviously he's dead) or the family of the victim. Life will go on and the nation or state will churn along as it always does. However , the death penalty is an infinite punishment. If I don't have life, I have nothing, and I'm dead forever, no turnoing back.

 

So, to deliver an infinite punishment for a finite crime is immoral.

 

 

 

I'd also like to add , BTW, I'm not anti-death penalty.

[Asimov]

However , the death penalty is an infinite punishment. If I don't have life, I have nothing, and I'm dead forever, no turnoing back.

 

Just like to comment that it's not an infinite punishment. It's a finite punishment. Hell is an infinite punishment because you are being tortured for eternity.

[Rachelness]

From what I'm seeing online, in the Western Industrialized nations, only the U.S. remains a country where 2/3rd's of its citizens support execution of criminals.

 

Not sure if anyone else has responded to this as I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think this is true. I'm in the UK and I know a clear majority would like to reintroduce the death penalty (there are regular opinion polls). I'm pretty sure there is strong support for the death penalty in other parts of Europe, and in many cases it's favoured by a majority.

[redross]

So, any other reasons why it might be wrong to execute a criminal?

 

Where would the line be drawn between crimes that earn the death peanalty when committed, and ones that do not? Who decides where that line is drawn? Perhaps you would like to see rapists executed, where in another society rape isn't so bad or even condoned. Amputation of the hands for a theft offense could potentially be a lethal injury if not promptly treated.

 

If the legal justice system can't definitively establish which criminals should be executed and which ones not, with 100% consistency, shouldn't the criminal, regardless of how heinous his crime, be given the benefit of the doubt?

 

Also, for the hell of it, I'll throw out the finite sin/infinite punishment argument that so many of the members here use against the idea of hell.

 

Well, I'm pretty radical in my belief in that I don't have a problem with imposing the death penalty for every immoral act, be it stealing or rape. Regardless, I don't think it matters where you draw that line, as long as, in some cases the death penalty is deserved or moral. The argument arises (at least in this forum) not from which cases deserve the death penalty, but why any case does not.

 

I should have brought this up earlier, but I'm arguing from a meta-ethical perspective. Search Wikipedia for the differences between meta, normative, and applied ethics. I'm not concerned with any particular case in which the death penalty would or would not be moral. Rather, I want to know what it is that makes the killing of a criminal immoral (if you believe this to be so). It may be that a someone has to act against a certain moral law to a certain degree or it may be that someone just has to act against a moral law.

 

Again, in doing this we have to disregard any 'actual' legal system and its methods of conviction. In order to isolate the issue at hand - whether executing criminals is moral or immoral - we must formulate examples that don't include extraneous factors, such as possiblility of wrongful conviction. So, imagine a system where every person convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime (by crime I mean going against moral, not legal, law).

 

Where you draw the line is what this discussion is about. Where do you draw the line and why?

[Taphophilia]

So, a twelve year old who steals a pair of earings should receive the death penalty?

 

I haven't studied ethics, most of us haven't, at a college level. So, I don't have the necessary language and my brain hasn't been educated to think along these lines in order to give you satisfactory answers to your questions.

 

However, here is a trial where two of the four assailants were sentenced to death. Not only was what they did immoral but it was against the law.

 

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/22/State/Tw...or_Xbox_m.shtml

[Asimov]

So, a twelve year old who steals a pair of earings should receive the death penalty?

 

Well, Ryan (redross) appears to not have a problem with that, although I'm convinced it would be easy to reform a child over an adult.

 

What we have to understand is that a criminal is someone who has Moral Status and Moral Responsibility. That is, they are a sentient being and they are cognitive enough to understand the concept of morality.

 

If it is determined that a human individual who has commited a crime and has no concept of morality...they cannot be held accountable for their actions in a moral sense.