The Death Penalty

[Dave]

There is a difference between killing and murder......

A matter of semantics. I'm antisemantic. What we are talking about here is killing a person in revenge/punishment for that person killing someone else.

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.

They are not dogs, they are human beings. As such they have an intrinsic value. I cannot devalue their life just because I don't like them.

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.

No irony there. It seems people that devalue the lives of others, for whatever reason, have no problem in killing them.

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.

I disagree. Since the value of their life is intrinsic, it cannot be given, or taken, away.

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.

Let's see.... you want to kill 95 people to prevent 5 from killing. The numbers don't add up.

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?

Sad that so many people value life so little.

[Asimov]

Ok, Dave...now the onus is upon you to show that humans have intrinsic value.

[redross]

There is a difference between killing and murder......

A matter of semantics. I'm antisemantic. What we are talking about here is killing a person in revenge/punishment for that person killing someone else.

It's not a matter of semantics, there is an actual difference.

 

They are not dogs, they are human beings. As such they have an intrinsic value. I cannot devalue their life just because I don't like them.

I take offense to this. I would never treat a dog the way I would treat a criminal. And whether or not you dislike them is irrelevant in regards to morality.

 

Let's see.... you want to kill 95 people to prevent 5 from killing. The numbers don't add up.

Of course they don't because he never said that.

 

Sad that so many people value life so little.

It's sad that you value a rapist's life so much

[dibby]

Asimov, please try not to be so dimissive of other peoples opinions. The thread is about is it immoral to kill someone for an immoral act. Which we are trying to establish. But surely how you perceive someone has a great deal to do with how you will treat them?That is what I was trying to say. Someone may be a rapist, but they could also be a father or son to someone else.

 

I think it would be immoral to kill someone for an immoral act, because that person is not in isolation from others who may love that person. Would it be moral to kill someones father, friend or son and thus cause them suffering? To kill them will increase the number of people who suffer, not decrease it.

 

Killing a person for an immoral act does nothing to address the causes of crime. Why has someone acted that way? Can we learn, so that we can prevent it happening in the future in other people?

 

Immoral people may have the capacity change and become moral. They then become a force for good (assuming their crimes are not so heinous as to warrant the rest of their natural lives in prison).

 

 

It's sad that you value a rapist's life so much

 

Actually, its sad that the rapist values their own and others lives so little. The fact that Dave values someones life is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[Dave]

...Killing a person for an immoral act does nothing to address the causes of crime. Why has someone acted that way? Can we learn, so that we can prevent it happening in the future in other people?

It seems that some place more value on retribution than on human life. It's been said here that it does not matter that an innocent person is executed as long as someone dies as retribution for the murder. It does not matter that they executed the wrong person and the reall killer (OJ?) is walking free as long as they got their blood revenge. Of course those are not their exact words, but a restatement of what's lurking behind the thoughts.

Immoral people may have the capacity change and become moral. They then become a force for good (assuming their crimes are not so heinous as to warrant the rest of their natural lives in prison).

Of course there are some that should never walk free again. They should be treated in a humane manner - lest we become what they are. People do change. The redividism rate for murder is quite low. Most, over 90%, never repeat their crime. That means that they want to kill 90 people to prevent 10 from killing again. To me that is unacceptable.

It's sad that you value a rapist's life so much

Actually, its sad that the rapist values their own and others lives so little. The fact that Dave values someones life is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

That's right. I don't value the "rapists" life, I value life. As an Atheist I believe this is the only life we get. That means we do not have the right to take the life of another for any reason (except in self defense or in the defense of someone that cannot help themselves).

[Asimov]

Asimov, please try not to be so dimissive of other peoples opinions. The thread is about is it immoral to kill someone for an immoral act. Which we are trying to establish. But surely how you perceive someone has a great deal to do with how you will treat them?That is what I was trying to say. Someone may be a rapist, but they could also be a father or son to someone else.

 

Hi dibby, thanks for your response,

 

I'm trying not to be dismissive, I just don't find merit in saying that someone is a father or son to someone else. Everyone is a someone to another person, so adding that in there doesn't suddenly make the person's actions any less immoral. An immoral act is an immoral act, be they a father, son, orphan, woman, black, white, etc.

