patrick.net

Rin says

Dan, have you not lived through the cold war? Many of the US's actions were done through proxy. According to the rules of our society, prim and proper ppl don't use excessive force or subterfuge.

Yes, many actions are done covertly and the truth is covered up. I would argue that this is a very bad thing in the long run regardless of what the truth is. Is something isn't justifiable in the out and open, it's not justifiable period.

Rin says

Family members know that this person is off the earth, literally, instead of imagining him running a terrorist recruiting ring out of prison, like a lot of mafioso types do, at present, for drugs and money launderings.

A person in prison cannot recruit terrorists as all his communications are heavily monitored. In fact, attempts to make contacts would be an intelligence boon. Furthermore, becoming a martyr is a far more effective recruitment tool for any cause, terrorism or not.

If family members feel satisfied that he dies, that is a bloodlust argument, so it does not answer my question.

Rin says

And then, what stops him of getting a chance at parole like Chapman?

That problem is not a justification for the death penalty, but rather for not letting those sentenced for life have commuted sentences unless they are shown to have been wrongly convicted.

HydroCabron says

Fact is, we tried blood-feuds (privatized justice) and hangings of pickpockets for centuries.

It didn't work: at public hangings of pickpockets - the crowds were infested with pickpockets.

Yep, empirical evidence also backs up that the death penalty isn't a deterrent.

Rin says

So until jail becomes a full solitary confinement experience w/ no reading nor writing materials, then it's basically a full time summer camp for criminals, with the occasional brawls and shower rapes.

Which again only works if the prisoners are eventually released. To argue the death penalty for minor crimes as a way of preventing criminal training is weak since giving life imprisonment for those same crimes would work just as well.

HydroCabron says

By the way: crime rates have been dropping consistently for 20 years, and it appears that the demise of leaded gasoline flipped the switch.

I think there are other significant factors that are at play such as anti-poverty programs, family planning, the rise of technologies and cameras, the aging of the Baby Boomers (who were all basically criminals).

In fact, if you count all crime, crime today is at an all-time high. Sure violent and youth crime is at an all-time low because Boomers can't commit those kinds of crimes anyway because they are old. But what about financial crimes? They are at a historic high. Few murders murder more than one person. They get caught in the first act and don't get another chance. In contrast, the average person in the financial industry commits hundreds of felonies per day just doing the normal operations of his job. That's a lifetime of criminal activity every day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year. If we actually counted all the financial crimes, we wouldn't say crime is at an all-time low. We'd say the aging Boomers moved from robbing people on the streets to robing them on Wall Street.

Rin says

2 & 4, however, made his incarceration, a worse outcome than the death penalty,

As for 2, being a martyr typically is far more inspiring, especially to a culture that glorifies martyrdom for their religion.

As for 4, anyone can write propaganda to support an unjust cause. The solution isn't to prevent the propaganda or kill those doing it. The solution is to counter the propaganda and the best way to do that is to get everything in the open. The most effective way to kill a lie is not to silence it but to confront it with the truth.

Rin says

How is Mark Chapman's current lifestyle of never having to work for a living, reading and writing whatever he wants, with 3 meals per day, punishment? I'd say that he was rewarded for killing Lennon.

I'd hardly say that life in prison is more pleasant than life outside it. But even if Chapman isn't suffering, how is justice served by making him suffer? Is the purpose of our legal system really to inflict suffering on others? I thought it was to protect people.

Imprisonment makes sense to the point where it is a deterrent and to the extent that it physically prevents a person from harming others. Some amount of suffering certainly acts as a deterrent for someone who is eventually going to be released. But for someone who's not going to be released, what's the point of making that person suffer? It may serve bloodlust, but it does not make us safer.

Dan8267 says

Rin says

How is Mark Chapman's current lifestyle of never having to work for a living, reading and writing whatever he wants, with 3 meals per day, punishment? I'd say that he was rewarded for killing Lennon.

I'd hardly say that life in prison is more pleasant than life outside it. But even if Chapman isn't suffering, how is justice served by making him suffer? Is the purpose of our legal system really to inflict suffering on others? I thought it was to protect people.

A prison is a correctional facility. Part of that correction is just punishment, not simply putting a wall between the criminal and the rest of society. A criminal needs to know that his actions are anti-society and unacceptable, not just time in the slam.

And when a person is separated from the general prison population of thugs and marauders, then yes, for certain ppl, who are of nefarious value to society, it's a good life. The Birdman of Alcatraz made a good life for himself in prison, prior to his final transfer to Alcatraz, where his work on birds was taken away from him. That final bit, was adequate punishment for his prior murders, as he was deprived of his intellectual pursuits.

