Considering the Death Penalty

[dimreepr]

It seems to me, given the psychological damage most humans suffer when killing a fellow human, the death penalty not only punishes the perpetrator but also the person tasked with carrying out the sentence.

[StringJunky]

It seems to me, given the psychological damage most humans suffer when killing a fellow human, the death penalty not only punishes the perpetrator but also the person tasked with carrying out the sentence.

in a few countries, execution protocols are such that no one knows who actually killed the condemned.

[magnocrat]

Robert Hare gives twenty questions for his psychopath test so it is not an arbitary pointing finger. We can all be callous but its much more. than that. The SS guards loved to feed the birds. I suspected myself but I passed with flying colours now I. can sleep easy tonight

[overtone]

 

 

Robert Hare gives twenty questions for his psychopath test so it is not an arbitary pointing finger.

Forbidding the death penalty prevents this kind of reasoning from being used as justification by one's government in ridding itself of screwups and enemies, or terrorizing recalcitrant populations.

[magnocrat]

That is true but are you saying that we have not the right to make the judgement that another human is unfit to live? It sounds a very Catholic view to me along the lines we must not play at being God.

We do play at being God more and more as science advances and we have more and more power over our own lives or deaths.

The only real danger is eugenics but we could argue we already practise it in favouring the haves of this world with the top medical treatment while the poor fend for themselves.

[Delta1212]

That is true but are you saying that we have not the right to make the judgement that another human is unfit to live? It sounds a very Catholic view to me along the lines we must not play at being God.

We do play at being God more and more as science advances and we have more and more power over our own lives or deaths.

The only real danger is eugenics but we could argue we already practise it in favouring the haves of this world with the top medical treatment while the poor fend for themselves.

Eugenics isn't about who lives longest. It's about who reproduces most. By and large, the rich are not having the largest families. The more money you have, the more children you could support, but the more access you also have to medical knowledge and technology that will help you restrict the number of unplanned children you have.

 

As a result, the wealthy tend to reproduce less, not more, which is the opposite effect of that you'd expect from a eugenics campaign.

[magnocrat]

It was started by Francis Galton who believed the lower classes should not be encouraged to breed as they were inferior.

You are right I was pointing out how the poor are side-lined today in just the same way, there are analogies. Lives are also measured against convenience and profit every day in government decisions all over the world. Notice how they proudly pronouce how many lives will be saved by enforcing the speed limit. While it is expedient some live others die.

[overtone]

 

 

That is true but are you saying that we have not the right to make the judgement that another human is unfit to live?

I don't care whether we have that right or not: We're fools if we give our government that power.

[magnocrat]

Well when we hand over the reins to government we allow alsorts of practices. The only way to be reasonably safe is to make sure there are plenty of different views expressed in the chamber of power.Couple this with a beligerent press and things are unlikely to get out of hand. Naturally we will have to put up with the abuse of taxpayers money oiling thd palms of those who control it but we can. live in relative freedom from tyrants.

[3blake7]

Has anyone considered mind-control in this debate? A person could be mind-controlled to commit a murder, as they showed on Discovery's Brainwashed. Considering all the other arguments, the outdated belief that people "deserve to be punished" and now the fact that even murder, with overwhelming evidence that a person did commit the murder, is ultimately circumstantial because the methods and technology exist to mind-control people. Isn't mind-control reason enough to abolish the death penalty?

[dimreepr]

Has anyone considered mind-control in this debate? A person could be mind-controlled to commit a murder, as they showed on Discovery's Brainwashed. Considering all the other arguments, the outdated belief that people "deserve to be punished" and now the fact that even murder, with overwhelming evidence that a person did commit the murder, is ultimately circumstantial because the methods and technology exist to mind-control people. Isn't mind-control reason enough to abolish the death penalty?

 

 

 

Whether considered or not it doesn’t move the argument forward; you’re either preaching to the converted or talking to a brick wall.

[Ten oz]

Has anyone considered mind-control in this debate? A person could be mind-controlled to commit a murder, as they showed on Discovery's Brainwashed. Considering all the other arguments, the outdated belief that people "deserve to be punished" and now the fact that even murder, with overwhelming evidence that a person did commit the murder, is ultimately circumstantial because the methods and technology exist to mind-control people. Isn't mind-control reason enough to abolish the death penalty?

While the idea of accidentally putting innocent people to death is obviously terrible in everyone's eyes on both sides of the debate I personally feel as a point of discussion its a distraction. What if guilt was known completely? What then; should we kill? The formality of guilt or fear of executing the innocent sort of implies that killing is okay long as it is the right person being killed. A concept I personally disagree with and believe is at the heart of any Death Penalty debate.

People feel justice, a enigmatic concept, can be served through killing. IMO that is circular logic that actually fosters the desire to kill in many people. Society has created caveats that make killing a reasonable thing. In relation to the death penalty debate proponents like to focus on the worst criminals like child murderers but in truth here in the USA we have laws on the books that allow citizens to kill other citizens for stuff simple as trespassing. Killing is in our psyche as an acceptable way to handle a multitude of situations. That needs to stop. Killing is wrong and the issue should be black and white. Killing should only ever be permissible to defends oneself or others from eminent bodily harm. Not the fear, suspicion, or possibility of harm. Killing is wrong and that principal must be fostered over long periods of time just as slavery being wrong, and women being equal have taken millennia foster as majority concepts.

