Again, I argue it is immoral for the state to ask someone to kill someone else as part of your job. If you are an individual and seek vengence, it would be much more "satisfying" to do it yourself...and then face the punishments for your own offenses. It is rediculous to have a system to "satisfy" people. It is law and order, rules that should be followed by the government and the people.
Death Penalty (in a bubble)
- Thread starter ashura
- Start date
Again, I argue it is immoral for the state to ask someone to kill someone else as part of your job. If you are an individual and seek vengence, it would be much more "satisfying" to do it yourself...and then face the punishments for your own offenses. It is rediculous to have a system to "satisfy" people. It is law and order, rules that should be followed by the government and the people.
so the way forward for the world is to kill the people who kill, to just please the majority of people, i know the priginal question was "without a doubt" but there will be mistakes made, and who will bring back the innocent people?
If you're not interested in discussing the validity of death as a punishment, why are you even bothering to post? The issue of giving the government the power to use a death penalty is a separate one.
Also, I never said that I'm pro-death penalty in a bubble. I'm actually neither pro nor against as I can't seem to find a good solid stance. I am however anti-death penalty when it comes to giving the power to the state.
Should I receive the death penalty, then, if ...
• ... I run a red light because my girlfriend/wife is yelling at me and distracting me, with the result that I strike another car and someone dies?
• ... I run a mining company and miners die because of dangerous practices intended to suck every last bit of resource I can get out of part of the mine?
• ... I run a chemical processing company and people die in an explosion that can be shown to result from a lack of safety spending?
• ... I lie to Congress, the people of the United States, and the United Nations in order to send my soldiers abroad to kill people?
• ... as a prison guard, I turn a blind eye to certain activities in the prison and someone dies as a result (e.g. drugs, ritual violence, HIV transfer during rape, &c.)?
• ... as a D.A. I convict someone improperly, and that person dies in prison?
• ... as a police officer I shoot an unarmed, innocent man to death?
• ... as a restaurant employee I do not wash my hands properly, with the result that a child or elderly person dies of E. coli infection?
• ... as a smoker my spouse dies of lung cancer?
• ... &c., ad nauseam
• ... I run a mining company and miners die because of dangerous practices intended to suck every last bit of resource I can get out of part of the mine?
• ... I run a chemical processing company and people die in an explosion that can be shown to result from a lack of safety spending?
• ... I lie to Congress, the people of the United States, and the United Nations in order to send my soldiers abroad to kill people?
• ... as a prison guard, I turn a blind eye to certain activities in the prison and someone dies as a result (e.g. drugs, ritual violence, HIV transfer during rape, &c.)?
• ... as a D.A. I convict someone improperly, and that person dies in prison?
• ... as a police officer I shoot an unarmed, innocent man to death?
• ... as a restaurant employee I do not wash my hands properly, with the result that a child or elderly person dies of E. coli infection?
• ... as a smoker my spouse dies of lung cancer?
• ... &c., ad nauseam
That's what this thread is meant to ask you. Do any of these options match a crime that you think deserves death?
Depends Tiassa, are you someone the government doesn't like? Perhaps the Jury didn't like, perhaps the prosecuter didn't like?
Argh, I can't seem to get away from this idea of government involvement.
How about revising the hypothetical once again. In a society where the death penalty is not legal and will never ever ever be legal because society understands that giving government this power is a bad idea, is there any crime which you think the criminal deserves death even though you know he's/she's not going to get it no matter how much you may want the government to give it to him/her?
How about revising the hypothetical once again. In a society where the death penalty is not legal and will never ever ever be legal because society understands that giving government this power is a bad idea, is there any crime which you think the criminal deserves death even though you know he's/she's not going to get it no matter how much you may want the government to give it to him/her?
When you say "crime" you are involving the government(laws-breaking laws - crime). Society, we are in this together - here's the rules we agree upon so we all "get ahead".
If you are talking about individuals in a "bubble", there is only emotions, passions and thoughts as fleeting as the inumberable possiblities that come to mind. The answer is as chaotic as the question. It depends.
Certainly every single individual person, has a breaking point where they say "I cannot continue to exhist...while you do..."
If you are talking about individuals in a "bubble", there is only emotions, passions and thoughts as fleeting as the inumberable possiblities that come to mind. The answer is as chaotic as the question. It depends.
Certainly every single individual person, has a breaking point where they say "I cannot continue to exhist...while you do..."
I understand this, but I'm limiting the government to the point where it can't execute a death penalty. The bubble I've placed these individuals in includes this government. It's sort of like how I can wish for different drug laws, and get people's ideas about drugs under those laws.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Why is it ridiculous? The only good reason to have a government is to make people happier than they would be living in a state of unregulared anarchy. Trach pickups occur because it "satisfies" people more than letting garbage pile up on the streets. Water is purified and pumped around because it "satisfies" people more than collecting it from a well or river and then boiling it to kill off microbes. Police exist people having a system of crime prevention and punishment makes people feel better than the alternative.
The only difference in the case of executions is that the benefit is very much focused at the family and friends of the victim, rather than generally made available to large swathes of society.
As for it being immoral to make someone kill another person as part of their job...do you include the military in that assertion? Is it immoral to have a military given that killing is a large part of the job for many of them? Suppose the army were composed of conscripts who had no choice in the matter? IMO, if it is not immoral to kill in the first place, then it is not immoral to kill by proxy, or to be that proxy. Bear in mind that state executioners aren't conscripts. They volunteer to work in that position, knowing full well what it entails.
Personally, I'd have no problem letting a friend ort family member pull the lever that ends the convict's life, so long as the state supervised to make sure that the method of execution was reasonably humane. That the state does not let family members do it is not a big deal to me.
But executing a murderer is not wrong. Allowing him to live is wrong.
Sounds like involuntary manslaughter at most, so no.
The death penalty should be imposed when someone deliberately takes the life of another. Not for errors or stupidity. Some of the other situations you described may still be crimes, but not first degree murder.
Certainly not anything that sounds like first degree murder. So no. Might be criminal negligence, not murder.
Almost the exact same situation as the above. No.
Now you're really reaching.
That would depend on the exact situation. If you turned a blind eye to the extent that you were involved in the crime (i.e. paid off or something), perhaps. I've seen situations like that on OZ (great HBO show about prison). Such as a guard letting guys into the cell of a guy in solitary so they can kill him. Clearly, that guard was a part of the crime. But if it's just general lax monitoring that allows shit to happen, then no.
No. The death penalty should not be imposed for an error. Only intentional murder. Now if the DA knew the guy was innocent but railroaded him, maybe.
Probably not. Totally depends on the situation. Again, death should not be imposed for errors. If the cop was a psycho and just outright murdered the guy for no reason, then yes.
How many times can I say it. If it's just an error or poor judgement, no. If the intent was to make people sick, then yes.
Absurd. First, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the spouse's smoking that caused the cancer? Second, the spouse clearly knew of the risk yet continued to co-habitate for years. There's no crime here.
The death penalty should be imposed when someone deliberately takes the life of another. Not for errors or stupidity. Some of the other situations you described may still be crimes, but not first degree murder.
of course its wrong, if its wrong to kill,
I think there are some situations - and not just self-defence - in which a person deserves to be able to kill; how about that?ashura said:
There is no person who knows whether anyone "deserves death". Pretending to that sort of knowledge is explicitly forbidden to Christians, and I believe other religionists, and should be obviously a matter of doubt and reflection for anyone who is alert.
As one quote puts it: "If we all got what we deserved, we'd all be hung".
Or nobody.
Nope, not the same thing and you know it.
By deserves, I mean from your personal judgement of course. Not some rule that should be universal.