Abortions, Executions and Hamburgers: A Brief Survey

[GhostWriter16]

It is the inherent duty of the government to protect the life and liberty of all citizens, criminal or not. When the state decides to execute a citizen, it is failing to uphold one of its most fundamental duties.

Why do you think that?

And besides, being in jail isn't exactly "Protecting their liberty."

I agree with the conciseness, if not the actual content of the post. I would argue that many criminals simply cannot be rehabilitated. Particularly in the cases of the most serious crimes. There is much evidence that murderers are murderers because they lack a fully developed pre-frontal cortex or have sustained damage to it. The pre-frontal cortex is responsible for the suppression of aggression amongst other things. Many other acts of aggression or a seeming incomprehension of morality often seen in such people are caused by similar physiological or genetic factors.

Therefore releasing them back into society is likely to cause them to reoffend. This to me represents the government sacrificing the life and liberty of the criminal's next victim.

I think it essentially comes down to who's rights are more important to protect, and who is more worthy of life. Frankly I'd go with the innocent victim every time.

I agree with the last paragraph. I think that while some people are more inclined to violence, I believe anyone can suppress it in themselves. Maybe not the entire desire, but certainly the action.

But its still likely they'll reoffend, and I think the innocent person's life is more important in that case.

Some of those rights. You lose the right to liberty if you break the law, but you don't lose the right to life.

If you want to hold this position, that's OK with me, but can you explain why?

If you believe that, you believe rights can be taken away as punishment, which I (With exceptions) agree with. However, how can you say dogmatically that capital punishment is abhorrent and a violation of human rights but taking away liberty is perfectly fine?

Criminals can also be used for cheap labor. And cows (to plow fields)

Well, I have no qualms about this as long as its humane. But regular pay isn't a right at that point, I agree on that much.

I don't agree with the pro-abortion connotations though, nor do I agree with keeping children alive "For cheap labor." They are people, hence why I oppose killing them.

 

[Ajidica]

If you believe that, you believe rights can be taken away as punishment, which I (With exceptions) agree with. However, how can you say dogmatically that capital punishment is abhorrent and a violation of human rights but taking away liberty is perfectly fine?

Simple. Each person has one life which they can never get back. While they are in jail there is no permenant loss to their liberty if the courts decide they did a crappy job with sentencing or new evidence comes out.

 

[Atlas14]

Why do you think that?

And besides, being in jail isn't exactly "Protecting their liberty."

I think that because it is true. The federal government was created to (among other things) protect the life and liberty of all U.S. citizens. If the government executes a criminal, then that is clearly not protecting that person's life. Life in prison should be used instead. And the person's liberty isn't eliminated when in prison for life, it is drastically altered though. Life in prison ensures the government upholds its fundamental duties to both the public and the criminal.

 

[Karalysia]

Well I'm convinced, changing my vote to Y, N, Y

 

[Arakhor]

If you want to hold this position, that's OK with me, but can you explain why?

Part of running a state relies on effective law enforcement. Capital punishment is only effective in reducing your population, not rehabilitating those rogue elements. Just like your right to freedom to speech is curtailed when it advocates armed rebellion against the state, so to is your liberty when you have committed a crime serious enough for a gaol sentence.

Additionally, if the right to life is so unalienable that contraception is bad, abortions are murder and so on, no crime can cause you to lose that right - your liberty, unquestionably, but not your right to life.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Simple. Each person has one life which they can never get back. While they are in jail there is no permenant loss to their liberty if the courts decide they did a crappy job with sentencing or new evidence comes out.

Then your opposition is not an ethical one, its because of possible mistakes in the court system. Is that a correct assessment?

I can respect that. I disagree on the extent that this actually happens, but I agree it happens, and its a reasonable argument to oppose capital punishment. But then, you don't believe its a violation of rights, you just believe it gets the innocent too much (Which could be your argument even if the number of falsely executed citizens was 1) therefore you oppose it.

Therefore, you agree with my argument, just not my conclusion.

