The Death Penalty

[DBT]

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.

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 ship has sailed -- once you've accepted "defending against a threat to life" as a sufficient reason to kill, you have accepted that killing people is a suitable solution in principle. The rest is just haggling over details.

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

It's not implied at all. There's no mixed message being sent; there's only a mixed message you're constructing yourself by the way you choose to "read between the lines." The state never says "it's not ok to kill, unless in self defense"; the state says it's not okay to kill unless in accordance with the law. Then the law lists circumstances where it allows people to kill. One of them is self-defense, yes; but another is obeying a lawful order to kill an enemy combatant; another is carrying out a lawful sentence of death after due process; and so forth. The circumstance that you find one item on the state's list worthier than the rest has no power to cause the state to have a double standard or to have sent a mixed message. "It's not ok to kill, unless in self defense." is your premise, and your message, not theirs.

Laws are related to moral standards. The moral standards of a society may vary, and its laws set accordingly. If something is not seen as wrong, right or wrong being a moral standard, there is no reason to have a law against it.

 

[Copernicus]

Laws are related to moral standards. The moral standards of a society may vary, and its laws set accordingly. If something is not seen as wrong, right or wrong being a moral standard, there is no reason to have a law against it.

There is a relationship, but there is a big difference between moral standards and legal standards, especially in the US. Generally speaking, US laws have to have some kind of civil grounding or justification in order for them to be constitutionally sanctioned. So a certain standard of dress or behavior may be considered immoral, but it can't really be criminalized on that basis, at least in principle. I'm not going to pretend that legislatures don't pass such laws and courts allow them in practice, but such laws are often stricken from the books. Murder and theft aren't illegal because they are immoral. They are illegal because they present an obvious danger to the public.

 

[steve_bank]

Adult consensual oral sex gay or straight used to be illeg even if marriedl, along with fornication. Moral Laws. I grew up mostly in Connecticut in the 50s - 60s with what were called religion based Blue Laws in New England. Major stores and busness had to close on Sunday. Alcohol could be seed in bars and restaurants on Sunday, but could not be sold in stores.

Relatives of one of the peple murdered in the case I posted on camera were outraged at the thought of the guy being paroled. They called it justice for their loss to keep him in prison.

 

[DBT]

Laws are related to moral standards. The moral standards of a society may vary, and its laws set accordingly. If something is not seen as wrong, right or wrong being a moral standard, there is no reason to have a law against it.

There is a relationship, but there is a big difference between moral standards and legal standards, especially in the US. Generally speaking, US laws have to have some kind of civil grounding or justification in order for them to be constitutionally sanctioned. So a certain standard of dress or behavior may be considered immoral, but it can't really be criminalized on that basis, at least in principle. I'm not going to pretend that legislatures don't pass such laws and courts allow them in practice, but such laws are often stricken from the books. Murder and theft aren't illegal because they are immoral. They are illegal because they present an obvious danger to the public.

What is a danger to the public may have moral implications. Someone running a red light to save a few minutes is breaking the law, putting others in danger, which is also an act that has moral implications. The needs and wants of the self in relation to others.

 

[Copernicus]

...
What is a danger to the public may have moral implications. Someone running a red light to save a few minutes is breaking the law, putting others in danger, which is also an act that has moral implications. The needs and wants of the self in relation to others.

That's true. A law may or may not have moral implications, but it always runs into the ninth and tenth amendments, which allow for the protection of rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. So the government is really supposed to only pass laws in which there is a compelling state interest. Moral codes are quite often about forms of behavior that the state has no compelling interest in regulating.

 

[steve_bank]

Morlity and civil law are not exactly black and white.. Laws and punishments aaginst racism are a moral statement.

I would call traffic laws more about maintaining order. Same with theft.

 

[DBT]

Morlity and civil law are not exactly black and white.. Laws and punishments aaginst racism are a moral statement.

I would call traffic laws more about maintaining order. Same with theft.

Maintaining order has moral implications. Breaking laws designed to maintain order may have moral implications, putting your own needs before others, etc.

 

[DBT]

...
What is a danger to the public may have moral implications. Someone running a red light to save a few minutes is breaking the law, putting others in danger, which is also an act that has moral implications. The needs and wants of the self in relation to others.

That's true. A law may or may not have moral implications, but it always runs into the ninth and tenth amendments, which allow for the protection of rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. So the government is really supposed to only pass laws in which there is a compelling state interest. Moral codes are quite often about forms of behavior that the state has no compelling interest in regulating.

Yet that killing in self defense is lawful has moral implications. It tells us what is acceptable in both legal and moral terms. We are judged accordingly. Self defense is seen as justified, murder is not. Execution is not considered moral or legal for citizens....so the state may reserve the right to execute criminals but this doesn't alter the moral terms of the act of execution, only the legality of the act.

 

[TSwizzle]

Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.

How so? Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law is necessary. Unless the system is equally applied to all people, the death penalty is morally wrong in its application. All mass killers get death or not.

And mass killings where the killer is known is about as simple a case as it gets. Once we get into nuanced situations of conviction without certainty, that makes things much harder to deal with.

