The Death Penalty

[spikepipsqueak]

I think the discussion has to go a couple of levels deeper than that.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would go a long way to reducing all levels of crime. (and some of the mental illness)

Maybe if we all pray hard enough Jesus will heal the people with violent psychosis? Before they commit ugly crimes?


According to the pastor of a local Baptist church, the church's prayer warrior team convinced Jesus to heal his sister's breast cancer. Why don't we ramp this up!

Tom

You're not suggesting that the majority of crime is committed by violent psychotics? (and not by people who are under unendurable stress, financial or emotional, and have no tools to deal with it)

The situation is also non-remedial where a guilty party is released and then commits again. We rarely discuss that though.

We discuss this a great deal.
Efforts to improve prison conditions to help rehabilitation and reduce recidivism get dismissed as "coddling criminals".
Tom

Oh we discuss rehabilitation an awful lot.
What we don't discuss is why are those who are not rehabilitatied released? And if they re-offend what do we do with them then? That is rarely discussed. And the existence of a another set of victim(s) and their family/friends is not discussed at all.

I think the discussion has to go a couple of levels deeper than that.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would go a long way to reducing all levels of crime. (and some of the mental illness)

Just saying.

A fairer and better educated, calmer, society would be very nice to have.

Note that the people who set such priorities as how to punish crime are the same people who set priorities on education, social security, drug policy and mental health support.

 

[DBT]

It may be satisfying for some, but shouldn't a progressive society seek a higher standard of morality than using execution as a solution?

Why is non-execution considered a higher standard of morality? I would prefer a standard of morality that protects society and its members.

You just answered your own question.

No.
We both agree on the aim - the protection of society and its members.
It is the means where we disagree.

You argue for expediency? Kill them just to make sure they cause no further harm?

No, I argue for the protection of society from those who are a threat to it.

Or perhaps let all murderers live and release them at some time and see what might happen.

It's the means of protecting the community that you propose that has serious moral implications.

I do not deny the serious moral implications. But that is not the same as ignoring them. Having the possibility of release also has serious moral implications.

As there is no need to kill those who are in custody and no longer pose a risk to the community, killing them regardless is a form of cold blooded murder.

Being in Australia you might be familiar with Julian Knight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Knight_(murderer). He is currently held by special legislative order because he is up for parole but is still a threat to society. He freely confessed to what he did, the physical evidence is overwhelming. He has no remorse for what he did. He is constantly before the courts to be freed.

My (and many others) fear is that some day an "enlightened or progressive" (read blithering idiot) magistrate or judge will order his release as "he has suffered enough".

Without remorse and if there is the possibility of release then they are still a threat to society and its members.

It looks like you are still arguing for expediency.....'let's just kill them in case they cause more trouble.'