[Thought Prompt] The Death Penalty

[Aix]

You say they've just made a mistake. In a way, I agree. Much like the parent who must discipline and teach the child to live a life without fault, we-- Humans-- are responsible for teaching and disciplining these creatures. After all, mistakes must be punished. And psychopathy plays nothing in my belief. One could be perfectly sane and have killed someone in cold or warm blood and still be less than human. No matter the state of mind of the individual, you kill a human being, you relinquish your humanity. It is black and white. Night and day. No matter what. If one kills in self-defense, even, they've relinquished a piece of their humanity. While I do not believe those people should be killed outright, we should let their guilt kill them slowly. You can console those who've done such things as murder whilst in self-defense, but it won't stop the torment of constant pain attributed and brought on by guilt. As sad as it is, those people are their own worst enemies, and they are their own executers, in most cases.

 

But should you give in, should you let your body take over, and should you kill whilst not defending yourself, then you are no longer human. It is plain as that. There is nothing to be said for you any longer. Same goes for rape. You are no longer a human. You are something less. You are the rabid dog society must put down.

 

Think of that as you will. And as for your last question-- that's a worthless thought. After all, we don't see these things the same way. You see a human who could've made an honest, albeit horrifying mistake. I see nothing but a murderer or rapist. Something less than human. I don't toss my morality aside. My morality stays with me as we put those things to death. I suppose, in a way, it's all about perspective. No, it doesn't defeat the purpose of morality, Pikari.

Okay, what exactly is this "humanity" you speak of? What defines a human?

[Sluggaholic]

Okay, what exactly is this "humanity" you speak of? What defines a human?

 

A homo sapien, for starters. That's the base, of course. Piled on top of that are a full range of emotion, the ability to learn and comprehend, the will to change oneself, no matter how far it may be buried within oneself, and a soul clean of heinous deeds. Simple enough, I suppose.

 

What about yourself? What are humans to you?

[vla1ne]

A homo sapien, for starters. That's the base, of course. Piled on top of that are a full range of emotion, the ability to learn and comprehend, the will to change oneself, no matter how far it may be buried within oneself, and a soul clean of heinous deeds. Simple enough, I suppose.

 

What about yourself? What are humans to you?

have to say, rape is a completely human act. as is murder. it might be the worse side of humanity, but it is human nonetheless. there is not really anybody less than human so to speak. there are people with horrid moralities, but there are not exactly people who are not "people" with that said, context is also to be factored in, if you are drunk, and happen to end up in the wrong place, and kill somebody, then while you have greatly erred, and deserve to go to prison, you are not at the level of somebody who is sober in mind and body, yet still continues to kill people. there are levels to crime, and degrees of punishment that scale alongside said crimes.

 

as for the Hitler question, killing him might be a mercy, but it is also a just punishment. he condoned crimes on a level that the world had never seen, and stood at the head of one of the worst organizations known to history. torture might be the more satisfying punishment, but death is the most efficient. probably a more painful death than average, and definitely no last rights. but death nonetheless.

[Aix]

A homo sapien, for starters. That's the base, of course. Piled on top of that are a full range of emotion, the ability to learn and comprehend, the will to change oneself, no matter how far it may be buried within oneself, and a soul clean of heinous deeds. Simple enough, I suppose.

So, to be sure, you think laws should be based on your spiritual values on intangible things like a "clean soul"?

 

What humans are is a different debate, but in a nutshell humans are just some species that I am naturally inclined to care about and form relations with.

as for the Hitler question, killing him might be a mercy, but it is also a just punishment. he condoned crimes on a level that the world had never seen, and stood at the head of one of the worst organizations known to history. torture might be the more satisfying punishment, but death is the most efficient. probably a more painful death than average, and definitely no last rights. but death nonetheless.

Why? Just to satisfy you?