Dan8267 says

To argue the death penalty for minor crimes as a way of preventing criminal

As you know, for me, the death penalty is for murder, not minor crimes, as it indicates to the criminal that he can't have free board/housing/food for life with a bit of solitary if his victims are famous, as in Chapman's case. Tsarnev may get a similar setup as Chapman, given what the average person thinks about him.

But then on the flip side, as I'd said, the problem with the death penalty, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction. And thus, it's difficult to administer the death penalty, since it's the so-called perfect punishment for an imperfect system. Therefore, we can't have the death penalty. I don't argue for theoretical conditions, I look at the way things are.

Why should I as a taxpayer pay for his "live in prison". It'll be much cheaper to just give him the same kind of justice he gave us. Execute that asshole and be done with him.

FortWayne says

Why should I as a taxpayer pay for his "live in prison".

Because all 1st degree murder cases need the same treatment. His notoriety doesn't change that fact.

Rin says

FortWayne says

Why should I as a taxpayer pay for his "live in prison".

Because all 1st degree murder cases need the same treatment. His notoriety doesn't change that fact.

Than execute them all. It'll be much cheaper for taxpayers.

Rin says

A prison is a correctional facility. Part of that correction is just punishment, not simply putting a wall between the criminal and the rest of society. A criminal needs to know that his actions are anti-society and unacceptable, not just time in the slam.

Ah, an anti-recidivism argument. I like the idea of reforming criminals. Of course, such an argument would not support the death penalty over life in prison as in each case the person is not given a second chance, but that's not what you are arguing. Does inflicting suffering really reform people? Does corporal punishment work? Does humiliating and dehumanizing a person make him a better person out of fear of future torment? I don't know off the top of my head -- I haven't researched that -- but what I have read and heard suggests that these tactics actually backfire. Humiliating or dehumanizing a person or inflicting harm on him makes him more likely to become anti-social, anti-cooperative, and rebellious.

But anyway, although inflicting suffering might, and the keyword is might, reduce recidivism, it still does not make any rational sense to inflict suffering on someone who is serving a life sentence or getting the death penalty. Yet, most pro-death-penalty people want the condemn to suffer a painful death. It still sounds like just bloodlust to me.

As for lesser crimes, I think our prison system is designed to maximize recidivism because it's repeat business and increases the profits and wages of the prison industry. I think it would be far better for our society to replace prison with reform programs in any case where the criminal does not need to be physically separated from society for safety. It would cost far less in the long run, and we would be safer.

Rin says

The Birdman of Alcatraz made a good life for himself in prison, prior to his final transfer to Alcatraz, where his work on birds was taken away from him. That final bit, was adequate punishment for his prior murders, as he was deprived of his intellectual pursuits.

So, it is good to make this prisoner suffer? How so? What does society gain by his suffering?

Rin says

But then on the flip side, as I'd said, the problem with the death penalty, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction.

True, one can make a good argument against the death penalty because it cannot be undone and we have undeniably murdered innocent people in the past. But I'm not interested in making the case against the death penalty right now. I'm interested in the harder question of what good is served by killing someone who is no longer a threat. It's a moral, an ethical, and a policy-making question.

It seems to me that the death penalty exists only to make people who like revenge feel temporarily good that the bad guy suffered. But that is not a moral, ethical, or legal justification for the death penalty. Some of the supporters try to find evidence to justify the death penalty, but I'm not in disingenuous reasons supported by weak evidence. I'm interested if there is a real, honest, rational reason for the death penalty. I've played devil's advocate on this and I cannot think of any.

To be in favor of the death penalty is to say that there is a justification for taking a human life that is not endangering anyone. I cannot find any rationale to support such a proposition, and so far, no one in this thread has addressed that issue. They've danced around the issue rather than addressing it.

FortWayne says

Than execute them all. It'll be much cheaper for taxpayers.

Executing people to save money is, by definition, murder. It would be cheaper for taxpayers if we executed all babies. No need to provide health care, parks, education, etc. for them. And murder is murder whether your victim is innocent or guilty of crimes.

Also, it would be far cheaper for taxpayers if we released all people in prison on drug offenses, stopped the war on drugs, and decriminalize all drug use and trade. But you aren't for that, are you? So I call your cost-cutting argument disingenuous. You are not motivated by saving the utterly insignificant amount of money spent on prisoners. You are clearly motivated by something else. The only thing that seems to match your motivation is bloodlust. So, how exactly are you better than the people you want to see executed?

