The Death Penalty

Originally posted by The Fifth Column
*sigh* It works as and let me make this doubly-trebly clear
A PUNISHMENT AND NO MORE!
A PUNISHMENT AND NO MORE!
A PUNISHMENT AND NO MORE!

If it was meant as a deterrent then clearly an increase in crime would SUGGEST (and only suggest as other variables
must be considered) a failure.
I have already elaborated on why (and this is a LIBERTY point) that extra severity in a sentence as a deterrent for others is a CRUEL AND UNUSAL PUNISHMENT and thus not just.

Now this is simple logic, please re-read my posts with an open mind and if you have valid points to contradict WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID then i will be happy to explain/admit i am wrong.

It seems your philosophy (as i infer it) is that killing is wrong WHATEVER! Please clarify if this is not the case.
Well this philosophy is clearly logically refuted by base natural law of any society/culture i can think of.
Simply put if someone attacks me and my family and i kill him as it is the only possible way to defend the NON-AGGRESSORS (me & family) then that killing is morally justified.
From here i assert that murderers have comited a crime where capital punishment is equal or lesser in severity and thus is justified as punishment.

Just as if you steal $100 it is reasonable to be fined $100.
So it is as a pre-meditated murderer it is reasonable to be killed as humanely (or not) as the victim.

I understand what you're saying. I think you and I just approach the whole idea in different ways. Personally I think the 'Deterrent' aspect is a very important issue and shouldn't be left out of the equation. After all the goal here is to try and stop future instances of the crime, not only just dealing with those 'currently' guilty for it. I mean if you were going to wander around the high grass in snake country, not only should you have a 'Snake Bite Kit' in case you get bit, but you also wear thick, high ankle boots and stay aware and alert where you tread to avoid getting bit in the first place, right?

But I hear what you're saying, you are talking ONLY about dealing with the situation 'AFTER the FACT', so that's what I'll concentrate on too. Using your exact words to state exactly what it is we are addressing:
"From here i assert that murderers have committed a crime where capital punishment is equal or lesser in severity and thus is justified as punishment."

Now, using that bolded section above, what I am trying to understand is the word 'Justified', and this is why.

Justify is defined as:
1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.
2. To declare free of blame; absolve.
3. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. (Or instead of 'sin' let's use 'Criminal Act' or even 'Murder' to be more specific. Just to avoid any Religious ideas clouding the issue.)

Murder is defined as:
Intentional homicide (the taking of another person's life), without legal justification or provocation.
or
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

2 Subclasses of Murder are 'Involuntary & Voluntary Manslaughter', defined as:
~Involuntary: Unintentional or Accidental, unlawful killing of a human being without malice.
~Voluntary: Unlawful killing of a human being without malice

Malice is defined as:
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

Ok, now, first thing that should be pointed out is the impressive amount of B.S. wording that has been used to confuse what is being said, and to allow legal loopholes. It would seem, by these definitions, that we have 3 different Criminal Acts here, when there are really only 2. Second thing to point out is the use of 'Unlawful' within the definition itself, which is a 'Self Validating' trick used in language known as 'Circular Logic'.

Circular Logic is used extensively in Religious Dogma, for example: Whatever the Pope says must be true. We know whatever He says is true because he's infallible. We know he's infallible because he says so and whatever he says must be true.We know whatever He says is true because he's infallible. We know he's infallible because he says so and whatever he says must be true. As you can see, there is NO arguing that kind of 'pseudo-logic', as it provides it's own method of Proof.

Now, as I was saying, 'Unlawful' is being used in the same way. Murder is a Crime because it is NOT LEGAL, except when it is LEGAL, which is determined by Law. Same as Manslaughter, it is also a Crime, because it's Illegal (Unlawful), except when it's Legal of course. Can you see the 'Circular Logic' being used to 'Justify' the Hypocrisy? If you can't, read the definitions again, paying close attention to the word Unlawful and how it's being used. The point I'm trying to point out is that we use our LAW to say Murder is Unlawful, yet we also use our LAW to say Murder is Lawful also, it just depends on the circumstance. We say someone Else's method of 'Justifying' Murder is wrong when they do it, but we are doing the same exact thing.

Now, when I said there are 2 criminal acts and not 3, it's because Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter are really the same thing. Malice is intent to harm, thereby making Voluntary Manslaughter the same as Murder IMO. Leaving only Involuntary which would be something like dropping a piano on someone's head accidentally, or drunken driving and killing someone in a car wreck, that type of thing.

