The Death Penalty

[Amanda]

By choosing to disregard the laws of society and impose your will on another person (commit a crime) you have forfeited your moral status; as such, there is no problem with taking a criminal's life.

 

There are many people (such as myself) who would have no problem executing a rapist, murderer, etc.

 

What if we executed criminals in the most cost-effective way possible...say put them in a cage and let them starve. That takes economics out of the equation and I for one, would not be opposed to such a treatment.

 

And no, we are killing criminals; I seek to destroy the people that repulse me by their immoral behavior.

 

The very fact that they commit an immoral act absolves them of any moral status. I backed that statement up in previous posts in this thread.

 

I think the question someone should ask is 'did this person perform this immoral action?'. If the answer is yes, then case closed.

 

I think that (and things far worse than that) would not only be moral, but deserved.

 

Redross, I'm curious to know if you think that as a society, should we show any signs of compassion at all? Should retribution be the total foundations on which we stand? What message would that send to society? How are these comments above different than how the "criminal" thinks?

[Asimov]

Redross, I'm curious to know if you think that as a society, should we show any signs of compassion at all? Should retribution be the total foundations on which we stand? What message would that send to society? How are these comments above different than how the "criminal" thinks?

 

Compassion goes to victims of immorality. Why should we show compassion to people who commit crimes?

 

They are different than how the criminal thinks because people who are victims of criminals don't deserve what happens to them, they have moral status and they haven't abandoned their moral responsibility.

 

What message would it send to society where we don't take a moral stance on a crime?

[Asimov]

Then why do you want to kill those that kill?

 

I don't.

[Asimov]

Asimov, at that particular moment, it was the best decision to them. THINK about it!

 

Obviously it wasn't since it's wrong to do it. THINK ABOUT IT. Murder is immoral, therefore it's never the right decision to murder. It applies to everyone. If your thinking doesn't fit with the reality of a situation, then you're wrong.

 

Thank you HuaiDan! It's not about excuses, it's about finding solutions for preventing it to happen in the future.

 

So, we shouldn't punish people because we need to prevent crime from happening? Unlike Dave's usual claim, THAT is a non sequiter.

 

Asimov, they don't necessarily know it's wrong, as they do know it's illegal. There is no master profile for a molester, yet there seems to be predominant threads. They tend to be abused as children, taught childhood has no value. (Smack! You're just a kid, you don't pay the bills around here! Smack! Now go do what I told you to do!) They are often isolated kids, and do not develop adequate socialization skills. Once an adult, hormones raging, poor socialization skills, acute stress, children have no value... a pedaphile is created. Some are just narcissistic, another outcome of childhood dysfunction. Yes, they still must be accountable/responsible for their behavior!

 

Of course they know it's wrong, anyone who has the concept of morality knows that abuse is wrong. Even sociopaths know right and wrong.

 

Again, you're just stating the factors that caused them to be molestors, which doesn't negate the action itself nor excuse the person. The environmental factors are not an issue in what someone did.

 

If they are accountable, then they must be punished...what's your problem with that then?

 

How does this suddenly make execuation immoral?

 

We are not aware of all the aspects that create atrocities. Maybe we should pursue prevention as our main focus... instead of so much emphasis on the punishment aspect. Look at the recidivism rate in prisons to see the success rate of that method. I think in Florida, it is 80%! :ohmy:

 

Punishment isn't meant to deter or prevent, Amanda. It's a consequence. Deterence and prevention come through knowledge and study.

 

Are you suggesting we turn criminals into lab rats? Sure, I'm down for that. Donate em to science. How does that make capital punishment wrong?

 

Capital punishment? My question is that in a country of limited resources (funding), do we support/supervise these sociopathic killers and say no to a child that needs life saving surgery because of lack of financial resources?

 

What?

[chefranden]

Hey everyone, this is my first thread/post on this site. I'm a philosophy major with a focus in ethics and metaphysics and especially...meta-ethics!

