Executions

[Babbylonian]

If it's self-defense or an accident then it's homocide, not murder, which is an unlawful killing.

1. It's homicide.
2. Homicide is the taking of human life, whether it turns out to be a criminal act or not.
3. Homicides can be judged to be justifiable such as in the case of self defense.
4. "Murder" is a type of homicide.

 

[Drachasor]

How can a killing in self-defense or an accident be malicious? Why do you even use the term murder to describe these type of deaths? If it's self-defense or an accident then it's homocide, not murder, which is an unlawful killing.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html

I like the ones with "depraved indifference to human life" the best. Anyhow, that's Murder Two. Filling your yard with explosive traps that kill someone will get you charged with MURDER. And yeah, that can potentially be malicious and still be an accident.

To be technical about the law.

A playful slap on the back is NOT violence.

A punch in the face vs. a stab with a knife in the groin then. Or if you want a knife used for both, then a cut that breaks skin but doesn't dig deep on the arm vs. a knife in the belly.

Or for executions, like someone said, the state killing an innocent man verses killing someone guilty of genocide. One is worse than the other when you look at the whole context.

 

[sarge]

Rawls' veil of ignorance, anyone?

There are two options available to us. I would prefer that there were a third - execute only the guilty.

We may stop killing people, or we may accept that we risk killing innocent people. I prefer the former.

 

[sarge]

Engaging in tit for tat / eye for an eye behaviour is barbaric.

No, it isn't. It stricks me as perfectly civilized that one should forfeit a life for a life, or $100 for $100 in damages, so long as we can be 100% certain that we have punished only the guilty, or that our errors are correctable.

There is always some connection between the severity of the crime and the harshness of the punishment. That the crime of murder returns a penalty of death is not barbaric. That we execute innocent people is barbaric. That we imprison innocents is also barbaric - but correctable.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No, it isn't. It stricks me as perfectly civilized that one should forfeit a life for a life, or $100 for $100 in damages, so long as we can be 100% certain that we have punished only the guilty, or that our errors are correctable.

<snip>

If a person assaults someone and their victim loses an eye, would you want the state to remove one of the assailant's eyes as punishment?

 

[sarge]

If a person assaults someone and their victim loses an eye, would you want the state to remove one of the assailant's eyes as punishment?

Sure - or more accurately, I'd have no problem with it if it happened only when there was no chance for error.

I don't have to make such a choice, however. Dismemberment/mutilation is contrary to our "cruel and unusual" prohibition, while executions are not. Murder is not the only crime for which death is the penalty, and so it isn't an "eye for an eye" situation. Criminals are punished, and sometimes the punishment is death. I have no problem with that circumstance in principle, but I don't believe my practical objections can be overcome.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sure - or more accurately, I'd have no problem with it if it happened only when there was no chance for error.

<snip>

Okay, let's assume that there was no chance of error. Should the eye be removed in the same fashion the victim lost their eye, or should the state mandate the use of anaesthetic and medical professionals to remove it?

 

[Ferguson]

Engaging in tit for tat / eye for an eye behaviour is barbaric.

Simplistic rhetoric without explanation is rather uninteresting.

Is is barbaric to arrest someone for kidnapping?
Is it barbaric to fine someone for stealing?

 

[Cain]

As a conservative, people often ask why I support the death penalty. Here are my reasons:

1)The accused did it. In matters of determining guilt, government tends to be highly efficient.

2)Government has too much power when it comes to the normal everyday lives of law-abiding citizens. It wants to tax "junk" food, "gross polluters" and implement a range of other hippy-Soviet environmental crap. What about individual rights? The only authority the government can legitimately claim is the authority to execute citizens convicted of murder one, rape, or molestation. Fry'em all.

3) Closure. We need the death penalty to give the families of victims some sense of closure. You'll notice how in murder-suicides (e.g., 9/11, Columbine, etc) families got on with their lives quickly because the killers are dead, probably burning in hell. Plus it saved taxpayers the expense of a trial and sodium pentothal.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Simplistic rhetoric without explanation is rather uninteresting.

Is is barbaric to arrest someone for kidnapping?
Is it barbaric to fine someone for stealing?

Tit for tat doesn't work very well for producing desirable outcomes. Two people each without an eye are not better than one person without an eye. Even in theory it is vulnerable to falling into a string of retaliations when there are only two agents involved in a game.

 

[Segnosaur]

Engaging in tit for tat / eye for an eye behaviour is barbaric.

Of course, I should point out that the death penalty isn't exactly eye for an eye behavior.

