The Death Penalty - Why Not?

I think Baron Max is being deliberately obtuse, if this is all he is saying.

To the extent that there's anything less-than-completely-straightforward about his statements, it's that he's mocking you. As he's now made explicit, even this is making a point, in Baron's gruff way: he's suggesting that your assessment of the costs of the death penalty (accidental killing of innocent people) is exaggerated, given your apparently unequal regard for the vastly larger number of lives lost due to transport infrastructure. Maybe there's a good reason to care more about the former category, but I haven't seen the argument made here. Instead there's a lot of tap-dancing around the meaning of "accidental."

Of course, there are larger rhetorical reasons for Baron to pursue such a line of argument: in order to respond honestly, you must either take the (extreme) position that all traffic deaths are unacceptable, or you must accept that the forseeable, large-scale loss of innocent lives is an acceptable price to pay for important policies. In the former case, you're reduced to a kook, and in the latter you cede the moral high ground of being "protector of the innocent," and the issue is reduced to a technical question of what the benefits of the death penalty (if any) are.

Your only other option is to avoid giving an honest response, which is probably what Baron is hoping for, as it suggests that your position on (and interest in discussing) the subject derives from something considerably less admirable than clear-eyed analysis and elevated moral concern.

I don't disagree with him on this point, if this is all he is saying. I thought he was trying to make some point in favour of the death penalty.

He did. He's stated quite clearly (and repeatedly) that he thinks society's interest in permanently disposing of certain criminals is more important than the accidental loss of innocent life associated with that process. He hasn't made a particularly compelling case for this, but it's all right there. Say whatever else you want about Baron; he doesn't mince words and he can tell when you are evading him. And, favoring direct confrontation as he does, such evasion only energizes him. It should be easy enough to present a vastly more compelling case for your position, and to avoid throwing red meat to Baron in the process, if that's what you're interested in doing.
 
Yes. The guilty criminals are put to death ...they are NOT innocent. Those judged as guilty in courts, then put to death, then discovered that they were innocent are ...yep, you got it, ....innnocent. But that happens so seldom that it's almost like talking about deadly auto accidents at 25mph ...so few that it's not worth discussing.

NOT ONCE have I referred to 'what if they get it wrong' as my point yet that seems to be the basis of your entire counter-argument. My point was rather concerning the worth of human life, remember? Remember the quote about 'nothing more than revenge' from Albert Pierrepoint? Am I talking to myself here?
 
My point was rather concerning the worth of human life, remember?

Then you should be far, far more concerned about auto deaths than the very, very few deaths in the DP cases.

But you aren't, are you? So, ...what does that lead me to think about your statement above?????

Baron Max
 
The topic is trying to lessen the accidental deaths of innocent people in the country. What could be more clear?


Baron Max

Er no Max, it's about the Death Penalty. You keep trying to draw the debate with your inaccurate analogies, but that's all it's about.

Now, if you can, stick to the topic.
 
I assume you are also more concerned about auto deaths than terrorism

Me? Why does my personal feelings have anything to do with anything? Are you implying that one can't discuss some issue without first having a firm stance on that issue?

Baron Max
 
Er no Max, it's about the Death Penalty. You keep trying to draw the debate with your inaccurate analogies, but that's all it's about.

Can one talk about, say war, without death being a part of that discussion?

Can one talk about, say abortion, without the definition of "life" being part of the discussion?

Can one talk about, say death, without talking about the various causes?

Can one talk about, say the death penalty, without talking about death?

It's all interconnected, and the worse thing one can do is to try to separate something out and attempt to discuss it singly, without considering the various outside influences and/or possible results.

Baron Max
 
Can Max, talk about the death penalty, without lapsing off on tangents?

I should be grateful though, at least he's stopped mentioning 'little girls' at every opportunity like he he used to.
 
Can Max talk about the death penalty, without lapsing off on tangents?

Sure, let's talk about it. What would you like to say?

By the way, before you post anything, please read Quadraphonics' post above. He used lots and lots of words, but I think it was a good, interesting post. Please, .....take time to read it.

Baron Max
 
Then you should be far, far more concerned about auto deaths than the very, very few deaths in the DP cases.

But you aren't, are you? So, ...what does that lead me to think about your statement above?????

Baron Max

The worth of a life is questioned when it can be taken from you as a punishment. Have we not found more effective policies than 'an eye for an eye'?
 
The worth of a life is questioned when it can be taken from you as a punishment.

Why do you say that? I mean, if that's just your opinion, that's fine. But otherwise, do you have some "justification" for your beliefs or opinions?

Have we not found more effective policies than 'an eye for an eye'?

Like ...what? Why should any society on Earth want to keep vicious, evil murderers and such criminals in their midst? ...and, yes, "midst" still can mean in some prison.

