The Death Penalty

As long as the ultimate justification was that it's the appropriate punishment, I would be fine. Saying instead that the death penalty should be applied because only God has the right to decide what treatment a criminal should get feels like contrary to the definition of justice.

Edited by Grafite on Oct 29th 2018 at 3:25:22 PM

Life is unfair...

There's two flaws to this argument.

1) Specific to the US, there is a large number of people, largely minorities, who were/are wrongly convicted and executed. One article I saw put it at 10% posthumously exhonerated. If you're perfectly fine with slaughtering the innocent just to make sure the guilty don't suffer more, then there is a failure of understanding between our worldviews I don't think we can bridge with text on a forum. The racial disparity in sentencing is, and will probably remain, the biggest stumbling block to the death penalty in the US.

2) Once a person is dead, you can do nothing for them. They can't repent, or atone, and especially when that person has been wrongfully convicted, the crime you committed by executing them will, often, be worse than the crime they committed to be sentenced.

Do they need to believe in the same afterlife, or does belief in any count? What about the religions who believe in reincarnation?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

If you live in a country where unfalsifiable religious beliefs are treated as facts that the government and justice system need to take into account, you've got bigger issues than the death penalty to deal with anyway.

Random thought: If we actually knew for sure that there was a God and an afterlife - complete with a Heaven and Hell as commonly depicted in Judeo-Christian media - wouldn't executing criminals effectively be a form of extradition, with everything that implies?

If sending people to nations that practice torture is generally seen as immoral, why would it be more okay to send them to Hell? (Yes, I'm serious.)

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

If you want to argue with the Almighty about this, go right ahead.

Disgusted, but not surprised

@Grafite: Part of the rationale is indeed "execution is the most fitting punishment we could deal to a murderer". Unlike most of the world, Islamic law on capital crimes (such as murder and rape) favors retributive justice. We share the same saying of "eye for an eye"... but ours is extended further: "An eye for an eye, and the initiator is the aggressor." It's even stated in the Quran itself, and a specific term for it.

@BlueNinja0:

That is a gross misapplication of the punishment. It's a Logical Fallacy to assume that it implies anything inherently wrong with the punishment itself.

And that is why such cases need to be investigated thoroughly and the guilt proven conclusively.

Do you know how seriously Islam takes such an issue? Adultery (defined as a married person having extramarital intercourse) carries the death penalty, but the way to prove it... well, I'll let a quote from Wikipedia explain it (emphasis mine).

Regarding murder itself, first you need to know that Islam classifies the crime into five types in terms of severity, and only the most severe type — literally named "intentional killing"^note Unlike English, Arabic vocabulary doesn't have a distinction between "killing" (generic) and "murder" (criminal killing). — can be punished by death (emphasis on "can"; I'll get to that later).

Second, before we even get to the punishment, the crime of intentional murder must be proven in either of two ways:

1. The killer confesses before a competent court of their own will (i.e. no coercion by the authorities).
2. The testimony of two adult witnesses^note Some would say that they have to be male, but in reality there's no clear consensus among Islamic jurists on women's testimony in such cases, to make a long story short. In the absence of anything saying otherwise, it's probably reasonable to assume that the witness's sex is of no concern. who are proven to be sane and credible^note Defined as having never committed any major sins, and not being otherwise infamous in society..

Third, the killer must be both sane and an adult; failing either of those criteria forgoes the next step.

Fourth, there are three possible fates for the committer of intentional murder:

1. Death, which only the relative(s) of the murder victim can demand.
2. Diyyah, or "blood money", i.e. monetary compensation for the murdered life. This is also up to the victim's relatives.
3. Pardon.

It may surprise you to know that the latter two options are preferred over the first in Islam, unless the murderer is obviously unrepentant and thus a clear threat to society.

If it's the majority belief and it makes sense to them, then it's their decision, not mine.

