suhysters

Like Tommy “failed his GCSEs” Atkins in the Jury?

What about people who illegally enable/encourage people to do illegal things that lead to their death?

What about people who legally enable/encourage people to do legal things that lead to their death?

Has anyone suggested we could use guillotines yet?

Not sure nico, I’d like the op to confirm his stance on either situation

Yes, actually

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-candidate-gisela-allen-glasgow-council-bring-back-death-penalty-abolish-lgbt-communities-a7696651.html

(She’d also abolish golf courses)

Let me have a go at that

Golf course are a safety hazard
Old people should get exercise and walk
Gorillas are awesome
Golf courses are favoured by old people. Those old people would get better exercise if chased by a gorilla. So old people being chased to death by gorillas round a golf course it is then.

@loddrick..So if someone in your family texted whilst driving and killed someone you’d want them snuffed out (your words)?

I’m sure he’s very even handed about the whole business.

So if someone in your family texted whilst driving and killed someone you’d want them snuffed out (your words)?

Where is that a death penalty level offence? In the UK it is a £30 fine and no driving for 6 months isn’t it?

A better question may be if loddrick was convicted for killing someone, would he then agree to being killed himself (even if the jury was wrong, and he would know they were wrong)

Can I ask the OP how they feel about golf courses? Or bus passes? Or gorillas?

Lolz 😆

I assume we are all cool with beating children too?

not sure there’s a direct link but amusingly I was just thinking about my kids, they fight each other fairly regularly, was imagining smacking them while repeating the mantra
Its!
Bad!
To!
Hit!
People!
the stupidity of punishing people with their own crimes 🙄

Well it seems there are at least 3 broad groups…

1> death penalty is right, occasional killing of innocents an OK price to pay
2> death penalty is right, but can’t support due to risk of killing innocents/other factors
3> death penalty is wrong

group 1 implying that you think the death penalty is the right/moral response, and that you will pay a high moral price to have it. The focus is on having the death penalty.

group 2 implying you think it might be the right response but overall you’re not willing to pay the price to have it. The focus is the decision of not being worse than the criminal.

group 3 implying that you think it is the wrong response. the focus is on not having the death penalty.

Group 2 is a curious one, because on the face of it they are kind of on the fence and pragmatic, they think the death penalty could be the right response, but it’s details and specifics that stop them supporting it out of not wanting to do a bad thing themselves. It’s only a small change to move to group 1, requiring only a change in levels of justification, but you can’t move to group 3 without fundamentally changing your base decision.

Psychologically speaking I find it interesting, as there’s not really a group 2.5 of “thinking it’s wrong, but could be persuaded to support it”, I’m sure such people exist but it seems to be rare, and in those cases it’s a flip on the above, as the focus would be on justification to do something you think is wrong, rather than not doing something to avoid being ‘wronger’

There’s obviously a lot of nuance here, more than I can convey in such a small amount of words and within the restrictions of language, and I’m sure as a species we will wrestle with this for many years to come.

Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.
You kill someone ,someone else gets uppity and kills someone else.
We need to stop the circle of violence.
Hippy dippy , airy fairy shit I know but we have to give it a go.
This includes wars.

Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.

I believe that was a general rule before religions grabbed hold of it 😉

I agree with the rest though, no good can come of retaliation-in-kind, overall it escalates, once upon a time Caveman Bob punched Caveman John, many years went by, now we have nuclear bombs 🙁

Well it seems there are at least 3 broad groups…

and I’m pretty sure given a referendum 1+large parts of 2 will outnumber 3+a few of 2, which is why I hope we never have one.

lots of stuff shouldn’t go to referendum, I’ve a strong suspicion that if put to referendum cycling would be outlawed

The death penalty falls slap bang into the category I call “simple answers to complex problems”, the effectiveness of all of which can nearly always be disproved with the tiniest application of rational thought.

It also falls into the category of issues any sane politician would keep away from a referendum because the stupids do like a good simple answer to a complex problem. We’ve got too many stupids to risk that. A bit like that other issue you’d keep the public away from having a vote on at all costs……..apart from, you know, we didn’t.

Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.

Personal opinion – Except euthanasia.

I have a slight problem with “life” we as a species put an awful lot of value on it I think it’s too much really when we extend incurable diseases months/years past the typical end point*. Yet conversely I will never support the death penalty because I believe as a moral decision, it’s wrong.

*edited to add – despite the wishes of the patient.

I never thought of myself as being able to do the 1984 doublethink thing, but it’s surprisingly simple in this case.

I have no qualms about helping people die that want to.
Pro abortion as well.

True Zippykona. Although thinking about it I’m not sure those two would be classed as “killing”.

As amedius says there’s a lot of nuance, and a lot of value judgements attributed to the concept of life. Although probably a lot more attributed to taking anothers life.

Peyote, I don’t think you’re double thinking there at all.

You’re just separating ‘killing’ from ‘allow to die’ without explicitly saying so, despite the similarities in outcome I agree with you that there is a moral difference.

I have no qualms about helping people die that want to.

I was about to say I agree with this, but I realised I needed to expand on even that simple statement, as even here there is nuance and a difference between someone who is suicidal vs wishing to be euthanised and they should not be treated the same.

imagine you’re on a jury, the evidence seems clear, you find the defendant guilty of murder, the sentence is death.

some time after the convicted person is killed, days/weeks/years, whatever, it turns out the evidence was flawed (this does happen). how would you feel knowing that you’d effectively sent (an innocent) someone to their death?

the death penalty has consequences for all involved.

Totally agree. And also you could argue that the death penalty could actually see some murderers walk free as juries may be unwilling to risk having blood on their hands, so to speak.

“I agree with the rest though, no good can come of retaliation-in-kind”

So would you put kidnappers and hostage takers in prison?

“I agree with the rest though, no good can come of retaliation-in-kind”

So would you put kidnappers and hostage takers in prison?

Is it wrong I laughed at that?!

What about “proceeds of crime” legislation for fraud and robbery too!

To be fair though, there is a difference between “retaliation” and “justice”, the latter including protection of the public in the case of kidnappers et al.

“I agree with the rest though, no good can come of retaliation-in-kind”

So would you put kidnappers and hostage takers in prison?

I did a little chuckle too, but come on now, you’re better than that, don’t try and degrade what is currently a meaningful discussion.

Peyote, I don’t think you’re double thinking there at all.

You’re just separating ‘killing’ from ‘allow to die’ without explicitly saying so, despite the similarities in outcome I agree with you that there is a moral difference.

Thank you! It’s a massive grey area as evidenced by the constant legal wrangles over the right-to-die, and prochoice/prolife debates. TBH I’m not sure why as both those seem pretty clear cut to me…

Anyway, back to the eye-for-an-eye stuff.

zippykona – Member
Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.
You kill someone ,someone else gets uppity and kills someone else.
We need to stop the circle of violence.
Hippy dippy , airy fairy shit I know but we have to give it a go.
This includes wars.

This. Though I can imagine scenarios where it would be difficult to adhere to it, we should try.

Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.

Not really, it’s full of holes (or a massive over-simplification of real life). For example, you have a right to self-defense, as long as the force used is proportionate. That may include killing. The trolley problem is a thought experiment that shows up another flaw.

To be fair though, there is a difference between “retaliation” and “justice”, the latter including protection of the public in the case of kidnappers et al.

…but someone in favor of the death penalty can just say “The death penalty protects just as well as prison”.

I did a little chuckle too, but come on now, you’re better than that, don’t try and degrade what is currently a meaningful discussion.

I don’t think I am. For years I’ve used the argument “You shouldn’t murder people as an example of how murder is wrong.”. Today for the first time I’ve suddenly realized that argument has an irrefutable answer.

I think I am a 2.5. I think primarily because you undermine your moral high ground by doing the thing you say is wrong. There appears to be no logic to the death penalty, either killing is wrong or it isn’t. And it is wrong for all the other reasons listed.
However if I needed to defend myself, my kids or pretty much anyone, if I had to to achieve this defence by killing then I would. And I don’t think a person in prison comes under this justification, they are already out of doing harms way.

