The Death Penalty

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 12:05 am

I'm making a hypothetical:

In this world, we are able to know with 100% certainity whether someone is guilty of a crime or not. In this world, the process of going through with the death penalty is no less feasible than that of supporting a prisoner with a life sentence.

So it's a world where the death penalty is equally feasible to a life sentence, and where we can know with 100% certainty whether someone is guilty or not.

Do you support the death penalty for any crimes in this hypothetical? Or do you take the stance that the death penalty is a wrong form of punishment and life in prison should always be the worst punishment?

Edit: If you're a theist please explain if any religious beliefs factor into your choice.

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:53 pm

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I still have issue with using the label of insansity on people with repeatedly grossly immoral actions. Are they truly not responsible for their actions, or even able to control their own actions? This could be debatable, but I find it very hard to come to a truly conclusive answer.

It also troubles me because I find that the opposite side of this logic leads to discomforting results: if I use your logic I could go so far as to say that people who are grossly good all the time are insane and not in control of their actions. They literally can't help but do good deeds.

Does this make sense? To me it does not, at least for the overwhelming majority of people. Therefore I conclude that the overwhelming majority of bad people who do grossly immoral actions are in fact not insane.

puddleglum · Post by **puddleglum** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:49 am

[Replying to post 11 by jgh7]

Even people who are insane often have some knowledge of right and wrong and should be help accountable for their actions.

Hamsaka · Post by **Hamsaka** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:22 pm

jgh7 wrote: [Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I still have issue with using the label of insansity on people with repeatedly grossly immoral actions. Are they truly not responsible for their actions, or even able to control their own actions? This could be debatable, but I find it very hard to come to a truly conclusive answer.

It also troubles me because I find that the opposite side of this logic leads to discomforting results: if I use your logic I could go so far as to say that people who are grossly good all the time are insane and not in control of their actions. They literally can't help but do good deeds.

Does this make sense? To me it does not, at least for the overwhelming majority of people. Therefore I conclude that the overwhelming majority of bad people who do grossly immoral actions are in fact not insane.

"Insanity" as a legal defense is different than the colloquial use of the word 'insanity'. It is much, much more specific, and it isn't 'easy' to get off on an insanity plea. People with mental illnesses and disorders are most often legally 'sane'. I'd say the insanity plea (when it works) is similar to how children up to whatever age are not considered legally responsible for their actions.

Fortunately this stuff isn't nearly as vague or difficult to discern as it appears to us to be. At least as far as a legal definition of insanity is concerned.

Man_With_A_Plan · Post by **Man_With_A_Plan** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:00 pm

I don't support state-sanctioned death of any kind under any circumstance, whether it's execution or abortion. So I guess I would choose life in prison.

But a state has a right to execute criminals only if it's truly in the interest or the whole. I can hardly imagine such a scenario, though.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:35 pm

Man_With_A_Plan wrote: I don't support state-sanctioned death of any kind under any circumstance, whether it's execution or abortion. So I guess I would choose life in prison.

But a state has a right to execute criminals only if it's truly in the interest or the whole. I can hardly imagine such a scenario, though.

So, you believe that it is moral to require innocent third parties to be involuntarily forced to support convicted criminals?

Man_With_A_Plan · Post by **Man_With_A_Plan** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:20 am

bluethread wrote:
Man_With_A_Plan wrote: I don't support state-sanctioned death of any kind under any circumstance, whether it's execution or abortion. So I guess I would choose life in prison.

But a state has a right to execute criminals only if it's truly in the interest or the whole. I can hardly imagine such a scenario, though.
So, you believe that it is moral to require innocent third parties to be involuntarily forced to support convicted criminals?

I do!

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:07 pm

Man_With_A_Plan wrote:
bluethread wrote:
Man_With_A_Plan wrote: I don't support state-sanctioned death of any kind under any circumstance, whether it's execution or abortion. So I guess I would choose life in prison.

But a state has a right to execute criminals only if it's truly in the interest or the whole. I can hardly imagine such a scenario, though.
So, you believe that it is moral to require innocent third parties to be involuntarily forced to support convicted criminals?
I do!

What is the difference between that and the convicted criminals doing it themselves?

Man_With_A_Plan · Post by **Man_With_A_Plan** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:39 pm

bluethread wrote:
Man_With_A_Plan wrote:
bluethread wrote:
Man_With_A_Plan wrote: I don't support state-sanctioned death of any kind under any circumstance, whether it's execution or abortion. So I guess I would choose life in prison.

But a state has a right to execute criminals only if it's truly in the interest or the whole. I can hardly imagine such a scenario, though.
So, you believe that it is moral to require innocent third parties to be involuntarily forced to support convicted criminals?
I do!
What is the difference between that and the convicted criminals doing it themselves?

I'm not even sure what we're talking about lol.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:28 pm

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

Pragmatically speaking, if you enforce the death penalty, it creates an incentive for criminals to kill their victims and witnesses of their crimes.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:39 pm

Man_With_A_Plan wrote:
bluethread wrote:
Man_With_A_Plan wrote:
bluethread wrote:

So, you believe that it is moral to require innocent third parties to be involuntarily forced to support convicted criminals?
I do!
What is the difference between that and the convicted criminals doing it themselves?
I'm not even sure what we're talking about lol.

I'm talking about innocent third parties being forced to involuntarily support convicted criminals. If the government can force innocent citizens to involuntarily pay for services provided to convicted criminals, then why can't convicted criminals just cut out the middle man and force innocent citizens to involuntarily provide them with services directly?