Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's all a crank anyway. Everything's emotional...except...killing killers? No no, that's the rational thing to do, and we should do it faster, and more cheaply, because of our very genuine concern for..checks notes...The Blacks.

[bennyboy]

WHY do you think sheltering evil is good?  WHY do you think murderers should be protected by the social contract which they have violated?

Because a society should hold itself to higher standards than its worst elements hold themselves?

That's nice.  But on what basis is refusing to execute criminals a "higher standard?"  What's wrong with killing people?

This question will get a lot of eye-rolls, I'm sure, but nobody yet has taken the time to establish that either (a) human life has intrinsic value regardless of who the person is; (b) killing people is necessarily wrong.

[bennyboy]

Whatever your moral view of executions may be, and whatever your metaethical view of morality may be...they're more expensive, not less, than just imprisoning someone.  We'd save those millions you think might be useful in other places, were we to stop killing killers.

In that case, I'd support a life sentence. You can build a small room for a couple thousand dollars, and heavy-link chains aren't all that expensive either.

Seriously, though, execution isn't expensive-- execution with extensive failsafes, expensive lawyers, etc. etc. is mightily expensive.

But like I said before, mistakes happen all the time that cause people their lives-- medical, financial, etc. We'll bomb a wedding of brown people on a whim, just because somebody knew somebody who heard that Bad Guy 237 was likely to attend. "Ooops, didn't mean to blow up all those women and children" is good enough for us, apparently, because I don't see outraged protests every time it happens. And yet some guy spends years of his life making schoolgirl tartar, and suddenly we're super-concerned that we get this one right.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because a society should hold itself to higher standards than its worst elements hold themselves?

That's nice.  But on what basis is refusing to execute criminals a "higher standard?"  What's wrong with killing people?

You seem to be having a problem understanding moral congruence. Telling the members of society "killing is bad, don't do it", and then killing the people who break your rules (and it's not just for murder, btw) is the incoherent position here.

This question will get a lot of eye-rolls, I'm sure, but nobody yet has taken the time to establish that either (a) human life has intrinsic value regardless of who the person is; (b) killing people is necessarily wrong.

All values are subjective. Are you a tyro? We each have decided that our lives have a value to us. We therefore in our social contract recognize the fact that other people value their lives the same way we value our own, and thus we make social rules against killing. For that society then to say, "You broke our rule against killing people, so we're going to kill you" rather undercuts the entire scheme, don't you think? That's very eye-for-an-eye coming from someone who accuses others of being closet Christians. Maybe you've imbibed more than you think?

Or as my mom would ask me at times, if everyone else ran off a cliff, would you run off it too? Why do you think letting criminals establish our social values is a good idea? Because that's the essence of your argument here: "Joe Blow did X, therefore society has every right to do X to him".

If it's punishment you're wanting to inflict, let them live in a box for the rest of their lives. The only thing the death penalty delivers is nothing that hasn't been promised to us the moment we started sucking air. Dead people cannot, by definition, be punished.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But like I said before, mistakes happen all the time that cause people their lives-- medical, financial, etc.  We'll bomb a wedding of brown people on a whim, just because somebody knew somebody who heard that Bad Guy 237 was likely to attend.  "Ooops, didn't mean to blow up all those women and children" is good enough for us, apparently, because I don't see outraged protests every time it happens.  And yet some guy spends years of his life making schoolgirl tartar, and suddenly we're super-concerned that we get this one right.

Once again, this false equivocation.

Before you reply to this post, please answer my points above. Stop taking the easy out on this discussion, you only look shallow doing so.

[bennyboy]

All values are subjective. Are you a tyro? We each have decided that our lives have a value to us. We therefore in our social contract recognize the fact that other people value their lives the same way we value our own, and thus we make social rules against killing. For that society then to say, "You broke our rule against killing people, so we're going to kill you" rather undercuts the entire scheme, don't you think? That's very eye-for-an-eye coming from someone who accuses others of being closet Christians. Maybe you've imbibed more than you think?

I'm not married to the idea of execution on philosophical grounds. You can let someone rot in a box if that serves your sense of justice better.

My position was that I see no particular difficulty in distinguishing between the state killing hardened criminals, and a general agreement that we intend not to murder each other in the streets. If someone has no regard for the responsibilities of membership in the society, then there's no particular reason that society should be bound in maintaining for him the privileges of that membership. Therefore, if executing such a person could save money, then the state could do so.


I'm not pursuaded by arguments that the society will be diminished in any way because the principle of right to life is undermined by execution. That's because (1) you can make specific exceptions against the general rule without devaluing the general rule; (2) I don't think such a general right really exists in America, given the many other ways in which apathy toward the well-being and survival of its citizens manifests.

Any effort spent trying to keep a moral expatriate alive as long as possible could be better spent in other ways, thereby serving the greater good-- even at the cost of one or two legitimate victims.

If it's punishment you're wanting to inflict, let them live in a box for the rest of their lives. The only thing the death penalty delivers is nothing that hasn't been promised to us the moment we started sucking air. Dead people cannot, by definition, be punished.

I'm not really that interested in the punishment of criminals, even hardened ones. Punishing a pedophile doesn't unrape and unmurder children. I'm not at all interested in their human rights, either, including their right to breathe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Whatever your moral view of executions may be, and whatever your metaethical view of morality may be...they're more expensive, not less, than just imprisoning someone.  We'd save those millions you think might be useful in other places, were we to stop killing killers.