Dan8267 says

A person in prison cannot recruit terrorists as all his communications are heavily monitored. In fact, attempts to make contacts would be an intelligence boon. Furthermore, becoming a martyr is a far more effective recruitment tool for any cause, terrorism or not.

"U.S. Prisons Churning Out Thousands Of Radicalized Inmates"
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/21/u-s-prisons-churning-out-thousands-of-radicalized-inmates/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spearit/growing-faith-prisons-hip-hop-and-islam_b_2829013.html

But anyway, although inflicting suffering might, and the keyword is might, reduce recidivism, it still does not make any rational sense to inflict suffering on someone who is serving a life sentence

Dan8267 says

Rin says

The Birdman of Alcatraz made a good life for himself in prison, prior to his final transfer to Alcatraz, where his work on birds was taken away from him. That final bit, was adequate punishment for his prior murders, as he was deprived of his intellectual pursuits.

So, it is good to make this prisoner suffer? How so? What does society gain by his suffering?

Like a lot of intelligent ppl, the Birdman was able to compartmentalize his life, focusing on birds instead of dealing with his past. At Alcatraz, w/o that ability to stay inside his vaunted hobbies, he was finally able to experience some contrition for the life he'd chosen for himself.

Now, you might say that his work on birds was equivalent to my science and engineering welfare state but I'd prefer that the first few members not be hardened criminals.

The thing is that because the Birdman's 2nd murder was of a prison guard, his parole opportunities were always shot down. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a true life sentence. With adequate protest from supporters, even a confirmed murderer can get off on good behavior, provided he can show to the parole board that he'd made some changes.

BTW, you should watch Burt Lancaster's classic on the man. It's possibly one of his best movies.

Dan8267 says

To be in favor of the death penalty is to say that there is a justification for taking a human life that is not endangering anyone.

Are you certain that that person couldn't endanger anyone again? I believe that this was the point which Michael Dukakis had a hard time getting around during his White House run was that Willie Horton, a convicted murderer, who was on a weekend furlough, committed armed robbery/rape again. Dukakis had supported such a furlough program for MA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton

Dan8267 says

Executing people to save money is, by definition, murder. It would be cheaper for taxpayers if we executed all babies. No need to provide health care, parks, education, etc. for them. And murder is murder whether your victim is innocent or guilty of crimes.

No Dan, you and your liberal logic of fallacy again. Children are needed and wanted, they are the future. Criminals and murderers will never be useful unless we bring back prison labor, so execute them.

socal2 says

"U.S. Prisons Churning Out Thousands Of Radicalized Inmates"

That's a good argument again incarceration as prisons are largely college for criminals. It is not, however, an argument in favor of the death penalty. The best you could do to apply this argument to terrorism is that people sentenced to life in prison should be isolated from people not sentenced to life.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The justification is to set an example to other potential murderers.

Really? Your sole motivation is deterrence, right? Then you'll change your position once I inform you that a plethora of evidence shows that the death penalty has no deterrence and this has been scientifically proven.

That's because the death penalty is rarely imposed. Start executing them and watch how quickly violent crimes drop. Murderers, child rapists, terrorists, should all be executed within 12 months of conviction.

Rin says

Like a lot of intelligent ppl, the Birdman was able to compartmentalize his life, focusing on birds instead of dealing with his past. At Alcatraz, w/o that ability to stay inside his vaunted hobbies, he was finally able to experience some contrition for the life he'd chosen for himself.

OK, but why does it matter whether or not Birdman contrites or reforms when he's never getting out of prison? What value does making the guilty who will be given no second chance remorse?

Rin says

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a true life sentence.

Ah, but the solution to that is to make life sentences actually be life sentences. I don't buy the justification of killing someone in order to prevent people in the future from shortening their sentences. If people are wrongly shortening sentences, then that is the behavior that should stop.

Rin says

Are you certain that that person couldn't endanger anyone again? I believe that this was the point which Michael Dukakis had a hard time getting around during his White House run was that Willie Horton, a convicted murderer, who was on a weekend furlough, committed armed robbery/rape again.

Again, this is an argument against shortening a life sentence, not an argument for killing a person in prison.

You might even extend this argument to requiring that life sentences be served in a maximum security prison so that the inmate cannot harm other inmates, but that doesn't extend the argument to justifying the death penalty.

