well, i'd agree it's a double standard *if* you adhere to a strict moral position of "life, at any cost, regardless of circumstances" - but IMO that's a distinctly vile and repulsive attitude to take and to force on other people.
I'm not honestly certain what my answer would be. Not something I'd be comfortable speculating on absent context. I would say that everyone who serves on a jury for a felony case is party to torture, though. If you disagree, you know little of what the US prison system is actually like for those subjected to it.
Neither does refraining from serving on a jury.
Except for the 4,000 each year who do not, and the rate is rapidly increasing in recent years.
Dubious. The average US prisoner spends ~two years imprisoned. 13% of prison inmates report serious injuries while in prison. 30-60% of incarcerated men experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; this is often connected to the experiences that put them there, but the limited or non-existent access to mental healthcare for current or former inmates exacerbates the issue. Being imprisoned is also associated with a life of poverty, stigma, and continued trauma once the inmate is released.
Incarcerating under humane conditions and taking active steps to rehabilitate them into society if safe and possible. Murder or torture are not our only options.
You guys are having a kind of bizarre argument -- you seem to both be assuming convicting someone of capital murder means sentencing him to death. In the U.S. there are two trials, the first for guilt and then a second trial for sentencing if the first ends in conviction. A juror can convict and then veto* execution.
Yes. Our prisons have become disgusting and inhumane, yet most of the people who have been given the death sentence, spend years trying to have it appealed. I guess most people would rather be in prison than dead. We desperately need prison reform, but that has nothing to do with the OP.
No, it means "in the US": even in Alabama there are two trials, as I said. It's just that Alabama doesn't require a unanimous jury in the sentencing phase so a juror can't guarantee the defendant won't be executed. In any event, you're not in Alabama. Outside of Alabama, "I have a conscience, and I will not have someone's death on my conscience" is not a good reason for "I honestly would not vote to convict, given the outcome". You'd have control over the outcome.
[rant]
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.
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.
