The Death Penalty

[Amanda]

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.

 

Dave, if you put people like Ng, Bundy, McVeigh in with the general population of prisoners... someone will kill them. They will be taunted continually, till they are killed. These types of people could never be let out, ever! So, is it morally right to confine them isolated to a little cage all their life till they are driven to suicide? Isn't that more cruel and inhumane punishment?

 

Also, we have moral obligations to the rest of society. We have finite financial resources. Is it morally right to support a criminal such as those mentioned and say no to a child or law abiding person who needs a life saving operation?

[Vigile]

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

 

Why?

 

Because the only obvious benefit I can see would be that death is a cheaper and quicker way of dealing with crime. However, within the framework of the current protections enjoyed in the US and Canada, this benefit does not exist.

 

I can't see other benefits.

[Asimov]

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?

 

Yes in both cases. Societies are for the potential to create mutual benefit between individuals. Coercion (like slavery) has no place in society because it is forcing an individual to work for you with no compensation...therefore, no mutual benefit.

 

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

 

Why?

 

Because the only obvious benefit I can see would be that death is a cheaper and quicker way of dealing with crime. However, within the framework of the current protections enjoyed in the US and Canada, this benefit does not exist.

 

I can't see other benefits.

 

Well, we aren't talking about the US or Canada, so I can't answer your question.

[Amanda]

Well, we aren't talking about the US or Canada, so I can't answer your question.

Asimov, I know this response is directed to Vigile del Fuoco 1, however, is your answer suggesting the benefit of the death penalty is that it is less costly than harboring them for a prison sentence?

[Dave]

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.

Well.... if you have to start with an ad hominem, then the rest can't be worth reading. The topic is capital punishment, not me.

 

 

Dave, if you put people like Ng, Bundy, McVeigh in with the general population of prisoners... someone will kill them. They will be taunted continually, till they are killed. These types of people could never be let out, ever! So, is it morally right to confine them isolated to a little cage all their life till they are driven to suicide? Isn't that more cruel and inhumane punishment?

They have "Protective Custody" prisons where they would be safe. Some of them might even be regarded as a hero, or big shot, by the general population of prisoners.

Also, we have moral obligations to the rest of society. We have finite financial resources. Is it morally right to support a criminal such as those mentioned and say no to a child or law abiding person who needs a life saving operation?

How about we keep the prisons and end the war. That would save much more in money and lives.

[Dhampir]

My apologies. If I thought you would jam your dick into a wall over it, I'd have saved it for the end. Not that I wasn't polite about my observation, which your subsequent post has borne out to a degree. Take note that I used the qualifiers appear and seem, rather than stating flatly anything I said. I wasn't making accusations at all. And since you probably have read the remainder of my post, it is yours to refute or brush off at your leisure. Since your responses generally seem to misunderstand the topic at hand, it really doesn't matter to me.

[Asimov]

Asimov, I know this response is directed to Vigile del Fuoco 1, however, is your answer suggesting the benefit of the death penalty is that it is less costly than harboring them for a prison sentence?

 

No, cost really isn't factored into the morality of it. It's factored into the economics of it. The current system doesn't favour death penalty as cost-effective compared to life sentencing, to a degree. But then again the US also has a huge problem with the prison system, judicial system, and ethical systems...so those would have to be revamped anyways.

 

That's why it's not germaine to the discussion to bring in the US or Canada or any other systems that are currently in place and just focus on the actual issue of executing criminals.

[Vigile]

Well, we aren't talking about the US or Canada, so I can't answer your question.

 

It occurs to me that any discussion related directly to the morality of the death penality would necessarily have to include the issue of whether or not the person(s) it would be used on are actually guilty. Guilt or innocence is a complex issue and the court systems in Canada or the US, just for example, have evolved to the cumbersome mechanisms that they have become in large part to sift through the complex issues that surround ensuring that the innocent are not mistakenly accused. Trying to oversimplify the issue, leaving out the complexities that are involved in the real world, does not get at the heart of the matter IMO.

[Asimov]

Well, we aren't talking about the US or Canada, so I can't answer your question.

 

It occurs to me that any discussion related directly to the morality of the death penality would necessarily have to include the issue of whether or not the person(s) it would be used on are actually guilty. Guilt or innocence is a complex issue and the court systems in Canada or the US, just for example, have evolved to the cumbersome mechanisms that they have become in large part to sift through the complex issues that surround ensuring that the innocent are not mistakenly accused. Trying to oversimplify the issue, leaving out the complexities that are involved in the real world, does not get at the heart of the matter IMO.

 

Of course it does get at the heart of the matter. We aren't dealing with the beaurocratic nonsense that are the court systems of Canada and the US.

