Against abortion for any reason? What about the death penalty?

[Acim]

The death penalty is not murder.

Anyone can respond to this.

How is (execution of) the death penalty, not murder?

 

[Twig pentagram]

I voted, pro-choice for the death penalty.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Anyone can respond to this.

How is (execution of) the death penalty, not murder?

I think it's murder.

 

[Acim]

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.

Hence the reason murderers are able to justify their actions (at least to themselves). It is very unusual that a person takes the life of another and turns themselves in, thus all who do it, feel justified at some level. Daring to equate it with '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.

Hence if I live in area (or world) where people favor death penalty, while I do not, I am involved with that. I am passively favoring it by my voluntary willingness to pay taxes. To which those in favor will say, 'it's all good, justice is being done.'

Which is how I pretty much view the first act of murder given the faulty logic being employed.

 

[Acim]

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?

The general distinction as I understand it is the death by police is determined to be in 'line of duty' where quicker choices are deemed mandatory by almost all involved; whereas with death penalty, it is very very deliberate process and the murderer in this case is a collective known as government (of the people, by the people).

Personally, I wish that when we choose to do anything with police officer who has just killed 'in line of duty' and put them on some sort of 'temporary leave' from their job, we'd do the same with state killings. Seems to me that with the exceptions of wrongful killings by the state, the general attitude is, 'oops, perhaps we shouldn't have done that one. Anyway, who's next to be slaughtered by the wolves?' With that in mind, why not send officer out who just killed someone wrongfully to keep on doing what he/she did? Just a little mistake really, no big deal. People die every day. I say (highly facetiously) let the murderous officer back doing his/her job and don't let wrongful death get in the way of the service he/she is performing for the state.

(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).

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

No, if you had followed my explanation, then you would've realized that I included those appeals in both.

Say a death row inmate has 10 years (or whatever length of time you want) to pursue an appeal... well, an inmate in prison for life has this opportunity as well. There's no difference, so we can disregard it when comparing the two options.

But just for you, I'll explicitly include it. Let's say that executions are carried out 10 years after conviction, and wrongful sentences have some probability of being overturned in that time (let's call it X_10, and the time served before release Y_10). Let's re-do the math:

The probability of being released from prison from a life sentence is:

P(life) = (the probability of release in the first 10 years) + (the probability of release after the first 10 years - what we calculated before)
= X_10 + X

The probability of being released from prison from death row is:

P(death) = (the probability of release in the first 10 years)
= X_10

The expected value of the cost of a wrongful death row conviction is:

Ex(death) = (Ex. Val. of exonoration) + (Ex. Val. of wrongful execution)
= (X_10)(Y_10)Z + L

The expected value of the cost of a wrongful life imprisonment conviction is:

Ex(life) = (Ex. Val of exonoration in 10 years) + (Ex. Val beyond this - what we calculated before)

= (X_10)(Y_10)Z + L - X(L - YZ)


So... when we compare these by taking the difference, we get:

Ex(death) - Ex(life) = [(X_10)(Y_10)Z + L] - [(X_10)(Y_10)Z + L - X(L - YZ)]
= (X_10)(Y_10)Z + L - (X_10)(Y_10)Z - L + X(L - YZ)
Group like terms, and:

= (X_10)(Y_10)Z - (X_10)(Y_10)Z + L - L + X(L - YZ)

Everything cancels out but the last term:

= X(L - YZ)

... just like before.

Now do you believe me?

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.

Death in prison is only irreversible once a person dies. In most cases, a person sentenced to life in prison will live long beyond when he wouldn've been executed.

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.

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.

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.

Can you re-phrase this so it actually makes sense?

 

[Badran]

The death penalty is applied by the system. A police officer wrongly killing someone is an individual committing a crime.

I should've clarified more as has been suggested to me. I was meaning mainly the things that we know upfront that it comes with the concept of police work, that its entirely possible in many cases for such deaths to happen (deaths that we would have a responsibility in). Things that come with the territory in other words, not individual cases. Since we know that, up front, i think we should deal with it the same way we deal with the death penalty.