P implies Q. A person is not a threat to others implies that person should not be killed. All of your arguments are attempting to invalidate the premise, but that doesn't address my question. My question is can you show that P does not imply Q, i.e. there is justification for killing a person who is not a threat to others. Accept P and show me a case where not Q is true.

Strategist says

That's because the death penalty is rarely imposed. Start executing them and watch how quickly violent crimes drop. Murderers, child rapists, terrorists, should all be executed within 12 months of conviction.

You are making an assumption that has been empirically disproved time and time again throughout history. There have been many societies that have been hard on crime. They are all places you would not like to live: Medieval Europe, modern Afghanistan, Communist China, etc.

But what about this? It is inevitable that mistakes will be made. If you serve on a jury and you convict an innocent person to death and he's killed before the mistake is proven, would you willingly submit yourself to the death penalty for your part in murdering an innocent person? And don't puss out by questioning the premise. Accept that and tell us if you would stick by your convictions when they call for your death.

Better idea: convert him to Judaism (learn Hebrew, study Talmud, etc) as a precondition of his release. Then let him go in Saudi Arabia. His own peeps will be obliged to murder him as an apostate, and his reputation for being an Islamic warrior will be totally negated in the shame of his becoming a hated Jew.

Dan8267 says

You are making an assumption that has been empirically disproved time and time again throughout history. There have been many societies that have been hard on crime. They are all places you would not like to live: Medieval Europe, modern Afghanistan, Communist China, etc.

Islamic countries that enforce the Sharia laws have little or no crime. That is all the proof you need to show capital punishment works.

Dan8267 says

But what about this? It is inevitable that mistakes will be made. If you serve on a jury and you convict an innocent person to death and he's killed before the mistake is proven, would you willingly submit yourself to the death penalty for your part in murdering an innocent person? And don't puss out by questioning the premise. Accept that and tell us if you would stick by your convictions when they call for your death.

It's not murder, or even manslaughter.

FortWayne says

No Dan, you and your liberal logic of fallacy again. Children are needed and wanted, they are the future. Criminals and murderers will never be useful unless we bring back prison labor, so execute them.

Actually, my pointing out the contradictions of your philosophy are valid even if you cannot admit them. As for your statement, it's premise is empirically false. Many convicted criminals have served their sentence and become productive members of society. Therefore, your premise that criminals will never be useful is historically false.

As for murderers, to murder someone is to intentionally kill them without their permission. The guy in America Sniper was a murderer. Are you saying he should be executed? Hell, executions of prisoners is, by definition, murder.

And for the pussies who want to cop out by saying murder is only the "illegal killing" or a person, by that definition, Hitler did not murder anyone. No person was murder in the Holocaust. After all, everything Hitler did was legal since he was the law.

We don't really base what is and is not murder on government policy. If we did, what constitute murder would vary greatly from society to society. And still, the guy in American Sniper would be a murderer because his actions were ILLEGAL in the country where he performed them.

So, FortWayne, you only have a problem with SOME murderers and you glorify others. Hence, you are being disingenuous with your statement that all murderers should be executed. What you meant to say was, "anyone who commits a murder that I don't approve of should be executed", and that has an entirely different meaning.

Strategist says

Islamic countries that enforce the Sharia laws have little or no crime. That is all the proof you need to show capital punishment works.

Actually their laws, just ones and unjust ones, are violated all the time. Otherwise no one would be getting executed. If mass capital punishment worked as a deterrent, there wouldn't be many people committing capital crimes, and thus the mass capital punishment would no happen and thus would not deter. See how it's self-defeating?

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

But what about this? It is inevitable that mistakes will be made. If you serve on a jury and you convict an innocent person to death and he's killed before the mistake is proven, would you willingly submit yourself to the death penalty for your part in murdering an innocent person? And don't puss out by questioning the premise. Accept that and tell us if you would stick by your convictions when they call for your death.

It's not murder, or even manslaughter.

And you pussy out.

And still you're wrong. Wrongly sentencing a person to death is equivalent to killing that innocent person with your bare hands. If it weren't then it wouldn't be murder to hire an assassin to kill someone.

Dan8267 says

Actually, my pointing out the contradictions of your philosophy are valid even if you cannot admit them. As for your statement, it's premise is empirically false. Many convicted criminals have served their sentence and become productive members of society. Therefore, your premise that criminals will never be useful is historically false.

Most have not.

Dan8267 says

As for murderers, to murder someone is to intentionally kill them without their permission. The guy in America Sniper was a murderer. Are you saying he should be executed? Hell, executions of prisoners is, by definition, murder.

