Utah state legislators approve firing squads

[United Marxist Nations]

The problem is that the justice system for which the death penalty is designed is a perfect system that never makes mistakes. Such a system does not exist, and thus innocent people are subjected to death. If we could eliminate all error and bias from the justice system, then the death penalty would be okay in my thinking.

[United Marxist Nations]

The slave debate was economic to the south and moral to the north

Yes and this is a very good example in which morality is far more important than economics..

If the morality were far more important than the economic side, then there wouldn't have been a war over it. It was economically beneficial to the South, so the South invented moral reasons for it. One could just as easily say it was economics over morality.

[Ifreann]

Primarily it is a moral problem though.

Not only moral as you said before. There is an economic side to it

Only if you'd be okay with killing people so as to save money.

---

It's a moral problem not an economic one.

Precisely. How is it moral that one can, given resources, use it to support someone who is of no use to society, and has committed a wrong severe enough that people wish death upon them. When there are other more deserving individuals who are in need?

By choosing to save those who don't deserve it, you condemn those who do deserve support and assistance.

Resources aren't distributed based on notions of people deserving them or not. Indeed, many people would find it morally repugnant for the government to weigh the value of a person's life before expending resources on them. It's this whole empathy thing we've developed.

I'll also note that the standard of "a wrong severe enough that people with death upon them" is patently useless, since there are those who wish death on others for such silly things adhering to the wrong religion, loving the wrong people, having the wrong skin colour, voting for the wrong person, or taking too long to pay for milk.

[The Emerald Legion]

Resources aren't distributed based on notions of people deserving them or not. Indeed, many people would find it morally repugnant for the government to weigh the value of a person's life before expending resources on them. It's this whole empathy thing we've developed.

And I find such notions of false righteousness morally repugnant.

Though, fair enough on the second point.

[Camelza]

A government can multitask. If your government spent less for nuclear warheads it could easily create a respectable welfare system.

This is not an answer, it's a red herring. Nuclear warheads have nothing to do with this.

It is an answer. I answered where the people deserving that money more than prisoners would get them from and I also compared the morality of throwing money to nuclear weapons and paying taxes for life in prison.

The slave debate had an economic side to it as well, but it was a primarily moral problem. To me personally only the moral part matters.

To some people, such as a utilitarianist, the economic side is also a moral one. For instance, I find it morally repulsive that friends and relatives of an individual who is murdered are forced to live with the knowledge that their tax dollars are going towards the upkeep of the murderer, in some cases for the rest of their life. Others may take issue with the fact that great expense is going towards keeping violent criminals alive while simultaneously things like education and welfare programs are going without.

Believe me I'm an utilitarianist, but I consider the moral part of the economic factor here far less important than the truly moral one. Since what matters is the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person, this means that all humans should be respected and we should try for the best compromise among conflicting views to achieve the best possible amount of happiness in all people.
Furthermore, since all pains are bad for utilitarianism, but some pains are worse than others, the greater the pain the worse it is morally. Therefore while, yes, it would initially seem like utilitarianists would favour the death-penalty for being cheaper, it is considered too painful and thus immoral to decide upon human lives, since there are no moral guardians and no one has the ability to decide who shall live and who shall die.

[Ifreann]

Resources aren't distributed based on notions of people deserving them or not. Indeed, many people would find it morally repugnant for the government to weigh the value of a person's life before expending resources on them. It's this whole empathy thing we've developed.

And I find such notions of false righteousness morally repugnant.

Though, fair enough on the second point.

It's nothing to do with righteousness, false or otherwise. Like I said, it's this whole empathy thing. We see ourselves in other people and thus value their lives and well being. We don't want them to be left to die because we fear suffering the same fate. We want to help them in the hope that we would receive help should we need it. YMMV, obviously.

[Camelza]

Yes and this is a very good example in which morality is far more important than economics..

If the morality were far more important than the economic side, then there wouldn't have been a war over it. It was economically beneficial to the South, so the South invented moral reasons for it. One could just as easily say it was economics over morality.

You've lost my point mate.
What I mean is that morality is more important than economics philosophically because it concerns our sense of justice.
Of course in the real world what matters most isn't what is just, therefore every war has economic interests behind it.

[The Emerald Legion]

This is not an answer, it's a red herring. Nuclear warheads have nothing to do with this.

It is an answer. I answered where the people deserving that money more than prisoners would get them from and I also compared the morality of throwing money to nuclear weapons and paying taxes for life in prison.

No, you dodged the moral question and decided to throw another popular political issue on the fire in the hopes the smoke would obscure that. It didn't.

The question is simple. If given resources, would you choose to support a convicted murderer with those resources, in a sad attempt at nobless oblige? Or would you assist someone who needs help and has /not/ thrown away their worth to society?

[Camelza]

It is an answer. I answered where the people deserving that money more than prisoners would get them from and I also compared the morality of throwing money to nuclear weapons and paying taxes for life in prison.

No, you dodged the moral question and decided to throw another popular political issue on the fire in the hopes the smoke would obscure that. It didn't.

The question is simple. If given resources, would you choose to support a convicted murderer with those resources, in a sad attempt at nobless oblige? Or would you assist someone who needs help and has /not/ thrown away their worth to society?

Both.

I'm not entitled to decide upon the execution of other humans, no one is.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is NOT new, Utah has ALWAYS had firing squads as an option.

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

It was removed from the books a few years ago. I assume because that one guy four years ago asked for, and received (I further assume), a firing squad.
The discussion here is about re-introducing it.

There's no need for capital punishment.

It's expensive and barbarian.

