Executions

[Alt+F4]

My point earlier was there was no outward show of sympathy for Lawrence Brewer's execution (at least none that CNN was showing) was because he earned it. His was not a cause célèbre and it had nothing to do with his ethnicity. He was scum. He helped to drag a human being who, in Brewer's eyes, was not as good as himself, to his death. And even if he was just a bystander as he claimed, he did NOTHING to stop James Byrd from being killed.

Indeed, if someone is against the death penalty then the death of Lawrence Brewer is just as awful as the death of Troy Davis. But as you mentioned, no protests against Brewer's execution. Seems more like those "opposed" to the death penalty are ok with it as long as they are satisfied that the accused is not guilty.

 

[Rolfe]

Your perception is in error.

Rolfe.

 

[Drachasor]

Indeed, if someone is against the death penalty then the death of Lawrence Brewer is just as awful as the death of Troy Davis. But as you mentioned, no protests against Brewer's execution. Seems more like those "opposed" to the death penalty are ok with it as long as they are satisfied that the accused is not guilty.

I'm against people getting hurt, but a papercut is not as bad as getting shot.

I'm against people dying, but someone who is 120, barely hanging on, and is suffering severe dementia dying is less bad than a father of three getting killed in the prime of life when he provides the sole financial support for his family.

I'm against the death penalty, and someone who might well be innocent getting killed is worse than someone who is obviously guilty.

None of this implies I don't think all of the above things are bad in one way or another. You have a false equivalence there.

 

[wasapi]

I'm equally glad I don't live in a country that feels the need to let mass murderers of 270 innocent victims walk free. We execute them.

So, I kind of like our constitution.

I agree.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm against the death penalty, and someone who might well be innocent getting killed is worse than someone who is obviously guilty.

If you are opposed to the death penalty than why is one execution "worse" than another? Shouldn't they all equally be wrong?

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm equally glad I don't live in a country that feels the need to let mass murderers of 270 innocent victims walk free.

Indeed, I agree.

 

[Rolfe]

If you are opposed to the death penalty then why is one execution "worse" than another? Shouldn't they all equally be wrong?

That's an extraordinary position to take. If you can't see why executing someone who is innocent is a far far worse evil than executing someone who actually committed the murder, I think you need to sit down and think about it for a bit.

Acknowledging that fact doesn't lead to the conclusion that the latter situation is not still an evil. Do you think the phrase "the lesser of two evils" has no meaning?

Rolfe.

 

[HumanityBlues]

If you are opposed to the death penalty then why is one execution "worse" than another? Shouldn't they all equally be wrong?

You seem to be assuming everyone who is opposed to the death penalty is opposed to it because killing is wrong.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't necessarily have a problem with a murderer being executed. But the fact remains that every justice system is fallible, and if you have the death penalty, you will inevitably put innocent people to death.

 

[Alt+F4]

That's an extraordinary position to take. If you can't see why executing someone who is innocent is a far far worse evil than executing someone who actually committed the murder, I think you need to sit down and think about it for a bit.

Acknowledging that fact doesn't lead to the conclusion that the latter situation is not still an evil. Do you think the phrase "the lesser of two evils" has no meaning?

Rolfe.

How does lesser degrees of evil matter when both men are equally dead? Either one is for the death penalty or one is opposed to it.

 

[Rolfe]

I agree.

Indeed, I agree.

And of course you know how secure the conviction Scrut is obliquely referring to is. That is, not at all. The subject of intense and detailed criticism from countless people starting with the official UN observer to the trial, and the relatives of some of the victims, and more recently the subject of an official report detailing six grounds on which it appeared to be a miscarriage of justice. This latter the culmination of a four-year investigation which not only called into question the legitimacy of the original court's reasoning, but turned up new exculpatory evidence.

Now I realise some people don't like to look at that, but prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and shout la-la-la can't-hear-you GUILTY. But this is exactly why blind vengeance determined on killing a scapegoat for no other reason than the heinousness of the crime is generally regarded as a bad thing.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

How does lesser degrees of evil matter when both men are equally dead? Either one is for the death penalty or one is opposed to it.

Speaking for myself, one is opposed to it.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

I can only speak for myself, but I don't necessarily have a problem with a murderer being executed. But the fact remains that every justice system is fallible, and if you have the death penalty, you will inevitably put innocent people to death.

