The Death Penalty

[redross]

First off, don't put immoral in quotations. Morality isn't some arbitrary issue and if you think otherwise then maybe you should take a hard look at yourself.

 

Why would Asimov have to be omniscent to know that an act is selfish? An immoral act is one which shows no regard for the victim by the very nature of the act. The criminal need not be conscious of their selfishness, but that doesn't matter. He also says their acts are arbitrary because rational (non-arbitrary) actions do not result in immorality.

 

I subscribe to a form of contractarianism. When you commit an immoral act you break your end of the agreement, thereby absolving you of any moral status you may have had previously.

 

Even if the odds are nil that a criminal will reoffend, the fact is they still committed an immoral act in the first place. Preventing reoffense is just one reason to execute.

 

Your statement makes it seem like you have a hard time believing that murderers reoffend after lengthy prison stays, which boggles my mind. In fact, you seem to suggest that it is preferable to release a murderer who has served a 20-year sentence than Manson, who has not killed anyone.

[Casey]

Care to name one?

 

I'll do better than that, I'll name three from my own country.

 

In 1962, Barry Gordon Hadlow was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of five-year-old Sandra Dorothy Bacon in Townsville, Queensland. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, serving 22 years before his release on parole in 1985. In May, 1990, nine-year-old Stacey Ann Tracy was found raped and murdered at Roma, Queensland, and Hadlow emerged as the main suspect. He was convicted and again sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder. The trial judge, Mr Justice Shepardson, recommended Hadlow's papers be stamped NTBR - never to be released.

 

Hadlow is destined to die in prison, but there is a strong argument that had the death penalty been in effect at the time of the Bacon murder in 1962, Stacey Ann Tracy's life would have been spared in May 1990. Queensland abolished the death penalty in 1922.

 

In NSW in 1954, Leonard Keith Lawson was sentenced to death for the rape of two models. The sentence was later commuted to 14 years penal servitude. Lawson served seven years and was paroled in May 1961. In November 1961 6 months after being paroled, Lawson raped and murdered a 16-year-old schoolgirl, Jane Mary Bower, at Collaroy. He then drove south to Moss Vale, and next morning appeared at the chapel of the Church of England Girls Grammar School, where he waylaid teachers and students entering the church for morning prayer.

 

Lawson held the school hostage in a standoff with police who were surrounding the chapel. The headmistress, Jean Turnbull, grappled with Lawson, trying to wrestle the gun away from him. During the struggle, Lawson shot and killed 15-year-old Wendy Sue Luscombe before being overpowered by waiting police and charged with both murders.

 

At Sydney Supreme Court in July 1962 Mr Justice McClemmens sentenced Lawson to life imprisonment for the murders of Jane Mary Bower and Wendy Sue Luscombe.

 

In 1972, Lawson again featured prominently in the Sydney media, when he was duped by two long-serving prisoners at Parramatta jail into taking Sharon Hamilton, a singer and dancer who had performed at a concert inside the prison, hostage. On doing so, he was overpowered by the prisoners who had engineered the ruse. They were rewarded for "bravery" and immediately released from prison, while Lawson received another five years imprisonment. He died in Grafton Jail in 2003.

 

In Queensland, it has been argued the death penalty is the only viable means of deterring offenders from perpetrating violent crimes. Darren Osborne was released on parole in October, 1986, after serving four-and-a-half-years of a nine-year sentence for the rape of three girls in 1982. A week after his release, Shari Davis was kidnapped at knifepoint from a Brisbane carpark.

 

Ms Davis was forced to drive to secluded bushland at the rear of Goodna cemetery, bashed, and stabbed 12 times in the neck and body, before her throat was cut and she was left for dead. Although semi-conscious, she managed to crawl to the side of a road, where she was discovered 10 hours later. She was rushed to hospital, where she eventually recovered and identified her attacker as Osborne.

 

Osborne fled Queensland after the Davis abduction and attempted murder, but surfaced on November 27, 1986, raping a woman at knifepoint in the toilets of a McDonald's in Swanston St, Melbourne. He again re-surfaced in Western Australia on April 24, 1987, when he raped a 16-year-old girl at knifepoint in East Perth.

 

On May 5, 1987, Osborne abducted another woman at knifepoint from Albany, and forced her to drive to Mount Clarence, where he repeatedly raped her before fleeing the scene. Five days later he abducted twenty-three-year-old barmaid Susan Frost at knifepoint and forced her to a nearby carpark where he raped her and stabbed her repeatedly with a butcher's knife.