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.

Well basically if i understood correctly if your basis is that you see such system as impossible or unlikely to be achieved, i can certainly understand such grounds for opposing (regardless of whether or not it actually is, because i was just curious as to why not seek improvement in the first place rather than opposition).

 

[Badran]

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.

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.

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.

I agree that when talking in these terms we should compare all possible methods. I'd have to look for lots of sources though and will be mainly trying to address a part that is mostly of the lesser concern to me, so i'll leave that part to others who are already attempting to address it.

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.

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..?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm pro-choice, at least as applied in Norway (12 week limit), and against the death penalty.

 

[Badran]

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.

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?

 

[Songbird]

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.

 

[Badran]

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.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

That's right: I don't think that the death penalty is just.

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..?

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.

But I can give you my reasons for saying that the death penalty isn't just. Probably the clearest way is to put it in terms of the normally accepted (at least according to my law prof) proper functions of justice:

- general deterrence ("he got punished, which stops me from wanting to murder"): the death penalty has proven itself to be no better than life in prison in deterring crime.
- specific deterrence ("I got punished, which stops me from wanting to murder"): I suppose that a dead person won't commit any more crimes, but it's not significantly better at this than life imprisonment under proper supervision and control.
- rehabilitation ("as part of my punishment for this, I learned how to live without murdering"): the death penalty fails. There is no rehabilitation.
- inculcation ("the law makes the punishment for murder death, so I know murder is very, very bad, and that it's worse than lesser crimes"): I don't think that the death penalty does a better job at this than life imprisonment.

So... IMO, there's no valid reason to bring in the death penalty when you already have life imprisonment. Life imprisonment already takes care of any legitimate goal you could serve with capital punishment.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

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.

As for the death penalty, I don't think killing another human being should ever be an option unless we're talking about self-defense. However, even aside from that, as others have said, it doesn't work in the real world. Even if you're of the opinion that we should kill certain people who are guilty of heinous crimes, in the real world, there's still to big a risk of killing an innocent person to make it worth it.

 

[Magic Man]

What boggles my mind are the people who personally think abortion is wrong, but remain pro-choice, because of a belief in liberty.

Why does that boggle your mind? I think in general, abortions are bad. I would not want my wife to get one outside of extenuating circumstances like rape or danger to her health. But until it can live on its own, it's part of her body, and I don't think it's right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

 

[Songbird]

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.

I'm not sure I understand, but I think you want to discuss how much force is allowable in various situations?

I'm not at all familiar with law enforcement policies (or the penal system, for that matter), so this may be an awfully short discussion.

But, I'll take a stab. Police are trained to use force when necessary, and it's at the independent discretion of the officer(s) in the moment. The various methods, flaws, accidents, loopholes, applications, and other considerations are probably a topic of themselves...

 

[Acim]

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?

I don't mind, but will ask that that you respond to questions I ask in similar fashion (beyond sound bite rhetoric), if possible.

I have 'problem' with killing. It is problem that I've grown very accustomed to accepting at a certain level, which amounts to, me not being able to intellectually change the minds of others while I perceive a world where killing in many ways is justified. And is even seen, in some cases, as "justice is done." (Is this not what Obama said upon killing of OBL?)

So, with self defense, it isn't problem that I have no understanding of. I think I have very good understanding of how it works and/or is deemed justifiable. My understanding comes from philosophical discussions on this, many times over, but only partially from that. It mostly comes from observing in myself the desire of 'tit for tat' as if that idea of retribution is acceptable, at some level, for me. But all this is superficial for what I belief is 'really going on.'

Self defense is, in my philosophical / spiritual understandings, not really really about defending the 'self.' On the surface, and with sound bite rhetoric at play, there is almost no way to get around that this is what it appears to be about. So, in some ways, a person has to go through a bit of a learning phase (might be weeks, might be whole lifetime) of what it is that is so valued to be deemed worthy of retributive killing? Thus, I am attempting to say at this point, that I am still in that learning phase, but will be offering summation of sorts that I could explain in several ways, and feel strong desire to explore in Q&A if that is deemed warranted. For this post, I'll more or less stick to concise explanation.

