The death penalty is not murder.
Anyone can respond to this.
How is (execution of) the death penalty, not murder?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The death penalty is not murder.
I think it's murder.Anyone can respond to this.
How is (execution of) the death penalty, not murder?
I think we actually agree so i'm not arguing but just want to point out that revenge isn't actually always wrong in my view. Sometimes its basic justice.
The cases where revenge is wrong however in my view is where it involves others who did not do anything that warrants their involvement in that harm you want to inflict.
Basically what is the difference between our acceptance of the existence of the police force which causes in some exceptional cases death to innocent people meeting the same criteria that occurs (and to which you object) when a person is killed because of the existence of the death sentence?
(Just clarifying that i'm wondering mainly about why not seek a better system rather than oppose death penalty altogether due to the sloppiness of the current one).
No, if you had followed my explanation, then you would've realized that I included those appeals in both.There's already a fault in here. If you're measuring at the point that the sentence is carried out, a life sentence isn't fully served until death. You canceled out appeals for death sentences and therefore didn't consider it in the chances of being exonerated. Yet you also canceled out the appeals for life sentences, but included it in the chances of being exonerated.
There's a double standard here. Which is kinda the main point I've been trying to make. The death of a wrongly incarcerated person is just as irreversible and just as intolerable as the death of a wrongly executed person, yet only the death penalty is spoken of as if it's the only option with irreversible consequences.
It wasn't wrong; it was simple and valid math. And if you can't realize this - i.e. that if you add the same number to two quanitities, it won't affect the difference between them - you should probably consider the possibility that your math skills aren't up to the task of figuring out whether the death penalty is better.No, we can't. You say we can because you're employing a double standard. You wrongly canceled out consideration of appeals for the death penalty without similarly doing so for a life sentence.
Can you re-phrase this so it actually makes sense?An inmate who isn't exonerated before the completion of a life sentence cannot be released.
And because the population of death row is so much smaller than the prison system in general, the same rate of exoneration is still going to result in a greater cost in innocent life for the non-death row population because there are more innocent people incarcerated than are sentenced to death.
The death penalty is applied by the system. A police officer wrongly killing someone is an individual committing a crime.
I'm all for improving pretty much every aspect of our system. I did say that I was theoretically for executing criminals who commit severe crimes and who are not able to be rehabilitated. The problem is that a death penalty system is too easy to be misused because of things such as bias and people with political agendas. I don't know if I'd ever be comfortable trusting that the state was not putting innocent people to death.
Both have benefits and costs. In the case of the police, the benefit of having them is overwhelming compared to the cost associated with them. Also, many of the benefits of police couldn't be had any other way.
In the case of the death penalty, the opposite is true: the cost overwhelms any potential benefit, and the few benefits that it does provide can be obtained at much lower cost.
For instance, Poisonshady talked about the benefit in terms of prevention of further murders. Well, we can compare this to other options to acheive the same ends: segregation of dangerous offenders from others, for instance. Or maybe improving guard-to-prisoner ratios in prisons.
If the problem we're trying to address is how to prevent prisoners from killing other prisoners (which I do agree is a problem), then it's not just a matter of saying "oh... the death penalty will reduce the number of prison murders"; it's a matter of comparing the cost and effectiveness of ALL the options to acheive that goal and seeing which one is best.
And I don't think for a second that executing convicted murderers is the best option to acheive this goal.
But why keep the death penalty? That's the other question in all this. It's only worth preserving if it's something of value. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it is of value.
Sloppiness of the system is not high up for me on reasons why I oppose death penalty. The act of killing as a principle is near top for me. I am one who sees killing in self defense as highly questionable and not something I think ought to be allowed as if 'perfectly okay.' Of all people I've met/interacted with, I feel virtually alone in this position. I think everyone reading this is essentially okay with killing in name of self defense and/or as act of war. Not I, and is why death penalty is not something I'm likely to be in favor of anytime soon.
Basically what is the difference between our acceptance of the existence of the police force which causes in some exceptional cases death to innocent people meeting the same criteria that occurs (and to which you object) when a person is killed because of the existence of the death sentence?
And note that i clarified that i do agree that the system as it is right now should be improved in regards to what cases on which we can apply a death penalty. The difference that point makes is that i'm clarifying that i'm not okay at all with the current mistakes, since they most can be avoided by producing a better system, or at the very least some of them.
(Just clarifying that i'm wondering mainly about why not seek a better system rather than oppose death penalty altogether due to the sloppiness of the current one).
Well, I think we need to pick one part of the police system to compare to. The death penalty is a very specific instance of something I don't support - a specific, purposeful act designed to end life. That's its sole purpose. A police force is a multi-branched system with many purposes, and by far its main purpose is to protect life.
It would be easier to pick something like officers carrying weapons, and which type. Or crowd control methods, or justifiable force, or arraignment procedures.
That's right: I don't think that the death penalty is just.I'm not sure how thats the case. Are most people who get the death penalty innocent?
I understand why you're saying that though, at least i think i do, because based on your post it seems you're judging the matter mainly from the issue of cost and benefits (which i think is debatable but is not really my main concern). I do include that, but its not the main factor for me when deciding whether or not to apply such punishment, or to have as an option for extreme cases.
I include justice in the equation. I also understand from your post that you probably don't view it as justice, though.
Not really - I was speaking rhetorically. What I was trying to get at is that if we're going to justify the death penalty, it has to be for reasons other than just the fact that it's part of the status quo... especially since in many areas, it's not even part of the status quo.This is the part of course which led me to assume you don't see it as any form of justice to begin with. Would you like to address that part in specific?
I mean would you like me to explain why i see it as justice or were you expecting reasons in terms of benefits and cost etc..?
I am pro life and against the death penalty. I think that's a consistent POV and belief system.
That being said, there are exceptions to every rule, and abortion and the death penalty are no exception to THAT rule. I believe that there are situations in which both abortion and the death penalty may be the best option.
What boggles my mind are the people who personally think abortion is wrong, but remain pro-choice, because of a belief in liberty.
Okay, lets compare it to allowances, or policies regarding how much force is allowed when facing certain situations, and the conditions put on how to approach possible threats etc...
Don't you think it allows for victims that meet the same criteria?
Disregarding how low or high that is, since the argument (which i agree to partially) is that one is already too many.
So in essence, i'm talking about police force handling any supposed criminals (which includes of course only possible criminals). Which is basically what police force is all (or mostly) about.
Since this part affirmed what i already thought based on your posts addressing mine, that you and i have a radically different view on the matter, i think we'll need some form of common ground to start off from. So i hope you won't mind if i start addressing your posts by first asking about this part then replying to the rest.
Why do you have problems with killing in self defense?
In other words, you're not pro-life and you're not against the death penalty.
I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty. Being pro-choice only means that I agree that it should be up to the woman whether or not to have the baby. Obviously that doesn't mean we should allow abortions after, say, 28 weeks. There is obviously a point where it becomes wrong.
"Murder" is defined as the unjustified killing of an innocent person, so such a comparison is rather disingenuous.You just said that murder is wrong, but you are ok with murdering a murderer