I would support the death penalty, in theory, in certain extremely limited cases, if it could be applied justly and equitably, and if it could always be applied with absolutely no execution of persons who are, in reality, not guilty.But Tim, what do you mean by "guilty" above. My bet is in the traditional sense based on Libertarian free will, in which this person isn't just an unfortunate loser of the lottery but can deserve it.
Is beheading more humane than long winded chemical and electricity executions?
It would depend on whose head is rolling, wouldn’t it?
I’ll go back to my original contention: no form of execution is humane–or moral.
Lois
I would support the death penalty, in theory, in certain extremely limited cases, if it could be applied justly and equitably, and if it could always be applied with absolutely no execution of persons who are, in reality, not guilty.But Tim, what do you mean by "guilty" above. My bet is in the traditional sense based on Libertarian free will, in which this person isn't just an unfortunate loser of the lottery but can deserve it. I am talking about those "unfortunate" lottery losers who could warrant execution (for sake of the greater society) by doing things to make life even more unfortunate for others, e.g. those who have performed, and will likely continue to perform (given the chance) the most atrocious acts of violence against others, including murder.
All executions are inhumane. How could a rational person need an answer to such a question?As are wars of choice and profiteering . . . :blank: Yes, but no one asked us to state which kind of war we think is more humane than another. Lois
I would support the death penalty, in theory, in certain extremely limited cases, if it could be applied justly and equitably, and if it could always be applied with absolutely no execution of persons who are, in reality, not guilty.But Tim, what do you mean by "guilty" above. My bet is in the traditional sense based on Libertarian free will, in which this person isn't just an unfortunate loser of the lottery but can deserve it. I am talking about those "unfortunate" lottery losers who could warrant execution (for sake of the greater society) by doing things to make life even more unfortunate for others, e.g. those who have performed, and will likely continue to perform (given the chance) the most atrocious acts of violence against others, including murder. OK. In that case I don't see what your objections to the penalty are. 1) we could do the killing humanely if we wanted to (interesting that we don't) And if we sometimes killed an innocent person it would still be for the good of greater society overall.
I would support the death penalty, in theory, in certain extremely limited cases, if it could be applied justly and equitably, and if it could always be applied with absolutely no execution of persons who are, in reality, not guilty.But Tim, what do you mean by "guilty" above. My bet is in the traditional sense based on Libertarian free will, in which this person isn't just an unfortunate loser of the lottery but can deserve it. I am talking about those "unfortunate" lottery losers who could warrant execution (for sake of the greater society) by doing things to make life even more unfortunate for others, e.g. those who have performed, and will likely continue to perform (given the chance) the most atrocious acts of violence against others, including murder. OK. In that case I don't see what your objections to the penalty are. 1) we could do the killing humanely if we wanted to (interesting that we don't) And if we sometimes killed an innocent person it would still be for the good of greater society overall. Do you not see the problem with the last statement? Killing innocent people is never morally justified.
... In that case I don't see what your objections to the penalty are. 1) we could do the killing humanely if we wanted to (interesting that we don't) And if we sometimes killed an innocent person it would still be for the good of greater society overall.We should not use the death penalty because 1) Our system cannot administer it fairly (i.e., those with resources can sometimes, literally, get away with murder), and 2) sometimes the "innocent" are mistakenly executed. I do not agree that, mistakenly, executing innocent persons promotes the greater good of society.
Is beheading more humane than long winded chemical and electricity executions? It would sepend on whose head is rolling, wouldn't it? I'll go back to my original contention: no form of execution is humane--or moral. LoisI agree.
Is beheading more humane than long winded chemical and electricity executions? It would sepend on whose head is rolling, wouldn't it? I'll go back to my original contention: no form of execution is humane--or moral. LoisI agree. I agree with you both, and Tim. I'd like to see Stephen come back and try to defend his position that killing innocent people is justified if society benefits overall.
