J. D. Stembal Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I've always been opposed to capitol punishment, and I find the idea that death by rifle to the chest being more humane is a bit of a ludicrous thought, as well as a clear violation of the NAP. Any form of death penalty would be a violation. Economic penalties, fines or sanctions make much more sense for violent criminals. The threat of capitol punishment is not an effective motivator to deter violent crime. It tends to make martyrs of criminals more than anything. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865623974/Utah-votes-to-retain-firing-squad-method-for-planned-execution.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FattyWatt Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I've been to Utah before, which reminds me, alot of Mormons live there. Are (the religious that distinguish themselves as) mormons, known for their adherance to Universally Preferrable Behavior(UPB)? I don't think so. Do the people of Utah like to get shot? OR Do the authorities in Utah Like to shoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I wouldn't say that capital punishment is a violation of the NAP as such. Given our inability to prove crime conclusively does make it a huge problem, and is the reason why I am against it. Better 10 killers sit in prison than 1 innocent man be put to death.However, theoretically speaking if there is someone in the community that is killing other people, is it really the responsibility of that community to house and feed them for the rest of their life in order to insulate their aggression from the community? Would it be right for the community to eject that person from that community just so that person can go and prey on another community? Just my initial thoughts, might be missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I've been to Utah before, which reminds me, alot of Mormons live there. Are (the religious that distinguish themselves as) mormons, known for their adherance to Universally Preferrable Behavior(UPB)? I don't think so. Do the people of Utah like to get shot? OR Do the authorities in Utah Like to shoot? I used to live there and Mormons are pretty good with regard to interpersonal type UPB still generally statist but less than other Christians. IMO because they were fleeing the US when they moved to Utah (it was part of Mexico in 1847 iirc). Really nice people because they are earning a nicer heaven by doing so, but they think you can be "saved" after death by having righteous people baptized in your name so I think they're more flippant about death/killing. Some guy famously had himself baptized to absolve the sins of Hitler. I heard of a guy on death row maybe 10-20 years ago who requested firing squad in Utah. Maybe they're making it an option to the convict but that's not how it seemed from the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted March 15, 2015 Author Share Posted March 15, 2015 One of the arguments put forward in the article is that death by firing squad is a quicker, more painless death, but the marksmen need to hit your heart. It seems like the chemicals used in lethal injection are difficult to procure and expensive to prepare. I would like to focus more on a discussion of the ethics of the death penalty. Why do some states have it while some have repealed it? Is this a legitimate use of the "state right" of self-determination? Is there any place for execution in a peaceful society? If the NAP is the real arbiter of ethics and justice, the only acceptable killing is one made in self-defense, or judged to be accidental without being reckless. I mentioned economic sanctions in the first post, and by that, I mean that a murder or criminal worthy of capitol punishment would be expected to pay back the family or community devastated by the wrongful death. If not, then economic exile would be the final remedy. How does killing the killer possibly help? I suspect that it is designed to serve as vengeance for the family of the victim more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Could you see self defense extending after the event if someone is an unrepentant killer with a high probability of killing again if allowed to? Someone like a serial killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 Could you see self defense extending after the event if someone is an unrepentant killer with a high probability of killing again if allowed to? Someone like a serial killer. This would happen to violate the definition of self-defense. If there is no threat of immediate harm, you cannot kill in self-defense. Killing by self-defense is also not pre-meditated, yet execution is. Therefore, execution is immoral and a violation of the NAP, whereas self-defense is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 This would happen to violate the definition of self-defense. If there is no threat of immediate harm, you cannot kill in self-defense. Killing by self-defense is also not pre-meditated, yet execution is. Therefore, execution is immoral and a violation of the NAP, whereas self-defense is not. Then drunk driving laws would also be immoral. Not saying this is wrong, I have argued it before, but it is an implication if risk of crime and probability of crime is immoral to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jer Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Then drunk driving laws would also be immoral. Indeed! I used that as a conversation starter for a while "I think drunk driving should be legal, what do you think?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 Then drunk driving laws would also be immoral. Not saying this is wrong, I have argued it before, but it is an implication if risk of crime and probability of crime is immoral to use. Which state executes drunk drivers? (Apparently, El Salvador does as well as Bulgaria, but it sounds like bullshit.) http://www.orangecountyduilawyersblog.com/2013/09/worst-drunk-driving-penalties/ Also, drunk driving is reckless endangerment and pre-meditated. I have frequently operated a vehicle while intoxicated, and it is obviously a conscious decision to put yourself and others at risk. Otherwise, I'm not sure what drunk driving has to do with the ethics of self-defense or execution. I am not really concerned with the probability of crime in this discussion, but the morality behind capitol punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Which state executes drunk drivers? (Apparently, El Salvador does as well as Bulgaria.) http://www.orangecountyduilawyersblog.com/2013/09/worst-drunk-driving-penalties/ Also, drunk driving is reckless endangerment and very pre-meditated. I have frequently operated a vehicle while intoxicated, so it is obviously a conscious decision to put yourself and other at risk. Otherwise, I'm not sure what drunk driving has to do with the ethics of self-defense or execution. I am not really concerned with the probability of crime in this discussion, but the morality behind capitol punishment. I didn't mean execute, just universalizing if you can punish people based on risk and probability before anything has actually happened. I would veiw letting a serial killer out into society reckless endangerment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 I didn't mean execute, just universalizing if you can punish people based on risk and probability before anything has actually happened. I would veiw letting a serial killer out into society reckless endangerment. If society does not actually exist, who are you putting in danger? What if the criminal was framed for the murders? You cannot punish people for probability of risk. A crime can only be said to have happened if the non-aggression principle was violated, but how could violating it again through capitol punishment be a solution to the first incidence of the violation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labmath2 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 In a free society drunk driving would be a property right violation if the roads were privately owned and contract violation if they were commonly owned. This is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts