The Death Penalty

[Warrior_of_god]

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.

Do you mean, for instance, if they have never heard of morality, or if they simply do not excercise normal moral judgement?

[Asimov]

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.

Do you mean, for instance, if they have never heard of morality, or if they simply do not excercise normal moral judgement?

 

Having no concept of right or wrong, moral or immoral, good behaviour vs. bad behaviour.

[redross]

You are correct Asimov. If someone has the capacity to understand morality, and performs an act that they know goes against moral laws, and they know the consequences of performing such an act (in this case, death) then for sure they should face those consequences.

 

It gets tricky when one has no idea of the consequences, although they may have knowledge of morality. In that case I would say that their ignorance need not save them.

 

Taphophilia: I'm not faulting you or anyone else for not knowing the moral terms I use. I should have made explicit my definitions and the framework of thought I was using at the beginning of the thread. Asimov makes fun of me because I always think in hypotheticals and theoreticals and never in reality-based examples. The reason I think this way is so I can better isolate the issue at hand and, if we find a suitable hypothetical framework, we may apply it to real-life examples. In future threads, I'll be sure to make this clear.

[Amanda]

You are correct Asimov. If someone has the capacity to understand morality, and performs an act that they know goes against moral laws, and they know the consequences of performing such an act (in this case, death) then for sure they should face those consequences.

 

It gets tricky when one has no idea of the consequences, although they may have knowledge of morality. In that case I would say that their ignorance need not save them.

 

Redross, what if everyone makes the best decision they can at the time, with the coping skills available to them? Should we walk in their shoes before we condemn them? Could it be that if we were born in their body/mind and lived their life, would we all have done the same thing? Instead of dealing with the last domino to fall, should we look more closely at what led to the ultimate fall from societal expectations and be concerned with that aspect?

 

I don't know about having the death penalty or not. I do believe in accountability and responsibility for one's actions. It just seems that in the US, we focus too much on punishment and not enough on appropriate guidance, teaching coping skills, and rehabilitation.

[Asimov]

Redross, what if everyone makes the best decision they can at the time, with the coping skills available to them? Should we walk in their shoes before we condemn them? Could it be that if we were born in their body/mind and lived their life, would we all have done the same thing? Instead of dealing with the last domino to fall, should we look more closely at what led to the ultimate fall from societal expectations and be concerned with that aspect?

 

I don't know about having the death penalty or not. I do believe in accountability and responsibility for one's actions. It just seems that in the US, we focus too much on punishment and not enough on appropriate guidance, teaching coping skills, and rehabilitation.

 

That's the problem, people don't make the best decision they can at the time. They know murder is wrong, they know what will happen if they murder someone. That is not the best decision. It never is.

 

You're trying to shift the blame from the person to the underlying factors that led to what that person did. Those factors didn't necessarily cause someone to murder another person. They were contingencies in a long line of contingencies.

 

Anyways, you havent' really pointed out that execution is morally wrong, it just seems that you have the mindset that everyone is good and can be good with a little time. This isn't true. Not everyone deserves mercy, love, compassion.

[Dave]

.....I don't know about having the death penalty or not. I do believe in accountability and responsibility for one's actions. It just seems that in the US, we focus too much on punishment and not enough on appropriate guidance, teaching coping skills, and rehabilitation.

There's that old Native American saying; don't judge a person until you've walked a day in thier moccasins. That way you're a day away and you have their moccasins."

 

But you're right, this country only cares about punishment and persecution. They care little, if any, about a person that has committed a crime. Notice how they are quick to strip a person of their humanity and thus enabling all sorts of cruel things to be done to them. Look at the recent trend of persecuting "sex predators." They refuse to recongize that the recidivism rate, according to DOJ statistics, is around 5%. A person released from prison on a drug offense is more likely to commite a sex crime than a so called "sex predator." They post lists all over the internet for these predators but refuse to acknowledge that those are the guys least likely to get your kid. 95% of child molestors are a relative you greet at the door. The one person most likely to get your kid is already living in the house and the most likely place your kid is going to be molested is in her own bedroom.

