Execution

[idav]

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.

Killing as a means of safety and security seems like a bit of over kill, pun not intended.

 

[PureX]

Killing as a means of safety and security seems like a bit of over kill, pun not intended.

I'm not suggesting we kill all criminals. But that we use societal security as our 'prime directive'.

 

[Tmac]

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.

I don't suppose that you are aware of cases where the state got it wrong, I doubt if you even care.

List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Deidre]

Never.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

Oh? How so?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

Unironically using an example where at least one third of the people being executed were being unjustly executed to prop up the death penalty.

The other two being executed for stealing, something no first world nation today acknowledges as an offence punishable by death penalty. Highlighting the flawed and subjective nature of what is worthy for death, and instead must garner popularity by reliance on calls to emotion.

 

[Tmac]

It's a subjective thing.

A floating standard?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

When the person takes a life, especially when aggravated with torture or rape or something. While I'd also like to see "just" torturers and rapists executed too, I'm also fine with "tit for tat".

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

I come from biblical traditions, which had no ethical problems with it whatsoever, though like today's US, the standards for requiring this penalty seem to be arbitrary and petty sometimes.

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?

Unless the criminal is Freddy Kruger, it's unlikely the criminal will continue to torture and kill after execution.

Long term, but it is not sentencing them to die. You might as well say upon delivery of a baby, the doctor, midwives, or whoever has judged the baby to death.

Imagine a parent who really doesn't want the child who was born because abortion was made illegal. They keep the baby in a closet or cabinet or, given some of the news stories I've seen, tupperware. Are you suggesting the baby's life in that hell was better than being killed off? Living is not the best solution for everyone.

I don't believe that an execution is ever "justified", but I do believe there are instances in which it is reasonable, and necessary, to do.

Yeah, it's not like, "wow, I totally enjoyed watching that execution!" It's more like, "*sigh* This jerk is why we can't have nice things."

Some are so evil that the world would be better of without them, but does that give us the right to end their lives? Wouldn't that makes us go down to their level?

Their level is to kill innocent people. You would be protecting the public against a monster (hopefully verified to be one, of course). Monsters don't make that distinction.

Because it's not for me to judge another human being for his actions.

When they advertise just how much they enjoyed washing in the blood of your child or other loved one (or yourself), where is "reasonable doubt" here?

I think life in prison (provided prison is not the Hilton) or exile can be just as effective a deterrent.

Neither the death penalty nor jail deters anything. There will be criminals no matter what we do. However, I can guarantee that unless the criminal is a supernatural movie monster, the death penalty WILL stop the criminal. Jail doesn't guarantee it as well, as they can still hurt inmates, staff, and people on the outside because we're too stupid to forbid them from using notes, phones, and internet.

I don't suppose that you are aware of cases where the state got it wrong, I doubt if you even care.

That people abuse the concept doesn't make the concept wrong, just abused.

Unironically using an example where at least one third of the people being executed were being unjustly executed to prop up the death penalty.

Not according to the Romans, who executed him for promoting riots and declaring himself king, which will also promote unrest the Romans didn't want to have to put down every three minutes. To them, he was a religious terrorist who put the safety of their citizens in danger.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

This scene from The Dirty Dozen was always kind of chilling and sad for me:

We don't really know what this person did or whether he was truly "sorry" or that he "didn't mean it." It's not even clear whether he was actually guilty of the crime he was being sentenced for.

Afterwards, Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine are discussing it:


-That's no way for anybody to go.

-Oh, the hell you say, major.
Why, I know a lot of people
who should go exactly that way.

There's a wide range of opinions on this matter, and I'm not even sure religion offers much of a coherent or consistent position here.

One might agree, in theory, that there are situations which might call for the ultimate penalty, capital punishment, to be used. But who's going to be the executioner? I know, personally, that I could never take that job myself. I don't think I could do it. I don't think I could order someone to do it if I was in a position to do so. Someone would have to volunteer for the job, but then again, if someone actually wants to be an executioner - then I would wonder about that guy.

