Execution

[sun rise]

Let's try a scenerio:
Suppose you have a man who has raped and killed multiple children before being caught and tried. Suppose also that this animal has publicly stated that if given the chance he would gladly rape and kill another child. Now, firstly, why would any rational human being have a problem with removing this man from the face of the earth? Secondly, wouldn't a life sentence with no possibility of parole would be a long term death sentence anyway?

Religiously, Jesus never tried to stop the death sentences of the other two beside him on the crosses.

Given that I believe in reincarnation and karma, execution in this case would help balance the karma rather than putting it off until a future life.

But given the way the criminal justice system works and the number of innocent people who are convicted of crimes, I'd want a higher standard of proof before a sentence of death. Perhaps "incontrovertible evidence".

 

[SalixIncendium]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

When it comes to execution as a form of capital punishment, I'm conflicted. On one hand, I don't think it's morally acceptable for one human being to decide to end the life of another, regardless of circumstance. That said, life imprisonment costs money. Should I be obligated to support this person in prison for the rest of his years?

I'm for a third option. Exile. If a person has committed a crime so vile and has not chance of rehabilitation, s/he should be exiled from society, ideally on a secluded island somewhere in the middle of the ocean with others of their kind where they spend the remainder of their years unsupervised. Not only would this eliminate the moral implications of execution, but it would also eliminate financial responsibility for housing them for an extended period of time. The only expense involved would be transporting them to the island.

So in summary, I don't find it morally acceptable to take the life of a being, human or otherwise, for any reason other than self-defense.

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?

My spiritual beliefs are uniquely mine, so there is no conflict.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Let's try a scenerio:
Suppose you have a man who has raped and killed multiple children before being caught and tried. Suppose also that this animal has publicly stated that if given the chance he would gladly rape and kill another child. Now, firstly, why would any rational human being have a problem with removing this man from the face of the earth?

Because it's not for me to judge another human being for his actions. Or maybe I'm just not rational. *shrugs*

Secondly, wouldn't a life sentence with no possibility of parole would be a long term death sentence anyway?

No, because the person that sentenced him did not do so with the intent on taking the the man's life.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Death doesn't solve, fix, or make right death, and because one mother, brother, aunt, or child lost a loved one, why should demand that a father, sister, uncle, or another child also loose a loved one?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are limiting your standard to revenge. What if you take revenge out of the equation and consider the intent only to be to protect others from the same or similar crime?

 

[idav]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are limiting your standard to revenge. What if you take revenge out of the equation and consider the intent only to be to protect others from the same or similar crime?

That would mean just locking them up and throwing away the key. Keep them out of society because they are unfit. Some crimes don't have a very good solutions, it's hard to get the punishments to fit the crimes for more heinous offenses.

 

[sayak83]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?



*For the purpose of this thread, 'execution' is defined as taking the life of another being in a premeditated fashion against his/her will when there is no immediate danger to the executioner and s/he is not acting is self-defense.


*Edit: Adjusted the definition of 'execution' to exclude those who want to end their own lives voluntarily.

Focusing here on capital punishment by a state... I believe it's only legitimate if the state believes that the offender is too great a threat to be contained. Pol Pot or Hitler comes to mind.

 

[SalixIncendium]

...put them in a high security jail without access to TV, Internet or phones and make them work hard everyday from early morning until it's time to go to bed to the rest of their miserable existence.

I think the fact that we make prisons way too comfy for inmates is a problem. Prison should be a deterrent for crime. It's almost an incentive to commit crime to people that don't have a better living alternative.


Edited for a typo.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Supposing that murderer has killed someone's child that you are close to and has vowed to come after your child (or the child of a family member) next. And suppose you had the authority to impose a death sentence on this individual but you decided his existence was more important than you stepping down off your moral high ground. And say, consequently, this animal who has absolutely no morals is somehow freed from prison and fulfills his promise; what do we say to the dead child?

Not freeing the murderer in the first place would be an effective solution.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That would mean just locking them up and throwing away the key. Keep them out of society because they are unfit. Some crimes don't have a very good solutions, it's hard to get the punishments to fit the crimes for more heinous offenses.

I'm not sure if you intended to quote my post directed at Shadow Wolf, but I'll address what you wrote anyway.

The death penalty is just as final, if not more so, as locking a person up and throwing away the key, is it not? In my opinion, the latter is more reversible than the former.

 

[idav]

I'm not sure if you intended to quote my post directed at Shadow Wolf, but I'll address what you wrote anyway.

The death penalty is just as final, if not more so, as locking a person up and throwing away the key, is it not? In my opinion, the latter is more reversible than the former.

In your question about keeping the crime from being committed again, prison should suffice, or do you mean death penalty being used as a deterrent for others thinking of committing similar crimes?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are limiting your standard to revenge. What if you take revenge out of the equation and consider the intent only to be to protect others from the same or similar crime?

I do believe in a "confinement and rehabilitation" sort of model, and I think everyone should set Norway's bar for where they at least need to get with their own penal systems. I do believe people's actions should have appropriate consequences. However, I do not think sentencing someone to death is suitable. They took a life, yes. But someone else also already lost a life. Someone already forever lost a friend or loved one. How is that having others forever losing their own friend and loved possibly be considered just? It's very difficult for many mothers to see their child behind bars. But in a casket?
And that is even before we get to the idea of wrongful executions. In the world of philosophy and morality, even risking one is just one too many. In the real world, it is another fact of the legal woes faced by the black community.
A prison sentence can be ended. Death is forever. I just don't see how the "death penalty" can be anything other than a yearning for blood lust based vengeance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the fact that we make prisons way to comfy for inmates is a problem.

Prisons are comfy? It's not jail, but comfy? Our prisons are so inhumane, in general, that we're the only ones still using long-term isolated confinement. And even if we didn't have those, you still need to sleep with one eye open.

 

[PureX]

That would mean just locking them up and throwing away the key. Keep them out of society because they are unfit. Some crimes don't have a very good solutions, it's hard to get the punishments to fit the crimes for more heinous offenses.

Exactly why we need to stop thinking in terms of vengeance, or "just punishment", and start thinking in functional terms: i.e., the safety and security of the rest of society.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In your question about keeping the crime from being committed again, prison should suffice, or do you mean death penalty being used as a deterrent for others thinking of committing similar crimes?

No. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty. I think life in prison (provided prison is not the Hilton) or exile can be just as effective a deterrent.

 

[sayak83]

Prisons are comfy? It's not jail, but comfy? Our prisons are so inhumane, in general, that we're the only ones still using long-term isolated confinement. And even if we didn't have those, you still need to sleep with one eye open.

Between being homeless in NY winter and prison, which is better?
Not a rhetorical question. Just curious.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't believe in the death sentence for any wrong doing.

I prefer Exile on a remote island.

 

[Tmac]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?



*For the purpose of this thread, 'execution' is defined as taking the life of another being in a premeditated fashion against his/her will when there is no immediate danger to the executioner and s/he is not acting is self-defense.


*Edit: Adjusted the definition of 'execution' to exclude those who want to end their own lives voluntarily.

I'm having problems understanding just what is meant by "personal moral standard", is it an intellectual thing or an emotional thing?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Prisons are comfy? It's not jail, but comfy? Our prisons are so inhumane, in general, that we're the only ones still using long-term isolated confinement. And even if we didn't have those, you still need to sleep with one eye open.

No we're not the only ones.

Check out the Russian prison system.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm having problems understanding just what is meant by "personal moral standard", is it an intellectual thing or an emotional thing?

It's a subjective thing.

 

[Tmac]

It's a subjective thing.

OK, I get it, your playing the what if game.