 

As a Humanist all life has value. No one has a right to take away that value. It's an intrinsic value. Those that are pro capital punishment place an extrinsic value on human life and usually don't place a very high value on it. They have no problem taking away that value, that life, from those they do not like.

 

As for a deterrent value; there is none. Texas and Florida are lighting them up as fast as they can, yet both have very high murder rates. Canada did away with capital punishment and their murder rate went down. Capital punishment actually devalues human life.

 

As in all my posts, misspelled words have been added to annoy the spelling police.

[HuaiDan]

You're trying to shift the blame from the person to the underlying factors that led to what that person did.

 

So what is inherently wrong with that? That's Amanda's point, that perhaps it would be more effective if we did indeed shift our focus from the pound of cure, to the ounce of prevention.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Be it death or hell, they both seem pretty infinite to me. Hell is punishment for eternity, death is oblivion for eternity. The quality of that eternity is irrelevent, they both constitute an eternal departure from the material plane of existence.

[Asimov]

You're trying to shift the blame from the person to the underlying factors that led to what that person did.

 

So what is inherently wrong with that? That's Amanda's point, that perhaps it would be more effective if we did indeed shift our focus from the pound of cure, to the ounce of prevention.

 

Because those underlying factors don't excuse someone from what they have done. It's a reason for what they have done, not a justification.

 

Excusing the fact that someone is a sex predator undermines what happened to the victims of that predator.

 

Excusing the fact that someone is a child molestor undermines what happened to the victims of that molestor.

 

Same thing for a rapist.

 

It's almost like a "devil made me do it" mentality.

 

Be it death or hell, they both seem pretty infinite to me. Hell is punishment for eternity, death is oblivion for eternity. The quality of that eternity is irrelevent, they both constitute an eternal departure from the material plane of existence.

 

Unfortunately, you're wrong, because in Hell you're still aware. With death, not aware. Oh yea, and Hell doesn't exist.

[Dave]

You're trying to shift the blame from the person to the underlying factors that led to what that person did.

So what is inherently wrong with that? That's Amanda's point, that perhaps it would be more effective if we did indeed shift our focus from the pound of cure, to the ounce of prevention.

Because those underlying factors don't excuse someone from what they have done. It's a reason for what they have done, not a justification.

 

Excusing the fact that someone is a sex predator undermines what happened to the victims of that predator.

No, it does not.

Excusing the fact that someone is a child molestor undermines what happened to the victims of that molestor.

No, it does not. Those are just claimes backed up by more claims. Not one fact is involved. No one is trying to "excuse" anyone of anything. They may be trying to tell you what lead a person to be able to do such things. We can learn from that. Some that are molested as children grow up to be molesters themselves. Instead of just dismissing them we should try to learn how to close the circle. Wouldn't ending the cycle be more important, and produce a better outcome for everyone, than persecution?

[HuaiDan]

Because those underlying factors don't excuse someone from what they have done. It's a reason for what they have done, not a justification.

 

Excusing the fact that someone is a sex predator undermines what happened to the victims of that predator.

 

Excusing the fact that someone is a child molestor undermines what happened to the victims of that molestor.

 

Same thing for a rapist.

 

It's almost like a "devil made me do it" mentality.

 

But what's happened has happened, tough luck for the victim. Eviscerate, maim, torture or kill the perpetrator, it will not reverse history, it will not console the victim, it will not benefit society in any way, which is what a moral act is supposed to do. The burden of proof here should be shifted to why should we execute criminals, because in this case, just as in extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence, extraordinary deeds require extraordinary justification.

 

A truly moral scheme would encompass eliminating those factors which contribute to the committing of immoral acts, rather than punishing those who have already committed them, because that's what would benefit society the greatest, and that's what a moral act is by definition.

[Asimov]

We can learn from that.

 

Yea, and? How does that make the death penalty immoral?

 

Some that are molested as children grow up to be molesters themselves. Instead of just dismissing them we should try to learn how to close the circle. Wouldn't ending the cycle be more important, and produce a better outcome for everyone, than persecution?

