Maryland abolishes death penalty

But isn't discussing morality in the death penalty subject already difficult enough (when excluding the other topics)?

Bringing all the others in won't make it easier, will it?
 
I don't know if it makes it "easier," but I do think juxtaposing the death penalty debate with those other topics can help test and crystallize the moral arguments for or against the death penalty itself, in addition to posing independent moral and philosophical questions. Again, if someone advances an argument against the application of the death penalty on moral grounds, but that person also favors targeted killings of terrorists and/or partial-birth abortions, then maybe those moral grounds don't hold up. Or, maybe they do, and the person's position on those other issues needs to change. It is all relative and interrelated. Ultimately, the moral question boils down to "thou shalt not kill" -- with which I'm sure we all basically agree -- and whether, and to what extent, we tolerate exceptions to that rule.
 
In terms of this discussion: raising two or three (or four) major "sidesteps" makes it hard to pull everything together & get any sense to what others think. I don't think we've finished discussing the death penalty alone. Additionally, I think we need some terminology definition(s) here. Assassination(s) & the death penalty are not the same thing. What the US is doing in respect to drone strikes (as interesting as this is) doesn't fundamentally having anything to do with the death penalty. For a start: our debate has been about the death penalty --& just that. Not the death penalty in the US. I think the reason perhaps some of us (all of us? --I don't know) have discussed most of this in the context of the US --is because we expect so much more/better from one of the leading western democracies in the world.
 
I'm more with Wasted on the issue of focus. While I think we should try to keep discussion at least related to the death penalty, I find looking at it through different lenses - abortion, drones, etc. - is helpful in shaping opinion.
And like Cornfed said, these sidesteps are all about state-authorized killings. I'd like to read people's thoughts about the parallels and the differences.
 
Forostar said:
But isn't discussing morality in the death penalty subject already difficult enough (when excluding the other topics)?

Bringing all the others in won't make it easier, will it?
Click to expand...


I think it makes it fuller, but probably not easier. In my opinion it falls under the same general category of "when is state sponsored death" morally correct and when is it practically correct.
 
Countries in the Old continent have practiced death penalty for many centuries.

But then they realized: wait a minute. We have this universal declarations, we have this scientific knowledge, we have these particular opinions about what a State should be.


"...the punishment of death is not authorised by any right; (...) It is therefore a war of a whole nation against a citizen whose destruction they consider as necessary or useful to the general good. But if I can further demonstrate that it is neither necessary nor useful, I shall have gained the cause of humanity."

This was written 249 years ago. And was very influential to end the death penalty in many countries.

So, congratulations to Maryland. Better late than never.
 
Alright then, since you guys insist. But I do hope, that we will speak at least as much about the death penalty (and why it is (not) necessary, or any other pro/anti-argument), as about other subjects. We're not going to beat around the bush.

I start with these short statements, and let's see how it gets broader.

In some cases, abortion in necessary.
In some cases, euthanasia is necessary.
In some cases, killing terrorists is necessary.
In some cases, war is necessary.
In no case, death penalty is necessary.

Now you again. If you (dis)agree with any of this, shoot. Then, I am sure we get deeper into matters.
 
Forostar said:
Alright then, since you guys insist. But I do hope, that we will speak at least as much about the death penalty (and why it is not necessary, or any other pro/anti-argument), as about other subjects. We're not going to beat around the bush.

I start with these short statements, and let's see how it gets broader.

In some cases, abortion in necessary.
In some cases, euthanasia is necessary.
In some cases, killing terrorists is necessary.
In some cases, war is necessary.
In no case, death penalty is necessary.

Now you again.
Click to expand...

OK. What makes the death penalty different from the other four? :D
 
OK.
mckindog said:
OK. What makes the death penalty different from the other four? :D
Click to expand...
There are alternatives for the death penalty.

But I am also curious if you guys agree with me about the other issues. Do you agree that in some cases, these actions are necessary?
 
I'll take these briefly one at a time and from a US view as I know laws differ from place to place

In some cases, abortion in necessary. In general I am in favor of the ability of women to have this done, but I do not like the fact that it is done when in so many cases (the vast majority) it is easily preventable. But certainly in the case of the Mother's life it is necessary and I understand victims of rape/incest wanting to have that done.

In some cases, euthanasia is necessary. I understand people wanting this done, I am not sure it should be a medical practice as much as let a person get what is needed themselves and do it themselves. You get into a lot of grey areas with this (he wanted to die, he did not want to die arguments and legal issues). So, necessary, but not necessary for a state action.
In some cases, killing terrorists is necessary. Sure ... obvious
In some cases, war is necessary. Same as terrorists, some wars need to happen

In no case, death penalty is necessary. I disagree here, I used to be more gung-ho about this, but I still think there are cases where it is a justified punishment, but should be used sparingly and with overwhelming evidence. I do not see it as revenge, if you think about it, it is years from the act of the crime to the sentance being executed. There has been at a minimum, a trial, a sentancing trial, and mandatory appeals .. plus whatever other appeals the convict puts forward. Also, it is incredibly rare (and in most places in the US I believe illegal) from someone who pleads guilty to get the death sentance. I suspect it is sometimes used by prosecutors to get someone to plead guilty and take life in prison which helps keep the court rooms moving.
 
I think abortion, something already discussed at length, sticks out like a sore thumb (in this list of five) --since, unlike all of the others (in most circumstances), it does not involve the killing of an adult. As discussed, there is a clear area of debate around what constitutes "life" in any meaningful sense (i.e. a thing able to survive on its own). We've already discussed this, but I just don't think it sits comfortably with the others in terms of comparison.

I agree with Forostar up to a point --it's about alternatives.
 
I think war & terrorism etc is mired in complications around what defines these things; the language (terrorists, combatants, "at war" etc) governments use to do what they want. I find it hard to say either way what is "necessary" when I fundamentally disagree with a particular label in the first place & how it is being applied.
 
The necessity argument is important, perhaps the most important. It's connected to morality. Unnecessary killing can't be justified. Necessary killing can be justified.
bearfan said:
Perhaps not necessary, but appropriate in a limited number of cases.
Click to expand...
Sorry bearfan, but I find appropriate not good enough. It's too subjective and not a good reason (no justification).

So you (or anyone else up to this point) can't explain (when) the death penalty is necessary.

Without trying to sound arrogant --> it is still: anti-death penalty vs pro-death penalty: 1-0
 
I am not sure necessary is the predominant determinant. If we want to look at what is necessary, there would be a lot of government workers out work and a lot of laws that should be off the books. I would be happy to apply this standard to other arguments about the role of government.

The questions is if it is an appropriate punishment and then you can get down to how it is applied.
 
Wait a minute, I thought this discussion was (especially) about what we think. This is about what you and I think, not about what a government or even law says. Laws can change, that's why many countries stopped with the death penalty.

We've made things broader, speaking of other ways of killing. I thought we would try to touch the moral aspects some of us wanted to research. If well understood, in all other forms of killing, you and I agree that they are necessary in some cases. You explained these well.

But did it help you explaining why you think why the death penalty is necessary? I don't think so.
 
The death penalty is at it's essence a governmental action, so I think it is appropriate to link the two.

As stated, I think it is appropriate in some cases and the best form of justice in a limited number of cases. In a more abstract manner, if justice is the goal the death penalty is needed as a manner of bringing about justice. In the more practical manner there have been issues in the past with how the law was applied and those issues need to be addressed.
 
I stick to the necessity. Why kill people if it's not needed? Or:.. when justice can be brought in a different way?

Now I wonder if you or someone else will (or can) come up with something else as "because that's what the law says".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top