Death Penalty - Non-Religious Arguments

[zippy2006]

The ACLU considers it state sancioned homicide:

'An execution is a violent public spectacle of official homicide...'

It's not commonly used in that context. But it really does just mean 'killing someone'.

You should cite your source. This is from a polemical article against the death penalty, which pretty much proves my point. Even in that article the word "homicide" is often just used to denote either the crime or the private act of homicide (and it is sometimes prefixed with 'criminal'). (The Case Against the Death Penalty)

If you look at the Britannica article it will quickly become clear that capital punishments imposed by the state are not considered homicides. No objective news agency would ever report on a civil execution by claiming, "Today a homicide occurred at 1:00 pm."

@durangodawood has been trying to maintain his crazy opinion that capital punishment involves murder (link). I'm pretty tired of the equivocations and fallacious reasoning that he is using to try to support his position. Essentially he is lying to make something he dislikes look worse than it is.

If he provides a formal or semi-formal argument for why capital punishment systems involve murder I will point out the invalid reasoning in the argument. Beyond that, I am going to pass on this strange conversation.

 

[Bradskii]

You should cite your source.

It's very rarely I don't. But in this case, I thought the quote stood as it was given. It's a colloquial use of the term 'homicide' which is rarely used to describe state sanctioned executions, but which was used by the ACLU precisely for that reason. To emphasise that we are actually killing someone. It's technically homicide. The term is used for effect.

It seems churlish to argue that point.

 

[Nithavela]

I haven't yet seen an argument for the death penality that couldn't also apply to killing everyone.

 

[durangodawood]

....If you look at the Britannica article it will quickly become clear that capital punishments imposed by the state are not considered homicides. No objective news agency would ever report on a civil execution by claiming, "Today a homicide occurred at 1:00 pm."...

Every legal dictionary you can find says "homicide" is the killing of one human being by another. End of sentence.

This point seems very important to you. But you just factually wrong.

 

[Monowhite]

All life is sacred. Those who champion revenge under the D*vil's guise of 'justice' and yet claim to be a follower of the Lord are no better than those who nailed the son of the Lord to the cross.

 

[zippy2006]

Every legal dictionary you can find says "homicide" is the killing of one human being by another. End of sentence.

This point seems very important to you. But you just factually wrong.

Yes, a human being, as in a private party. The state is not a human being. When someone is executed by the state, they are not executed by a human being. It is not a human being killing another human being. It is the state executing a punishment on a human being. This is why executioners were traditionally masked. They are acting as an agent of the state, and not in their own capacity. Strange etymological arguments aside, an execution is not a homicide.

This is why when Britannica distinguishes the various senses of homicide they refer at no point to actions of the state or to executions. 'Cause those aren't homicides (except for those who are desperate to make desperate arguments).

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, a human being, as in a private party. The state is not a human being. When someone is executed by the state, they are not executed by a human being. It is not a human being killing another human being. It is the state executing a punishment on a human being. This is why executioners were traditionally masked. They are acting as an agent of the state, and not in their own capacity. Strange etymological arguments aside, an execution is not a homicide.

This is why when Britannica distinguishes the various senses of homicide they refer at no point to actions of the state or to executions. 'Cause those aren't homicides (except for those who are desperate to make desperate arguments).

You are really reaching. Nothing in the definition specifies a "private party" vs a state employee vs anyone else. Its the killing of a human being by another human being. End of sentence. Some homicides are murder. Some are perfectly legal.

Of course a person performs the act. Its not administered by robots. But its the administration of death in a systematic way that implicates everyone who participates in the system.

 

[jayem]

In this thread and in the poll I am interested in the principled case for or against capital punishment. You might ask yourself the question, "Is there any circumstance in which capital punishment would be permissible?"

What say you? State your position and provide arguments. Only non-religious arguments are allowed.

View attachment 310819

I haven't read all 160+ posts, so this may have already been mentioned. Another circumstance that might warrant capital punishment is the commission of war crimes. Suppose Hitler had been captured alive. Was put on trial at Nuremberg with his fellow Nazi big wigs, and convicted of crimes against humanity. Or consider Pol Pot. The Khmer Rouge dictator of Cambodia in the 70-80s, who killed 1.5-2 million of his own people. Other than execution, what would be appropriate justice for someone who commits genocide? I gotta admit that I'm conflicted.

(Hopefully, invoking Godwin's Law is not a capital offense. )

 

[Chriliman]

I have never studied the topic of capital punishment from a purely non-religious angle. After listening to Alasdair MacIntyre's recent controversial paper on human dignity I am curious to raise this topic on CF.