 

The laws of the land that are in the real world are not necessarily moral laws, and therefore have nothing to do with this ethical discussion. In the US, for instance, they place more importance on drug offenders than they do on rape cases.

 

Each state also has it's own "judicial system", with it's varying degrees of bigotry.

 

Don't even get me started on the gongshow that is Canadian law.

 

There are complexities involved in the real world...we're dealing with one.

[Vigile]

There may be a lot of bureacratic nonsense invovled, but there are also a lot of intentionally cumbersome saftey measures as well. Discussing individual flaws seems to be a bit of a red herring (though I don't think intentional ) to what I think is a primary consideration to whether or not the death penalty can be considered moral: that is, that at a minimum it must be applied only to those that are truly guilty. I think we can all agree that putting an innocent person to death would be considered immoral. Unless you can offer a better system than the Western court system, which has evolved from millenia of experience and philosophical thought for ensuring that the innocent are not caught up in the mechanism, I think we have to factor in this system in considering my original question about whether or not there is an actual benefit provided by adopting the death penalty.

[Amanda]

They have "Protective Custody" prisons where they would be safe.

Dave, you mean like Jeffry Dalmer (sp?), serial kidnapper - rapist - murderer - cannibal? He couldn't stand isolation any more, claimed to have become a Christian, begged to be put in with other people so they did....

 

.......he was murdered within a year.

Some of them might even be regarded as a hero, or big shot, by the general population of prisoners.

Oh great... that's what kind of environment we need to encourage in the greater population we will someday allow free?

How about we keep the prisons and end the war. That would save much more in money and lives.

How many lives do we save if we allow another 9/11 event to happen? However, that is a different topic.

 

No, cost really isn't factored into the morality of it.

Asimov, I beg to differ with you! If we choose to incurr the cost of harboring a prisoner, at the financial cost of a life saving operation, of saving a law abiding citizen, then where is the morality of that? I am not entirely against the death penalty... I just think you are too harsh on where you draw the line! Even the Islamic people are more kind than what you suggest... at least they don't kill someone for stealing, maybe cut off a hand or two...

 

Frankly Asimov, I'm surprised that you don't have more compassion than you do! You were actually one of the few that was fairly nice to me when I first came here!

 

Vigile del Fuoco1, I'm curious as to how Russia looks at the death penalty, what kind of punishment do you all have for violent crimes, are people allowed to have guns, and what kind of crime do you have in your country?

[Vigile]

It is another topic Amanda, but I hope you don't still think there is a connection between 911 and the war in Iraq. Even Bush has admitted there is not.

 

As far as Russia, there has been a moratorium on the DP since 1996. Violent criminals are given prison sentances; some I suppose for life. I should mention that I did a study when I was in the University in which the findings indicated that there was no correlation between the DP and violent crime. In other words, states with the DP do not enjoy less violent crime; strangly enough, just the opposite is true, though to try and correlate a cause and effect relationship in this regard would be spurious IMO.

[dibby]

 

 

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?

 

Who is deciding the criminal has no value? Can we value them as a human being but still not in any way condone their behaviour?

 

 

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.

 

Well, yes. Should feeling not come into the decision at all? Feeling are part of our humanity too. I would be concerned for someones mental state if they could kill someone with no sense of revulsion or without hesitation.

 

 

 

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".

 

Yes, you are right. It is up to the individuals in society to decide on the appropriate justice. I would not support the death penalty, others would. Is the morality, or not of killing someone dependent on the individuals in society (by vote, for instance) or is it inherently moral or immoral? I would value your comments.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

By not killing them, and imprisoning them instead, we show that we value life even more.

 

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.

 

Funny you should use this analogy, as I,m a gardener.

 

I would remove the bush from the other roses. If it was that diseased it would die anyway. Since it does not have the consciousness of a human being I doubt it would protest too much.

 

Redross. In another post you say that it is immoral to lie. Consider the following situation. You are hiding jews in the second world war to prevent them being taken away by the nazis. The nazis knock on your door and ask if you are hiding any jews. What would the moral thing be to do: lie, or tell the truth?

 

Thanks guys for a brilliant discussion. It is certainly getting me to think deeply about these issues.

[Asimov]

There may be a lot of bureacratic nonsense invovled, but there are also a lot of intentionally cumbersome saftey measures as well. Discussing individual flaws seems to be a bit of a red herring (though I don't think intentional ) to what I think is a primary consideration to whether or not the death penalty can be considered moral: that is, that at a minimum it must be applied only to those that are truly guilty. I think we can all agree that putting an innocent person to death would be considered immoral. Unless you can offer a better system than the Western court system, which has evolved from millenia of experience and philosophical thought for ensuring that the innocent are not caught up in the mechanism, I think we have to factor in this system in considering my original question about whether or not there is an actual benefit provided by adopting the death penalty.

