The Death Penalty

There's a distinction between "murder" and "killing" for a reason. The two are not the same, so saying "we kill murderers, that's hypocrisy!" is a silly argument.

edited 14th Aug '15 5:51:08 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

That's true, it's not killing that is commonly regarded as inhumane, after all, I believe all countries have some kind of self defence rule on the books.

What's regarded by some as inhumane is killing someone who poses no realistic threat. That's the problem a lot of people have with the death penalty, the threat has already been neutralised, thus the justification for deadly force is gone.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

That's a question of justice, not humanity. Saying that the death penalty is unjust is one thing; saying that it's inhumane (even when every effort is being taken to respect the condemned person and make the execution as painless as possible) is just flat-out wrong.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

You're still killing someone who poses no realistic threat to anyone. To some people that is inhumane, regardless of if the killing is done by one person against another or by the state against a prisoner.

Sure it depends on how exactly you define inhumane, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of varied opinions on that.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

"Inhumane" is a word that means a thing, though. The thing that it means isn't just "things that I don't approve of". The only way you can say that the death penalty is inherently inhumane — even if you take steps to eliminate suffering and make it as painless as possible, ie the opposite of inhumane — is by redefining "inhumane" to include the death penalty categorically, which is circular reasoning at its finest.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Thing is even with the steps you're still killing someone you have no need to kill. It's still inhumane of me to murder my neighbours even if I smoother them with pillows instead of burning them alive. The very act of killing my neighbours is inhumane.

Sure some methods are less inhumane, but that's like water boarding being less inhumane then other forms of tourture. In the end you're still causing pain, suffering and loss to a person for no reason.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

You're conflating murder and other kinds of killing again. They're not the same thing.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

there is a legal difference yes, but what's the moral one? If you'd like to explain the moral difference between the two situations then I'm all ears, but so far you've just pointed out the legal difference and acted as if that means there is a moral difference.

edited 14th Aug '15 9:13:06 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

There's absolutely a moral difference between some random asshole murdering some other random asshole and a criminal being executed for their crimes after being convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers. If you can't see the difference there then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

If you're trying to argue that execution is no different than murder, then by the same token a prison sentence is no different than kidnapping and a fine is no different than a mugging.

edited 14th Aug '15 10:18:41 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Fines and prison sentences are done for reasons other than a desire to cause pain and suffering. In fact they are done in spite of causing pain and suffering, not because they cause pain and suffering.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I'm not at all sure how that addresses my point.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

What I feel morally separates fines and prison sentences from theft and kidnaping is the difference in reasoning for them to be done. I don't see the same proper difference in reasoning between the state executing someone and someone deciding to murder someone.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

You don't see a difference between "I'm going to murder this guy because he slept with my wife/he's in a rival gang/I don't like his face/I want to make a hat out of his skin/whatever" and "this man is being executed because he's been convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death for them"?

Okay, I guess. The difference is patently obvious to me. I don't know how to illustrate it any more than I already have.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Because there's no real moral difference in killing a non-threat and an innocent person? Neither can do anything. One is just an excuse to kill someone. The other is because you want to.

All that's really happening is the world is maturing and realizing that killing someone who can't fight back is never ever justified. The death penalty has no real tangible differences from murder in reality. They're both poorly thinned excuses in the name of justice. And it's not real justice either. The fact they're off the streets and unable to hurt someone is more than justice enough. Killing them only amounts to revenge by that point. The only way to fix the world is try and fix the person in a proper manner. Having less people in the world isn't a real solution that sounds anywhere near moral. Meanwhile, prison/jail can have rehabilitation and try to make the world a better place.

It's rather obvious which is the actual moral high ground, and it's helping people become a better person. There's no such thing as a justified killing, beyond maybe war at best, but everybody who is in there is ready to fight, so there it's all self-defense. At least with self-defense, you are being threatened and have a legit reason to fight back, hopefully without death being included. That's not always avoidable, but again, that's part of war. A threat being killed has some legitimate justification. Killing a non-threat is literally the same thing as killing an innocent. Again, zero tangible difference.

And there's nothing wrong with prison being a sentence bar the quality of the prisons. That's beyond fixable. The money going to keeping places acceptable and humane is fine. In fact, that's one of the best uses of money. In addition, when rehabilitation is made far more important, that means there's a higher chance of people returning to their lives and fixing the problems that caused them to be sent to prison in the first place. That only makes the world better, and also means that less money is constantly being poured into the prisons, as well as no money(which a ton of it is being spent) is being thrown into an inhumane killing process. It costs way too damn much for the Death Penalty, and it has never solved anything in a humane and moral manner. And to be frank, a major point of the existence of many laws is morality. I fail to see how a non-moral killing should be allowed by the law.

And no, war is not really humane either, but we know it happens. It'll take a very long time for war to be stopped in general. This is not nearly as easy as forbidden the Death Penalty. But that's for another topic(which is how to stop war). Also, at least with war, it has done some legitimate good. It's been able to cause legitimate laws that helped mankind. It's saved countless people. That's a big reason why it existing is legitimate, and the Death Penalty still isn't.

I see a difference, just not a proper one (I used the phrase "proper difference" in my post very deliberately).

You keep falling back on it being legal, a conviction and sentencing creates a very important legal difference between the two, but something being legal does not make it moral.

They are different, the same way temperatures of -1 and -58 are different, but they're both still bellow 0. They both fail to provide a moral reason to take the life of another.