I think that because it is true. The federal government was created to (among other things) protect the life and liberty of all U.S. citizens. If the government executes a criminal, then that is clearly not protecting that person's life. Life in prison should be used instead. And the person's liberty isn't eliminated when in prison for life, it is drastically altered though. Life in prison ensures the government upholds its fundamental duties to both the public and the criminal.

They still lose their liberty though. Or at least part of it.

Also, the US Constitution implies the existence of capital punishment, so according to the Founders, life could be taken away for a crime. "No man shall be tried for a CAPITAL or otherwise infamous crime..."

So the Constitutional argument doesn't really work as well.

Well I'm convinced, changing my vote to Y, N, Y

Why do I get the feeling you felt that way anyway?

Part of running a state relies on effective law enforcement. Capital punishment is only effective in reducing your population, not rehabilitating those rogue elements. Just like your right to freedom to speech is curtailed when it advocates armed rebellion against the state, so to is your liberty when you have committed a crime serious enough for a gaol sentence.

Then rights can be, according to your logic, taken away. (By the way, your armed rebellion argument does not work in the US because advocating theoretical armed rebellion is allowed unless there is clear and present danger.)

Why is life specifically UNABLE to be taken for a crime?

Additionally, if the right to life is so unalienable that contraception is bad, abortions are murder and so on, no crime can cause you to lose that right - your liberty, unquestionably, but not your right to life.

I am not against contraception. I have to do some research before deciding on the Morning After Pill, but I have zero ethical problems with normal contraception.

Also, my problem with abortion is the very act, by definition, takes away INNOCENT LIFE. Capital punishment takes the right to life from someone for taking it from someone else. No problem here, at least not for me.

 

[Traitorfish]

Part of running a state relies on effective law enforcement. Capital punishment is only effective in reducing your population, not rehabilitating those rogue elements. Just like your right to freedom to speech is curtailed when it advocates armed rebellion against the state, so to is your liberty when you have committed a crime serious enough for a gaol sentence.

I would suggest an alternate position; the legal system is a form of collective self-protection, and the community has the legitimacy to pursue any necessary end in it's defence against hostile elements. In Medieval England, execution often was the only effective way to deal with serious criminals, given the lack of modern infrastructure, so execution could be (but was far from necessarily!) permissible. However, in modern society, execution is no longer necessary for such protection- in fact, it is better described as an extravagance- and so is no longer an acceptable infringement on the right to life of the criminal.

 

[Arakhor]

TAlso, the US Constitution implies the existence of capital punishment, so according to the Founders, life could be taken away for a crime. "No man shall be tried for a CAPITAL or otherwise infamous crime..."

At the risk of sounding tetchy, the US Constitution is irrelevant in this issue, not least because it only applies to 5% of the world's population.

 

[Ajidica]

Then your opposition is not an ethical one, its because of possible mistakes in the court system. Is that a correct assessment?

I think you got it backwards. The majority of my dislike of capital punishment comes from its immorality. The entire argument for why the state can commit murder instead of the individual rests on Richelieu's premise: "That which is immoral for an individual to do becomes moral when done by the state". I cannot agree with that premise as it assumes the state is separate from the people rather then their extention.

 

[Atlas14]

They still lose their liberty though. Or at least part of it.

Also, the US Constitution implies the existence of capital punishment, so according to the Founders, life could be taken away for a crime. "No man shall be tried for a CAPITAL or otherwise infamous crime..."

So the Constitutional argument doesn't really work as well.

They lose part of their liberty, but it is not entirely eliminated as it would be if they were executed. This is the best compromise that ensures not only continued safety and protection of the public, but also some liberties for the criminal. When a sentence for life in prison is issued, the idea is to keep more people from being harmed. This is easily accomplished, it is unnecessary for the state to take the life of another citizen.

The Constitutional argument works fine. Executing a citizen is failing to protect their life, pure and simple. Especially when execution is not necessary for protection of the populace.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think you got it backwards. The majority of my dislike of capital punishment comes from its immorality. The entire argument for why the state can commit murder instead of the individual rests on Richelieu's premise: "That which is immoral for an individual to do becomes moral when done by the state". I cannot agree with that premise as it assumes the state is separate from the people rather then their extention.

