DC Sniper put to death

[Hielor]

At first I passed this over, but I just had a thought:

I don't think it's so much a matter of whether citizens are considered the property of the leaders of the state. I think it's more a matter of whether there is hope and fear of divine judgement. If so, you will see the following beliefs:

1. An innocent condemned to death has nothing to fear: His life is over, but he will be exonerated before God, and may well be rewarded for bearing ill treatment well.

2. A guilty person will answer before God whether or not he is convicted and punished, but conviction and punishment forces him to face his crimes and gives him the opportunity (whether he takes it or not) to repent.

3. An official who negligently or intentionally condemns an innocent person to death will answer to God, as will an official that negligently or intentionally fails to convict or level proper punishment against a guilty person.

4. Officials who convict the guilty and acquit the innocent will be rewarded by God.

Since I hold these beliefs, I remain fairly pro-death penalty, but it does help to explain to me why the death penalty has become such anathema in Western culture, where these beliefs are increasingly absent.

I think if we took a poll you'd find that many people who are for the death penalty do not believe the same as you do, and many people who are against it do.

 

[dbeachy1]

2. A guilty person will answer before God whether or not he is convicted and punished, but conviction and punishment forces him to face his crimes and gives him the opportunity (whether he takes it or not) to repent.

That is a commonly-held belief here in the USA, including many in my family with whom I've had debates. Here's the thing that makes no sense to me: if a person really believes 1) the criminal must "repent" before he dies otherwise he will be tortured by God for all eternity, and 2) if he does "repent" before he dies, then he will be safe and blissful for all eternity, then killing the criminal and cutting his life short is the cruelest thing you could ever possibly do to him. After all, the criminal is more likely to "repent" if you give him 40 years instead of just a few years. So I don't see how people who believe in eternal damnation can reconcile wanting to send a criminal to his "eternal torment" rather than giving him every single possible second to "repent". And before anyone says, "Well, they deserved it!", what possible crime could warrant even one hour of torture, let alone an eternity?

 

[eveningsky339]

... Big bunny by the name of Frank told me to. He also says the world's gonna end.

Not for another 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, 12 seconds. Now if you'll excuse me, the weird water thing coming out of my chest wants me to go.

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

It sounds like prohibiting everyone to open doors instead of hanging some locks where it matters.

Why is there so little research on why the nasty crimes happen in the first place?
How does a man gets so broken he starts shooting left and right?

Lack of effective social welfare and education programs to assist the needy.

 

[Moonwalker]

That principally nobody deserves death is not universally valid within the nature, within the animal world. There are no rights but just struggle for survival 24 hours a day. Eat or be eaten. It would be naive to think that animals would not murder and not conduct war if they would be equipped with capabilites our species is equipped with, genetically and technologically, just by the way. Remember where we came from.

That nobody deserves death is a decision. A human decision, based on rationality. Based on the realization that we don't need to murder in order to survive. Based on the ability to realize that I don't want to do somebody a mischief because I don't want that somebody does a mischief to me. A brutally cold murderer decided for himself that his victim deserves death. No moral, no god or anything else did stop him or make him think, decide and act otherwise. It was his decision. He decided that he has the right to kill somebody. And he should accept and expect that others also take decisions. The decision might be custodial sentence or it might be capital punishment. The difference between the decision of lifetime custodial sentence and capital punishment is small. But the difference between coexisting or not coexisting on that planet with a murderer of loved ones is huge. A murderer has taken decisions. And it's up to us to take decesions on him. There is no superior universally valid instance or moral that decides anything. It's humans that decide.

I remember an interview with a husband of one of the teachers that got killed by German spree killer Robert S. (the Erfurt massacre in 2002). He said, distinctly and calmly, that he is "glad" that Robert S. has killed himself. Otherwise he would have done his utmost that Robert S. would not live anymore, which is not compatible with his believe as a Christ (funny though...). I can understand that husband. I think (and would act) the same way. Family is a sanctuary. If somebody decides to destroy my family, I would take decisions as well. And those decisions, in case of murder, would be based on my unability to coesixt with a murderer of my loved ones on this planet.

