The Death Penalty

[Kinare]

There's a desire for more srs topics lately, and what's more serious than death? :L Happy holidays!

My opinion on the matter is that some crimes are too severe for someone who committed them to be redeemed. By the time they served their time in prison, even if they could be a completely changed person by then, no amount of volunteer work or selflessness could make up for what was taken by their crimes. If found guilty of these crimes with absolutely no way they could be innocent, they should be killed in the fastest and cheapest way possible. Am too lazy to type up a text wall explaining which crimes in what circumstances right now and will dive into that later on in the thread if need be.

What I really want to focus on is the fact that sometimes innocent people are sent to jail for horrendous crimes and later found innocent for multiple reasons. Some of these people are on death row. One show I was watching even proved an executed man innocent and I'm sure he's not the first, even in our time. Killed for a crime you didn't commit, and now the victim or the victim's family knows the guilty one is still out there? Just adds to the pain everyone would feel. It scares me to think that me or someone I love could be taken away from me because of "wrong place, wrong time" and executed for it. That makes me question my stance on the death penalty a little bit, because corruption and tampering of evidence can easily make someone who is truly innocent look extremely guilty. However, prison isn't exactly fun, so maybe death wouldn't be all that bad if you knew you were going in for life and no one wanted to stick up for you. No lawyers, no family, no friends, nothing... That would suck.

Sometimes I consider that maybe if we killed people for the most trivial of crimes, people would be afraid to commit any crimes and would behave. There's a lot of possible issues with that logic though (including even more corruption and framing worries), so it's never something I would push for.

Thoughts?

[DrDingo]

The justice system shouldn't be about revenge. So no, I'm opposed to the death penalty.

Killing people off is pretty barbaric. It's better to make them live the time in prison; after all, what if they turn out to be innocent? You've just sent them to die.

Prisoners can do work as well. So at least you're getting something from it other than the ability to say "Ha! This person is dead and they had it coming".

[Terminal7]

14 minutes ago, Kinare said:

However, prison isn't exactly fun, so maybe death wouldn't be all that bad if you knew you were going in for life and no one wanted to stick up for you. No lawyers, no family, no friends, nothing... That would suck.

This is pretty much the reason why I'd rather them go through the prison route as opposed to death penalty. Besides,  if they get the wrong person in,  they could actually get em' out.  Nobody dies and everyone's safe. 

Just as an opinion on unforgivable crimes, I've read that most criminals keep a harsh demeanor because they have to deal with the weight of shame from what seems to be like all of the world. That's something that I'd be understanding of.

[DrDingo]

To add a bit more to this, it's murderous, gratuitous, and it surprises me that any developed country still follows this practice.

"Stop killing people, or we'll kill you."

What kind of backwards thinking is that? If it's so wrong, it shouldn't be a routine part of the system of law.

[Derin Darkpaw]

Putting ideology completely aside I do not see any logical reason to practice the death penalty.  One it is expensive and if I have been correctly informed it is much more expensive then even keeping prisoners in jail for the rest of their life.  Two it does not work as a deterrent for crime because if it did we would see significantly lower crime rates in all areas that practice it, but we don't see that decrease.  Third if a mistake is made and an innocent man is put to death there is no way to make up for that.  There is no apology that makes up for death and there is no amount of compensation that justifies it.  I put a lot of trust in the government, but I don't trust it to never make a mistake in these cases.

I also have personal ideological reasons for opposing the death penalty, but even without those I have not yet heard a solid argument in support of the death penalty.

[Kinare]

What about cases where people are absolutely psychotic and enjoy murdering, so they're not safe to have around other inmates or people because they'll just try to hurt or kill them? They won't do work, they'll be confined to their cells for their entire lives and just get more and more psychotic and because eventually people do have to come into contact with them those people are at risk of being seriously injured (which, if you're focusing on money, can cost that innocent person quite a bit of money in lost wages and hospital bills). It's not super common of course, but that's an example of one of the cases where I think it's justified to just get rid of them. It's not about revenge imo, it's more like looking at it for the safety of future people who come into contact with that person. If there's a strong reason to believe they'd hurt someone else again then they shouldn't be given that chance.

The fine line for me personally is the cases of murderers who don't appear to be psychotic, but sometimes people who seem normal aside from their crimes do kill again. If that person had been sent to their death then an innocent life would still remain. However, not all murderers do it "for fun" or "just because", so they very well might not repeat once set free and become a decent person. Maybe they even murdered someone who was scum because they hurt someone close to them, so did society a favor overall. There's no way to tell for sure if someone will repeat, unfortunately, it's just a guessing game.

