Utah state legislators approve firing squads

[Big Jim P]

What do you mean if morality is subjective? Who said anything about moral right? Executions are merely putting down known dangerous animal. The only issue I have with it is insuring that only those who are guilty are the ones being executed.

It's not a matter of putting down dangerous animals, it's about giving people what they deserve(Some people don't deserve life).

Some don't deserve to be considered people.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's not a matter of putting down dangerous animals, it's about giving people what they deserve(Some people don't deserve life).

Some don't deserve to be considered people.

And like you said, the issue is ensuring that only the guilty are executed.
Even with the protections we have today, the death sentence still claims innocent lives, unjustly vilified.

[Camelza]

However, humans are different than other animals ever since that one monkey started thinking how to steal his mate's bananas and built an empire based in the divification of aforementioned bananas.
Of course those monkeys have improved snce then, developed philosophical ideas and the concept of morality and justice.
As such, we get into a deep and difficult territory when examining the right to put another human to death.
So, who has the moral right to take away a human life if morality is subjective?

What do you mean if morality is subjective? Who said anything about moral right? Executions are merely putting down known dangerous animal. The only issue I have with it is insuring that only those who are guilty are the ones being executed.

Do you agree with the notion that humans are a sentient species and therefore subject to different treatment than animals? If that is the case and if we take into account that morality is subjective then killing a person that no more is a threat to the community(since he/she is under custody of the community and controlled) is more of a moral problem rather than a mathematical one. My humble opinion is that no human, or community of humans has the right to kill another person except in self-defense when he/she is threatened directly by said person.

[Big Jim P]

What do you mean if morality is subjective? Who said anything about moral right? Executions are merely putting down known dangerous animal. The only issue I have with it is insuring that only those who are guilty are the ones being executed.

Do you agree with the notion that humans are a sentient species and therefore subject to different treatment than animals? If that is the case and if we take into account that morality is subjective then killing a person that no more is a threat to the community(since he/she is under custody of the community and controlled) is more of a moral problem rather than a mathematical one. My humble opinion is that no human, or community of humans has the right to kill another person except in self-defense when he/she is threatened directly by said person.

Which is exactly what executing a known dangerous animal is.

[Camelza]

It's not a matter of putting down dangerous animals, it's about giving people what they deserve(Some people don't deserve life).

Some don't deserve to be considered people.

Questioning one's humanity is hypocritical. There is no such thing as moral guardians that can decide who's a human and who is not.

[Camelza]

Do you agree with the notion that humans are a sentient species and therefore subject to different treatment than animals? If that is the case and if we take into account that morality is subjective then killing a person that no more is a threat to the community(since he/she is under custody of the community and controlled) is more of a moral problem rather than a mathematical one. My humble opinion is that no human, or community of humans has the right to kill another person except in self-defense when he/she is threatened directly by said person.

Which is exactly what executing a known dangerous animal is.

You left out the directly part. Nevertheless, humans are animals, yes, but they're sentient, so you can't just simply equal a jackal with a human.

[Big Jim P]

Some don't deserve to be considered people.

Questioning one's humanity is hypocritical. There is no such thing as moral guardians that can decide who's a human and who is not.

The decision is made when certain actions (murder, rape) are committed. No guardian makes the decision. The murderer or rapist does.

[Big Jim P]

Which is exactly what executing a known dangerous animal is.

You left out the directly part. Nevertheless, humans are animals, yes, but they're sentient, so you can't just simply equal a jackal with a human.

Human sentience renders them worse than known dangerous animals, thus further justifying the death penalty.

[Camelza]

Questioning one's humanity is hypocritical. There is no such thing as moral guardians that can decide who's a human and who is not.

The decision is made when certain actions (murder, rape) are committed. No guardian makes the decision. The murderer or rapist does.

The murderer or rapist, being sick in mind, propably things differently. As such it is the judge and the court of justice that actually questions his/her humanity by charging the murderer, or rapist with the death sentence.
For all things considered life in prison is the safer option, philosophicaly and practically, since it is a known fact that courts can make and do mistakes.

[New Werpland]

Some don't deserve to be considered people.

Questioning one's humanity is hypocritical. There is no such thing as moral guardians that can decide who's a human and who is not.

"You have no right to say that John Wayne Gacy was a psychopath! Who gave you the responsibility to judge others!"

[Risottia]

Which is exactly what executing a known dangerous animal is.

I see a difference.
Killing a person that has already been jailed - hence, unable to cause further harm - is quite different from shooting a vicious dog that is attacking someone.

[Risottia]

Questioning one's humanity is hypocritical. There is no such thing as moral guardians that can decide who's a human and who is not.

"You have no right to say that John Wayne Gacy was a psychopath! Who gave you the responsibility to judge others!"

Since when psychopaths aren't humans?

Poor strawman. 1/10.

[Camelza]

You left out the directly part. Nevertheless, humans are animals, yes, but they're sentient, so you can't just simply equal a jackal with a human.

