The Death Penalty

[Dave]

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?

but does anyone have the right to make that decision for someone else? How about my crazy idea..... give them a suicide pill. When they want "out" they can make the choice. Crazy, but at least it's a starting point to talk about.

[redross]

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.

What makes self-defense different? One could argue that you should have detained the attacker some other way than with lethal force.

[velocitychild]

 

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

1) The death penalty would be perfectly applied because no innocent person would be executed.

 

2) Yes, someone who has broken the law to the extent where they would be convicted of capital punishment should receive capital punishment by all means.

 

That's for you to tell me

Lets just adopt the laws we have now and assume that the death penalty would be applied with-out mistakes as outlined in this thread. The question of morality goes out the window because those deserving of death would get their just desserts.

 

 

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.

What makes self-defense different? One could argue that you should have detained the attacker some other way than with lethal force.

 

What if you accidently killed the guy and ya just ment to knock him out?

[godlessgrrl]

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

 

I'm going to avoid the rest of the discussion that's gone on here and just address this bit from the OP.

 

I think it's morally wrong to execute criminals because it violates said criminal's will to live.

 

I think so because I place a value on the free will of sentient, self-aware beings. I don't know why I value this, I just do. And it's probably just arbitrary, like most morals are anyway.

 

Note that this isn't an absolute value, either, as I can certainly think of instances where free will might be limited, either by external or internal restraint. (I might want to punch somebody who pisses me off, say, but I don't exercise my wish to do so for a variety of reasons.)

 

If a criminal wishes to die, however, that's another matter. In said case I would have no objection to the state assisting said criminal into oblivion.

[Dave]

I think it's morally wrong to execute criminals because it violates said criminal's will to live.

Their will to live or right to live? How can one take away the right of someone to live? I believe you can take away someones right to walk free in society if they prove they cannot be free without causing harm to others. Now that doesn't automatically translate into a life sentence for certain crimes. Most of the crimes that people want life terms for have the lowest recividism rates. Most of those in prison can be helped in some way and readied for a life back in society. We all admit that there are a few that need be kept locked up for life.

I think so because I place a value on the free will of sentient, self-aware beings. I don't know why I value this, I just do. And it's probably just arbitrary, like most morals are anyway.

You mean your system isn't perfect? You must be human.

Note that this isn't an absolute value, either, as I can certainly think of instances where free will might be limited, either by external or internal restraint. (I might want to punch somebody who pisses me off, say, but I don't exercise my wish to do so for a variety of reasons.)

 

If a criminal wishes to die, however, that's another matter. In said case I would have no objection to the state assisting said criminal into oblivion.

That's why I like my suicide pill idea. I have no delusions that that would ever happen though.

[Asimov]

@ 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.

 

Ok, I was just a little annoyed as well because you had already brought it up previously. If we were discussing methods of determining whether or not someone has commited an immoral act then you might be annoyed if I kept bringing up "LET'S JUST EXECUTE EM!!! WAHOO!!!"

 

Aaaanyways!

 

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.

 

Ok...but that would just mean that it's immoral to execute innocent people for wrongful convictions. Is it immoral to execute guilty people?

 

Lets just adopt the laws we have now and assume that the death penalty would be applied with-out mistakes as outlined in this thread. The question of morality goes out the window because those deserving of death would get their just desserts.

 

Why would we want to adopt the laws we have now? Which country? I live in canada, don't know about you.

 

The point is, do you think anyone deserves death? If you do, then execution is amoral.

 

So far, Dave hasn't done anything to actually support his contention that it's wrong to take a life barring self-defense.

[Dhampir]

I had a response typed out days ago, I was just to lazy an unsatisfied with it to post it. In response to Dave: Yes. Having been aware of the definition of the word that you provided, I did indeed intend to use the word AMORAL.

 

As to the rest of this topic: I have been thinking that the issue of morality is not so cut and dried as the acknowledgement of a deed's immorality, in determining the punishment for it. I don't think anyone is immune to acting on the impulse to kill under the right circumstances, barring self-defense, which I think is a weak excuse in general. Just knowing it is wrong is not total innoculation against killing someone; that is simply our nature.

 

That being said, my original point was that the morality of putting someone to death can't simply be decided upon on the basis of 1. Was it immoral? and 2. Did he/she know it was immoral? I think it irrational to believe that people can't be driven to do things they hadn't previously thought themselves capable of in order to preserve themselves in ways that don't quite speak to self-defense as it is generally described, although that's not to say I don't think those people should face justice. I think there's differences between a killing of necessity, and a murder committed by a cold blooded person who sees it as a viable and acceptable means to further their ends. Ergo, as others have said, but for different reasons, I think that it should be decided individually, to ensure that distinction be made.