In that case, I'd support a life sentence.  You can build a small room for a couple thousand dollars, and heavy-link chains aren't all that expensive either.

Seriously, though, execution isn't expensive-- execution with extensive failsafes, expensive lawyers, etc. etc. is mightily expensive.

It costs quite a bit more than just a few grand to imprison a person for life, but, still less than executing them - I won't be  entertaining any silly shit about making the process cheaper or quicker directly off your inane concern trolling attempt about black covid deaths.  

But like I said before, mistakes happen all the time that cause people their lives-- medical, financial, etc.  We'll bomb a wedding of brown people on a whim, just because somebody knew somebody who heard that Bad Guy 237 was likely to attend.  "Ooops, didn't mean to blow up all those women and children" is good enough for us, apparently, because I don't see outraged protests every time it happens.  And yet some guy spends years of his life making schoolgirl tartar, and suddenly we're super-concerned that we get this one right.

Indeed..mistakes happen all the time.  Why, 190 people have had their convictions overturned before we managed to kill them, since 1973, for example.  Seems like that would make for a pretty big wedding party.  Concerned?

Meanwhile, since you're so stuck in this bullshit routine - has it occurred to you that you're probably on a board full of people who don't consider that..in any way, a good or acceptable act? That it was a pretty big news deal here in the us - yet another reason..said the longtime critics and protesters of the war - that we need to clean this mess up. Our government does bad shit, news at ten.

Is that supposed to be an argument to do some other bad thing..or..you know, a criticism of doing a bad thing.......?

[bennyboy]

Indeed..mistakes happen all the time.  Why, 190 people have had their convictions overturned before we managed to kill them, since 1973, for example.  Seems like that would make for a pretty big wedding party.  Concerned?

Yes. If a large enough portion of the population has feelings about execution being an unnecessary evil, and if the money saved is not a sufficient balance for innocent lives lost, then there's no particularly compelling reason to carry out the executions.

I could probably be convinced to swing the other way-- to value time lived more greatly, and to expect a similar diligence applied to a life sentence-- which to me is very nearly as horrendous as an execution, especially a greatly delayed one.

I'm not that worried about the few lives lost by possible judicial mistakes, though. Like I say, probably tens or hundreds of thousands of medical patients die by borderline malpractice each year-- 190 is a pretty good wedding party, but America has a few yearly Hiroshimas that barely get consideration at all. 49,000 shot to death in 2021? BAH! Political posturing!

49,000 is a lot of 190s. Do you, a gun advocate, toss and turn at night over those deaths? Do you feel the society is losing its moral integrity every time a school gets shot up?

[Silver]

Holding ourselves to a higher standard is just catering to a superiority complex.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed..mistakes happen all the time.  Why, 190 people have had their convictions overturned before we managed to kill them, since 1973, for example.  Seems like that would make for a pretty big wedding party.  Concerned?

Yes.  If a large enough portion of the population has feelings about execution being an unnecessary evil, and if the money saved is not a sufficient balance for innocent lives lost, then there's no particularly compelling reason to carry out the executions.

There is no money saved.  None.  No ifs and or buts.  None.  The population doesn't have to feel any way at all about it for there to be compelling reasons to end the practice.  Most of our governments cost saving measures actually fall into this category. We don't know about them, wouldn't give a shit if we did. However, as before, two things can be true, and there is compelling reason to end the practice, and we do feel ways about things.

I could probably be convinced to swing the other way-- to value time lived more greatly, and to expect a similar diligence applied to a life sentence-- which to me is very nearly as horrendous as an execution, especially a greatly delayed one.

I agree, it is very nearly as horrendous - and with that the game is up.  We've identified both things as horrendous.  The question becomes..why shouldn't a society of individuals gathered for their mutual benefit do things they consider horrendous to each other? Silly, because it answers itself, even if we disagree with that answer or what they believe to be of benefit, or to be horrendous.

I'm not that worried about the few lives lost by possible judicial mistakes, though.  Like I  say, probably tens or hundreds of thousands of medical patients die by borderline malpractice each year-- 190 is a pretty good wedding party, but America has a few yearly Hiroshimas that barely get consideration at all.  49,000 shot to death in 2021?  BAH!  Political posturing!

49,000 is a lot of 190s.  Do you, a gun advocate, toss and turn at night over those deaths?  Do you feel the society is losing its moral integrity every time a school gets shot up?

I'm a gun owner who..like most gun owners in the us, believes that we need common sense gun control.  Losing it's moral integrity?  What moral integrity?  The mere possibility of that went out the window at sandy hook. I had to have a conversation with the wife about whether we even wanted to put our kids back in school for high school - for that and obviously many other reasons in the current educational environment in the us. I know one place where my kids will not get shot, not accidentally, and not over a fuckin tv either. Some ridiculous home intruder scenario goes down (which it wont, because they don't) - imma make him breakfast and iron his fuckin undies if he gets him out of there with no shots fired. Take my car keys while you're at it. You see, this is the trouble with arguing against the boogeymen in your mind, rather than discussing things with the person right in front of you. I, personally, am done shooting at people. There are no clauses or exceptions to this...and I take a dim and very public view of people who believe that gun nut shit is somehow good for gun owners. All of this is, perhaps...not even remotely germaine.,.because I think we both understand that what is legal and what is moral are not interchangeable...at least not in the us, even by the us' own quixotic and often spotty moral views.