About the cost, I remember that argument from seeing this discussion before, so off to Google I went for a quick look for references and found this. It is a bit more expensive, mostly because of all the legal costs. Those costs are necessary, though, and even with those costs innocent people have still been executed, so from a monetary standpoint it's very flawed. I like how it says

Edited December 22, 2015 by Kinare

[Conker]

I'm incapable of separating emotion from this debate, so yeah, I'm alright with the death penalty in some circumstances. Sometimes people be monsters, and monsters should be put down.

But as @DrDingo so eloquently put it: that really comes down to wanting revenge for horrendous crimes and not actual justice. A system based on revenge isn't one I'd like hanging over my head.

It's probably better to not have it in the long run. There's something archaic about the idea, even if we've turned it into fancy drugs instead of a big rope. At the same time, when I hear of some complete scum getting it, I usually go, "Good. Fuck him."

[Sourdough]

Like most people I have opinions on things I'll likely never have to experience. It's all well and good saying I oppose the death penalty now, but ask me again if someone I love has been murdered and the culprit imprisoned.

[Derin Darkpaw]

1 hour ago, Kinare said:

What about cases where people are absolutely psychotic and enjoy murdering, so they're not safe to have around other inmates or people because they'll just try to hurt or kill them? They won't do work, they'll be confined to their cells for their entire lives and just get more and more psychotic and because eventually people do have to come into contact with them those people are at risk of being seriously injured (which, if you're focusing on money, can cost that innocent person quite a bit of money in lost wages and hospital bills). It's not super common of course, but that's an example of one of the cases where I think it's justified to just get rid of them. It's not about revenge imo, it's more like looking at it for the safety of future people who come into contact with that person. If there's a strong reason to believe they'd hurt someone else again then they shouldn't be given that chance.

The fine line for me personally is the cases of murderers who don't appear to be psychotic, but sometimes people who seem normal aside from their crimes do kill again. If that person had been sent to their death then an innocent life would still remain. However, not all murderers do it "for fun" or "just because", so they very well might not repeat once set free and become a decent person. Maybe they even murdered someone who was scum because they hurt someone close to them, so did society a favor overall. There's no way to tell for sure if someone will repeat, unfortunately, it's just a guessing game.

About the cost, I remember that argument from seeing this discussion before, so off to Google I went for a quick look for references and found this. It is a bit more expensive, mostly because of all the legal costs. Those costs are necessary, though, and even with those costs innocent people have still been executed, so from a monetary standpoint it's very flawed. I like how it says

In the case you make in your first paragraph if the concern is just the safety of society that can be accomplished through maximum security prisons.  The theoretical psychotic individual you posit can be kept completely removed from society thus preventing any one else from coming to harm.  Also by keeping this individual in prison if later on it turns out their psychosis can be medically treated then we would have the option of treating it.  There is no going back on killing people.  It is an absolutely final solution.

As for your second concern sure they may be no way to be 100% certain that an individual who as committed a violent crime won't commit it again, but at the same time there is no way to be certain that any given individual won't under certain circumstances commit the same violent crime.  We can however attempt to construct a system that is better at assessing whether or not these individuals are ready to return to society and also attempting to construct a system that helps individuals be ready to rejoin society.  Instead of shrugging our shoulders and going "It won't be perfect so why even try"  we should instead be devoting effort and resources to making a system that is as good as is possible.

As for your reply about costs the costs are only necessary if we assume a death penalty is necessary.  If we don't have a death penalty there is no need for these excess costs.

[#00Buck]

Is this the penalty for Baby furs and Murr suiters? 

[Kinare]

1 minute ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

1.) In the case you make in your first paragraph if the concern is just the safety of society that can be accomplished through maximum security prisons.  The theoretical psychotic individual you posit can be kept completely removed from society thus preventing any one else from coming to harm.  Also by keeping this individual in prison if later on it turns out their psychosis can be medically treated then we would have the option of treating it.  There is no going back on killing people.  It is an absolutely final solution.

2.) As for your second concern sure they may be no way to be 100% certain that an individual who as committed a violent crime won't commit it again, but at the same time there is no way to be certain that any given individual won't under certain circumstances commit the same violent crime. 2.b) We can however attempt to construct a system that is better at assessing whether or not these individuals are ready to return to society and also attempting to construct a system that helps individuals be ready to rejoin society.  Instead of shrugging our shoulders and going "It won't be perfect so why even try"  we should instead be devoting effort and resources to making a system that is as good as is possible.

3.) As for your reply about costs the costs are only necessary if we assume a death penalty is necessary.  If we don't have a death penalty there is no need for these excess costs.

Just gonna number cuz that's easier for me.

1.) People still have to come into contact with this individual inside prisons with the maximum of maximum security possible. Well trained or not, all it takes is one little mistake and that person will be ready to make the most of any opportunity to do harm. Knowing full well that this person has no desire to change and only do harm, I would not want someone to have to deal with that.

2.) We're on the same path here, my comment was meant to speak for both sides. There's no way to know for sure either way is the key point I was trying to get at.

2.b) There are systems in some places that do make an effort to help people turn their lives around (not as common as I would like to see, but they do exist), and anyone who makes a legit attempt to do that can't be that horrible. It's the ones who don't want to put any effort into changing that I'd be worried about. I would also worry about the potential fakers who just want to seem "better" so they can get out and do more harm.

3.) Same deal here as #2 I think. I was basically pointing out how it just doesn't make sense from a purely financial point because of the costs just to go through the process, especially when that process is flawed. The question remains though: what price can you put on public safety if you know someone is likely to do harm like in my example?

[MalletFace]

I say no to the whole mess.

• I would prefer to have absolute certainty in conviction before it is used.
• I would prefer the money used for it go to preventing people from reaching it.
• I would prefer that no person has to bear the weight that is being an executioner.
• I would prefer to move away from the justice systems of the ancient eye for an eye and the Victorian-style organized revenge.
• I would prefer to avoid deterrence as a means to reduce crime.
• I would prefer many other things than the death penalty, in fact.

It really is just arbitrary revenge, though. In the U.S.A., your address, your income, your race, the infamy of your crime and whether it has reached national news, and any number of random elements of who you are play into whether or not the people in the courtroom you were sentenced in decided you were going to spend the rest of your life in maximum security or in a small room with a needle or two in your arm.

[Rassah]

There's no need for it. At least there wouldn't be if people were allowed to defend themselves. Putting that kind of power in the hands of a few elite is always a recipe for trouble anyway.

[Clove Darkwave]

It is entirely against my Transhumanist philosophy to argue for anything but the complete removal of the death penalty. Life is the most precious thing we have, and though some people simply cannot be helped they should be detained and forced to serve the appropriate sentence regardless of however long that may be. It is not unfeasible to think that sentences of 150 years in prison may one day in fact be valid. That being said, prisoners should be allowed to end their lives should they choose in sound mind to do so.

[FlynnCoyote]

All the goodie goodies saying no. Fine. I'm going to say yes. And I won't deny that there is an emotional aspect to this since I'm speaking as a relative of a rape victim whose attacker was a repeat and multiple victim offender. Unfortunately some people are irredeemable trash who deserve nothing short of a painful demise. I think it's practical that the legal system have allowances for these thankfully rare individuals, to prevent repeat offenses and the threat of vigilante justice. Because I must conffess an extremely powerful desire to murder the cunt was rather firmly rooted in my mind.

[Rassah]

7 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I'm going to say yes. And I won't deny that there is an emotional aspect to this since I'm speaking as a relative of a rape victim whose attacker was a repeat and multiple victim offender. Unfortunately some people are irredeemable trash who deserve nothing short of a painful demise.

Then YOU should be the one to make it happen, and bear all the social and psychological brunt that comes with such an action, instead of offloading all the responsibility and consequences on someone else. Sorry our society sees it differently.

[Nova]

If you kill a person because he killed someone your bad as the murderer.

 

[FlynnCoyote]

56 minutes ago, Nova said:

If you kill a person because he killed someone your bad as the murderer.

 

Blanket statements like this just reek of no thought.

If you kill a person that has killed multiple people and has clear intent to kill more, then I'd say you're doing a service. Nobody cries when a terrorist eats a dozen bullets. It is a sad world we live in, but honestly some lives just aren't worth preserving simply for the sake of being morally superior.

[Cingal]

I think some people are irredeemable and their mere existence is an insult to our society. As such, they should be dispatched at a time as when their crimes are no longer capable of being rehabilitated.

 

I wouldn't quite say I believe it to be an eye-for-an-eye, but, I certainly think there's such a thing as a lost cause.

[Clove Darkwave]

6 hours ago, Rassah said:

Then YOU should be the one to make it happen, and bear all the social and psychological brunt that comes with such an action, instead of offloading all the responsibility and consequences on someone else. Sorry our society sees it differently.

It's taking the easy way out, mentally speaking. We all feel that way but it takes a strong person to admit it that such a dirty job is something extremely few have anything more than the talk for.