Yes indeed, every justice system is fallible and there is a chance that Lawrence Brewer was innocent, yet no one fought for his life since his crime was so horrific. If the general argument is that the state has no right to take a life then why no protest to save Brewer's life?

 

[Drachasor]

That's an extraordinary position to take. If you can't see why executing someone who is innocent is a far far worse evil than executing someone who actually committed the murder, I think you need to sit down and think about it for a bit.

Acknowledging that fact doesn't lead to the conclusion that the latter situation is not still an evil. Do you think the phrase "the lesser of two evils" has no meaning?

Rolfe.

Exactly. I thought I explained it already. You can have different severities of evil. Killing a mass murdering is wrong because you are killing someone and can avoid it. Killing an innocent person has that aspect, and other aspects that are also immoral because the guy is innocent. To say nothing of the fact that two different criminals haven't necessarily done bad things to the same degree, and could have different levels of reform possible for them.

Btw, I'm opposed to the Death Penalty in part because I don't think the State or anyone else should kill someone if it is avoidable, for reasons of economics, and because of the potential to have a miscarriage of justice. I think the latter two alone are sufficient to be against the Death Penalty, and they are unavoidable problems.

 

[Rolfe]

I certainly recall general protests at the time of other executions of people who were clearly guilty. I think it happens quite often. If in this case the lesser outrage was eclipsed by a greater outrage which happened at the same time, that should not be taken to imply any approval of the lesser outrage.

Rolfe.

 

[Drachasor]

How does lesser degrees of evil matter when both men are equally dead? Either one is for the death penalty or one is opposed to it.

You're the person who said all examples of the death penalty had to be treated as equally wrong. That's just not true. That doesn't mean someone can't consider them all wrong and be against them all.

Again, I'm opposed to people getting hurt. That doesn't mean all forms of hurt are equally bad.

 

[Rolfe]

Btw, I'm opposed to the Death Penalty in part because I don't think the State or anyone else should kill someone if it is avoidable, for reasons of economics, and because of the potential to have a miscarriage of justice. I think the latter two alone are sufficient to be against the Death Penalty, and they are unavoidable problems.

I agree entirely. I am however opposed to the death penalty even if it could be shown with absolute certainty that everyone executed was guilty. It's a horrific barbarism which civilised societies are gradually outgrowing. I hope we keep on outgrowing it, though a debate I heard on TV this evening showed that some people still have some growing to do.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

You're the person who said all examples of the death penalty had to be treated as equally wrong. That's just not true. That doesn't mean someone can't consider them all wrong and be against them all.

Again, I'm opposed to people getting hurt. That doesn't mean all forms of hurt are equally bad.

Let me understand your position. Are you arguing that the death penalty is ok under some circumstances?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Yes indeed, every justice system is fallible and there is a chance that Lawrence Brewer was innocent, yet no one fought for his life since his crime was so horrific. If the general argument is that the state has no right to take a life then why no protest to save Brewer's life?

I think that's a fair question. I think naturally, when there is more evidence that someone is innocent, more people are willing to fight for you. And personally, I don't think Lawrence Brewer should have been executed, because I don't believe in the death penalty.

 

[cwalner]

It's a horrific barbarism which civilised societies are gradually outgrowing.

A Scotswoman considers my country horrifically barbaric and uncivilized. I am so ashamed.

 

[Drachasor]

Let me understand your position. Are you arguing that the death penalty is ok under some circumstances?

No.

Is it ok to stab an innocent person under some circumstances?

No.

Does that mean all such stabbings are equally bad?

No, because a stab through the heart is worse than a flesh wound.


Why the heck are you insisting that if I say some death is worse than others, that I must think some death is ok? I've repeatedly said all incidents of the death penalty are wrong, but I think some are worse than others.

That said, in an extreme hypothetical, I do not have a problem with the death penalty if there are no other good options and the drain of keeping such a person alive was too great on a society. This isn't true in modern times, but a couple thousand or more years ago could easily have been true. Especially in a Hunter-gatherer society (banishment is an options but has its own dangers). Generally, better technology allows us to engage in more moral behavior, imho. This really means killing in that instance is acceptable, because it is potentially less evil than the alternatives.