They gave their ‘human rights’ up when they took away their victims’.

why is this the case?

Unless you believe in a supreme being who has imposed an ultimate moral code, humans have no rights. All we have is a set of moral values (invented by humans) that most humans agree to live by.

Could it not be the case that granting human rights also imposes human obligations, and in breaking those obligations one forfeits ones human rights?

“The death penalty protects just as well as prison”.

That’s true, but there’s no chance of educating society, rehabilitation of the offender, understanding causes and motivations etc…

It’s a waste on multiple levels really, never mind the moral argument.

The problem is that I don’t think one person can judge when another persons rights have been removed.

“The death penalty protects just as well as prison”.

Ot doesnt though does it, do I have to state why a third time?

When the SAS shot the IRA in Gibraltar I felt like we had won the world cup.
At the IRA funeral that retard threw some hand grenades into the mourners killing some people.
They then had a funeral procession into which 2 squaddies in a car found themselves.
They were then dragged from their car and beaten to death.
That kind of wiped the smile off my face.

When the SAS shot the IRA in Gibraltar I felt like we had won the world cup.

Another example would be bombing Japan in WW2 rather than taking Pacific Islands one by one and then finaly invading mainland Japan. Kill 50,000 completely innocent people to saves countless other people (including Japanese civilians).

Right decision?

zippykona – Member
When the SAS shot the IRA in Gibraltar I felt like we had won the world cup.
At the IRA funeral that retard threw some hand grenades into the mourners killing some people.
They then had a funeral procession into which 2 squaddies in a car found themselves.
They were then dragged from their car and beaten to death.
That kind of wiped the smile off my face.

This is a great reason why killing is wrong, it begets more killing. I see some people state of mind as “Even if my redneck child rapist brother does “deserve” to be executed, if the state sanctions killing then why can’t we kill the person that reported it, or the prison guards, or the prosecutors..”

There will often be someone else who will also kill because of the “execution.”

Isnt there evidence that Japan were going to give up anyway.

Again its not a good analogy for the death penalty though as for the third time, the death penalty seems to increase murder rates or at the very least offers no detterence.

Isnt there evidence that Japan were going to give up anyway.

Digression, but no. Most historians I’ve read (including Beever) seem to agree that a massive bloodbath was inevitable without the Bombs, the Japanese were pretty tenacious. At 20,000 deaths every time you take an island (mostly Japanese and civilian) keeping the war going even for a short time would have cost way more than 50,000 lives even without factoring allied deaths.

Again its not a good analogy for the death penalty

..no, but it’s a rather good anaology for doing something dispicable to gain a net saving of life. If you don’t like it just think of another one.

though as for the third time, the death penalty seems to increase murder rates.

…and the question I’m posing is: What if it didn’t, and you knew it didn’t?

Thou shalt not kill is the only religious gobbledegook that stands up.

Just for info., that isn’t what is said – it is just one version of the translation (see also ‘let them eat brioche’ for how difficult it is to translate something 🙂 ). The more common translation is ‘you shall not murder’ and there is elsewhere discussion on what constitutes murder and what constitutes justified killing (as mogrim pointed out)

Loads of different translations here if you care http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm

I’m fairly sure at no point is ‘the drugs were about to run out’ considered a good reason

I’m with the murder rate going up reason for no death penalty. If you thought that the only way to avoid being killed yourself was to kill every possible witness then you would have no reason not to stop. It might not give you the satisfaction you desire but the end result is better

rather than taking Pacific Islands one by one and then finaly invading mainland Japan. Kill 50,000 completely innocent people to saves countless other people (including Japanese civilians).

Right decision?
A very difficult moral decision, tainted by many factors including needing to stamp authority on a emerging world and demonstrating the USA new weapon.
The years of war, death and suffering pushed people to places they never thought they would go. The cost of those actions is still felt today.