 

One topic that always polarizes people is the death penalty. Frustratingly, I've found that most of those opposed to capital punishment oppose it for reasons unrelated to the act of killing someone for their crimes. The main argument opponents of capital punishment use: someone innocent may be executed.

 

The problem with this argument is this: it does not address the actual act of executing criminals for their crimes, but rather points to flaws in our current judicial system.

 

So, my question to opponents of the death penalty: if there existed a judicial system that eliminated the possibility of the execution (or even conviction) of innocents, would you still be opposed to capital punishment? In other words, is there something morally wrong with executing criminals in-and-of itself?

 

Since there is no un-flawed judicial system, and since there is not likely to be an un-flawed judicial system, the reason for not using capital punishment is still the possibility of innocence. No other reason is necessary, therefore it is not a problem.

[Casey]

I don't have a problem with capital punishment per se but I do have a problem with the way it is administered in the US. In the UK, once a person was condemned, they would usually have around one month to live. There were few avenues of appeal. Whereas in the US, the process drags on and on for years.

 

Also, in the UK, they had their method of execution down to a fine art. I think the record was just on or under seven seconds from when the hangmen entered the condemned cell to the drop. If you watch the movie Pierrepoint (aka The Last Hangman) you'll get the idea.

 

It just seemed much more humane than the long drawn-out way things are done in the States.

Casey

[Dave]

The very fact that they commit an immoral act absolves them of any moral status.

No, it does not.

I backed that statement up in previous posts in this thread.

No, you just made more unsupported claims.

Regardless, why not back up your claim? It's what this thread is about.

I see... someone should have explained the rules to me earlier. I didn't know that you could make unsupported claims but everyone else had to explain theirs. Sorry.

 

 

Compassion goes to victims of immorality. Why should we show compassion to people who commit crimes?

Gee.... maybe because they are human? Wow! What a concept.... compassion towards your fellow humans. Nah... that would be asking too much.

 

Then why do you want to kill those that kill?

I don't.

I see... the story changes again.

[Amanda]

Compassion goes to victims of immorality. Why should we show compassion to people who commit crimes?

 

They are different than how the criminal thinks because people who are victims of criminals don't deserve what happens to them, they have moral status and they haven't abandoned their moral responsibility.

 

What message would it send to society where we don't take a moral stance on a crime?

 

Asimov, of course the 'victim' should get compassion! The perpetrator was a victim at some time, that did not get compassion. The perpetrator is mentally ill, yet still has to be accountable for their actions! Yes, there should be consequences that fit the 'total situation'.

 

Do we teach people that it is okay to kill in certain situations? How is that different from the killer's thinking?

 

If they are accountable, then they must be punished...what's your problem with that then?

 

How does this suddenly make execuation immoral?

 

Answer below:

 

Murder is immoral, therefore it's never the right decision to murder. It applies to everyone.

 

Anyway Asimov, it's like Chefranden said, there is no unflawed justice system now, nor will there be any time soon... so innocent people are dying... and isn't that immoral? Further, I suppose those in the power that be, think like you, because we have it, right?

 

BTW, you don't have capital punishment in Canada, do you? Canada won't even deport a US criminal if they think they may get the death penalty, right?

[HuaiDan]

I still say the burden of proof is on why we should execute criminals, not why we shouldn't.

[Asimov]

I see... the story changes again.

 

Show me once where I stated that I wanted to kill people who killed people.

 

Asimov, of course the 'victim' should get compassion! The perpetrator was a victim at some time, that did not get compassion. The perpetrator is mentally ill, yet still has to be accountable for their actions! Yes, there should be consequences that fit the 'total situation'.

 

How do you know they did not get compassion? Who cares if they were a victim, that doesn't justify their actions so why should they get compassion? The total situation is "they molested a child". Molestation is wrong, we have no place in society for molesters, they harm another individual in an immoral way. There is no justification for molestation, so why have compassion for them?

 

"Oh, I was molested as a child, that's why I molest other kids"...so what?

 

Do we teach people that it is okay to kill in certain situations? How is that different from the killer's thinking?

 

What?

