Innocence Lost

[Douglas]

There have been hundreds of executions that have subsequently been judged unlawful, and those timescales do not apply in certain US states such a Texas. Your whole statement is just blind defense of murder, a ethical decision that places you in the same bracket as the murderers you are condemning. Well done.

If you're talking about vigilante executions, YES, all unlawful.

If you're talking about judge/jury sanctioned executions, NO, all lawful.

Yes, I favor execution, I'm like a sheep that follows the 60% of Americans that also favor executions.

 

Ethnic cleansing is not acceptable. Not in any society. Ever.

I think it's more like "killer cleansing"

[blike]

Ethnic cleansing is not acceptable. Not in any society. Ever.

Labelling criminals as an ethnic group is a dangerously thin line to walk, because then putting people in jail starts to become a form of ethnic cleansing when you do that.

[blike]

The fact of the matter is making the argument that innocent people will be executed is quite possibly the weakest and most ill-conceived argument that can be made against the death penalty.

 

There have indeed been cases when innocent people have been executed, but that doesn't make the death penalty any more right or wrong.

 

Justice is not executed when the death penalty is not applied to first-degree muderers. It's really quite simple.

[JaKiri]

Justice is not executed when the death penalty is not applied to first-degree muderers. It's really quite simple.

 

Why do murderers have to be killed for justice to be done?

 

Why should the state have the right to take a life?

 

If this is the case, why shouldn't its citizens?

 

Why the moral absolutism?

[Sayonara]

Why do murderers have to be killed for justice to be done?

This is what I've been asking, and not yet had a satisfactory response.

 

We should not start by questioning whether or not arguments against the death penalty are valid, but by questioning why it is necessary to begin with.

[JaKiri]

This is what I've been asking' date=' and not yet had a satisfactory response.

 

We should not start by questioning whether or not arguments against the death penalty are valid, but by questioning why it is necessary to begin with.[/quote']

 

It is (literally) like arguing with creationists. The burden of proof is all kerjiggered.

[Drug addict]

Here's my view:

 

Capital punishment has no place in a civilised society. Ever. End of arguement.

 

But somehow America manages to make it worse by executing people who were under the age of 18 when they killed. This puts America on a par with those beacons of civil liberties Saudi Arabi, Pakistan, Iran and China.

[Drug addict]

The fact of the matter is making the argument that innocent people will be executed is quite possibly the weakest and most ill-conceived argument that can be made against the death penalty.

 

 

I would argue that it is one of the strongest arguements against capital punishment. If the state executes just one innocent person' date=' how can it then claim to be morally superior to a murderer, as by definition it is also one?

 

Justice is not executed when the death penalty is not applied to first-degree muderers. It's really quite simple.

 

Justice does not equal vengance or retribution. And if that pun is intended it's disgusting.

[[Tycho?]]

I'm against capital punishment because of the possibility of getting an innocent person, or or of using it as a tool for discrimination, ie being more likely to execute someone who is of a different race, religion, ethnic group etc.

 

Otherwise, people like serial murders and rapists should be summilarly killed.

[JaKiri]

Otherwise, people like serial murders and rapists should be summilarly killed.

 

Why? What gives the state the right to kill people?

[Douglas]

Why? What gives the state the right to kill people?

Consider it a war, a terrorist kills an ally, you kill the terrorist.

That's the right that the state gives you.

[Rakasha]

Consider it a war' date=' a terrorist kills an ally, you kill the terrorist.

That's the right that the state gives you.[/quote']

 

I don't think this apply. In a war, you kill an enemy to stop him in his action. In this subject, the ¨enemy¨ has already been succefully disabled. Meaning you would be murdering an harmless prisoner of war. What would be the point ?

[blike]

Why should the state have the right to take a life?

If this is the case, why shouldn't its citizens?

The same reason the state has a right to put you in prison for the rest of your life, but individual citizens have no right to detain and imprison each other.

 

Why do murderers have to be killed for justice to be done?

[copied and modified from the other capital punishment thread] Justice is defined as "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments." First and formost, the purpose of any justice system is to execute justice; not to rehabilitate, not to isolate. Secondary purposes, such as isolating criminals from the general population and rehabilitating criminals do not constitute the foundation of any justice system. In short, a justice system exists to render each man what he is due, according to the law.

 

As such, the primary purpose of any punishment is to execute justice. They do not exist merely to serve as deterrents. This is evidenced by the fact that the punishment for any crime generally increases in severity with the harm it causes. Surely we would all cry foul if our car was stolen and the judge only sentenced the criminal to an overnight stay in prison. But why? Because the criminal has not been punished in accordance with the severity of personal harm he has caused us. That is why lady justice carries a scale.

 

It becomes necessary for societies and governments to quantify the destructiveness or harm caused by a crime, and then agree on punishments which are befitting of the crime. We cannot simply steal a thiefs car or kill a murderer's family and call it justice (though societies in the past have found this acceptable). In the case of a murder, anything less than executing the murderer is reducing the value of human life. That is, if you do not execute the murderer, you are quantifying the victims life in terms of nights spent in prison. What is a person worth? Capital punishment is an effective way of confirming that it's citizens lives are invaluable. Is not the respect for human life the mark of a civilized country?

