Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

The only time I have ever seen a death penalty advocate ("DPA") pause was in relation to a discussion about the possibility of an innocent person being put to death.As you say, Rahvin, the issue was broadly glossed over by the DPA, but the questioner managed to drill down a little, and the DPA confirmed his belief that cases of innocents being executed were extremely rare - DNA evidence was excellent - burden of proof might be higher etc - and finally, given that it would be very few instances where this occurred, he felt it was a price society could pay.When he was asked if he felt that it would still be a price worth paying if that innocent person was his child (the child was present at the time of the discussion and listening attentively), his reply took some time...A nice illustration of the very true bubble you referred to.

Right, like everyone in the military fighting in a war?- Oni

So does the feeling of people that the punishment fits the crime, and that it is fair and right and proper, justify the inevitable execution by mistake of an innocent person ?If all that we gain is a feeling that the right thing was done, a sense of satisfaction that things are evened out, then that doesn't seem to me to be worth the price of one innocent life.Edited by vimesey, : typo

Well, should we not ever go to war because sometimes there are innocent civilian casualties?And if you say no, war is justified. Then I ask you, does it make more sense to you that a US soldier kill a foreign fighter who's probably been forced to fight, rather than to put John Wayne Gacy to death? You wouldn't be saying that if you were speaaking German right now? The "feeling that the right thing was done" is the very reason war is justifiable.The right thing needs to be done. It is the basis for war, and in cases where an individual has taken the life of the innocent.Does it make you feel better to lock someone up in a jail cell, forgotten forever, until they die and get thrown in an unmarked grave outside the jail in some field? How is that any better?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I don't agree that the war analogy is a good one. War should be the only resort that is left to a society, after all other options have failed or become ineffective, in order to protect itself or protect innocent lives. (Certainly any war which you are holding up as morally justified, to support moral justification for capital punishment). I distinguish this from capital punishment, in that it is not the only resort that is left to a society, to punish a murderer and to protect its innocent members from that murderer - there always exists the option to imprison the murderer for life. Capital punishment is never the only resort left.I do see circumstances in which societies should go to war, where there is no viable alternative. I do not see that we should execute people, because we do have viable alternatives.And locking someone in a jail cell, forgotten forever, until they die does strike me as being better. Because if I get it wrong, I stand a chance of releasing them, and trying to compensate them in some way.I reiterate my view - a warm glow that justice has been well served is not worth a single innocent person's life being taken from them - not when we have alternatives.

What war should be and what war is are two different things. After 9/11 there were OTHER options. But we, with support of the entire world almost, opted for war against the INNOCENT nation of Afghanistan. How many INNOCENT lives have been lost there?And yet many on this site, and people who I speak to, support that invasion and war effort.So killing innocent lives in Afghansitan is more justified than putting to death Gacy, Dahmer or Bundy? That's a ridiculous position.Dropping bombs on Japan, which many here, and people I speak to, supported, killing 100,000's innocent lives is more justified than putting Gacy, Dahmer or Bundy to death?We're not trying to get rid of war, only making it better to reduce the amount of civilian casualties. And even then it is inevitable.Likewise we shouldn't be trying to get rid of capital punishment, but instead trying to better it to reduce the amount of innocent lives taken. Which is not many, and certainly NOTHING in comparison to the innocent lost during war conflict. Rotting away in a prison until you die is NOT in ANY way better or more humane. Have you seen what goes on inside a prison? It's horrifying. All life in prison does is make YOU feel better. But if you're going to foget about them anyway, what do you care if they're rotting in a cell or rotting underground?- Oni

You are mixing two separate issues together.There is a debate to be had about whether any war is justified. I believe that in extreme and critical circumstances, it is possible to justify a war. Those circumstances always require that innocent lives are protected, or that freedom from inhuman oppression be maintained. These requirements are what allow us to countenance the loss of innocent life in a war - greater loss of innocent life is being prevented or greater freedom from oppression is being preserved.That debate is always nuanced, and always difficult. And of course, never perfect.It is entirely separate from a debate about capital punishment. Capital punishment does not require extreme and critical circumstances. It takes place in the peaceful bosom of gentle democracy, and does not require us to weigh the cost of killing against a risk of future loss of innocent life or future protection from inhuman oppression, in the same way that war does.(Note: the reason that it does not require us to weigh against a risk of future loss of innocent life, is that the convicted murderer can instead be imprisoned for life, rather than executed, to protect those innocent future lives).We can (and should) legitimately have the capital punishment debate without any need to cross-refer to war. The reason that you do so is to attack the straw man that killing innocent people in a war is more justified than executing a murderer. I am not arguing that point - I am not making that comparison, because neither that nor any other comparison is needed to analyse the justification for capital punishment.The point which I reiterate once again (and which I would like you to address) is whether (in relation to capital punishment) the warm glow that justice has been done is worth the execution of a single innocent person.(And the fact that you view someone rotting away in prison as being not in any way better or more humane, does I think help my point - if you believe it is horrifying to do that, then isn't your sense of justice being well done to a murderer even better served ? Don't you feel even more strongly that they got their just desserts ? And in addition, I can agree with you that life imprisonment is the way to go, because that way my clincher (of refusing to allow even one innocent person to be killed in my name) is also well served).