Killing by Self defense is also without permission. Is that murder too? The American sniper is a hero. Those who kill terrorists are heroes.

Dan8267 says

And for the pussies who want to cop out by saying murder is only the "illegal killing" or a person, by that definition, Hitler did not murder anyone. No person was murder in the Holocaust. After all, everything Hitler did was legal since he was the law.

Hitler was a murderer because he ordered the murder of countless innocent people. No one recognized the laws he made.

Dan8267 says

We don't really base what is and is not murder on government policy. If we did, what constitute murder would vary greatly from society to society. And still, the guy in American Sniper would be a murderer because his actions were ILLEGAL in the country where he performed them.

So, FortWayne, you only have a problem with SOME murderers and you glorify others. Hence, you are being disingenuous with your statement that all murderers should be executed. What you meant to say was, "anyone who commits a murder that I don't approve of should be executed", and that has an entirely different meaning.

Executions are legal in this land, so why do you call it murder, Dan?

Dan8267 says

It's not murder, or even manslaughter.

And you pussy out.

And still you're wrong. Wrongly sentencing a person to death is equivalent to killing that innocent person with your bare hands. If it weren't then it wouldn't be murder to hire an assassin to kill someone.

According to you, it's murder if the law of the land says it's murder. Therefore it's not murder if the law of the land says it's not murder.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Make up your mind.

Dan8267 says

the solution to that is to make life sentences actually be life sentences.

Then it's obvious that you live in an academic argument and not in the actual practice of our penal system.

In our current time and age, there is no such thing as life imprisonment. So far, only those who're connected to high profile murders, see Sirhan Sirhan, Mark Chapman, Charles Manson, etc, are behind bars for life. And yes, because it was a prison guard, it also applied to the Birdman, during his time. Otherwise, he would have been paroled, if it were some random character.

If you can guarantee life imprisonment, for real, not simply a decade or so of jail time, prior to facing a parole hearing then yes, your arguments are valid. For one, I don't see the penal system changing anytime soon. The world is what it is.

Dan8267 says

So, FortWayne, you only have a problem with SOME murderers and you glorify others.

You ever heard that world is not black and white but many shades of gray? And yet somehow you liberals still try to go with all or nothing. That's not how it works man.

Strategist says

Killing by Self defense is also without permission. Is that murder too?

Yes, but sometimes murder IS justified. When murder is the path of least evil, say in defense of oneself or another, it is justified. However, if a lesser evil can prevent the crime, then murdering the criminal is not necessary or justified.

The man in American Sniper may damn well have been justified in every single murder he committed, but it's still murder and still an evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil. A justified evil is still evil.

Strategist says

The American sniper is a hero. Those who kill terrorists are heroes.

This just demonstrates that murderers can be heroes and that murder can be heroic. I don't argue against that. I'd gladly have murder Hitler, say using Time Travel, if doing so would have prevented the Holocaust, but it's still murder.

Murder is not some marketing term that applies only when you want it to apply. It's not an insult to be hurled around subjectively. Murder is the specific decision to kill someone who doesn't want to die.

Strategist says

Hitler was a murderer because he ordered the murder of countless innocent people. No one recognized the laws he made.

Millions recognized the laws Hitler made particularly those carrying out those lies. Furthermore, not recognizing a law does not change the fact that it is a law. Furthermore, we condemn the laws of our country's past like the Fugitive Slave Act, but that doesn't retroactively erase it from history. The fact remains that Harriet Tubman was a criminal who simply didn't get caught. Was she a hero? HELL YES! But that doesn't change the fact that her heroic acts were criminal acts. What it shows is that what constitutes illegal and what constitutes immoral have nothing to do with each other.

So your statements are simply wrong. If you define murder as unlawful killing, then Hitler did not murder anyone. To call Hitler a murderer is to accept that what constitutes murder is not up to popular election, the whims of lawmakers, or the culture of the time.

The difference between Hitler's murderers and the American Sniper's murderers is that the later are allegedly justified as the path of least evil. (As to whether or not they actually are, no one can say since we don't know the details of who was murder and what they were going to do, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.)

Strategist says

Executions are legal in this land, so why do you call it murder, Dan?

As show above, legality does not determine if a killing is murder. If it did, Hitler would not be a murderer and the American Sniper would be. Accepting your definition of murder requires considering Hitler to be a better human being than the American Sniper in order to be logically consistent. You may accept holding two contradicting beliefs simultaneously, but the rational among us do not.

