warfare is the extension of self defense in the collective, if the war is just then killing an enemy soldier as part of that war is just. this is all predicated upon the war being just. if you are talking about random assassination not as part of a just war, then that is not moral.

i'm not talking about utilitarianism, which is what i think you are trying to drive the conversation towards. i don't believe that killing someone just to reduce suffering is morally justified by itself, no.

9/17/2013 4:18:04 PM

Quote :

"i don't believe that killing someone just to reduce suffering is morally justified by itself, no"

Why not? What's your morality based on if not the consequence of the actions we're judging? Where is your "thou shalt not murder, except in self defense, or part of war" coming from exactly?

9/17/2013 4:19:16 PM

well this thread is specifically about the death penalty, so the person to be murdered would already be incarcerated, its not reducing suffering or anything like that. as for my reasons for those things, i explain that on the first and second page.


i assume you are against the death penalty if you are leaning on dated utilitarianism philosophy to justify killing

9/17/2013 4:23:34 PM

Actually I'm talking about reducing their suffering specifically re: life in prison is torture. Maybe you feel their suffering doesn't deserve to be reduced.

9/17/2013 4:30:51 PM

Quote :

"life in prison is torture."

false dilemma

life in prison shouldn't be torture

9/17/2013 4:46:02 PM

How could it not be? Short of rendering them unconscious permanently how is it possible to detain someone indefinitely without that in and of itself being tortuous? No chance of redemption, no chance of release is itself torture, IMO.

Not to mention the constant barrage of assaults, harassment, psychological damage, etc prison systems on Earth 2013 actually are.

9/17/2013 4:50:58 PM

in other words: killing people is only okay when i say it is, and that means in self-defense.

9/17/2013 5:17:24 PM

Quote :

"How could it not be? Short of rendering them unconscious permanently how is it possible to detain someone indefinitely without that in and of itself being tortuous? No chance of redemption, no chance of release is itself torture, IMO."

Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant; it's up to the individual to decide. Most people would rather be in prison than dead. Even a shitty prison.

Quote :

"Not to mention the constant barrage of assaults, harassment, psychological damage, etc prison systems on Earth 2013 actually are."

That is the US. Other countries are doing a much better job.

9/17/2013 5:22:33 PM

We already established in this thread that we need prison reform

and its not reducing someone's suffering if they would like to live

9/17/2013 5:41:23 PM

Or let me put this another way:

if killing a prisoner is reducing suffering, when is killing any person not reducing suffering? Life is full of hardships and bad things, so why should we not kill every person?

9/17/2013 5:47:38 PM

yes, let's kill everybody so that nobody suffers

9/17/2013 6:01:45 PM

I agree that what disco_Stu is advocating for is ridiculous

9/17/2013 6:09:50 PM

only he isn't advocating for that at all. he's showing you how ridiculous your claim is that it's only OK to kill people in the name of self defense.

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 6:17:16 PM

it's not ridiculous at all though

self-defense = only when they are in direct threat to yours or others' existence

9/17/2013 6:22:12 PM

isn't threat purely subjective?

9/17/2013 6:27:21 PM

either get on our level or get out of this thread, the adults are talking

9/17/2013 8:41:00 PM

you're really doing a shitty job trolling in this thread

9/18/2013 7:58:41 AM

Yeah, that's why I asked him to leave

9/18/2013 8:05:15 AM

Quote :

"Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant; it's up to the individual to decide. Most people would rather be in prison than dead. Even a shitty prison."

It's actually not up to them; we as a society are overriding their choice to be free and putting them in prison. I wonder though if anyone who has been tortured for decades would choose the same again.

And that's my point really. As I said previously, I'm starting to buy the moral arguments against capital punishment, but the exact same arguments apply (and perhaps apply even more powerfully) against life imprisonment as well. Why do we as a society have a right to torture people for 60+ years (if they don't get killed by the system anyway)?

9/18/2013 8:41:33 AM

Quote :

"It's actually not up to them; we as a society are overriding their choice to be free and putting them in prison. I wonder though if anyone who has been tortured for decades would choose the same again. And that's my point really. As I said previously, I'm starting to buy the moral arguments against capital punishment, but the exact same arguments apply (and perhaps apply even more powerfully) against life imprisonment as well. Why do we as a society have a right to torture people for 60+ years (if they don't get killed by the system anyway)?"

They're in custody because they're a threat to society. When they are no longer a threat, they can be released. That much is not up to them, because they have violated society's trust.

