Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
I understand the libertarian position that the state should not be involved in the planned taking of life (with some notable exceptions for law enforcement action and the narrow places where libertarians can justify military action) but this is an outrage and an affront to human dignity.
If there were ever a poster-child for the application of the death penalty (as is explicitly allowed by the Constitution) it is Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer and terrorist who killed 77 people last year. In my estimation, it's not a question of when he should be eradicated from society but how.
I would prefer that his neck be publicly stretched or that, at the very minimum, he face a firing squad. At least the punishment would fit the crime.
I won't ask you to justify the post-modern insanity of sentencing this looney toon to just 21 years, but if he were in this country, I would ask you this: How could we justify not executing him? How about James Holmes?
- Comment (130)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Three things:
1. Hard cases make bad law. Or as the Wikipedia puts it:
2. What ends are served by killing this man?
This man killed 77 people. Deterrence would not work on people like him. Killing him will not bring any of those 77 people back to life. What will killing him accomplish that putting him in a cement cage for the rest of his life will not?
Nov '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
3. Premeditated killing is wrong. It's wrong if Anders Breivik does it. It's wrong if you do it. It's wrong if I do it. It is wrong if the state does it, in fact, it's probably much worse.
I don't believe in magic, so I don't understand how magically the state killing someone is moral. If the state kills someone then it then it makes you and I complicit in killing.
Killing this guy rather putting him in a cage is not worth the immorality.
Jul '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
I think death is sometimes the easy way out, especially for poster children like you quote. It's easier also, to spin what ever tale you can about a dead person.
Having said, that, it this person had even come close to hurting any of my progeny, I would personally kill him. But then again, I am not the Government.
Jul '12
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Fred Cole: 3. Premeditated killing is wrong. It's wrong if Anders Breivik does it. It's wrong if you do it. It's wrong if I do it. It is wrong if the state does it, in fact, it's probably much worse.
I don't believe in magic, so I don't understand how magically the state killing someone is moral. If the state kills someone then it then it makes you and I complicit in killing.
Killing this guy rather putting him in a cage is not worth the immorality. · 0 minutes ago
Murder is wrong. Killing is not murder. The state wouldn't be murdering him if they were killing him for purely retributive justice, which is what this would be.
The ends of killing these particularly ghastly murderers wouldn't serve to deter further killings, but that wouldn't be my aim. If it is morally justifiable to visit retribution upon people in the form of denying them liberty for committing crimes, or making them pay restitution in the case of theft it is certainly allowable to make them pay like with like - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
Jul '12
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Barkha Herman: I think death is sometimes the easy way out, especially for poster children like you quote. It's easier also, to spin what ever tale you can about a dead person.
Having said, that, it this person had even come close to hurting any of my progeny, I would personally kill him. But then again, I am not the Government. · 2 minutes ago
WHOA - this is hugely inconsistent. You would be OK with personally delivering lethal retributive or even preemptively lethal justice to this person if they were threatening YOUR family, but you're not OK with somebody doing it by proxy for you?
Nov '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Barkha Herman:
Having said, that, it this person had even come close to hurting any of my progeny, I would personally kill him. But then again, I am not the Government. · 1 minute ago
I've thought that myself. I might be willing to do that and accept the moral consequences personally. But the state doing it I would not condone. (I'd also probably do it more effectively and efficiently.)
Nov '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Majestyk
WHOA - this is hugely inconsistent. You would be OK with personally delivering lethal retributive or even preemptively lethal justice to this person if they were threatening YOUR family, but you're not OK with somebody doing it by proxy for you? · 1 minute ago
Why is that inconsistent?
I feel the same way.
Consider: I might be willing to steal bread to feed my starving family, but I'd have a problem with the state doing so on a massive scale.
Having the state do something on your behalf makes everyone complicit in your crime. I'm willing to stain myself morally in certain specific circumstances, you might too, but I'd be against taking that decision out of your hands and doing it on your behalf.
Edited on August 24, 2012 at 6:10pmMar '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
First off, let me say that I agree with you. Breivik should absolutely be executed (he was found, among other things, sane and guilty of premeditated murder). A society which refuses to execute anyone under any conditions is one that gives the signal that it will meekly tolerate anything, regardless how heinous.
But, one quick correction on Breivik. Under Norwegian law, Breivik was remanded to custody for 21 years under a provision called forvaring. This sanction can be used to cover a wide range of criminal activities--thus the "minimum 10 years" part of the provision--but in his case it could be interpreted in such a way that a future court, reviewing parole for him some years on, could regard him as still presenting a danger to society, and thus return him to custody and so on and so forth, for life.
When you question Norwegians about this, they tend to tell you, in so many words, that this is just the Norwegian way.
Jul '12
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Fred Cole
Barkha Herman:
Having said, that, it this person had even come close to hurting any of my progeny, I would personally kill him. But then again, I am not the Government. · 1 minute ago
I've thought that myself. I might be willing to do that and accept the moral consequences personally. But the state doing it I would not condone. (I'd also probably do it more effectively and efficiently.) · 0 minutes ago
So you're OK with Killing, so long as you're the one pulling the trigger? Or so long as it's done neatly?
Would you have been OK with the police simply shooting Anders Breivik or James Holmes on the spot rather than apprehending them then, being as they clearly represented a more compelling threat at that moment than when they're subdued in a grey-green metal cage?
