The Death Penalty

[Mermaid]

I am opposed to the death penalty because I believe fundamentally that it is wrong to take the life of another human being who does not give consent to do so. Even if the person in question has committed that very act.

No more, no less. Revenge is not the answer to anything and killing people for their crimes serves no purpose.

[Satt]

I see a lot of comments about the death penalty being bad because it's considered "revenge". My question would be is revenge immoral?

[Plu]

Revenge is petty. "You hurt me, so now I will hurt you."

It never actually solves anything, it just causes more and more violence because people will continue to avenge people avenging themselves because someone avenged someone for doing something wrong, which in itself was probably also an act of (perceived) revenge.

However, that doesn't mean that all applications of punishment can be considered 'revenge'. It's just that the ones that can only be considered revenge need to stop, because they accomplish nothing.

[surly74]

I see a lot of comments about the death penalty being bad because it's considered "revenge". My question would be is revenge immoral?

at the state level it is. The state says that it's illegal and wrong to take the life of another person yet they will do it when they see fit.

[LikelyToBreak]

mykcob4 wrote:

Sorry but Texas the place where most executions are carried out, and California list executions as Homicide by the State.http://rationalist.org.uk/578
There is legislation in both states to change it but as of right now that is the case.

Still got to go with Colanth on this.  Though mykcob4 did get his information honestly, I doubt the validity of it.  One it is from a left-wing UK source.  Think Fox News for the left. Two, it says "Manny Babbitt's death certificate gave his cause of death as "Homicide". Above that someone had scribbled "justifiable"."  In the state of Nebraska, it is illegal to be scribbling things on a death certificate.  I rather doubt the state of California allows the unauthorized modification of death certificates either.  This makes the source suspect in my opinion.

As far as the death penalty being for revenge, I actually agree that revenge is a legitimate reason for it.  In nature tit-for-tat is the rule, which makes gregarious animals able to get along.  It is the Christian idea of turning the other cheek which is in conflict with natural ideals.  While I agree, revenge does get out of line, consider the US invasion of Afghanistan, generally it is necessary to make a society work.  

Consider, if a auto repair place rips you off, you then tell all your friends not to go there.  They screwed you, so you try your best to screw them.  Most of us will do so within the confines of the law.  Some won't, and that is when revenge getting out of hand comes in.

I'm still against the death penalty though.  Just because of prosecutorial misconduct.

[Plu]

You seem to confuse revenge with prevention of repeat. If I tell my friends not to go to the carshop because they ripped me off, I'm not trying to hurt the car-shop, I'm trying to protect my friends from being ripped off as well.

If I wanted to take revenge on the carshop, I'd start a slander campaign against them.

There's a big difference.

[Aroura33]

I am against the death penalty for all the reasons people have already given in this thread, and more.  There are so many reasons to be against the death penalty, it would take a while to list them all.  One I did not see mentioned was study.  Serial killers and other violent offenders need to be studied (and I don't mean cut up or harmed), I mean, interviewed by psychologists, blood test, brain scans, and other non cruel types of study. These things are why we have more understanding now than we did 50 years ago about violent offenders, and more study is always important, to continue to develop better ways of profiling, prevention, and rehabilitation (if possible).  But really, the fact that state sanctioned murder is obviously morally wrong should be enough of an argument, all by itself.

I've heard people give reasons who support the death penalty.  I have never heard a good reason, though.

[SGOS]

I see a lot of comments about the death penalty being bad because it's considered "revenge". My question would be is revenge immoral?

I don't know if it's immoral, but it's not that sweet and not that satisfying.  Maybe it is to someone else, but if the person who is executed isn't guilty, it's a grave injustice just to satisfy someone's baser desire, and if I were the final authority I would not permit an execution of a possibly innocent person.  In my opinion anyway, it doesn't justify feeding someone's need for revenge when there is the slightest risk of that happening.

[mykcob4]

mykcob4 wrote:

Sorry but Texas the place where most executions are carried out, and California list executions as Homicide by the State.http://rationalist.org.uk/578
There is legislation in both states to change it but as of right now that is the case.

Still got to go with Colanth on this.  Though mykcob4 did get his information honestly, I doubt the validity of it.  One it is from a left-wing UK source.  Think Fox News for the left. Two, it says "Manny Babbitt's death certificate gave his cause of death as "Homicide". Above that someone had scribbled "justifiable"."  In the state of Nebraska, it is illegal to be scribbling things on a death certificate.  I rather doubt the state of California allows the unauthorized modification of death certificates either.  This makes the source suspect in my opinion.

As far as the death penalty being for revenge, I actually agree that revenge is a legitimate reason for it.  In nature tit-for-tat is the rule, which makes gregarious animals able to get along.  It is the Christian idea of turning the other cheek which is in conflict with natural ideals.  While I agree, revenge does get out of line, consider the US invasion of Afghanistan, generally it is necessary to make a society work.  

Consider, if a auto repair place rips you off, you then tell all your friends not to go there.  They screwed you, so you try your best to screw them.  Most of us will do so within the confines of the law.  Some won't, and that is when revenge getting out of hand comes in.

I'm still against the death penalty though.  Just because of prosecutorial misconduct.

Is Amnesty International a left organization? The fact is which ever source actually ferrets out the info isn't important since the fact is that the source didn't make up the information....they acquired it. Texas and California list executions as State Homocide or Murdered by the State. They arn't the only states that have that denotation about a state execution. Granted all of those states are in the process of changing that distinction, but it is just spin. It's still government murder, and revenge. It isn't punishment or justice.

[LikelyToBreak]

mykcob4, I am not saying the states don't list it as "State Homocide or Murdered by State," I'm saying I find it unlikely to be on the actual death certificate that way.  For the reasons I pointed out before.