My hunch is that MacIntyre is right, and as a corollary, when confined to non-religious arguments capital punishment must remain de facto permissible, as there is no compelling secular reason for its prohibition. Granted, practical arguments might be given in favor of its prohibition. For example, maybe the risk of false convictions is too great or life in prison is preferable. Nevertheless, in principle capital punishment would be permissible, just as it would be in societies where practical circumstances do not hinder it.

In this thread and in the poll I am interested in the principled case for or against capital punishment. You might ask yourself the question, "Is there any circumstance in which capital punishment would be permissible?"

What say you? State your position and provide arguments. Only non-religious arguments are allowed.

View attachment 310819

I wonder if the life-long natural guilt/anguish of ones own actions can be enough punishment for some, maybe not all. But if we cut their life short via capital punishment we actually spare them any natural guilt they may have experienced while spending their life in prison(given no afterlife).

 

[jayem]

There are penal methods that may be worse than death. Like a life sentence in the ADX Florence. The “Supermax” federal prison in CO, which houses the worst of worst. Guests include the unabomber Ted Kaczynski, the Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolf, and Tim McVeigh’s buddy Terry Nichols who helped blow up the Oklahoma City federal building. Imagine spending the rest of your life in a 7 x 12 ft concrete cell with only a small window near the ceiling. It lets in some light, but you can’t see the sky or anything outside. You spend 23 hrs a day in solitary confinement with 1 hour out of the cell for exercise by yourself. You eat meals alone in your cell, and visitors can only be clergy or legal counsel. You can read books from the library, and if you’re well behaved, you can watch a TV built into the cell wall that has only educational and religious programming. But otherwise, you’e essentially cut off from most all human contact.

I think I’d rather get a big IV slug of propofol and potassium.

https://www.ranker.com/list/what-is-florence-adx-supermax-prison-like/jacob-shelton#:~:text=ADX keeps all of its,they were allowed to mingle.

 

[Nithavela]

There are penal methods that may be worse than death. Like a life sentence in the ADX Florence. The “Supermax” federal prison in CO, which houses the worst of worst. Guests include the unabomber Ted Kaczynski, the Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolf, and Tim McVeigh’s buddy Terry Nichols who helped blow up the Oklahoma City federal building. Imagine spending the rest of your life in a 7 x 12 ft concrete cell with only a small window near the ceiling. It lets in some light, but you can’t see the sky or anything outside. You spend 23 hrs a day in solitary confinement with 1 hour out of the cell for exercise by yourself. You eat meals alone in your cell, and visitors can only be clergy or legal counsel. You can read books from the library, and if you’re well behaved, you can watch a TV built into the cell wall that has only educational and religious programming. But otherwise, you’e essentially cut off from most all human contact.

I think I’d rather get a big IV slug of propofol and potassium.

https://www.ranker.com/list/what-is-florence-adx-supermax-prison-like/jacob-shelton#:~:text=ADX keeps all of its,they were allowed to mingle.

That the US prison system manages to acchieve fates worse than death is no argument for the death penalty.

 

[jayem]

That the US prison system manages to acchieve fates worse than death is no argument for the death penalty.

Agree. There’s no need for capital punishment when the existing penal system is punitive enough already.

 

[ruthiesea]

Capital punishment accomplishes nothing. Most criminals to not expect to get caught and almost all murderers only commit one homicide. If used at all, and I disapprove to it, the death penalty should be reserved for serial killers and spree killers.

 

[zippy2006]

I haven't read all 160+ posts, so this may have already been mentioned. Another circumstance that might warrant capital punishment is the commission of war crimes. Suppose Hitler had been captured alive. Was put on trial at Nuremberg with his fellow Nazi big wigs, and convicted of crimes against humanity. Or consider Pol Pot. The Khmer Rouge dictator of Cambodia in the 70-80s, who killed 1.5-2 million of his own people. Other than execution, what would be appropriate justice for someone who commits genocide? I gotta admit that I'm conflicted.

(Hopefully, invoking Godwin's Law is not a capital offense. )

Thanks Jayem. Is this to say that any especially serious crime warrants death, and war crimes fit the bill?

I definitely agree that the gravity of those crimes seems to warrant capital punishment.

 

[jayem]

Thanks Jayem. Is this to say that any especially serious crime warrants death, and war crimes fit the bill?

I definitely agree that the gravity of those crimes seems to warrant capital punishment.

As I stated, I’m conflicted. I’d agree that if any crime deserves execution, mass murder on an industrial scale would definitely fit the bill. But as I posted about the Colorado supermax prison, spending the rest of your life in solitary confinement in a concrete box, almost totally devoid of human contact might well be worse.

