Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

On this thinking capital punishment wouldn't be applied on the basis of what crime was committed. It would instead be applied on the inmates potential for violence to other inmates.A small weedy serial killer whose multiple victims are young children probably wouldn't be much of a danger to other inmates. In fact he'd probably be scared of them. But a big aggressive guy who happens to be in jail for stealing cars might well be deemed a threat to other inmates coz he is a bit of a nutter.So which inmate should be killed off in your view? I'm not convinced that state sponsored cold blooded killing is morally justifiable. Why should the state be able to kill people where there is no self-defense issue any more than an individual can?It seems more like an act of revenge than an act of justice.

Which one? It's a simple question. I find that wrong too. We don't on the whole have armed police here. And I think that is better. See above. I don't think that is OK. If it's not done in defense when is killing ever morally right? What criteria are you applying? Look if someone broke my car window I might well want to smack the bastards face in. If someone raped my daughter I might well be inclined to lock them in a dungeon and inflict tortures on them or something.But that doesn't mean we should base the law or legal punishments on such retributional thinking does it? The law has to take a rational approach to morality rather than emotive otherwise it cannot be applied consistently. The law has to have a reasoned basis beyond pandering to who shouts the loudest or who is the most upset. It may seem cold. But it has to be rational otherwise it is chaos.So what are your criteria for deciding whether or not someone can be killed? My criteria is self defense or the defense of others. I don't think I am being selective. But I think you might be..... Explain to me the basis on which you think we can justify killing someone who is a prisoner, who poses no threat to society as long as they remain a prisoner and who does not wish to be killed.What criteria are you applying?

For spell checker reasons I have had to resort to using the "s" version of "defense". It's really annoying me.... Explain to me how self-defense applies in the case of our weedy serial killer. How is he? If he genuinely would prefer to die I think that should be facilitated. The law has to be rational and morally consistent rather than pander to people's highly understandable emotional responses.If self defense (and I use the term widely to include protecting others as well) is our criteria I am failing to see how we can justify killing a prisoner who poses no serious threat to anyone as long as they are incarcerated.Explain the self defense issue to me. Sure. It's a case by case thing. Which is exactly why you need trials to decide whether or not people are guilty of a crime or whether they killed in self defense.But I am still failing to see where the self defense issue is with regard to a prisoner, who poses no threat to society or other inmates as long as they remain a prisoner.

There are lots of prisoners who are potentially violent, unpredictable and dangerous to other inmates. Not all of them are serial killers. Not all of them are in prison for the most serious crimes.So I am still unclear as to whether you are advocating the death penalty for prisoners who commit certain crimes OR for prisoners who are deemed violent and dangerous to other inmates.Can you clarify? Then I'll watch your video.

I just watched your vid. The guy in question was originally imprisoned for 3 years for auto-theft. He has done 15 years (and counting) because it turns out he is a dangerous and violent prisoner who is a threat to the life of other prisoners.So your vid would seem to support capital punishment for those potentially dangerous and violent individuals who commit relatively minor crimes such as auto-theft rather than murderers who are not a physical threat to other prisoners.I am sure that in your mind all serial killers are physically impressive specimens who are a threat to other prisoners. But unless this is the case your self-defense argument doesn't really hold water.

I doubt you can reform everyone.But that doesn't change the criteria of self-defense does it?

Are you inebriated?

If you want to cite self-defense as the criteria for imposing the death penalty then you need to apply that to those prisoners who pose most threat to the lives of other inmates. Regardless of what crime they have been incarcerated for.If however you want to inflict the death penalty on those who have committed particular crimes you cannot cite self defense as the criteria.Because the most dangerous prisoners and those who you think deserve the death penalty for their crime are not necessarily the same.Make up your mind. Are you being consistent or inconsistent on the self defense criteria? That is a fair question. But it is not the same question as asking whether or not the state has the moral right to kill defenseless and incarcerated people.A key question for any society is what to do with those who just refuse to operate by the rules and morality that everybody else agrees are required to make that society functional.There are multiple options for those who are completely unable to be rehabilitated and who are determined to impose their own warped lack of morality on others. None of them particularly satisfactory.We are basically talking about maximum security type restrictions. If he is known to be that dangerous then there is no excuse for allowing him to kill again whilst in custody is there? Genius style master manipulators who possess near superhuman abilities of the Hannibal Lector ilk are fictional.If we can't contain dangerous criminals then we need to improve the prison system. Not change our moral stance on self defense as the criteria upon which we base moral decisions.