Obviously, a revision to the justice system needs to happen so that crimes are adequately punished and those especially violent receive no leniency in their duration. It's only a matter of time, technology will make it easier and easier to identify criminals and their wrongdoing.

[TrishaCat]

I feel the death penalty (and even long prison sentences) completely miss the point of prison, which I feel is for someone to be punished for a crime they comitted and for someone to be given time to think about their actions and learn that what they did was wrong, or be given a better understanding of the atrocity of their actions. I think prison and other punishments are designed with the idea of repentence in mind, and that the death penalty (and long prison sentences) destroy this possibility and allow for the ruining of one's life, including a great many people who could and might be able to be of some benefit to society.

I feel that no man has any right to decide whether another should live or die, and that even the most heinous of criminals should be given the chance to redeem themselves. Even if one is a repeat offender who keeps getting caught, put in prison, and then let out only to do it again, I feel that they should be allowed freedom and the chance to do good. I detest the death penalty.

[Käpt'n]

Generally speaking I am against the death penalty for regular crimes. Rape or murder are pretty severe crimes, but I don't think they warrant a death penalty.

I think the death penalty should be reserved for crimes that are extraordinarily severe. Like when someone shows no respect for the lives of large groups of people.

Examples that come to mind right now are extreme cases of human trafficing (like sexual slavery, forced labor or children) tied to torture and murder of the victims, genocide or cases in which specific groups of people are targeted and methodically wiped out.

I think the leaders if the IS deserve the death penalty for example, or those who are behind what is happeing in North Korea.

[Luka]

There's no such thing as redemption for serious offenders such as serious killers. They shouldn't have a chance at life when they've never given their victims any. There's a limit to compassion and mercy.

[LazerMaster5]

I have no sympathy for mass murderers, especially with incriminating evidence.

That being said, there have been times where people have been wrongly accused of acts of murder and rape. It often takes years to clear their name, and if they are put to death there is no justice to be found. It is easy to release an innocent man from prison, but it is impossible to bring an innocent man from the dead.

Although such necromancy would be badass. 

[PastryOfApathy]

In regards to American citizens in prison I'm adamantly against it. Not because I believe everyone has a second chance or any sort of bleeding heart shit like that, since after all some people are just born unrepentant fuckheads. I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it until I see God myself and get a chance to yell at his lazy ass.

The only reason I think the death penalty is fucking awful is because it introduces the very real, and oftentimes realized risk of taking the lives of an innocent man. I mean how many times have you heard a story about a man on death row for decades being found innocent of any wrongdoing by new advances in forensic science? There is zero benefit to capital punishment in this day and age outside of the fleeting satisfaction that comes from what some feel is "justice", and if you really want that just go to Liveleak and watch a video of a Mexican village lynching a rapist or something (I mean you have plenty to choose from). Bottom line is, our judicial system should never be directly responsible for the deliberate execution of an innocent man, period.

The only thing that kinda qualifies as "the death penalty" I'm neutral towards is situations where American defect over to Al Qaeda or ISIS and actively plan or commit violence towards Americans or our allies overseas. Like for example there was that one guy some years back who was an American who ended up becoming some kind of key terrorist figure working for Al-Qaeda who was more or less assassinated in what I think was a drone strike. In that very special kind of situation and that kind only, fuck 'em. They're as American as I am a tall muscular black man. 

[Käpt'n]

36 minutes ago, Luka said:

There's no such thing as redemption for serious offenders such as serious killers. They shouldn't have a chance at life when they've never given their victims any. There's a limit to compassion and mercy.

I just don't think it's that easy. For example, if someone raped and killed a bunch of people because of a mental illness is it really ok to sentence them to death for being ill? Sure, you can punish them for the crime they committed but you have to keep the circumstances in mind.

To explain my position a little more, I think those who abandon their humanity deserve the death sentence. Like people who exploit the lives of others for money while also torturing or killing them or depriving them of their basic human rights.

I actually think that someone like that should have their status of being a person revoked.

[Vae]

I'm in favor of the death penalty for extreme cases, but not minor ones.
Child and repeat rapists, repeat murderers, people who have committed serious war crimes, shit like that.
And only with absolute, unquestionable evidence.

Is it an "eye for an eye" thing?
Absolutely.
But the justice system, in addition to offering safety, is also there to give peace of mind to the people, so that we feel equivalent punishments are doled out to equivalent crimes. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have extra fines slapped on to you for committing offenses more minor in scale.
To deny that there's an element of catharsis behind it is either naive or delusional.