 

[Whyayeman]

I am an abolitionist. Of course, as an atheist, my objections are non-religious.

The traditional objections have tended to be utilitarian - practical objections related to certainty of guilt or the lack of it. Of course I agree that it is better to preserve the lives of those the courts have convicted because of the possibility of more evidence be uncovered. There have been cases of this sort and cases in which death-bed confessions have exonerated convicted murderers, too often after they have been executed.

There is the argument that execution ensures that the killer will not kill again. My view is that life imprisonment serves the same purpose.

Then there is the flawed deterrence argument; the evidence that execution deters murderers is flimsy. I think this was well covered above.

Some people see the death penalty as proper justice for the relatives of survivors and for wider society. I think that a civilised society is diminished by the death penalty; society should hold itself to its highest standards rather than sink to the standards of the criminals it wishes to punish.

In my view capital punishment is rooted in the barbarism of our forebears. Civilised societies have largely purged themselves of brutal or cruel punishments; we no longer use the rack or the thumbscrew or burn heretics at the stake. In my view the progress away from such barbarisms stem from a similar source; a revulsion against these practices. Many now attach that same revulsion to execution.

 

[durangodawood]

...No, you're wrong. Find me a legal source describing an execution as a homicide. You're just making stuff up......

Here's a wikipedia entry which cites the California Penal Code:

Two other forms of justifiable homicide are unique to the prison system: the death penalty and preventing prisoners from escaping. To quote the California State Penal Code (state law) that covers justifiable homicide:

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.

You can find the original here.
Codes Display Text
Execution is legally a justifiable homicide.
I'm not making stuff up.

 

[Whyayeman]

How to vote? The second and third options are for retention, so I cannot tick those boxes. I do not think the abolition of the death penalty is wholly rational, so that option does not appeal either.

I have made the point that civilised societies have abandoned cruel, barbaric judicial acts. This process has been incremental with the death penalty only the latest instance. What lies underlies these developments is revulsion. I don't want to argue that this revulsion is wholly rational.

Nearly all countries have already got rid of the death penalty from their statute books; many which have not have in practice abandoned it. I think most of the United States have either formally dropped it or have abandoned it in practice. Even those states which retain it seem reluctant to use it; the unseemly consequence is condemned men living on the so-called Death Row for many years. These men are condemned to desperate appeals, pleas for pardon and stays of execution - a kind of legal cat and mouse game. This is in itself a cruelty only made possible by the continued existence of the death penalty.

 

[durangodawood]

Here's a wikipedia entry which cites the California Penal Code:


You can find the original here.
Codes Display Text
Execution is legally a justifiable homicide.
I'm not making stuff up.

Perhaps youve put me on ignore @zippy2006 as our conversation seems to have vexed you. But you should at least see that^ post of mine after accusing me of making stuff up and claiming its fact, ie lying.

 

[zippy2006]

Here's a wikipedia entry which cites the California Penal Code:


You can find the original here.
Codes Display Text
Execution is legally a justifiable homicide.
I'm not making stuff up.

Okay, thanks.

No, I'm not ignoring you. I just tired of your argument: attempting to show that execution is homicide in order to support a case that capital punishment is murder due to the fact that capital punishment regimes may, at times, unintentionally execute a person who was wrongfully convicted of capital crimes. I find that when you're on the internet you have to call it a day when people start arguing for truly absurd things. We crossed that line some time ago. You managed to find a legal source that speaks of homicide in connection with peace officers. Unfortunately that source also explicitly categorizes this form of homicide as something different from murder.

But yeah, I'm not really interested in your claim that capital punishment is murder. I think it's beyond the pale of reasonable positions. Nevertheless, I find you to be a thoughtful person and I will continue to engage your posts in the future.

But you should at least see that^ post of mine after accusing me of making stuff up and claiming its fact, ie lying.

I think the way you attribute intentions to the creators or other persons involved in constructing a criminal justice system which involves the death penalty, is a form a lying. Murder requires the intent to kill an innocent person, and you attributed that intent to someone falsely, in a way that I believe you know to be false. To claim that the creator of a criminal justice system is a murderer who intends to kill innocents is false and deeply problematic. The same holds if you wish to accuse the society at large rather than the creator, etc.

If such a person is thought to be at fault, they cannot be said to be guilty of murder. Rather, they would be guilty of some form of negligence with a deadly weapon--of using a lethal instrument that they knew could or likely would bring about the death of some innocents when the safety of society could be achieved in alternative ways. Still, that's not murder.