 

Anyway Asimov, it's like Chefranden said, there is no unflawed justice system now, nor will there be any time soon... so innocent people are dying... and isn't that immoral? Further, I suppose those in the power that be, think like you, because we have it, right?

 

We're not talking about unflawed justice systems, we're not talking about the US and we're not talking about the current methods of ascertaining the guilt.

 

We are talking about someone who IS guilty of a crime and whether or not it's moral to execute them because they are guilty.

 

BTW, you don't have capital punishment in Canada, do you? Canada won't even deport a US criminal if they think they may get the death penalty, right?

 

No, we don't...I have no idea about your other question. Canada has a lot going for it in some cases and a lot that isn't going for it in others.

 

I still say the burden of proof is on why we should execute criminals, not why we shouldn't.

 

Saying that execution is immoral isn't a negative claim, so it's the onus of both sides to present reasons for why or why not, which is what we are doing.

 

It is possible to prove whether or not execution is immoral. Ryans thread specifically asked "why is it immoral to execute criminals?" By replying to the thread and attempting to explain it, you are assuming the burden and attempting to explain why.

 

The very fact that they commit an immoral act absolves them of any moral status.

No, it does not.

 

Irrelevant gainsay. A rebuttal includes an explanation, not just "nu-uh!" arguments.

 

Why doesn't it?

 

 

Gee.... maybe because they are human? Wow! What a concept.... compassion towards your fellow humans. Nah... that would be asking too much.

 

Why should I have compassion for a human being who has no regard for other people and harms them for their own irrational selfish gain and arbitrary desires?

[HuaiDan]

 

 

I still say the burden of proof is on why we should execute criminals, not why we shouldn't.

 

Saying that execution is immoral isn't a negative claim, so it's the onus of both sides to present reasons for why or why not, which is what we are doing.

 

It is possible to prove whether or not execution is immoral. Ryans thread specifically asked "why is it immoral to execute criminals?" By replying to the thread and attempting to explain it, you are assuming the burden and attempting to explain why.

 

 

 

 

For the record, can we please get a definition of what is moral and what isn't, and what is immoral and what isn't, free of example? I would say that "execution is immoral" is the same is "execution is not moral", which is a negative statement, insofar as "not moral" encompasses immoral and amoral.

[Casey]

Gee.... maybe because they are human? Wow! What a concept.... compassion towards your fellow humans. Nah... that would be asking too much.

 

 

Why should I have compassion for a human being who has no regard for other people and harms them for their own irrational selfish gain and arbitrary desires?

 

I don't think it's so much to do with "compassion" as it's to do with protecting society. If a flock of sheep is being stalked and attacked by a mad dog, the dog must be hunted down and killed. I have no problem with that, although I like dogs. It hasn't much to do with deterrence, either. People will kill whether there is a death penalty or not. However, where there is a death penalty, the criminal is prevented from committing further crime.

 

Similarly, if there are human beings (and no one would dispute that there are) who display the same characteristics as a mad dog, they too should be eliminated in as quick and humane a fashion as possible. One trial, one appeal and that should be that. One has to accept that mistakes will be made, but that is true of any judicial process, not simply the death penalty.

 

All too often, those who have committed several murders have been sentenced to long periods of imprisonment, released after having served some of their time, and have committed yet more murders. Either they should be executed so they can commit no further crimes, or "life" should mean just that - life. The law may have wrongfully executed some condemned, but the law has also released many who never should have been released.

Casey

[Asimov]

For the record, can we please get a definition of what is moral and what isn't, and what is immoral and what isn't, free of example? I would say that "execution is immoral" is the same is "execution is not moral", which is a negative statement, insofar as "not moral" encompasses immoral and amoral.

 

Moral is a concept that denotes a behaviour that promotes the well-being, coherency and stability of a society. Immoral is a concept that denotes a behaviour that is destructive to the well-being and stability of a society. Amoral represents actions done by beings who have no moral concept or generalized behaviours that can be both moral and immoral depending on context.

 

"Killing" for instance, is amoral because it represents both moral killing and immoral killing.