[vla1ne]

Why? Just to satisfy you?

no, it would not satisfy me, because there is nothing in me to satisfy from such actions, other than curiosity. i personally could care less for Hitler really, whether he got off clean or suffered the worst punishment possible would make no difference to me unless i am his arbiter, which i am not, i gain and lose nothing from any punishment give to him except maybe some annoyance. but to add something, punishment is always satisfaction, to an extent, for crimes committed. honestly, i'd like to go for drinks with him. just to chat, and understand how his mind works. but we're talking court of law, specifically the death penalty. not what would we actually do, and under law, he deserves nothing less than the highest punishment possible. (if the punishment is not death, then the next best thing, that being life in prison, without possibility of parole.)

 

 

if we are talking punishment equivalent to the crime (while factoring in context, mental state, and other such variables) then what Hitler, and people like him deserve for such actions are to be chained to a rock and tortured for the next hundred years minimum. but since that is not possible, and we are discussing what would be prudent under the law, the maximum punishment they can get is death, and the punishment that would keep us closer to neutral/moral on the spectrum, while keeping the pockets light, is life in prison without chance of parole.

i could care less for hitler really, whether he got off clean or suffered

[Sluggaholic]

have to say, rape is a completely human act. as is murder. it might be the worse side of humanity, but it is human nonetheless. there is not really anybody less than human so to speak. there are people with horrid moralities, but there are not exactly people who are not "people" with that said, context is also to be factored in, if you are drunk, and happen to end up in the wrong place, and kill somebody, then while you have greatly erred, and deserve to go to prison, you are not at the level of somebody who is sober in mind and body, yet still continues to kill people. there are levels to crime, and degrees of punishment that scale alongside said crimes.

 

as for the Hitler question, killing him might be a mercy, but it is also a just punishment. he condoned crimes on a level that the world had never seen, and stood at the head of one of the worst organizations known to history. torture might be the more satisfying punishment, but death is the most efficient. probably a more painful death than average, and definitely no last rights. but death nonetheless.

 

Rape is not a human act. It's a de-humanizing act. An act that makes you less than human. An act that deserves you to be embraced by the cold nothingness of death, no matter the circumstance. And if you did indeed get drunk and murder someone, you're just as guilty as one who killed another while sober. It is still your fault that you killed another. If you hadn't drank, then you wouldn't have killed that person, or, rather, would not have had the conviction to murder that person. In the end, you killed that person-- drunk or not-- and you have to answer for your crimes. Death is only suitable. As I've said: mistakes must be punished so that they may be avoided in the future by the individual. The punishment for murder is death: the ultimate deterrent.

 

 

So, to be sure, you think laws should be based on your spiritual values on intangible things like a "clean soul"?

 

What humans are is a different debate, but in a nutshell humans are just some species that I am naturally inclined to care about and form relations with.

 

Laws should be based on the crime itself. Kill a man, you yourself are killed. Steal, then fine. Confine the man to prison. Rehabilitation with acts such as those, or perhaps finding the true base of one's need to steal, and fixing it, is acceptable. But to kill another is to condemn yourself beyond saving. Your only 'savior' is the nothingness after death.

 

And your answer to what humans are sounds like it comes from someone who isn't human or, rather, has some distinct hatred or discontent towards the race as whole. Why is that? Do you really have a grudge against humanity as to doom it by letting scum like murders and rapists-- who are no longer human by any standard other than biological-- live?

[vla1ne]

Rape is not a human act. It's a de-humanizing act. An act that makes you less than human. An act that deserves you to be embraced by the cold nothingness of death, no matter the circumstance. And if you did indeed get drunk and murder someone, you're just as guilty as one who killed another while sober. It is still your fault that you killed another. If you hadn't drank, then you wouldn't have killed that person, or, rather, would not have had the conviction to murder that person. In the end, you killed that person-- drunk or not-- and you have to answer for your crimes. Death is only suitable. As I've said: mistakes must be punished so that they may be avoided in the future by the individual. The punishment for murder is death: the ultimate deterrent.

