Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[The Architect Of Fate]

You seem not to have read what you are responding to.

Yes i did

[bennyboy]

You seem not to have read what you are responding to.

Yes i did

If life is not intrinsically valuable, then someone has to (gets to?) determine an arbitrary value-- life X is worth maintaining, life Y is not. And that's a dangerous slope to build on purpose.

This is the end of my post, after which you said "nope." Are you SURE you read it? Cuz if you did, what you said about it doesn't make sense, and doesn't accord with what you'd already said in previous posts.

[The Grand Nudger]

That some preferred form of societal organization doesn't make sense to you simply marks you as being outside of that community.

[bennyboy]

That some preferred form of societal organization doesn't make sense to you simply marks you as being outside of that community.

I once would have taken that as given.  Now, with new media, a new truth has emerged-- it's not the democratic majority that in fact guides the definitional ideas of a society, but rather the wishes of the loudest or most conspicuous members.

And, in fact, it is very common for those who hold ideals they view as virtuous to partly prefer those views in order to separate themselves not only out of, but above, the majority. "I have a superior world view, and I want the majority to wake up to that fact, and to adopt it."

If that weren't true, then one would simply Google how most people in the US feel about the death penalty, discover that the majority were for it, say, "that some preferred form of societal organization doesn't make sense to you simply marks you as being outside of that community," and then drop it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nothing about your comment made any sense or refuted anything I said ....

[The Grand Nudger]

“The US” is no longer a monolithic society, if it ever were. If you went further back than today you’d probably find even more support or acceptance of death penalties than you would today. Social contracts aren’t static, like laws and institutions tend to be. They change as the people themselves change.

Your comments on the loudest voices is another deontological assertion. The idea that what’s right or wrong is sent down to we lowly individuals by the few on cultural high. That’s certainly the goal of oligarchic and authoritarian regimes, but not the social contract.

It really is easy to remember. The social contract is bottom up, in aggregate..not top down by individuals decrees. It was specifically formulated to reject any such necessity. You think we’re doing it the top down by individual decree way. A completely subjective deontological understanding. That might be why peoples ideas seem wrong, or not make sense to you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... until you're the innocent marched to the death chamber, am I right? I doubt you'd be so blithe at that point.

That seems pretty unlikely.

I think it's quote likely that if the shoe were on your foot you wouldn't be so sanguine about the killing of a few hundred innocents a year in the name of justice.

Do you mean to say you'd stoically accept your fate as determined by the state for the commission of a crime you didn't commit? That you'd go gently into that good night? Or maybe you mean that because you're not black or hispanic that the odds of you being brought up on false charges are smaller? Or maybe you mean that you just don't care either way no matter your personal risk?

I didn't say "what the hell, kill a few innocents."  I said that in many areas of social function, mistakes might lead to death.  I see no reason why the judiciary should be held to an unobtainable standard of perfection, when a jackass can drive a car with his phone in front of his face, mow down my entire family, and be out of prison in a decade.

And yet here you are arguing that these examples of civilian irresponsibility are a great reason why we should allow judges to be equally irresponsible when it comes to the lives of defendants. It's almost like you're not thinking this through. The judiciary has a higher standard because it is an arm not only of the government, but the arm of the government that metes out justice. Let me repeat that last word: justice.

When you can explain how executing a wrongly-convicted prisoner is just, you could probably pen a best-seller. Me, I think you're gonna have a hard time squaring that circle.

But: when you reply to this post, you will need to address that point. To reiterate: When you can explain how executing a wrongly-convicted prisoner is just

Yes, you have to go through due process.  But in my opinion the current system that takes sometimes decades is morally deficient.  I think by the time someone actually dies, they are quite likely a different person than whoever shared their fingerprints 40 years ago, and holding them accountable for such a distant crime seems wrong to me.  In fact, I'd rather see a statute of limitations for execution-- seal the case in at most 5 years, or drop it.

Great, there's a starting point. Now, the obvious question is how willing you are to limit appeals in order to hit your timeline. What's your standards there?

Yes, well this is another issue-- ideally, you'd like the process to last longer than any given administration.  If the Retardicans decide that abortion is worth the death sentence, I'd hope the appeals would last at least long enough for a sane secular government to consider the case.

You seem unaware that federal judges have lifetime appointments that have nothing to do with the current governing administration.

I remember when there were protests on Wall Street.  I was hoping that a few of those most responsible for the bubble burst might end up hanging from a tree.  Instead they walked away with billions of dollars of taxpayer money.  In my opinion, anyone who takes actions that should reasonably be expected to do harm to Americans should be tried for treason.

You should look up the legal definition of treason -- or do better work than this horseshit in trying to change the minds of others about it.

As it stands, your argument is very unconvincing, and strikes me as being based on personal feelings. I'm glad your "morality", such as it is, is in the minority. People who would kill at the drop of a hat have no business being near our system of justice; the fact that you don't understand that says a lot more about you than it does about our system of justice.

[The Grand Nudger]

I’ve always wondered about obsessions with time in the subject of capital punishment. If they’re sentenced to die, does it matter if it takes years and years to properly carry that sentence out?

[Silver]

It's about the reflection time allows. With time, one is forced to live with and reflect upon what one has done, apparently. Immediate death removes that time of conscious reflection.

[The Grand Nudger]

I was wondering more with regards to people who think we should hurry hurry hurry.

Are we worried the grim reaper will beat us to it? Is it a race?