Death Penalty (in a bubble)

[ashura]

Again, this thread assumes an "error-free" death penalty. And it only concerns the idea of death being a punishment, not the implementation of the death penalty in any body of law.

maxq, does your answer stay the same under those circumstances? If so, why?

 

[maxg]

That's because you missed the gist of the entire thread. The premise is that guilt is 100% confirmed and money is not a factor; the death penalty in a bubble so to speak.

Would your views change under those circumstances?

I don't see the point in considering such a hypothetical unless you can tell me how such a situation could exist.

Still I problems with the State determing who should live and who should die, so even in such a bubble I wouldn't trust the judgement of the State to determine what warrants execution and what doesn't.

 

[ashura]

The state isn't a part of this discussion one bit. This is just to see what your personal views are on death as a punishment.

 

[maxg]

The state isn't a part of this discussion one bit. This is just to see what your personal views are on death as a punishment.

So you're asking would I want to put people to death? No. Odd question.

 

[Myles]

And your reasoning for that view ?

It's barbaric. You may also like to consider the possible motivation of the voters of all the countries which have done away with the death penalty.

Look at the nations which have retained it ,and ask whether you feel comfortable being aligned with them on this question.

 

[Pandaemoni]

And what's your reasoning behind that? As a deterrent for anyone ever committing murder?

How about when we bring crimes of passion into consideration. Under our current legal system, these tend to be viewed in a more sympathetic light and are given lighter sentences. Or perhaps when someone commits a murder as revenge, ie. a victim killing her rapist after the rape in a premeditated attack.

Which crimes would you consider appropriate for a death sentence?

My reasoning is that there is a very basic sense in me that reciprocal punishments are fair, and that getting vengeance for a family that has lost a loved one is not a bad thing. While some might claim that vengeance doesn't make the aggrieved family feel any better, I'd suggest that it makes a lot of people feel at least a little bit better (though it doesn't completely compensate for the loss obviously.

To me, denying that vengeance for the family of the murder victim is a good thing is simply to deny a basic (if ugly) fact of human psychology.

As for which crimes warrant the death penalty, it would have to be deliberate killing, without mitigating factors (or a lesser form of murder if there were aggravating factors). "Heat of passion" crimes have some mitigation, because by their nature the killer was not thinking clearly at the time of the act. There I would balance the desire for vengeance of the family against the need of individuals in society to know that they will only be condemned to death for the actions over which they had control/

A rapist killing her attacker would also have a mitigating factor. Again, people tend to find reciprocal punishments "fair." If a rapist killed her attacker, that might be going beyond reciprocity, but not far beyond it. So the punishment inflicted is only "a little unfair" (Again, though, this is assuming no error on the part of the killer.)

 

[Baron Max]

It's barbaric. You may also like to consider the possible motivation of the voters of all the countries which have done away with the death penalty.

Look at the nations which have retained it ,and ask whether you feel comfortable being aligned with them on this question.

Singapore, I think, has the least amount of crime in the whole world, and they adhere to the death penalty as well as harsh punishments for crime.

Yes, I would align myself to that society with ease and pleasure. But you, on the other hand, seem quite content to keep vicious criminals alive in little prison cells. Why?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

As for which crimes warrant the death penalty, it would have to be deliberate killing, ...
A rapist killing her attacker would also have a mitigating factor.

There's a big difference between murder and killing in self-defense.

Baron Max

 

[madanthonywayne]

So you would give the death penalty to any and all murderers, no matter the circumstance?

I agree with Max. The answer is yes. But, as you noted, not all killing is murder. Sometimes it's self defense, sometimes it's manslaughter. But if they're convicted of murder, they should be put to death.

 

[Alex4.0]

No it's not a punishment compared to life in prison, I much rather drift off painlessly then spend the rest of my life in prison. I'm just aginst people.

 

[Myles]

Singapore, I think, has the least amount of crime in the whole world, and they adhere to the death penalty as well as harsh punishments for crime.

Yes, I would align myself to that society with ease and pleasure. But you, on the other hand, seem quite content to keep vicious criminals alive in little prison cells. Why?


If it is your wish to align yourself with a repressive regime by all means do so. May I suggest that you spend some time in Singapore. You will be welcomed with open arms because you have the " right " attitude. Be careful what you say, though, as they are not in favour of fredom of speech. You don't know when you are well off.