 

you are confusing being human with being immoral. humans, by default, are neutral, whether they move to one end of the moral spectrum or the other, is another matter altogether, but they are no less human for doing so. for an inhuman action, i would have to actually become something that is literally not a human, such as a cat, or a tiger. it is mere idealism to act as if humans haven't been raping, enslaving, stealing, beating, and killing each other for years. it is as human to rape a person as it is to help them across the street. it is not as moral to rape somebody as it is to help them across the street. but no matter what you do, it remains a human action. you are confusing morality for humanity, before you proceed, take that particular lens off. it will help you greatly. if you refuse to understand that even criminals are humans (even if they are absolutely shitty humans), you will have incredible difficulty discussing things like this. be it with me, aix, or any other member of the forum. human history is covered in blood, from all sides, sometimes you have to kill to prevent yourself from being killed, sometimes you must steal in order to feed your family, is that not human emotion leading to less than favorable actions? there is no excuse for rape that i can think of, but with the others, you can get the point. humans are more complex than "only law abiding citizens are human" sometimes humans aren't what you want, or expect them to be. the same goes for those you call criminals. with your definition, you leave no room for context, the world, as aix has said, is not that black and white.

[Dad]

And your answer to what humans are sounds like it comes from someone who isn't human or, rather, has some distinct hatred or discontent towards the race as whole. Why is that? Do you really have a grudge against humanity as to doom it by letting scum like murders and rapists-- who are no longer human by any standard other than biological-- live?

 

This isn't some fanatical anime where murder turns you into some kind of a monster.  Sure it makes you a piece of sheet, but it doesn't mean you don't have rights as a human being.  That's a load of bullshit and you know it.  If you're gonna present an argument based on definition, try something logical.  An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

[Lunar Origins]

i feel like people on the jury should be made fully aware of the death penalty being an option before making a decision

 

and if they can't make a decision, they should be able to opt out

[Sluggaholic]

This isn't some fanatical anime where murder turns you into some kind of a monster.  Sure it makes you a piece of s***, but it doesn't mean you don't have rights as a human being.  That's a load of bullshit and you know it.  If you're gonna present an argument based on definition, try something logical.  An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

 

Who, on this green Earth, ever thought this was an 'anime'. This is real life with real life consequences. Do not assume that, just because my views border on the extreme in your eyes, that you can make assumptions on how I view the world, or on how my world is. Everyone sees the world differently: that's why you made this thread, no? So, please. Be mature, and do not call my argument 'a load of bullshit', just because it doesn't sit well with you. And this is not revenge I speak of: it's the only justice the world can deliver upon these creatures who are less than men. These creatures who MUST be put down. So no, the world will not be blind. Remove an arm to save the body, as it were.

 

 

you are confusing being human with being immoral. humans, by default, are neutral, whether they move to one end of the moral spectrum or the other, is another matter altogether, but they are no less human for doing so. for an inhuman action, i would have to actually become something that is literally not a human, such as a cat, or a tiger. it is mere idealism to act as if humans haven't been raping, enslaving, stealing, beating, and killing each other for years. it is as human to rape a person as it is to help them across the street. it is not as moral to rape somebody as it is to help them across the street. but no matter what you do, it remains a human action. you are confusing morality for humanity, before you proceed, take that particular lens off. it will help you greatly. if you refuse to understand that even criminals are humans (even if they are absolutely shitty humans), you will have incredible difficulty discussing things like this. be it with me, aix, or any other member of the forum. human history is covered in blood, from all sides, sometimes you have to kill to prevent yourself from being killed, sometimes you must steal in order to feed your family, is that not human emotion leading to less than favorable actions? there is no excuse for rape that i can think of, but with the others, you can get the point. humans are more complex than "only law abiding citizens are human" sometimes humans aren't what you want, or expect them to be. the same goes for those you call criminals. with your definition, you leave no room for context, the world, as aix has said, is not that black and white.