Self defense is actually defense of a body-self. And it is a 'game' that is played with consciousness to put value in that, but falsely so. The body-self is clearly not all that valued (speaking partially for myself, but for what I see when I look around at other bodies). Instead, it is the consciousness that wants 'higher self' to associate with body, that is making this ongoing argument. Such that the (higher) consciousness can be made to believe that death of the self is reality, and moreover that God-self can be attacked.

I realize I may be going fast here, and am skipping over a few points of clarification. But to not make this post one huge wall of text, I am looking to establish that self defense is a lie that we tell ourselves. The Self is not in need of ANY defense, and to the degree that it is believed that is in need of it, it is only compounded by error that suggests a 'good defense' is one that comes from attack. IMO, that ought to make the lie blatantly obvious. Instead, it appears not to, and even myself not too long ago, fell hook, line and sinker for the lie (or need to defend the body-self at all costs).

And somewhat near the bottom-line for this point you are asking about is, if one can rationalize killing for self defense, it is not all that challenging to rationalize killing for any reason at all. On the surface, and for those who would swear they could never take another life except for 'self defense' what I just said will not be readily accepted, and instead will be denied. Me, I can see taking a life, just to take it. No reason necessary, just felt like it had to be done. But on principle, I find it between unacceptable and insane. And the consequences are, in ways I understand reality (of the non-physical kind), is that I am merely telling myself, this is acceptable for me. That killing is okay in my judgment. I think we'll swear up and down that this is not the case, but it is where the lie becomes absolutely firm denial. We will say some killing is absolutely wrong, while keeping secret about areas where killing is okay, and not making the obvious (self evident) connection. As long as your judgment sees it as okay, it must be okay.

I realize that there is (at least) two ways to look at someone like myself who is against even self defense killings. One is the common way that says I (and anyone like me) leave myself open to attack, that I'm very vulnerable, and that such weakness can be exploited. Furthermore, the common way is convinced that self defense killing is a judgment that is, in many cases, without error. It is what had to be done. The other way of seeing defense killings is that it is very obvious pronouncement of one's own weakness, that you value something you know ain't going to last, and that as judge of what justifies killing, you could, rather easily determine that lots of killings can be seen as, in vein of defense. Hence the reason war does make sense at some level for us. And in playing the role of judge, you have suddenly come to understand what death is, what life is (exactly) and when it is appropriate, for you, to end life of another.

The problem of which you asked, I've worked through a bit more than you might give me credit for. I'm not all that emotional over death of a body / perceived physical self. I feel acutely aware of what is really going on and even while I stand by principle of killing is never right, I'm able to find (mainly through observations that this world affords without end) exceptions to the principle. It is never an exception I can fully go along with, but it is also one where I realize we ain't really really dying. Sure, it appears that way, but appearances on this matter are highly deceiving. So, while I may appear to be the weak one or vulnerable one, it is not the way I see things. Justify killing for any reason, like self defense, and it becomes clear to me, that it is those who value the body-self above all else who have made known their own vulnerability and most obvious weakness.

Of which forgiveness is the only sane defense in overcoming the fundamental error (fear of God-self, guilt of separate-self).

 

[Acim]

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.

IOW, you're pro-life, and don't always think a woman ought to be in control of her own body.

Your "obvious a point where it becomes wrong" would deny a woman to do with her body what she deems absolutely right. To not carry around a baby any more. Why is this not her choice, and her choice alone?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can't think why the two issues should be in any way related.
I would oppose the death penalty if I was asked to vote on it again.
Abortion is the womans choice if done within the law.
I would not vote to change that law.

 

[Father Heathen]

You just said that murder is wrong, but you are ok with murdering a murderer

"Murder" is defined as the unjustified killing of an innocent person, so such a comparison is rather disingenuous.