 

As well as the numerous stab wounds on the body, investigators found frenzied stab marks in the ground, where Osborne's knife had missed its target, indicating the ferocity of the attack, Shortly after the Frost murder, West Australian Police detained Osborne as he tried to flee the state aboard an interstate bus.

 

Osborne pleaded guilty to murder and abduction before West Australian Supreme Court Judge, Mr Justice Smith, who sentenced him to life imprisonment with the added direction: "You are sentenced to prison with strict security for the rest of your life. You should never be released until senility overtakes you." Osborne subsequently died inside the WA prison system.

 

If you want to see some more, google the names Crump and Baker (pages from Australia). You might need a strong stomach. As a matter of fact, those two were arrested just a few miles from where I am sitting right now. What is more, it's known that one of the arresting police officers who had seen his share of various things later said that if he could have got away with it, he would have shot them like dogs and thought nothing of it. And you know something? I don't think too many people around here who knew what those two had done, would have cared overmuch if he had.

 

Anyway I leave it to you to find some American examples if you wish.

 

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"?

 

One of the most frequently quoted adages ever stated runs thus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the christian formulation, although the saying is certainly not confined to christianity. However this is a saying that cuts both ways. If a person adheres to it in a positive sense, fine. If however, a person displays such a callous indifference to human life that they commit cold-blooded murder, they should be put to death. While on this subject, what percentage of those put to death were wrongly condemned?

Casey

[Asimov]

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

 

I've never changed my story. Your inability to even provide support for your own assertions whilst accusing others of doing the same not only shows your hypocrisy but your unwillingness to engage in actual conversation.

 

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.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, even if your statement is true. You are your own (supposedly) intellectual agent, don't base your reasons for not doing things because you think other people don't do them.

 

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.

 

An immoral act is a selfish one by definition. By living in society, we have made the choice to co-exist in an interdependant manner with other human beings. Going against the natural rights that humans have shows that a criminal has no value for others in their society, thus it is irrationally selfish.

 

Of course. People like Manson should never be allowed to walk freely in society again.

 

Why?

 

I subscribe to a form of contractarianism. When you commit an immoral act you break your end of the agreement, thereby absolving you of any moral status you may have had previously.

 

Which is a fundamental aspect of Objectivism...

[redross]

I subscribe to a form of contractarianism. When you commit an immoral act you break your end of the agreement, thereby absolving you of any moral status you may have had previously.

 

Which is a fundamental aspect of Objectivism...

 

Ja, you jew bastard.

 

Btw Casey, great post.

[Casey]

Btw Casey, great post.

 

Thanks. By the way, I have to apologise here. I was in a hurry and got the details wrong in the Morse case (Crump and Baker's rape, torture, and killing of Mrs Virginia Gai Morse). These two murdered a Mr Ian Lamb in New South Wales, then abducted Mrs Morse and took her in a stolen car across the Queensland border where she was tied to a tree then tortured, raped, and finally shot through the eyes. She was pregnant at the time, and the details were considered so bad that they were suppressed.

 

This atrocity took place near the town in which I live. Crump and Baker then fled back into New South Wales. They were not convicted of Mrs Morse's murder after their arrest near Maitland, New South Wales, because Mrs Morse was killed in Queensland. They were, however, convicted of Mr Lamb's murder and of conspiracy to murder her. Of what they had done, the Judge said,

 

For sheer cruelty, for callous indifference to suffering, for a complete disregard of humanity, for the complete absence of a spark of human decency, what you have done to this woman and to her children and to her husband is without parallel in my experience ... You would aptly be described as animals and obscene animals at that." He added: "I believe you should spend the rest of your lives in jail and there you should die".

 

He also said that if they were ever to apply for parole, they should be shown as much mercy as they showed Mrs Morse. (About 4/5 of 5/8 of fuck-all, I might tell you). And one of the arresting police officers (as I said above) said if he could have got away with it, he would have shot both of them out of the road as we say over here. So Dave, do you still think certain excuses for human beings shouldn't be regarded (and treated) in the same way as mad dogs?

Casey

[HuaiDan]

QUOTE

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.

 

QUOTE

 

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.

 

'criminal' is a legal definition, not a moral one. If i break a traffic law, I may or may not have done an immoral act.

 

 

So is the question "Is it immoral to execute those who have committed immoral deeds?" Shall we refine the question further to fit your argument?