If the costs behind the method are ridiculous, then lower the costs or find a new method. It's not like the human body is impossible to kill or anything.
That's an irrelevant point that can easily be worked around.


The amount of innocents in death penalty sentences is believed to be [around 4%],
although that's not the actual amount being executed. (I couldn't find a figure on that.)

[Kinharia]

Kill everyone. Fear makes them behave :v

[Rassah]

I feel like there are two completely separate issues being conflated here:

1) Is it OK to kill someone in retaliation for their crime?

2) Is it OK to allow an authority which has little to no recourse for screwing up to kill people on our behalf?

You can support one but not the other.

Also, this topic made me think of an interesting question: If an innocent person is executed, should the executioner be held accountable and charged with murder? After all, it's the executioner who does the final task by his own choice, despite the bureaucracy that leads up to that choice. And the defense "I was just following orders" was dispatched with at Nuremberg. Maybe if executioners were getting charged, no one would want to kill for the government any more (except patriotic brainwashed military, but that's a whole bigger issue).

[Kinharia]

29 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Also, this topic made me think of an interesting question: If an innocent person is executed, should the executioner be held accountable and charged with murder? After all, it's the executioner who does the final task by his own choice, despite the bureaucracy that leads up to that choice. And the defense "I was just following orders" was dispatched with at Nuremberg. Maybe if executioners were getting charged, no one would want to kill for the government any more (except patriotic brainwashed military, but that's a whole bigger issue).

Well Rassah it looks like hell will freeze over. We agree on something

Edited December 22, 2015 by Kinharia

[MalletFace]

8 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I feel like there are two completely separate issues being conflated here:

1) Is it OK to kill someone in retaliation for their crime?

2) Is it OK to allow an authority which has little to no recourse for screwing up to kill people on our behalf?

You can support one but not the other.

Also, this topic made me think of an interesting question: If an innocent person is executed, should the executioner be held accountable and charged with murder? After all, it's the executioner who does the final task by his own choice, despite the bureaucracy that leads up to that choice. And the defense "I was just following orders" was dispatched with at Nuremberg. Maybe if executioners were getting charged, no one would want to kill for the government any more (except patriotic brainwashed military, but that's a whole bigger issue).

You are actually allowed to use the Nuremberg Defense. Many people at the trials used this defense successfully. What you are thinking of is people like Eichmann and Goering using it when they were actually the ones issuing similar orders - they gained nothing by using this defense because it was not applicable to them.

The ICC decided that the Nuremberg Defense is permissible if

• you did not know your act was unlawful,
  • execution is not considered internationally unlawful, but it may be in the future
• you were not ordered to do anything unlawful, or
  • execution is not considered internationally unlawful, but it may be in the future
• you were legally obligated to commit your act.
  • an executioner is normally obligated to complete an execution once it has been mandated

What they did decide you could not use was "tu quoque" - a defense of "but you did it too."

Even though I abhor the death penalty, I see no reason to compare executioners to Nazis. Most executioners I have met or heard of take the job because nobody else wanted to, they needed the money, and they would only have to do it rarely. I have never heard of one in recent times that took the job in order to do any type of genocidal cleansing.

[Rassah]

Thanks MalletFace, for once again demonstrating why laws and government are inferior to and do not equate to ethics and objectivism. It's perfectly OK to kill innocent people as long as the law says it's fine

5 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

Even though I abhor the death penalty, I see no reason to compare executioners to Nazis.

Why not? I'm sure plenty of Nazi executioners thought they were killing people who were actually guilty without actually hating an entire race, did those jobs because they needed the money, and did the executions rarely (not everyone was mass slaughtered in the camps).

Also, it's interesting that you believe needing money, and only doing it rarely, are valid excuses for what is essentially murder. Iinteresting because many statists come up with these types of excuses for abhorrent things governments do, without realizing what they're actually saying. It's not just you. Did you actually mean to say that? Or retract it now that it's been pointed out in full context?

 

[MalletFace]

Just now, Rassah said:

Thanks MalletFace, for once again demonstrating why laws and government are inferior to and do not equate to ethics and objectivism. It's perfectly OK to kill innocent people as long as the law says it's fine

The Nuremberg Defense is for subordinates. Remember that people like Eichmann and Goering were tried and found guilty?

1 minute ago, Rassah said:

Why not? I'm sure plenty of Nazi executioners thought they were killing people who were actually guilty without actually hating an entire race, did those jobs because they needed the money, and did the executions rarely (not everyone was mass slaughtered in the camps).