 

[insanity]

Since I hold these beliefs, I remain fairly pro-death penalty, but it does help to explain to me why the death penalty has become such anathema in Western culture, where these beliefs are increasingly absent.

Western culture has become more secular, and probably for the best. If we decided public policy based on our ideas about God then we'd constantly be stuck in the Middle Ages.

I also see a hard time reconciling Christianity with the death penalty FWIW.

 

[Andy44]

The problem with any death penalty debate is that it usually is centered around the recent execution of someone who sorely deserved, if not death, then at least some sort of nasty punishment, as with this case.

They say hard cases make bad law, and I also think hard cases make for strained arguments. I have been accused by two people in this thread of practicing "doublethink" (one of you was at least polite, the other was his usual acidic self).

But doublethink, or more precisely mixed feelings or conflicting thoughts, is exactly what a case like this produces. This guy was not the poster child for unjust executions.

 

[Hielor]

The problem with any death penalty debate is that it usually is centered around the recent execution of someone who sorely deserved, if not death, then at least some sort of nasty punishment, as with this case.

They say hard cases make bad law, and I also think hard cases make for strained arguments. I have been accused by two people in this thread of practicing "doublethink" (one of you was at least polite, the other was his usual acidic self).

But doublethink, or more precisely mixed feelings or conflicting thoughts, is exactly what a case like this produces. This guy was not the poster child for unjust executions.

That's just the problem though--I don't think that people should be changing what they believe based upon current situations. If someone's against the death penalty in general, but for the death penalty in even one specific case, then they're not against the death penalty and need to correct their argument from "I'm against the death penalty" to "I am for the death penalty in these specific cases" (and no, "cases where I was personally affected" is not a valid answer ).

Or, more succintly, doublethinkers unbellyfeel unlife unpenalty?

 

[Andy44]

Or, more succintly, doublethinkers unbellyfeel unlife unpenalty?

Nice. Oldthinkers bellyfeel unlife penalty. Alt-thinkers bellyfeel unstate power.

Don't know if I said that right. I need to look up my Newspeak dictionary.

 

[Hielor]

Nice. Oldthinkers bellyfeel unlife penalty. Alt-thinkers bellyfeel unstate power.

Don't know if I said that right. I need to look up my Newspeak dictionary.

I think "newthinkers bellyfeel state unpower" might be closer, although if we take "state power" in the context of the book, "newthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc" might work just as well, and then it would just be "crimethinkers" instead of "newthinkers."

Or something like that.

Edit: DISCLAIMER: I don't think "newthink" is "crimethink." Everything after "in the context of the book" remains in the context of the book.

 

[Ghostrider]

If we decided public policy based on our ideas about God then we'd constantly be stuck in the Middle Ages.

What's the problem with Middle Ages? Big swords, bigger castles, scantily-clad princesses in peril...

 

[BHawthorne]

That is true, but the death penalty is still immoral.

To a large cross section of the world the death penalty is moral and just. There are no absolutes in morals. Morals are qualitative not quantative in nature. Depends upon where you live and what your belief system is. Morality "implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong" according to Merriam-Webster dictionary.

 

[T.Neo]

I do not believe in the death penalty, IMO taking one's life in cold blood is unacceptable even as retribution for the worst of crimes.

I do however believe in life imprisonment, with hard labour. Nothing cruel or unusual though. Anyone who claims prison life is "comfortable" or "nice" clearly hasn't been there themselves. It is a horrible place, that I never intend to set foot in.

Morals are indeed a touchy subject. For example, I could say that killing innocent people on the street is moral for me, despite going against the law and morals of just about everyone.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, the argument "some animals also do it, so it must be right" is pretty weak. we have laws and punishments especially BECAUSE we don't want to tolerate such anarchy. There is no written law that a male lion has to kill the children of another male lion. They do it, as part of their own behavior. But humans don't have the behavior in general, that they need to kill people. We can decide on our own laws. There is also no natural law that says that Iran has to kill all perceived and true homosexuals - they decided to have such a law. Maybe even against nature (since homosexuality seems to be a common minority in many species). It is their own free will.

I am also strongly opposed to claim a god tells you to kill people. It is in my naturalistic world, your own free will to do so. But who likes people who just kill a man, only to see him die?