Human sentience renders them worse than known dangerous animals, thus further justifying the death penalty.

It does not, it's simply because we ourselves possess sentience that we feel anger towards them and consider what they did is wrong, as they do themselves in an opposite manner.
Not to mention that killing a person because said person killed a person, is tremendously hypocritical.

[Risottia]

You left out the directly part. Nevertheless, humans are animals, yes, but they're sentient, so you can't just simply equal a jackal with a human.

Human sentience renders them worse than known dangerous animals, thus further justifying the death penalty.

I don't subscribe to the idea that atrociously disgusting behaviour (such as raping or murdering) justifies the killing of the perpetrator once he has been rendered unable to cause further harm (such as in being jailed).

[Imperializt Russia]

Which is exactly what executing a known dangerous animal is.

I see a difference.
Killing a person that has already been jailed - hence, unable to cause further harm - is quite different from shooting a vicious dog that is attacking someone.

Dogs are destroyed after being "jailed", in semantics.

[Equestican]

Being expensive besides, it's nice to see something good come out of my state's legislature, one of two quite good decisions recently. Now we just need to find a way to increase education funding.

[Risottia]

I see a difference.
Killing a person that has already been jailed - hence, unable to cause further harm - is quite different from shooting a vicious dog that is attacking someone.

Dogs are destroyed after being "jailed", in semantics.

Yup.
Then again, dogs:humans=apples:oranges . That's because humans have rights by the mere fact of being humans, while dogs don't.

[Camelza]

Human sentience renders them worse than known dangerous animals, thus further justifying the death penalty.

I don't subscribe to the idea that atrociously disgusting behaviour (such as raping or murdering) justifies the killing of the perpetrator once he has been rendered unable to cause further harm (such as in being jailed).

Exactly my opinion. The death sentence serves no other purpose other than to continue the ancient "an eye for an eye" code in the modern world, modern justice is above vengefull tactics and violent behaviour, at least it should be.

[New Werpland]

I don't subscribe to the idea that atrociously disgusting behaviour (such as raping or murdering) justifies the killing of the perpetrator once he has been rendered unable to cause further harm (such as in being jailed).

Exactly my opinion. The death sentence serves no other purpose other than to continue the ancient "an eye for an eye" code in the modern world, modern justice is above vengefull tactics and violent behaviour, at least it should be.

So I suppose people are not responsible for their actions?

[New Werpland]

"You have no right to say that John Wayne Gacy was a psychopath! Who gave you the responsibility to judge others!"

Since when psychopaths aren't humans?

Poor strawman. 1/10.

Woah! It would never occur to me that being human makes you immune to moral judgement!

[Big Jim P]

Exactly my opinion. The death sentence serves no other purpose other than to continue the ancient "an eye for an eye" code in the modern world, modern justice is above vengefull tactics and violent behaviour, at least it should be.

So I suppose people are not responsible for their actions?

Personal responsibility is un-American.

[Benian Republic]

Im against the death penalty in most cases but anyways the problem is that they need to make it cheaper to do.

[Aethrys]

Questioning one's humanity is hypocritical. There is no such thing as moral guardians that can decide who's a human and who is not.

The decision is made when certain actions (murder, rape) are committed. No guardian makes the decision. The murderer or rapist does.

I've had this view point for a while now, essentially that privileges extended to an individual because of their humanity should be conditional upon acting like a human. In many ways this principle exists, though due to the curious nature of morality people appear to have trouble embracing it fully or openly.

[Draakonite]

How do you measure "humaneity"?

In this case; by suffering. The onset of hypoxia is not something that causes suffering, and nitrogen asphyxiation works by inducing hypoxia.

how do you measure suffering? Hanging is better in things that can actually be measured. Time to prepare the sentence (judging from the lack of injections), time to carry out the sentence and price.

Human sentience renders them worse than known dangerous animals, thus further justifying the death penalty.

I don't subscribe to the idea that atrociously disgusting behaviour (such as raping or murdering) justifies the killing of the perpetrator once he has been rendered unable to cause further harm (such as in being jailed).

Jailing, at least in the USA, isn't enough to stop a person from causing further harm. Else prison violence wouldn't exist.

[Aethrys]

In this case; by suffering. The onset of hypoxia is not something that causes suffering, and nitrogen asphyxiation works by inducing hypoxia.

how do you measure suffering? Hanging is better in things that can actually be measured. Time to prepare the sentence (judging from the lack of injections), time to carry out the sentence and price.

I don't subscribe to the idea that atrociously disgusting behaviour (such as raping or murdering) justifies the killing of the perpetrator once he has been rendered unable to cause further harm (such as in being jailed).

Jailing, at least in the USA, isn't enough to stop a person from causing further harm. Else prison violence wouldn't exist.

To hear the majority of NSG tell it, incarceration is a lovely bit of a time out for murderers and serial rapists to have a think on what they've done and realize the error of their ways. All you're doing bringing that up is spoiling a lovely fantasy.