Plu wrote in part:

You seem to confuse revenge with prevention of repeat. If I tell my friends not to go to the carshop because they ripped me off, I'm not trying to hurt the car-shop, I'm trying to protect my friends from being ripped off as well.

I see the distinction as only being the motivation.  Plu, since your a nice guy, you are trying to help your friends first.  Whereas me, being a misanthropist, want to hurt the car shop more than helping my friends.  A slander campaign would technically be illegal.  Though telling the truth isn't illegal.  Yeah, yeah, they would have to prove malice aforethought for it to actually be illegal, but I am talking about the original intended law.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

On one hand I believe that there are crimes which should merit the death penalty.  On the other hand, our justice systems commit way too many fuck-ups for this to be a real option IMO...

[Plu]

I see the distinction as only being the motivation.

It can be, but sometimes there is no motivation other than a desire to hurt, in which case I feel that it's a bad thing to go through with it as it will not solve anything at that point.

The difference is that if your motivation is preventing someone from doing wrong again, you can stop when you're reasonably sure that it won't happen again. When you're just trying to hurt the other side, you have no reason to stop other than having sated your own desire to inflict pain on others, and you can only hope that it comes before the point where you're hurting the other far more than they've hurt you, and are causing them in turn to desire to inflict pain back on you.

The proper motivation will prevent you from overdoing your revenge, because the motivation to harm isn't involved.

[LikelyToBreak]

So Plu, with my car shop analogy, would it be okay to cause them to lose some business, but wrong if I caused them to go out of business?  

If that is what you are saying, then I agree.  When a chimpanzee gets groomed but won't return the favor, the other chimpanzee will not groom that chimpanzee again.  The non-grooming chimpanzee is not physically hurt or ostracized.  Though, if he does it enough times he may be ostracized and maybe even hurt.  Still, in their minds, they are return tit-for-tat.  Because that is justice to them.  Other animals as well have be observed doing something like this.

In regards to the death penalty, death is not an unnecessarily harsh punishment for murder with forethought.  If tit-for-tat rules are applied.  But, the courts don't recognize tit-for-tat rules.  Society as a whole does, except where brainwashed to believe otherwise.  Maybe brainwashed is too harsh a term, but I can't think of another word, so I'll let it stand.  The legislative branches of our government don't really understand tit-for-tat either.  Which is why a murderer gets less time in prison than a drug mule.

Anyway, does that clear up my idea any?

[Plu]

So Plu, with my car shop analogy, would it be okay to cause them to lose some business, but wrong if I caused them to go out of business?

It's irrelevant what the outcome to the business is, it's purely the motivation that makes the act moral or immoral. If you're doing something to protect others from being ripped off, that's good. If you're doing something to hurt a specific company, that's bad.

If you run them into the ground protecting people from their swindling, that's a good cause of action. If you cause them to lose one customer because you were trying to make them lose business, that's a bad cause of action.

Imagine this hypothetical. The company ripped you off. You start telling people that they rip people off. The company, realising what they've done to you and feeling guilty, start a campaign to state they've bettered their ways, and then show people that they have. Final result: the car shop has more customers, but they no longer rip people off.
Looking at the new situation, this is a clear improvement. A swindling car shop is gone, and an honest car shop has taken its place, and customers are happy.

If your motivation was to protect people from being ripped off, this situation will make you happy and all is good.

If your motivation was to hurt the car shop, this situation (which, from an objective viewpoint, is clearly a much better situation that the previous one) will make you angry, because your attempts to hurt the car shop have caused them to earn more customers. So now, if you're still after revenge, you will be trying to hurt even harder a perfectly honest company.

All because you were seeking to inflict pain on someone rather than trying to prevent it to others. Your petty desire to hurt those that hurt you are now causing you to become the same problem to society that the car shop was before they mended their ways.

[mykcob4]

So Plu, with my car shop analogy, would it be okay to cause them to lose some business, but wrong if I caused them to go out of business?

It's irrelevant what the outcome to the business is, it's purely the motivation that makes the act moral or immoral. If you're doing something to protect others from being ripped off, that's good. If you're doing something to hurt a specific company, that's bad.

If you run them into the ground protecting people from their swindling, that's a good cause of action. If you cause them to lose one customer because you were trying to make them lose business, that's a bad cause of action.

Imagine this hypothetical. The company ripped you off. You start telling people that they rip people off. The company, realising what they've done to you and feeling guilty, start a campaign to state they've bettered their ways, and then show people that they have. Final result: the car shop has more customers, but they no longer rip people off.
Looking at the new situation, this is a clear improvement. A swindling car shop is gone, and an honest car shop has taken its place, and customers are happy.

If your motivation was to protect people from being ripped off, this situation will make you happy and all is good.

If your motivation was to hurt the car shop, this situation (which, from an objective viewpoint, is clearly a much better situation that the previous one) will make you angry, because your attempts to hurt the car shop have caused them to earn more customers. So now, if you're still after revenge, you will be trying to hurt even harder a perfectly honest company.

All because you were seeking to inflict pain on someone rather than trying to prevent it to others. Your petty desire to hurt those that hurt you are now causing you to become the same problem to society that the car shop was before they mended their ways.

"it's purely the motivation that makes the act moral or immoral." I have to agree with you there. Revenge is not a good reason for the death penalty. Prevention is a good reason and that is not the case. The death penalty hasn't reduced the crimes that is soppose to target. What it has done is target the poor and minorities disporportionately.
I don't like analogies as a rule and I have to say that even though I respect Likelytobreaks attempt to shine a different light on the discussion, their analogy isn't relevant.
And yes I realize that my close adherence to the constitution is undoubtably a contridiction to my view of the death penalty on the whole, I still stand by my conviction to obey the constitution.