Death Penalty - Non-Religious Arguments

[disciple Clint]

Why of course -- if the police wanted to frame you for a crime, they have access to resources training, and knowledge far beyond that of the average person... true or false?

Forensic reports can be forged, witnesses can be manipulated, evidence can be planted or hidden as needed, and if course, you can always be taken into a windowless back room and "interrogated" until you confess.

A criminal seeking release has no resources except a well-rehearsed sob story to tell to a parole board that listens to such sob stories all day long... and not every criminal gets parole.

Really, I assumed this was all self-evident... you sounded so knowledgeable a little while ago.

apparently you believe that criminals are victims of the system.

 

[zippy2006]

I think durangodawood is the only one who tried to answer this basic question of the OP:

You might ask yourself the question, "Is there any circumstance in which capital punishment would be permissible?"
​

It is a helpful question insofar as it allows one to prescind from exclusively pragmatic considerations. For example: in the circumstance that the guilt of the criminal is known with certainty, would capital punishment then be permissible?

 

[Sketcher]

True. But any moral case can be argued with God in the picture as well. Just look at the Christian only areas on this site.

I'm familiar with some of the out-there beliefs that have been posted there over the years. There are some contexts outside of crime and punishment where I thoroughly disagree with that statement. But that's getting off-topic from the OP, which is if a secular case for the death penalty can be made.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But the rationale for executing the traitor is the same as the rationale for executing the dangerous criminal: they are a threat to society. Despite the parity of the two cases you want to distinguish them, but I don't see your reasoning for doing so.

A murderer may be a threat to some people, but they can't murder society. Treason is an attempt to murder the state.

Since you have focused on social contract I will repeat my question about executing traitors: Would you allow yourself to be killed in such a way in an international social compact?

I can't clearly perceive what that might look like. I'll stipulate that I'll 'allow' the US to execute me if it finds I am a traitor.

 

[Bradskii]

A murderer may be a threat to some people, but they can't murder society. Treason is an attempt to murder the state.

I can't clearly perceive what that might look like. I'll stipulate that I'll 'allow' the US to execute me if it finds I am a traitor.

I have difficulty with the concept of treason. That an accident of birth should dictate whether or not you can fight against a country if you think they are doing wrong. If the UK and Australia came to blows (I'm a citizen of both) then I'd be a traitor whichever side I fought on.

Say the Russians move on the Ukraine and a few Russians thought that was wrong, are they heroes or traitors if they fight with the Ukrainians?

 

[TLK Valentine]

apparently you believe that criminals are victims of the system.

Not at all. But the system always has an advantage over the accused -- so much so that, at least in the US, the presumption of innocence exists in part to level the playing field.

You tell me what happens when that presumption is taken out of the equation.

 

[zippy2006]

A murderer may be a threat to some people, but they can't murder society. Treason is an attempt to murder the state.

Could anarchists who pose a legitimate threat then also be executed?

The reason I brought up organized crime like the mafia is because I believe it is parallel to foreign enemies which undermine or "murder society," although there is a difference of intent insofar as the mafia intends crime at the expense of the society whereas the foreign enemies seek the harm of the society in itself.

Nevertheless, it seems preferable to talk about the society rather than the state as the subject of harm, for the society is presumably prior to the state, and can reorganize itself into different state arrangements if it so chooses. I suppose I am not quite clear on what "murdering the state" would mean. Probably the anarchist, the traitor, and the enemy spy all desire to undermine the state, and if so, should they all be executed? Would far-left communists also count as desiring to "murder the U.S. state"?

I can't clearly perceive what that might look like. I'll stipulate that I'll 'allow' the US to execute me if it finds I am a traitor.

Okay, thanks.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Could anarchists who pose a legitimate threat then also be executed? ... Probably the anarchist, the traitor, and the enemy spy all desire to undermine the state, and if so, should they all be executed? Would far-left communists also count as desiring to "murder the U.S. state"?

We're not talking thought crimes here. That's not treason. We're not talking about things that are 'within the rules'. Burning flags. Enacting progressive tax policies.

Leon Czolgosz, the anarchist who assassinated President McKinley, might have qualified. But he was convicted of murder.

It seems very few people have ever been convicted of treason in the US, and I think none sentenced to death. I thought the Rosenbergs had, but it was espionage.

 

[disciple Clint]

We're not talking thought crimes here. That's not treason. We're not talking about things that are 'within the rules'. Burning flags. Enacting progressive tax policies.

Leon Czolgosz, the anarchist who assassinated President McKinley, might have qualified. But he was convicted of murder.

It seems very few people have ever been convicted of treason in the US, and I think none sentenced to death. I thought the Rosenbergs had, but it was espionage.

List of people convicted of treason - Wikipedia

 

[zippy2006]

We're not talking thought crimes here. That's not treason. We're not talking about things that are 'within the rules'. Burning flags. Enacting progressive tax policies.

I agree. In reality an anarchist who always stays within the rules isn't an anarchist at all.