 

Saying that they are those things are irrelevant to the guilt of a person.

 

I think it would be immoral to kill someone for an immoral act, because that person is not in isolation from others who may love that person. Would it be moral to kill someones father, friend or son and thus cause them suffering? To kill them will increase the number of people who suffer, not decrease it.

 

It's justice. That one person, by his own actions, causes all that suffering to occur. That is why you don't take a half-assed stance on morality.

 

Would you suggest not locking away a rapist because he has a kid and needs to take care of that kid? That would mean the child grows up without a daddy. That additional strain on the mother to take care of a child as a single parent is clearly going to take a toll and cause some strife economically.

 

Do you think my reasoning is valid that it's not the fault of the people who are administering justice that pain and suffering is caused, but the fault of the individual who has commited an immoral act?

 

Killing a person for an immoral act does nothing to address the causes of crime. Why has someone acted that way? Can we learn, so that we can prevent it happening in the future in other people?

 

I'm curious as to how that makes execution wrong, though? Sure, we can learn something from it about the mindset of an individual like that and in some way prevent that from happening (not sure how) or at least be able to capture people like that better, but how does that make execution wrong?

 

Immoral people may have the capacity change and become moral. They then become a force for good (assuming their crimes are not so heinous as to warrant the rest of their natural lives in prison).

 

People aren't moral or immoral. People are people whose actions are moral or immoral. People aren't good or evil, they are people. Individuals who make choices and those choices have consequences. The consequence of causing that much damage to an individual for such selfishness is irrelevant to the totality of their actions.

 

You don't add and subtract good and bad. Good doesn't add to your "karma" and bad doesn't take it away.

 

Even someone who is the biggest philanthropist who gives millions of dollars a year to post-secondary institutions and scholarships and grants to kids all over the country is still accountable if they murder someone, or rape someone, or they abuse their wife or husband, or they embezzle. Nobody's perfect, but you don't have to be perfect in order to not do shit like that. You don't even have to be smart. You just have to know that what you are doing is wrong, or what you want to do is wrong, and then not do it.

 

 

Actually, its sad that the rapist values their own and others lives so little. The fact that Dave values someones life is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

It is sad that the rapist values their own and others lives so little. That's why they shouldn't be tolerated or allowed to live in a society.

 

I value someones life, I value the life of the victim, and I'm still curious as to how not valuing a rapists life is part of the problem and as to how execution is immoral.

 

Thanks for taking the time to discuss, dibby, I look forward to your next post.

[redross]

Plonk.

Ahh, now I get it. Thanks Dave!

[redross]

The fact is, in moral philosophy, killing and murder do have very distinct meanings. You wouldn't consider a wolf killing a deer immoral would you? Or someone accidentally killing their attacker immoral? If you would, then the problem is with you and not the definitions.

 

So far, I think most of the opponents of the death penalty fall into two categories: 1) those who think that all human life has intrinsic value and 2) those who think that we can learn/rehabilitate those who commit immoral acts. I think (2) has the stronger pull but I'm still not convinced.

 

Granted, it's impossible to determine the intrinsic nature of something since it is, by definition, non-empirical but I still want to know why supporters of (1) think that human life has intrinsic value. Also, why should the chance for rehabilitation outweigh the fact that the person committed the act in the first place?

 

For the record, I'm extremely pleased with the response to this thread. Keep it coming!

[Rachelness]

This may have already been answered, but a question for redross and Asimov, how do we determine what is moral and what is immoral?

[dibby]

Aww you do love me then?

 

Point taken about immoral person.. of course I meant person who commits immoral acts.

 

I agree justice is absolutely necessary. And I,m not suggesting for one moment people get away with an immoral act.

 

 

Do you think my reasoning is valid that it's not the fault of the people who are administering justice that pain and suffering is caused, but the fault of the individual who has commited an immoral act?

 

I agree. In administering justice, the pain and suffering have been caused by the individual. I believe that the society which administers justice should minimise, as far as they can, adding more suffering to an already tragic situation. A child, for instance, may still be able to visit a parent. And maybe even get some answers for their own peace of mind later on. This is clearly not possible if someone is killed.