 

While I agree with you on the notion that all humans are born neutral, your actions determine whether or not you burn, or do not. You can be the worst douche in the world: tripping old ladies, slapping babies, and stealing from the homeless, but you'd still be a human. A morally-regressed one, but one nonetheless. But once you cross that line, once you lower the knife into that man's heart, once you insert yourself into that woman, you've thrown away any idea you may have had of 'humanity', and you become less-than and deserve nothing but a swift death as so darkness and confusion can take over your mind in your last moments. That is your punishment for your deeds: rendering yourself to the abyss. For those who murder, and those who rape, death is the only punishment high enough.

[Aerion Brightflame]

So logical question: Your view is that murder makes someone no longer class as human.

 

What distinguishes murder from killing someone in any other sense? Why is a soildier no longer human after he shoots a man at war? Or a Cop who shoots a robber threatening someones life?

 

What is the difference a mother who kills the abuser of her child at night when he sleeps, compared to the woman who kills the man abusing her in self defence? Is a man who kills an attempted murderer before he could ever actually claim a life as wrong as the man who walks up to another and stabs him in the eye? 

 

If this is a question of morals, how do you draw the moral line that distinguishes monsters and humanity? 

[vla1ne]

 

While I agree with you on the notion that all humans are born neutral, your actions determine whether or not you burn, or do not. You can be the worst douche in the world: tripping old ladies, slapping babies, and stealing from the homeless, but you'd still be a human. A morally-regressed one, but one nonetheless. But once you cross that line, once you lower the knife into that man's heart, once you insert yourself into that woman, you've thrown away any idea you may have had of 'humanity', and you become less-than and deserve nothing but a swift death as so darkness and confusion can take over your mind in your last moments. That is your punishment for your deeds: rendering yourself to the abyss. For those who murder, and those who rape, death is the only punishment high enough.

listen, and listen carefully, humans are only ever human. no matter their action. just because you kill somebody, does not make you less than human. because humans are merely a bag of flesh, liquids and bones with a genetic code and a pulse. morals are the only thing that change, not humanity. by your definition, a man who kills a man that was attacking his kids is as bad as every other kind of murderer. and every teacher accused of statutory is now deserving of death. and all killings in self defense are all gonna lead to the death sentence. you're not arguing for logic, you're arguing for your own sense of justice, in fact, not even justice, you're arguing for satisfaction, by the tone of the text, your own satisfaction.

[Sluggaholic]

You say they've just made a mistake. In a way, I agree. Much like the parent who must discipline and teach the child to live a life without fault, we-- Humans-- are responsible for teaching and disciplining these creatures. After all, mistakes must be punished. And psychopathy plays nothing in my belief. One could be perfectly sane and have killed someone in cold or warm blood and still be less than human. No matter the state of mind of the individual, you kill a human being, you relinquish your humanity. It is black and white. Night and day. No matter what. If one kills in self-defense, even, they've relinquished a piece of their humanity. While I do not believe those people should be killed outright, we should let their guilt kill them slowly. You can console those who've done such things as murder whilst in self-defense, but it won't stop the torment of constant pain attributed and brought on by guilt. As sad as it is, those people are their own worst enemies, and they are their own executers, in most cases.

 

listen, and listen carefully, humans are only ever human. no matter their action. just because you kill somebody, does not make you less than human. because humans are merely a bag of flesh, liquids and bones with a genetic code and a pulse. morals are the only thing that change, not humanity. by your definition, a man who kills a man that was attacking his kids is as bad as every other kind of murderer. and every teacher accused of statutory is now deserving of death. and all killings in self defense are all gonna lead to the death sentence. you're not arguing for logic, you're arguing for your own sense of justice, in fact, not even justice, you're arguing for satisfaction, by the tone of the text, your own satisfaction.

 

So logical question: Your view is that murder makes someone no longer class as human.