 

[pattersoncr]

...But who likes people who just kill a man, only to see him die?

Apparently, Johnny Cash does:

 

[Moonwalker]

Also, the argument "some animals also do it, so it must be right" is pretty weak.

It's not right, nor wrong. It's a part of the nature on our planet quite obviously. Eat or be eaten already begins within the biological micro-universe. It happens within our bodies continuously. As beautiful and amazing as the nature seems to be, as destructive it is as well.

What is right or wrong is something humans define and decide. We decide that we don't want to kill, well mostly don't want to kill our own species. Killing animals is generally widely accepted and performed in huge numbers. So I can't see that we are significantly different to the rest of the nature. Even worse, we do it calculating and on schedule, based on our intellectual capabilities. We even develope high-tech just to kill, for both, industrial food and war. Some of us, the most, decide that killing animals in large numbers is right and that killing humans is wrong. Killing humans is wrong only as long as we don't want that others do it to us as well.

And yes, I also like to get a nice looking and smelling piece of sausage on my slice in the morning without any guilty conscience

As for death penalty: I can't see why to decide for lifelong and/or preventive detention is better or more liberal than to decide for death penalty. Both decisions are above life. Lifelong and/or preventive detention is by no means more harmless or more liberal than to decide for death penalty. There is also no rational reason why a murderer should live like a dog for the rest of his life, and why me and others even should pay for it. Salvation is the best solution for a murderer in my point of view, and as we can see, a solution most of the spree killers decide for. Prison doesn't make sense for a brutally cold murderer. It is just a solution for being able to say "I'm not a murderer as well". Brutally cold murderer don't learn something in prison. That's something only do-gooder believe in.

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

It's immoral because it is state-sponsored murder on the premise of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Once the state has killed one innocent human then the whole institution is immoral as it allowed it. There are no ways to remedy this problem under the law.

That's a problem with practical implementation of the death penalty, not with the death penalty itself.

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Killing is immoral.

No, it's not.

It's only immoral in certain situations.

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

To a large cross section of the world the death penalty is moral and just. There are no absolutes in morals

While the person to whom you are responding was incorrect, you, too are incorrect.

There is indeed one objectively and universally correct moral code that all are obligated to endorse. That not everyone endorses it most emphatically does not mean that it does not exist; it simply means that those people are wrong.

As a philosophy professor of mine once put it, when showing the absurdity of the argument you're making: "People used to believe--and some people still do believe--that the world is flat. Believing doesn't make it so; truth is independent of what anyone believes."

 

[insanity]

There is indeed one objectively and universally correct moral code that all are obligated to endorse. That not everyone endorses it most emphatically does not mean that it does not exist; it simply means that those people are wrong.

Well that's about as narcissistic and wrong as you can get. What, pre tell, is this universal code of morality? As we've seen in this thread there is a different view on what constitutes morality because it is largely subjective. In my view the death penalty is immoral, in your view it is moral. You are trying to argue that any other view of morality, other than the one you hold, is wrong; that is pure BS of the highest order.

And the 'problems with the implementation of the death penalty' is called the United States Constitution.

 

[Moonwalker]

There is indeed one objectively and universally correct moral code that all are obligated to endorse.

Moral is what humans think and decide is right and wrong. Moral is not a natural thing, nor is it objectively and universally correct. It varies for individuals and cultures.

Just like human rights and democracy is not objectively and universally correct and the right thing for the entire globe and humankind, only because it works in Europe, in the USA and another few countries. Less than ever is it our job to moralize and democratise the entire planet.

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

Moral is what humans think and decide is right and wrong. Moral is not a natural thing, nor is it objectively and universally correct.

The eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved clearly and conclusively that it is.

Moral truth is no different from mathematical truth; just as any mathematical state is either objectively true or objectively false, so is any moral statement.

 

[insanity]

The eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved clearly and conclusively that it is.

Moral truth is no different from mathematical truth; just as any mathematical state is either objectively true or objectively false, so is any moral statement.

Ayn Rand was wrong about everything. Objectivism is bogus. Her argument was ultimately circular.