(January 25, 2016 at 9:15 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 6:06 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: oh, come on! the list given isn't an exclusive list?

as a liberal living in a 1st world country, i would argue that execution is always a poor response to crime, from a bunch of rational and ethical reasons.

however.

if you were on an island alone with 3 other people with a finite food supply, and one of those people killed the other for his food, would you not kill him as a response to the "crime"?

because you already have information to know in this situation:

it's him or you.

judgement is always context dependant. doesn't matter how evolved or how barbaric you are.

Nice non-sequitor - on an island alone with two others, there is no government, no police force, corrections officers, nor prison to contain such a threat, therefore killing to defend yourself is the only option. The discussion at hand involves no such scenario.

You missed my point. My post contained 2 examples at opposite extremes, firstly a 1st world country which has police, a legal system, prisons, rehabilitation units etc. 

And secondly a desert island where no such resources are available.

I would actually argue that the majority of the world's societies are operating somewhere between those 2 extremes. Where the society lies on that scale is going to define the nature of the most appropriate response to the crime. 

Eg provided you don't bother doing much due diligence, execution is much cheaper option than life imprisonment so 3rd world countries are quite likely to opt for that option. So some countries have economic reasons for their policies, whereas a rich country may have the luxury of considering the situation purely in ethical terms.

---

(January 25, 2016 at 10:28 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 6:06 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: oh, come on! the list given isn't an exclusive list?

as a liberal living in a 1st world country, i would argue that execution is always a poor response to crime, from a bunch of rational and ethical reasons.

however.

if you were on an island alone with 3 other people with a finite food supply, and one of those people killed the other for his food, would you not kill him as a response to the "crime"?

because you already have information to know in this situation:

it's him or you.

judgement is always context dependant. doesn't matter how evolved or how barbaric you are.

I would argue that in such a scenario you would try to kill the other two yourself for the food no matter how much you think you wouldn't. That is, of course, if it seems to you like there are no other options for extended survival left. It also depends on how much food there actually is. If there's very little to begin with then you couldn't rationalise commiting murder for it.

Yeah perhaps. i guess if there's an argument you might be rescued from the island at some undefined point, there's an ethical argument for sharing the food equally (giving everyone an equal chance of survival) but a good self-interest reason for as you say - considering killing the other 2 at the earliest possibility. 

So (back to my initial point) what's appropriate is always relative to context.

(January 26, 2016 at 4:22 pm)phil-lndn Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 9:15 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Nice non-sequitor - on an island alone with two others, there is no government, no police force, corrections officers, nor prison to contain such a threat, therefore killing to defend yourself is the only option. The discussion at hand involves no such scenario.

You missed my point. My post contained 2 examples at opposite extremes, firstly a 1st world country which has police, a legal system, prisons, rehabilitation units etc. 

And secondly a desert island where no such resources are available.

I would actually argue that the majority of the world's societies are operating somewhere between those 2 extremes. Where the society lies on that scale is going to define the nature of the most appropriate response to the crime. 

Eg provided you don't bother doing much due diligence, execution is much cheaper option than life imprisonment so 3rd world countries are quite likely to opt for that option. So some countries have economic reasons for their policies, whereas a rich country may have the luxury of considering the situation purely in ethical terms.

---

I'm sorry I misunderstood your intentions.

Given the police-state nature of the US, I'm quite certain there has not been any conceivable need for capital punishment since the days of the Western Frontier, nor will there likely be for quite some time.

I consider atheism being only lack of belief in god/gods so for me at least it don't really matter in such questions.

As for question itself I'm torn about it as I don't think that taking life of another human being is something that should be done. But lifetime imprisonment also seems cruel and one should also consider costs of it. So I'm generally against death penalty but not so much to object to it in case of worst offenders.

(January 25, 2016 at 1:08 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 4:28 pm)Spooky Wrote: Subjective.  But I voted "Any violent crime should be punished by death."

Within reason of course.  I don't believe life to be "Sacred".

Would you be willing to personally execute your family members if they committed violent crimes?

Yes.

(January 30, 2016 at 1:16 pm)Spooky Wrote:

(January 25, 2016 at 1:08 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Would you be willing to personally execute your family members if they committed violent crimes?

Yes.

Then you should commit suicide because executing someone is itself a violent crime.

(January 31, 2016 at 2:22 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 30, 2016 at 1:16 pm)Spooky Wrote: Yes.

Then you should commit suicide because executing someone is itself a violent crime.

LOL