 

In a previous post, Redross said, "Whats empathy got to do with it?" I believe that empathy (our ability to feel "with" another person ) and compassion (our desire to see a decrease in suffering) are things that make us truly human. We generally want things to get better and evolve towards more happiness and less suffering. A healthy human response to killing someone is to feel revulsion at the thought of it. To kill someone means that we are cut off from an important part of us that connects us to one another. I feel that a society which kills dehumanises itself and increases suffering: therefore it is immoral to execute someone for an immoral act.

 

I believe that a society does best by demonstrating the behaviour that it wants its citizens to follow. I believe that valueing someones life leads to better behaviour towards that person. You recognize that another person wants to be happy....just like you want to be happy (empathy again) and so hopefully you value each others right to pursue happiness. The rapist doesn,t do this and so should be locked away and lose their freedom. But we as a society determine how we will act, based on our ideals and principles: valueing life is one of our principles and no person who has committed a rape will change that. So not valuing his life would go against what we believe in. Justice? Absolutely, but not at the cost of undermining our values.

[redross]

This may have already been answered, but a question for redross and Asimov, how do we determine what is moral and what is immoral?

 

I think we've covered this but: if an act is detrimental to the formation or sustainability of a society than it is immoral. This includes murder, theft, lying etc. because if those acts were performed in widespread fashion the social bonds needed to maintain/create a society would not form.

 

When I said 'what's empathy got to do with it?' I just meant that our feelings don't determine the morality of an act. I still disagree with you on the point that killing a criminal undermines our values as a society. If society values justice and desert then the execution of a criminal in no way undermines these values. I feel revulsion towards the murder of an innocent person, not towards the execution of a criminal because they are getting their just desert.

 

Can someone clarify these points for me: What does 'dehumanization' mean? Why do people use the term 'dehumanize' to demonstrate the supposed wrongness of an act? How is it demonstrable that an act that dehumanizes is immoral on that basis alone?

[Asimov]

Hey dibby,

I agree. In administering justice, the pain and suffering have been caused by the individual. I believe that the society which administers justice should minimise, as far as they can, adding more suffering to an already tragic situation. A child, for instance, may still be able to visit a parent. And maybe even get some answers for their own peace of mind later on. This is clearly not possible if someone is killed.

 

Okay, but a child's own peace of mind doesn't suddenly make execution immoral. The point of justice is to create a stance against actions that are clearly immoral that have no place in society's functions. Heavy-handedness is a message that what is immoral is immoral, it shouldn't be tolerated.

 

Crime shows a lack of respect for societal moral values that are necessary to exist. Criminals take what is ours and use them for their own selfish gain. We shouldn't tolerate that lack of respect for us and our inviduality. We shouldn't empathize with their irrational selfishness. It devalues ourselves.

 

In a previous post, Redross said, "Whats empathy got to do with it?" I believe that empathy (our ability to feel "with" another person ) and compassion (our desire to see a decrease in suffering) are things that make us truly human. We generally want things to get better and evolve towards more happiness and less suffering. A healthy human response to killing someone is to feel revulsion at the thought of it. To kill someone means that we are cut off from an important part of us that connects us to one another. I feel that a society which kills dehumanises itself and increases suffering: therefore it is immoral to execute someone for an immoral act.

 

I feel revulsion at the thought of someone's life being destroyed by another person for their own irrational selfishness. I don't feel revulsion at the death of an individual who has no value. Why would I care to maintain the life of someone who doesn't value other people?

 

What connects us to one another is the idea of mutual benefit, dibby. Feeling "connected" to someone who doesn't value you is like naming your tape-worm and feeding him on purpose. Parasites have no place in our body, and they have no place in society.

 

I don't find your reasoning convincing, dibby, as it appears your reasoning is incoherent. You're appealing to emotion here. You're saying that execution is immoral because it's revolting.

 

I believe that a society does best by demonstrating the behaviour that it wants its citizens to follow. I believe that valueing someones life leads to better behaviour towards that person. You recognize that another person wants to be happy....just like you want to be happy (empathy again) and so hopefully you value each others right to pursue happiness.