Nearly all death sentences in Nazi Germany were given by the Wehrmacht or SS and acted out by the camps. If you committed a crime worth the death penalty in Nazi eyes - being a socialist, a jew, a gay man or woman, a drunkard, a pacifist, etc. - you were sent to a camp to be dealt with.

Most of the people who worked in camps were well aware of their purpose; they held enemies of Germany. If you can believe being a Jew makes a person an enemy, I believe that is "hating an entire race."

Most of the people that manned these camps and were caught were tried and convicted at Nuremberg. They don't get to use the Nuremberg Defense; they chose to do what they did.

15 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Also, it's interesting that you believe needing money, and only doing it rarely, are valid excuses for what is essentially murder. Iinteresting because many statists come up with these types of excuses for abhorrent things governments do, without realizing what they're actually saying. It's not just you. Did you actually mean to say that? Or retract it now that it's been pointed out in full context?

It is not legally murder. Essentially does not count in law.

What they are doing is execution. I abhor it, but I understand why they do it.

[Recel]

56 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Also, this topic made me think of an interesting question: If an innocent person is executed, should the executioner be held accountable and charged with murder? After all, it's the executioner who does the final task by his own choice, despite the bureaucracy that leads up to that choice. And the defense "I was just following orders" was dispatched with at Nuremberg. Maybe if executioners were getting charged, no one would want to kill for the government any more (except patriotic brainwashed military, but that's a whole bigger issue).

I don't think placing consequences to a job where you can never be a 100% sure if a decision is right or wrong would be a good idea.

Even if a trial is as throughout and fair as possible, still there is a minimal chance that they will be wrong. There are just too many variables, too many things you simply can't discover, or can't discover them in time about a crime.
Now if you have proof that the trial wasn't throughout and fair, than it would be fine. But if something comes up later that would change the outcome, than is it right to say they failed their jobs and should be punished for something they couldn't have known at the time? Or should trials run till eternity without a judgement because something just might come up later?

And what if later it turns out that the person was indeed guilty and you just sent someone to prison for murder on a false charge? Should you be punished too? And what if that charge would turn out wrong too? Than surely the person who convicted you should be punished, right? Where does it stop? Who would have the final, ultimate answer to decide the ultimate truth?

A circle of blame will not help anyone.

 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

Why not?

I've always liked the idea of eye to eye, tooth for tooth methodology. Kill a guy on purpose and you'll get killed too, although, it feels like the easy way out in a sense. I think the punishment should be even harsher.

If you're saying that ain't justice, check your cultural bias. death sentences used to be justice long ago, still is in some places.

Obviously this should go without saying, but that only applies to 100% certain cases.

[Rassah]

6 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

The Nuremberg Defense is for subordinates. Remember that people like Eichmann and Goering were tried and found guilty?

Yeah. And the decision is still unethical and wrong. Going by the logic of that decision, it was perfectly fine to kill a slave, because it was legal to do so. Laws are supposed to reflect ethics, not establish them. But statists, like religious nutcases, believe the word on paper is what defines what is moral and what is not

6 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

Nearly all death sentences in Nazi Germany were given by the Wehrmacht or SS and acted out by the camps.

Considering the numbers, when such executions were made routine, sure, but not all of them were. Plenty of Nazis killed Jews and people in the resistance because they believed they were bad people, because their superiors told them so, and not because they were genocidal (our own military does that all the time). Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some Nazis in camps killed Jews because they were honestly convinced that those Jews were guilty of crimes, such as controlling money, exploiting people, and causing the whole massive economic collapse that preceded the war, just like Soviet communists who executed hundreds of thousands of people believed that the bourgeoisie they were killing were guilty of similar crimes.

But you know what the worst of all that was? It was all perfectly legal...

6 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

 

It is not legally murder. Essentially does not count in law.

Yes. Another good example of laws being inferior...

6 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

What they are doing is execution. I abhor it, but I understand why they do it.

What is the difference between murder and execution? In both cases the outcome is the same. In both cases it can be done for personal reasons (stealing money or getting a paycheck). In both cases it can be following someone else's orders (executioner vs assassin for hire or someone murdering for someone else). How do you square the two to "understand" it and convince yourself that it's OK?

 

3 minutes ago, Recel said:

I don't think placing consequences to a job where you can never be a 100% sure if a decision is right or wrong would be a good idea.

Why not? Lots of jobs have those consequences. For instance, if you run a factory, are not sure if dumping chemicals in stone way is a good idea but decide to do it anyway, and then your decision goes wrong and harms stuff, you are held accountable and have consequences. If you become a cop, can't be sure if someone is brandishing a weapon, and shoot some innocent person, you are held accountable (sometimes) and have consequences.