I suppose the unspoken assumption is that I was speaking of convicted anarchists, or convicted spies, just as we have been tacitly speaking of convicted traitors. That is, I am speaking of those who have been convicted of high crimes, and who are similar to traitors in their designs on the state.

Leon Czolgosz, the anarchist who assassinated President McKinley, might have qualified. But he was convicted of murder.

I'm not asking if anarchists should be tried for treason. I'm asking why, on your conception, anarchists couldn't be tried and executed in the same way a traitor could be. It would be odd to claim that Czolgosz can only go to death row if he is working to overthrow the state through an external nation rather than through an internal organization.

It seems very few people have ever been convicted of treason in the US, and I think none sentenced to death. I thought the Rosenbergs had, but it was espionage.

Okay.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm asking why, on your conception, anarchists couldn't be tried and executed in the same way a traitor could be.

No, I agree. I don't see why not. Taking some sort of violent 'warlike' action to destroy the state (and replace it with nothing) would qualify.

 

[VirOptimus]

Capital punishment is barbaric and has no place in modern civilization.

 

[Bradskii]

Capital punishment is barbaric and has no place in modern civilization.

I was hoping for something more nuanced...

 

[VirOptimus]

I was hoping for something more nuanced...

Hope springs eternal!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That is a fair argument. I will just say that other considerations must be taken into account as well, such as the well being of future victims, the well being of the prison guards who will be forced to tend to such criminals, the well being of the society which will be forced to pay for the long term imprisonment of such criminals, etc.

I agree. To make a slam dunk moral argument against it may not be possible. I think the best reason against it is the possibility of killing an innocent person. I guess I am probably swayed by my own feeling that it just feels wrong which is not a good argument.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm familiar with some of the out-there beliefs that have been posted there over the years. There are some contexts outside of crime and punishment where I thoroughly disagree with that statement. But that's getting off-topic from the OP, which is if a secular case for the death penalty can be made.

True. This is an interesting discussion.

 

[durangodawood]

It has nothing to do with those who are removed from being a threat, so that variable should be omitted. For example, see post #19 or consider the many societies which do not have the means for indefinite imprisonment.

Post 19 deals with any sort of murderer, most of who would never get to death row under our current laws. Perhaps the argument is that capital punishment should be expanded significantly. Do we, or these other under poor societies have the resources for the fail-safes we demand in that many death penalty cases? Or is a slipshod system ok?

Well, let's be clear: a plan to kill grievous offenders for the sake of the safety and justice of society; not a plan to commit the crime of homicide.

It is homicide tho. Your bias is showing.

Not granted. Not even close to granted.

Malice as the intent to cause harm.

Did you mean to say, "Pre-knowledge that there will be some victims?" See, your bias is showing, for you are here assuming that everyone who is subjected to capital punishment is a victim, and some of those victims will be innocent.

Yes thats what I meant in quotes.

It is worth noting that there is no court in the world that would convict such a person of murder.

Of course they wouldnt convict someone carrying out legal duties in a capital punishment regime.

What of the third? It is the only relevant variable in my opinion. It is, "Knowledge of the non-zero probability that the enactment of his plan will result in the death of innocent people." The other crucial factor is that he is wielding lethal instruments. But this is no different from Henry Ford, or the Wright Brothers, or the fellow who made the Titanic, etc.

If a court actually took up such a case they would consider manslaughter, not murder, and it would be on the basis of negligence, not intent. Presumably they would find someone like Henry Ford (or any of the others we are considering) innocent unless he showed significant neglect in attempting to create the safest product possible, or lied to the consumers about the safety of his product, or something else to that effect.

The car driver wields a lethal instrument in a world where all instruments are lethal to some degree or other. Accidents are part of life. Im ok with "negligent homicide" for extreme negligence.

The state makes a plan to kill.

 

[Hazelelponi]

How many people on death row have the Innocence Project proved were not guilty? 21 since 1989, how many slipped through the cracks, we probably will never know.

And how many people have been on or convicted to death row?

It's an average of under 4 people found wrongly convicted per year since 1973, and the greatest majority were found innocent due to DNA testing which was brand new in 1986... our highest level of death row inmates since was in excess of 3,000.

Now that we have DNA testing to convict, there's no argument that doesn't have it's basis in religion to keep death row inmates alive.

1.) They can never be free, and never be rehabilitated.

2.) 60 years (more or less) in solitary confinement (as they are too dangerous to be in general population) is inhumane at it's core

3.) 60 years (more or less) of housing, food, healthcare and salaries to prison guards is cost prohibitive to the state.

 

[durangodawood]

...Now that we have DNA testing to convict...

Are you aware that crime labs have been found guilty of fraud? So called iron clad evidence relies on the unfailing honesty of people.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Are you aware that crime labs have been found guilty of fraud? So called iron clad evidence relies on the unfailing honesty of people.

You won't ever have a perfect system with humans over it.

But with a justice system such as we have in the US? I'd personally rather be wrongfully convicted AND executed than to spend the remainder of my life on death row ..