You do know that "unfalsifiable" as a term also applies to such things as logic and mathematics, right? All men are mortal is an unfalsifiable statement, to give an example.

We all die sooner or later, thus we will all go to the afterlife. And even if we don't punish the killer ^note which can happen simply because he managed to elude capture or even being killed in the process of the police exercising self-defense against him violently and murderously resisting arrest, he's going to Hell when he dies anyway, though AFAIK he'll get even worse torment due to having chosen to defy the authorities and elude punishment (if he actually turned himself in and sincerely admitted his guilt, he may very well be pardoned of his crime in both this life and the afterlife). Execution is just a super-express ticket to our common destination that skips over all the "distance" that you'd otherwise have to travel.

Besides, everything in existence is owned by God; it's just so happens that He was generous enough to loan us the mundane, physical universe for a certain duration (which is until Judgment Day). You can't call execution an "extradition" when the "relocation" happens within what amounts to the same "country".

... Just making sure, this is directed at them and not me, right?

Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 29th 2018 at 7:55:08 PM

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Not sure why you would think it's directed at you. My post isn't even on the same page as your previous post.

Disgusted, but not surprised

If the punishment is not and will not be applied fairly, why are you arguing that we should use it more? This would magnify that "gross misapplication" you dislike. Until I see in-depth studies of at least as much intellectual honesty and rigor as those criticizing the US death penalty, I have trouble believing they take it seriously. Given news stories about people sentenced to death for practicing free speech, and little things like blatantly shoddy assassinations of news journalists for being critical of Islamic governments. If the majority believe in one particular afterlife, but the person being sentenced to death believes in a different one (or not one at all), is that still a just punishment?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I'm not the one who wants the existence of a God or an afterlife to be treated as a fact by government officials. I'm just pointing out some of the Fridge Logic that should apply if you actually try to do that.

Isn't evidence usually considered a lot more valuable than hearsay in most justice systems? If a large enough portion of your population believed that say... some random minority group were literal demons out to destroy society, should your courts treat that as a truth too?

So it's less like being handed over to a foreign government, and more like getting grabbed by the Secret Police? Lovely.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

I am saying that if God is real and you want to argue that people going to Hell violates extradition to Him, go ahead.

Frankly this is a weird tangent that does not really add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Edited by M84 on Oct 29th 2018 at 8:16:09 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

This is why separation of church and state is critical to a functioning liberal democracy.

They should have sent a poet.

I'm saying that incorporating religious beliefs into a legal system opens up a massive can of worms that I doubt most people would actually be prepared to deal with in a serious manner. My specific example might sound a bit silly, sure, but I'd argue that your casual dismissal of it kind of proves my point.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

It doesn't prove your point at all. Your example was really silly.

You want to argue that the death penalty is wrong because it would violate extradition by sending people to Hell? You'd be laughed out of court.

Edited by M84 on Oct 29th 2018 at 9:27:48 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

Good. I should be. Of course, I'd also hope that arguing that the death penalty is good because there's an afterlife would have the same result.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

I'm not sure why you even brought this up in the first place. The only one who has ever made that argument was you in this forum.

All you did was take this whole debate in a really weird and unnecessary direction.

Besides, who is going to argue that the death penalty is good because you're sending people to Hell? No one, that's who.

Bringing extradition into matters of the afterlife...yeesh.

Edited by M84 on Oct 30th 2018 at 1:31:30 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised

MarqFJA has made it pretty clear that they view religious beliefs as a valid justification for the death penalty, including specific ideas about how "only God is capable of punishing murderers with absolute fairness to both the victim and the murderer" and how "execution is just a super-express ticket to our common destination that skips over all the 'distance' that you'd otherwise have to travel."

He also - to his credit - actually wrote a serious response to the extradition thing, which should be a big hint just on it's own, imo.

Your first post made me think you were trying to defend him, but I guess not..?

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

You're the one who tried to bring up extradition. To the afterlife.