 

[TSwizzle]

Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.

How so? Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law is necessary. Unless the system is equally applied to all people, the death penalty is morally wrong in its application. All mass killers get death or not.

How so, because he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable. It's a practical solution, morals be damned when dealing with such specimens.

And mass killings where the killer is known is about as simple a case as it gets. Once we get into nuanced situations of conviction without certainty, that makes things much harder to deal with.

Yes, that is why I said execution would have been appropriate, we know he did it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.

How so? Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law is necessary. Unless the system is equally applied to all people, the death penalty is morally wrong in its application. All mass killers get death or not.

How so, because he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable. It's a practical solution, morals be damned when dealing with such specimens.

Equal protection means equal protection.

 

[TSwizzle]

Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.

How so? Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law is necessary. Unless the system is equally applied to all people, the death penalty is morally wrong in its application. All mass killers get death or not.

How so, because he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable. It's a practical solution, morals be damned when dealing with such specimens.

Equal protection means equal protection.

And in certain situations, like Ramos, equal protection will not apply. Exception to the rule and all that.

 

[ramoss]

A major topic, the death penalty. Is it cruel and unusual punishment? I doubt the founders would have thought so.

Here in Washington in 1980. a man killed 3 people and tortured two. One person was shot in the head while bound. One was stragled. He was semteced to three life terms. Recently a parole board recommended parole saying he was rehabilitatedv and npt a danger to society. Public outcry resulted in the governor overdring the decison.

H e was caught and admitted to it and was dismissive of the victims. There is no issue of the man not being guilty.

Should such a person forfeit his life for having taken three lives?

My objection to the death penalty is irreversible error, an innocent man being executed. That does not apply in this case.

Would oiu have voted for parole?
If yu were on a jury would you vote for the death penalty?

Gov. Inslee cancels parole for man convicted of infamous 1980 triple-homicide

Gov. Jay Inslee has canceled parole for a man convicted of the infamous triple murder at the Barn Door Tavern in SeaTac in June 1980.

www.kiro7.com

No. My main reason is that no matter what. I do not want the state to have the power to make that decision, over anyone. I would approve of assisted suicide for any person who is serving life imprisonment, because that would be their choice.

 

[bilby]

he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable.

How long did you spend with him, one on one, before arriving at this conclusion?

What are your psychiatric or psychological credentials?

Or would it be fair to say that you are neither qualified nor informed enough to make that claim, and are calling for someone to be killed based on a set of glib assumptions about them that you have made zero attempt to verify?

Because the latter would be pretty fucking evil. And my unqualified and poorly informed opinion is that your evil cannot be fixed, and that you should be executed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable.

How long did you spend with him, one on one, before arriving at this conclusion?

You forget, he is a devout reader of The Daily Mail.

 

[Tigers!]

The thing about threads like this that always bothers me is the way that the victim(s), their family/friends are quickly forgotten about. It all becomes about the criminal.
We rarely consider the life sentence without parole or reduction of sentence for them and to them.
And that is most unkind and callous.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The thing about threads like this that always bothers me is the way that the victim(s), their family/friends are quickly forgotten about. It all becomes about the criminal.

No, not in America. Whether you get the death penalty matters heavily, not on the identity of the criminal, but the identity of the victim(s). Kill a white person, more likely to die. Kill a white women... they string up a noose in the courtroom. That isn't to say the families of white women get a larger say, but it indicates that the identity of the victim does carry a heavy weight. In Canada, if you are an indigenous female... they don't even care to investigate.

We rarely consider the life sentence without parole or reduction of sentence for them and to them.
And that is most unkind and callous.

We are a society, and rules regarding law and judgement need to be based on a level playing field. A person should suffer the same fate for the same crime, regardless.

 

[Toni]

There are certain crimes so heinous that, given the opportunity, I would gladly pull that lever over and over and over again, until my arm could pull no more.

This is one of the reasons that I oppose the death penalty.

 

[braces_for_impact]

A major topic, the death penalty. Is it cruel and unusual punishment? I doubt the founders would have thought so.

Here in Washington in 1980. a man killed 3 people and tortured two. One person was shot in the head while bound. One was stragled. He was semteced to three life terms. Recently a parole board recommended parole saying he was rehabilitatedv and npt a danger to society. Public outcry resulted in the governor overdring the decison.

H e was caught and admitted to it and was dismissive of the victims. There is no issue of the man not being guilty.

Should such a person forfeit his life for having taken three lives?

My objection to the death penalty is irreversible error, an innocent man being executed. That does not apply in this case.

Would oiu have voted for parole?
If yu were on a jury would you vote for the death penalty?

Gov. Inslee cancels parole for man convicted of infamous 1980 triple-homicide

Gov. Jay Inslee has canceled parole for a man convicted of the infamous triple murder at the Barn Door Tavern in SeaTac in June 1980.

www.kiro7.com

While I'm not a fan of human suffering for anyone, even someone as reprehensible as this, one can take value in the idea that death for someone like this is an easy way out. In a way, spending the rest of one's life in prison, wasting their entire existence could also be viewed as appropriate punishment.