Mar '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Fred Cole: Three things:
2. What ends are served by killing this man?
This man killed 77 people. Deterrence would not work on people like him. Killing him will not bring any of those 77 people back to life. What will killing him accomplish that putting him in a cement cage for the rest of his life will not? · 5 minutes ago
Twenty-one years is not "the rest of his life."
Killing him will ensure that he won't kill a 78th person, either in prison or after he gets out.
Jul '12
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Fred Cole
Majestyk
WHOA - this is hugely inconsistent. You would be OK with personally delivering lethal retributive or even preemptively lethal justice to this person if they were threatening YOUR family, but you're not OK with somebody doing it by proxy for you? · 1 minute ago
Why is that inconsistent? · 4 minutes ago
Because killing in this example is OK for me, but not for thee.
Nov '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Basil Fawlty
Fred Cole: Three things:
2. What ends are served by killing this man?
This man killed 77 people. Deterrence would not work on people like him. Killing him will not bring any of those 77 people back to life. What will killing him accomplish that putting him in a cement cage for the rest of his life will not? · 5 minutes ago
Twenty-one years is not "the rest of his life."
Killing him will ensure that he won't kill a 78th person, either in prison or after he gets out. · 0 minutes ago
He won't get out. See #8. CN explains it well.
Jul '12
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Fred Cole
Majestyk
WHOA - this is hugely inconsistent. You would be OK with personally delivering lethal retributive or even preemptively lethal justice to this person if they were threatening YOUR family, but you're not OK with somebody doing it by proxy for you? · 1 minute ago
Why is that inconsistent?
I feel the same way.
Consider: I might be willing to steal bread to feed my starving family, but I'd have a problem with the state doing so on a massive scale.
Having the state do something on your behalf makes everyone complicit in your crime. I'm willing to stain myself morally in certain specific circumstances, you might too, but I'd be against taking that decision out of your hands and doing it on your behalf. · 6 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Comparing stealing bread to feed your starving family to committing mass murder for the sake of a hollow political point is comparing apples to blood oranges. That straw man is so flimsy that merely reading it is enough to blow it away.
Nov '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Majestyk
So you're OK with Killing, so long as you're the one pulling the trigger? Or so long as it's done neatly?
No. No aspect of it is okay. It's still immoral. But I might be willing to accept the moral consequences personally.
My amended comments in #7 explain it well.
Jul '12
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Fred Cole
Basil Fawlty
Fred Cole: Three things:
2. What ends are served by killing this man?
This man killed 77 people. Deterrence would not work on people like him. Killing him will not bring any of those 77 people back to life. What will killing him accomplish that putting him in a cement cage for the rest of his life will not? · 5 minutes ago
Twenty-one years is not "the rest of his life."
Killing him will ensure that he won't kill a 78th person, either in prison or after he gets out. · 0 minutes ago
He won't get out. See #8. CN explains it well. · 2 minutes ago
That doesn't matter to me. I remember reading an article talking about the prisons in Norway - they look like dorm rooms furnished by IKEA. The fact that this guy gets to go on living in any capacity, let alone the relative comfort that he will exist in is an injustice in and of itself.
Edited on August 24, 2012 at 6:18pmJul '12
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Fred Cole
Majestyk
So you're OK with Killing, so long as you're the one pulling the trigger? Or so long as it's done neatly?
No. No aspect of it is okay. It's still immoral. But I might be willing to accept the moral consequences personally.
My amended comments in #7 explain it well. · 0 minutes ago
Let his blood be upon our hands then. And it would still be just to take his life in revenge for this monstrous crime if nothing else.
Nov '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Majestyk
Comparing stealing bread to feed your starving family to committing mass murder for the sake of a hollow political point is comparing apples to blood oranges. That straw man is so flimsy that merely reading it is enough to blow it away. · 1 minute ago
Set aside his specific act (bad cases make bad law) and examine what I was saying. I was speaking about acts generally and moral responsibility.
So, with all due respect, get off your high horse and reread my comments.
Jul '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Not inconsistent at all.
As Fred suggested, I will suffer the consequences of killing another person, and pay for my crimes. However delegating the killing to Government goes against everything I believe in.
The trouble here is that there are no consequences paid by the Government, if they make a mistake.
BTW - it's OK for you too, to kill this person - and you, like me will suffer the consequences of the killing.
Government is the only entity that cannot carry out the killing. There is a reason that the Government pays for your defense when they bring a suit against you - it is to check the Government, not citizen.
Mar '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Fred Cole
Basil Fawlty
Fred Cole: Three things:
2. What ends are served by killing this man?
This man killed 77 people. Deterrence would not work on people like him. Killing him will not bring any of those 77 people back to life. What will killing him accomplish that putting him in a cement cage for the rest of his life will not? · 5 minutes ago
Twenty-one years is not "the rest of his life."
Killing him will ensure that he won't kill a 78th person, either in prison or after he gets out. · 0 minutes ago
He won't get out. See #8. CN explains it well. · 3 minutes ago
You have a touching faith in the rigors of Norwegian justice.
Nov '11
Re: Paging Opponents of the Death Penalty
Majestyk
Let his blood be upon our hands then.
This is the thing, by advocating the state kill this man, you're taking the choice away from me. If I were to kill this man, then I'd be undertaking the choice and his blood would be on my hands. But when the state does it, it puts the blood on my hands without my choice.
You want to take the moral choice away from me and stain my hands without my consent. That's what I have a problem with.