Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

So you'd chose to die instead of going to prison for life?

Violent crime has been rising period. The death penalty isn't going to change that. The point of it is to punish people for the crimes that they commit. Life sentances hasn't helped the situation any more then the death penalty has.

If you want to talk about deterrants preventing death, lets talk about war. If death cannot be justified under our system of law in our own country, what gives us the right to go out and kill other people in other countries for their international crimes? (Or for simply standing in the way of us getting the people who commited it) Is this because a millitary works as a deterrent, and it actually lowers the amount of fighting that happens in the world?

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

No, I'd rather die than go to prison for life. I would not choose to die, but I'd rather be dead. But thats just me, and I would not impose that on another human or state that they should have the same opinion.

Exactly, so why choose the option that is irreversable if the guilty is proven over time to be innocent? Punishment on any level hasn't proven to be a deterrent in violent crime so in the end you can lock up someone to prevent them from killing, or kill them out of anger and vengeance. I choose the less destructive and reversible option.

No, as I said, killing is justified if it is in self-defence. Now we can argue whether or not all wars have been fought our of self-defence, but that does not alter the fact that wars can and are often fought justly if only for self-preservation. Of course pre-emptive self-defence always brings it's own dubious and vague definitions of morality. Now I can see this easily degrading into a Iraq war tangent. so lets avoid that and keep the discussion high level, shall we?

If one side is morally wrong for attacking another country and it's people, then to defend oneself against their attackers must be morally right.

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

Though I understand what you're saying, for the sake of the arguement lets look at it for what it is. In the end, you would chose life in prison over death, period. Because life in prison is the preferable option to most men then death is. If death was the lesser penalty, then you would chose to die.

There are men who really would chose to die, however. But if they chose to die, and the family of the victim wants them to die.. and equal punishment for their crime is to have them die... why would we waste space and money keeping them alive?

That's why I said before that it should only be done if there's video evidence or if its some type of public display. I agree with you when it comes to crimes where there's no solid evidence.. but when it comes to crimes where there is such evidence.. why should we waste the money to keep that person alive?

:)

How do you define self defense? In your opinion, what does an enemy have to do to justify a war with the united states? And keep in mind, the moment you make the decision to go to war, you are sentancing thousands of people to death (your own people and others) by simply going there.

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

I've always believed this is the answer. Death Row island....the real reality show. We just place health packs and weapons and ammo in strategic locations on the island and set up some cameras....

I'd look into maximum security prison a bit more. It's more like solitary confinement most of the time, exercising in a 8x8 courtyard with no equipment for 30 minutes by yourself, having your food passed through a metal box Hannibal Lecter style (and it's not good food), getting your medication (if not voluntarily by force). These prisons have swat teams for cell extractions, they'll bag your head so you can't spit, pin you down and beat the shit out of you if you don't cooperate, and yeah. It's not a cool place to be. I believe restrictions get loosened a bit for good behavior, and I think it varies from psychiatric disorder and degree of murder.

Otherwise, I'll let you and Prof S carry on. :p

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

No, you misunderstand my argument completely. I would rather be dead than live in prison, but I would not kill myself because THAT IS NOT MINE TO TAKE. No life is man's to take except in self-defense, IMO, and includes our own.

Because that is not ours to take except in self-defense. My argument is is not an argument based in economics (the horror of economics being a factor in choosing the death penalty scares me to death), its based in morality and philosophy.

Because that life is not ours to take, and to be quite simple about it, two wrongs do not make a right. But thats just my opinion and in the end this is a subjective argument. My main objection to man believing they can make life and death decisions is that is cheapens our value of life overall and makes us believe we can engineer or euthanize our way to a better society, and I think that is a slippery slope.

Well thats a difficult question. Fighting an aggressor is always justified, IMO, such as the Allies fighting against the Axis in WW2 or the US invading Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't think anyone can argue against that. It's when a country acts in preemptive self-defense that the moral lines blur considerably, and quite ironically, these actions in theory are to prevent another WW2/Nazi terror. The vague and dubious area of preemptive self-defense is that we'll never know if it worked because if the action it prevents the justifying evidence from ever existing. We'll never definitively know whether or not the Iraq War was truly justified because we'll never know the alternative.

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

So what it boils down to is morality, and you just have a different set of values then I do. "That life is not mine to take" is not a good arguement in my opinion. I think the fact of the matter is that keeping a man in a cage for the rest of their life is a less efficient way of handling punishment then the death penalty is.

While I agree in cases in which there is no 110% solid evidence that proves the person took another life (or multiple other lives) that they should be put in prison, I disagree with the fact that the death penalty is something that's immoral.

When the person who is killed decided to kill an innocent baby, mother, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, nephew, niece, etc they took their own life in my book. That's where I moraly stand on it.

As far as the effects of the death penalty.. I think when handled correctly it makes much more since then keeping a person alive who we're never going to let go anyway. Why waste the space, money, and time keeping this person alive when they didn't do the same for some innocent victim?

And lastly, I think its hipocracy to say "that life is not ours to take" to any crime that a person commits in the US, but still have the ability to justify a war that's not fought on your home turf. I belive in either case that some actions need retaliations. And sometimes I feel like its worth dying, and worth killing to punish people for crimes that they commit.

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

I find this discussion to be quite interesting and I have two questions:

1) TheGame, if I remember correctly, you are a Christian, right? How do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your approval of the death penalty (if you are a Christian)?