Killing innocent people or people who were being controlled in someway is terrible. However the reason it is terrible shouldn't only be because they were innocent. It should also be because killing is wrong.

[zapatos]

Killing should only ever be permissible to defends oneself or others from eminent bodily harm. Not the fear, suspicion, or possibility of harm.

If someone is approaching you with a weapon and an angry look on his face, how do you know if you are moments away from 'imminent harm' or only the 'possibility of harm'?

Has anyone considered mind-control in this debate? A person could be mind-controlled to commit a murder, as they showed on Discovery's Brainwashed. Considering all the other arguments, the outdated belief that people "deserve to be punished" and now the fact that even murder, with overwhelming evidence that a person did commit the murder, is ultimately circumstantial because the methods and technology exist to mind-control people. Isn't mind-control reason enough to abolish the death penalty?

I don't really think that 'mind control' is a likely cause of very many murder for hire situations. Or any other murders for that matter. Do you have any evidence other than the Discovery Channel (Home of 'Texas Car Wars' and 'Moonshiners')?

[Ten oz]

If someone is approaching you with a weapon and an angry look on his face, how do you know if you are moments away from 'imminent harm' or only the 'possibility of harm'?

 

Context is everything. If a police officer came toward me with an angry look and a weapon most people would consider me foolish if I did anything other than took most docile posture possible. Change the scenario to me sleeping in my bedroom and hearing a noise coming from another room, investigating the noise, and being confronted by an approaching person with a weapon and all bets are off. Of course the law already allows for self protection. No one argues against self protection.

[Delta1212]

Context is everything. If a police officer came toward me with an angry look and a weapon most people would consider me foolish if I did anything other than took most docile posture possible. Change the scenario to me sleeping in my bedroom and hearing a noise coming from another room, investigating the noise, and being confronted by an approaching person with a weapon and all bets are off. Of course the law already allows for self protection. No one argues against self protection.

Unless that intruder turns out to be a police officer conducting a no-knock raid, in which case defending yourself may get you put up on a charge of capital murder, even if they don't find anything in your home and it turns out the warrant was probably based on a bogus tip.

[zapatos]

Context is everything. If a police officer came toward me with an angry look and a weapon most people would consider me foolish if I did anything other than took most docile posture possible. Change the scenario to me sleeping in my bedroom and hearing a noise coming from another room, investigating the noise, and being confronted by an approaching person with a weapon and all bets are off. Of course the law already allows for self protection. No one argues against self protection.

Okay, so let's look at a specific example.

 

I am walking with my wife down the street at night in the 'wrong' part of town, and a large fellow approaches us with an angry look on his face and a gun in his hand. He is dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. I am wearing expensive clothes, have a Rolex on my wrist, and am carrying a satchel. I am pretty sure I am going to get robbed, and in fact he begins to run toward us as we quicken our pace.

 

In this case, how do know if I am moments away from 'imminent harm' or only the 'possibility of harm'? Since you've made it clear that killing is permissible in the first case but not the second, I would like to know how you are going to judge the outcome if I pull out my gun and shoot him as he starts to raise his gun?

 

How do I determine if he was about to shoot me (imminent harm) or if he was about to point his gun at me and tell me to give him my watch and wallet (possibility of harm)?

 

If after the fact I can be either released on the grounds of self defense, or can be sent to prison for murder, I think it only fair that you tell me ahead of time the criteria you are going to use to judge me.

[Delta1212]

Okay, so let's look at a specific example.

 

I am walking with my wife down the street at night in the 'wrong' part of town, and a large fellow approaches us with an angry look on his face and a gun in his hand. He is dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. I am wearing expensive clothes, have a Rolex on my wrist, and am carrying a satchel. I am pretty sure I am going to get robbed, and in fact he begins to run toward us as we quicken our pace.

 

In this case, how do know if I am moments away from 'imminent harm' or only the 'possibility of harm'? Since you've made it clear that killing is permissible in the first case but not the second, I would like to know how you are going to judge the outcome if I pull out my gun and shoot him as he starts to raise his gun?

 

How do I determine if he was about to shoot me (imminent harm) or if he was about to point his gun at me and tell me to give him my watch and wallet (possibility of harm)?

 

If after the fact I can be either released on the grounds of self defense, or can be sent to prison for murder, I think it only fair that you tell me ahead of time the criteria you are going to use to judge me.

I think the fairest criteria is that if there are bullets in his gun, you are in imminent danger, and if there aren't, then you are merely afraid and not in real danger.

[imatfaal]

Okay, so let's look at a specific example.

 

I am walking with my wife down the street at night in the 'wrong' part of town, and a large fellow approaches us with an angry look on his face and a gun in his hand. He is dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. I am wearing expensive clothes, have a Rolex on my wrist, and am carrying a satchel. I am pretty sure I am going to get robbed, and in fact he begins to run toward us as we quicken our pace.