 

Ok, so you agree that putting an innocent person to death is immoral...but do you think that putting a guilty person to death is immoral as well?

[Vigile]

I don't know. The jury is presently out. I do however think that there is no benefit afforded society. Pragmatically speaking (not necessarily morally) I am opposed to the death penalty for this reason. I'm open to changing my mind on the issue.

 

I don't know. The jury is presently out. I do however think that there is no benefit afforded society. Pragmatically speaking (not necessarily morally) I am opposed to the death penalty for this reason. I'm open to changing my mind on the issue.

[Dave]

They have "Protective Custody" prisons where they would be safe.

Dave, you mean like Jeffry Dalmer (sp?), serial kidnapper - rapist - murderer - cannibal? He couldn't stand isolation any more, claimed to have become a Christian, begged to be put in with other people so they did....

.......he was murdered within a year.

Life's rough.

Some of them might even be regarded as a hero, or big shot, by the general population of prisoners.

Oh great... that's what kind of environment we need to encourage in the greater population we will someday allow free?

Too late. It's already that way.

How about we keep the prisons and end the war. That would save much more in money and lives.

How many lives do we save if we allow another 9/11 event to happen? However, that is a different topic.

Uh..... have you lived in a cave for the past few years? The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no connection what so ever. The invading of a soverign country that was no threat to anyone was done only for bush's ego.

[Asimov]

I beg to differ with you! If we choose to incurr the cost of harboring a prisoner, at the financial cost of a life saving operation, of saving a law abiding citizen, then where is the morality of that? I am not entirely against the death penalty... I just think you are too harsh on where you draw the line! Even the Islamic people are more kind than what you suggest... at least they don't kill someone for stealing, maybe cut off a hand or two...

 

Hi Amanda, that really again has nothing to do with the morality of a situation. We make make the death penalty as cheap as we want it to be, and we can make imprisoning criminals as cheap as we want it to be.

 

Too harsh? Why?

 

Frankly Asimov, I'm surprised that you don't have more compassion than you do! You were actually one of the few that was fairly nice to me when I first came here!

 

Compassion for people who have no regard for a society and the way it should work? Of course I don't! Compassion for people who come to this site asking genuine questions and willing to change their worldview?

 

Yea...I would say that I'm nice to people who don't rape people or kill them.

 

I don't know. The jury is presently out. I do however think that there is no benefit afforded society. Pragmatically speaking (not necessarily morally) I am opposed to the death penalty for this reason. I'm open to changing my mind on the issue.

 

Yea, but you don't use the death penalty as a deterrent for preventing other criminals in commiting crimes. You use it as a punishment for the criminals who do commit crimes.

 

We show that we don't tolerate criminals or their behaviour.

We don't have repeat offenders (again, in regards to thievery I think the 3 strikes is a good idea since it is not a violent offense).

We don't carry the burden of keeping them alive.

We don't push the burden or responsibility onto another populas to keep them alive or experience their harmful effects.

We rid ourselves of people who have no regard for the lives or the productivity of others to mutually benefit from one another.

 

I think that these are pragmatic reasons for having the death penalty.

[Asimov]

Who is deciding the criminal has no value? Can we value them as a human being but still not in any way condone their behaviour?

 

Hi Dibby,

 

Could you please explain what you mean by "value them as a human being"? Nothing has intrinsic value, so why would I value something just because it's biology is .01% different than mine?

 

Value is placed upon individuals for their contributions and how they benefit me. Value is placed upon me for my contributions and how I benefit others.

 

A criminal does not benefit other people except himself and other criminals. They leach off the populace in order to gain as much as they can without giving. That is lacking value.

 

By value, I mean I do not wish to gain or maintain a relationship with that person. They have nothing to offer.

 

Well, yes. Should feeling not come into the decision at all? Feeling are part of our humanity too. I would be concerned for someones mental state if they could kill someone with no sense of revulsion or without hesitation.

 

No, feelings should not come into the decision. Making a decision based on a feeling is intuitionism, and morality does not come from that. The concept of morality is a cognitive source that is explained, justified and discussed and decided through reason.

 

I'm not saying I could kill someone with no sense of revulsion or without hesitation. I have no idea since I've never done it. I am saying that I feel no sense of revulsion at the thought of a criminal dying, and I feel no sadness over that death.

 

 

Yes, you are right. It is up to the individuals in society to decide on the appropriate justice. I would not support the death penalty, others would. Is the morality, or not of killing someone dependent on the individuals in society (by vote, for instance) or is it inherently moral or immoral? I would value your comments.