 

"Immoral" is wrongful behaviour. So, you would be saying that "execution is wrong", which is a positive statement.

 

You are trying to use the "lack of proof of a negative" in your example. That would be so if I were to say "Execution is right because you can't prove it isn't."

[/b]

[HuaiDan]

generalized behaviours that can be both moral and immoral depending on context.

 

 

interestingly enough, if this truly is a subdefinition of amoral, then I would have to consider executing criminals to be amoral.

 

Immoral is a concept that denotes a behaviour that is destructive to the well-being and stability of a society

 

So the question at hand: is the execution of criminals destructive to the well-being and stability of a society?

 

Ok, so which ones do you execute, and which ones don't you? I guess that all depends on how you quantify the well being and stability of a society.

 

And who even claims that stability is in the best interest of society?

 

If you start executing traffic offenders, maybe you'd have the safest highways in the world, or you'd have mass graves filled with motorists. I wouldn't be at liberty to say which one.

 

 

I really don't see this question having an absolute answer in the affirmative or negative.

 

Is it immoral to execute criminals in some cases? certainly, you can't dispute this question. Immoral in every case? no , certainly not. The only way to answer the question of whether or not the execution of criminals is immoral is to put it in a context.

[Amanda]

Moral is a concept that denotes a behaviour that promotes the well-being, coherency and stability of a society. Immoral is a concept that denotes a behaviour that is destructive to the well-being and stability of a society. Amoral represents actions done by beings who have no moral concept or generalized behaviours that can be both moral and immoral depending on context.

Asimov and Redross, what do you think of the Islamic approach to moral justice? If someone steals, do we cut off their hand? Even if it's food for a starving family? If someone kills or molests, do we behead them in the public square? Even if they are clearly mentally ill or intellectually compromised? Maybe it's immoral for women to show their face or their ankles, because they are asking for trouble if they do? Where do we draw the line? Do you think that EVERYTHING is black or white?

[velocitychild]

So we're assuming that the law system would be flawless.. Because that is not plausible I dont see why we're discussing capital punishment?

 

Anyways, under the assumption that the law system is flawless and someone commits a crime that would warrent their execution I would say they should be imprisoned for life.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? I'm against killing anyone, and I still view murderers / rapists / psychos as living human beings who may be rehabilitated.

 

Furthermore, under the perfect law system that was proposed, our model would be completely different. If the laws were perfect, I would assume there would be less crime because criminals would be getting caught the first time I dont know if that's the case, I guess you're saying that it only applies to a case involving the question of capital punishment? Kinda strange.

 

 

 

I honestly think this topic is a bit odd.

 

The main reason is because you said that we would all have to assume that every capital punishment would be issued without error. You're the moral philosophy major, but here's a spin just for you!

 

What if everyone in the world who committed any crime coudl be 100% rehabilitated.. Would capital punishment be right? pffffffffffffffffffffffft.

 

Since we both know that either is not entirely possible vfor everyone, whats the REAL solution? Afterall, what good is morals if you're testing them under false pretenses? I dont understand that train of logic? If there is a good reason for that train of logic (forgive me, I'm not at a university) then I'd love to be shewn

[Asimov]

interestingly enough, if this truly is a subdefinition of amoral, then I would have to consider executing criminals to be amoral.

 

Ok, and I'll want to wait for ryan to get in on here if he has anything to add or change to those definitions.

 

If you start executing traffic offenders, maybe you'd have the safest highways in the world, or you'd have mass graves filled with motorists. I wouldn't be at liberty to say which one.

 

Traffic offenses have nothing to do with morality.

 

Is it immoral to execute criminals in some cases? certainly, you can't dispute this question. Immoral in every case? no , certainly not. The only way to answer the question of whether or not the execution of criminals is immoral is to put it in a context.

 

Why is it immoral to execute criminals in some cases? I'm disputing it right now.

 

So we're assuming that the law system would be flawless.. Because that is not plausible I dont see why we're discussing capital punishment?