No one is perfectly moral. It is impossible, as morality is subjective and not absolute. If we were to execute everyone who has committed an immoral act, there would be no one left to execute, and no one left to do the executing. So, in an attempt to better society by eliminating immorality by eliminating those guilty of it, we would eliminate society, which in itself would be immoral.

[dibby]

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.

 

Sorry, if I am misunderstanding the thread guys. I just went back to your first posting.

 

Do you think that using the word criminal some how "dehumanises" the person involved? Someone is branded a criminal because of maybe one act. It describes one aspect of that person but dismisses everything else about them. How about if you were to talk about executing a "father" or "wife" or "son" or "daughter"? These maybe equally valid terms for the person.

 

While a criminal may have somehow lost the capacity for empathy, caring or love, the healthier members of a society hopefully will not have lost these qualities. If they lose their moral staus (whatever that means) it doesn't mean that the healthy members of society lose the capacity for empathy and to get someone to kill another means you have to dehumanise them first. You may say that they have already done that by their actions.....but we do not lower ourselves to that level, we can decide how to act based on reasoned, human values.

 

Some of the black and white thinking here smacks of the fundamentalism we left behind

[Skankboy]

Abosultes create a short-cut for moral dilemmas. It's much easier to just say "this is bad, this is good" than it is to have to constantly re-evaluate each situation in it's own context...

[Asimov]

'criminal' is a legal definition, not a moral one. If i break a traffic law, I may or may not have done an immoral act.

 

Criminal is a law definition. In this case, a criminal is someone who breaks moral law and is convicted and found guilty of committing a crime.

 

So is the question "Is it immoral to execute those who have committed immoral deeds?" Shall we refine the question further to fit your argument?

No one is perfectly moral. It is impossible, as morality is subjective and not absolute. If we were to execute everyone who has committed an immoral act, there would be no one left to execute, and no one left to do the executing. So, in an attempt to better society by eliminating immorality by eliminating those guilty of it, we would eliminate society, which in itself would be immoral.

 

Now you're just being obtuse.

 

Sorry, if I am misunderstanding the thread guys. I just went back to your first posting.

 

You are misunderstanding the thread.

 

Do you think that using the word criminal some how "dehumanises" the person involved? Someone is branded a criminal because of maybe one act. It describes one aspect of that person but dismisses everything else about them. How about if you were to talk about executing a "father" or "wife" or "son" or "daughter"? These maybe equally valid terms for the person.

 

Irrelevant.

 

While a criminal may have somehow lost the capacity for empathy, caring or love, the healthier members of a society hopefully will not have lost these qualities.

 

Again, irrelevant. We're not claiming that a criminal has lost the capacity for those emotions.

 

If they lose their moral staus (whatever that means) it doesn't mean that the healthy members of society lose the capacity for empathy and to get someone to kill another means you have to dehumanise them first.

 

Moral status means you have moral consideration and rights. The right to life and the right to property. Denying the rights of another persons right to life or right to property voids your own rights.

 

You may say that they have already done that by their actions.....but we do not lower ourselves to that level, we can decide how to act based on reasoned, human values.

 

What?

 

Some of the black and white thinking here smacks of the fundamentalism we left behind

 

No, it doesn't. Before you go making judgements like that, you should first understand the thread and the topic. Besides, you're just poisoning the well.

 

Abosultes create a short-cut for moral dilemmas. It's much easier to just say "this is bad, this is good" than it is to have to constantly re-evaluate each situation in it's own context...

 

Of course we evaluate a situation, we're not talking about the situations, though. We're trying to determine whether or not it's immoral to execute a criminal.

 

1) We've already determined that what they did was wrong.

2) We've already determined that they are guilty.

[redross]

'criminal' is a legal definition, not a moral one. If i break a traffic law, I may or may not have done an immoral act.

 

So is the question "Is it immoral to execute those who have committed immoral deeds?" Shall we refine the question further to fit your argument?

No one is perfectly moral. It is impossible, as morality is subjective and not absolute. If we were to execute everyone who has committed an immoral act, there would be no one left to execute, and no one left to do the executing. So, in an attempt to better society by eliminating immorality by eliminating those guilty of it, we would eliminate society, which in itself would be immoral.

 

We've covered this extensively already, yet people keep bringing it up. Illegal does not mean immoral. I say criminal so I don't have to keep typing 'person who committed an immoral act. Jesus.

 

Do you think that using the word criminal some how "dehumanises" the person involved? Someone is branded a criminal because of maybe one act. It describes one aspect of that person but dismisses everything else about them. How about if you were to talk about executing a "father" or "wife" or "son" or "daughter"? These maybe equally valid terms for the person.

