Tories to re-introduce Death-penalty?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Really? I understand it is not an easy parabole to accept, but the fact is if you oppose thieves and drug peddlersadulterers being beheaded in Saudi Arabia, you are not opposing the fact that a criminal was executed, you are opposing the proceedure in place to justify their execution.

Well, no I would not be opposing a criminal being executed, I would be opposing a particular kind of criminal being exeucted. Or someone being killed in a certain context. Context is everything. Opposing people being killed whatever the context strikes me as a difficult position to maintain. What of war-time?

I think your point is indeed splitting hairs, for the same argument could be used with imprisonment. If China started imprisoning people for 50 years for speaking against the Communist Party then I could say "Well, you can't condemn them for imprisoning people, after all - you support imprisonment in a completley different context".

And obviously some "state-sponsored" killings are less evil and reprehensible than others. See also: just wars and some hostage/seige situations.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

When we hear of a woman being stoned in Nigeria for adultery, I do not think "What a mad country that would kill someone in some context", I would think the country is mad for killing someone for such a stupid reason (and obviously the means used).

why can't you just respect their culture you ethnocentric asshole you?

anyway, nobody is saying that their isn't a difference between killing someone for mass murder and stoning a woman for being a lesbian,

people are just noting that pragmatism calls for policy that can't be rush limbaughed into sounding hypocritical with misleading sound bites;

i.e., "the death penalty is wrong, we don't do it, neither should you" communicates (especially across language barriers) far better than
"while under certain circumstances including due process and a carefully monitored appeals process the death penalty can be executed in a just manner, your society lacks the proper institutions and has a legal system which is not conducive to egalitarian treatment before the law...etc"

(it's not an issue of what is right and wrong, it's an issue of appearances. and people are dumb)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

why can't you just respect their culture you ethnocentric asshole you?

Cause my culture is better than theirs.

(it's not an issue of what is right and wrong, it's an issue of appearances. and people are dumb)

I don't decide my politics by what sounds good (as you've probably noted).

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Cause my culture is better than theirs. I don't decide my politics by what sounds good (as you've probably noted).

your politics:
'i support what i think is right'

my politics:
'i support the utilitarian interest, which i feel is often best pursued through a system of pragmatics that often leads to choosing policies which are no better than their alternatives (or even sometimes slightly worse on their own) simply because they don't afford political cover for entities that are moving against the utilitarian interest'

seems to me you're the one who has chosen politics that sound good.

and i agree with your first sentence.

[queball]

Originally Posted by acropolis

'i support the utilitarian interest, which i feel is often best pursued through a system of pragmatics that often leads to choosing policies which are no better than their alternatives (or even sometimes slightly worse on their own) simply because they don't afford political cover for entities that are moving against the utilitarian interest'

How do you know they're not doing the same to you?

[inf]

the death penalty is sanctioned murder.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

I am not sure Alfred Rosenburg would agree. It is near-impossible to separate politics from capitol punishment as long as the death penalty exists for non-first degree murder crimes.

I meant genuinely, direct political reasons for the killing of someone, rather than "We're all going to pretend that the death penalty is just and useful."

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

seems to me you're the one who has chosen politics that sound good.

Utilitarianism sucks.

Anyway, I think the effect on international use of the death penalty by what the US (say) does is rather negligible. I mean, dozens of UN Resolutions later and we still have child labour problems, human right violations, etc, etc.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by inf

the death penalty is sanctioned murder.

Since almost all definitions of murder include the phrase "unlawful killing", that's kind of meaningless.

[inf]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Since almost all definitions of murder include the phrase "unlawful killing", that's kind of meaningless.

I'm not concerned with legal defintions, muder - killing of a human person.

[Bunga]

No.

Murder = intentional killing of a fellow sentient being.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by inf

muder - killing of a human person.

Then why not just say "killing" if you're going to be that broad in term? What about self-defence? What about in war? Etc.

[W]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Firstly, drug addiction rates in the US penal institutions are higher than in the general non-incarcerated population.