As I first wrote in Message 133Straggler: "If self defense (and I use the term widely to include protecting others as well) is our criteria I am failing to see how we can justify killing a prisoner who poses no serious threat to anyone as long as they are incarcerated. Explain the self defense issue to me."So self-defense (in the widest sense of the term that includes the defense of others) isn't your criteria then? Forgive my confusion. I thought we agreed on this as the criteria upon which the morality of killing someone rests. No?From Message 133If you want to cite self-defense as the criteria for imposing the death penalty then you need to apply that to those prisoners who pose most threat to the lives of other inmates. Regardless of what crime they have been incarcerated for.If however you want to inflict the death penalty on those who have committed particular crimes you cannot cite self defense as the criteria.Because the most dangerous prisoners and those who you think deserve the death penalty for their crime are not necessarily the same.Make up your mind. Are you applying self defense (in the wider sense) as your criteria or not?I'll come to the rest of your post once we have ascertained what your position actually is on the self defense (in the wider sense) issue.

Then we are talking about the same thing and your are being inconsistent.You are happy to let prisoners who are more dangerous to other inmates live whilst you want to kill off prisoners who are less dangerous to other inmates anyway on the basis that they have committed crimes you feel justify the death penalty.Thus we can eliminate protecting other prisoners as a criteria for imposing the death penalty because you are not applying this in a logically consistent manner.So let us move on to the next criteria. If the family and/or victim feel that justice can only be served by locking the perpetrator up in a dungeon and torturing them for the rest of their life are we happy to apply this as justice?I don't think we can or should base the law or legal punishments on such retributional thinking. The law has to take a rational approach to morality rather than emotive otherwise it cannot be applied consistently. The law has to have a reasoned basis beyond pandering to who shouts the loudest or who is the most upset. It may seem cold. But it has to be rational otherwise it is chaotic and inconsistent.So once again we are left asking what criteria there are for deciding whether or not someone can be killed?My criteria is and remains self defense or the defense of others. Your stated primary criteria of "Justice for the victim and family" doesn't seem like something that can possibly be applied dispassionately and objectively by a court of law.Explain to me how it can be.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Dude - You raised the whole 'danger to others prisoners' thing as a justification/criteria here and I simply showed how you aren't applying this in any even remotely sensible manner. So what exactly does justify the death penalty? So you think that whatever the law says defines what is justifiable? Chopping people's hands off for theft is justified if that is what the law says? Laws opposing inter-racial marriage are justified if that is what the law says? Whose law? In Europe we don't have the death penalty so are you saying that the death penalty isn't justified in Europe but is in the US? How does that make sense?Surely the law should reflect what is justified rather than what is justified be dictated by what the law says. Right? Well you have certainly demonstrated that yours is. However I haven't yet seen you demonstrate any inconsistency with what I have said. Ahhh. I see. You are doing a jar..... Yes - That is the question. And increasingly the civilised world rejects the death penalty as a morally justifiable solution to that question.Why do you think that is?

What is it you think your feelings justify? Thankfully not. That would be ridiculous wouldn't it? I am referring to the act of resorting to "It's my opinion, it's my opinion. I can hold whatever opinion I like" when reasoned argument fails and the position being taken has been shown to be inconsistent. Then you should be able to tell me what objective criteria are being applied in a consistent manner in order to evaluate the extent of a crime and then justify the death penalty for it.This is what I keep asking you for. But all I am getting in response is effectively "Coz Oni thinks so". Fortunately "Coz Oni thinks so" isn't an objective or consistently applicable criteria of the sort the law needs to be based upon. I don't think it is me making the conflation. I merely asked what criteria you were applying. If you have conflated the state's criteria and your own that isn't my fault. Anyway - Now we know what criteria you are applying. You are applying the "Coz Oni thinks so" criteria. I don't think he should have been assassinated. No. I don't think he should have been executed. No. Tried him for genocide and multiple war crimes. I am being honest. I don't think killing another person except in the defence of self or others can be morally justified. Obviously that depends what replaces it.

OK. What are the sate's reasons? Are these reasons applied consistently? Are these reasons able to be morally justified without contradiction? What are you reasons for supporting the state's reasoning on this matter? I'm asking what objective criteria are being applied.Or is it just whatever outrages enough people at any given time? Not killing people is derived from the golden rule, which is about as close to objective morality as we are likely to achieve.