Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[bennyboy]

The Death Penalty 

- Has never been an effective deterrent against crime.

-Has no moral basis outside of emotional wraith.

-Is not economical as it costs more overall.

-Is a solution to reoffense in the same way as taking a flamethrower to your lawn is a solution to dandelions.

There is a reason most Western nations have stopped doing it, particularly nations with low crime rates.

No moral basis?

Citizens of a nation are party to the social contract, in which compliance with rules is exchanged for certain modes of support.  I agree not to steal, to harm or to kill others, and I expect the state, and the individual members of it, to extend safety of property, person and life to me.

When someone commits truly heinous acts, they have broken that contract, and have surrendered their rights to its protection. What is the moral argument for asking the state to invest taxpayer's money (money being time, and time being life, therefore spent money representing a partial loss of life of the society) to continue maintaining a contract in good faith that has already been violated by the other party?

In short, why should those who disregard the rights of others still be extended any rights at all?

[Silver]

But according to the OP, the argument doesn't regard the guilt or innocence of your average Tom who is being judged by a jury.

We're talking known war criminals. They value their lives more than those whom their exploiting and killing, which tells me they are undeserving of a right they are denying others.

There are varying degrees of barbarism, after all, and some people don't deserve to live.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No moral basis?

Citizens of a nation are party to the social contract, in which compliance with rules is exchanged for certain modes of support.  I agree not to steal, to harm or to kill others, and I expect the state, and the individual members of it, to extend safety of property, person and life to me.

When someone commits truly heinous acts, they have broken that contract, and have surrendered their rights to its protection. What is the moral argument for asking the state to invest taxpayer's money (money being time, and time being life, therefore spent money representing a partial loss of life of the society) to continue maintaining a contract in good faith that has already been violated by the other party?

There is nothing in the social contract that says "if you do bad stuff we have the right to indulge in a blood sacrifice and kill you for the sake of dead people and our collective need for vengeance"The social contract also applies to how we treat those who have broken it. The idea we get to become a group of savages shrieking for blood because they broke the contract or worst a group of blood merchants who get to tabulate a human life like they are livestock renders the whole notion of a social contract a farce.

[Jehanne]

The death penalty continues to exist because of evangelical Christians, some 90% of whom support it. Atheists, by just over a 2 to 1 margin, are opposed.

[John 6IX Breezy]

As an atheist, I necessarily oppose infinite punishments for finite transgressions. Nazi war crimes, as horrific as they were, were finite.

In what way, as an atheist, do you consider the punishment to be infinite? Given that our lifespans are already finite, are you not merely reducing the finiteness by however many years?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are lots of mistakes that we can't undo, and many of them involve death.  Doctors fuck up on a shockingly regular basis, and people die-- but they say, "I did the best with the information I had," and for the most part we take that at face value.  My own friend was turned away from a hospital WHILE HAVING a heart attack, and he exists no more.  I see fuckers driving with their phones out all the time-- if one of them kills my kid crossing the street, they'll get maybe aggravated manslaughter, do a few years, and Bob's-yer-uncle.  "I'm sorry," they'll say, "I made a mistake."

Comparisons to doctors are vapid, because doctors carry malpractice insurance and can be stripped of their licenses if found culpably negligent. Not so with the criminal justice system, for the most part, though you'll see the odd cop fired on occasion. I'm sorry about your friend. Hopefully his family sued? I had a girlfriend whose father was killed by the inept treatment he received in a hospital. They sued and got a settlement, and a tiny measure of justice. Do you see that happening in wrongful executions? No.

As for drivers having accidents, of course that happens. We prosecute them when the negligence rises to a criminal level. Indeed, with DUI, some states prosecute that as murder. Do you see that happening in wrongful executions? No.

We allow behaviors all the time that jeopardize the lives of good, honest, innocent civilians, many THOUSANDS of them per year.   But if the judicial system ever makes a mistake involving a life, suddenly it's the end of all that's good and decent in America.  What a strange asymmetry in standards that is.

It might have something to do with the fact that this is the power of the government at work, and the fact that we are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection under the law. How much stock would you put in that system if it were you being wrongly put to death?

Innocent civilians die say, in airplane crashes too often. But you can bet that the pilot of that plane isn't railroading them to their fates, but rather, trying to avoid it himself.

Another flawed line of reasoning, imo.

And consider the OP-- we're talking about war criminals here.  At best, you'll have killed an "innocent" combatant from an enemy nation.  That's bad, but not as bad as bombing a wedding full of women and children, proudly proclaiming in breaking news that "We gottem!"  So how much, REALLY, do we value life in this country anyway?  Not too much, apparently, unless it's a convicted violent felon crying that HIS rights are being ignored.

I'm not sure why you think I'm defending the wrongs America has done in wars, or find them acceptable, but I'm not and I don't, so I see no need to give this portion of your answer any further reply. It does seem to me not giving a fig about justice here being meted out correctly would be pretty detrimental to a justice system. Let's hope none of us are on the receiving end of a wrongful conviction ... but I bet you'd change your outlook mos' rickey-tick if you were in that position.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In short, why should those who disregard the rights of others still be extended any rights at all?

Because the right to a fair trial is guaranteed to anyone charged with a crime. And if an unfair trial results in a capital conviction, how is it that executing that innocent person performs any justice?

[The Grand Nudger]

People in prisons, people at trials, they’re still a part of the social contract. Organized and civil punishment is also part of that deal. We used to have the option of exile- as in to exile someone, or self exile. Worlds smaller now, and as a consequence the social contract is as much of a prison as anything else. We don’t notice it when the example is war crimes- but we might if it were the homeless.

Point being, executions are (in some places were) part ot that contract, not outside of it, and there are no longer ways to opt out of it. I think the urge to rewrite some of it grows as the reach and totality of the contract grows. As the ability ( and therefore potential for malfeasance) of the state balloons.

[Jehanne]

Let's be honest -- Most Americans do not care about the rest of the World; they may pay lipservice to the idea, but what most Americans want is, 1) Success in love, and 2) Success in work. The long-term viability, sustainability and even continued existence of our species, H. Sapiens, is a hypothetical for most.

[The Grand Nudger]

A desire for success explicitly leads to utilitarian arguments for x. It may be believed that an execution is beneficial to the function or future of society. That if we don’t take strong action against war criminals, for example, civilization as we know it could be consumed by war crimes. We commonly point out that we’ve largely failed to take that action, reserving it only for the petty and/or defeated, and just look at the world now. This criticism subtlety accepts that utilitarian justification, itself.

I disagree, but If utilitarian justifications are moral justifications then they are right and wrong ( accurate or inaccurate) exclusively with regard to success. Even with that assumed for the sake of conversation I think we might wonder whether the premise of life in a prison juxtaposed against death on the battlefield might compel more war criminals to surrender, or at least stop. If it’s death on the battlefield or death as a prisoner, we lose that leverage and may endanger the success of our societies or efforts. It may fall short of satisfying some victims demands, it may even fall short of justice…but we clearly have no problem failing victims or under serving justice in pursuit of some stated or implicit goal.