After all, if someone is sentenced to death for torturing and killing someone they are not in turn tortured and killed; instead, if/when the death penalty is applied it is done in a (supposedly) humane method (or at least as humane as they can think of).

When Bundy was executed, he was not beaten to death, strangled or sexually assaulted (as he did with some of his victims). Instead, they used the electric chair (which, if done properly, can cause death in seconds). Not that mistakes don't happen with the death penalty, but those sentenced to death often have an easier death than those they've killed.

 

[Architect]

1)The accused did it. In matters of determining guilt, government tends to be highly efficient.

I fear that efficiency and accuracy may not be the same thing.

What do you consider an acceptable false-positive rate to be, if you believe such a thing exists?

 

[Segnosaur]

Simplistic rhetoric without explanation is rather uninteresting.

Is is barbaric to arrest someone for kidnapping?
Is it barbaric to fine someone for stealing?

Tit for tat doesn't work very well for producing desirable outcomes. Two people each without an eye are not better than one person without an eye.

Ummmm... the previous poster brought up a very specific argument... pointing to the death penalty as "eye for an eye" ignores the fact that we arrest/confine people for kidnapping. You've done nothing to address that argument.

Even in theory it is vulnerable to falling into a string of retaliations when there are only two agents involved in a game.

Ummm... how? Is there some sort of master organization of murders who will turn around and start killing people if/when someone is sentenced to death for murder?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ummmm... the previous poster brought up a very specific argument... pointing to the death penalty as "eye for an eye" ignores the fact that we arrest/confine people for kidnapping. You've done nothing to address that argument.

We arrest/confine people for many other crimes, not just specifically kidnapping. Similarly people are fined for crimes other than theft. Typically the choice of punishment is not based directly on the actions involved in the crime, except in the case of murder, where the death penalty is used because the state murdering someone is seen as appropriate when that person has been found guilty of murder.

Ummm... how? Is there some sort of master organization of murders who will turn around and start killing people if/when someone is sentenced to death for murder?

I wasn't referring to the death penalty, but the results of games with two agents, each playing a tit for tat strategy. Real-life examples would be the Cold War, Northern Ireland and the current Israel/Palestine conflict.

 

[sarge]

Okay, let's assume that there was no chance of error. Should the eye be removed in the same fashion the victim lost their eye, or should the state mandate the use of anaesthetic and medical professionals to remove it?

I'm sorry, but I insist that you read all of my posts subsequent to your "tit for tat" post. A summary:

1. Dismemberment is prohibited by the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

2. The death penalty is not a "tit for tat" punsihment.

 

[Cain]

I fear...

Spoken like a true liberal. C'mon, let's not be a caricature here.

 

[AvalonXQ]

We arrest/confine people for many other crimes, not just specifically kidnapping. Similarly people are fined for crimes other than theft. Typically the choice of punishment is not based directly on the actions involved in the crime, except in the case of murder, where the death penalty is used because the state murdering someone is seen as appropriate when that person has been found guilty of murder.

Yes, but it's still not a "tit for tat" situation. It used to be that capital punishment was the consequence for a lot of the more severe penalties. As time went one, we eventually decided that only a handful of really terrible crimes deserve capital punishment, with murder being the primary one (it's still possible to be killed for high treason, and IIRC aggravated sexual assault may not be explicitly beyond execution today).
The fact that we've left murder as one of the only crimes severe enough for "the ultimate punishment" doesn't mean we're engaged in retaliatory "eye for eye" behavior. It is reasonable to note that murder may be both the most severe crime and the most severe punishment available, and so if we believe in degrees of crime and degrees of punishment at all, these two may match up.

 

[slingblade]

Spoken like a true liberal. C'mon, let's not be a caricature here.

Spoken like a true conservative. You first.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Spoken like a true conservative. You first.

Pretty sure Cain's not a conservative and that was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes, but it's still not a "tit for tat" situation. It used to be that capital punishment was the consequence for a lot of the more severe penalties. As time went one, we eventually decided that only a handful of really terrible crimes deserve capital punishment, with murder being the primary one (it's still possible to be killed for high treason, and IIRC aggravated sexual assault may not be explicitly beyond execution today).
The fact that we've left murder as one of the only crimes severe enough for "the ultimate punishment" doesn't mean we're engaged in retaliatory "eye for eye" behavior. It is reasonable to note that murder may be both the most severe crime and the most severe punishment available, and so if we believe in degrees of crime and degrees of punishment at all, these two may match up.

Why are the relatives of the victims and the public invited to watch executions of convicted killers if it isn't for reasons of tit for tat?