 

My answer: Death penalty: Ideally amoral, in a system where everyone that gets it deserves it. I would have no moral qualms with such a decision.

[Asimov]

I think it's morally wrong to execute criminals because it violates said criminal's will to live.

 

How does that make sense?

 

I think so because I place a value on the free will of sentient, self-aware beings.

 

We don't have free will, but anyways, how does that suddenly make execution wrong?

 

If a criminal wishes to die, however, that's another matter. In said case I would have no objection to the state assisting said criminal into oblivion.

 

But that's a different subject...that's suicide. We're talking about punishment of an immoral act by execution.

 

You haven't explained that it's immoral.

[Rachelness]

Does what is needed to sustain a society change? Is it relative to various factors (natural resources/climate/technology/etc)? Asimov or redross want to answer my slavery question?

[Vigile]

*Stepping in late here and not having read everything, hopefully I'm not covering old ground*

 

From what I see skimming through it appears that Assy and Red are putting the burdon of proof on those opposed. I'm curious, can either of you two provide a rational reason why the death penalty is necessary or even useful?

 

Keep in mind that this question must be framed within the current system where Constitutional protections exist.

[Amanda]

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?

Asimov, what I am curious to know.... where do you draw the line on beginning to appropriate capital punishment? Murder? Rape? Molestation? Physical assaults? Theft? Jay walking? Do you consider any midigating circumstances in doling out the death penalty punishment?

 

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.

If a person decides to murder justifiably in their own mind, you say that is immoral; yet if society decides to murder justifiably in their own mind, that is morally okay? It seems there should be a difference between retribution and punishment appropriate to the crime. Why not make it more morally acceptable that punishment include rehabilitation and compensating their victim?

 

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.

If we instilled rehabilitation dealing with criminal precursors into society, maybe the extreme crimes wouldn't be committed. Would it then be morally acceptable to kill all those that didn't have the benefit of rehabilitating the criminal mindset that was the precursor to their violent crimes?

 

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.

How can we determine perfectly they can not defend their case?

 

BTW, I'm interested in how you will respond to the question of Vigile del Fuoco 1...

[KT45]

It seems there should be a difference between retribution and punishment appropriate to the crime. Why not make it more morally acceptable that punishment include rehabilitation and compensating their victim? If we instilled rehabilitation dealing with criminal precursors into society, maybe the extreme crimes wouldn't be committed. Would it then be morally acceptable to kill all those that didn't have the benefit of rehabilitating the criminal mindset that was the precursor to their violent crimes?

Amanda, It seems like you are trying to show that there are alternatives to the death penalty. Yes there can be alternatives like rehabilitation and compensation but that doesn't really show execution is immoral which is what I think Asimov and red are trying to defend.

[godlessgrrl]

How does that make sense?

 

Within the context of my own moral values, it makes sense to me. What would you like clarified?

 

We don't have free will, but anyways, how does that suddenly make execution wrong?

 

Within the context of my own moral values, it makes it wrong. If you're looking for a big objective cosmic reason why it would be wrong, I can't provide that any more than anybody else here could.

 

But that's a different subject...that's suicide. We're talking about punishment of an immoral act by execution.

 

True. Which is why I didn't launch into an entirely huge thread derailment about suicide.

 

You haven't explained that it's immoral.

 

Within the context of my own moral values, yes I have. (I will be happy to clarify if you wish, as much as I can.)

 

In a grand cosmic sense, you're right, I haven't.

[godlessgrrl]

Their will to live or right to live?

 

Will to live.

 

I don't actually think anybody has a "right" to live, exactly. I think it's something we claim, because by and large we don't want to die; but being alive is a state of existence, not a "right", really.

 

Rights strike me as being a bit like morals, in that they're semi-arbitrary. I can think of practical reasons why we might claim or create them but in some grand cosmic sense they ultimately don't have much meaning, they're just tools we use to survive; and they change with every cultural context.

 

You mean your system isn't perfect? You must be human.

 

Yeah, sorry about that... I'm no good at godhood, what can I say.

 

That's why I like my suicide pill idea. I have no delusions that that would ever happen though.

 

Yeah. Cool idea tho...

[Amanda]

Amanda, It seems like you are trying to show that there are alternatives to the death penalty. Yes there can be alternatives like rehabilitation and compensation but that doesn't really show execution is immoral which is what I think Asimov and red are trying to defend.

 

Hey ya' Taylork! Well, I think the death penalty may be morally acceptable in some situations, the question I have for Asimov, is where do we draw the line? It may be moral to execute someone like Ng, Bundy, or McVeigh, but how far do we go with giving out this sentence and consider it morally acceptable? It seems to me that incorporating rehabilitation with their consequences/punishment for their behavior would be the moral thing to do in most situations, making the death penalty primarily immoral... with exceptions.

