What's Your View On The Death Penalty?

[Graelwyn]

. The state shouldn't kill people for punishment because they might be wrong. Wrong about what? Killing people?

I think most of us have in mind that they might be wrong about the person's guilt. But yeah, sometimes a State does completely change it's view about whether it's right to kill unarmed criminals in custody (I'm picking nits here, you notice?) which would imply that it's previous stance is now considered "wrong".

I very much  doubt that moral absolutism has any serious place in this argument, though.  I notice that absolutists can too easily take  completely opposite stances, depending on their personal socio-political background, personal experience of life, etc., none of which really matter a damn to guy facing death, the guy who's been wronged, the guy who's supposed to pass judgement, and the guy who's supposed to push the button. All these people deserve to be adressed as real human beings facing  a very real , very individual, very grave situation, IMO. You can't resolve it all with a wave of god's hand, so to speak. Whatever our opinion is,  that's just too dismissive.

I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement that would prove "right" in every instance, even if we all took the exact same ethical stance. There's always a lot we don't know. And if you pose a question like this generically, then that's to say: we know bugger all about the individuals concerned. Nada . Squat. And neither do we care. It's all the same if it's Jack the Ripper, or my grandma, and never mind why they did what they did, etc. 

This topic is about government killing citizens to punish them, and citizens granting them the right to do that.

I'm gona pick nits again. It isn't. It asks:  "What's Your View On The Death Penalty? " I don't see the word "punish" in there at all. As I said before, imprisonment/execution are practicalties  that really shouldn't get mixed up with "punishment", iMO, not if you'd rather arrive at a rational solution to all the issues involved.

The state simply should not have the right to punish its citizenship with death. This is my view on the death penalty.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but that's too absolutist a stance, IMO.    The state does assume the right to keep Law and order. It's not in any position to just say: OK I won't do that. It has to consider alternatives for achieving the same objective- whatever that objective is.   There are people whom  nobody wants to be running round loose. That's the main issue, seems to me. The only other realistic alternative to death in such cases appears to be imprisonment.

Now , depending on the State in question and other variables, imprisonment might mean being thrown into a filthy hell-hole where you're regularly gang-raped, beaten, and starved. So I wouldn't be too fast to assume that's the kinder alternative. Supposing that matters.

OK, nobody has the right to do that, either. But it happens. How much effort is Society in general willing to put into ensuring that it doesn't? never enough, most likely. Because  then you start running into thorny moral issues like " Should prisoners' rights be more important  than the right of poor people to have food  eat?" and then you've got another bunch of emotive and absolutist  arguments coming at you, and you wind up with no clear right or wrong overall, unless you take the world apart and rebuild it from scratch.

So, I think sometimes the death penalty might be better, once you've weighed everything up. Though whether it's wise to enshrine that option in Law is another question altogether. I'd have to think about that long and carefully, if it were my job to think about it. Thankfully, it isn't.

 No-one has the right to weigh all those things up, but sometimes people have to anyway.


Oops. *sheepishly grins as she clambers off the podium*

Interesting post. As it is like 3.43am here currently, I don't think I will press my already weak brain to come up with responses, but suffice to say, I do agree that the response seemed to absolute. I have weighed up pros and cons of the Death sentence and come to the conclusion that for me, personally, it is not the way to go. It does not deter criminals, according to research, it does not bring back the person/s murdered, it impacts another family (that of the one sentenced to death), it costs more than imprisoning for life, from my research, it seems to stem, largely, from this idea of an eye for an eye, it is barbaric and unevolved, it can create sympathy for the condemned, it hardly gives the message that killing is wrong either, does it? There is probably more, but those are some of the reasons for my being against the death penalty, rather than pro.

[Jack]

. The state shouldn't kill people for punishment because they might be wrong. Wrong about what? Killing people?

I think most of us have in mind that they might be wrong about the person's guilt. But yeah, sometimes a State does completely change it's view about whether it's right to kill unarmed criminals in custody (I'm picking nits here, you notice?) which would imply that it's previous stance is now considered "wrong".