I would support the death penalty, in theory, in certain extremely limited cases, if it could be applied justly and equitably, and if it could always be applied with absolutely no execution of persons who are, in reality, not guilty.But Tim, what do you mean by "guilty" above. My bet is in the traditional sense based on Libertarian free will, in which this person isn't just an unfortunate loser of the lottery but can deserve it. I am talking about those "unfortunate" lottery losers who could warrant execution (for sake of the greater society) by doing things to make life even more unfortunate for others, e.g. those who have performed, and will likely continue to perform (given the chance) the most atrocious acts of violence against others, including murder. So locking them up for life wouldn't accomplish that? It works in civilized countries, why wouldn't it work in the US? Lois
A government killing even only guilty people isn’t justified in a humane world. No civilized country should have the power to kill its own people–even guilty ones. It makes the governmemt as guilty as the criminals, as if it is admitting it is incapable of rising above the criminalty they purport to be punishing.
Lois
An “eye for an eye” makes the whole World blind.
Cap’t Jack
I do not agree that, mistakenly, executing innocent persons promotes the greater good of society.I didn't say that, of course. The point is you said you would agree with the death penalty in certain extreme cases if it wasn't for the problems. One of them being the risk of mistakes. But if you think it could be right to execute some guilty people then it's not obvious why that goal isn't worth the cost of a few mistakes. I mean, say we could get a 98% success rate, would that be acceptable? And if not why not?
I do not agree that, mistakenly, executing innocent persons promotes the greater good of society.I didn't say that, of course. Of course you did.
I am talking about those "unfortunate" lottery losers who could warrant execution (for sake of the greater society) by doing things to make life even more unfortunate for others, e.g. those who have performed, and will likely continue to perform (given the chance) the most atrocious acts of violence against others, including murder. OK. In that case I don't see what your objections to the penalty are. 1) we could do the killing humanely if we wanted to (interesting that we don't) And if we sometimes killed an innocent person it would still be for the good of greater society overall.Why are you denying you said what you said?
I do not agree that, mistakenly, executing innocent persons promotes the greater good of society.I didn't say that, of course. Of course you did. Of Course not.
OK. In that case I don't see what your objections to the penalty are. 1) we could do the killing humanely if we wanted to (interesting that we don't) And if we sometimes killed an innocent person it would still be for the good of greater society overall.Why are you denying you said what you said? That's very silly Darron. "It" doesn't refer to the killing of innocent people. It refers to the overall thing, the killing of guilty people less the cost of some mistakes. Of course I wasn't saying that "executing innocent persons promotes the greater good of society". And actually I was only suggesting a logical conclusion following from what Tim said, not a reflection on what I believe at all.
I do not agree that, mistakenly, executing innocent persons promotes the greater good of society.I didn't say that, of course. Of course you did. Of Course not.
OK. In that case I don't see what your objections to the penalty are. 1) we could do the killing humanely if we wanted to (interesting that we don't) And if we sometimes killed an innocent person it would still be for the good of greater society overall.Why are you denying you said what you said? That's very silly Darron. "It" doesn't refer to the killing of innocent people. It refers to the overall thing, the killing of guilty people less the cost of some mistakes. Of course I wasn't saying that "executing innocent persons promotes the greater good of society". And actually I was only suggesting a logical conclusion following from what Tim said, not a reflection on what I believe at all. You are a very poor communicator. You write something that is perfectly clear, then need to come back and explain why what you wrote is not what you meant. Online forums are not face-to-face conversations and require different communication techniques. You cannot assume people will be able to read your intention without proper context and explanation.
... Online forums are not face-to-face conversations and require different communication techniques. You cannot assume people will be able to read your intention without proper context and explanation.This is true. I try to say what I have to say, clearly and precisely. But very often, when I look at something I have posted, or am about to post, I am compelled to make edits, because I see how what I said, could be construed very differently from what I intended. It can be challenging to do this while also being concise enough, that readers will be more likely to read the post.