Baron Max
 
Why do you say that? I mean, if that's just your opinion, that's fine. But otherwise, do you have some "justification" for your beliefs or opinions?

A life is not a commodity to be fined as a punishment - we would never enslave criminals yet we see fit to murder them.
Is logic enough justification for you? I know you are slightly unfamiliar with it.

Like ...what? Why should any society on Earth want to keep vicious, evil murderers and such criminals in their midst? ...and, yes, "midst" still can mean in some prison.

Baron Max[/quote]

Being in the midst of society is far from being in existence.
 
A life is not a commodity to be fined as a punishment ....

Why not? The murderer took it upon himself to kill someone ...isn't that like treating life as a commodity?

.... we would never enslave criminals yet we see fit to murder them.

Execution is not murder, it's killing. There's a big, big difference.

Being in the midst of society is far from being in existence.

Hmm, cute little saying ....but what's it mean?

Baron Max
 
Why not? The murderer took it upon himself to kill someone ...isn't that like treating life as a commodity?

That doesn't make any sense. How can you justify your point with hypocrisy? Isn't that usually thought of as an undesirable trait?

Execution is not murder, it's killing. There's a big, big difference.

That big difference you are referring to, it wouldn't be the fact the state condones it, would it?
Governments across the world and throughout history have practised and enforced bizarre and/or brutal laws that we in the West would consider to be wrong and unnecessary. Is stoning a 13-year-old girl to death for adultery right just because her government says so?

Hmm, cute little saying ....but what's it mean?

Baron Max

Do you have to have everything spelt out for you? You said people in prison were in the midst of society. If you understood what 'midst' meant, you would know that immediately as a logical fallacy.
 
That doesn't make any sense. How can you justify your point with hypocrisy? Isn't that usually thought of as an undesirable trait?

So you just saying that the death penalty is wrong is enough? You don't have to make any justifications for your opinions? Just saying something is enough to make it true and factual?

That big difference you are referring to, it wouldn't be the fact the state condones it, would it?

No, it isn't. A society is a group of people who form their society based on what they think of as right and wrong. That's how it works ...whether you like it or not. See? Our society has deem execution as proper and legal, so that's how it is.

Is stoning a 13-year-old girl to death for adultery right just because her government says so?

Yes, it is. That's how societies and cultures operate. How would you like it if some other society began telling you how to run your own society? See? You're trying force your own opinions of right and wrong onto some other culture/society ....and that ain't very nice of you.

Baron Max
 
So you just saying that the death penalty is wrong is enough? You don't have to make any justifications for your opinions? Just saying something is enough to make it true and factual?

Funny, I don't remember saying that. In fact, I think I was making a point about the hypocrisy of state executions.
Yet again you veer off on some unrelated tangent.

No, it isn't. A society is a group of people who form their society based on what they think of as right and wrong. That's how it works ...whether you like it or not. See? Our society has deem execution as proper and legal, so that's how it is.

I live in the UK, where we haven't executed a criminal since the 60s. Not even every state in a America has the DP - what proof do you have that society sees it as 'right'?

Yes, it is. That's how societies and cultures operate. How would you like it if some other society began telling you how to run your own society? See? You're trying force your own opinions of right and wrong onto some other culture/society ....and that ain't very nice of you.

Baron Max

Right and wrong like hell. So you believe her death was right? Why?
 
quadraphonics:

I'm glad Baron Max has you to help clarify his arguments.

As he's now made explicit, even this is making a point, in Baron's gruff way: he's suggesting that your assessment of the costs of the death penalty (accidental killing of innocent people) is exaggerated, given your apparently unequal regard for the vastly larger number of lives lost due to transport infrastructure.

I don't believe I have commented on my level of concern over the road toll.

Perhaps this would make a good topic for a new thread... if you or Max are interested.

He's stated quite clearly (and repeatedly) that he thinks society's interest in permanently disposing of certain criminals is more important than the accidental loss of innocent life associated with that process.

Yes, and I disagree with him.

It should be easy enough to present a vastly more compelling case for your position, and to avoid throwing red meat to Baron in the process, if that's what you're interested in doing.

Why should I do all the work? Perhaps when the Baron (or yourself, if you feel so inclined) present a vastly more compelling case in favour of the death penalty, then I will take the time and effort to present the opposite case.
 
Me? Why does my personal feelings have anything to do with anything? Are you implying that one can't discuss some issue without first having a firm stance on that issue?

Baron Max
Well, you were telling the other person what they should be concerned about and using an argument based on statistics. I asked a question - to help you learn and think before....as you would say. And no I was not implying what you are asking me if I am implying? I was wondering if you had more concern, not a stance. It's right there in the question. I was wondering if your concern followed the logic you thought his conern 'should'.

Stances are a related subject. Feel free to bring it up in the answer, but I was focused on your concern.
 
Back
Top