 

What distinguishes murder from killing someone in any other sense? Why is a soildier no longer human after he shoots a man at war? Or a Cop who shoots a robber threatening someones life?

 

What is the difference a mother who kills the abuser of her child at night when he sleeps, compared to the woman who kills the man abusing her in self defence? Is a man who kills an attempted murderer before he could ever actually claim a life as wrong as the man who walks up to another and stabs him in the eye? 

 

If this is a question of morals, how do you draw the moral line that distinguishes monsters and humanity? 

 

I believe that to answer your issue with 'self-defense'. A man who defends himself to the point where another dies is, as unfortunate as it may sound to you, as guilty as the one who would kill without another thought. Though in some cases there is no way to protect yourself and those you love without killing another, most cases (a majority of cases, even) could end without another human's death. And no, before the thought comes up, no person has the right to take another's life until they stand before the court and are convicted. Even in the most corrupt of states, to assassinate (murder) an individual who has escaped their rightful death by wrongful avoidance of conviction is just as horrible as murdering someone in cold blood.

 

However, this is where I, as a person, deviate. I couldn't stomach the thought of someone like that having to die. Personally. While it would make the most logical sense, given what I've said previously, I couldn't stomach it. Even if it should still happen, to keep everything neutral, I couldn't stomach it. I'd rather die for them, as stupid as that sounds. But the fact is not that they killed someone in self defense, not that they saved another's life at the cost of one other.

 

It's that they've committed murder. They've killed. And those who've killed deserve punishment. In cold blood, like the man who shot 5 police officers dead, you deserve nothing short of death. For the sake of another, or for the sake of yourself, you deserve to be forced to live with your actions, to have to live with the fact that you, somebody who is one in a billion, in that moment of misjudgment, had the gall to end another's life, before they could be taken to court. You must live with that fact. And while I personally believe they do not deserve to be consoled, I will not stop others-- or even form an attempt to stop others-- if they wish to. I, one man, am nowhere near strong enough to prevent that. And believe it or not, a part of me wouldn't want to, anyways.

[vla1ne]

what you have essentially said, is that context holds no meaning to you. and to that i'm curious, do you hold the same position in all other areas of life, or is there just a blank space around this single issue?

 

by your argument, if your country were to be invaded, and your soldiers had to kill to defend your country, you would not stand in the way of anybody who wanted them all dead. even though their reason for killing was to protect themselves and their country. you would still consider them less than human. 

 

and beyond even that, if you don't care about the context of the killing, then how can you even support the death penalty? because if the reason and/or context don't matter, then whomever sentences another person to death would automatically e eligible for the death penalty, and whoever administered said penalty would also be worthy of the death penalty. your apparent removal of context leads to quite a few problems.

[Aix]

Your dogmatism is founded on intangible ideas. Your idea of "humanity" cuts itself off from any basis in reality; if your "soul" is not your psyche, then it has no impact on reality. No secular law can be based solely on things that don't pertain to our confirmed reality. In fact, no truly functional ideal can be founded on intangible things.

 

Then you justify your ideal by speaking of deterrents, justice, punishments, right to trial, whatever. It just happens that your ideal coincides with those better founded ideals at certain points, but the root idea of your worldview, that homo sapiens are no longer humans for killing another human or for any other act that you consider morally disgusting, is completely emotional and arbitrary.

[Aerion Brightflame]

What about the executioner? Is he not taking a life for a reason other than self defence?

 

Does a war started for false or selfish reason still justify the deaths of all those involved? Even on a fringe scale, say the factory workers who made the bombs and bullets? Is a who is man ordered to kill another because he looked at his bosses shoes funny the one in the wrong, or is the one who gave the order? Or are both non human now?

 

What of the man who suffers a psychotic break? Or someone with a medical condition that causes uncontrollable rage? 

