The Death Penalty

[Danmark]

There are many reasons to oppose the death penalty
There are reasons to support it.
I have one reason that is paramount to me, for opposing the death penalty.
As far as I know it is not one that is usually debated. It is not specifically a religious reason, but I believe it comes from several sources, including what I'll refer to as "core Christianity."
For the purpose of this debate, I am opposed to the death penalty for any purpose or crime, not on the grounds of fairness, or cost/benefit analysis, or justice. I am opposed to the death penalty because it brutalizes us personally and as a society.

It is hard to think of a more cold blooded, more calculating, more premeditated killing, than the death penalty as carried out in the United States.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

I'll echo that. We as a society should rise above our savagery. In some ways it is a self fulfilling prophecy, if we as a society sanction the murder of certain individuals you are sending a message that in certain instances it is ok to murder.

[bluethread]

your

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

I'll echo that. We as a society should rise above our savagery. In some ways it is a self fulfilling prophecy, if we as a society sanction the murder of certain individuals you are sending a message that in certain instances it is ok to murder.

I presume that by 'religious" Danmark means theistic. I say this because you and he require that the religion of refraining from the death penalty be imposes upon society based on your philosophies regarding violent activities. The results in your defining murder as the systematic killing of someone who is not an imminent threat. That would also make the use of drone strikes, snipers and other war tactics murder. Of course, one could also limit the definition to one who is in custody. But before we get too deep into the weeds on the details, your point about the state setting a bad example would totally eviscerate the state, if it were applied to other things, such as fines and imprisonment. In short' community activities and personal activities are two different things.

[Haven]

I presume that by 'religious" Danmark means theistic. I say this because you and he require that the religion of refraining from the death penalty be imposes upon society based on your philosophies regarding violent activities. The results in your defining murder as the systematic killing of someone who is not an imminent threat. That would also make the use of drone strikes, snipers and other war tactics murder.

Yes, those are murderous acts as well.

[Danmark]

I presume that by 'religious" Danmark means theistic. I say this because you and he require that the religion of refraining from the death penalty be imposes upon society based on your philosophies regarding violent activities. The results in your defining murder as the systematic killing of someone who is not an imminent threat. That would also make the use of drone strikes, snipers and other war tactics murder. Of course, one could also limit the definition to one who is in custody. But before we get too deep into the weeds on the details, your point about the state setting a bad example would totally eviscerate the state, if it were applied to other things, such as fines and imprisonment. In short' community activities and personal activities are two different things.

If you scrutinize my post, you will note the word 'murder' does not appear in it. I studiously avoided using that term. I used "killing." Your point about "eviscerating the state" is not well taken because we are only talking about the death penalty. No one is suggesting abolishing all penalties for crime.

Again, my theme is that those who kill in the name of the State, brutalize themselves, devalue themselves. It is this act of self degradation that furnishes the fuel for the fire of my belief.

[bluethread]

I presume that by 'religious" Danmark means theistic. I say this because you and he require that the religion of refraining from the death penalty be imposes upon society based on your philosophies regarding violent activities. The results in your defining murder as the systematic killing of someone who is not an imminent threat. That would also make the use of drone strikes, snipers and other war tactics murder. Of course, one could also limit the definition to one who is in custody. But before we get too deep into the weeds on the details, your point about the state setting a bad example would totally eviscerate the state, if it were applied to other things, such as fines and imprisonment. In short' community activities and personal activities are two different things.

If you scrutinize my post, you will note the word 'murder' does not appear in it. I studiously avoided using that term. I used "killing." Your point about "eviscerating the state" is not well taken because we are only talking about the death penalty. No one is suggesting abolishing all penalties for crime.

Again, my theme is that those who kill in the name of the State, brutalize themselves, devalue themselves. It is this act of self degradation that furnishes the fuel for the fire of my belief.

Noted. I was responding to both of you. To you directly, without referring to anything but the death penalty, how does the death penalty "brutalize us personally and as a society".

[bluethread]

I presume that by 'religious" Danmark means theistic. I say this because you and he require that the religion of refraining from the death penalty be imposes upon society based on your philosophies regarding violent activities. The results in your defining murder as the systematic killing of someone who is not an imminent threat. That would also make the use of drone strikes, snipers and other war tactics murder.

Yes, those are murderous acts as well.

So, are you saying that the only rule of engagement that does not constitute murder is to not fire unless fired upon and cease fire upon the cessation of return fire?

[Haven]

So, are you saying that the only rule of engagement that does not constitute murder is to not fire unless fired upon and cease fire upon the cessation of return fire?

Yes, that's my position. All non-defensive killing constitutes murder.

[Danmark]

Noted. I was responding to both of you. To you directly, without referring to anything but the death penalty, how does the death penalty "brutalize us personally and as a society".

Because it makes us partners in cold blooded killing. There is something chilling, much worse than a heat of passion murder, about waiting 13 years, then strapping a person down, and killing him with the cold, passionless efficiency of the State.

When the State, in a representative democracy, acts, it acts for all of us. It's a brutal act, this killing, and it shames us.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

I am a pacifist and consider some of our military tactics murderous. The key difference between a military action in time of war and the death penalty as Danmark has pointed out is not that there is a non imminent threat, it is that the threat has been neutralized shackled and restrained. It is not an action of defense or protection. The death penalty is purely killing for the sake of vengeance. It serves a basal desire in humans that does not engender us a civil society. Executing people who have surrendered in war still constitutes a war crime last I checked.

It still doesn't seem like you are defending the death penalty but playing word games to subvert the intent of an argument. If you would like me to refrain from the use of the word murder fine. But my point still stands when a society sanctions the killing of people for a particular justification, to some people this empowers them to think it is all right for them to kill for the "right" reasons. Like abortion clinic bombers or white supremacists shooting black people in a church.

Secondly this is not a religious belief, conflating the use of religion is vastly different then talking about a philosophical position. Why don't we stop playing word games with religion and actual debate the proposition. If you feel I am wrong why do you feel I am wrong. If you want a death penalty why do you want a death penalty?