Semi-sucessfully enforcing a drug ban in prisons seems like a different thing than "rehabilitation", but perhaps my connotations are all messed up. When people talk of rehabilitation, my first association is mental coercion and/or drug "therapy". The only criminals that in any way can be rehabilitated for their own good are the ones who are stupid, and are willing to learn. If their values clash with societies, they can learn that compromising is the only way of living freely. If their values aren't contrary to society, they can be showed where their reasoning was wrong. But you can't force knowledge and understanding on someone, you can only give them the opportunity. Prison libraries is highly supported.

Secondly, if your argument is true, then why do some states, like the US have so much higher a recidivism rate?

Note how I used the word "here" in the post. The situation is different in the US, mainly because people commit crimes for wildly different reasons.

In Scandinavia, finland in particular, there is a genuine attempt to rehabilitate criminals.

I'm not so sure, but again it depends on the definition

Of course it does not always work, but it certainly works, percentage wise, far better then throwing them into a maximum security shit-hole for a while, and hoping that they come out of it somehow better people.

I find that this approach is what IS used here, and that it works here, where it wouldn't and don't work in the US.

Because freedom of movement can be returned. Life is somewhat more tricky.

If I lose the freedom of movement for 5 years, how can I get those 5 years back? You have to get some perspective here, see what prisoners really lose.

[W]

Originally Posted by Bunga

No.

Murder = intentional killing of a fellow sentient being.

Ignoring the abuse of connotations, I then support murder, and suspect that you do too.

[Bunga]

No I don't. Human life is the most precious thing we have.

[W]

Originally Posted by Bunga

No I don't. Human life is the most precious thing we have.

Sometimes it can't be avoided. If someone points a gun at you with the intent to kill you, either you or him will die.

Oh and just because something is valued highest, doesn't mean it's invaluable. The most expensive metal in the world can still be bought with money.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Murder = intentional killing of a fellow sentient being.

*Sigh* Once again, this is a really unsuitable definition for all sorts of reasons (self-defence, diminished responsibility, some war occurances).

[Bunga]

Not really. You don't have to kill a person while defending yourself. If you try to use non-lethal force but fail, and the assailant dies, its not intentional. If by diminished responsibility you mean mentally challeneged people or children... alright. I would have to modiy it there. But as I see war as morally repellant anyway, I have to stick with it here.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

*Sigh* Once again, this is a really unsuitable definition for all sorts of reasons (self-defence, diminished responsibility,

If you kill someone in self-defence or whilst in a state of diminished responsibility, it's not murder, but manslaughter. At least, under British law.

Murder in a legal context simply relies on intentional killing without a defence.

Or am I missing your point?

[W]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Not really. You don't have to kill a person while defending yourself. If you try to use non-lethal force but fail, and the assailant dies, its not intentional. If by diminished responsibility you mean mentally challeneged people or children... alright. I would have to modiy it there. But as I see war as morally repellant anyway, I have to stick with it here.

Of course, your absolute valuing of all sentient life is only that, your values, and isn't necesarilly shared by, or can be argued with, the rest of society.

Also, you don't always have any non-letal ways of defending yourself, and even the most harmless defence does risk killing someone. So if you defend breaking the arm of someone with a gun to disarm him, even if you risk him having complications and later dying in a hospital, I can defend shooting at someone head, as I'm only risking their life, they might with luck survive.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

If you kill someone in self-defence or whilst in a state of diminished responsibility, it's not murder, but manslaughter. At least, under British law.

Murder in a legal context simply relies on intentional killing without a defence.

Originally Posted by inf

I'm not concerned with legal defintions

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

If you kill someone in self-defence or whilst in a state of diminished responsibility, it's not murder, but manslaughter.

Erm, that was my point. Bunga said that was murder, I disagreed.

[Bunga]

If you break someone's arm, you are trying to break their arm, not kill them. Hence, its not intentional killing if they happen to die. Shooting someone in the head is different. If any person shoots another person in the head it is with the express purpose of killing them. The intent is for the person to die. If it wasn't, the assailant would shoot him somewhere else, as the head is notoriously difficult to hit.

And of course my valueing human life is just my opinion. Its some other people's opinions as well of course. Not everyone has to have the same opinions. But I can certainly argue it with anyone who is at least moderatly coherrant.