 

You talk as if this is an issue of right or wrong, but the reality is never that simple. You cannot simplify the moral implications of your actions in life down to simply the actions with no regards for the motive or context. Morality is not that simple - Or else moral discussion would be simple, and our legal system would not require mens rea. 

 

Because you still base your argument within the confines of the legal system, to say that context and motive have no impact upon this issue seems strange. 

[Sluggaholic]

There are no blank spaces in my mind. Everything's filled as according to how it was supposed to be. Please don't assume my belief comes from a lack of thought within the area. If you aren't, then I apologize for assuming such. As I'm sure you're aware, words on the internet have no emotion behind them. Not to the average ready, anyhow. As for your second point, you're right. I wouldn't move a finger to save those people, because they've killed another. Murdered, another. At the end of the day, no matter how you justify it, or look at it, death is death; murder is murder. They've killed a person whose life could've been greatly different. That person might have had family. Might have had love. Etc., etc., etc. You've heard all this before. Or so I'm led to believe. After all, you're quite the intelligent person. And finally, I can support that which I've argued for this entire time because, as I've said, we're not offing another human life, we're disposing of trash. While the Executioner would also be trash, as I've said far, far earlier, no system in place at the current moment is perfect. There are flaws: the Executioner is one of those. It sounds hypocritical, but despite his killing of these creatures, he's still human. After all, one is no less human after they've put down a dog, than before. The Judge, also, is not less human. He didn't condemn that creature to death: the creature condemned his or herself, to death.

 

On to the second. You're focusing on the soul quite a bit. I would assume, then, by your argument against it that you don't believe in such things? Fair enough: with science unable to currently discover such a thing, I'm not surprised that you argue that law should not be, in any way, dictated by it. However, your last statement in your first group of sentences is false. Functional ideals have been founded on intangible things before (or so you call which you don't believe in, since you cannot see) and have succeeded because of it. The same, of course, goes for things that have been based on these 'tangible' things you've yet to have spoken about. However, both have failed before. So, I could argue, that, in fact, no truly functional ideal can be founded on tangible things. And finally, I'm sure that I don't have to tell you this: that all things pertaining to law are based on emotion, belief, and the creator of said laws' morality.

 

On to the final. I've covered the Executioner. Take it as you will. I'll list the other things in a, well, list for you to read upon. I'm tired of writing paragraphs-- whole, paragraphs-- while you all have the fun writing half-paragraphs.

1. Nothing justifies war. All who kill in it are guilty, no matter the context. You kill, you're a killer. 
2. Did they, themselves, kill the person? No. There's no blood on their hands. While this point could lead to arguments with things like poisoning one's drinks, the issue is this: whether or not you look at the middle man. Those weapons could've been used to kill animals. Or perhaps to open the earth (in the case of explosives). The men who used the weapons to kill are the killers, not the factory workers who made them.
3. The man who shot the other man dead is guilty. You kill, you're a killer. And, since that man was still human (assuming, of course, that you meant this man was innocent) the man who ordered him dead would be deserving of punishment. He didn't kill the man himself, so jail is all he'd have to suffer through. He gave the order, but he did not pull the trigger.
4. The man who suffered the break should've been treated beforehand. If no one could have gotten to him-- which is highly unlikely-- then even so, he'd deserve to die. He killed. He's a killer now. As unfortunate as that may be, he is no longer human. Life is cruel to those whose minds aren't as well of as some of us.
5. Medical condition should have been treated, or controlled. Most of what I said in 4. stands for 5. as well.

It's not an issue of right and wrong: it's an issue of black and white. Though it may have seemed such, that's what it is at heart. From there, it expands to form what is right, and what is wrong. But, again, at its heart, the issue is with the simplicity of it all. You kill, you are a killer. End of story. The right and the wrong then come forth from that truth. Morality evolves from simple, black and white answers, which is why it is simple. You disagree, but even so, every part of me says that one part of you agrees: that the fact of life is that all issues can be black, or can be white. But not grey.