At the very least, you made the decision to take on such a job.

3 minutes ago, Recel said:

Even if a trial is as throughout and fair as possible, still there is a minimal chance that they will be wrong. There are just too many variables, too many things you simply can't discover, or can't discover them in time about a crime.

But, as I mentioned with MalletFace, laws are flawed and unjust. So are our court systems. Prosecutors aren't interested in justice, they're interested in getting high numbers of convictions. It's a fairly typical procedure for the courts to freeze all your assets, in case some of them are proceeds of a crime, at which point you have no money to hire a lawyer to defend yourself, to submit articles to the media about your arrest, making you guilty in the eyes of the public before you even get a trial, and then after accusing you of way more that you may or not even have been guilty of, and threatening you with extremely harsh sentences, giving you an option of a plea deal, where you plead guilty to lower crimes, even if you didn't commit them, just to avoid being charged with the harsher ones, without even telling you what the actual punishment for those crimes are, which is decided by the judge.

So a trial is really not something you can depend on to make a decision about whether someone is guilty or not.

But, in the end, you as an executioner still make the decision to end someone's life simply because someone told you to. So I don't think whether trials are fair or not really matters. You are killing someone you don't know anything about, who did nothing to you or anyone you know, in order to get money.

 

3 minutes ago, Recel said:

And what if later it turns out that the person was indeed guilty and you just sent someone to prison for murder on a false charge? Should you be punished too? And what if that charge would turn out wrong too? Than surely the person who convicted you should be punished, right? Where does it stop? Who would have the final, ultimate answer to decide the ultimate truth?

Sounds like maybe we have a broken, circular, illogical legal system maybe? Would probably be best if we replaced it with something else a little more just.

[FlynnCoyote]

On 22/12/2015 at 4:45 AM, Rassah said:

I feel like there are two completely separate issues being conflated here:

1) Is it OK to kill someone in retaliation for their crime?

2) Is it OK to allow an authority which has little to no recourse for screwing up to kill people on our behalf?

You can support one but not the other.

Also, this topic made me think of an interesting question: If an innocent person is executed, should the executioner be held accountable and charged with murder? After all, it's the executioner who does the final task by his own choice, despite the bureaucracy that leads up to that choice. And the defense "I was just following orders" was dispatched with at Nuremberg. Maybe if executioners were getting charged, no one would want to kill for the government any more (except patriotic brainwashed military, but that's a whole bigger issue).

1: If the punishment fits the crime, then yes. Stuff like repeat murder and rape, high treason, terrorism, anything that deliberately threatens or destroys lives. People who have sunk to this level of depravity are not worth considering as people anymore. You don't lock up a vicious dog and try to train it to behave do you? As far as I'm concerned willful murderers are no better than animals. The kind of people who would murder for personal gain or hatred don't deserve a second thought. 

2: This is the only fair way, and the reason our judicial systems exist in the first place. You think the offended party should be the ones to mete out the punishment, but this is not fair at all. You would risk further traumatizing a grieving mother whose children were murdered even further by placing the burden of taking a life on her as well? In some cases your suggestion could work, but it is not right to apply this across the board and as such it should not be applied at all.

 

I would think if a person is wrongfully executed, it is the fault of the judicial system and not of the executioner. A subordinate is contractually obligated in many cases to fulfill a duty under the authority of another person or entity. In the executioner's case, he cannot then decide to opt out of the execution unless he is allowed under the conditions of his employment to do so. While I can imagine such clauses being in place, it would only serve to have the execution performed by one of his fellow employees instead.

[Rassah]

52 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

1: If the punishment fits the crime, then yes. Stuff like repeat murder and rape, high treason, terrorism, anything that deliberately threatens or destroys lives. People who have sunk to this level of depravity are not worth considering as people anymore. You don't lock up a vicious dog and try to train it to behave do you? As far as I'm concerned willful murderers are no better than animals. The kind of people who would murder for personal gain or hatred don't deserve a second thought. 

Agreed completely. If someone has demonstrated that they do not respect someone else's right to life, then they have surrendered the right to their own as well.

52 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

2: This is the only fair way, and the reason our judicial systems exist in the first place. You think the offended party should be the ones to mete out the punishment, but this is not fair at all. You would risk further traumatizing a grieving mother whose children were murdered even further by placing the burden of taking a life on her as well? In some cases your suggestion could work, but it is not right to apply this across the board and as such it should not be applied at all.