 

Anyways, under the assumption that the law system is flawless and someone commits a crime that would warrent their execution I would say they should be imprisoned for life.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? I'm against killing anyone, and I still view murderers / rapists / psychos as living human beings who may be rehabilitated.

 

Because we're determining whether or not executing criminals is moral or immoral. Why imprisonment for life? Why should I bear the burden of having to support a criminal who has molested a child?

 

You are assuming that killing is wrong, which as not been established and then claiming that two wrongs don't make a right? That is circular reasoning; "execution is wrong because two wrongs don't make a right"?

 

Who cares if they may be rehabilitated, they destroyed a life by raping, abusing, murdering. These are violent offences, done by people who had no care for human lives or value for a society.

 

What if everyone in the world who committed any crime coudl be 100% rehabilitated.. Would capital punishment be right? pffffffffffffffffffffffft.

 

Why not? What if everyone in the world who lost their arm could be 100% rehabilitated...would that make forceful amputation right? You're missing the point that a criminal isn't being executed because they can't be rehabilitated, they are being executed because they harmed another individual in an immoral way, disregarding the values that must be in place in order for every individual to live freely.

[velocitychild]

I fail to see the point, still. Sorry!

I do not believe anyone should be killed as punishment for any crime, where it be a child molester, rapist, etc. If they may be rehabilitated, they might be something more helpful to society then just someone killed.

 

I also feel that to kill someone for something wrong they did (no matter what it is) is pretty barbaric.

 

When you're killing off people that are making mistakes you're never going to learn how to fix them. Even more, you're only going to cut at the problem, not solve a problem.

 

I find the logic of "if its bad just delete it" pretty simplistic and lacking in reason.

 

For instance, If your computer kept getting viruses, you could delete them all day long manually.. OR you could come up with a solution that prevents viruses from getting on your computer. Not sure if that's a great analogy, but here's what I mean to say:

 

You should look for the causes of the problem, and not just <i>kill</i> the problem especially after you notice it keeps coming back.

[redross]

interestingly enough, if this truly is a subdefinition of amoral, then I would have to consider executing criminals to be amoral.

 

Ok, and I'll want to wait for ryan to get in on here if he has anything to add or change to those definitions.

 

Your definitions look okay to me. And yes, executing criminals would be amoral, since they have moral status to violate.

 

I fail to see the point, still. Sorry!

I do not believe anyone should be killed as punishment for any crime, where it be a child molester, rapist, etc. If they may be rehabilitated, they might be something more helpful to society then just someone killed.

 

I also feel that to kill someone for something wrong they did (no matter what it is) is pretty barbaric.

 

When you're killing off people that are making mistakes you're never going to learn how to fix them. Even more, you're only going to cut at the problem, not solve a problem.

 

I find the logic of "if its bad just delete it" pretty simplistic and lacking in reason.

 

For instance, If your computer kept getting viruses, you could delete them all day long manually.. OR you could come up with a solution that prevents viruses from getting on your computer. Not sure if that's a great analogy, but here's what I mean to say:

 

You should look for the causes of the problem, and not just <i>kill</i> the problem especially after you notice it keeps coming back.

 

That's where we differ. I don't care why someone did something; the only question you have to ask is 'did they commit an immoral act?'.

 

Where's the lack of reasoning? They deserve the punishment, that's the reason.

 

Oh, and Dave, as Asimov pointed out I started this thread with the burden of proof already on opponents of DP. Regardless, I've still stated my position and reasons for that position throughout this thread.

 

Is it immoral to execute criminals in some cases? certainly, you can't dispute this question. Immoral in every case? no , certainly not. The only way to answer the question of whether or not the execution of criminals is immoral is to put it in a context.

 

Context has nothing to do with it, as we are arguing about the morality of the execution of criminals in and of itself. We are not arguing about any particular act of execution.

 

Asimov and Redross, what do you think of the Islamic approach to moral justice? If someone steals, do we cut off their hand? Even if it's food for a starving family? If someone kills or molests, do we behead them in the public square? Even if they are clearly mentally ill or intellectually compromised? Maybe it's immoral for women to show their face or their ankles, because they are asking for trouble if they do? Where do we draw the line? Do you think that EVERYTHING is black or white?