 

[spoiler=Final Word]

 

It's been fun, guys, arguing and debating with you, but at this point, my responses in defense for my beliefs are honestly cutting into my life in a negative way. Though it may not seem so (since I'm practically on this site everyday) my life is quite busy. I have a lot to do almost every day, despite it being summer. Work. School. Home. The spiel: you've heard it all before. So, as sad as it makes me, I'm pulling out of this wacked out moshpit we call a 'Death Penalty Debate', not because I no longer wish to be here, but because I don't have the time.

 

While I can't honestly say I agree with what you all said, I can see your honesty in it. And how earnest you are as well. Its been a blast debating with you all. (Though it's been rather one-sided.) It's been fun being the voice of discontent, and the voice of opposite reason to your voices-- even if you all weren't on the same page. I hope my extreme views haven't offended you (too much) and that we can all come out of this having learned something about another person, or about the world. Though, in my heart I doubt any of us will honestly take what the opposite side said to heart. I know I won't.

 

Anyways, this will be the last I post in this debate. It's been fun, and I hope to see you guys in another, where I can voice my opinion again. Judge me as you wish, I suppose.

 

Have a wonderful day, honestly.

 

[Aerion Brightflame]

If you were referring to me you've severely misread me - I don't believe morally black or morally white exists, or if it does exist it makes the minority of cases not the majority. I think in legal terms things are either right or wrong, but never morally. Part of that is because perfect morals could only exist within a perfect world, and we clearly do not live in a perfect world. 

 

Because unlike the law, there is no objective definition as to what is moral and what is not. It's why it has been a point of discussion among philosophers for decades. Different people have different moral codes, different cultures view different things as moral or immoral, different nations have different punishments say that are seen to be moral or immoral. 

 

I write questions because that's the interesting part of a debate in morals, it's applying them to different situations and see how they work within that defined context. It's why moral questions such as the two groups of the rail tracks exist. There shouldn't be a single correct answer to any moral question. Because it may be the case that you have a very simplified world view about this matter that either knowingly or unknowingly ignores context, which would fall apart upon application. You can think this is a lack of effort on my part, but it's more elegant way of making the argument than just yelling at you. 

 

Here's another example - Three men each cause the death of another man. One pays a hitman to kill the target. The second has a robot do it for them. The Third shoots them dead in cold blood.  

 

Your logic is that culpability is determined solely by he who commits the act irregardless of the context or motive such, using an argument of damage to the soul. By that logic, despite the fact that all three men are directly responsible for the death by your logic there are only two individuals who are culpable - The hitman in case one, and man in case 3. In case 2, no one would be culpable because no human directly killed the man. 

 

You say that they would be deserving of punishment, but not a punishment suitable for murder. But why? Why are they not killers and not inhuman when they are the root cause of death of another hero in each situation. Why is the simple act of killing more damning than the intent or the organisation? Why does culpability stop so suddenly? 

 

Similar situation - A manufacturing fault in the breaks of a Truck causes them to cease working and causes a Truck driver to T-Bone a car containing a family of 4, all of which are killed. The Truck driver did nothing else to cause it occur (Not under the influence, not speeding, very attentive ect ect everything a safe driver would do) and had no possible way of knowing of the existence of the fault till the crash. He is effectively blameless. The company that produced the Trucks knew of the existence of this fault, but it was allowed to go into production due to monetary concerns, a decision made wholly by a single executive. In all legal terms, this executive would be culpable, not the driver.

 

Why, in your logic where only the directed action of killing assigns guilt, would this driver be guilty instead of the executive when the blame lies soley at the latters feet? 

 

I can keep throwing situations in here to test the logic and force you to expand it out till it's either proven in almost all concievable situation. Just don't think that reply length is an indicator of effort - If you can dismiss someones point in 100 words, it's better to do so than to draw it out to 1000 for no reason. 

