The Death Penalty

[Politesse]

So it is a moral issue, in that deciding they are guilty would make you feel bad? Or is the thought that the court and lawyers and so forth will see that you refused to serve on the jury and call off the trial, having suddenly realized that it is immoral? The wellbeing of the defendant seems centered in your thoughts on why the trial is wrong, but you aren't doing anything to prevent the trial or improve the fate of the defendant, only your personal degree of connection to those things.

Or are you thinking that a jury which is comfortable with the death penalty is more likely to give the defendant a fair hearing, and therefore more qualified to serve than you? This seems unlikely to me. People who are okay with state killings seem more likely to be biased against an accused person rather than for them, all things considered.

 

[steve_bank]

You are on a death penalty jury and the evidence is irrefutable video and eye witness, do you vote yes or no? I would vote yes in the case I posted. If evidence was largely circumstantial I would vote no, the possibility of irreversible error.

I would vote yes. As that is my job as a juror in that case, regardless of my personal ethical views. But I do think the punishment in question is barbaric (like most elements of our penal system).

I think life in prison is far worse than execution.

I sent a few years in rehab first in a nursing home and then assisted living where I had a very small studio apartment. At first it was mind numbing not being able to get around and socializing and going outside. It took effort to keep it together. At first go to meals and go back to apartment. I coud not think straight at first.

Reports on lifers generally say a slow decline in mental health.

 

[steve_bank]

During jury selection on a capital murder case I think if you say you oppose the death penalty you woud be excused.

People wnat law and order as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty. The progressive apprich considered in Seattle and Washington is to get rid of felonies except for mostly violent offenders.

The problem is we have a serious problem with violent repeat offenders repeating violent assaults and murders. A well inteioned non profit paid a high bail for a murder suspect who went out and murdered again. This kind of thing s not uncpmmon around here. Low or no bail released on own recognizance and commuting violent felonies.

Police and the justice system are at the very end of the chain. Their job is to clean and contain the social and economic mess and maintain order.

Anoter shooting the oter day when a car with a group of teens was riddled with bullets from a passing car. This is not uncommon around here.

 

[TSwizzle]

The death penalty is entirely appropriate in some cases. There’s too much ceremony around it though. Just off them asap.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a different approach:

The death penalty exists but no crime carries it. Rather, there are two ways it can be triggered:

1) The bad guy has a life sentence and then does something that has a life sentence. The second life sentence gets promoted to death.

2) Too dangerous to keep: Someone has a life sentence and allies do something that gets a life sentence (or would if prosecution were possible) in an attempt to free them. This would also apply if the action were taken after they were arrested but before they were convicted.

 

[DBT]

The death penalty is entirely appropriate in some cases. There’s too much ceremony around it though. Just off them asap.

Which conveys the message that killing people is a suitable solution. If it's good for the judicial system and society to kill its problematic members, it's acceptable as a solution in principle.

 

[TSwizzle]

The death penalty is entirely appropriate in some cases. There’s too much ceremony around it though. Just off them asap.

Which conveys the message that killing people is a suitable solution. If it's good for the judicial system and society to kill its problematic members, it's acceptable as a solution in principle.

There’s no need to get carried away on flights of fancy. Mass murderers, for example, are not “problematic” (a dumb weasel word anyway) they are defective pieces of junk beyond repair. Off them.

 

[DBT]

The death penalty is entirely appropriate in some cases. There’s too much ceremony around it though. Just off them asap.

Which
Which conveys the message that killing people is a suitable solution. If it's good for the judicial system and society to kill its problematic members, it's acceptable as a solution in principle.

There’s no need to get carried away on flights of fancy. Mass murderers, for example, are not “problematic” (a dumb weasel word anyway) they are defective pieces of junk beyond repair. Off them.

Whatever they are, the worst of the worst, capital punishment, killing someone is taken to be a satisfactory solution to a problem.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes, a very specific problem.

 

[Copernicus]

So it is a moral issue, in that deciding they are guilty would make you feel bad? Or is the thought that the court and lawyers and so forth will see that you refused to serve on the jury and call off the trial, having suddenly realized that it is immoral? The wellbeing of the defendant seems centered in your thoughts on why the trial is wrong, but you aren't doing anything to prevent the trial or improve the fate of the defendant, only your personal degree of connection to those things.

Or are you thinking that a jury which is comfortable with the death penalty is more likely to give the defendant a fair hearing, and therefore more qualified to serve than you? This seems unlikely to me. People who are okay with state killings seem more likely to be biased against an accused person rather than for them, all things considered.

It is a moral issue for me, because I honestly would not vote to convict, given the outcome. I have a conscience, and I will not have someone's death on my conscience. I also swear to tell the truth for voir dire, and you would have me violate my oath? What if I voted to convict and the defendant ends up being tortured to death in a botched execution or one (like the electric chair, hanging, or poison gas) that is essentially a torture-killing?

You seem to be saying that I should be on the jury to help oppose the death of an innocent person, but why should I assume that jurors who are comfortable with the death penalty would be more biased than I am? Do you think I would be a better juror because I don't want to spend the rest of my life thinking that I had to send someone to the death chamber? That suggests to me that you agree with my point that the death penalty tends to make people less humane. I don't think that guilty defendants should be murdered or tortured. That penalty should be declared unconstitutional, because it is both cruel and unusual. (Well, maybe not in Texas, where it's just cruel.) Would you participate in a trial that would end up chopping off the hand of a thief? I won't aid and abet barbaric punishments, and the death penalty is nothing short of barbaric.