 

I disagree with your first sentence. A society is a collection of individuals. Each individual should follow the "do unto others" type of idea. That is how I would rephrase it...I don't like compounding individuals into "society" and "culture".

 

I agree with the rest, though.

 

The rapist doesn,t do this and so should be locked away and lose their freedom. But we as a society determine how we will act, based on our ideals and principles: valueing life is one of our principles and no person who has committed a rape will change that. So not valuing his life would go against what we believe in. Justice? Absolutely, but not at the cost of undermining our values.

 

By executing a criminal we show that we do value life in general. Criminals offer nothing to the maintenance of life.

 

Let's say you have a rose bush. 1 rose out of 10 has this disorder which causes it to kill other roses....what would any gardener do? He'd snip the diseased rose to make the other roses flourish. By killing that one rose, he shows that he values roses in general. Has he violated his principle of valuing roses by killing that one rose? No.

 

I look forward to your reply, dibby.

[Amanda]

Hey Asimov, my apologies in being late to respond, as I had to go out of town.

 

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.

Okay.

 

So, let's say there is an "asshole" who just wanted a loaf of bread, that has the future capacity if given the proper guidance, to be the guy that is willing to atone for his actions and is remorseful for having been an "asshole"? I'm curious to know, if we give that guy any consideration?

 

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?

IDK, there may be a situation that a person should be executed. Maybe Timothy McVeigh? Ng? Bundy? However, I do not think that life is all that disposable. How is me deciding to kill someone because they killed someone else justified? How is that different? Maybe they killed someone because they thought they were justified to do so too? Maybe they killed because they thought they were justified to kill the guy who ran over their only kid while intoxicated, and spent no jail time? Or the stockbroker that churned their account till they had no money to support their family? Or what about the guy that killed from the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorders incurred from being in Viet Nam? I want to know how do we decide who to kill? And who are we to decide? Wouldn't we take into consideration the whole situation?

 

Maybe we should put violent offenders, that may have a potential to be rehabilitated, to jail for their crime, have counseling there, and not be allowed to be released until they are proven to have sufficient coping skills and right frame of thinking before they are released back into society?

[Asimov]

Okay.

 

So, let's say there is an "asshole" who just wanted a loaf of bread, that has the future capacity if given the proper guidance, to be the guy that is willing to atone for his actions and is remorseful for having been an "asshole"? I'm curious to know, if we give that guy any consideration?

 

How could you determine that, Amanda? Let's say there's someone who massacred 800 people with a blunt machete that has the future capacity if given the proper guidance, to be the guy that is willing to atone for his actions and is remorseful for having been a mass murderer.

 

Granted one is a non-violent action and the other is a violent one, but both are immoral and both contribute to societal downfall if compared. Why should having the capacity for being conditioned to think that what you did was deplorable and shameful be a consideration in meting out punishment?

 

Like I've said, I have no problem with giving second or third chances in theft given that they are monetary in nature and can be repaid, and I advocate it.

 

However, I do not think that life is all that disposable.

 

Of course it is. You thrive on the disposability of life.

 

How is me deciding to kill someone because they killed someone else justified? How is that different?

 

It's not you deciding to kill someone because they killed someone. It's the execution of a murderer.

 

It's justified because they murdered. Murder is an immoral act, which dissolves your moral status as an individual. It's different because they murdered someone, and you're executing them for commiting that immoral act.

 

Maybe they killed someone because they thought they were justified to do so too?

 

So?

 

Maybe they killed because they thought they were justified to kill the guy who ran over their only kid while intoxicated, and spent no jail time?

 

That's different, in the world we are discussing that would have been dealt with.

 

Or the stockbroker that churned their account till they had no money to support their family?

 

So what?

 

Or what about the guy that killed from the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorders incurred from being in Viet Nam?

 

That doesn't justify killing. He knows it's wrong.

 

I want to know how do we decide who to kill? And who are we to decide? Wouldn't we take into consideration the whole situation?

 

The situation is "did they commit immoral act x?"

