The Death Penalty

[trillobyite]

Edit: If we go on like this I'm going to end up leaving the debate, because I get tired out really, really easily when dealing with a massive amount of text. It's a big fault and I may not belong on CT for it, but I should let you know....I will most likely respond though...

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

...except when the killer kills a person you aren't fond of.

My opinions on a killer who kills someone I'm not fond of are irrelevant. I would have no right to interfere.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Neither of you have that right. If a person breaks a rule that doesn't mean all rules are out, let alone that the new rule should be along the exact same lines as the violation of the past rule.

Well, frankly, I dont see why I can't punish the killer by the same rule he breaks. That itself is a human trait. In Dante's inferno, people are punished ironically as a result of whatever sin they commit. Hammurabi says "eye for an eye". Like I said, I operate differently than others. I think two wrongs make a right. The source of human ill is those who initially choose to break the rules, not those who respond.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

No it isn't, but I doubt your thoughts about other issues would be any less impure if you can think in the way you do at all. Maybe I should give you more credit, but having seen people make a certain type of mistake once and continue to make similar errors in their judgment in other fields, whether politics, sociology, whatever, I tend to get a certain picture of a person whenever they manifest any of these traits in thought I see so often.

Well we've already had run-ins in the past, me and you, so I think we'll come to be very much judgemental of each other here on CT

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

This may seem like a concession to you, but the fact that it places a persons life, even a murderers, beneath another persons emotions hardly strikes me as a good way for human beings to think or interact.

Well in my eyes, as soon as someone murders another, that person forfeits his/her right not to be punished in turn. Whether the victim's family chooses to use that to seek revenge or chooses instead to forgive is up to them. The problem with this debate is that I define society's ills not in the desire of humans to kill and then for revenge to be sought after, but for anyone to believe they have the right to kill initially with no good reason.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I'm sorry to tell you, but you don't. If you look through the topic you'll see more opinions in line with yours than in line with mine.

No I don't mean in terms of just the death penalty. I'm one of those people who sees things more in black and white than in grey. I think sometimes there is no compromise and that sometimes there can be only two sides or two options.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

This is actually understandable to me, and I'm sorry that you've had to deal with that type of interaction in your life, but I think there's an important consideration to make in terms of this. Self-defense is perfectly justifiable. You're defending your own life. Similarly defending others is justifiable in almost all instances. The problem is that the death penalty isn't an act of self defense. You've captured the enemy. They are at your disposal to do with as you please. To kill them when they pose no threat to you doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy as to kill them out of necessary self preservation.

Well of course it doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy, but that's because self-defense is the ultimate legitimate excuse for killing another.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Only thinking in terms of government is silly, but if the government has any place in the affair it should be this. They should only condemn feelings which lead to violence against persons and property. All other emotions should be neither supported nor condemned.

Plenty more feelings other than revenge can lead to rage. But I don't see the anger that results from adultery being outlawed, or adultery itself outlawed.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I personally don't think the government should play any role in the economy at all. Government intervention even in trying to help the poor inevitably just creates more poor and makes those who are already impoverished worse off. That's a separate discussion though.

Actually I strongly agree with you on that. I guess I had trouble finding a good example, but I think you know the point I was getting at.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

In some sense of morality, absolutely. Retribution in terms of the death penalty is something which places one human being above another, and even though the problem is that this was done to begin with, the "solution" is just an extension of the problem.

We're going to reach a loop again here. In my view, a killer places him/herself lower than those hurt by his/her actions through killing. Not everyone in the world is equal. A politician convicted for scandal should not be entrusted to hold his position and should not be treated with sympathy. That person is a criminal. That person placed himself below, as a human being, everyone else who is qualified to be an effective politician who wouldn't engage in corruption. A dictator who murders his own people is below other humans. By your logic, people like Adolf Eichmann or Mussolini shouldn't have been hanged because they were no longer a threat. Now I can actually see the argument behind that, but I just don't agree. By doing what they've done those people are officially lower, in every sense of the word, than those they have harmed. They have subjected themselves to the will of those they have harmed.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Maybe they don't, but you don't have the right to retribution either. The only reason I would say the government doesn't necessarily have this right is because in order to prevent you from killing the killer, it would have to detain you, or take away your ability to kill him in some other way. Generally however it does this by simultaneously taking away the killers freedom by putting him in prison. In this case, it doesn't seem to violate your rights to prevent you from going into the prison to kill them.

Well of course there shouldn't be some honor revenge killing on the spot. Procedures have to be followed.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You don't understand what an appeal is. The prisoner is fed well after they've been proven guilty. They're just re-proven guilty 2-8 times over in the course of 10-40 years, during which time yes, they eat.

Ok yeah you're right. But that's a problem with the American implementation of the death penalty more than with the Dp itself.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Sure it can. Even if it doesn't count for much in your opinion, in counts for something.

As cold-hearted as I've been sounding this whole thread, even I believe the most brutal of killers should be given food, hell in fact, the best food there is, if they are going to be executed shortly.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

... .... .... .... ... ... ....

Ok, so your argument then seems to be that because under the death penalty the criminal can tie up the justice system for a long period of time, as long as they keep their guilt in contention it's fine for them to eat, but a soon as they can't do this anymore it's wrong for them to eat.

... .... ...

WHAT? So the justice in feeding a person is based on whether or not some arbitrary and expensive custom is in place?

I think we're getting way too deep into this eating thing...my only point is that without the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted and will be given sustenance by taxpayers, and with the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted (at some point- and that seems to be the problem here, since at what point ends up a huge mess because of the appeals system), and won't be fed forever by taxpayers.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

This doesn't make any sense. It's ok to pay for food to keep them alive, likely until the same age, until they die of unnatural causes, but not of natural causes?

Well the emphasis here is the "likely until the same age" and that once again goes into the whole appeals problem.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

So now you're weighing life on a more carefully calibrated scale, but you're still weighing life nonetheless.

I think it's fair for an impartial jury to make the decision of whether the killer's motives were legitimate enough not to be killed or whether they were twisted enough for him/her to deserve death.
But, and here's another pointless concession, clemency is not enough. For instance, Wanda Jean's victims' family were mostly forgiving, and she had a borderline retarded IQ. She was not granted clemency, and she did not deserve the death penalty. And Texas and many of the states who use the DP really overuse it. The very fact that innocent people could be on death row is terrifying. Imo, that's the greatest argument against the DP and one I have trouble responding to.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Because under the death penalty a person dies. That strikes me as more serious.

Yes I've acknowledged a thousand times the seriousness of the appeals problem and the necessity of a more effective- but no more harsh- method of finalizing conviction.