I agree with your point, but if you take it to its full conclusion, jail is immoral as well because kidnapping is illegal and immoral.

So I suggest the premise that society as a whole (And by extention government) has a right to do things citizens cannot, against other citizens, but only if by a group of his peers judges him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you, in general, agree with that proposition?

The only other option is anarchism, and you aren't an anarchist.

At the risk of sounding tetchy, the US Constitution is irrelevant in this issue, not least because it only applies to 5% of the world's population.

It matters when Atlas brings up the US Constitution. And it matters in the US. In other countries, it doesn't matter. But it does when its brought up.

They lose part of their liberty, but it is not entirely eliminated as it would be if they were executed. This is the best compromise that ensures not only continued safety and protection of the public, but also some liberties for the criminal. When a sentence for life in prison is issued, the idea is to keep more people from being harmed. This is easily accomplished, it is unnecessary for the state to take the life of another citizen.

The Constitutional argument works fine. Executing a citizen is failing to protect their life, pure and simple. Especially when execution is not necessary for protection of the populace.

Yet they took ALL of someone else's liberty, yet they only lose part of their own? This is too merciful on the criminal.

That aside, what if it IS necessary to protect society. What if he kills someone in prison, or if he tells the court (Assuming he ISN'T totally insane but actually hates people) that he will continue to commit murder in prison. Is Capital Punishment then OK?

 

[_random_]

It matters when Atlas brings up the US Constitution. And it matters in the US.

Not really, since we're discussing broader ethical principals, and while the Constitution may be binding on us, there's no reason to assume it's correct.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not really, since we're discussing broader ethical principals, and while the Constitution may be binding on us, there's no reason to assume it's correct.

Well, the Constitution doesn't demand capital punishment, but it implies it exists. Therefore, according to itself, Capital Punishment is not violating human rights. I agree that's not by fiat correct, but he said the Constitution opposes capital punishment. I was explaining the Constitution doesn't oppose it. Not that that means Capital Punishment is right, but that his argument to prove it wrong did not work.

Just for you personally though, how much of the Bible do you consider to matter to you? Because there is a lot of support in Scripture for Capital Punishment in the Bible, but you'd have to go to the Old Testament or Paul's writings, and I know some people on here only consider the words of Jesus Christ himself to be binding.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, the Constitution doesn't demand capital punishment, but it implies it exists. Therefore, according to itself, Capital Punishment is not violating human rights.

That's debatable. It could simply be a redundancy- the Constitution is not an infallible document, after all. I mean, I could draw a dress code that included both "all sneakers must be neon green" and "no sneakers", and it's fairly obvious which you'd default to.

 

[Arakhor]

Just because your constitution implies the use of capital punishment does not necessarily also make any judgement about its proper use or moral value.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's debatable. It could simply be a redundancy- the Constitution is not an infallible document, after all. I mean, I could draw a dress code that included both "all sneakers must be neon green" and "no sneakers", and it's fairly obvious which you'd default to.

True, but it still allows for it. Which basically meant the Constitution allows it. That was all.

@Arakhor- Oh I agree, but Atlas' argument was that the Constitution bans capital punishment. My argument was that the US CONSTITUTION allows it. That's all. Not that I agreed with Capital Punishment or that its right (Even though I believe those things.) But I wasn't arguing that at that moment, so let's drop it.

 

[_random_]

Just for you personally though, how much of the Bible do you consider to matter to you? Because there is a lot of support in Scripture for Capital Punishment in the Bible, but you'd have to go to the Old Testament or Paul's writings, and I know some people on here only consider the words of Jesus Christ himself to be binding.

All of it, when interpreted in the light of Christ's teachings and the rest of Holy Tradition. Since ancient Israel had no prison system, capital punishment would have been understandable as the only way to keep violent criminals away from society. At this point, there's no excuse.