From a purely economic viewpoint, there is a virtually infinate demand for a given person's life (to share it, not take it), but a supply which tends toward zero. Logically, its value tends to the infinate.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Bunga

If you break someone's arm, you are trying to break their arm, not kill them. Hence, its not intentional killing if they happen to die. Shooting someone in the head is different. If any person shoots another person in the head it is with the express purpose of killing them. The intent is for the person to die. If it wasn't, the assailant would shoot him somewhere else, as the head is notoriously difficult to hit.

And if I shoot you in the heart?

And of course my valueing human life is just my opinion. Its some other people's opinions as well of course. Not everyone has to have the same opinions. But I can certainly argue it with anyone who is at least moderatly coherrant.

Yes, you have values based on intent, which is ok for a lot of circumstances. But this sort of absolutism doesn't stand up to analysis - you would rather someone let a million innocents die than intentionally killing one person, apparently.

From a purely economic viewpoint, there is a virtually infinate demand for a given person's life (to share it, not take it), but a supply which tends toward zero. Logically, its value tends to the infinate.

No. David D. Friedman has explained how economists can value life in legal situations at http://daviddfriedman.com/laws_order...er_page_95.htm

[Bunga]

Yes but friedman is a bit of a twat, isn't he?

When have I ever said that I would prefer 1,000,000 innocents die than intentionally killing one person? As far as I can tell, never. If you aim to shoot me in the heart, you intended to kill me. If you meant to shoot me in a non-lethal way, you didn't.

[queball]

When have I ever said that I would prefer 1,000,000 innocents die than intentionally killing one person? As far as I can tell, never. If you aim to shoot me in the heart, you intended to kill me. If you meant to shoot me in a non-lethal way, you didn't.

You didn't say it, but you did say that you don't "support" murder, while giving a definition of murder. And you said "The intent is for the person to die. If it wasn't, the assailant would shoot him somewhere else, as the head is notoriously difficult to hit.", but I'd like to point out this is misleading, since the best place to shoot to disable someone (afaik, I'm not a trained killer) is the body.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Bunga

If you aim to shoot me in the heart, you intended to kill me. If you meant to shoot me in a non-lethal way, you didn't.

If you shoot someone and they die you're likely to be charged with murder, no matter whether you intended them to die or not. That's because when you shoot someone you have a reasonable expectation that it may kill them even if you hope it won't. A shot in the leg can catch the femoral artery, a shot in the foot can kill someone with shock, and so on.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Shooting someone in the head is different.

No actual marksmen or similar try to shoot people in the head. It's unreliable when you want a quick takedown. [queball, you're right]

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

No actual marksmen or similar try to shoot people in the head. It's unreliable when you want a quick takedown. [queball, you're right]

only because there isn't a disembodied voice that calls out "headshot"

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

only because there isn't a disembodied voice that calls out "headshot"

Momomooooooooooooonster Kiiiiiiiiiiiiiill

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Momomooooooooooooonster Kiiiiiiiiiiiiiill

Rampaaage....

[Ste]

Originally Posted by acropolis

IBut you have to note that that's all a dodge, none of it explains why Europe would have lower crime rates than us.

A better explanation would be immigration into the US. Poor folk break a lot of laws, and immigrants are poor. I would hazard that areas in the UK that have lots of immigrants have relatively high rates as well.

Have you watched Bowling for Columbine by any chance?
Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with his point of view, it brings up a lot of interesting points.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Ste

Have you watched Bowling for Columbine by any chance?
Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with his point of view, it brings up a lot of interesting points.

offhand i'd guess the non-firearm murder rate in america is bigger than total murder rates in most other industrialized countries.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Utilitarianism sucks.

odd coming from a commie

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Anyway, I think the effect on international use of the death penalty by what the US (say) does is rather negligible. I mean, dozens of UN Resolutions later and we still have child labour problems, human right violations, etc, etc.

isn't that my point? 'as long as security council countries (like the US and Russia) have the death penalty, any human rights resolutions from the UN will be ineffective because they will look hypocritical.'

