Capital punishment, Thoughts?

[Bomb#20]

oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

Do you have a good reason to believe his appeal to emotion is followed by a strawman?

Bolded above.

Do you know what a strawman is? It's a misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Whose argument is he supposed to be misrepresenting? What he's doing is simply expressing his perception of what the policy his opponents are advocating amounts to.

Bolded above. The perception that death penalty opponents want to treat wallet theft no differently than homicide is false. Thus, he isn't attacking anybody's actual argument, but only his perception of what they are arguing, sort of like an effigy or a voodoo doll made out of some flammable straw-like substance, fashioned into the shape of a hominid.

Oh for the love of god! Do you even read the words you type?!? In the first place, he doesn't want heinous criminals to be murdered. He wants them legally executed after fair trials and appellate review. Your perception that he's advocating murder is false. You weren't attacking anybody's actual argument, but only your perception of what they are arguing. If credoconsolans' argument is a strawman then so is yours. Are you granting that yours is a strawman? I didn't think so.

In the second place, where the devil did credoconsolans say anything about what opponents want?!? Which part of "we're going to" don't you understand? He's talking about what we're going to do if the death penalty is abolished, not what you want us to do. For all any of us know you want the penalty for lesser crimes reduced as well in order to maintain the ordering. You didn't say; and credoconsolans did not impute any position on that to you.

And in the third place, where the hell do you get off changing what he wrote, "stole your wallet at gunpoint", into "wallet theft", Mr. "an effigy or a voodoo doll made out of some flammable straw-like substance"? The point of a three strikes law is to give a recidivist mugger a life sentence, not for stealing the wallet, but for pointing the gun into somebody's face.

I no longer have the capacity to take you seriously.

Oh please. You were never taking me seriously. If you'd been taking me seriously you never would have misrepresented my position in post #62 and thereby gotten me on your case in the first place. The reason you don't have the capacity to take me seriously is because not taking people who disagree with you seriously is an excellent way of defending your religious beliefs against the temptation to think about them critically.

 

[DBT]

In the first place, he doesn't want heinous criminals to be murdered. He wants them legally executed after fair trials and appellate review.

It is the ethics related to 'legal execution' that is being questioned by opponents of the death penalty. It's not that it cannot be deemed to be legal by the state to execute offenders after due process, but whether it is ethical. Furthermore, whether it rests upon revenge and/or convenience and expediency - ie - ''the offender is a risk to society''

 

[Bomb#20]

It's not that it cannot be deemed to be legal by the state to execute offenders after due process, but whether it is ethical.

And if "murder" meant "the unethical premeditated killing of one human being by another" then that would be a counterargument. Instead, you just completely missed the point. The point was that when PyramidHead mistakenly accused credoconsolans of a strawman, he really should have known better than to think it was a strawman since he's used the same type of argument himself.

 

[DBT]

It's not that it cannot be deemed to be legal by the state to execute offenders after due process, but whether it is ethical.

And if "murder" meant "the unethical premeditated killing of one human being by another" then that would be a counterargument. Instead, you just completely missed the point. The point was that when PyramidHead mistakenly accused credoconsolans of a strawman, he really should have known better than to think it was a strawman since he's used the same type of argument himself.

It doesn't miss the point.

The ethics associated with the death penalty is the point.

We know that the death penalty is legal in some nations and states. Opposition to the death penalty is related to the issue of ethics of state execution, so this issue certainly not irrelevant just because you proclaim it to be.

''The question as to whether or not it is morally acceptable for the state to execute people, and if so under what circumstances, has been debated for centuries.''

''The ethical problems involved include the general moral issues of punishment with the added problem of whether it is ever morally right to deprive a human being of life.''

''The death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims. As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated'' Amnesty International

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

I favor capital punishment in extremely rare cases. I also favor a law stating "If a person shall be wrongfully put to death, and the reason for the wrong shall be misconduct by the prosecution, police, judge, or allied agencies, then upon conviction, that offender shall be put to death in a like manner."

Eldarion Lathria

 

[WAB]

I think I've come to decide that I am against capital punishment. I think, after 50 years of constant battle in my heart and head, that the most sane, humanitarian answer is to abolish it.