 

Like I've said before, societal laws and moral laws are different (even though morals are derived from the need for a sustainable society). And yes, I do think everything is black and white: an act is immoral or it isn't.

 

So we're assuming that the law system would be flawless.. Because that is not plausible I dont see why we're discussing capital punishment?

 

Furthermore, under the perfect law system that was proposed, our model would be completely different. If the laws were perfect, I would assume there would be less crime because criminals would be getting caught the first time I dont know if that's the case, I guess you're saying that it only applies to a case involving the question of capital punishment? Kinda strange.

 

I honestly think this topic is a bit odd.

 

The main reason is because you said that we would all have to assume that every capital punishment would be issued without error. You're the moral philosophy major, but here's a spin just for you!

 

What if everyone in the world who committed any crime coudl be 100% rehabilitated.. Would capital punishment be right? pffffffffffffffffffffffft.

 

Since we both know that either is not entirely possible vfor everyone, whats the REAL solution? Afterall, what good is morals if you're testing them under false pretenses? I dont understand that train of logic? If there is a good reason for that train of logic (forgive me, I'm not at a university) then I'd love to be shewn

 

First off, I didn't say assume a perfect law system. I said assume a system in which there are no wrongful convictions. This has nothing to do with the capture of any criminal.

 

I don't care if they could be rehabilitated, they committed the crime and they deserve their punishment.

 

By a 'real' solution I take it you mean one that pertains to actually existing cases involving people on death row. I urge you to read my thread about the different tiers of morality to see how this kind of hypothesizing allows us to better make moral judgements regarding 'actual' cases.

[dibby]

No. If someone commits an immoral act then they have absolved themselves of all moral status. If someone has no moral status, then any act directed towards them is amoral. Therefore, if I kill someone who has no moral status then my action is not immoral.

 

Very black and white thinking. How does a criminals behaviour absolve society of its morals?

Adolf Hitler would have said something very similar about the jews in Nazi Germany. Because of their "immoral" acts against the German people any act directed against them would be an amoral act.

[Amanda]

And yes, I do think everything is black and white: an act is immoral or it isn't.

 

Redross, no shades of gray? Is it immoral to steal food for your starving family, if you have failed to be able to secure any kind of employment and have no money?

[Asimov]

I fail to see the point, still. Sorry!

I do not believe anyone should be killed as punishment for any crime, where it be a child molester, rapist, etc. If they may be rehabilitated, they might be something more helpful to society then just someone killed.

 

So what do you propose as punishment and why do you not think they should be killed as punishment for any crime?

 

What about repeat offenders? How do you deal with them?

 

I also feel that to kill someone for something wrong they did (no matter what it is) is pretty barbaric.

 

Why?

 

When you're killing off people that are making mistakes you're never going to learn how to fix them. Even more, you're only going to cut at the problem, not solve a problem.

 

It's not making mistakes. This isn't a mistake. Mistakes are actions made with unintended consequences. An immoral action is one done with purpose and intent.

 

I find the logic of "if its bad just delete it" pretty simplistic and lacking in reason.

 

Naked assertion, how is it lacking in reason? Maybe simplistic, but how does making things more complicated increase efficiency and solve problems? Usually it doesn't.

 

For instance, If your computer kept getting viruses, you could delete them all day long manually.. OR you could come up with a solution that prevents viruses from getting on your computer. Not sure if that's a great analogy, but here's what I mean to say:

 

You should look for the causes of the problem, and not just <i>kill</i> the problem especially after you notice it keeps coming back.

 

I'm seeing this being thrown around too much. Preventative tactics in terms of criminal behaviour can be in place...sure. But this is attacking the problem before it occurs. We're talking about the people who have already commited crimes, have slipped by the radar of prevention and have gone and molested children, or murdered an evening jogger, or raped a woman in her own home.