I very much  doubt that moral absolutism has any serious place in this argument, though.  I notice that absolutists can too easily take  completely opposite stances, depending on their personal socio-political background, personal experience of life, etc., none of which really matter a damn to guy facing death, the guy who's been wronged, the guy who's supposed to pass judgement, and the guy who's supposed to push the button. All these people deserve to be adressed as real human beings facing  a very real , very individual, very grave situation, IMO. You can't resolve it all with a wave of god's hand, so to speak. Whatever our opinion is,  that's just too dismissive.

I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement that would prove "right" in every instance, even if we all took the exact same ethical stance. There's always a lot we don't know. And if you pose a question like this generically, then that's to say: we know bugger all about the individuals concerned. Nada . Squat. And neither do we care. It's all the same if it's Jack the Ripper, or my grandma, and never mind why they did what they did, etc. 

This topic is about government killing citizens to punish them, and citizens granting them the right to do that.

I'm gona pick nits again. It isn't. It asks:  "What's Your View On The Death Penalty? " I don't see the word "punish" in there at all. As I said before, imprisonment/execution are practicalties  that really shouldn't get mixed up with "punishment", iMO, not if you'd rather arrive at a rational solution to all the issues involved.

The state simply should not have the right to punish its citizenship with death. This is my view on the death penalty.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but that's too absolutist a stance, IMO.    The state does assume the right to keep Law and order. It's not in any position to just say: OK I won't do that. It has to consider alternatives for achieving the same objective- whatever that objective is.   There are people whom  nobody wants to be running round loose. That's the main issue, seems to me. The only other realistic alternative to death in such cases appears to be imprisonment.

Now , depending on the State in question and other variables, imprisonment might mean being thrown into a filthy hell-hole where you're regularly gang-raped, beaten, and starved. So I wouldn't be too fast to assume that's the kinder alternative. Supposing that matters.

OK, nobody has the right to do that, either. But it happens. How much effort is Society in general willing to put into ensuring that it doesn't? never enough, most likely. Because  then you start running into thorny moral issues like " Should prisoners' rights be more important  than the right of poor people to have food  eat?" and then you've got another bunch of emotive and absolutist  arguments coming at you, and you wind up with no clear right or wrong overall, unless you take the world apart and rebuild it from scratch.

So, I think sometimes the death penalty might be better, once you've weighed everything up. Though whether it's wise to enshrine that option in Law is another question altogether. I'd have to think about that long and carefully, if it were my job to think about it. Thankfully, it isn't.

 No-one has the right to weigh all those things up, but sometimes people have to anyway.


Oops. *sheepishly grins as she clambers off the podium*

On the point of absolutism, agreed, that's absolutely what am doing, and it's not intended as dismissive because am not actually making any argument, but rather stating a viewpoint which will never change. If in any way attempting to rationalize or argue my own point of view on this topic, will simply contradict myself and could easily make a few very good supporting arguments pro-death penalty. It's most likely a primordial instinctive response to the idea of handing my own leaders power over my own right to live; if it feels wrong then simply don't do it. That might not matter a damn in some places but here voters choose their leaders based on such viewpoints, so it does matter, and it matters to all the people listed. It's not a matter of anyone having to weigh all these things up, but if they are given the legal authority to. Seems an odd statement to say it's not your job to think about it. It's every citizen's job to think about it carefully if they plan on voting, but maybe things are different where you live. On the semantic argument of penalty vs punishment, penalty is by definition a punishment, there's no debating incarceration/execution are anything other than punishment, so not sure what that's supped to mean. 

[Jack]

Interesting post. As it is like 3.43am here currently, I don't think I will press my already weak brain to come up with responses, but suffice to say, I do agree that the response seemed to absolute. I have weighed up pros and cons of the Death sentence and come to the conclusion that for me, personally, it is not the way to go. It does not deter criminals, according to research, it does not bring back the person/s murdered, it impacts another family (that of the one sentenced to death), it costs more than imprisoning for life, from my research, it seems to stem, largely, from this idea of an eye for an eye, it is barbaric and unevolved, it can create sympathy for the condemned, it hardly gives the message that killing is wrong either, does it? There is probably more, but those are some of the reasons for my being against the death penalty, rather than pro.

Similar points could be used to argue against the existence of the prison system as a whole. Though the general public does have the right to be protected from violent criminals and the state has the obligation to provide it; it's just not actually a necessity to kill anyone to achieve that. Murdering murderers is certainly a convoluted practice, agreed, but the notion of governments having the right to kill citizens is completely absurd, and it's most absurd in places where the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.