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by acropolis

offhand i'd guess the non-firearm murder rate in america is bigger than total murder rates in most other industrialized countries.

I presume you mean per capita.

[Radical Edward]

he probably meant in the absolute sense.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I presume you mean per capita.

i thought that was how rate was defined(?) but it would be more likely to be true if it wasn't per capita (we got more peeps etc)

[edit]i'm right.

US total homicide rate = 5.7 (per 100000), firearm homicide rate = 3.7,

so us non-firearm = 1.98.

compare to the other European countries, they are mostly around 1 including firearm homicide rate.

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

he probably meant in the absolute sense.

nope

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

only because there isn't a disembodied voice that calls out "headshot"

oh yes there is

[Vermillion]

Even if, for a moment, one ignored the moral reprehensability of the Death penalty, and the hypocracy of a civilised state taking revenge on its own citizens, lets consider another factor.

Most of the CP supporters here seem to be saying, for example in your comparasons with Nigerea or Saudi Arabia, that the Death penalty is acceptable if it is applied by rule of law, and not by politics or imposed due to extra-legal influences.

Currently, 44% of all prisoners on death row in the United States are black, thats out of a national population of about 9%. The percentage of black prisoner population has remained between 40-50% since about 1975, before 1975 there were consistently more blacks on death row than non-blacks.

Now the reasons for this statistic are widely debated, but it seems likely that there exists a certain amount (possibly a large amount) of racism in the criminal system. If the number were a few percentage points higher than the average population, then one might assume a statistical blip, or perhaps other causes, but 44% as opposed to 9% is a massive inequity, and nobody has ever managed to put forward a convincing explanation apart from racism.

In Nigeria, a woman was to be executed, essentially because she was a women, as a man in her case would not have sentenced to death (or likely even charged). However, it it not possible that people in the US are being executed because they are black?

Maybe, maybe not, but there is a strong possibility that this is the case, and given the situation, it seems a moral imperative to stop killing people, at least until somebody figures out what the problem is, one way or the other.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Currently, 44% of all prisoners on death row in the United States are black, thats out of a national population of about 9%.

Actually, blacks account for 12.3% of the US population (source: 2000 census). And while blacks are overrepresented on death row, they're no more overrepresented then in the general prison population--which is also 44% (source: Human Rights Watch).

Now the reasons for this statistic are widely debated, but it seems likely that there exists a certain amount (possibly a large amount) of racism in the criminal system. If the number were a few percentage points higher than the average population, then one might assume a statistical blip, or perhaps other causes, but 44% as opposed to 9% is a massive inequity, and nobody has ever managed to put forward a convincing explanation apart from racism.

Poverty, single-parent families, and low education have all been put forward as root causes of crime--and all correlate hightly with race as well.

And I wouldn't be inclined to consider the criminal justice system as the culprit in any case, as the biggest source for increased prison populations are long mandatory sentences for drug and property crimes as well as tighter parole restrictions (measures which are taking discretion away from the criminal justice system).

Maybe, maybe not, but there is a strong possibility that this is the case, and given the situation, it seems a moral imperative to stop killing people, at least until somebody figures out what the problem is, one way or the other.

If there is a problem, why wouldn't it also be morally imperative to stop imprisioning people (often with long mandatory sentences) until someone figures out what the problem is, one way or the other?

[W]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

"We don't know you, but we've decided you are bad and beyond redemption. You have been captured and imprisoned and are no longer a threat to society and you have lost your freedom, but that's not enough. To show you how bad killing is, we'll kill you, that'l learn ya." The failings of this response is that as far as I can see it's doubling the tragedy, now one more person is dead, one more family is bereaved and for what, the other person is still dead, their family may gain some small satisfaction

Same goes for imprissoning kidnappers then? "We've captured you, found out you've robbed people of their freedoms, but instead of just putting your out of your missery, we'll show you how bad robbing people of their freedom is, by imprisoning you."

but it's not the job of the state to service revenge.

I would think that is up to the citizens of the state to deside?

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Currently, 44% of all prisoners on death row in the United States are black, thats out of a national population of about 9%. The percentage of black prisoner population has remained between 40-50% since about 1975, before 1975 there were consistently more blacks on death row than non-blacks.