 

Capital punishment also ensures that the perpetrator will not ever harm anyone again. Life in prison cannot guarantee this for a number of reasons. Capital punishment, in rare cases, can also serve as a deterrent. I believe that if one innocent person is saved by capital punishment, then it has served a valid and worthy purpose as a deterrent.

 

I would argue that it is one of the strongest arguements against capital punishment. If the state executes just one innocent person, how can it then claim to be morally superior to a murderer, as by definition it is also one?

The job of the justice system is not to be or act as a morally superior entity. It's purpose is to render each his due. Furthermore, the argument you have presented can also be applied to life in prison, and even short-term imprisonment. You cannot give a man his life back; neither can you give him days of his life back. Anyone who agrees with any form of rendering of justice must accept that there undoubtedly will be innocent people wrongly judged. Thus, we may call the justice system an imprisoner, a thief, a murderer, etc, but to what effect? We all agree that imprisonment or isolation is necessary, even if it means falsely imprisoning someone, and I charge that the death penalty is worthy and necessary even though it may do the same. This does not mean I am not for reforming the system. In an ideal world, the death penalty would only be applied to situations in which there was absolutely no doubt. I think strong and giant strides must be taken in that direction, even if it means suspending the death penalty in questionable situations.

 

Let's assume we have video evidence and a sworn confession to a murder. Now what? Do you support capital punishment in this case?

 

I understand that many of you are against the death penalty because it can be wrongly applied, but I find it incredulous that many of you are against the death penalty in absolutely every conceivable situation.

[Tetrahedrite]

Let me ask of those who are pro-capital punishment, are you also pro-choice when it comes to abortions? I suspect the answer in nearly all cases will be no.

[JaKiri]

Let's assume we have video evidence and a sworn confession to a murder. Now what? Do you support capital punishment in this case?

 

Of course not; any other course would be inconsistent.

 

You equate prison with the death penalty; however, the freedom of the state is a right provided by the state. Life is not. To put it another way; does the state define what you can do or what you can't?

 

Let me ask of those who are pro-capital punishment, are you also pro-choice when it comes to abortions? I suspect the answer in nearly all cases will be no.

 

I don't think the boundaries are as clear cut as you think. There's the obvious inference of hypocriticality, but I, by and large, haven't found that in this case.

[Sayonara]

Consider it a war' date=' a terrorist kills an ally, you kill the terrorist.

That's the right that the state gives you.[/quote']

...And he's only a terrorist because he is so labelled, there is no such thing as a "war on terror", let's try and get Bush in here etc etc.

 

Black and white approaches are often doomed to failure in issues of moral justification.

 

 

I'm against capital punishment because of the possibility of getting an innocent person, or or of using it as a tool for discrimination, ie being more likely to execute someone who is of a different race, religion, ethnic group etc.

I'm against execution because killing people is wrong, which is pretty much all the reasoning one needs.

[Rakasha]

I'm against capital punishment on all acount. I'm interrested in Blike's post, since he gave all the reason that someone pro-CP could give.

 

The same reason the state has a right to put you in prison for the rest of your life, but individual citizens have no right to detain and imprison each other.

 

Killing people that were dangerous but are'nt anymore is not needed. The state can't have this right just because it have other special rights. Right ?

 

First and formost, the purpose of any justice system is to execute justice.

 

Call me an idealist, but I always though that the purpose of jail was to put dangerous people aside until they are socially rehabilated. My point of view :

Law = for social cohesion.

Justice = to punish immorality.

thus, the law is not about justice.

 

As such, the primary purpose of any punishment is to execute justice. They do not exist merely to serve as deterrents. This is evidenced by the fact that the punishment for any crime generally increases in severity with the harm it causes.

 

¨Justice is the purpose of law, because law is based on justice.¨

 

Surely we would all cry foul if our car was stolen and the judge only sentenced the criminal to an overnight stay in prison. But why? Because the criminal has not been punished in accordance with the severity of personal harm he has caused us. That is why lady justice carries a scale.

 

Let me suggest whipping. It seriously seems a better punishment than incarceration.

 

In the case of a murder, anything less than executing the murderer is reducing the value of human life [...] effective way of confirming that it's citizens lives are invaluable [...'] Is not the respect for human life the mark of a civilized country?

 

I see little light in this reasoning. Most of those arguments assume that the governement must send those moral messages (yet a government is amoral) and it cannot do it any other way.

 

Capital punishment, in rare cases, can also serve as a deterrent.

 

I don't think that the deterring effect is strong enough to be mentionned.

 

I believe that if one innocent person is saved by capital punishment, then it has served a valid and worthy purpose as a deterrent.

 

Hum, the same can be said against capital punishment.

 

In an ideal world' date=' the death penalty would [b']not be applied because it is not needed. [/b]

 

Fixed !

 

Let's assume we have video evidence and a sworn confession to a murder. Now what? Do you support capital punishment in this case?

 

My opinion is that if a dangerous person has been disabled, there is no reason to pointlessly slay this person.

[blike]

Let me ask of those who are pro-capital punishment, are you also pro-choice when it comes to abortions? I suspect the answer in nearly all cases will be no.

