Thoughts on the death penalty?

[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...

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

No, I'm calling you a hypocrit for claiming you value human life too much to allow someone to die for a crime they have commited, no matter what crime they commit.. Yet you find ways to justify killing people proactively who only threaten to do the same thing who are in a different country.

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 didn't ignore it, my responce to that was: "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."

So if he made himself out to be a realistic threat to do such things before he did them, then I have no problem with knocking him off before hand. But if the threat was not realistic (i.e. Saddam Hussein) I would disagree with it. Unfortunately the problem with gambling such things is that sometimes you are going to be wrong, and in many cases you have to wait for something to happen before taking action.

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.

You don't believe there is anything hipocritical about it, but there is. You just want to ignore the facts to try and sound reasonable.. There is no consistancy to your arguement. If you can't hang your own people for breaking your laws, then you have no right to go around the world hanging other people for doing the same. If you do that, then you're a hipocrite, period.