I do not support the death penalty in the United States, for more than this reason.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by W

Same goes for imprissoning kidnappers then? "We've captured you, found out you've robbed people of their freedoms, but instead of just putting your out of your missery, we'll show you how bad robbing people of their freedom is, by imprisoning you."

Are more humane Mikado never
Did in Japan exist,
To nobody second,
I'm certainly reckoned
A true philanthropist.
It is my very human endeavour
To make, to some extent,
Each evil liver
A running river
Of harmless merriment.

My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time --
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each pris'ner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment,
Of innocent merriment!

All prosy dull society sinners,
Who chatter and bleat and bore,
Are sent to hear sermons
From mystical Germans
Who preach from ten till four.
The amateur tenor, whose vocal villainies
All desire to shirk,
Shall, during off hours,
Exhibit his powers
To Madame Tussaud's waxwork.

The lady who dyes a chemical yellow,
Or stains her grey hair puce,
Or pinches her figger,
Is blacked like a ******
With permanent walnut juice.
The idiot who, in railway carriages,
Scribbles on window-panes,
We only suffer
To ride on a buffer
In Parliament'ry trains.

My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time --
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each pris'ner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment,
Of innocent merriment!

Chorus

His object all sublime
He will achieve in time --
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each pris'ner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment,
Of innocent merriment!

Mikado

The advertising quack who wearies
With tales of countless cures,
His teeth, I've enacted,
Shall all be extracted
By terrified amateurs.
The music-hall singer attends a series
Of masses and fugues and "ops"
By Bach, interwoven
With Spohr and Beethoven,
At classical Monday Pops.

The billiard sharp whom anyone catches,
His doom's extremely hard --
He's made to dwell
In a dungeon cell
On a spot that's always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches
In fitless finger-stalls,
On a cloth untrue,
With a twisted cue
And elliptical billiard balls.

My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time --
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each pris'ner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment,
Of innocent merriment!

Chorus

His object all sublime
He will achieve in time --
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each pris'ner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment,
Of innocent merriment!

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Actually, blacks account for 12.3% of the US population (source: 2000 census). And while blacks are overrepresented on death row, they're no more overrepresented then in the general prison population--which is also 44% (source: Human Rights Watch).

Poverty, single-parent families, and low education have all been put forward as root causes of crime--and all correlate hightly with race as well.

Racism has also been put forward as root cause of this statistical aberation, and it certainly corolates highly with race. Racism has been put forward by a lot of people actually. Low education and single parent families are not the domain of blacks in the nited States, and besides, it is quite possible many of these factors include racism as a root cause.

The fact is, there is a strong argument that death penalties are being handed out unproportionatly due to racism, directly or indirectly. That is, in principle if not in scale, the same problem as in Nigeria.

And I wouldn't be inclined to consider the criminal justice system as the culprit in any case, as the biggest source for increased prison populations are long mandatory sentences for drug and property crimes as well as tighter parole restrictions (measures which are taking discretion away from the criminal justice system).

Irrelevant, as all this 'conditions' apply to whites as well as blacks.

If there is a problem, why wouldn't it also be morally imperative to stop imprisioning people (often with long mandatory sentences) until someone figures out what the problem is, one way or the other?

Why do you keep drawing paraboles between inprisonment and exeution, as if they were comparable? If someone is imprisoned, they can be released, and if deemed necessary, they can be compensated in other means. Someone who is dead is good and dead.

[acropolis]

while it is true that in some states the death penalty is applied pretty clearly in a racist manner (not naming any particular alabamas), the actual statistics make it pretty clear that white people are more likely to get the death penalty than blacks, given comparable crimes.

but that's beside the point. even if all executions ever were black people, that wouldn't seem to me a good reason to end it. more a reason to ask why more whites aren't getting zapped.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by acropolis

while it is true that in some states the death penalty is applied pretty clearly in a racist manner (not naming any particular alabamas), the actual statistics make it pretty clear that white people are more likely to get the death penalty than blacks, given comparable crimes.