2) Bringing economics back into this (sorry, Prof :p), is the death penalty really a wiser choice? According to ACLU in their "Case against the Death Penalty,"

You can check their sources in the end notes.

Anyway.. thoughts?

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

I'll answer that. The Old Testament frowns upon murder (hence the Commandment) but it actually suggests the death penalty (or punishment of death) for acts of Adultery, Bestiality, and yes, Murder.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly say as far as I know, and the message (Jesus' message) is mostly love and happy times.

There's a reason hardcore Islamic countries still stone people to death for having affairs and stuff; because it's in the theology. =/

I'd say it is fairly open-ended. I don't know what the Catholic (or Pope's) position is. I never really asked and the topic never came up during church. I suppose the issue depends on who you are and how you want to interpret the Bible and your faith.

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html

The only reason I'm using that site is because I didn't feel like digging up the info myself. But the bible does support giving the right for people to execute others for commiting crimes. Though this point is one of the many things in the bible that can be read both ways, and can be used by either side to justify or to not justify capital punishment.

In this case I'm using my own judgement. I don't feel like the death penalty is a happy thing, however I feel like it is a nessicary thing to have to keep people's morals in check. Just as I don't think war is a happy thing, but I still think that it is nessicary to prevent your home land from being made vunerable to attacks.

And to me it simply makes more sense then locking someone away forever.

Yeah I'm well aware of the facts presented in that article, which is why I feel the system as it is now is broken.. To quote myself:

"Here's what I think the solutions would be:
1) Death penalty should only be reserved for crimes that are public displays, and that are caught on tape. And when its sentanced it should hapen quickly, instead of allowing the govt to waste tons of money on keeping them on death row."

The death penalty, as handled by most states that have it, I disagree with right now. But I don't disagree with the overall concept of executing someone for a crime that they commit.

-EDIT-

I'd also toss in the fact that, depending on the crime.. if a person takes ownership of it and its bad enough. I'd still give them the death penalty even without sufficient evidence. If we captured Osama Bin Laden right now, and he swears he wasn't the one behind 9-11 and other attacks, then I'd toss him in prison for the rest of his life. If he claims he was behind it, and doesn't really have and remorse for what he did, then in the words of movie directors... "That's a wrap"

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

TheGame, I'd like you to humor my question if you do not mind.

Being a supporter of the death penalty, would you tie the noose? That is to say, do you consider it your duty to provide the service of keeping an even moral slate in our society? Should the executioner be similar to the civil servant in Jury Duty position?

If you had the switch and Bin Laden, would you pull it?

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

The Catholic view:

..thank you, Wikipedia.

Christians supporting the death penalty doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In my ~*~amazing Catholic upbringing~*~, it felt more like you could learn more from the New Testament than the Old Testament. Believing in the values Jesus Christ taught and supporting the death penalty.. seems like a big joke. :p

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

Then thats just a simple disagreement on a subjective topic, which is why I think Bond and I both maintain that this should be a states rights issue.

I'm not sure how my statements were hipocritical when I made efforts to explain that pre-emtive self-defense is a morally dubious activity. And to use your own terminology, was the US's involvement in the European theater in WW2 immoral? We certainly were not on our home turf by any means. We were across the Atlantic, and Germany never ever attacked the US!

Of course it was moral because to do nothing ran the risk of an openly agressive Nazi Germany ruling Europe and Asia and in the position to threaten the US and the rest of the free world, exterminating who they pleaed along the way. This is why preemption is so muddled... you'll never know the moral consequence of the alternative because it was never given the option of existing.

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

If he was tried and found guilty in a court of law, yes I would.

A lot of people don't have the nerve to do it, but I've had friends (and one family member) who we're killed before. I've sat with families who had to grieve the loss of their children, and been to funerals that shouldn't have happend as soon as they did. Mentally, all I'd have to do is think about the looks on those people's faces, and multiply it by the amount of lives that man has taken.

With that said, it shouldn't be like jury duty. It would take a person who understands what his affect on people really was.. Not some person who isn't in touch with reality.

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

I can agree to that.

I still think its hipocritical from a moral standpoint to universaly say that the death penalty is wrong to do in all cases, and then support and pre-emtive war effort. Because in one case you're saying killing a single person for their crimes is wrong, and in the other case you're saying killing thousands of people for crimes they haven't commited yet, but simply "threaten" to commit is ok. And EVEN IF the country in question commited international crimes, its still hipocritical to say you'd kill them but not kill a single person who is found guilty here.

Re: Thoughts on the death penalty?
 

No, I did not say that it's ok, I said it's a difficult and morally dubious question. You're beginning to fall back into the habit of putting words in my mouth. The fact that preemptive war is not clear cut does not make it right, but it also does not make it wrong. It depends on the situation and evidence provided as to whether or not one can argue preemptive war is a moral good.

After all, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler/thousands of his supporters before he becomes Chancellor, would that be murder or would that be defending the lives of millions of innocent people who he would have killed? That is th exact question that preemption attempts to answer but can never fully answer because time machines do not exist and we cannot see the reality that the action has prevented, if it prevented anything at all.

It's not hipocritical if it is in the defense of life, which is what most arguments for preemption are based in. My full argument is that killing is immoral except in the defense of human life. To attack an innocent is immoral, but to defend oneself against agression is a moral imperative, IMO.