In some cases, in particularly heinous crimes, perhaps the families of the victims might want to carry out the execution themselves. I have somewhat mixed feelings about that, but if the criminal is going to be executed anyway, then that may be something to consider.

Apart from that, I agree with the principle that "I would never order someone to do something that I wouldn't be willing to do myself." No one should be ordered to carry out an execution; that job should fall to the person whose decision leads to the execution, whether it's the governor of the state in question or the judge(s) who refused the final appeal (probably the Supreme Court). They should be the ones to carry out the execution, and it should be public, so all can see the face of the executioner and the action they're taking.

The fact that executions are done behind closed doors and the executioner remains anonymous - it's almost as if we're ashamed of what we're doing. Perhaps we should be ashamed, but if that's the case, why do it at all? For those who believe in capital punishment, they should be proud of what they're doing and bring it out into the open for all to see.

 

[BSM1]

Unironically using an example where at least one third of the people being executed were being unjustly executed to prop up the death penalty.

The other two being executed for stealing, something no first world nation today acknowledges as an offence punishable by death penalty. Highlighting the flawed and subjective nature of what is worthy for death, and instead must garner popularity by reliance on calls to emotion.

Which was, evidently, the law of the land at the time.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm opposed to the state having the power to execute people -- especially its own citizens -- on several grounds, including:

1) The state often makes mistakes and executes innocent people.

2) The state often responds to public pressure to execute people regardless of mitigating factors, such as mental competence.

3) Giving the state the right to execute people establishes a means for using execution to eliminate political opponents.

4) The state disproportionately executes people from minority backgrounds.

And other reasons.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Which was, evidently, the law of the land at the time.

Which means precisely dick, ethically speaking.

 

[SalixIncendium]

A floating standard?

A personal standard, as I stated in the OP. If your personal standard floats, then yes.

 

[SalixIncendium]

When they advertise just how much they enjoyed washing in the blood of your child or other loved one (or yourself), where is "reasonable doubt" here?

I didn't say there was any reasonable doubt. I'm not even sure how you inferred that from what I said.

Nonetheless, it would appear by this statement that you favor the death penalty as a means of vengeance.

Neither the death penalty nor jail deters anything. There will be criminals no matter what we do.

Of course there will always be criminals. But are you meaning to tell me that the fear of being put to death or spending a lifetime in prison hasn't deterred at least on prospective criminal from committing a crime? I'm confident there would be far more criminals if there were no such consequences.

However, I can guarantee that unless the criminal is a supernatural movie monster, the death penalty WILL stop the criminal. Jail doesn't guarantee it as well, as they can still hurt inmates, staff, and people on the outside because we're too stupid to forbid them from using notes, phones, and internet.

Which is why I favor exile over prison.

 

[idav]

I didn't say there was any reasonable doubt. I'm not even sure how you inferred that from what I said.

Nonetheless, it would appear by this statement that you favor the death penalty as a means of vengeance.



Of course there will always be criminals. But are you meaning to tell me that the fear of being put to death or spending a lifetime in prison hasn't deterred at least on prospective criminal from committing a crime? I'm confident there would be far more criminals if there were no such consequences.



Which is why I favor exile over prison.

I'm not sure the laws of the land really serve as good deterrents from crimes being committed. I think people mainly do crimes withr the intention of not getting caught, it's only a shock later that they end up with life in prison or the death sentence. It would stop me though, say in the case that someone harmed me or my family so badly, I'd avoid murder to avoid the sentence. That might only work in cases where killing is contemplated though.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

killing an animal when you don’t intend to eat it, unless it poses immediate danger, isn’t something that is justified easily if at all.

Humans have messed up ecosystems the world over, causing extinctions on the one hand and the overpopulation of other species. Sometimes, it is necessary to cull populations to limit further ecological damage.