 

 

They still know that molestation is wrong, so what's your point? They are aware of right and wrong, they are aware (even more so) that molestation is wrong, yet they do it anyways. You close the circle by stopping them from molesting other children. Ending the cycle by ending the molester.

 

A truly moral scheme would encompass eliminating those factors which contribute to the committing of immoral acts, rather than punishing those who have already committed them, because that's what would benefit society the greatest, and that's what a moral act is by definition.

 

Removing people who commit crimes benefits society. So why not a combination of both?

 

I think you're "solution" is too narrow and doesn't deal with the people who still commit the crimes. You need to have a concept of justice in order to have a concept of an ethical system. Humans aren't just products of their environment.

[dibby]

We can learn from that

 

Yea, and? How does that make the death penalty immoral?

 

If a person is physically sick we try to help them. If a person is morally sick should not the same conditions apply?

 

The criminal may be mentally ill, have been a victim of abuse themselves, socially excluded, genetically predisposed etc. We just do not know enough about why human beings do the bad things they do sometimes. Alot more research , study and understanding are needed. And since we are largely ignorant of all the many causes of criminality we are not in a position of knowledge, of all the facts, concerning what has led a particular person to act in the way they have.

 

To end someones life would therefore be immoral and make us no better than them. There are many cases of ciminals who have reformed. Many have not....but we inch foraward to greater understanding of the facts.

 

I also feel we make a big assumption when we say things like, "they knew what they did was wrong". Many do...BUT many do not. We cannot assume that because we understand something in a certain way therefore everyone else "must" see it in the same way.

[Dave]

We can learn from that.

Yea, and? How does that make the death penalty immoral?

Isn't killing wrong, or do you embrace the hypocricy of killing for killing?

Some that are molested as children grow up to be molesters themselves. Instead of just dismissing them we should try to learn how to close the circle. Wouldn't ending the cycle be more important, and produce a better outcome for everyone, than persecution?

]They still know that molestation is wrong, so what's your point?

You're just full of non sequiturs, aren't you?

..... Ending the cycle by ending the molester.

It doesn't work that way. All you've done is ended the life of someone you don't like. That's what murders do.

Removing people who commit crimes benefits society.

For all crimes? Kill jay walkers?

I think you're "solution" is too narrow and doesn't deal with the people who still commit the crimes. You need to have a concept of justice in order to have a concept of an ethical system. Humans aren't just products of their environment.

Killing people isn't dealing with anything. It's ethical hypocricy to kill because killing is wrong. Killing people you do not like is not justice. There are ways to deal with criminals other than killing them.

[Asimov]

Isn't killing wrong, or do you embrace the hypocricy of killing for killing?

 

Killing isn't wrong. Where do you get that idea?

 

You're just full of non sequiturs, aren't you?

 

How is that a non sequiter?

 

It doesn't work that way. All you've done is ended the life of someone you don't like. That's what murders do.

 

No, we've ended the life of someone who has commited a grievous harm against another individual, thus removing them from society and showing that we don't condone molestation.

 

So, now you've created a straw-man of both murderers and the reasons for death penalty, plus you still haven't said why the death penalty is immmoral.

 

For all crimes? Kill jay walkers?

 

Non sequiter, jay-walking isn't a moral issue and has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

Killing people isn't dealing with anything. It's ethical hypocricy to kill because killing is wrong. Killing people you do not like is not justice. There are ways to deal with criminals other than killing them.

 

Killing isn't wrong.

 

 

If a person is physically sick we try to help them. If a person is morally sick should not the same conditions apply?

 

Let's go by your idea then, that the person is sick.

 

What do you do with sick people when this sickness can harm other people who aren't sick?

 

I also feel we make a big assumption when we say things like, "they knew what they did was wrong". Many do...BUT many do not. We cannot assume that because we understand something in a certain way therefore everyone else "must" see it in the same way.

 

Red Herring, we have methods for determining this.