 

I think it should be agreed upon based on the merit of the argument, dibby, not on mob rule. If we let people veto things like that based on their emotions "It's wrong because I feel it's wrong!" then we'd all be a bunch of hippies.

 

It would depend on the individuals in society, through a justice system.

 

By not killing them, and imprisoning them instead, we show that we value life even more.

 

Unfortunately, you are creating a slight incoherency in your statement though. I'm assuming that you mean by valuing life that you mean you value the prosperity and furtherance of life. How does letting a criminal show that we value life even more? By keeping him alive, we're not adding to the prosperity or furtherance of life.

 

Funny you should use this analogy, as I,m a gardener.

 

So there is a God.

 

I would remove the bush from the other roses. If it was that diseased it would die anyway. Since it does not have the consciousness of a human being I doubt it would protest too much.

 

Yea, but let's say that Rose wouldn't die anyways...it has a parasitic disease which causes it to kill other roses, but it doesn't die itself unless there are no more roses to kill. Weird analogy, I know.

 

The point I'm making is that you would kill that one Rose to maintain and preserve the lives of the other roses.

 

Redross. In another post you say that it is immoral to lie. Consider the following situation. You are hiding jews in the second world war to prevent them being taken away by the nazis. The nazis knock on your door and ask if you are hiding any jews. What would the moral thing be to do: lie, or tell the truth?

 

It's amoral to do either since you're being coerced to help them root out jews and kill them. A decision made under threat is an amoral decision.

[Guest patster14]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

This is my stance, i feel the killing has to end,and if it doesnt, then those who are killing must be the first to be killed, to say better, if you take a human life out of choice and pre meditation, there is only one suitable result, punishment, i.e a slow painfull death. the death penalty exists to eliminate the proper people from society

[Dave]

....the death penalty exists to eliminate the proper people from society

Which has been the justification for every genocide, ethnic cleansing, pogrom, and "re-education" by every despot there has ever been.

[Dhampir]

i.e a slow painfull death.

Why a slow, painful death? I can acknowledge that vengeance is a definite part of the death penalty, as well as plenty of punishments that the law provides, but that doesn't mean we have to be cruel about it.

 

Which has been the justification for every genocide, ethnic cleansing, pogrom, and "re-education" by every despot there has ever been.

Many tools were employed by despots. It almost seems like you think that the method generates the motive. That is a very lazy rationale--that we should fear the possibility of corruption just because corruption is possible.

[HuaiDan]

This is my stance, i feel the killing has to end,and if it doesnt, then those who are killing must be the first to be killed, to say better, if you take a human life out of choice and pre meditation, there is only one suitable result, punishment, i.e a slow painfull death. the death penalty exists to eliminate the proper people from society

 

The killing has to end and those who are killing must be the first to be killed? Classic Orwellian doublethink.

 

Yeah, let's eliminate the proper people from society, sounds like a good idea to me. While we're at it, we should eliminate the mentally handicapped, diabetics, short-sighted people, blacks, jews, and people who like broadway theater.

 

[Asimov]

This is my stance, i feel the killing has to end,and if it doesnt, then those who are killing must be the first to be killed, to say better, if you take a human life out of choice and pre meditation, there is only one suitable result, punishment, i.e a slow painfull death. the death penalty exists to eliminate the proper people from society

 

I'm sorry, but what?

[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?

 

Yes in both cases. Societies are for the potential to create mutual benefit between individuals. Coercion (like slavery) has no place in society because it is forcing an individual to work for you with no compensation...therefore, no mutual benefit.

 

If it's beneficial (or even vital) to the sustainability of a society to have slaves, is it wrong? What if what is necessary to sustain a society is in conflict with the idea of mutual benefit? Which takes precedence?

 

What if it's beneficial for a certain type of person to be a slave depending on the political/social/economic state/environment they live in?

[Amanda]

Yea, but let's say that Rose wouldn't die anyways...it has a parasitic disease which causes it to kill other roses, but it doesn't die itself unless there are no more roses to kill. Weird analogy, I know.

 

The point I'm making is that you would kill that one Rose to maintain and preserve the lives of the other roses.

 

Asimov, why wouldn't we just spray it with a fungicide/insecticide first? That might solve everything! For a little investment, that plant becoming healthy may add a lot of benefit to the garden!

 

Sometimes reformed criminals can make major contributions to society! Look at that bounty hunter "Dog"... he reformed and went on to put other violent criminals in jail. The criminal he is famous for catching is the heir to a multimillion dollar make-up company, also a serial rapist who rendered his MANY victims unconscious before assaulting them and filming the incidents! Without Dog, he may have continued his twisted entertainment for the rest of his life in Mexico!