 

Yea, they keep coming back but that's because people aren't societies. They are individual moral agents who have their own choices and their own actions. You're looking at it from a socioeconomic viewpoint, which is way too generalised.

 

How does rehabilitating one rapist prevent other rapists from raping? What happens when someone cannot be rehabilitated?

 

You still haven't indicated how execution is immoral, you've just taken the standpoint that it is and told us that we had poor reasoning and barbaric notions. Great, well qualify your assertions.

[redross]

No. If someone commits an immoral act then they have absolved themselves of all moral status. If someone has no moral status, then any act directed towards them is amoral. Therefore, if I kill someone who has no moral status then my action is not immoral.

 

Very black and white thinking. How does a criminals behaviour absolve society of its morals?

Adolf Hitler would have said something very similar about the jews in Nazi Germany. Because of their "immoral" acts against the German people any act directed against them would be an amoral act.

 

Jesus, doesn't anyone read the thread before posting? Just because Hitler thought jews were immoral beings has nothing to do with morality. And the criminal doesn't absolve society of morals, he/she absolves themselves of moral status.

 

And yes, I do think everything is black and white: an act is immoral or it isn't.

 

Redross, no shades of gray? Is it immoral to steal food for your starving family, if you have failed to be able to secure any kind of employment and have no money?

 

Yes.

[Asimov]

And yes, I do think everything is black and white: an act is immoral or it isn't.

 

Redross, no shades of gray? Is it immoral to steal food for your starving family, if you have failed to be able to secure any kind of employment and have no money?

 

Why should people who do have jobs and work for their money sacrifice their own productivity and property against their will? Stealing is stealing.

 

Very black and white thinking. How does a criminals behaviour absolve society of its morals?

Adolf Hitler would have said something very similar about the jews in Nazi Germany. Because of their "immoral" acts against the German people any act directed against them would be an amoral act.

 

You should really read the thread and ask questions if you aren't sure what the topic is or what is being said...otherwise it looks like you haven't paid attention, just jumped in and made a knee-jerk post.

 

Morality isn't relative, who cares what Hitler said, and a criminals behaviour absolves themselves of moral rights.

[Dave]

I see... the story changes again.

]Show me once where I stated that I wanted to kill people who killed people.

Why should I bother? You'll just change your story again.

 

The very fact that they commit an immoral act absolves them of any moral status.

No, it does not.

Irrelevant gainsay. A rebuttal includes an explanation, not just "nu-uh!" arguments.

Since the author of that argument made no effort to support it, other than more baseless claims, I feel no reason to put any effort into a reply. It is up to the person making the original argument to defend it, which he has not.

 

 

Gee.... maybe because they are human? Wow! What a concept.... compassion towards your fellow humans. Nah... that would be asking too much.

Why should I have compassion for a human being who has no regard for other people and harms them for their own irrational selfish gain and arbitrary desires?

I'm sorry. I didn't know you were omniscient and know what is in the mind of everyone that has ever committed an "immoral" act. That is the only way you could make such a comment.

 

 

....People will kill whether there is a death penalty or not. However, where there is a death penalty, the criminal is prevented from committing further crime.

That's making a false assumption that they will committ another crime. Odds are, they won't.

Similarly, if there are human beings (and no one would dispute that there are) who display the same characteristics as a mad dog, they too should be eliminated in as quick and humane a fashion as possible. One trial, one appeal and that should be that. One has to accept that mistakes will be made, but that is true of any judicial process, not simply the death penalty.

So, humans are to be treated the same as dogs? Your "simple" judicial process will result in the deaths of quite a few innocent people. Wouldn't that make you guilty of murder and have to suffer the same penalties? What if you or one of your family was one of those "mistakes"?

All too often, those who have committed several murders have been sentenced to long periods of imprisonment, released after having served some of their time, and have committed yet more murders.

Care to name one?

Either they should be executed so they can commit no further crimes, or "life" should mean just that - life. The law may have wrongfully executed some condemned, but the law has also released many who never should have been released.

Of course. People like Manson should never be allowed to walk freely in society again. No one is advocating otherwise.