If a grieving mother does not want to kill her children's murderers, then she won't. If she does, then she will. If she does not have the capability or skill to do it, then she can ask someone else, whereupon that someone else takes on the responsibility of making sure he's not killing an innocent person. But I feel it should be the mother's choice, not the authority's, AND it should be the mother's and her assassin's responsibility, and any consequences, if she made the wrong choice. At least then someone is responsible, and hopefully will be careful about making such decisions. There are no repercussions of an authority makes a wrong choice. Even the fines government pays come out of our own taxes.

52 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I would think if a person is wrongfully executed, it is the fault of the judicial system and not of the executioner. A subordinate is contractually obligated in many cases to fulfill a duty under the authority of another person or entity. In the executioner's case, he cannot then decide to opt out of the execution unless he is allowed under the conditions of his employment to do so. While I can imagine such clauses being in place, it would only serve to have the execution performed by one of his fellow employees instead.

I don't think a contract protects you from crimes. You can always break the contract (quit) if you believe what you are being asked to do in unethical, and no court would hold you responsible. And although the judicial system is at fault for issuing the command, people aren't brainless automatons. That executioner still made the final decision of whether to pull the lever, or wall out. His fellow employees have the same choice.

This issue would not even be questioned if it was being discussed in an example where a legally defined crime is involved. If a crime boss hires an assassin, can the assassin claim that he was just following orders, and the crime boss is responsible for the murder? Or, in case of something less ethically objectionable, if a gardener is caught growing marijuana (a perfectly moral and ethical act), can he claim that he was just told to do so by someone else when in court?

So, why do we question it and try to excuse it when it's a "legally sanctioned" murder?

[FlynnCoyote]

The assassin is not pursuing a legal career and works for the reasons I stated as above. Only difference is he does these killings on behalf of another criminal who is unwilling to do them himself. In these cases both should be accountable, however I do hear your point.

I would advocate the assassin is up for execution, but perhaps an offer can be made for imprisonment if he names his client. The client then has to face his own music as well. This is just me thinking on the spot at this point. I'm sure there are probably better ways of handling it.

We excuse them for sanctioned executioners because the difference is the reason. A murderer kills for unjustified reasons. An executioner is ending those who have forfeited their right to life by taking others unjustly.

[Rassah]

The first thing that immediately stand out there is that "legal career." The only difference between a grieved mother with an assassin, and a judge with an executioner, is that one proclaimed that what they do is legal. The assassin may be doing something for justified reasons too. Even if hired by the crime boss, it could be because he stole a significant amount, or killed someone important.

And, as I mentioned before, "legal" in no way defines something as ethical, moral, or just (considering all past and present examples of things that were considered legal and illegal).

I think at the very core of all this is that society simply collectively believes that something is OK, because men in fancy outfits, occupying fancy cathedrals, have proclaimed it to be OK, and can point to texts to defend their claims. But that just feels way too close to being just another religion for my tastes.

[Hakar-Kerarmor]

I don't like the idea of a death penalty.

Death should be reserved for people who are quite simply fucked up, like someone caught eating babies or something. Not as punishment*, but simply to protect the rest of society they haven't put their teeth in yet.

 

*: After all, the dead cannot learn anything.

[Butters]

I thought most anti-death penalty ppl opposed capital punishment because sometimes ppl are falsely found guilty of crimes. That and the ungodly amount of time and money that is spent appealing such actions. 

[Gator]

the focus should be on rehabilitation and removing dangerous people from the public.  if someone more or less refuses to be rehabilitated and/or proves to be a big enough threat, i say get rid of 'em.  otherwise, put 'em to work and, depending on circumstances, prepare them to reenter society in some way.

[Saxon]

As butters says, miscarriages of justice could result in the execution of innocents, and in nations which have the death penalty, the procedure ends up being more expensive than a conventional prison sentence anyway.

Moreover, I would hope that we live in societies enlightened enough to regard any unnecessary killing as intrinsically abhorrent.

 

[TheGreatFanatic]

"Never. Everyone deserves a second chance! 

-

35%"

 

[TheGreatFanatic]

1 hour ago, Rhíulchabán said:

Nice Godwin's Law you've got there m8

Thx m8. ur gr8.

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

The death penalty should only apply to politicians and government employees, and be enforced vigorously for even the slightest mishap.

The rest of the crazed killers, rapists, arsonists, terrorists, etc. should get themselves a nice Unreal Tournament-style deathmatch.

So a Hunger Games that's okay?

I'm up for it.

Do I need to rape someone to get in or can I sign up?

[TheGreatFanatic]

Just now, 6tails said:

If you volunteer, don't come crying when you get riddled with bullets!

Why would I cry?

That'd be my dream.