I sort of kind of made this decision years ago when I wrote a sonnet on the topic. This was the most difficult poem I ever wrote. I posted it in the poetry thread a couple of years ago, on the old board, if memory serves, and quite a few peeps felt a bit of a sting:



Lethal Injection

One pinch, and winter drifts toward your heart.
Your eyes are dazzled by the thought and keep
a point transfixed in space. Cold and apart,
two fathers watch them shudder into sleep.
Now I will speak, though I cannot forgive:
lifting the iron from my tongue I swear
three syllables that are too vain to live,
that fall out stillborn, withered in mid-air.

You cannot hear me now. You lie so still
my voice returns to me, its breath turned sour.
They lift the sheet and hide your face from view.
Most will forget your name. Two never will,
who'll waken nightly in this terrible hour
joined in the ritual of remembering you.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why kill them?

Almost any reason articulated on this subject turns out to have serious flaws. While I can see why killing someone might make you feel better, it doesn't generally help the situation any.

Indeed. What a waste of a resource. You could farm them for organs to do science experiments on them that would otherwise be unethical.

I kid. Sort of.

 

[Bomb#20]

Did you mean "justify" in the moral sense, or did you mean it in some sense where "If I don't flog my slave for trying to run away then he'll do it again; I don't want him to run away; therefore I'm going to flog him." is a justification?

What's the difference?
...
Justifying something, the way I see it, is just a matter of persuading someone to approve of something. It doesn't mean there's something special about that thing anymore than a person liking a certain food means there's something special about it.

Well then, if you told someone who doubts the morality of slave flogging "If I don't flog my slave for trying to run away then he'll do it again; I don't want him to run away; therefore I'm going to flog him.", do you think that would be the sort of explanation that would persuade him to approve of you flogging your slave?

Since retributivism is gobbledygook to me, punishment can only be justified on irrational grounds, or consequentialist grounds.
...
It's arguments that are rational or irrational. Un/supported premises, conclusions that do/n't follow from them, fallacies, etc.

...
Perhaps you could give an example of an argument (presumably on consequentialist grounds) that you'd see as a rational moral argument for punishment, with supported premises, moral conclusions that follow from them, and no fallacies. That way we could see what you're talking about.

If that's the only method you can come up with, I guess you're unlikely to ever see what I'm talking about.

Hey, if you aren't asserting the existence of moral arguments based on consequentialist grounds that are any more rational than the ones retributivism gives us, then your claim in substance becomes "punishment can only be justified on irrational grounds, or consequentialist irrational grounds"; and if that's all you're claiming then we don't have a dispute here. The noncognitivism plus error theory that apparently leads you to think retributivism is gobbledygook is an atomic bomb for moral justification. It levels everything. It doesn't make a special exception for consequentialism.

 

[Unbeatable]

Hey, if you aren't asserting the existence of moral arguments based on consequentialist grounds that are any more rational than the ones retributivism gives us, then your claim in substance becomes "punishment can only be justified on irrational grounds, or consequentialist irrational grounds"; and if that's all you're claiming then we don't have a dispute here. The noncognitivism plus error theory that apparently leads you to think retributivism is gobbledygook is an atomic bomb for moral justification. It levels everything. It doesn't make a special exception for consequentialism.

I can't say I follow the rest, but dropping an atomic bomb on "moral" justification sounds pretty good to me, come to think of it. No special exceptions needed.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's not that it cannot be deemed to be legal by the state to execute offenders after due process, but whether it is ethical.

And if "murder" meant "the unethical premeditated killing of one human being by another" then that would be a counterargument. Instead, you just completely missed the point. The point was that when PyramidHead mistakenly accused credoconsolans of a strawman, he really should have known better than to think it was a strawman since he's used the same type of argument himself.

It doesn't miss the point.

The ethics associated with the death penalty is the point.

We know that the death penalty is legal in some nations and states. Opposition to the death penalty is related to the issue of ethics of state execution, so this issue certainly not irrelevant just because you proclaim it to be.

I didn't proclaim it to be irrelevant; I proclaimed it to not be a counterargument. But then, you don't really care much whether the other guy actually proclaims the things you proclaim he proclaims, do you? What you said was perfectly relevant to the point you were making; and you don't care much whether you miss the other guy's point in your single-minded focus on making your own, do you? When you have a point to make I suggest you simply post it, and not try to dress it up as a response to somebody else's point unless it actually is one.