"Can't fight back" is a bar I'm not entirely comfortable with, there are situations where (even ignoring war) it's entirely possible for it to be moral to kill someone who can't fight back. A kidnapper threatening to slit the throats of hostages can't fight back against the police sniper across the street, but he still poses a real threat to the safety of another person.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Well, yeah. "Can't fight back" should be explained better. It means they're completely a non-threat in every way bar maybe their ability to speak in an annoying manner.

I consider that more or less fighting back. Just indirectly. If you're still a threat, you're finding a way to "fight back" against them, just without physically hurting the police, but instead the hostages. Also, technically they can fight back even then, just ineffectively. So it still fits in a way.

But you get what I mean. If they're no longer a threat at all, there's literally no reason to kill them. If you can avoid killing them while they're a threat, which neutralizes the threat, jail/prison time is more than adequate enough for justice. The real issue, as we've spoken of before, is keeping the prisons humane.

That's patently untrue. There's an enormous moral difference between the two. A murder is not an execution, and an execution is not a murder. Trying to conflate the two is ridiculous.

That doesn't mean you can't argue against executions on its own merits, of course. There are legitimate arguments against capital punishment. But "it's no different than murder!" is not one of them.

You're not making a moral argument against the death penalty. You're just comparing it to murder. That's why I've been attempting to illustrate the difference between murder and the death penalty. If you'd like to make an argument against the death penalty that relies on moral reasoning rather than "it's just like murder!" then I'll be happy to reply to that.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

NativeJovian, how is it different from murder? You still haven't really explained that. A government can make horrible laws, so it's not more ethical because it's legal. A court can make a bad call, because the judge and jury are all people with their own biases. If someone went up to someone who had wronged them and killed them, it would still be murder even if they did it painlessly. So what's the distinction?

My moral argument is that the basic moral idea is that killing another is morally wrong, exceptions to that can and do need to be made, but they are exception and need to have a justification behind them. There is no such justification behind the death penalty.

Here's my moral reasoning: Killing people is morally wrong because you are taking the life of another against their will.

If you've got a moral reason for why we should make an exception to that rule in the case of executions than I'm all ears for it.

Oh, and please don't strawman my argument, I've been very carful to say that I do see and acknowledge the difference between a random murder and an execution, thing is I don't find that the difference puts them on different sides of the moral/immoral line.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

A murder is when someone kills someone else for whatever reason. Murder is, literally by definition, wrong — if a killing is justified, then it's not a murder. An execution is the state killing a criminal as punishment for their crimes. That's the moral difference. "Killing someone because I feel like it" vs "killing someone as punishment for crimes".

This goes back to the "fines are theft" and "prison is kidnapping" argument. Theft is wrong because you're taking someone's money against their will. Kidnapping is wrong because you're holding someone captive against their will. Capital punishment is wrong because you're killing someone against their will.

And yet, you're not against fines or prison time as forms of punishment. So clearly that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.

I justify capital punishment the same way I justify prison time and punitive fines. Human rights are not an absolute. Generally speaking, human beings have the right to life (it's wrong to kill people), liberty (it's wrong to hold people captive), and property (it's wrong to take people's stuff). However, certain actions (generally speaking, violating the rights of others) nullify those rights.

If you kill someone in self defense, you aren't violating their right to life — their actions (attacking you) negate that right, meaning that you're justified in killing them if that's what's necessary to make them stop attacking you.

All forms of punishment are based on this as well. Whether you're talking about spanking a misbehaving child, giving someone a speeding ticket, imprisoning a murderer, or executing someone for treason — in each case, you're punishing them by doing something that would normally be a violation of their rights, but their own behavior has suspended their rights in that matter.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Ahhh I see it now, you've got an entirely different approach to justice to me.

For me the suspension of a person's rights isn't done because they committed an immoral act, it's done to protect the rights of another person.

For me justice isn't about "they did a bad thing so they lose that right", it's about "their right must be suspended so as to protect the right of another".

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

So the difference is just that execution is as a punishment? Killing someone as revenge is murder, and as I've mentioned, the laws aren't necessarily ethical or right. I'm still not seeing how that adds up to it not being murder.

The purpose of punishment is to be educational. You don't spank a child for the thrill you get from seeing the child in pain. That they did wrong is not an excuse you use to justify causing them harm. At least, not if you're a good parent.

The spanking is not about the parent's gratification. You spank a child so they'll learn not to do that again, and be better in the future.

What lesson does someone learn from dying?

edited 15th Aug '15 4:59:20 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

I'm not sure that holds up. If someone committed murder for a very specific and unrepeatable reason (as revenge for killing their only child, say), would you say they should go free? They're not going to murder anyone else, so imprisoning them would seem to violate their rights without protecting anyone. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to understand your logic — I honestly haven't heard it formulated that way before.

I've spent enough time on the difference between murder and execution already, if you still can't see the distinction then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not particularly interested in rehashing it over and over.

That's debatable. I'd say that the purpose of punishment is justice. Even if you know that they won't learn anything from the experience (an unrepentant racist convicted of hate crimes, for example, or a sociopath whose brain is pretty much chemically incapable of having empathy for other people) I'd still say that we should punish them because they deserve to be punished. Would you disagree?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

That person would still be imprissoned because to not do so represents a risk to the lives of others, as it says to anyone else who might consider committing a similar murder "yeah dude it's fine".

You are still protecting people, as you're making it clear that such an action is seriously not acceptable.

edited 15th Aug '15 5:22:45 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran