Death Penalty - Non-Religious Arguments

[zippy2006]

3. I think a moral case can be made against the death penalty. We should not be asking if murders deserve the death penalty but if humans have a right to kill murderers? We have laws that prohibit torture as punishment because we find it morally bad so with that same line of reasoning the death penalty is just as bad, if not more, morally bad.

So you would say that the death penalty is never permissible, just as torture is never permissible. Why? What non-religious reasons do we have to believe that the death penalty is never permissible? Or that torture is never permissible? Or that the death penalty is like torture?

1. Innocent people can be killed and no restitution is adequate to compensate for the injustice. Our justice system cannot guarantee all people are actually guilty of the crime they were convicted for.

Okay. I am talking with @TLK Valentine about this idea.

2. As a conservative I do not think giving the government the power to take a citizens life is a good idea. We know that governments can be corrupted and use this power to its own ends as in other dictatorial countries. We should limit the governments power to kill others.

Okay, interesting.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, the thread is meant to be about the death penalty itself rather than contingent circumstances.

If you're looking for a moral/ethical answer that exists outside of contingent circumstances, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.

I'm not a religious person, and I oppose the death penalty for non-religious reasons.

If someone's entire approach to the death penalty is based on circumstances that come and go, then what they are focused on and what they are thinking about is primarily the circumstances rather than the death penalty.

Which is as it should be. We do not live in a vacuum, nor do we make our moral decisions in one.

Of course a related problem is that if you are not capable of thinking about the death penalty apart from contingent circumstances, then you also can't be said to be capable of thinking about the death penalty in the midst of contingent circumstances.

Well, that's just utter nonsense. All morality is situational, and whether we realize it or not, all of our moral decisions are made in light of contingent circumstances.

Of what use is a moral decision that is made without considering them? None at all.

In this way exclusive focus on the contingent circumstances is often a sign of sloppy thinking. For example, an atheist who rails against false convictions may not notice that his case is based on the notion of infinite human dignity, which is a religious notion, and which tends to result in the per se prohibition of capital punishment even apart from circumstances such as false convictions.

Infinite human dignity was your idea, not mine.

Okay. My later argument regarding human dignity ties in here.

But this is just dodging the question. I defined the society for you. Do you think such a society is impossible?

Yes.

But if it weren't impossible, then I would support the death penalty in such a society.

Again, not all societies are capable of enforcing or funding life imprisonment.

That's unfortunate. Any society that could not do this would probably be deficient in providing for several other needs of its members -- I wouldn't want to live in such a failed state, would you?

Do you think so? Then produce such an argument using entirely non-religious premises. I maintain that you cannot. Infinite human dignity or value arises from nowhere if not religion.

Again, you concocted the idea of "infinite human dignity" -- I was going to correct you, but you were having so much fun playing with it that it seemed rude to disturb you.

 

[durangodawood]

AND then there is the other side of that coin, the people who were killed because a convicted murder was released.
The Research Idea
Radford Serial Killer Database
Since 1950 (date of last kill)
2,883 serial killers in the United States
Of those 2,883
478 killed again while on parole for murder (16.6%)
138 killed again while in prison (4.8%)
23 killed while escaped from prison for murder (0.8%)
11 killed while on NGRI release for murder (0.4%)
650 (22.5%) killed again after an initial conviction
for murder
(PDF) Released to Kill Again: An Analysis of Paroled Murderers Who Murder Again While on Parole
AND also
A List of Murderers Released to Murder Again!

The problem is that to prevent those^ people from murdering again, you have to make yourself a murderer in that the state in your name will from time time execute innocent people.

 

[zippy2006]

The problem is that to prevent those^ people from murdering again, you have to make yourself a murderer in that the state in your name will from time time execute innocent people.

Do you believe that the accidental execution of an innocent citizen is murder?

 

[durangodawood]

Do you believe that the accidental execution of an innocent citizen is murder?

Yes, in the context of a system we know will fail from time to time.

(And that counts for non citizens too)

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, in the context of a system we know will fail from time to time.

I don't think that makes much sense at all. I am not going to pursue this, but feel free to make an argument if you'd like.

 

[durangodawood]

..."Is there any circumstance in which capital punishment would be permissible?"...

I'm hung up on the notion of "permissible".

Permissible is whatever someone allows to happen. Seems a question of fact rather than of value. (Hence my vote for option 3)

 

[disciple Clint]

The problem is that to prevent those^ people from murdering again, you have to make yourself a murderer in that the state in your name will from time time execute innocent people.

Innocent people do die every day, it is an unfortunate fact of life but it is a fact. We have wars we understand that many innocent people will die but we also understand that it is necessary for them to die in order to protect a vastly larger number of people. So yes a few innocent people may be executed but that is a price we pay to protect other innocent people. It is not like there is not an appeals process available to help reduce the number of mistakes made in the criminal justice system.

 

[durangodawood]

Innocent people do die every day, it is an unfortunate fact of life but it is a fact. We have wars we understand that many innocent people will die but we also understand that it is necessary for them to die in order to protect a vastly larger number of people. So yes a few innocent people may be executed but that is a price we pay to protect other innocent people. It is not like there is not an appeals process available to help reduce the number of mistakes made in the criminal justice system.

"Innocents die" is a weak, passive, responsibility-avoidance way of phrasing it regarding the cold-blood killing of innocent people on death row.

War is different. In principle war is a hot blooded self-defense fight for our own lives or freedom from tyranny.

 

[disciple Clint]

"Innocents die" is a weak, passive, responsibility-avoidance way of phrasing it regarding the cold-blood killing of innocent people on death row.

War is different. In principle war is a hot blooded self-defense fight for our own lives or freedom from tyranny.

Are you more concerned about the killers or the victims because if you are at all concerned about the victims you should consider that killers are released from prison when they are able to con a judge into believing that they are reformed they then have the opportunity to go out and kill more innocent people. So once again we have to decide if the protection of the public is more important that the possibility of the criminal justice system making a rare mistake.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you believe that the accidental execution of an innocent citizen is murder?

No. How about the deliberate execution of an innocent citizen?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you more concerned about the killers or the victims because if you are at all concerned about the victims you should consider that killers are released from prison when they are able to con a judge into believing that they are reformed they then have the opportunity to go out and kill more innocent people. So once again we have to decide if the protection of the public is more important that the possibility of the criminal justice system making a rare mistake.

And the police can get you strapped to a table and pumped full of potassium chloride by conning a judge.

And they're a lot better at it than a criminal is.

 

[zippy2006]

"Innocents die" is a weak, passive, responsibility-avoidance way of phrasing it regarding the cold-blood killing of innocent people on death row.

It's not the cold-blooded killing of innocents. It is an innocent person who dies by accident, apart from and even contrary to the intention of the justice system.

Do you think Henry Ford is a murderer? Cars have failed from time to time, and innocent people have died because of these failures. Surely Ford knew that cars would fail and that some failures could be lethal.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you more concerned about the killers or the victims because if you are at all concerned about the victims you should consider that killers are released from prison when they are able to con a judge into believing that they are reformed they then have the opportunity to go out and kill more innocent people. So once again we have to decide if the protection of the public is more important that the possibility of the criminal justice system making a rare mistake.

Wait what??? Where did I display concern about the killers? Literally where did you get that from?

I said very clearly my concern is for the innocent people we will inevitably kill in any fallible (ie human run) system of execution.

I also implied that my concern is for all of us being made into murderers by this system that functions in our name.

Now I do believe in killing for self-defense, in situations of sheer necessity. IF execution was the sole option to prevent rampant murdering, then it would be more like war and I might be on board with it.

 

[Hank77]

Are you more concerned about the killers or the victims because if you are at all concerned about the victims you should consider that killers are released from prison when they are able to con a judge into believing that they are reformed they then have the opportunity to go out and kill more innocent people. So once again we have to decide if the protection of the public is more important that the possibility of the criminal justice system making a rare mistake.

Rather than execution... life with NO chance of parole or pardon.

Of course, unless they are proven to be not guilty and never should have been convicted in the first place.

 

[durangodawood]

It's not the cold-blooded killing of innocents. It is an innocent person who dies by accident, apart from and even contrary to the intention of the justice system.

Do you think Henry Ford is a murderer? Cars have failed from time to time, and innocent people have died because of these failures. Surely Ford knew that cars would fail and that some failures could be lethal.

Execution is cold blooded. Thats when the target offers no immanent threat and is incapacitated and you can take your time over planning and executing the deed.

As for cars, or stairs, or whatever.... life is dangerous. Accidents happen. In none of those are we talking about a plan to kill people tho.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm hung up on the notion of "permissible".

Permissible is whatever someone allows to happen. Seems a question of fact rather than of value. (Hence my vote for option 3)

That's a good observation. I originally voted for #3 but then changed my vote to #2.

The deep core of the thread is about whether there are compelling non-religious reasons to believe that capital punishment is impermissible. If no such reasons exist then it must be at least permissible. If positive reasons can be mustered in favor of capital punishment, then the practice could be rationally justified in a positive sense (which would mean that it is more than permissible).

 

[zippy2006]

Execution is cold blooded. Thats when the target offers no immanent threat and is incapacitated and you can take your time over planning and executing the deed.

I would not use that term to describe criminal executions. <Here> is the definition. "Cold blooded" belongs in the species of crimes and is contrasted with a crime of passion, the latter of which is considered to mitigate guilt and culpability because the crime is committed in a state where one lacks some control of their actions.

An execution has nothing to do with this species, as it is not a crime at all. The executioner who is "cold blooded" is not worse than the executioner who acts in a fit of passion. You are confusing categories here.

As for cars, or stairs, or whatever.... life is dangerous. Accidents happen. In none of those are we talking about a plan to kill people tho.

I would say that Henry Ford is more culpable, for he "murders" for the sake of money, whereas the fellow who constructed the criminal justice system "murders" for the sake of the safety of society.

Of course it is absurd to call such a thing murder. Since there is widespread confusion on this issue I would suggest you provide an actual argument for your position. Maybe begin with a definition of murder and then explain why the case in question counts as murder, along with who it is that has done the murdering.

 

[disciple Clint]

And the police can get you strapped to a table and pumped full of potassium chloride by conning a judge.

And they're a lot better at it than a criminal is.

AND I am certain you have evidence to support that baseless accusation.

 

[durangodawood]

That's a good observation. I originally voted for #3 but then changed my vote to #2.

The deep core of the thread is about whether there are compelling non-religious reasons to believe that capital punishment is impermissible. If no such reasons exist then it must be at least permissible. If positive reasons can be mustered in favor of capital punishment, then the practice could be rationally justified in a positive sense (which would mean that it is more than permissible).

Yeah. I sort of derailed with what you call "practical" objections.

As for in-principle objections, I dont think there are bedrock in-principle reasons for ANY moral statements. They are all contingent on natural facts of being human, and on visions we have of the sort of world we'd prefer.