Furthermore, the American Sniper's actions were not legal in the country in which he performed them. It would be like someone from Amsterdam coming to our country and selling weed in front of the White House. His actions may be considered legal by his country, but not by the country in which he's performing them and that's what determines legality.

Of course, it would be retarded to define murder as what is considered unlawful killing by the U.S. government. By that definition, killing your slave wasn't murder in the 19th century. Lynching blacks to deaths wasn't murder in the 1920s. It's a ridiculous definition that defies common sense.

The bottom line is that you cannot escape condemning the American Sniper if you condemn all unlawful killings, nor can you escape condoning Hitler if you condone killings on the condition that they are lawful. The law can be evil.

Strategist says

According to you, it's murder if the law of the land says it's murder. Therefore it's not murder if the law of the land says it's not murder.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Make up your mind.

No, that's the opposite of what I said. I said that murder is "the intentional killing of a person against his will".

In any case, arguing about nomenclature does not change the nature of the subject being discussed. If you got some bug up your ass about using the word murder in a consistent matter, then substitute another made up word like forjuring. It does not matter. It does not change what is true and what is not.

Whether or not intentionally killing someone against his will is justified or not is not determined by the word you use to refer to the killing or the law of the land. Law is not self-justifying. Only reasons can justify law or policy, and reasons are independent of nomenclature.

Rin says

Dan8267 says

the solution to that is to make life sentences actually be life sentences.

Then it's obvious that you live in an academic argument and not in the actual practice of our penal system.

So your argument is that killing a human being is justified as a means to prevent the possibility that people in the future might erroneously reduce that person's sentence and he may become a threat again.

First, that is a value judgement and therefore cannot be classified as right or wrong. I do, however, disagree with that value judgement and in my opinion that value judgement undervalues human life.

Second, that value judgement does not address the question I posed. Once again, you are arguing NOT P instead of showing an example of P and NOT Q. Show me an example were it is justified to kill a person who CANNOT EVER harm a person again. That is the moral and ethical question at hand.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

So, FortWayne, you only have a problem with SOME murderers and you glorify others.

You ever heard that world is not black and white but many shades of gray?

Hypocrisy isn't an example of shades of gray. For example, the only reason you like the American Sniper is that he's a member of YOUR tribe. If he were a member of the opposing tribe and did the exact same thing, killing the foreigners threatening his land and people, you would condemn him as an evil and despicable person who deserves to die painfully. There are no shades of gray in your assessment, only hypocrisy.

I have no problem with the idea that murder can be justified if its the path of least evil. So, by definition, I'm recognizing shades of gray, or shades of evil to be more precise. However, that does not even address the moral and ethical question I've posed a dozen times in this thread. When it's not the lesser or two evils, when a person is no longer a threat and never will be, how can one morally, ethically, legally, or rationally justify murdering that person?

So far no one has even attempted to address that question. Instead they try to avoid the question by negating the premise. Negating the premise does not address whether or not the statement is true. For example, the statement "all tigers have stripes" is a true statement even if an elephant does not have strips. If the premise is false, the statement is still true. Again, there is no wisdom without logic.

Dan8267 says

were it is justified to kill a person who CANNOT EVER harm a person again

In academia, there is no justification. And that's where you are, in academia.

In the real world, however, there are extenuating circumstances because CANNOT EVER does not exist.

In academia, there's an ideal gas equation for the behavior of molecules. In real chemical applications, however, Van Der Waal coefficients needed to be added, via experimental methods, to build a working model.

And just like that, observing the real world, I don't believe in the current system in place works well for life imprisonment w/o parole.

He should be used for stem cell research while alive.

That way even bleeding heart liberals like Dan would want to play along.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The American sniper is a hero. Those who kill terrorists are heroes.

This just demonstrates that murderers can be heroes and that murder can be heroic. I don't argue against that. I'd gladly have murder Hitler, say using Time Travel, if doing so would have prevented the Holocaust, but it's still murder.

Wow. I actually love what you say. What ever you smoked this morning seems to be putting your brain cells in the right order.

I disagree on the terminology. We don't call "justified murder" murder. We call it something else. Though it's still killing.
From Wikipedia:
Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter.[1][2]

Strategist says

Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

So I guess hiring a professional hit man is killing (w/o malice) but not murder, since it's only a payday for him.

And in a sense, isn't that what an executioner is?

Rin says

In academia, there is no justification. And that's where you are, in academia.