[Gopher Gary]

it's most absurd in places where the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.

People who support the death of others don't really feel in any way accountable or responsible when people die. They just read about it in the paper or hear about it on the news, if they even know about it at all. It's so detached and that's why it's easy to support. Executions should be public stoning in the streets, so the true supporters of a death sentence can actively participate. 

[Walkie]

Seems an odd statement to say it's not your job to think about it. It's every citizen's job to think about it carefully if they plan on voting, but maybe things are different where you live.

Having pretty much agreed on the principle that it would normally be preferable to both Society and crimininal to let the criminal live,it's not my job to go on to think about whether it would be a good or bad thing overall if the Law were formulated so as to allow exceptions, in exceptional circumstance, eg the criminal preferring to die, thanks. It's not my job, because to do that issue full justice would take so much thought and so much research, I'd have no time left for all the other important questions, nor any other job, come to that. Some thinking just has to be left to specialists, like it or not, cos the human brain can't encompass every damned thing. That's all I meant.

Besides, i've no confidence in the knd of legal and political systems that we have. I think anybody's time would be much better employed in contemplating radical alternatives than in trying to tweak them.

I don't expect to ever get to vote on this issue at all, unless there's gonna be a referendum. The chance to buy  a man's opinions as a job-lot doesn't really impress me, especially not when he's likely to drop them once he gets into power.

But, leaving that aside, and  supposing that  my vote did make a difference, how do you make it the voter's job to think about every important issue?

Most voters think in such a shallow way, it would be a whole lot better if they didn't think at all, because they're far too easily swayed by rhetorical trickery. . And those who do think a bit more deeply are so far from forming a consensus on any political issue that i fail to see this as a realistic means of pulling the right answer out of the hat, if such a thing even exists.

We need more quality thought. Or something. We need the show to be run by people who actually care, not by people who like to be in power.  We need...no I don't have any magic answer as to how we could ever get things onto some sort of  sensible footing. But I really don't like what we've got.  really don't believe that we couldn't do better if we only put our minds to it.

I'm sure it's everybody's job  to think for themselves. But to place faith  in the sham we call "democracy" seems to me to be counter to thinking for myself, at the present juncture in my life. I seem to have thought myself out of that one.

[Walkie]

it's most absurd in places where the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.

People who support the death of others don't really feel in any way accountable or responsible when people die. They just read about it in the paper or hear about it on the news, if they even know about it at all. It's so detached and that's why it's easy to support. Executions should be public stoning in the streets, so the true supporters of a death sentence can actively participate. 

Oh yeah. They are sooo much more civilised in the Middle East, hmm?

[Walkie]

Though the general public does have the right to be protected from violent criminals and the state has the obligation to provide it  the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.

Hang on there. when I make that point, you tell me "No, no, no, its not about protecting people from criminals, it's  about punishment, silly girl.  It's a semantic error to try to seperate this question out from the all-important issue of punishing people"

Or words to that effect:

On the semantic argument of penalty vs punishment, penalty is by definition a punishment, there's no debating incarceration/execution are anything other than punishment, so not sure what that's supped to mean.

*huff*

[DirtDawg]

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.


Kind of paraphrased for the modern time in which we live, but we can not support the luxury of suspending maximum penalties for those who commit "maximum" crimes.
Sorry, but I would rather shoot the bastards in the act than put the courts and the taxpayers through this trauma.

It goes along with most everything I believe in. No death penalty is ever necessary. Once everyone is properly armed and trained, then there will no longer be a reason for a death penalty.

[odeon]

Absolutely believe some people deserve to die, but don't believe it should be anyone's right to make the decision to end another's life. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder.

Agreed.

[Gopher Gary]

it's most absurd in places where the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.

People who support the death of others don't really feel in any way accountable or responsible when people die. They just read about it in the paper or hear about it on the news, if they even know about it at all. It's so detached and that's why it's easy to support. Executions should be public stoning in the streets, so the true supporters of a death sentence can actively participate. 

Oh yeah. They are sooo much more civilised in the Middle East, hmm?

Oh not at all. It's much more civilized if I can kill people and keep my hands and conscience clean at the same time. 