I'm not defending Marq. I'm not even defending the death penalty. I'm questioning why you decided to bring up something this odd into the discussion. And it is odd.

You yourself admitted it's random and silly. So why bring it up in a somewhat serious discussion?

Edited by M84 on Oct 30th 2018 at 10:22:30 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

As an intentionally absurd example of why I think it's stupid to bring religion into the courtroom. ...Which clearly didn't work as intended. Screw it, I'll drop it if you drop it.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

So I've been thinking about Allison Mack Wikipedia has a summary and her crimes,her crimes were in a nut shell slavery and human trafficking ,absolutely the worst crime imaginable ,and I'm thinking that anyone engages in modern day slavery and human trafficking should either be imprisoned for life or they should seriously consider a death sentence,now I'm not even remotely suggesting that's what should happen her obviously but for something as barbaric as slavery the punishment has to be harsh

And yet her sentencing could be 15 years and small part of me feels this too lenient,what do you guys think?

Edited by Ultimatum on Apr 9th 2019 at 10:36:34 AM

New theme music also a box

Wait... 15 years for slavery and human trafficking? That does seem to be a little too lenient at the drop of a hat... I'm tempted to ask though, what is the sentence bracket (least amount-highest amount that could be given) for such a charge?

I also think these two charges should qualify her for aiding and abetting whatever assault/abuse (physical, mental or sexual) those that she gave the people trafficked to inflicted on the people, plus for any abuse/assault that occurred while these people were under her watch, on top of being charged for slavery and human trafficking.

I'm not saying this isn't an understandable reaction, but what is your argument beyond that? What is the harsh punishment actually meant to achieve?

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

Good question,but I have my answer having slept on it

Justice.Justice for her victims and the certainty that slavery will never be tolerated or go unpunished regardless of status,she is a celebrity and this brings exposure to the wider crimes of human trafficking and sexual exploitation,she must therefore be punished to fullest extend of the law

By leniently punishing her they do her victims an injustice

New theme music also a box

So it's a combination of the loosely defined need for "justice", and something that basically sounds like making her an example?

Harsh punishments do not have the kind of discouraging effect that many people like to claim. (I'd even argue that it often backfires instead.) So that one doesn't work.

As for "justice", all you're really saying is that because she hurt people, it would feel right to you to hurt her back. Again, that's perfectly understandable, but I don't think the justice system has or should have any obligation to satisfy people's emotional needs at the expense of someone's life.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

I do hope you make a distinction between justice and vengeance. Or bother to consult the victims. Since, deciding on their behalf what their justice should be because "think of the victims!!!!!!!" isn't actually what states... do.

Fifteen years (if fully served) is not small change. That's fifteen years out of the game. That's fifteen years of no income. That's fifteen years of not selling people in order to purchase more people.

That's fifteen years in which to assess whether she should be released and on what terms.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Apr 10th 2019 at 2:29:39 PM

X3 But none of that is about killing her. Like you’ve got a solid argument against her reviving a lenient sentence, but nothing about why she needs to be put to death as opposed to locked up for life.

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

> but nothing about why she needs to be put to death as opposed to locked up for life.

As a slaver and human trafficker she did more then just hurt people, she traded in human lives,a death sentence would mean her own life is traded away from her,just as she traded on the lives of others,after all if she did not value human life why should we continue to value hers? The Death penalty is controversial precisely because it means the state is taking a life and often they've executed the wrong person,as well arguments about how killing x won't bring back x's victim or undo the hurt they've caused,but in this case,in this specific case I am willing to put aside those arguments

Now,would I be happy with a live sentence?Only if it meant a proper,full life sentence,with the certainty that no lawyer could argue their way out of it,sometimes with high profile criminals,especially celebrities their sentence is somehow reduced,which is certainly what's happening here,in the UK she would be serving multiple life sentences with zero chance at parole,but of course we abolished the death penalty a long time ago.

New theme music also a box