 

[ashura]

So you're asking would I want to put people to death? No. Odd question.

Obviously I'm not asking you if you want to kill people on a whim. I'm asking specifically in terms of punishment for a crime. Is there any crime where you feel a death penalty is appropriate? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[ashura]

No it's not a punishment compared to life in prison, I much rather drift off painlessly then spend the rest of my life in prison. I'm just aginst people.

But what about the efficiency argument brought up earlier? Wouldn't it be better for society as a whole if the death penalty were implemented for such criminals?

(again, assuming zero error, no money worries, etc.)

 

[ashura]

It's barbaric. You may also like to consider the possible motivation of the voters of all the countries which have done away with the death penalty.

Look at the nations which have retained it ,and ask whether you feel comfortable being aligned with them on this question.

Please be a bit more specific. Why exactly is it barbaric?

 

[ashura]

My reasoning is that there is a very basic sense in me that reciprocal punishments are fair, and that getting vengeance for a family that has lost a loved one is not a bad thing. While some might claim that vengeance doesn't make the aggrieved family feel any better, I'd suggest that it makes a lot of people feel at least a little bit better (though it doesn't completely compensate for the loss obviously.

To me, denying that vengeance for the family of the murder victim is a good thing is simply to deny a basic (if ugly) fact of human psychology.

As for which crimes warrant the death penalty, it would have to be deliberate killing, without mitigating factors (or a lesser form of murder if there were aggravating factors). "Heat of passion" crimes have some mitigation, because by their nature the killer was not thinking clearly at the time of the act. There I would balance the desire for vengeance of the family against the need of individuals in society to know that they will only be condemned to death for the actions over which they had control/

A rapist killing her attacker would also have a mitigating factor. Again, people tend to find reciprocal punishments "fair." If a rapist killed her attacker, that might be going beyond reciprocity, but not far beyond it. So the punishment inflicted is only "a little unfair" (Again, though, this is assuming no error on the part of the killer.)

Very good points. I'd be interested to see what the rebuttal from someone in the "No" camp to this would be.

 

[madanthonywayne]

No it's not a punishment compared to life in prison, I much rather drift off painlessly then spend the rest of my life in prison. I'm just aginst people.

Complete bullshit. Look how hard prisoners fight to avoid the death penalty. No one wants to be put to death. Death is the ultimate punishment.

 

[ashura]

Complete bullshit. Look how hard prisoners fight to avoid the death penalty. No one wants to be put to death. Death is the ultimate punishment.

For some. For others, death is the easy way out. It's very subjective.

That's why I like the efficient vs inefficient punishment rationale mentioned earlier in the thread. That's definitely seems like the objective way to look at it.

 

[maxg]

Obviously I'm not asking you if you want to kill people on a whim. I'm asking specifically in terms of punishment for a crime. Is there any crime where you feel a death penalty is appropriate? If so, why? If not, why not?

But you stated that you meant executions without State involvement--I took this to mean you were asking whether people here were willing to put other people to death after they've committed a crime. So my answer is no, I believe killing other people should only be undertaken as a last resort (e.g., to defend my own life) & I'm not willing to put someone to death if there are other options.

 

[ashura]

And the reasoning behind this is?

 

[James R]

What do people think about the death penalty in a bubble? Seperate from any issues of cost, of guilt, and on purely ethical grounds, is the death penalty something that you'd support using? Why or why not?

The problem is that issues of guilt, at the very least, must come into any judgment made on ethical grounds. You can't really make ethical judgments "in a bubble". You need to take all the relevant factors into account.

I think whether or not the death penalty is justified, even with 100% assurance of guilt, depends on the kind of society you're living in. If keeping the criminal in prison for life (for example) would simply be too much of a drain on the society's resources (as it might be in a tribal community), then I can understand invoking the death penalty. I can also understand it in situations where justice is administered under a system where everybody knows everybody else, and retribution is a major motive for the punishment.

But in a modern nation, where the justice system is supposed to be set up to deal with offenders impartially, where trial is before a jury or judge previously unknown to the offender, and where the state's resources can easily stretch to keeping the offender imprisoned, I can't see any good justification for the death penalty. And in the real world, where guilt is seldom 100% certain, I can see lots of reasons not to have it.