 

Maybe we should put violent offenders, that may have a potential to be rehabilitated, to jail for their crime, have counseling there, and not be allowed to be released until they are proven to have sufficient coping skills and right frame of thinking before they are released back into society?

 

Why?

[Amanda]

How could you determine that, Amanda? Let's say there's someone who massacred 800 people with a blunt machete that has the future capacity if given the proper guidance, to be the guy that is willing to atone for his actions and is remorseful for having been a mass murderer.

Asimov, I did say that extreme actions of people that showed such a tremendous disregard for life, such as Ng, Bundy, and McVeigh... perhaps should get the death penalty. Their crimes were so great, took such premeditation, etc. that I don't know if we have the capacity now to rehabilitate them so that they could live with themselves once they were thinking right. My point is it is hard to determine exactly where to draw the line.

Granted one is a non-violent action and the other is a violent one, but both are immoral and both contribute to societal downfall if compared. Why should having the capacity for being conditioned to think that what you did was deplorable and shameful be a consideration in meting out punishment?

Oh, I definitely believe in consequences for one's actions!!! However, wouldn't it be better to initiate corrective measures instead of just using retribution? It seems to me that because someone is a jerk, why would that mean we have to be a jerk back to them? Hopefully as a society, we do the right thing no matter what the other person does. Compassion is a great asset to have, while also embracing each individual's accountability and responsibility for their actions. Hopefully if we address these issues in the beginning of their onset, things never escalate to the point of Ng, Bundy, or McVeigh.

Like I've said, I have no problem with giving second or third chances in theft given that they are monetary in nature and can be repaid, and I advocate it.

How about assault charges?

 

Of course it is. You thrive on the disposability of life.

Hmmm... I do?

 

It's not you deciding to kill someone because they killed someone. It's the execution of a murderer.

 

It's justified because they murdered. Murder is an immoral act, which dissolves your moral status as an individual. It's different because they murdered someone, and you're executing them for commiting that immoral act.

How about a guy who kills his wife with terminal cancer because she is in so much pain and begs to be put out of her misery? What about vigilante murders? Certain situations get complicated.

 

Maybe they killed someone because they thought they were justified to do so too?

 

So?

How is that different from a justice system that does the same thing?

[velocitychild]

Are we still assuming that the murdeers would be perfectly convicted? Does anyone else thinks its asinine to ask "Is execution of a criminal ok if we are flawless with convictions?" - sigh... Its not a perfect world, the law isnt perfect, therefore capital punishment should not be used. It's that simple, really!

[Amanda]

Are we still assuming that the murdeers would be perfectly convicted? Does anyone else thinks its asinine to ask "Is execution of a criminal ok if we are flawless with convictions?" - sigh... Its not a perfect world, the law isnt perfect, therefore capital punishment should not be used. It's that simple, really!

Hey Velocity Child... okay... I can primarily agree with you... however, what about cases like McVeigh, Ng, and Bundy? Even if we kept them in prison, the other prisoners would kill them. If we kept them in isolation in little cage, is that humane? Perhaps in some cases, the death penalty is more compassionate?

[velocitychild]

Hey Velocity Child... okay... I can primarily agree with you... however, what about cases like McVeigh, Ng, and Bundy? Even if we kept them in prison, the other prisoners would kill them. If we kept them in isolation in little cage, is that humane? Perhaps in some cases, the death penalty is more compassionate?

 

 

er um...

[Asimov]

Are we still assuming that the murdeers would be perfectly convicted? Does anyone else thinks its asinine to ask "Is execution of a criminal ok if we are flawless with convictions?" - sigh... Its not a perfect world, the law isnt perfect, therefore capital punishment should not be used. It's that simple, really!

 

Well if you're not interested in discussion then stop posting in this thread. It's that simple, really!

[velocitychild]

If I wasnt interested I wouldnt!

[Asimov]

Hi Amanda,

 

Asimov, I did say that extreme actions of people that showed such a tremendous disregard for life, such as Ng, Bundy, and McVeigh... perhaps should get the death penalty. Their crimes were so great, took such premeditation, etc. that I don't know if we have the capacity now to rehabilitate them so that they could live with themselves once they were thinking right. My point is it is hard to determine exactly where to draw the line.