No I am not. I'm simply pointing to the commonality between both. You've missed my point. I'm not asking is war justified. Of course it is. It's a part of human nature.You used the argument that the feeling of doing the right thing doesn't justify the potential innocent lives lost. I'm simply pointing to another instance where we do just that and everyone is ok with it. Except when a guard at the prison is killed, right? Or when they kill their cell mate, right? Or if they kill some doctor or therapist at the prison, right? Or if they manage to find a loophole in the system, get released and kill again, right?You ARE protecting future loss of life when you execute an unpredictable killer. Yes No. Because I didn't say it was better or worse. I'm not out for "just desserts." I'm for the removal of an unpredictable killer in society. I'm not "trying to get even."Like with Bin Laden. We weren't trying to get even. We just remove someone from the planet who caused great harm, and stop them from causing future harm.Does it make it better that Seal Team 6 did it, rather than a guy throwing a swith on a machine?In fact, people on death row actual got a trail. And mistakes are rare in the days of DNA evidence. Plus, no one is just put to death. Many, many years pass before such a thing is finally carried out. Many appeals. Many times cases are over turned. Very few people are actually executed. It's the most humane way of ending a persons life.I simply feel, if the case warrents it, such as John Gacy, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, or others like them who are the extreme of the extreme, terminating the lives of these killers is a good thing. There is no need to keep them around where they can possibly, somehow, hurt someone again.- Oni

Ok, if we're talking about capital punishment being justified because it removes from society an unpredictable killer, then we're on more empirical ground. I will go away and do a little more research on this, because my gut instinct is that the number of prison guards/therapists etc killed by inmates who would otherwise have been executed (particularly bearing in mind the point you make about the amount of time they spend in jail anyway, going through appeals) is going to be extremely low when compared with the number of innocent people released over the years for what would be (or are) capital crimes. (The number of misconvicted innocents in the UK alone I can straight away put into double figures, right off the top of my head). But I don't have the data to hand, so I will do some looking.What causes me greater difficulty is your answer "Yes", that a feeling that justice is being done is worth the loss of a single innocent life. That life is buying a feeling for you - an emotional state of affairs - a warm glow. I don't think an innocent life is worth that - no matter how many depraved monsters you do actually execute.

Capital punishment is in absolutely no way whatsoever related to fighting in war.But still, let's look at your arguments Oni. Some wars may be justified. "War" is a large, general term. In general I could only state that war is a terrible option that carries a massive moral and human cost, and I can only find it justified when there is a reasonable belief that not going to war will result in the loss of even more lives, or as a last defense against a true existential, imminent threat (which usually amounts to the same). I do not condone the war in Iraq at all, and while I would have supported some degree of military intervention in Afghanistan, I do not support the form of intervention that has actually happened, nor the present situation in "cleaning" it up. False dichotomy - in no real world does that ever become an actual choice. We could not go to war and not kill John Wayne Gacy, or we could do both, or just one.The morally best option is not ever determined by looking at completely unrelated acts and hashing together an absurd choice.The morally best option is determined by examining the moral consequences of each act as compared to real options.Is it more morally correct to go to war vs not go to war? What depends on the war; in the vast majority of cases I would say that the moral choice is to not go to war. But if a foreign aggressor is already attempting to invade, or there exists some other immanent, existential threat, or if military action is reasonably expected to save more lives than it will cost (such as intervening in and stopping genocide), then war could be the correct choice.You'll note that in none of these examples are we talking about the taking of human life for absolutely no reason other than a vindictive streak, which was my original comment that you replied to. Anotehr false dichotomy. The modern prison system is the current iteration of the same pattern we've been following since before the United States existed, but that doesn't mean it's the only option.Oni, you're seriously arguing that, since the prison system is an ethically bankrupt cesspool of human misery that should shame any civilized society, we should just kill the inmates to put them out of their misery.That's absurd. The solution to a reprehensible criminal (I cannot use the word "justice") system is not to simply kill the criminals. The solution is to change the system.I'm sure you've read some of my posts on the American prison system, and its total and utter failure to provide a deterrent or reduce recidivism in conjunction with the deplorable conditions experienced by the inmates, which amounts to nothing less than torture. I'm right with you in declaring the absurdity and immorality of throwing people in a prison and throwing away the key until they die. I just don't think we need to do that...ever.Many countries have far more humane prison systems, which allow even convicted killers to eventually walk free (many have term limits of a little over 20 years, with the caveat that if an inmate is determined to still be a threat to society then that person will not be released and will usually wind up in psychiatric care), allow time out to visit family, do not use torture like stress positions or solitary confinement, etc.We don't need to choose between life in prison or execution. We don't need to choose between torture and murder. We could choose to refocus the treatment of criminals on rehabilitation rather than revenge. We could choose to take a morally better road, one that would have better results for all of us.