[Dave]

I had a response typed out days ago, I was just to lazy an unsatisfied with it to post it. In response to Dave: Yes. Having been aware of the definition of the word that you provided, I did indeed intend to use the word AMORAL. .....

Since killing people is an immoral act, how can it become amoral?

My answer: Death penalty: Ideally amoral, in a system where everyone that gets it deserves it. I would have no moral qualms with such a decision.

Hitler had such a system set up.

 

 

Will to live.

 

I don't actually think anybody has a "right" to live, exactly. I think it's something we claim, because by and large we don't want to die; but being alive is a state of existence, not a "right", really.

I see it as an inalienable and intrinsic right. Isn't this whole thing about the right for the government to take away the right that someone has to live?

Rights strike me as being a bit like morals, in that they're semi-arbitrary. I can think of practical reasons why we might claim or create them but in some grand cosmic sense they ultimately don't have much meaning, they're just tools we use to survive; and they change with every cultural context.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Your life is the ONLY thing you own that cannot be returned if taken away.

That's why I like my suicide pill idea. I have no delusions that that would ever happen though.

Yeah. Cool idea tho...

That way they still retain their right to live and can decide when to end it themselves. I wonder what those on Death Row would think about it?

 

Hey ya' Taylork! Well, I think the death penalty may be morally acceptable in some situations, the question I have for Asimov, is where do we draw the line? It may be moral to execute someone like Ng, Bundy, or McVeigh, but how far do we go with giving out this sentence and consider it morally acceptable? It seems to me that incorporating rehabilitation with their consequences/punishment for their behavior would be the moral thing to do in most situations, making the death penalty primarily immoral... with exceptions.

To be honest, I'm totally against the death penalty for anyone, ever. No exceptions.

 

BUT!

 

For guys like those you mentioned, I just can't seem to work up any energy to go and protest their execution. I'm not good at perfection either.

[Asimov]

*Stepping in late here and not having read everything, hopefully I'm not covering old ground*

 

You are

 

From what I see skimming through it appears that Assy and Red are putting the burdon of proof on those opposed. I'm curious, can either of you two provide a rational reason why the death penalty is necessary or even useful?

 

We have.

 

Keep in mind that this question must be framed within the current system where Constitutional protections exist.

 

Why?

[Asimov]

Asimov, what I am curious to know.... where do you draw the line on beginning to appropriate capital punishment? Murder? Rape? Molestation? Physical assaults? Theft? Jay walking? Do you consider any midigating circumstances in doling out the death penalty punishment?

 

The only moral issues I'm aware of involve:

 

Murder, Abuse (of another person), Rape, Theft, Perjury (lying to protect a criminal or lying while under oath to tell the truth about a crime)

 

All of those constitute death penalty at some point.

 

If a person decides to murder justifiably in their own mind, you say that is immoral; yet if society decides to murder justifiably in their own mind, that is morally okay?

 

Where did I say that it's ok for anyone to murder?

 

It seems there should be a difference between retribution and punishment appropriate to the crime. Why not make it more morally acceptable that punishment include rehabilitation and compensating their victim?

 

Because you can't compensate a victim of murder, rape, or abuse.

 

If we instilled rehabilitation dealing with criminal precursors into society, maybe the extreme crimes wouldn't be committed. Would it then be morally acceptable to kill all those that didn't have the benefit of rehabilitating the criminal mindset that was the precursor to their violent crimes?

 

Maybe they wouldn't, as long as they don't do it I'm happy. If they do it, I'm not.

 

How can we determine perfectly they can not defend their case?

 

Well, let's see...you can't justify rape, murder, molestation, theft or perjury...so it's pretty easy.

 

 

 

In a grand cosmic sense, you're right, I haven't.

 

 

Morals aren't relative, gwen.

[redross]

Does what is needed to sustain a society change? Is it relative to various factors (natural resources/climate/technology/etc)?

The basic things societies need to survive do not change over time or between societies.

 

Keep in mind that this question must be framed within the current system where Constitutional protections exist.

No it must not. This thread is supposed to be hypothetical, although a lot of people are having a hard time understanding/following that notion.

[Dhampir]

I had a response typed out days ago, I was just to lazy an unsatisfied with it to post it. In response to Dave: Yes. Having been aware of the definition of the word that you provided, I did indeed intend to use the word AMORAL. .....

Since killing people is an immoral act, how can it become amoral?

My answer: Death penalty: Ideally amoral, in a system where everyone that gets it deserves it. I would have no moral qualms with such a decision.

