Atheism & the Death Penalty.

[LadyForCamus]

My entirely personal, and emotional opinion on the matter is that those who lack empathy, and who demonstrate a cruel disregard for human life at the expense of the innocent (I.e. People who rape, torture, murder) forfeit their own right to be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity.  Now, I'm not saying that all rapists and child abusers be executed, but I do think it is perfectly just to sentence the Ted Bundy's and Jeffrey Dahmer's of the world to death.  Instances where people are deemed clinically insane, not able to discern right from wrong, and/or those who are not capable of controlling their actions would be my only exceptions.  

For the record, I was adamantly AGAINST the death penalty back in my theistic days, because I believed that God would be doling out his punishments when the time was right.

Would you be willing to carry out the death sentence yourself ("pull the lever," "push the button," etc.)?  What if the condemned person were screaming, hollering, fighting for life, etc., as they were dragged kicking and screaming to the execution chamber?  As for me, I could not do that; I would walk away.  And, then, there's the question of botched executions, where the individual is left gasping, struggling for air, etc.

I understand that you favor the death penalty, but would you be willing to carry it out?

That is a very good, and fair question. As far as botched executions go, I don't feel much empathy. Gasping for breath for a few minutes is merciful compared to what many sadistic murderers' victims experienced before their deaths. Same goes for begging and pleading for one's life. One instance that made the news this year was the botched lethal injection of a man who raped and murdered a woman's 18 MONTH old daughter. In my opinion he didn't suffer nearly enough.

Could I administer the sentence myself? I don't know. I know that if I am saying capital punishment should implemented, then I SHOULD be able to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. I suppose I wouldn't know for sure unless I was actually in the position to do so.

[Jehanne]

We've reached 20 votes, with a majority opposing executions in all circumstances.  Of course, in a representative democracy based upon "majority rule," this plurality of opinion would not allow for executions.  Even if only one-third opposed, how can those of you who would still support executions "in theory" ever support such "in practice" due to the fact that you would need to exclude one-third of the population (assuming, of course, a completely atheistic, hypothetical country) from serving on a jury overseeing a capital case?

[Simon Moon]

Would you, as an atheist, support it?  As for me, I would not, for the following reasons:


3)  Innocent people, of course, are going to get executed -- "improbable, but not impossible."

Not so improbable.


Since 1973 there have been 156 people on death row exonerated, most because of new evidence. And most of the new evidence is DNA. Now consider all the executions that took place before DNA evidence was admissible beginning in 1986.

There have been 1423 executions since 1976. 

That is a bit over 10% innocent people on death row. 

It is almost a certainty, that 10% of the people on death row before DNA evidence was admissible, were also innocent.

[Simon Moon]

We've reached 20 votes, with a majority opposing executions in all circumstances.  Of course, in a representative democracy based upon "majority rule," this plurality of opinion would not allow for executions.  Even if only one-third opposed, how can those of you who would still support executions "in theory" ever support such "in practice" due to the fact that you would need to exclude one-third of the population (assuming, of course, a completely atheistic, hypothetical country) from serving on a jury overseeing a capital case?

The USA is not a democracy with "majority rule".

We are a representative republic. 

And we also don't have "majority rule" specifically to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

[Jehanne]

Could I administer the sentence myself?  I don't know.  I know that if I am saying capital punishment should implemented, then I SHOULD be able to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak.  I suppose I wouldn't know for sure unless I was actually in the position to do so. 

I just listened to a US Intelligence Squared debate on "Death is Not Final":

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates...-not-final


Professors Carroll and Novella certainly did a good job, with a 15-point increase from pre to post-debate voting.  They certainly come-across as being convinced of physicalism, that is, the brain is entirely responsible for the mind.  When applied to that murderer, were his actions that of a rationale human being with a healthy human brain, and hence, a healthy human mind?  Or, was he the product of a whole host of circumstances, some of which were beyond his control, which turned him into a monster?

But, let's say that he deserved punishment, including, a horrific execution, one that involved heinous suffering?  Now that he is dead, is he now being punished?  Of course, he feels nothing, because he has ceased to exist.  On the other hand, if he was still in prison, he would still be in a state of being punished.  In this respect, is death even punishment?  Or, is society now punishing this man's family?

[Jehanne]

The USA is not a democracy with "majority rule".

We are a representative republic. 

And we also don't have "majority rule" specifically to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps I was speaking "too hypothetically".

[Mermaid]

The death penalty is fundamentally wrong. I have always felt this way as long as I can remember understanding what it is.

[LadyForCamus]

Could I administer the sentence myself?  I don't know.  I know that if I am saying capital punishment should implemented, then I SHOULD be able to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak.  I suppose I wouldn't know for sure unless I was actually in the position to do so. 

I just listened to a US Intelligence Squared debate on "Death is Not Final":

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates...-not-final


Professors Carroll and Novella certainly did a good job, with a 15-point increase from pre to post-debate voting.  They certainly come-across as being convinced of physicalism, that is, the brain is entirely responsible for the mind.  When applied to that murderer, were his actions that of a rationale human being with a healthy human brain, and hence, a healthy human mind?  Or, was he the product of a whole host of circumstances, some of which were beyond his control, which turned him into a monster?

Well, whether or not his actions were beyond his control is the burden of his defense attorney to prove, and the responsibility of the jury to decide.

But, let's say that he deserved punishment, including, a horrific execution, one that involved heinous suffering?  Now that he is dead, is he now being punished?  Of course, he feels nothing, because he has ceased to exist.  On the other hand, if he was still in prison, he would still be in a state of being punished.  In this respect, is death even punishment?  Or, is society now punishing this man's family?

I'd like to think in his final moments, he is able to comprehend and empathize with the suffering he caused his victim. Maybe feel some sincere sense of regret. If not, then at least he won't be able to viciously take another life. And if he WAS in control of his actions, then HE is responsible for the pain that his family is suffering, not society. This is especially the case for any criminal who has committed a pre meditated murder.

[Minimalist]

They always claim that..... even when they shoot someone in the back.

In case you forgot what that looks like.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-pol...d=30137525

I'm not saying there are times when the killing is not justified. Just pointing out that sometimes they could be.

The thing is, dear, even when they shoot someone in the back they claim they were in fear for their lives.  Thanks to those old fucks on the supreme court there is no effective oversight of those claims.  If it weren't for video cameras in cell phones they'd get away with it every time.

So, like I said, actual executions are almost irrelevant.  Its the de facto executions by cops who appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner that is the growing problem.

[Minimalist]

They always claim that..... even when they shoot someone in the back.

In case you forgot what that looks like.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-pol...d=30137525

I'm not saying there are times when the killing is not justified. Just pointing out that sometimes they could be.

The thing is, dear, even when they shoot someone in the back they claim they were in fear for their lives.  Thanks to those old fucks on the supreme court there is no effective oversight of those claims.  If it weren't for video cameras in cell phones they'd get away with it every time.

So, like I said, actual executions are almost irrelevant.  Its the de facto executions by cops who appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner that is the growing problem.