 

While a criminal may have somehow lost the capacity for empathy, caring or love, the healthier members of a society hopefully will not have lost these qualities. If they lose their moral staus (whatever that means) it doesn't mean that the healthy members of society lose the capacity for empathy and to get someone to kill another means you have to dehumanise them first. You may say that they have already done that by their actions.....but we do not lower ourselves to that level, we can decide how to act based on reasoned, human values.

 

Some of the black and white thinking here smacks of the fundamentalism we left behind

 

First off, so what? Call them whatever you want. You imply that it's wrong to call someone a criminal because of 'maybe one act'; that to me is ridiculous. Surely you don't think crime is a numbers game.

 

What does empathy have to do with anything?

 

Abosultes create a short-cut for moral dilemmas. It's much easier to just say "this is bad, this is good" than it is to have to constantly re-evaluate each situation in it's own context...

 

It's also the only way to do morality correctly. Something is wrong or it isn't. Murder is always wrong, regardless of context. Same with rape, theft, etc.

[Dave]

First off, don't put immoral in quotations.....

First off, don't tell me what to do.

 

 

Care to name one?

I'll do better than that, I'll name three from my own country.....

Gee, three over a long period of time. Out of how many humans put in prison during that time?

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"?

One of the most frequently quoted adages ever stated runs thus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." .....

We can do better than that old hack.... but if you insist, unless you wish to be killed, you should't be going around killing anyone.

While on this subject, what percentage of those put to death were wrongly condemned?

Too many what ever the number is.

 

 

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

I've never changed my story. ....

You have in several topics.

 

 

...So Dave, do you still think certain excuses for human beings shouldn't be regarded (and treated) in the same way as mad dogs?

Yes.

[Asimov]

...So Dave, do you still think certain excuses for human beings shouldn't be regarded (and treated) in the same way as mad dogs?

Yes.

 

Why?

[Dave]

...So Dave, do you still think certain excuses for human beings shouldn't be regarded (and treated) in the same way as mad dogs?

Yes.

Why?

Because they are humans, not dogs. Duh!

[HuaiDan]

QUOTE

So is the question "Is it immoral to execute those who have committed immoral deeds?" Shall we refine the question further to fit your argument? KatieHmm.gif

No one is perfectly moral. It is impossible, as morality is subjective and not absolute. If we were to execute everyone who has committed an immoral act, there would be no one left to execute, and no one left to do the executing. So, in an attempt to better society by eliminating immorality by eliminating those guilty of it, we would eliminate society, which in itself would be immoral.

 

Now you're just being obtuse.

 

Certainly not. This is the crux of the issue. You can't throw out the word 'obtuse' whenever you get yourself in a pickle.

 

Morality in an absolute sense is entirely subjective, insofar as those things which benefit society are subjective. Ask youself which things benefit socitey, and why.

Does intent have anything to do with the moral status of the criminal? What if one's intent in committing an immoral act was merely to better himself, regardless of the effects on society (negligence)? This moral status would certainly be of a different moral status than someone who intentionally wishes to cause others pain and suffering, such as a rapist or serial killer.

What if I off a bothersome homeless person who is infected with some contagious disease? I would have benefitted society most likely, but to most people this would be morally shocking. If I were to be executed for this act, the state would have uselessly eliminated a productive member of society presumably to protect underproductive or even pathological fringe members of society.

 

So, trying to define morality as that which benefits the stability and well-being of society is fruitless, although in an objective sense it sounds good. But more often than not, our moral sense is developed through rote memorization and aping the behavior of respected members of society around us, and very few members of society are even capable of questioning what they believe is morally right and wrong, much less capable of knowing why they believe it.

 

If we practically applied morality using the model that morality is that which benefits society, it would be absolutely necessary to first idealize what a perfect society be. To know wht a better society would be, we would have to know what the best society would be.

 

 

That is something nobody knows. The 'morality' , in an objective sense,is a lot like the word 'need'. It is a means to an end. There are absolutes in neither. You need air to breathe. You need to breathe to live You need to live so you can pass your genes to your offspring and ensure the genetic survival of your species.