Hitler had such a system set up.

You know, it's funny. You appear to have such a problem with the way Asimov conducts himself, accusing him of thinking he has all the answers, which may be true, but you seem to have a similar attitude.

 

Anyway, I would stress that killing is amoral, otherwise self-defense would not stand as an excuse. It is the circumstances surrounding it that cause it to become immoral, or even moral.

Hitler had such a system set up.

You just can't seem to help missing the point, and reacting as though you didn't. The question posed was: presuming a system wherein all convicted persons were guilty, was imposing the death penalty immoral? I answered by saying I didn't think so, and you go cryptically and erroneously comparing the death penalty to the holocaust?

[Asimov]

You know, it's funny. You appear to have such a problem with the way Asimov conducts himself, accusing him of thinking he has all the answers, which may be true, but you seem to have a similar attitude.

 

It is true, I do have all the answers....

 

Anyway, I would stress that killing is amoral, otherwise self-defense would not stand as an excuse. It is the circumstances surrounding it that cause it to become immoral, or even moral.

 

It is, and even Dave admits that it is amoral since he advocates killing in self-defense if needed.

 

Hitler had such a system set up.

You just can't seem to help missing the point, and reacting as though you didn't. The question posed was: presuming a system wherein all convicted persons were guilty, was imposing the death penalty immoral? I answered by saying I didn't think so, and you go cryptically and erroneously comparing the death penalty to the holocaust?

 

When people bring up Hitler, you gotta know that they are just being obtuse and wanting to make some grand point but since they have nothing of substance...

 

Hitler also liked dogs, so what? That's what I say.

[KT45]

Asimov, what I am curious to know.... where do you draw the line on beginning to appropriate capital punishment? Murder? Rape? Molestation? Physical assaults? Theft? Jay walking? Do you consider any midigating circumstances in doling out the death penalty punishment?

 

The only moral issues I'm aware of involve:

 

Murder, Abuse (of another person), Rape, Theft, Perjury (lying to protect a criminal or lying while under oath to tell the truth about a crime)

 

All of those constitute death penalty at some point.

I understand all of those, even perjury, but theft can constitute death penalty? Why a violent punishment for a non-violent act?

[Asimov]

I understand all of those, even perjury, but theft can constitute death penalty? Why a violent punishment for a non-violent act?

 

Well...let's say that you have someone who steals some money. He's caught and he agrees to pay a fine and damages. Does some jail time. Let's say 5 years in corrections where he does community service and is taught the values of purpose and self-worth.

 

Then he goes and commits another theft. Again, he does a harsher sentence.

 

Then he commits another theft...

 

Career thief, who obviously has no value for society or other people except that he's selfishly taking from them.

 

That is where I'd indicate the need for death penalty.

[Rachelness]

Does what is needed to sustain a society change? Is it relative to various factors (natural resources/climate/technology/etc)?

The basic things societies need to survive do not change over time or between societies.

 

OK. So what about slavery? Would it be immoral today in a modern state? Was it immoral for the thousands of years it existed? If yes, why?

[Amanda]

Asimov, what I am curious to know.... where do you draw the line on beginning to appropriate capital punishment? Murder? Rape? Molestation? Physical assaults? Theft? Jay walking? Do you consider any midigating circumstances in doling out the death penalty punishment?

 

The only moral issues I'm aware of involve:

 

Murder, Abuse (of another person), Rape, Theft, Perjury (lying to protect a criminal or lying while under oath to tell the truth about a crime)

 

All of those constitute death penalty at some point.

Well Asimov, I think you have an answer to the over population problem!

 

Actually, you seem to be more in line with the Islamic sense of justice, maybe even more harsh.

If a person decides to murder justifiably in their own mind, you say that is immoral; yet if society decides to murder justifiably in their own mind, that is morally okay?

 

Where did I say that it's ok for anyone to murder?

How can one be defined/labeled differently than the other? How is society different than the "killer"? Maybe the killer had the wrong thinking and killed when they should not have, well maybe society has had the wrong thinking and has killed when it should not have? Do we execute the society now? I know your going to say "if it were a perfect world" that would not happen, but in actuality it has happened.

 

Because you can't compensate a victim of murder, rape, or abuse.

Maybe not totally, but there can be some compensation. One can contribute financial resources to raise the children of the victim murdered, contribute to counseling and financial resources to these victims, pay for medical bills, pay for domestic help for their recovery time, etc.

 

Well, let's see...you can't justify rape, murder, molestation, theft or perjury...so it's pretty easy.

 

Why do you think the justice system determines midigating circumstances now? Why do you think your country doesn't have the death penalty? Don't you think they have pondered the morality of all that?