I'm not asking in academia. I'm asking in the real world. Image there is a real person who isn't able to harm anyone. Is there any justification for killing him? If so, what? That's not an academic question. It's a question of ethics, a question of morality, a question of rationale, and a question of what the basis of law should be. Each of these questions is important and opens up a deeper discussion.

Just because you cannot answer a question or are unwilling to accept the answer to that question does not make the question "academic".

Rin says

In real chemical applications, however, Van Der Waal coefficients needed to be added, via experimental methods, to build a working model.

And all those things are part of the theory of physics. Yes, even the details.

CaptainShuddup says

He should be used for stem cell research while alive.

That way even bleeding heart liberals like Dan would want to play along.

I'm willing to discuss the ethical ramifications of using prisoners for organ extraction, stem cell research, medical research, etc. But that's a whole different topic and the consensus is that the conflict of interest will always turn such a system into a corrupt profit machine that wrongly convicts people to harvest their organs.

Strategist says

I disagree on the terminology. We don't call "justified murder" murder. We call it something else.

Terminology is irrelevant. And human history is full of using deceptive wording for the sole purpose of polishing turds.

The problem with using subjective definition is that what is justified to one person is an atrocity to another. There are plenty of jihadist who believe that 9/11 was justified. You cannot prove or disprove a value judgement.

Whatever you call it, I submit that the intentional taking of a life against its will is an evil even if its the lesser of two evils. A corollary to that is one should not take a life against its will if there is no greater evil to prevent. That is the basis of the question I've been asking for the past several hours. It's also the question no one wants to address.

Strategist says

From Wikipedia:

From Wikipedia:
Murder is the licking of a person's foot while someone plays a banjo in the background.

Wikipedia says whatever the last asshole who edited wrote. It has no authority.

Furthermore, if you define murder as unlawful, then by definition, Hitler was no murderer. If you define murder as unjustified killing or not having a "valid excuse" than murder is nothing more an an opinion. What is justified or valid to one is not to another. Such a definition is useless and does not serve well as the basis for any conversation.

A good conversation of any subject is one in which the value judgements and the facts are separate. Both may be debated, but value judgements aren't facts and facts aren't value judgements. It is a fact that ice cream is a dairy product. It is an opinion that ice cream tastes yummy.

Rin says

Strategist says

Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

So I guess hiring a professional hit man is killing (w/o malice) but not murder, since it's only a payday for him.

And in a sense, isn't that what an executioner is?

An executioner is, by definition, committing murder. It may be legal murder; it may be justified murder; it may be the right thing to do, but it's still murder and, by my value judgement, still an evil. It may very well be the least evil option, but it is not without evil. Killing even a bad guy is a bad thing; it's just the least bad option, possibly by far, of many bad options. For example, if one could eliminate the threat of Hitler by talking to him as a child and making him far less of an asshole, that would be less evil than killing Hitler when he was a child even though killing kiddie Hitler would be better than letting the Holocaust happen.

[Side note: Killing Hitler might make history worse, but that's a practical consideration rather than an examination of judgement and decision making.]

Dan8267 says

An executioner is, by definition, committing murder. It may be legal murder; it may be justified murder; it may be the right thing to do, but it's still murder and, by my value judgement, still an evil. It may very well be the least evil option, but it is not without evil. Killing even a bad guy is a bad thing; it's just the least bad option, possibly by far, of many bad options. For example, if one could eliminate the threat of Hitler by talking to him as a child and making him far less of an asshole, that would be less evil than killing Hitler when he was a child even though killing kiddie Hitler would be better than letting the Holocaust happen.

So you are evil. So we are all evil.
If we are all evil, we are no longer evil, but normal.

Dan8267 says

Whatever you call it, I submit that the intentional taking of a life against its will is an evil even if its the lesser of two evils. A corollary to that is one should not take a life against its will if there is no greater evil to prevent. That is the basis of the question I've been asking for the past several hours. It's also the question no one wants to address.

Allow me to try. The point is valid. Why bother to kill someone when that person is no longer capable of doing any harm? The answer is one of the most popular of human emotions.....anger. When someone does us harm our first reaction is to go after him and take revenge. It's a reflex action that evolution demanded for our survival. "Anger is temporary madness" That emotion will continue to exist for many many generations to come. We also have compassion in our species that could at times dissuade us from carrying out any acts of revenge. For e.g. a teenage gang member that murders as an initiation to join the gang. If I was in the jury I would want to give him the death penalty. But what if I saw my son in him, and I also sensed he was remorseful, and a victim of older gang members who just used him. My compassion could emerge making me less likely to give him the death penalty.
Basically, to answer your question. Emotion.