 

It is immoral to steal so we can have a functioning economy based on supply and demand. We run into trouble when we start using morality in a subjective sense. Why is it immoral to cause others pain and suffering? If I walk down the street and punch a random stranger in the face, why would that be so immoral? Would it be as immoral if my intent were to improve his life by shaking him from his complacency, rather than just out of the desire to see blood and teeth? If one refrains from committing an immoral act out of the fear for the consequences rather than upholding the values of their society, aren't they just as corrupt even though they hadn't yet committed the act? It would be an even higher moral decision to rid society of those who even entertain the idea of committing an immoral act, would it not?

 

 

No, I am absolutely not being obtuse. In order to effectively answer the question "is it immoral to execute criminals" we first have define moral and immoral, which hasn't been done satisfactorily. Not ever in history, and not here. It's an impossible task. Perfect morality is no more existant than perfect beauty.

 

In summary:

Until a perfect society can be defined with clearly realized goals an procedures, then absolute, objective morality as a means of achieving that perfect society does not exist. Morality is just what feels good, based on those instincts which evolved so proto-human primates could most successfully continue passing on their genes over the course of generations. Hence, the question over whether it is immoral to execute criminals is also subjective and can not be resolved.

[Asimov]

...So Dave, do you still think certain excuses for human beings shouldn't be regarded (and treated) in the same way as mad dogs?

Yes.

Why?

Because they are humans, not dogs. Duh!

 

So? He didn't say they were dogs.

[redross]

 

Morality in an absolute sense is entirely subjective, insofar as those things which benefit society are subjective. Ask youself which things benefit socitey, and why.

 

This makes no sense. Absolutes are never subjective. All societies need certain rules to survive, this is not subjective.

 

Does intent have anything to do with the moral status of the criminal?

 

Absolutely, but even if someone had the best intentions it is still possible that they could commit an immoral act.

 

So, trying to define morality as that which benefits the stability and well-being of society is fruitless, although in an objective sense it sounds good. But more often than not, our moral sense is developed through rote memorization and aping the behavior of respected members of society around us, and very few members of society are even capable of questioning what they believe is morally right and wrong, much less capable of knowing why they believe it.

It is not fruitless, it is very fruitful. I don't care where someone gets their moral compass and I don't care if they can challenge their beliefs or know why they believe certain things. An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless of your upbringing or lack of questioning.

 

If we practically applied morality using the model that morality is that which benefits society, it would be absolutely necessary to first idealize what a perfect society be. To know wht a better society would be, we would have to know what the best society would be.

Not true. A functioning society need not be the ideal society. I can live in a society where every act performed is an amoral one and it still might be a shithole.

 

That is something nobody knows. The 'morality' , in an objective sense,is a lot like the word 'need'. It is a means to an end. There are absolutes in neither. You need air to breathe. You need to breathe to live You need to live so you can pass your genes to your offspring and ensure the genetic survival of your species.

You're misrepresenting objective morality. Morality, in an objective sense, is absolute and actual. Breathing is not a means to an end; just because you do something and something happens because of it does not make the initial action a means.

 

It would be an even higher moral decision to rid society of those who even entertain the idea of committing an immoral act, would it not?

Of course not, they haven't done anything.

 

No, I am absolutely not being obtuse. In order to effectively answer the question "is it immoral to execute criminals" we first have define moral and immoral, which hasn't been done satisfactorily. Not ever in history, and not here. It's an impossible task. Perfect morality is no more existant than perfect beauty.

It has been done satisfactorily and is not an impossible task. A perfect moral system is already in place, it's the following of that system that needs the work.

 

Until a perfect society can be defined with clearly realized goals an procedures, then absolute, objective morality as a means of achieving that perfect society does not exist. Morality is just what feels good, based on those instincts which evolved so proto-human primates could most successfully continue passing on their genes over the course of generations. Hence, the question over whether it is immoral to execute criminals is also subjective and can not be resolved.

Again, you're using 'objective morality' incorrectly. You're also begging the question in assuming that morality is a means to acheiving a perfect society. Morality is not a guarantee of a perfect society, it is just a set of moral laws; a society is much more than just morality.

 

You speak of morality one moment as being conceived with careful thought and planning and, in another moment, as a gut instinct. These conflict, but regardless, they are both wrong. Morality is not relative and, therefore, there are definite answers.

 

And Dave, whose side are you on? You're just arguing against both sides without saying anything. I'm guessing you're about 15 years old judging by your posts - educate yourself then come back.

[Asimov]

Great post, Ryan.

[redross]

Great post, Ryan.

 

Thanks. And I wasn't even too much of a dick!

[KT45]

You two need to get a room.

[Casey]

We can do better than that old hack.... but if you insist, unless you wish to be killed, you should't be going around killing anyone.