 

[DBT]

It's not that it cannot be deemed to be legal by the state to execute offenders after due process, but whether it is ethical.

And if "murder" meant "the unethical premeditated killing of one human being by another" then that would be a counterargument. Instead, you just completely missed the point. The point was that when PyramidHead mistakenly accused credoconsolans of a strawman, he really should have known better than to think it was a strawman since he's used the same type of argument himself.

It doesn't miss the point.

The ethics associated with the death penalty is the point.

We know that the death penalty is legal in some nations and states. Opposition to the death penalty is related to the issue of ethics of state execution, so this issue certainly not irrelevant just because you proclaim it to be.

I didn't proclaim it to be irrelevant; I proclaimed it to not be a counterargument.

Which is different...how?

But then, you don't really care much whether the other guy actually proclaims the things you proclaim he proclaims, do you?

If you proclaimed it ''to not be a counterargument'' you are implying irrelevance by default.

[
What you said was perfectly relevant to the point you were making; and you don't care much whether you miss the other guy's point in your single-minded focus on making your own, do you? When you have a point to make I suggest you simply post it, and not try to dress it up as a response to somebody else's point unless it actually is one.

The point of the debate entails the reasons why the state executes violent offenders, whether it be to set an example, do away with the risk posed to society (which was brought up by several posters), revenge, or out of a sense of justice.


The points I made are related to the ethics of state execution in relation to claims that offenders should be executed because they pose a risk to society, which is what I was responding to.

Therefore my response was directly related to the statements made in relation to 'risk to society' in terms of the ethics of state execution.

 

[Bomb#20]

Opposition to the death penalty is related to the issue of ethics of state execution, so this issue certainly not irrelevant just because you proclaim it to be.

I didn't proclaim it to be irrelevant; I proclaimed it to not be a counterargument.

Which is different...how?

relevant: closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand.
counterargument: an argument or set of reasons put forward to oppose an idea or theory developed in another argument.

What you said was perfectly relevant to the point you were making; and you don't care much whether you miss the other guy's point in your single-minded focus on making your own, do you? When you have a point to make I suggest you simply post it, and not try to dress it up as a response to somebody else's point unless it actually is one.

The point of the debate entails the reasons why the state executes violent offenders, whether it be to set an example, do away with the risk posed to society (which was brought up by several posters), revenge, or out of a sense of justice.


The points I made are related to the ethics of state execution in relation to claims that offenders should be executed because they pose a risk to society, which is what I was responding to.

Therefore my response was directly related to the statements made in relation to 'risk to society' in terms of the ethics of state execution.

But the post you said it in response to wasn't about risk to society and didn't say a damn thing about that topic. That was a post explaining why the accusation that credoconsolans had written a strawman was a false charge. What you wrote wasn't a counterargument because what your set of reasons were put forward to oppose was not an idea or theory developed in the other argument. There were no claims that offenders should be executed because they pose a risk to society in the argument you were responding to! Read before you type.

 

[fast]

Is the question, "are you in favor of capital punishment (?)" a moral question or a legal question?

 

[DBT]

But the post you said it in response to wasn't about risk to society and didn't say a damn thing about that topic. That was a post explaining why the accusation that credoconsolans had written a strawman was a false charge. What you wrote wasn't a counterargument because what your set of reasons were put forward to oppose was not an idea or theory developed in the other argument. There were no claims that offenders should be executed because they pose a risk to society in the argument you were responding to! Read before you type.

I think you need to take your own advice.

First off, I had been responding to the following claims made by credoconsolans:

Violent offenders can be managed but only to a degree. So why do YOU want to take a chance and give convicted heinous killers an opportunity to kill again?


Makes every difference if you are the victim or victim's family.

No system is perfect, not even managing heinous criminals. So, no it's not. Check out the murder rate in prisons.


Uh, lots of gang members, especially who deal drugs, are also murderers. If they killed another gang member in a turf war, sure, no death penalty. If they murdered an innocent family in a mistaken search for drugs, then yes, they do qualify IMO.

That is something to consider. Consider any other workplace. Do they keep dangerous people in the workplace?



Is self-defense what you call 'revenge' killing? To me, the death penalty is simply self-defense for society.