So, back to how this has to do with Punishment. If we use Murder as the Punishment for Murder by our method of Justification. Then we had better be prepared to Allow 'Punishment' for things like Abortion, Dumping of Toxic Waste in or near Populated Areas, and other such Intentional Acts that People do which lead to the death of another. This is the same thinking that makes War 'Justified', even though it kills Civilians and see it as Acceptable Losses. Even now, we are killing not only Enemy Terrorists, but Civilians as well. Justified by reason of us being attacked. That attack being justified for another set of reasons, and those being justified by yet a whole other set of reasons and so on. If you recall, there is a story known as 'Hatfield and McCoys' which is about this very same thing.

Understand, I'm not saying that YOUR method isn't a Punishment, it is. Even you admit that it may not always be Equal either, which it usually isn't. What I'm getting at is that that type of 'Punishment' also causes trouble for the whole of society by setting up our Legal system in a Hypocritical Fashion wherein the loophole created is one of the worst kind, allowing the system to Legally Murder by Justification of Circular Logic. Hitler thought he was doing the Right Thing too, as did his followers. The KKK think they are doing the Right Thing too, as do their followers. Many different Groups, both Religious and/or Political have also 'Justified' their actions in what they've done or are doing, however that doesn't mean that they are correct in doing so.

Killing a Killer really only does one thing. It does remove them from ever being able to cause harm again. It doesn't free them from Blame or Guilt of what they've done, which is the definition of 'Justify' BTW. It doesn't even guarantee in almost all cases to 'Punish' or 'Harm' them in a way suitable for what they've done in terms of being a real 'Punishment' either. Unlike paying $100.00 for stealing $100.00, a life cannot be Repaid, nor can a loss of Life ever be accurately measured. For example, if someone kills someones child, they've also taken away every thing that child may have done, like curing cancer, or saving someone's life, or inventing a better mousetrap, etc. That child may have grown up to be a serial killer also, in which this Murder at hand may in fact have just saved the lives of many, plus, under the terms of 'Justified' Legal Killing, would have also been doing the Right thing in Killing the child to begin with. It also puts Legal Killing in the hands of a System which is known to be fallible at best and Corrupt at worst.

good post mojom...

I think killing is "wrong whatever" or whenever, as no one has the right to determine if someone else should die. Anyway you look at it, it is a crime. The only thing I think would justify murder is if you or a family member were in immediate danger of being killed, and you had no other option...just because the government is doing the actual injections doesn't take away from it being murder.

MOJOM!!
Outstanding post and great points.
This is going to take a thoughtfull post to refute your arguments i'll have to put in some thought and time for this one, i'm just having a little browse through the forums at the moment. But i'll have a post by saturday evening your time on here.

OK bit of a late reply, looking at your post again i think it comes down to a moral position which we will probably never agree on and so i cant be bothered to come up with a looong post stating my position on the morality of captial punishment.
What i will say though is yes killing seems extreme but stating capital punishment cant not be justified because it is immoral or to put words in to your mouth "it makes you as bad as the murderer himself" is logically flawed if you at the same time accept say imprisoning a kidnapper, surely that makes you as bad as him. You cant give someone back their liberty now can you?
So IMO INITIATING an infringment on an individuals life or liberty is the factor which justly entitles an administer of justice to serve a due punishment proportional to the offence. And just as a thief may justly have his possesions taken proportionally to the goods stolen so may a murderer have his life taken proportinal to the victims life being taken.

On the issue of the inconsistencies and contradictions of law you raised, well law, whatever politicains and judiciary may say is rarely just. Laws are in fact mostly unjust when
looked at in the light of universal liberty and not social engineering by an elite or 'democratically' enacted by way of cynical demagoguery.
If you are not aware of the concept of natural law and natural rights then have a look at this link, nicely explained
by the great thinker Lynden Spooner.
www.jim.com...

Anyway good debate.

First I'd like to thank Banshee for directing me to this thread.

Secondly, best I can gather, the attitude is 'better safe then sorry'. It makes me think America parinoia leads this attitude. Every criminal executed is one less person out to get me, out to do me wrong.
Capital punishment is one catagory that the USA is alone in a list of enemies...Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, Viet Nam

Amnesty International