Example: some years ago, in Chicago, Illinois, the rest of Cook County, and the surrounding municipalities and counties were having a problem with white-tail deer. In a normal forest habitat, deer will have populations around 25 per square mile, varying somewhat from year to year, depending on severity of weather (mostly winter), number of predators, etc. The forest preserves, parks, and even many subdivisions had peak populations around 400 per square mile--the deer were eating EVERYTHING they could reach, which left little for other wildlife and threatened many plant species in the area. This included people's lawns and gardens. In addition, they were a traffic hazard, and carried various diseases...Yet many people were dead set against any hunting to thin the herds.

They started culling the herds on an annual basis almost 30 years ago. Here's an article from 2010 about the successful and necessary killings of wild animals. I don't know if they take the meat to feed people, or leave it to feed the natural processes.

There have been efforts to create birth control for deer, but the last time I checked they were expensive, labor intensive, and still didn't work well.

 

[BSM1]

Which means precisely dick, ethically speaking.

Ethically they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place. Do I sense selective ethics?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Judaism allows for the death penalty.

I would allow for it only if deemed a required societal catharsis, the obvious example being the execution of Hitler had he been captured. Two things concern me:

1. Too often we find ourselves legally executing those later found to be innocent or possibly innocent.
2. It is hard for me to imagine a person committing a crime worthy of capital punishment without that person being mentally ill, and I find it difficult to justify executing the mentally ill.

That is a compelling argument. People do love revenge, however; and also we do not like the idea of providing for murderers. We'd rather pay millions of dollars in legal fees than let one go.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Check out the Russian prison system.

Ok. I stand corrected. We compare to a nation with a long history of civil rights/liberties abuses in using a severely torturous and destructive method of "punishment."

Imagine a parent who really doesn't want the child who was born because abortion was made illegal. They keep the baby in a closet or cabinet or, given some of the news stories I've seen, tupperware. Are you suggesting the baby's life in that hell was better than being killed off? Living is not the best solution for everyone.

Assuming this to be a metaphor, it's a poor one, and my positions have revolved around the idea that death does not solve/fix/amend death, further death has a worse and more permanent negative consequences on others who weren't themselves involved with the crime, and that the risk of putting an innocent to death is too great and does happen.
As for a killer, the only thing I've really mentioned is that we should be more "Nordic," and eventually let out those who won't kill again while keeping the few Freddy Krugers (or, more realistically, the Mansons, Brieviks, and Geins)

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

I have a hard time thinking either is "easier," nor am I fond of playing "who has it worse" against groups that in their both ways have it really bad.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Humans have messed up ecosystems the world over, causing extinctions on the one hand and the overpopulation of other species. Sometimes, it is necessary to cull populations to limit further ecological damage.

Example: some years ago, in Chicago, Illinois, the rest of Cook County, and the surrounding municipalities and counties were having a problem with white-tail deer. In a normal forest habitat, deer will have populations around 25 per square mile, varying somewhat from year to year, depending on severity of weather (mostly winter), number of predators, etc. The forest preserves, parks, and even many subdivisions had peak populations around 400 per square mile--the deer were eating EVERYTHING they could reach, which left little for other wildlife and threatened many plant species in the area. This included people's lawns and gardens. In addition, they were a traffic hazard, and carried various diseases...Yet many people were dead set against any hunting to thin the herds.

They started culling the herds on an annual basis almost 30 years ago. Here's an article from 2010 about the successful and necessary killings of wild animals. I don't know if they take the meat to feed people, or leave it to feed the natural processes.

There have been efforts to create birth control for deer, but the last time I checked they were expensive, labor intensive, and still didn't work well.

I grew up in McHenry County, IL, about 40 miles NW of Cook County, which is where this issue occurred. This overpopulation was a result of severe reduction in the deer's habitat through a surge in deforestation and building. I take exception to calling the killing "necessary" when then deforestation that caused it was not necessary to begin with.

I experienced the same thing about 10 years ago in Mercer County, PA, where they removed a forest which was home to coyotes to build a Walmart Supercenter. This displaced the coyotes, which were forced into residential areas. Of course, there was a "necessary" culling of the coyote population as a result.