You made the remark ''He wants them legally executed after fair trials and appellate review.'' - which does not actually address the motives and ethics of execution regardless of ''fair trials and appellate review'' - consequently I responded with ''It is the ethics related to 'legal execution' that is being questioned by opponents of the death penalty'' ( and not the fairness of the trial or appeal) - which is relevant to the issue of ''fair trials and appellate review'' in terms of the motivations for execution. The trial may be 'fair' in terms of evidence and conviction, but our society's motivation for the sentence of execution being unethical element of the judicial process, and therefore morally unfair.

In the first place, he doesn't want heinous criminals to be murdered. He wants them legally executed after fair trials and appellate review.

It is the ethics related to 'legal execution' that is being questioned by opponents of the death penalty. It's not that it cannot be deemed to be legal by the state to execute offenders after due process, but whether it is ethical. Furthermore, whether it rests upon revenge and/or convenience and expediency - ie - ''the offender is a risk to society''

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is the question, "are you in favor of capital punishment (?)" a moral question or a legal question?

How could whether you are in favour of capital punishment possibly be a legal question? Capital punishment is a legal question, whether you are or not in favour of it is not.

It is certainly a moral question for everybody. It may also be a political question if you are a politician or activist.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not against the death penalty in principle but I don't believe that there could be anything like certainty that a certain person has committed a certain crime. Considering that death is definitive, the death penalty leads inevitably to innocents being wrongfully killed, which is morally no different from murder, which should logically be punished by the death penalty. So, as already suggested, either we do entirely without it or all parties deciding on a death sentence should do so under penalty of death if their decision ever proves wrong. That should reduce the enthusiasm a bit.
EB

 

[Unbeatable]

Is the question, "are you in favor of capital punishment (?)" a moral question or a legal question?

A legal question would be "Is capital punishment legal?"
A moral question would be "Should capital punishment be legal?"
"Are you in favor of capital punishment?" is a psychological question. It is a question about the responder's feelings.

 

[credoconsolans]

Self-defense is very ethical.

 

[fast]

If I'm asked if I support capital punishment, I don't know whether I'm being asked if it's a righteous act or if I would vote in favor of it.

Anna thinks it's wrong to kill people for crimes committed and therefore would vote against capital punishment. She clearly doesn't support capital punishment.

Bob has no qualms with killing people for their crimes and thinks the financial costs are not so high that we should stop killing people for their crimes, and he's okay with a few irrevocable mistakes. He clearly does support capital punishment.

Charlie believes capital punishment is perfectly okay morally speaking, but he would not vote in favor of it because of potential irrevocable mistakes.

Diane believes it morally wrong to kill people for their crimes, but she believes the benefits of living in a society that does use capital punishment far outweighs the costs, so he's willing to vote in favor of capital punishment.

The first two examples are clear cut because their moral judgment matches their voting, but the latter two examples don't match, so I'm left wondering how to determine who does and who doesn't support capital punishment. Charlie seems to support capital punishment because he has no moral hang ups, yet he won't vote in favor of it because of potential serious mistakes. Diane seems to oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, but she's willing to vote in favor of it.

Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on knowing their moral attitude alone? Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on how they would cast their vote alone?

 

[bilby]

If I'm asked if I support capital punishment, I don't know whether I'm being asked if it's a righteous act or if I would vote in favor of it.

Anna thinks it's wrong to kill people for crimes committed and therefore would vote against capital punishment. She clearly doesn't support capital punishment.

Bob has no qualms with killing people for their crimes and thinks the financial costs are not so high that we should stop killing people for their crimes, and he's okay with a few irrevocable mistakes. He clearly does support capital punishment.

Charlie believes capital punishment is perfectly okay morally speaking, but he would not vote in favor of it because of potential irrevocable mistakes.

Diane believes it morally wrong to kill people for their crimes, but she believes the benefits of living in a society that does use capital punishment far outweighs the costs, so he's willing to vote in favor of capital punishment.

The first two examples are clear cut because their moral judgment matches their voting, but the latter two examples don't match, so I'm left wondering how to determine who does and who doesn't support capital punishment. Charlie seems to support capital punishment because he has no moral hang ups, yet he won't vote in favor of it because of potential serious mistakes. Diane seems to oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, but she's willing to vote in favor of it.

Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on knowing their moral attitude alone? Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on how they would cast their vote alone?

Well from your example, it is clear that women think it's wrong to kill people for committing crimes; and people who have names ending in 'e' are inconsistent in their application of their moral stance to the real world.