Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

I have.They're typically extremely resistant to any form of argument. There are a few Ive spoken to who have, upon direct questioning, replied that there is no possible evidence or argument that would ever dissuade them from their support of the death penalty. For them, it's about what the accused "deserves," not about the effect such an action may or may not have in society. They literally consider execution in a bubble - this guy killed somebody, so we're going to kill him back, because he deserves it. It has nothing to do with deterrence, they don't particularly care about the potential to execute innocent people, and the relative cost isn't a concern (a frequent response is "just stop letting them appeal so much, and then it won't be so expensive to execute them"), it's an emotionally-charged question of vengeance.It's frustrating to see someone so determined to end another human life for absolutely no reason other than a vindictive streak.

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.

He wasn't executed.An execution requires that a person be in custody of the state, convected and sentenced to die.Bin Laden was killed in a military incursion; it was far closer to assassination.I would have rather seen him put on trial for crimes against humanity and then (if convicted) left in the Hague.I realize I'm in a tiny minority here, and I really don't care: I don't support the death penalty for absolutely any reason, ever, including cases like bin Laden or Hitler. The potential for innocent persons to be wrongly executed would be enough, but even that isn't my reason.I believe that the willful taking of a human life except in the last defense of other lives is immoral. If a cop shoots a person in self-defense or in the defense of another, that's regrettable but acceptable. War can be acceptable for limited reasons, such as intervention in genocide, or to defend a nation or its allies from an aggressor. The taking of human life is always terrible and awful and disgusting and repulsive, and it only becomes the "right" course of action when it is the least wrong out of all available solutions.It is never right to take a human life merely to make things easier, or to sate a thirst for vengeance. What's horrifying is the amount of cheering and expressions of joy at the death of a human being. It made me feel ill. I condemn genocide and abuse and murder and rape and all of the other ills of humanity wherever they occur, Oni, whenever I'm made aware of them. As an individual person with limited financial means, I'm not able to actually do much more than condemn (and occasionally I get to vote), but my condemnation is not at all selective. And you're utterly, completely wrong about my moral compass being selective. It's rather dishonest of you to presume to know where the moral compass of others points. I have heard no compelling argument from you that this is so. I would rather a hundred murderers go free than kill one innocent man. Well, clearly you don't, and you're certainly joined by a great many people in this country.But you're not joined by me.It's always both interesting and horrifying to me that so many people can agree that human life is great and wonderful and has such high value...but then find so many reasons to stop identifying specific individuals as people such that all of those good and wonderful things no longer apply. Reasons like "they're the enemy," or "he's a criminal," where individuals are dehumanized until it's okay or even an obligation to end their lives.Everyone who has hopes and dreams and fears and thoughts is a person. Every person has value. The ending of a person is terrible and horrible, and should only be done on purpose in the last defense of other people, when other options no longer exist.The death penalty doesn't stand up to such scrutiny. It's just disgusting state-sanctioned murder, made all the more horrible by its ceremonial trappings and methodical application. And I am filled with every bit as much revulsion when people, including the families of victims, feel happy or satisfied or relieved at the death of a human being, as I am at the actions of the murderer himself."Execution" is just another word we use when we don't really want to say "letting ourselves be just as bad as that guy was."

I differ because I don;t really buy into the "punishment" aspect of justice at all.I prefer systems where the focus is on rehabilitation and maximizing the chances of those convicted of crimes to turn into productive, law-abiding citizens. I don't particularly care about what's "fair" in terms of "an eye for an eye;" when we talk about "justice for the victims and their families," what we're really talking about is being inhuman to a human being to satisfy our own vindictive urges - there is no actual purpose beyond a sense of emotional satisfaction, and I find that such things carry a moral value orders of magnitude less than the harm required to feel them.I support a maximum term in prison of something like 20 years, as much of Europe uses, with the option of continued confinement if the prisoner is established to be a reasonable threat to himself or others on release. I support monitored limited-time release from prison, something like a weekend out in the world, monitored, to be spent with family and friends every 90 days or so to keep the person connected with the positive influences in their life, rather than restricting those influences to a hostile institution and the other inmates. I support a full range of medical and (more importantly) psychiatric services for all inmates (which I would also like to see for everyone else), as well as educational opportunities focused on gaining meaningful employment upon release - former convicts need to have a way to make a living on the outside, or they'll have no choice but to return to crime.I absolutely abhor the current US attitude toward former inmates, where it is virtually impossible to get a job if you've ever been convicted of a violent misdemeanor or any sort of felony, leaving most former inmates no choice but to resort to lying on applications or theft and other illicit enterprise. Similarly, I strongly disapprove of the current system of sex offender registration, whereby a guy who walked past his own window naked after taking a shower and happened to be seen by a pedestrian on the street is placed on the same "you'll never get a job and your neighbors will always be there with torches and pitchforks" list as violent rapists; I also disapprove of the fact that the list is a de facto life sentence, even if you're put on it for consensual sex that was also statutory rape when both parties were 14 (many states have idiotic loopholes like this, where if two minors engage in consensual sex they are both guilty of raping each other), you'll always be placed in the same group as serial rapists. I agree - earlier release is based on an entirely different argument, that being rehabilitation and a transition of an inmate into a productive member of society is far better for the inmate and society as a whole than keeping him locked up, even if the prison were renovated into something that would actually qualify as humane. I think that there is no moral argument in favor of capital punishment from the start. But yes, the existence of options other than state-sanctioned murder certainly shows that the death penalty is not in fact being used as an action of last resort by any stretch of the imagination, and is therefore no better than murder itself.