 

[bilby]

The death penalty is entirely appropriate in some cases. There’s too much ceremony around it though. Just off them asap.

I am certain that you would change your tune if you were wrongfully accused of murder.

It happens. It could happen to you.

 

[DBT]

Yes, a very specific problem.

Never mind the mixed message. It's not moral to kill unless defending against a threat to life....but its ok for the state to execute prisoners because they deserve killing.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes, a very specific problem.

Never mind the mixed message.

What mixed message?

It's not moral to kill unless defending against a threat to life....but its ok for the state to execute prisoners because they deserve killing.

That’s odd/mixed but I never said that.

I’m pretty clear that the death penalty is appropriate for certain situations.

 

[Politesse]

suggests to me that you agree with my point that the death penalty tends to make people less humane.

Indeed.

 

[prideandfall]

Which conveys the message that killing people is a suitable solution. If it's good for the judicial system and society to kill its problematic members, it's acceptable as a solution in principle.

well that's the ultimate crux of human civilization, isn't it?
killing absolutely is a solution, both pragmatically and in principle, to a huge variety of problems from a naturalistic perspective.
but, human consciousness leading to both an increase in the desire to kill and aberration in the execution of killing is counter-productive to cohesive social structure.

as a civilization we exist in a state where we both agree to the rules of society and permit everyone else to agree to the rules of society.
but one of the tricky things about the modern world is that there is no option to opt of out of civilization... you can't click 'no' to the terms of service and then fuck off to some unclaimed land somewhere and be left alone.
likewise, there's no option for when the rest of us decide that someone is no longer welcome within civilization - you can't exile people anymore, there's nowhere to exile them to.

which means that when someone grievously violates the tenets of civilization you have two options if you choose to act to prevent them from continuing to do so:
1. confine them away from others
2. kill them

i think it's fairly reasonable for a collective social body to have viable options to prevent aberrant actions within its own population.
i also think there are many instances where just killing someone is vastly preferable (morally speaking) to subjecting them to the living hell of incarceration within the US prison system.

 

[DBT]

Yes, a very specific problem.

Never mind the mixed message.

What mixed message?

It's not moral to kill unless defending against a threat to life....but its ok for the state to execute prisoners because they deserve killing.

That’s odd/mixed but I never said that.

I’m pretty clear that the death penalty is appropriate for certain situations.

A double standard of ethics is clearly implied. As described several times.

 

[DBT]

Which conveys the message that killing people is a suitable solution. If it's good for the judicial system and society to kill its problematic members, it's acceptable as a solution in principle.

well that's the ultimate crux of human civilization, isn't it?
killing absolutely is a solution, both pragmatically and in principle, to a huge variety of problems from a naturalistic perspective.
but, human consciousness leading to both an increase in the desire to kill and aberration in the execution of killing is counter-productive to cohesive social structure.

as a civilization we exist in a state where we both agree to the rules of society and permit everyone else to agree to the rules of society.
but one of the tricky things about the modern world is that there is no option to opt of out of civilization... you can't click 'no' to the terms of service and then fuck off to some unclaimed land somewhere and be left alone.
likewise, there's no option for when the rest of us decide that someone is no longer welcome within civilization - you can't exile people anymore, there's nowhere to exile them to.

which means that when someone grievously violates the tenets of civilization you have two options if you choose to act to prevent them from continuing to do so:
1. confine them away from others
2. kill them

i think it's fairly reasonable for a collective social body to have viable options to prevent aberrant actions within its own population.
i also think there are many instances where just killing someone is vastly preferable (morally speaking) to subjecting them to the living hell of incarceration within the US prison system.

A prisoner may prefer incarceration to death, or vise versa. If death, that is their own option.

 

[Politesse]

I also swear to tell the truth for voir dire, and you would have me violate my oath?

I neither implied nor meant to imply such a thing, though it does pose an interesting question, in that it seems to indicate that you consider killing a prisoner to be a moral wrong, but less of a moral wrong than telling a lie, if lying would allow you to save the life of a possible defendant. For me, there is similarly a question of conflicting values that differ in scale. I think that capital punishment is a moral wrong, but one which is counterbalanced in this case by my moral responsibility to both fulfill my responsibilities of citizenship and more importantly, my ethical responsibility to participate in guaranteeing a fair trial to someone else in my community who is facing a critically important judgement.

I have no interest in telling anyone else what to do, here, though I do advocate politically against the prison system in this country, and in particular have invested considerable time and money in trying to end the practice of slave labor within that system, a phenonemon not unconnected to the question of capital punishment. Every election season, I'm on the phones.

 

[prideandfall]

A prisoner may prefer incarceration to death, or vise versa. If death, that is their own option.

a collective group may prefer to bear the expense of incarceration, which i'd posit is at their discretion.

DBT do you agree or disagree with the hypothetical that there are crimes which are heinous enough to warrant never allowing an individual to re-enter society?
(assume for the sake of this hypothetical that guilt is 100% certain)

 

[TSwizzle]

A double standard of ethics is clearly implied. As described several times.

If so, I’m fine with that.