[Dave]

Killing isn't wrong. Where do you get that idea?

 

Because you want to kill people for killing people. You want to kill them because killing is wrong. It's your idea, not mine.

 

How is that a non sequiter?

 

Your reply had nothing to do with what I said. You're just doing what politicians do, they answer the question they want asked instead of answering the one that was asked. It's an old trick.

 

No, we've ended the life of someone who has commited a grievous harm against another individual, thus removing them from society and showing that we don't condone molestation.

 

No, it's shows that you do not value life because you want to take it away so easily. And, you've done nothing to solve the problem. Kids are still going to get molested no matter how many people you kill.

 

So, now you've created a straw-man of both murderers and the reasons for death penalty, plus you still haven't said why the death penalty is immoral.

 

I never claimed it was immoral so why would I have to defend that argument?

 

Non sequiter, jay-walking isn't a moral issue and has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

You said to kill criminals. Jay walkers break the law are are criminals. You want to kill criminals.

 

Killing isn't wrong.

 

Then why do you want to kill people for killing if it isn't wrong?

[Asimov]

Because you want to kill people for killing people. You want to kill them because killing is wrong. It's your idea, not mine.

 

Straw-man. I never said killing is wrong.

 

Your reply had nothing to do with what I said. You're just doing what politicians do, they answer the question they want asked instead of answering the one that was asked. It's an old trick.

 

Defining what a non sequiter is doesn't explain how what I said is a non sequiter.

 

No, it's shows that you do not value life because you want to take it away so easily. And, you've done nothing to solve the problem. Kids are still going to get molested no matter how many people you kill.

 

I've removed a molester from society, that is solving the problem. Kids are still going to get molested even if you try to help all molesters, so you've done nothing to solve the problem.

 

I never claimed it was immoral so why would I have to defend that argument?

 

As a Humanist all life has value. No one has a right to take away that value. It's an intrinsic value. Those that are pro capital punishment place an extrinsic value on human life and usually don't place a very high value on it. They have no problem taking away that value, that life, from those they do not like.

 

You did.

 

You said to kill criminals. Jay walkers break the law are are criminals. You want to kill criminals.

 

It's been discussed already that we aren't talking about US Law, we are talking about moral law. Read the thread.

 

Then why do you want to kill people for killing if it isn't wrong?

 

Because we're not talking about killing people for killing.

[Dave]

Because you want to kill people for killing people. You want to kill them because killing is wrong. It's your idea, not mine.

Straw-man. I never said killing is wrong.....

Then why do you want to punish those that kill? If killing someone is not wrong then there should be no repercussion.

[Taphophilia]

Aren't there different morals within the same society? For instance, some people within the US (George W Bush and his supporters) believe it is morally acceptable to torture human beings, while others view this as immoral. Similarly, there are individuals who view abortion as being moral and there are others who believe it to be immoral.

 

It seems to me that humans can make morals out of molehills (I wanted to make a pun). Any objective that fits a worldview can be reasoned into a moral. Is this not true?

 

Is capital punishment moral? I will admit I don't know. Morals, to me, are extremely complicated and are layered within each other. Since there are many morals and many layers to morals, even within the same society, that counter the other, how can you state what you believe to be a concrete moral without a counter arguement to it.

 

As a mother, I can tell you that people are not born with morals. A two year old would kill you, if they could, over a cookie (a two year old who wants a freaking cookie they can't have, or anything they can't have, is a force to be reckoned with) and not feel bad about it until they wanted another cookie and you could not provide it for them because they killed you. They have no concept of right or wrong they have to learn it.

[Asimov]

Then why do you want to punish those that kill? If killing someone is not wrong then there should be no repercussion.

 

I didn't say I wanted to punish those that kill.

[Dave]

Then why do you want to punish those that kill? If killing someone is not wrong then there should be no repercussion.

I didn't say I wanted to punish those that kill.

Oh, killing them is not punishing them? In a sentence or two, I get bored easily, tell me how killing is not wrong. You don't get to choose a specific instance of killing since your statement was that "killing is not wrong."