They should have a right to live, though. The death penalty only serves as vengeance.

9/18/2013 8:47:48 AM

Quote :

"It's actually not up to them; we as a society are overriding their choice to be free and putting them in prison. I wonder though if anyone who has been tortured for decades would choose the same again."

we put them in prison to remove them from society and as punishment, that doesn't take away their inalienable rights as humans. and considering that we know of death row inmates who fight the death penalty for years and decades, we don't need to wonder if they would want to die. But regardless, in your second point you are deferring to their opinion, which contradicts your previous incorrect claim that it doesn't matter.

9/18/2013 9:41:38 AM

Quote :

"we put them in prison to remove them from society and as punishment"

so, we =/= society? or does it? i'm confused.

[Edited on September 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2013 11:20:59 AM

that's not a contradiction, try harder

9/18/2013 11:22:00 AM

Remember: the people inside the prisons are not a part of society, either

9/18/2013 11:51:08 PM

They were before they were pit in prison, and they are still humans

9/19/2013 8:18:35 AM

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Arrests-in-sleepover-killing-of-girl-in-Oakland-4860093.php

I wonder if this happened to your little sister or daughter you'd still want this piece of shit behind bars for life? I'm guessing you'd be willing to make an exception, but who knows?

[Edited on October 1, 2013 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2013 6:46:52 PM

Appeals to emotion don't make sound public policy, unfortunately.

10/2/2013 8:47:50 AM

If that happened to someone in my family I would want kill them with my own hands, but that is completely irrelevant in regards to the morality of the death penalty or what our laws should be. Its understandable, and expected, to be filled with rage if something like that happens but that doesn't mean that we should set policy based on those emotions and it wouldn't change the morality of killing them.

10/2/2013 9:01:19 AM

I'd like to think rage would eventually be replaced with pity, but I've never been in that kind of situation, so I don't know how I'd feel.

10/2/2013 9:13:02 AM

I think the death penalty should remain, but be reserved for those truly too dangerous/risky to keep incarcerated.

Ala, mass murderers/terrrrrrrrristsssssssssss/dem scary fuckers/etc. (I haven't read this thread, but I'm assuming this is about all U.S. courts - civilian & military)

Not just your typical murderous thug who killed a family in a break-in/shot a cop in a chase. Those basterts can rot in a 5x10.

[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2013 9:22:45 AM

i don't think anyone has established that difficulty to incarcerate (your dangerous/risk) is related to crimes convicted. I don't see why some petty criminals couldn't be more of a threat to other inmates than some people convicted of more serious crimes, do you have statistics to support that?

10/2/2013 9:27:53 AM

Who gives a shit about inmates being dangers to themselves? That's on the bottom of the totem pole. And no, I don't care to spend my day googling for you. But it's not a leap to say that violent criminals are more likely to be violent inmates, compared to non-violent criminals. That's beside the point.

My personal belief in the death penalty is for the safety of those on the outside. And you don't think that storing Bin Laden in prison for 50 years isn't risky? haha.

10/2/2013 9:31:46 AM

Quote :

" But it's not a leap to say that violent criminals are more likely to be violent inmates, compared to non-violent criminals. That's beside the point."

that's probably not a leap, but it is a leap to say that some violent criminals are necessarily more dangerous to incarcerate than other violent criminals only because of what they were convicted of.

so how do you decide who you get to murder?

[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2013 9:33:17 AM

maybe you missed the part where I explained all of this.

Think Bin Laden. Think Bradly Cooper.

Who's more of a risk? /my point.

10/2/2013 9:36:06 AM

I'm not as willing to consider convicted felons as subhuman due in part to the fact that an unknown percentage of them are innocent.

10/2/2013 9:47:53 AM

but Bin Laden would probably not be a risk to incarcerate, he was old and feeble. he's certainly not more of a risk than many violent criminals convicted of petty crimes. that's why i'm asking, because you say its based on risk but your explanation seems to be based on how much you want vengeance.

10/2/2013 9:50:10 AM

Quote :

"If that happened to someone in my family I would want kill them with my own hands, but that is completely irrelevant in regards to the morality of the death penalty or what our laws should be. Its understandable, and expected, to be filled with rage if something like that happens but that doesn't mean that we should set policy based on those emotions and it wouldn't change the morality of killing them."

I'm willing to bet that most people would.