Perhaps you should try reading again. I don't oppose the death penalty because of the risk of killing innocents, though that would be sufficient.I oppose the death penalty because the willful termination of a human life is immoral without exception, and is acceptable only when used in the immediate prevention of more harm.There is no immanent threat involved with a prison inmate. He's in the custody of the state. He's not currently holding a gun to someone. There's no need to kill him to prevent more killing, and therefore there is no justification for killing him.There are situations where a police officer may be forced to use lethal force to prevent someone else (including himself) from being killed. There is a justifiable use case for an officer carrying a firearm; whether cops tend to use their weapons responsibly is an entirely different issue.The death penalty, on the other hand, has no justifiable potential use. You cannot use a gas chamber or lethal injection or electric chair or gallows to prevent the immanent threat to a human life. Capital punishment can only be used for the cold-blooded vengeful murder of a person who by definition cannot possibly be an immanent threat to anyone.I don't see an inconsistency there, Onifre. I see a consistent valuation of human life, a consistent condemnation of the willful killing of a person, and a consistent rationale for when the willful killing of a person becomes the least-bad option.

Thanks for doing the legwork. But all of the data conclusively show time and again that it's not. The murder rate is lower in states where there is no death penalty; obviously the death penalty cannot be a functional deterrent if there are more murders where it is used. It does...but so does keeping them in prison, or rehabilitating them, or any other potential solution. This rationale would only be valid if either ending human life were morally trivial (and it's not) or if execution were the only way to prevent crime, and "future crimes" were guaranteed to be more harmful than murdering the criminal (ie, if we're preventing the shoplifting of a stick of gum, it's not much of an argument). Yet it doesn't, because we must allow for multiple, thorough appeals to ensure that the convicted individual is actually guilty of the crime. It costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. These are the same thing, and they never ever under any circumstance justify another murder, which is exactly what execution is. And I'd rather be labelled a liberal pussy than actually be an immoral murder-supporter. Not necessarily. But the real point of that statement was to express my horror at the potential (and it's actually happened) to execute innocent people. In reality, we have other choices beyond executing innocents and setting killers free. Options like confinement of dangerous probable killers, and not executing anyone, which neatly avoids the potential to execute anyone innocent of a crime. It hasn't in areas where such a prison policy is actually used, right now. I wasn't speaking hypothetically - it's a real policy that exists in many European nations. You cannot ever be sentenced to more than ~20 years regardless of your crime, but the state retains the ability to continue to detain you if you are assessed to pose a reasonable risk to yourself or others if released. It's that last bit that I think prevents the additional murders; the former is a consequence of other nations' focus on rehabilitation over vengeance and punishment.Their way objectively works better. And you don't know me. At all.I don't have any kids. But let's say someone raped and murdered my fiance. I wouldn't want to be in the same room as her killer. I would certainly feel some strong emotions. But I would absolutely ask the prosecution and the judge to not seek the death penalty.My base human instincts, those feelings that drive us all to desire revenge and punishment, may have some sway within me...but they do not have a greater power to move me to action than do my moral considerations. Understanding a desire is not the same as supporting a course of action. I get where that comes from, but I still would not support the death penalty, under any circumstance whatsoever.Execution machines like the lethal injection table or the gas chamber ought to never have been made.

1) Your tactic of indirect debate, referring to your own strawman of my arguments in a response to someone else, is not appreciated. I responded to your accusations of incongruity. If you'd like to respond, please do so. Pleas do not simply ignore my rebuttal and play poor-faith games like this.2) There is nothing inconsistent with recognizing that lethal force is a morally reprehensible but nontheless the least-bad option in the last defense of human life the immanent threat posed by an armed aggressor and simultaneously denouncing the death penalty because it's not a last-option defense of anything.Further, I would condone the use of lethal force as a regrettable and horrifying last defense of a human life against an armed aggressor from any armed defender, whether that person carried a badge or not.And I would absolutely prefer to solve the problem of armed gunmen by reducing or eliminating the availability of firearms to everyone, including the police, as has been done in several other countries like Britain.I say again: please stop putting words in my mouth, please stop debating in bad faith, and please stop indirect debate through responses to others rather than actually responding to a rebuttal.

Oni, please look op the meaning of the word "imminent," and then readdress my rebuttal.You cannot use lethal injection or the electric chair or the gas chamber as a defense against an imminent threat because they require an already-subdued victim who cannot possibly be an imminent danger to anyone.An imminent threat is an immediate one - a convicted murderer who possesses a handgun but who is not currently pointing it at someone is not an imminent threat.A person pointing a gun at another person's head is.The points you are responding to require you to be able to differentiate between an imminent and a potential threat to human life. Please try again when you're able to do that.