[Dhampir]

Oh, killing them is not punishing them? In a sentence or two, I get bored easily, tell me how killing is not wrong. You don't get to choose a specific instance of killing since your statement was that "killing is not wrong."

I don't understand how killing is punishment. I mean, the death penalty is called capital punishment, yet there is no instructive or deterring purpose to it. At least not to the one recieving it.

 

Killing, like theft, is amoral. It is the situation in which those actions take place that determine it's rightness or wrongness. The fact that we identify those things as wrong is because they tend to be more often than not, according to the mores of the societies they occur in.

[Asimov]

Oh, killing them is not punishing them? In a sentence or two, I get bored easily, tell me how killing is not wrong. You don't get to choose a specific instance of killing since your statement was that "killing is not wrong."

 

Ok. Killing is amoral, therefore it's not wrong.

 

 

Killing, like theft, is amoral.

 

No, theft is immoral, but that's not the point of this.

 

We are talking about the morality of the death penalty.

 

Is there anything immoral about the death penalty?

[redross]

A truly moral scheme would encompass eliminating those factors which contribute to the committing of immoral acts, rather than punishing those who have already committed them, because that's what would benefit society the greatest, and that's what a moral act is by definition.

 

If we could prevent every immoral thing from happening then there would be no need for a moral code other than to let us know which acts to prevent. And the purpose of morals isn't to make society better, it's to make society function and sustainable. Unless you're a utilitarian

 

Aren't there different morals within the same society?

As a mother, I can tell you that people are not born with morals.

 

People may have different conceptions of morality, but that doesn't matter. Someone might think that rape is a moral thing to do, but they'd be wrong. And you're right, people aren't born with morals or the concept of morals, they learn them. If someone has the concept of morality and they perform an act they know to be immoral, then it's a violation of moral law.

 

Killing, like theft, is amoral. It is the situation in which those actions take place that determine it's rightness or wrongness. The fact that we identify those things as wrong is because they tend to be more often than not, according to the mores of the societies they occur in.

 

How is theft amoral? It's true that the situation determines the right/wrongness of an act, but only to the extent of 'the situation is: this guy took my stuff without my permission'. That is theft, and that is immoral.

[Dhampir]

I consider it amoral in that there are instances where it seems...umm... I don't know, necessary in it's way so as to balance out the wealth. I can't really put it any better than that at the moment, so if you want to pursue that, I'll have something for you in a few hours when I'm more coherent. This is coming from a person who not 5 hours ago had his bike, his primary mode of transportation stolen. I certainly think there's no instance, or at least I'd be hard pressed to think there's an instance where the thief would be morally justified in doing so, but that's not to say in other situations that would be the case.

 

Back on topic, however, barring any unjust, or wrongful imposition of the death penalty, I can't say I disagree with it, however, I am ambivalent on my thoughts as to it's morality.

 

For instance, I would agree that someone incapable of being productive members of society, who could not be compelled to step away from a life of murder, or rape or any crime punishable by death should be put down, but what about people who are incapable of understanding the impact of their actions on their victims, or who desire to stop but are mentally incapable?

[redross]

For instance, I would agree that someone incapable of being productive members of society, who could not be compelled to step away from a life of murder, or rape or any crime punishable by death should be put down, but what about people who are incapable of understanding the impact of their actions on their victims, or who desire to stop but are mentally incapable?

 

I don't think that the ability to understand the impact of your actions on the victim, nor the desire to stop have anything to do with the morality of killing said criminal.

 

By desiring to stop, they are conceding that they comprehend morality and knowingly acted contrary to what they knew was the moral act. I don't think that any other mental factor (lack of willpower, alcoholism) contributes to the morality of the act. The only question you have to ask is: did they know that they're act was immoral? In this case, they did.

 

I don't need to understand the ways in which my victim will be impacted by my act to know that a certain act is immoral or moral. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who could tell me exactly how anyone they encounter is affected by any one of their actions. Do you mean people who are incapable of comprehending morality?