What statistics exactly? Certainly not the ones we both have quoted above. Those, and combined with the department of justice stats (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm) Show that blacks form 12% of the US population, 37% of the penal population, and 44% of the Death Row population. How exactly does that show that whites are more likely to get the death penalty than blacks?

but that's beside the point. even if all executions ever were black people, that wouldn't seem to me a good reason to end it. more a reason to ask why more whites aren't getting zapped.

So there goes your moral argument entirely then. Ok, just wanted to be clear.

So your problem with the Nigeria stoning was not that a young woman was being stoned to death, but that her lover was not also being stoned to death?

Let me put this another way. Why EXACTLY do you support the death penalty?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Most of the CP supporters here seem to be saying, for example in your comparasons with Nigerea or Saudi Arabia, that the Death penalty is acceptable if it is applied by rule of law, and not by politics or imposed due to extra-legal influences.

Your argument is a wonderful one against the death penalty in the United States, but completley irrelevent agains the death penalty in general.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Let me put this another way. Why EXACTLY do you support the death penalty?

I think a lot of people support the death penalty because it's very easy to identify with the concept of justice. You kill someone without adequate cause or justification, you get killed with adequate cause or justification.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think a lot of people support the death penalty because it's very easy to identify with the concept of justice. You kill someone without adequate cause or justification, you get killed with adequate cause or justification.

Eye for an eye doesn't work though.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Your argument is a wonderful one against the death penalty in the United States, but completley irrelevent agains the death penalty in general.

Not really. I use the US as an example. The death penalty CANNOT be divorced from politics. In Nigeria it is applied due to the Sharia, in the US it is often applied due to race or politics. Most other western nations have abolished it for this very reason, and for the reason that legal systems are not perfect, and executing an innocent person is, in fact, murder.

Find me a state where the death penalty is perfectly applied without prejudice, malice or political influence, and where it is applied correctly 100% of the time, never making mistakes. If you can find such a state, then perhaps you have an argument for the Death penalty.

There is a reason the world is moving away from this barbaric form of institutionalised revenge, it is because people started to realise that the above utopic state is impossible.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

"We don't know you, but we've decided you are bad and beyond redemption. You have been captured and imprisoned and are no longer a threat to society and you have lost your freedom, but that's not enough. To show you how bad killing is, we'll kill you, that'l learn ya."

A few issues here. It's unlikely that a dangerous murderer is no threat to society. He is a threat to other prisoners (generally, unless he is in total solitary confinement for ever) and he is often a threat to people who work in prisons. This is even ignoring the possibility of escape or similar.

Secondly : Who said we'd kill people to show them how bad killing was? That's a strawman.

This is why I support the death penalty (in theory, not practice) :

Everyone has various rights. Key among these rights are the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You're freedom to act ends once your begin to negate the rights of others. If this takes place in a serious enough fashion (e.g. if you rob someone, or rape, or whatever) then we might have to deprive you of your life, liberty or some other right (e.g. the right to go to certain areas). The nature of the rights you are deprived of are more of a technical issue.

We call this process "justice".

Whether this justice is carried out by one man, one hundred men, or one hundred million men acting either as an agry mob or as a complicated systems of courts is largely irrelevent (which conversely is why I'd support the end of the monopoloy of violence by the state). The key issues remain the same. You take away's someone's rights (e.g. by killing someone), and yours are taken away.

You can see it as revenge if you want (I don't mind the term at all) I see it as merelythe voluntarily surrending of your right to life by inappropriate behaviour.

If you feel execution is a harsh punishment (by either a mob, or a government) then do not violate others rights in the first place. Note : At no point do I assert that this course of action or logic would reduce crime, or be utilitarian in any fashion. I'm talking about just behaviour, not productive outcomes.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Eye for an eye doesn't work though.

Just because something doesn't work in every single situation (and what the **** does in reality) doesn't mean you shouldn't apply it in the situations it quite clearly can be used in.








PS Verm your argument could almost be used against all forms of legal punishment as they can all be inherently biased. Or do you feel that the act of killing someone goes onto some sort of new level where laws have to be examined differently?

[Bunga]

That would be a state where the Death Penalty exists but is never used.