Here's the thing: I don't think the death penalty should be used as liberally as it is now. In exceptional cases where the individual shows zero remorse, displays a consistent pattern of sociopathic behavior, and will clearly kill again when presented with the opportunity, they are never going to be rehabilitated. I thought prison sentences were designed to Remove individuals from society, Rehabilitate them (if possible), or provide Retribution for those who have been victimized. It's incredibly insensitive for the families/victims to just stop at removing them from society, especially when there's no hope of rehabilitation. Why does your sense of morality outweigh the rights of those who have been so horribly wronged? Retribution and restitution are granted to victims by courts of law all of the time- as they should be. Sure, it's an emotional argument, but human beings aren't robots...



[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2013 11:32:03 AM

Quote :

" It's incredibly insensitive the families/victims to just stop at removing them from society, especially when there's no hope of rehabilitation. "

why? are you saying there is no retribution unless the state gets to murder the criminal? losing your freedom is not a punishment by itself?

10/2/2013 11:34:35 AM

sorry your 8 year old daughter was murdered at a sleepover by a convicted gang member who murdered someone else a few weeks later. it's cool though, he's in time out now. all better!

Quote :

"why? are you saying there is no retribution unless the state gets to murder the criminal? losing your freedom is not a punishment by itself?"

the punishment probably isn't harsh enough in the eyes of the victims. you yourself just said you'd want to kill the murderer with your own hands.

[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2013 11:43:30 AM

he's in time out being punished by being incarcerated and losing most of his freedoms and all of his autonomy

Quote :

"the punishment probably isn't harsh enough in the eyes of the victims. you yourself just said you'd want to kill the murderer with your own hands."

so you want vengence to the level of what the victim wants? so an eye for an eye plus more? if i'm so pissed of that I want to torture him and peel the skin from his body and wear it as a coat, that's the punishment he should get?

[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2013 11:50:24 AM

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/08/19/former-gang-member-confesses-hln
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/06/140111199/ex-l-a-gang-member-trades-streets-for-family-life
http://www.modbee.com/2013/05/18/2721847/deck-head-goes-in-here-and-in.html
http://www.advancementprojectca.org/?q=node/313

http://www.upworthy.com/an-ex-murderer-shows-the-world-why-giving-him-a-second-chance-was-the-right-idea

maybe if we rehabilitated rather than punished, we could learn more from ex-cons. maybe this could result in fewer crimes and fewer criminals?? whoa...

also gang members have families too

[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2013 11:50:41 AM

Quote :

"so you want vengence to the level of what the victim wants? so an eye for an eye plus more? if i'm so pissed of that I want to torture him and peel the skin from his body and wear it as a coat, that's the punishment he should get?"

not exactly. there's a reason the Constitution forbids cruel/unusual punishment. i don't think lethal injections or the electric chair are necessarily the best way to bow out, but if we just left everything up to what the victims families' wanted, he'd probably suffer a fate far worse than death. torturing him in the sickest fashion possible isn't really 'solving' anything, but I'd argue that removing him as humanely as possible from society (so that he can NEVER hurt anyone again) is the imperative here.

[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2013 11:58:30 AM

turn them into soylent green and feed africa

10/2/2013 12:04:48 PM

Quote :

" torturing him in the sickest fashion possible isn't really 'solving' anything, but I'd argue that removing him as humanely as possible from society (so that he can NEVER hurt anyone again) is the imperative here."

so you incarcerate him

10/2/2013 12:15:31 PM

nope sorry. incarcerating isn't a 100% guarantee that he won't harm another inmate, corrections officer, or even escape- however unlikely it may be. the only guarantee he will NEVER go on to kill again is to end his life.

10/2/2013 12:23:23 PM

the only way to guarantee that is to kill him before you can even get the trial to court

10/2/2013 12:35:10 PM

^^My threshold for acceptable risk is well below 100% guarantee, and I'm betting yours really is too.

I'm not saying there's no upside to capital punishment, but we can easily think of ways of semi-permanently incapacitating people without killing them if we really wanted to. In fact, I think inducing a coma (a la minority report or something) would be much more humane than putting them in a current prison and have nominally the same preventative effect as killing them.

10/2/2013 12:39:42 PM

i thought we were dealing with absolutes here. just trying my best to keep up

10/2/2013 12:41:42 PM

Quote :

"maybe if we rehabilitated rather than punished, we could learn more from ex-cons. maybe this could result in fewer crimes and fewer criminals?? whoa..."

conveniently ignored...

10/2/2013 12:45:23 PM

Maybe we could just cane them like Singapore instead of incarcerating them at all?

10/2/2013 12:53:23 PM