 

In this case, how do know if I am moments away from 'imminent harm' or only the 'possibility of harm'? Since you've made it clear that killing is permissible in the first case but not the second, I would like to know how you are going to judge the outcome if I pull out my gun and shoot him as he starts to raise his gun?

 

How do I determine if he was about to shoot me (imminent harm) or if he was about to point his gun at me and tell me to give him my watch and wallet (possibility of harm)?

 

If after the fact I can be either released on the grounds of self defense, or can be sent to prison for murder, I think it only fair that you tell me ahead of time the criteria you are going to use to judge me.

 

Would a reasonable man in your position think he was in danger? And does the court believe that you did actually feel this way? (this is a simplistic view of uk self defence idea)

 

It is very difficult for legislators to set up factual scenarios which are ok - and others which are not. There was a case not so long ago of a german tourist going into a texas (?) car port besides a house to pick up and return a wallet to the householder. Unbeknownst to him the wallet was a trap/lure and the householder shot him. I cannot remember what the outcome was but this demonstrates the danger of setting hard and fast fact-sets that allow deadly force - there is always the risk that those who wish to kill will deliberately generate those particular scenarios.

[zapatos]

I think the fairest criteria is that if there are bullets in his gun, you are in imminent danger, and if there aren't, then you are merely afraid and not in real danger.

Okay. So that means that after I shoot the guy, you are going to check his gun for bullets and if the gun was loaded it was self defense, and if not then I am guilty of murder. That seems rather harsh considering I couldn't really ask the guy to let me check his gun before I made the decision whether to shoot him or not.

 

Would a reasonable man in your position think he was in danger? And does the court believe that you did actually feel this way? (this is a simplistic view of uk self defence idea)

 

 

 

Which is of course where I am going with this. What you describe sounds to me like the only real way to judge this matter. What Ten oz is suggesting, that I somehow should know if danger is 'imminent' or only a 'possibility', is IMO not a reasonable expectation.

[Phi for All]

How do I determine if he was about to shoot me (imminent harm) or if he was about to point his gun at me and tell me to give him my watch and wallet (possibility of harm)?

You can't. Not until the gun goes off.

[zapatos]

You can't. Not until the gun goes off.

Then per Ten oz I can either hope that when he raises his gun at me he won't actually shoot, or I can shoot him first and risk breaking the law if he didn't have any bullets in the gun. Sounds rather unfair to me.

[Ten oz]

Okay, so let's look at a specific example.

 

I am walking with my wife down the street at night in the 'wrong' part of town, and a large fellow approaches us with an angry look on his face and a gun in his hand. He is dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. I am wearing expensive clothes, have a Rolex on my wrist, and am carrying a satchel. I am pretty sure I am going to get robbed, and in fact he begins to run toward us as we quicken our pace.

 

 

Walking or running around with a weapon in hand is illegal. It is called branishing a weapon "California penal code 417 PC" where I live. Your scenerio it absurd. The person you described would be in the act of commenting a crime. Assuming you were armed you'd have the right to pull out you weapon and challange that person. If they directed their weapon toward when challanged than it would be a clear case of self defense if you killed that person.

Then per Ten oz I can either hope that when he raises his gun at me he won't actually shoot, or I can shoot him first and risk breaking the law if he didn't have any bullets in the gun. Sounds rather unfair to me.

Imminent threats by legal standards are typically defined by what "a reasonable person" would think and or believe. If someone points a gun at you that pretty obviouly falls into what a reasonable person would view as an imminent threat to ones life.

[zapatos]

Your scenerio it absurd.

Which part? Someone with a gun? Being in a bad part of town? Having something of value on me?

 

I guess I don't get the distinction you are making between an imminent threat of harm (what a reasonable person would think) and 'fear, suspicion, or possibility of harm'. Can you please expand on this a bit?

[Ten oz]

Which part? Someone with a gun? Being in a bad part of town? Having something of value on me?

 

I guess I don't get the distinction you are making between an imminent threat of harm (what a reasonable person would think) and 'fear, suspicion, or possibility of harm'. Can you please expand on this a bit?

 

Unarmed people have been killed by armed people who have not been threatened or assaulted but claimed the person they killed appeared to be reaching for something, appeared to be have been armed, were trespassing, and etc. Those are cases where people killed based on suspicion or fear. Simply thinking someone may be armed and a threat should not be justification to kill them. If, as in your scenario, a person is clearly armed act in violation of the law and directs their weapon towards you I believe it would be self defense to kill them. In your scenario whether or not someone in armed and posing a threat is basically known and not merely suspected or assumed.

Worse still are cases like the one in Texas where Joe Horn killed 2 fleeing burglars who had witnessed burglarizing him neighbors home. Joe Horn wasn't protecting his life or the life of another. He gave 2 people an execution sentence for stealing and millions of people applauded it.

[MonDie]

Are we trying to spare as many lives as possible, or just punishing the intimidating person?

If I carry a gun, that's not only intimidating but unreasonable on my part. If I look sinister when I smile, that's also intimidating but largely out of my control.