|
You kill killers because you believe they will continue to kill, not because revenge will suddenly make things better. If you can stop the killing without killing the guy, there is no reason to kill the guy.
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:No consideration given to justice? "Justice" is harmed far more by executing innocents than by not executing killers. I would go so far as to say that "justice" is not harmed in any way by not executing killers, so long as we keep them from continuing to kill. sirtommygunn fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Not doing justice harms justice doesnt it? Can you give me an idea of what you mean by justice? You're throwing the word around so much and with so little context that its losing meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Fairness, equality, people getting what they deserve. People being treated as ends in themselves rather than as means to other ends, and everyone's ends being treated equally. Nobody is arguing that a murderer should not be punished at all. Obviously you can't just let them continue their normal lives. To ensure they cannot kill again, you need to imprison them, preferably for the rest of their natural lifespan. If they end up being innocent, you can then pay reparations and that will be as close to just as you can get. If they end up being guilty, you have successfully stopped a murderer and didn't force anyone else to murder for the sake of what is apparently an incredibly subjective concept. On the other hand, if you execute an innocent person, justice can never be done. The state has done the same wrong that it sought to punish, yet the state cannot be executed, so even your warped sense of justice cannot be sated. If you execute a guilty person, maybe you and a few others feel a little better about yourselves, but you've spent more resources on it than just indefinitely imprisoning them and also brought the risk of murdering innocents into the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Why should they remain alive? We don't live in a world with innocence detecting magic so this hypothetical where we know, absolutely, for sure that we will only execute the correct people is pointless. Morals have to be based in reality to be useful, and yours aren't. As to the points you raised: there is always a risk involved. What if the murderer manages to kill his guards as he's being brought to his execution chamber? What if he manages to murder while being held for the trial that will sentence him? You are always "taking that gamble" unless you're willing to execute people at the exact moment they're accused, in which case you are certainly going to kill many more innocent people than the murderers would.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Why make someone commit a murder for the sake of your feelings? You can't have an execution without an executioner. By forcing an execution you are doing serious mental harm to someone for the sake of feeling a little more righteous. If you simply imprison them for the rest of their life, nobody is having a significant mental burden thrust upon them. Prisons and guards don't just go away because we execute a tiny handful of people we can prove are definitely murderers, so they're certainly not being harmed by murderers being imprisoned. The family of the victims aren't done harm simply by the murderer continuing to exist in a jail cell. The state isn't harmed because it costs less to jail the murderer and causes less unrest. It costs less to imprison murderers than it does to execute them. Your "resources wasted" argument is worthless because your alternative uses significantly more resources than the "waste" you're criticizing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Executing a murderer isn't murder. A murderer wrongfully deprives someone of his right to live. When someone commits murder, he gives up his own right to live, so executing him can't be the same thing. You can't deprive someone of something he doesn't have. Ah, ok, gotcha, let's just get on with changing the entire education system, court system, government, and morals of literally the entire country so we can save $1000 a year on prison soup.  No amount of education can prepare someone for taking someone's life. It fucks you up, period, there's no getting around it. Again, executions cost more than imprisonment, you will get literally less than nothing to put to good use by executing people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'm trying to tease out of the other guy some explanation of -why- he thinks a murderer should remain alive. If you're trying to tease that answer out of me you could start with an argument that doesn't rely on omniscience, magic, or murdering tons of innocent people to make sense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:If it cost significantly less to execute a murderer than to imprison him, would it become right to do by that virtue? No, because we have to go through a process to determine guilt, and naturally this process has to be significantly more rigorous to justify killing someone since there's no taking it back, which means its more expensive, which means it isn't worth it either way. That is before considering that you need to leave a way for new evidence to be factored into a case that has passed by just in case you get it wrong (and you will get it wrong because the court system is not and never will be perfect). It is also not right to do it for any of the other reasons unrelated to cost I've listed in all my other posts. Is there a point you're trying to make with this devil's advocate routine or should I just stop this argument from becoming circular by not responding to you anymore?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 06:29
|
|