[Arya Quinn]

I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.

If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible

[odeon]

Murder is murder.

[Jack]

Seems an odd statement to say it's not your job to think about it. It's every citizen's job to think about it carefully if they plan on voting, but maybe things are different where you live.

Having pretty much agreed on the principle that it would normally be preferable to both Society and crimininal to let the criminal live,it's not my job to go on to think about whether it would be a good or bad thing overall if the Law were formulated so as to allow exceptions, in exceptional circumstance, eg the criminal preferring to die, thanks. It's not my job, because to do that issue full justice would take so much thought and so much research, I'd have no time left for all the other important questions, nor any other job, come to that. Some thinking just has to be left to specialists, like it or not, cos the human brain can't encompass every damned thing. That's all I meant.

Besides, i've no confidence in the knd of legal and political systems that we have. I think anybody's time would be much better employed in contemplating radical alternatives than in trying to tweak them.

I don't expect to ever get to vote on this issue at all, unless there's gonna be a referendum. The chance to buy  a man's opinions as a job-lot doesn't really impress me, especially not when he's likely to drop them once he gets into power.

But, leaving that aside, and  supposing that  my vote did make a difference, how do you make it the voter's job to think about every important issue?

Most voters think in such a shallow way, it would be a whole lot better if they didn't think at all, because they're far too easily swayed by rhetorical trickery. . And those who do think a bit more deeply are so far from forming a consensus on any political issue that i fail to see this as a realistic means of pulling the right answer out of the hat, if such a thing even exists.

We need more quality thought. Or something. We need the show to be run by people who actually care, not by people who like to be in power.  We need...no I don't have any magic answer as to how we could ever get things onto some sort of  sensible footing. But I really don't like what we've got.  really don't believe that we couldn't do better if we only put our minds to it.

I'm sure it's everybody's job  to think for themselves. But to place faith  in the sham we call "democracy" seems to me to be counter to thinking for myself, at the present juncture in my life. I seem to have thought myself out of that one.

That's seems it might be a very wordy way of saying it's not a high priority. There's nothing wrong with saying it simply doesn't rank high in importance when considering the views of political candidates, or to not even care at all.

how do you make it the voter's job to think about every important issue?

It just is. You said no one has the right to weigh all of those things, but that's exactly what voters do. The best a voter can do is to be as informed as possible about the views of candidates, weigh that information, and vote according to the issues they personally find most important. It's unlikely a voter will encounter a political candidate who agrees with them on every issue, and it's perfectly acceptable if voters might believe the lives of murders don't take high priority in the issues the find important when voting.

[Jack]

Hang on there. when I make that point, you tell me "No, no, no, its not about protecting people from criminals, it's  about punishment, silly girl.  It's a semantic error to try to seperate this question out from the all-important issue of punishing people"

To say it seems to you I'm saying something is fine, don't quote words and say they came from me when they didn't, especially not gender based misquotes attacking anyone's intellect. When I attack your gender you'll know it, and it wont be a personal attack.

[Walkie]

Hang on there. when I make that point, you tell me "No, no, no, its not about protecting people from criminals, it's  about punishment, silly girl.  It's a semantic error to try to seperate this question out from the all-important issue of punishing people"

To say it seems to you I'm saying something is fine, don't quote words and say they came from me when they didn't, especially not gender based misquotes attacking anyone's intellect. When I attack your gender you'll know it, and it wont be a personal attack.

Oh, come on. I purposely  put the actual quote from you right after, for direct comparison,  to make it absolutely clear that was just my interpretation of your words , not an actual word-for-word quote. The speech marks were there for the sake of readabilty/grammar, not to mislead.   I thought my version was somewhat more light-hearted in tone than the actual quote (inasmuch as the "silly girl" bit was clearly my own insertion. I didn't anticipate that not being clear)

I thought our gender was the same? At least it's clear that others believe  you're female and I assumed they were right.  Sorry if I got that wrong. But anyway, that being so, it wouldn't occur to me to accuse you of a personal gender -based attack. well not unless it was so blatant it couldn't be taken any other way.

Anyway, sorry if I pissed you off. That wasn't my intention. A bit of a friendly dig at most was all I intended

er. Ooooooooooooooooooooops. Am i allowed to say that on Intensity? 

-Walkie