Dan8267 says

The problem with using subjective definition is that what is justified to one person is an atrocity to another. There are plenty of jihadist who believe that 9/11 was justified. You cannot prove or disprove a value judgement.

You too have your beliefs that others may disagree with. So which values end up prevailing and which ones fall to the wayside? It will be a shootout that determines the victor. If you do not want the Jihadi crap to be the victor, you will need to join the less evil side, just as you would have killed Hitler because it was the lesser of the evils.

Dan8267 says

Image there is a real person who isn't able to harm anyone.

Unless that person is a quadriplegic, I cannot imagine such a person. And then ... even if he were let's say physically not in the best of shape, if he's a charismatic communicator, he could convince others to commit malice towards others. That's commonly referred to, as a cult leader figurehead.

Thus, the killing of such a person, basically a Hannibal Lecter on Steroids, in absence of a perfected system of incarceration with zero real world visitors, zero percent chance of parole, and all that jazz, may, under some circumstances, be justified.

Of course, knowing what we know about the police and the DA's office, that sliver of justification isn't enough, given the fact that the person may be exonerated in the future.

And this judicial process applies for all people under trial, not just the obvious Hannibal Lecters.

And thus, I'm against the death penalty for strictly practical reasons.

Strategist says

But what if I saw my son in him, and I also sensed he was remorseful, and a victim of older gang members who just used him. My compassion could emerge making me less likely to give him the death penalty.

Yes, that's how jury selection works in such a trial.

Rin says

Dan8267 says

Image there is a real person who isn't able to harm anyone.

Unless that person is a quadriplegic, I cannot imagine such a person. And then ... even if he were let's say physically not in the best of shape, if he's a charismatic communicator, he could convince others to commit malice towards others. That's commonly referred to, as a cult leader figurehead.

What if we had captured Bin Laden and brought him to trial in NYC. He would have been the greatest inspiration ever to millions of wacko Jihadis for decades to come. Killing him instantly was the best thing ever, because the screwed up wackos can't say Allah is protecting him, and Allah wants us to take revenge and die for Islam. It would have been a mess.
My only regret is that Bin Laden did not suffer enough. I would love to torture that rat.
Yes Dan, that's my evolutionary need to inflict great bodily harm on killers like him that is talking, and I don't give a damn. As you mentioned, he feels his terrorist acts were perfectly justified and blessed by Allah. We need to eliminate this thinking among the wackos, and being nice to them ain't gonna cut it.

Strategist says

What if we had captured Bin Laden and brought him to trial in NYC. He would have been the greatest inspiration ever to millions of wacko Jihadis for decades to come. Killing him instantly was the best thing ever, because the screwed up wackos can't say Allah is protecting him, and Allah wants us to take revenge and die for Islam. It would have been a mess.

That's the essence of the Hannibal Lecter/Cult Leader effect, where the mere presence of a demagogue has profound influence on other ppl.

Granted, I don't believe the Boston bomber is in that category but for Osama, it may very well have been the case.

Strategist says

My only regret is that Bin Laden did not suffer enough.

I think that's where you and I differ.

I simply want to see the man disappear, whether it's via execution (which is what had happened, using the heat of the clandestine operation as the cover story) or by putting him into a parallel dimension where he can't interact with the current 3 dimensions on earth.

Strategist says

Basically, to answer your question. Emotion.

Or more precisely, bloodlust. However, that is not an ethical, moral, rational, or decent legal justification for the death penalty.

If someone were to kill a member of my family, I would not only want to kill him, but I would want to irradiate his entire family including innocent children. The reptilian part of my brain would want to completely remove his bloodlines, but what makes me a civilized human being is that I don't listen to the reptilian part of my brain. I listen to my frontal lobe which realizes it is not productive or rational to kill him or his family.

Why should we, as a society, seek to satisfy the obsolete reptilian parts of the brains of victims instead of using our frontal lobes to figure out and do what is best for society? We are animals and as such we have a lot of evolutionary baggage, but we don't have to be held back by that baggage. Support for the death penalty and the desire for revenge is simply evolutionary baggage left over from the days were our reptilian ancestors established hierarchies. Bloodlust had a long period of usefulness, but that ended after the Stone Age. As soon as you start to live in cities with thousands or millions of people, taking out your competitors is no longer a viable option. Bloodlust becomes counterproductive and offers to benefits.