Thoughts on the death penalty?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[TheGame]

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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 can agree to that.

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.

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheGame]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I just think the act of supporting any pre emptive war in some cases and not suppoorting the death penalty in all cases is hippocritical. Which is exactly what you're doing/saying. (Now if you're saying attacking pre-emptively in self defense is wrong in ALL cases, then you can ignore the rest of this post because then I don't think you're a hipocrite.)

The reasoning for having a millitary and for having punishments for crimes in a peaceful country is deterrence. And when someone actually does step out of bounds (or threatens to), then sometimes you have to flex your deterrent to get a point across.

If there was no threat of the US millitary coming in and killing thousands of people, then a lot of wars that didn't happen could have happend. Just like if there was no threat of the death penalty (or cops just blowing your brains out on the spot).. a lot of crimes that would have happend didn't happen.

I personally support the idea that killing pre-emptively in self defense is ok, but I'm not the person who is saying that killing someone as a penalty for a crime they commit is universally wrong, you are.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I just think the act of supporting any pre emptive war in some cases and not suppoorting the death penalty in all cases is hippocritical. Which is exactly what you're doing/saying. (Now if you're saying attacking pre-emptively in self defense is wrong in ALL cases, then you can ignore the rest of this post because then I don't think you're a hipocrite.)

I don't think understanding that everything isn't 100% black and white in terms of self-defense isn't hipocritical, but I've already explained myself in this thread. If you wish to call me a hipocrit for not being an absolutist when it comes to the definition of self-defense, go right ahead, it doesn't affect the validity of my statements regardless of whatever perjorative you wish to apply to them.

Meanwhile you've conveniently avoided my entire arguementabout killing Hitler and his supporters before WW2 to preempt the destruction and genocide he cause. I can only believe thats because you have no answer, or haven't yet found a way to misstate the concept to fit your opinion.

I have maintained from the beginning that killing in self-defense is moral and even preemptive self-defense can be moral (depends on the situation), while killing for punishment or vengeance is not. I've also presented reasoned argument in defense of these ideas. There is nothing hipocritical about anything I've said, regardles of whether or not you wish to agree or disagree with my comments.

And since we're heading back down the road of repetition, I'll exit this conversation... stage right eveeeeeen...