[vla1ne]

There are no blank spaces in my mind. Everything's filled as according to how it was supposed to be. Please don't assume my belief comes from a lack of thought within the area. If you aren't, then I apologize for assuming such. As I'm sure you're aware, words on the internet have no emotion behind them. Not to the average ready, anyhow. As for your second point, you're right. I wouldn't move a finger to save those people, because they've killed another. Murdered, another. At the end of the day, no matter how you justify it, or look at it, death is death; murder is murder. They've killed a person whose life could've been greatly different. That person might have had family. Might have had love. Etc., etc., etc. You've heard all this before. Or so I'm led to believe. After all, you're quite the intelligent person. And finally, I can support that which I've argued for this entire time because, as I've said, we're not offing another human life, we're disposing of trash. While the Executioner would also be trash, as I've said far, far earlier, no system in place at the current moment is perfect. There are flaws: the Executioner is one of those. It sounds hypocritical, but despite his killing of these creatures, he's still human. After all, one is no less human after they've put down a dog, than before. The Judge, also, is not less human. He didn't condemn that creature to death: the creature condemned his or herself, to death.

I assume this part is addressing me. and i have to point out, for all your disregard of context, you've clearly used it in this case. the executioner is trash, yet you let him live, for what amounts to paper thin reasoning. you want all killers dead, and consider them less than human no matter the context, but on one hand, you make a loophole for the executioner based upon context. while on the other hand, the people who kill to protect themselves or others still die because their victim might have had a family? yet those victims were the ones initiating the kill or be killed scenario, forcing the people to either become killers, or lose their own futures. your logic has extremely wide holes in it. 

[Aix]

I assume this part is addressing me. and i have to point out, for all your disregard of context, you've clearly used it in this case. the executioner is trash, yet you let him live, for what amounts to paper thin reasoning. you want all killers dead, and consider them less than human no matter the context, but on one hand, you make a loophole for the executioner based upon context. while on the other hand, the people who kill to protect themselves or others still die because their victim might have had a family? yet those victims were the ones initiating the kill or be killed scenario, forcing the people to either become killers, or lose their own futures. your logic has extremely wide holes in it.

He says the executioner isn't trash because he didn't kill anyone, he just disposed of trash actually. The idea is just arbitrary, almost as arbitrary as me saying anyone I don't like is trash really, because it gives no practical reason for them being inhuman.

[vla1ne]

He says the executioner isn't trash because he didn't kill anyone, he just disposed of trash actually. The idea is just arbitrary, almost as arbitrary as me saying anyone I don't like is trash really, because it gives no practical reason for them being inhuman.

so them disposing of trash doesn't count as killing humans. alright, i see where his loophole is. in light of that, let's say that one innocent slips through the cracks, and the executioner kills that innocent person. a few days later, it's discovered that that person had done nothing wrong. since he does not care about context, how would he justify that?

 

as for him considering the people to be less than human, i'd assume he means that since they took a human life, they degenerated into something that does not count as human.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Because of the irreversible nature of the death penalty it should be avoided wherever alternative means of crime prevention are available. Sadly, other means aren't available on a battlefield, where the threat of death is constant and imminent, and the last resort is commonplace.

 

In fact, no truly functional ideal can be founded on intangible things.

 

You live in an artless world. Thankfully, imagination and functionality aren't mutually exclusive. 

 

 

[Delibirb]

I'm against the death penalty on a religious and moral level. Allow me to elaborate.

 

Religiously, I believe people are reincarnated unless they kill themselves. Criminals should not be given an immediate free ticket to their next life, imo.

 

Morally, I think death is a pretty whimpy punishment for any crime, regardless of severity. Life-Imprisonment and ideally torture for the sake of it are a much less tolerable and therefore more pleasing as a deterrent, to me.

 

But I respect that other people disagree with me on both fronts and thus am relatively indifferent on the continued use of capital punishment, as long as there is some sort of punishment.