 

There is a difference between killing and murder. A soldier who kills an armed enemy in a war is not a murderer, neither is a police officer who shoots someone in the defense of his life or the lives of others, nor is a civilian who kills another person in self-defense. An executioner is a person who is paid by the State to execute murderers and other criminals that a Judge and Jury have sentenced to death, and that, again, is not murder.

 

These people having been sentenced ought to be dealt with as quickly and in as humane a fashion as possible. After that they are, as Americans would say, square with the house. Oh, and when I said they ought to be regarded and treated as mad dogs, that's what I meant; that they should be put down as quickly and humanely as possible.

 

Gee, three over a long period of time. Out of how many humans put in prison during that time?

 

Plenty more where they came from if you care to look. I only listed the worst ones I know of. There are at present about a dozen inmates in NSW jails who would fit the description of recidivist murderers, rapists and child sex-offenders. All of them have what our crims call "The key" (that is, they are "never to be released"). They are in jail until they die, hopefully. Or until some other inmate does society a favour and murders them. Protecting them costs the State far more than hanging them would. Y'see, there's a lot of criminals who are in favour of the death penalty - that's irony for you.

 

In one book on the American Death Row scene (The Execution Protocol by Stephen Trombley) the author relates that even on Death Row most inmates are pro death penalty. They aren't by and large in favour of it in their own case but then, as Mandy Rice-Davies once said, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"

 

John Douglas, one of the FBI's founders of serial killer profiling (Mindhunter 1996), agrees that certain criminals have simply violated their right to live by their own actions.

 

Even if there were only three, which as I've said, is certainly not the case, how many other lives would have been saved by executing them? Moreover, how many more would they kill if they were ever released again? Society has to protect itself, and the best way of doing that is to remove these individuals from society - permanently.

 

You asked me how I would feel if one of my family or myself was wrongly condemned. In return I'll ask you how you would feel if a person who should have been executed, was instead released too early and killed one of your family?

Casey

[Asimov]

Even if there were only three, which as I've said, is certainly not the case, how many other lives would have been saved by executing them? Moreover, how many more would they kill if they were ever released again? Society has to protect itself, and the best way of doing that is to remove these individuals from society - permanently.

 

And that doesn't even take into account abusers and thieves and sex offenders.

[redross]

Ja. The question shouldn't be 'will they do it again?', it should be 'did they do it?'.

 

Even so, we're straying from the intent of the post again. We are supposed to be arguing the morality of executing those who have committed immoral acts. I am not concerned with 'actual' examples of when it is moral or not to execute, I am concerned with when, if ever, it is not ok to execute someone who has committed an immoral act. And if there is a case in which it is immoral, why?

 

Btw, we have a room. It's hot, sweaty and fantastic...at least from his end.

[Asimov]

Ok...let's say that PersonA steals a loaf of bread from the supermarket.

 

He's caught and he's before a tribunal. He expresses deep regret for the action, indicates that he will pay the owner of the supermarket the cost of the bread and do community service to atone for what he's done.

 

He's admitted what he did was wrong, his action wasn't violent, and he's ready to atone for his actions in the most productive way possible in order to prove that he is not a selfish asshole who wanted a loaf of bread.

 

Now, maybe it wouldn't be immoral to execute someone, but if someone shows a willingness to do as much as he can to repay society for his actions, and can be monitored to make sure that he is being productive...well, wouldn't that be a case in which this man should not be executed?

 

Or, are you advocating in regards to non-violent actions that people are given a chance to reform?

[Asimov]

Certainly not. This is the crux of the issue. You can't throw out the word 'obtuse' whenever you get yourself in a pickle.

 

hehe, a pickle? No. Your analogy was essentially creating a slippery-slope out of a false premise. You know that we've been talking about moral actions and not violations of judicial law here. I hope you're not suggesting that everyone will murder, abuse, steal or commit perjury?

 

I should have qualified my statement a little more, Dan. Sorry about that.

[redross]

Now, maybe it wouldn't be immoral to execute someone, but if someone shows a willingness to do as much as he can to repay society for his actions, and can be monitored to make sure that he is being productive...well, wouldn't that be a case in which this man should not be executed?

 

Or, are you advocating in regards to non-violent actions that people are given a chance to reform?[/b]

 

Sure there are cases where you might not want to execute criminals but, like you said, it would not be immoral to do so. I'm not saying execute everyone who violates a moral law, I'm just saying the execution itself would be amoral.