So behaviour is justified by being part of human nature? By that logic, murder is justified and ipso facto capital punishment is not.

Of course not. My comment was in relation to your blanket statement: "It's frustrating to see someone so determined to end another human life for absolutely no reason other than a vindictive streak" can be used to describe a soldier carring out an order to kill someone. The soldier, not the war. I'll stop you here already, because I was clearly addressing vimesey's argument that the feeling of doing the right thing doesn't justify the potential innocent lives lost. I'm simply pointing to another instance where we do just that and everyone is ok with it.I don't mean to drive this into a debate about war being justified. It is not my point nor my reason for the analogy.We can move on, I hope. Yes I see that you were selective in what you feel is an ok reason to invade, or "go to war" with an "enemy." But reality is not dictated by what you feel is the right way to do things.Many missions are carried out and have been carried out where there was a vindictive streak, such as Bin Laden. And the many hits that are carried out in silence.Maybe that's what we need, for executions to be carried out in silence away from the public eye? I guarantee no one whould give a shit after a while. Of course that's absurd. I'm not saying that at all. Are you reading the thread between myself and vimesey? How did you even get to that from what I said? I'm not even going to address that.Here's what I'm saying: some people need to be executed for the crime they commit. There is no reason for some extremely unpredictable killer/s to be kept alive. In some cases, murders have been able to kill behind prison walls too, so the point of protecting future lives can be made here as well. What's the point of keeping a Gacy or Bundy around? I just don't see what is gained.It is a justice, not, the only justice. Very few people are executed and the final order takes a while to be carried out. In cases where something like the Gacy or Bundy murders have accured, a fit punishment is death.Now, I don't think executions should be so public, in fact, probably not public at all. It should be carried out like a secret mission to assassinate some foreign drug boss. No one knows. No one's selective morality whistle goes off.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I think my typing style confussed the reader. Not because it's human nature, just that it is also human nature to be war like.Some war is justifed. War is also human nature.Better?- Oni

That, and killin' colored people.

For what it’s worth here is my opinion as a Christian.Previously I supported the death penalty for those who had committed the most heinous of crimes. We have some serial killers in Canada for which there is irrefutable evidence of horrific killings committed by these men. My view was that they had forfeited their right to life, and frankly I still hold that view, but I don’t see it as being up to us to carry out the sentencing.In actually studying the Christian message I have come to another conclusion.Paul writes this in 1 Corinthians Chap 4.

quote:

---

3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

---

Onifre used as an example John Wayne Gacy of someone deserving of execution and provided a link to read about Gacy. When you read that link and review the story of his life it is hard not to wonder how I might have turned out if I had grown up in similar abusive de-humanizing circumstances, instead of the loving environment that I did experience.Yes, Gacy should be removed from society for the protection of society but I see no benefit to society in his execution.My primary reason for opposing capital punishment though is this. IMHO the fundamental desire of God for our lives is that we have hearts that love sacrificially and unselfishly. It isn’t so much our actions but about the fundamental desire of our hearts. I believe that we establish a trajectory in our lives towards either self love or unselfish love. Our actions our not only an outcome of the desires of our heart but they also establish and reinforce those desires.On an individual level, we as a society are asking someone to carry out the execution on our behalf. I am concerned about what this does to the heart of the executioner. It can only harden his/her heart in the taking of another life in such a pre-meditated way. It also concerns me as to what it does to us as individuals, and as a society, when we take satisfaction out of seeing the sentence carried out.I believe in an ultimate justice by a loving God who gave us existence in the first place. I’m personally content to leave it up to Him. Yes, we need a justice system and prisons for the protection of society but I believe that it is not in the best interests of our society to allow that justice system to take a human life. I believe that it hardens the hearts of us as individuals and as a society.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.