I wasnt sure where exactly to post this...but it fit into philosphy on another forum...

I always wonder about "lawful" executions and capital punishment in general. We do not have it here which may be why I find it hard to wrap my head around it.

Do people see it as moral or ethical? I have heard reports of communities in the US celebrating over how many people have been executed under capital punishment laws. This seems a risky way to carry out justice in my point of view. If you make a mistake and execute an innocent party, you cannot undo it. How is that right? And who decides which crimes are punishable by death?

I think that some people deserve to die. But as humans we make mistakes so we shouldn't be able to decide who these people are, I'm against capital punishment because it's irreversible.

There has been good evidence from various US state prison systems that capital punishment (its current implementations anyway) doesn't even have the merit of being financially beneficial. California in fact took billions of dollars worth hit explicitly because of their system of capital punishment.

Quote:We do not have it here

Where is here?

(October 22, 2013 at 8:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:We do not have it here

Where is here?

Australia

Somewhat of a more civilized country than the US of A.

Here is an example of how some people in the US approach the issue.

(Fine xtians, I'm sure!)

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/internationa...upreme.htm

It's always fun to be ridiculed by the Chinese!

Quote:WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would hear a death row appeal from a Florida man ruled mentally disabled in 1992 but later found competent to be executed after he scored 71 on an IQ test, the minimum under state law.

Quote:Thirty-two of the 50 U.S. states allow the death penalty, but only a handful of states vary from the definition of mental disability used by psychiatrists and others, Dieter said. Those states include Florida, Georgia and Texas.

While we are on the subject of crime and punishment, have a look here and you can decide where the real crime is.

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/prisoners-of-profit

I don't think there's anything immoral about killing criminals.

The most common argument is from hypocrisy-- you are punishing a killer by killing. But the difference comes down to the social contract: the killer killed someone who is (presumably) faithfully involved in the social contract of law and decent behavior. That person had a right to expect the rewards of the social contract: safety, liberty, etc. But one who has murdered has violated the social contract so badly that he deserves no expectation of any of its benefits, including safety.

My probablem with execution is that at least some people must have been killed wrongly. You can't pardon someone when they're pushing up daisies.

(October 22, 2013 at 8:22 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: There has been good evidence from various US state prison systems that capital punishment (its current implementations anyway) doesn't even have the merit of being financially beneficial. California in fact took billions of dollars worth hit explicitly because of their system of capital punishment.

I don't have any numbers to support this, but wouldn't killing people who have been sentenced to life in prison be more cost effective than supporting them to old age with food, shelter, medication, entertainment (tvs) etc? just a thought.

Quote:the killer killed someone who is (presumably) faithfully involved in the social contract of law and decent behavior.

Not always......


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ma...r-executed

Quote:Texas inmate Carroll Joe Parr executed for killing fellow drug dealer in 2003
Inmate said he was resigned to his fate but insisted someone else killed 18-year-old Joel Dominguez in Waco robbery

(October 24, 2013 at 1:36 am)Sejanus Wrote: I don't have any numbers to support this, but wouldn't killing people who have been sentenced to life in prison be more cost effective than supporting them to old age with food, shelter, medication, entertainment (tvs) etc? just a thought.

I would think so, but I recall seeing some numbers by the news network "The Young Turks" on YouTube that indicated that at least how it was implemented in much of California, no. Because it's not as simple as "Well, you've been sentenced to death. We'll inject you with poison tomorrow". There's a long waiting process, procuring the toxins in questions, housing the criminals in the mean time, and keeping enough of the needed materials in the proper conditions until they're needed.