Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Faria, May 26, 2013.
OK. I am against it.
The way I look at that is, murder is always illegal, so there can never be "state-sponsored" murder. Killing that is allowed under the law cannot, by definition, be illegal, therefore it's not murder.
and against men. A man has a far greater opportunity than a woman of being executed even for similar crimes.
But it's fair to say that not all laws are morally valid or potentially legal, even if the state claims otherwise. The laws aren't meant to have that level of rigidity to them, because otherwise they lose any sense of accountability (and probably some measure of enforcement as well). Not all forms of killing would be considered moral or legal, but that doesn't inherently make them murder either.
Sure, it can be, and if it's found to be conducted illegally then the perpetrators should be held accountable before the international criminal court. But at the same time, most nations, factions, or leaders don't just quit their wars of aggression or genocide and submit to judgment just because you ask nicely, so war is sometimes required to bring their wrondoing to an end.
No, it's not valid, because there's no practical replacement for prison sentencing to prevent dangerous or recidivist criminals from harming the public at this time. No one is advocating for the complete abolition of jail terms (nor do I think Jarod actually would either, which is why the argument was stupid), but they are advocating for the abolition of the death penalty, so bringing up the former to discredit an argument against the latter makes little sense.
Plus, he wasn't just talking about life sentences, he was talking about any long term sentence where an innocent was put in prison. It's a stupid argument, because any human endeavor is going to be fallible by its very nature, the justice system included. But that doesn't mean we just stop prosecuting dangerous criminals entirely because there might be a mistake. We should try to prevent those mistakes as best we can of course, but we won't eliminate them completely. Which is why, as tragic as it is for anyone who is innocent to be wrongly convicted and imprisoned, it at least gives you a chance to correct your mistakes if you don't execute them in the meantime.
Extending the issue to include war and non-capital crimes only serves to confuse and distract from the issue of the death penalty. I think it's serious enough to be discussed on its own without throwing in every tangent that requires you to overcome human nature to solve. It's a hell of a lot more realistic to put an end to the death penalty in our time than it is to completely eliminate the necessity for war or imprisonment. Let's deal with what we as a people can actually put a stop to in the near term.
A legitimate war (rare these days) can be justified as a form of self-defense.
And I would argue that self-defense is the only justification for killing someone.
Once a person is in custody, in a cell, under guard, the self-defense argument is lost, IMHO.
As others have already said, one of the key things going against the Death Peanlty sooner or later someone who was innocent of the crime with which they were found guilty, could later be found to have not commited the crime and therefore innocent.
So I'd have to be in the no camp, I'm sure a quick google search could turn up plenty of results of people who where found guilty of a crime which carried a sentace of capital punishment later having their sentance overturned.
Of course. We can say execution is wrong, because it's wrong to kill (and all the other arguments that have been listed), but we can't say execution is MURDER, because execution is allowed under the law and murder is not. I'm just talking about legal arguments, that's all. Remember, I'm on your side in this!
no, non ho mai votato lega nord.
riguardo al modo in cui scrivo, è perchè scrivo in inglese, una lingua che conosco poco.
The rest is still damning enough.
But I guess it's fine: I wouldn't want people here to think all Italians are brilliant as me.
Yeah, I think that about sums up almost all of my concerns.
Well, I view warfare as national self-defense. I think it would be wrong to resort to warfare solely to avenge a past wrong if there's no chance of future harm. But self-defense is justified homicide.
Well, it's not quite that simple because that's fairly tautological. However, you're correct that it is homicide, but not murder. Homicide with a justification or excuse is not supposed to be murder. The problem is the legal carveout is one that, if done by anyone else, would be murder. Vigilante murder is still murder. Lynching is still murder. If the law carved these outs, almost everyone would think the law was wrong. However, the state carves this one out for itself and people accept it. It can still be hypocritical even if it might be technically correct.
The idea hadn't occurred to me...
Well, being Italian is a good kickstart for being awesome, but I take it to the next level.
Yes, I always look up to people from Berlusconia.
PS This is mostly my gall bladder talking. Even so, if being Italian is the start of awesome, so must Berlusconi.
And I forgot. If there is a reasonable prospect of the convict being released despite terrible crimes, there is a reasonable case for the death penalty. This occurs largely during revolutionary times, when a few years can revive the fortunes of many villains. Long term imprisonment is not always a feasible option, unfortunately.
What Locutus of Bored said sums up my position.
Well lets examine if the death peanlty actsas a deterrent
According to Amnesty Intl. Sates with WIth the death penalty have higher murder rates than those who don't.
Yet more stats
So the evidence would seem to de-bunk the argument that some use that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. (Of course other factors might have an impact on the murder rates in the differnt states).
Also, to go with Clausewitz that 'war is politics by other means' its purpose isn't to kill other people, but to achieve some goal through force that standard diplomatic means won't. The intention of war is not to kill anyone it's a sad result, unlike murder where ending life is the primary goal.
I don't care enough about random criminals to wish them harm either. But I wish they couldn't harm anyone else.
But if some [insert bad word] did something to my loved ones or myself, I am certain I would wish them harm. I even wish harm upon people who don't pick up their dogs poop. I wish the poop would magically move to the top of their head unless they picked it up.
But I don't think it's a good thing to want revenge. I just can't help wishing people were disciplined for the bad things they do.
Disciplined, yes, of course. Harmed, no. I was not just speaking hypothetically of random criminals. Someone is doing many years in prison for what he did to me. I wish him no harm; I just want him where he can't hurt anyone.
Well, in his own twisted way, Berlusconi is strikingly lurid, you cannot deny that. No half-measures around here.
Sorry about the gall bladder. But at least makes your posts interesting, instead of the usual unreadable blather.
Separate names with a comma.