Maryland abolishes death penalty

Perun

Perun

His name struck fear into hearts of men
Staff member
Everybody has their favourite issues. After we, more or less surprisingly, came to a consensus that we all love gay marriage, here's something that may be a bit more controversial:
Maryland governor signs death penalty repeal

Now, I think this is great news. I don't have very many really strong political opinions, but if there is one thing I will never back away from or stop defending, it is my complete rejection of the death penalty. There are both many sophisticated and many stupid arguments pro and con, so I'm curious to see what you guys come up with.

Maps are always great, so here's a map of capital punishment distribution around the world:

Death_Penalty_World_Map_according_to_Amnesty_International.svg


Countries in blue have completely abolished death penalty. Countries in green retain it in exceptional circumstances (such as war-time). Countries in orange have not abolished death penalty, but have not used it in 10 years. Countries in red retain it as a regular form of punishment. So note that while there are 18 US states by now that have abolished death penalty, that is still overridden by federal laws, and for certain offences, people can be executed in those states if the prosecutor is the federal government.
 
I am pretty much with you in the question of death penalty. One thing is the question about whether a state should ever grant itself the right to take lives except in war - thus making itself a killer as well - but there is another point which should be sufficient on its own to say no to the death penalty:

Even if the probability of a miscarriage of justice is small in any given case, it will never be zero. That means that whenever someone is executed, there is a slight chance that an innocent person is executed. It simply can not be tolerated. If a man is in prison and it is later found that he was not guilty after all, he can be released. Not much use in releasing someone from the grave, though.

And even though there are vast differences between how those countries coloured red practice the death penalty, this is not a question of how. A painless execution, as opposed to a particularly cruel one, may be less wrong. That does not make it not wrong.
 
I don't care about miscarriages of justice --this isn't the moral nub of the issue. If you define murder/killing as a crime (within your laws), it hardly seems intellectually justifiable for you to then murder/kill in the name of upholding this law. If you accept that intentionally killing someone is murder; then the death penalty is murder also. If you're cool with this (i.e. murdering someone, because they've committed a crime) then fair enough. However, you (or whoever it is that you support carrying this out in your name & with your support) are also a murderer. It's state sanctioned killing. It belongs in the dark ages.
 
I am in favor of the death penalty. It obviously needs to be applied with great care, but there are some crimes that warrant that punishment.
 
Pretty much any premeditated murder has to at least be considered for the death penalty. It would depend on the specifics of the case, but off the top of my head .. serial killers, mass murderers, the more heinious child murders, cop killers, and I think some treason convictions should apply as well. The Rosenbergs for example certainly deserved it.
 
And these crimes that you list: these are abhorrent, uncivilized, & worthy of punishment, you agree? Why? From what moral stand point are you proclaiming these crimes? Flesh it out. What have people, who commit these crimes, done that is wrong?
 
I was stating this a bit more from a legal standpoint as these are the types of crimes that fall under the death penalty. But from a moral standpoint if someone commits one of these crimes, it is fairly safe to say they are beyond redemption (at least to the point of ever being released back into society) and the world is probably better off without them. I know the counter argument is to lock them up in prison for the rest of their lives, which is a pretty harsh punishment and they will not harm anyone else (beyond guards and fellow prisoners) and I have some sympathy for that argument, but still think some people really do not deserve to continue their existence on this planet.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
So long I'm not going to read it all --how is this relevant?
Click to expand...

Sometimes when in discussions like this, it is better to deal in specifics instead of abstracts.
I'd like to discuss the question posed by this thread in the context of that case.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
And these crimes that you list: these are abhorrent, uncivilized, & worthy of punishment, you agree? Why? From what moral stand point are you proclaiming these crimes? Flesh it out. What have people, who commit these crimes, done that is wrong?
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I think you should read the story I posted.
 
The Flash said:
Death penalty is a crime itself. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Or not.
Forcible confinement is a crime in itself. Taking someone's money or property is a crime in itself.
Are you flatly opposed to jailing or fining people?
 
You're focusing on the people who commit these crimes; all well & good. But why logically is the state (& you), who are choosing to "punish" those who commit these crimes, exempted from the very rules/laws that define these as crimes in the first place? There has to be a moral foundation for why killing someone (in a premeditated manner) is deemed illegal i.e. the "why this is wrong" of it. (I know, & you know, the why of this --I was asking you to spell this out as I think it's important.) This moral framework should apply equally to everyone (--clearly in a world with Guantanamo Bay, not everyone agrees with this view.) Why should the state (& executioner) be exempt from this framework? i.e. morally, what difference is there between the two killings? (--assuming someone receives the death penalty for the taking of another single life.)
 
I agree that some people do not deserve to live. But life is not something one should deserve. I don't think nutcase conspiracy theorists deserve freedom of speech either. But just like freedom of speech is seen as an universal right in much of the world, life should be considered the same. The US Declaration of Independence agrees with me that life is an unalienable right.

The single reason why the death penalty exists is bloodlust. The desire to get revenge. It is a very understandable thing, but a nation's law should rise above it.
 
mckindog said:
Or not.
Forcible confinement is a crime in itself. Taking someone's money or property is a crime in itself.
Are you flatly opposed to jailing or fining people?
Click to expand...

The question you asked is frankly absurd and has nothing to do with it. Jailing people is enough to punish them. You end their interaction with society and leave them all by themselves. Living is a right you naturally have and nothing on this world can take it away from you.
 
mckindog said:
Sometimes when in discussions like this, it is better to deal in specifics instead of abstracts.
Click to expand...

In fact, I could not agree less. The question about whether the death penalty can be justified or not, is too serious to base it on a particular case. Of course you can find cases that are so horrible that every fiber in you cries that the perpetrator deserves to be hanged, drawn and quartered. But if the state should not have the right to kill, it should not. Regardless of crime.

Think about this: If you first accept death penalty, where do you draw the line? A crime that you think is too small to warrant an execution, might be big enough for others to think it does. The Iranian government executes people for things that very few Americans think should be a crime at all. In Malaysia, you can be hanged for drug trafficking. But the difference between death penalty or not is bigger than the difference between death penalty for this and death penalty for that.
 
It is a pretty easy line to draw ... only people who kill are eligible for the death penalty ... Iran aside, that is the primary criteria in most places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top