. 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*