 

No, you're trying to factor in rehabilitation as a determinant in punishment. I don't care if a rapist could be rehabilitated, that doesn't negate what they've done.

 

Oh, I definitely believe in consequences for one's actions!!! However, wouldn't it be better to initiate corrective measures instead of just using retribution?

 

In some cases, sure, but how does that make execution immoral?

 

It seems to me that because someone is a jerk, why would that mean we have to be a jerk back to them? Hopefully as a society, we do the right thing no matter what the other person does.

 

It has nothing to do with their mentality, Amanda...being a jerk is a descriptive term. If someone commits an immoral act, how is executing them immoral? That is the question.

 

Compassion is a great asset to have, while also embracing each individual's accountability and responsibility for their actions. Hopefully if we address these issues in the beginning of their onset, things never escalate to the point of Ng, Bundy, or McVeigh.

 

That doesn't suddenly mean that we shouldn't execute, Amanda. You're only addressing the precursors to criminals. We're talking about when a crime is commited.

 

How about assault charges?

 

Are they monetary in nature?

 

Of course it is. You thrive on the disposability of life.

Hmmm... I do?

 

Of course you do. You eat dead matter to sustain your body. You live in a house made from organic materials, you drive in a car sustained by dead things.

 

How about a guy who kills his wife with terminal cancer because she is in so much pain and begs to be put out of her misery? What about vigilante murders? Certain situations get complicated.

 

Mercy killing isn't murder. Vigilante's aren't necessary, and a vigilante who murders is just as susceptible to the law as everyone else.

 

How is that different from a justice system that does the same thing?

 

Because a justice system is justified in execution (at least that's what we are trying to determine). Someone who murders is not justified by definition. It doesnt' matter whether they thought they were justified. If they cannot defend their case, they aren't justified.

 

If I wasnt interested I wouldnt!

 

Then I'm curious as to why you are inserting a red herring into the discussion?

[Rachelness]

This may have already been answered, but a question for redross and Asimov, how do we determine what is moral and what is immoral?

 

I think we've covered this but: if an act is detrimental to the formation or sustainability of a society than it is immoral. This includes murder, theft, lying etc. because if those acts were performed in widespread fashion the social bonds needed to maintain/create a society would not form.

 

Thanks for your answer. Wouldn't you agree that societies evolve over time and what moral codes we have in place now in order to sustain our societies differ from the moral codes of the past? What do you think of slavery? It has existed in one form or another throughout human history, and existed in some societies for hundreds of years. I may not be grasping your position correctly as this is all pretty new to me, and if that's the case please say so. Also, if this has been covered feel free to direct me to the relevant post or just copy and paste what you've already written. I promise I won't be offended.

[velocitychild]

@ Asimov: Sorry about that, I was feeling rather annoyed by discussing hypethetical situations because I failed to see the point. In the end, was trying to get you to see why I would fail to see the point therefore I posted! At anyrate, I will finally play along because I've had a change of heart.

 

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?

 

If the law was perfect and murderers were convicted perfectly then Capital Punishment would work because it would also be perfectly applied. Whew, lots of "perfect" being used.

 

In other words, is there something morally wrong with executing criminals in-and-of itself?

A ruthless killer? A child molester? A psychotic serial-killer? Yes! But where do we draw the line?

[Dave]

Are we still assuming that the murdeers would be perfectly convicted? Does anyone else thinks its asinine to ask "Is execution of a criminal ok if we are flawless with convictions?" - sigh... Its not a perfect world, the law isnt perfect, therefore capital punishment should not be used. It's that simple, really!

I don't see where a flawless system has anything to do with it. It's wrong to take a life (except in self defense yada yada yada) therefore capital punishment is wrong.

[redross]

 

If the law was perfect and murderers were convicted perfectly then Capital Punishment would work because it would also be perfectly applied. Whew, lots of "perfect" being used.

What do you mean the death penalty would be perfectly applied? Do you mean it would be moral in all cases?

 

A ruthless killer? A child molester? A psychotic serial-killer? Yes! But where do we draw the line?

That's for you to tell me