The answer is no, I am mostly against abortions and always against late term abortions. Regardless, this is not hypocritical because a baby is innocent and a murderer is not. The reverse also applies and is a tad more hypocritical if taken to the extreme.

 

For example:

My opinion : I'm completely pro-abortion.

...

About partial abortions:

I'm all for it' date=' yeah, puncture the little guy's head. [/quote']

I'm against capital punishment on all acount.

....

The dangerous person [referring to capital punishment] has been disabled. No need to slay an harmless person.

I do not quite understand how one approaches this dichotomy in their own mind. In this member's mind, it is completely justifiable and morally correct to murder an unborn child (partial birth, half-in, half-out) and yet it is completely unjustifiable and immoral to murder a serial killer.

[blike]

Killing people that are not dangerous anymore is not needed. The state can't have this right because it have other special rights. Right ?

Could you clarify?

 

Call me an idealist, but I always though that the purpose of jail was to put dangerous people aside until they are socially rehabilated. that means

Idealist! That's not the primary purpose of any justice system. Most systems do try and include some sort of rehabilitation, but mostly unsuccessfully. No social justice system was ever formed on the basis of rehablitation.

 

¨Justice is the purpose of law, because laws are based on justice¨. Quite a conservative argument.

I was stating that laws are based on what is deemed just [aka fair]. This is evidenced by the fact that punishments fit the crime.

 

Let me suggest whipping to tilt the scale. What if I say that one stolen car = 200 whip lashes. Is that good ?

The point still remains that punishment increases with the severity of the crime.

 

I see little light in this reasoning. The state must do certain things to send messages, so it must abuse criminals ?

No, the state must do certain things to execute justice. it doesn't matter if a message was sent or not.

 

Not only are all those arguments completely out of the punishment for justice basic, but they all assume that the governement must send those moral messages (yet a government is amoral) and it cannot do it any other way.

The arguments are the essence of justice, and you haven't constructed a valid argument to state otherwise.

 

I believe it originated as a deterrent in small, barbaric societies. Nowaday it is'nt so anymore. The deterring effect just is'nt strong enough to be mentionned.

It's hard to quantify that statement, but as I've mentioned, if it saves on innocent person then it has served a valid and worthy purpose.

[Tetrahedrite]

Why is drug trafficcing punishable by death in Florida? Surely the penalty doesn't fit the crime?

[blike]

Why is drug trafficcing punishable by death in Florida? Surely the penalty doesn't fit the crime?

Agreed.

[Rakasha]

Oh my, I edited my post above for some clarity before realising that it was answered and quoted. Well, you know, it's late...

 

Could you clarify ?

 

Of course. You were asked why the state had the right to kill. Your answer was that it was for the same reason that it can incarcerate, that means, because it have special rights to do it's job. I meant to answer that the state should only possess the rights that it needs, and it does'nt need the right to kill harmless persons.

 

Idealist!

 

No social justice system was ever formed on the basis of rehablitation.

 

1- Appeal to tradition ?

 

2- Grrr, I have some beef with the way you always mention a justice system to prove your point that justice is naturally the purpose of the law system. Of course this sentence it's right, how could a justice system be formed on anything else than justice ? The problem is... I don't think the law IS a social justice system. Not anymore, not in a modern society.

 

I was stating that laws are based on what is deemed just [aka fair]. This is evidenced by the fact that punishments fit the crime.

 

And I was pointing that this is'nt an acceptable argument. You cannot claim that the law MUST be based on justice because it seems to be currently the case.

 

No, the state must do certain things to execute justice. it doesn't matter if a message was sent or not.

Hum, about what you said earlier...

Capital punishment is an effective way of confirming that it's citizens lives are invaluable.

 

You wrote as an argument for C.P. that it is useful to send a message. I'm happy to see that you take back this claim.

 

The arguments are the essence of justice, and you haven't constructed a valid argument to state otherwise.

 

Could you clarify ?

 

if it saves on innocent person then it has served a valid and worthy purpose.

 

The same argument can be used against C.P. because of the possiblity of a false conviction.

 

In this member's mind, it is completely justifiable and morally correct to murder an unborn child (partial birth, half-in, half-out) and yet it is completely unjustifiable and immoral to murder a serial killer.

 

Ad hominem, youpi-dou-yay-yay.

[Artorius]

Why is drug trafficcing punishable by death in Florida? Surely the penalty doesn't fit the crime?

So Americans do something right after all then...dead people cannot traffic drugs.

[JaKiri]

The answer is no

 

Can you respond to my post please?

[blike]

Just a few quick things. I'll respond to your post later this afternoon Rakasha.

 

Ad hominem, youpi-dou-yay-yay.

That's not an ad hominem, that's stating your positions. Is it not correct? I didn't make any judgements about that position (other than that I believe it is hypocritical), or any judgements about your character. I did make the assumption that you judge according to what you feel is justifiable and morally correct, is that not correct?

 

 

Can you respond to my post please?

Yes, I will respond to it later this afternoon or early this evening. Sorry I missed it earlier.

 

I have physics for medicine final in 2 hours