 

[Atlas14]

It matters when Atlas brings up the US Constitution. And it matters in the US. In other countries, it doesn't matter. But it does when its brought up.

When you get down to it though, it is a moral issue, not a Constitutional issue. If killing is wrong, then it doesn't matter who does it, the state or the criminal, it is wrong.

Yet they took ALL of someone else's liberty, yet they only lose part of their own? This is too merciful on the criminal.

Potential rape every time you drop the soap in the shower isn't a walk in the park though. And besides, the state is responsible for removing threats, not committing "eye for an eye" revenge for the sake of someone's emotional appeasement. It may not always seem fair, because it isn't. Nothing can replace loved ones, nothing. Not even killing the criminal.

That aside, what if it IS necessary to protect society. What if he kills someone in prison, or if he tells the court (Assuming he ISN'T totally insane but actually hates people) that he will continue to commit murder in prison. Is Capital Punishment then OK?

This is a valid point. I believe proper assessments regarding the dangerousness of the criminal, keeping a safe amount of armed guards, and other measures would drastically improve prison safety to prevent inmates from killing other inmates/guards. I admit it is likely impossible to guarantee nobody will ever be killed in prison, however it is still preferable to executing criminals.

 

[Traitorfish]

True, but it still allows for it. Which basically meant the Constitution allows it. That was all.

But the Constitution merely acknowledges the possibility of capital punishment, it doesn't specifically permit it. A reference to "capital crime" becomes redundant if it is determined that no such crime exists, like listing "Homer Simpson" on a guest list.

 

[GhostWriter16]

All of it, when interpreted in the light of Christ's teachings and the rest of Holy Tradition. Since ancient Israel had no prison system, capital punishment would have been understandable as the only way to keep violent criminals away from society. At this point, there's no excuse.

Well, wouldn't God have been intelligent enough to have come up with it?

But that's neither here nor there. Look at Acts and Romans:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+25:11&version=NASB

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 13:4&version=NASB

Paul affirmed the legitimacy of capital punishment in Acts (Which, while a narrative and not gospel scripture, carries a lot of legitimacy nonetheless.)

Romans, however, was an inspired epistle and so his support for Capital Punishment there was inspired.

At least, according to the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy 3:16&version=NASB

Which is why I specifically asked how much of the Bible you considered relevant before answering. I am well aware this argument would not work on a Non-Christian or someone who did not accept the whole Bible, but since you said you did, it is a valid argument in this case.

When you get down to it though, it is a moral issue, not a Constitutional issue. If killing is wrong, then it doesn't matter who does it, the state or the criminal, it is wrong.

Is war inherently wrong?

Potential rape every time you drop the soap in the shower isn't a walk in the park though.

Oh I never called it such. Though this kinda proves my point. Does the prison rapist need to die for the good of society? At that point, the only other option is solitary confinement, which is probably crueler.

And besides, the state is responsible for removing threats, not committing "eye for an eye" revenge for the sake of someone's emotional appeasement. It may not always seem fair, because it isn't. Nothing can replace loved ones, nothing. Not even killing the criminal.

Oh I agree, but we need to try as much as we can. Allowing a murderer to live because "He has rights" is putting the murderer's life at a higher level of importance than the innocent person's life because it is saying "Death is too harsh for you for killing that innocent man", thus saying the criminal's life is worth more. Either that, or paying no regard for justice, which is just as abhorrent.

This is a valid point. I believe proper assessments regarding the dangerousness of the criminal, keeping a safe amount of armed guards, and other measures would drastically improve prison safety to prevent inmates from killing other inmates/guards. I admit it is likely impossible to guarantee nobody will ever be killed in prison, however it is still preferable to executing criminals.

OK, but what if someone in prison for life already (Purposely) kills another prisoner or a prison guard. What punishment can we give now to keep security in the prison?

But the Constitution merely acknowledges the possibility of capital punishment, it doesn't specifically permit it. A reference to "capital crime" becomes redundant if it is determined that no such crime exists, like listing "Homer Simpson" on a guest list.

This is true, but at the moment it does exist.