You know what else is expensive? Feeding and housing someone with a life sentence.

And yet it's still cheaper.

Funny world, isn't it?

This is not an answer, it's a red herring. Nuclear warheads have nothing to do with this.

It is an answer. I answered where the people deserving that money more than prisoners would get them from and I also compared the morality of throwing money to nuclear weapons and paying taxes for life in prison.

If America dismantled its entire nuclear stockpile, those costs wouldn't be recirculated into other areas of government. They'd be cut. This would have a significantr negative impact on the civil and military fuel cycle, the air force, navy, army and sites thereof. Imagine the job losses of the tens of thousands of nuclear workers and weapons handlers in the US.

And then, everyone would just be languishing in Russian prisons anyway, when Russia invades waving its own nukes around.

It's a damn red herring, if not total tangent.

[The Emerald Legion]

No, you dodged the moral question and decided to throw another popular political issue on the fire in the hopes the smoke would obscure that. It didn't.

The question is simple. If given resources, would you choose to support a convicted murderer with those resources, in a sad attempt at nobless oblige? Or would you assist someone who needs help and has /not/ thrown away their worth to society?

Both.

I'm not entitled to decide upon the execution of other humans, no one is.

Then you're not entitled to an opinion on the matter, are you? If you're going to refuse to make a decision, why are you participating in the discussion?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Even if there was such thing as a justice system that was never wrong, even when the Courts could escape the bounds of time and space to read mind and matter for generations back, even when a judge could never be wrong, the death penalty would be too cruel to adopt in any country calling itself a liberal democracy, a republic. Death I find far too cruel to use for any offence, even murder. Liberal democracies are above that. What is the difference for us between life and prison and the death penalty? Nothing. We have nothing to lose. We have nothing to gain but petty revenge by putting people to death. This lack of proper drugs should be used to its advantage. The US should abolish the death penalty.

[New Werpland]

So I suppose people are not responsible for their actions?

They are. That's why the state and state mechanisms should not step down to a lower level as representants of people by using the death penalty.

If people are responsible for their actions why shouldn't they be punished based on what they committed? And there is nothing wrong with carrying out justice in the name of a community.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

They are. That's why the state and state mechanisms should not step down to a lower level as representants of people by using the death penalty.

If people are responsible for their actions why shouldn't they be punished based on what they committed?

They should. They shouldn't, however, turn to executing people. That is below a civilised state. A state has power, resources, are they so afraid of convicts that they can't keep them locked up?

[New Werpland]

If people are responsible for their actions why shouldn't they be punished based on what they committed?

They should. They shouldn't, however, turn to executing people. That is below a civilised state. A state has power, resources, are they so afraid of convicts that they can't keep them locked up?

Some people do deserve the death penalty. If you have a consciousness, and actively go around murdering people, you shouldn't be allowed to comfortably live in a clean jail cell, whilst playing video games.

[Imperializt Russia]

They should. They shouldn't, however, turn to executing people. That is below a civilised state. A state has power, resources, are they so afraid of convicts that they can't keep them locked up?

Some people do deserve the death penalty. If you have a consciousness, and actively go around murdering people, you shouldn't be allowed to comfortably live in a clean jail cell, whilst playing video games.

People given video game time tend to do a lot less murdering their cellmates, for what it's worth.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

They should. They shouldn't, however, turn to executing people. That is below a civilised state. A state has power, resources, are they so afraid of convicts that they can't keep them locked up?

Some people do deserve the death penalty. If you have a consciousness, and actively go around murdering people, you shouldn't be allowed to comfortably live in a clean jail cell, whilst playing video games.

"some people deserve the death penalty"
Why? On what basis? What is your argument for that? Does it have any basis at all?

A murder is almost never just for fun. There is a reasoning. However depraved, there almost always is a reasoning. We aren't talking about psychos who get up one day, get their shotgun and open a human hunting season. They don't 'go around killing people'. Besides, even if they did, they have the right to life. Something you can't take away.

[New Werpland]

Some people do deserve the death penalty. If you have a consciousness, and actively go around murdering people, you shouldn't be allowed to comfortably live in a clean jail cell, whilst playing video games.

"some people deserve the death penalty"
Why? On what basis? What is your argument for that? Does it have any basis at all?

A murder is almost never just for fun. There is a reasoning. However depraved, there almost always is a reasoning. We aren't talking about psychos who get up one day, get their shotgun and open a human hunting season. They don't 'go around killing people'. Besides, even if they did, they have the right to life. Something you can't take away.

That's the point right there, people who find it acceptable to kill someone and have no mental issues blocking their vision, deserve death, people like that put their own self interest over someone's life. It's not only the psychopaths who deserve the death penalty, but most often gang leaders or hired killers, people who find the act of killing others an acceptable means to get their ends.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

"some people deserve the death penalty"
Why? On what basis? What is your argument for that? Does it have any basis at all?

A murder is almost never just for fun. There is a reasoning. However depraved, there almost always is a reasoning. We aren't talking about psychos who get up one day, get their shotgun and open a human hunting season. They don't 'go around killing people'. Besides, even if they did, they have the right to life. Something you can't take away.

That's the point right there, people who find it acceptable to kill someone and have no mental issues blocking their vision, deserve death, people like that put their own self interest over someone's life. It's not only the psychopaths who deserve the death penalty, but most often gang leaders or hired killers, people who find the act of killing others an acceptable means to get their ends.

Is this not an accurate description of the death penalty too? A government just has a legal authority and the monopoly of violence, but if those are your cases against murderers, they could just as well be held against executioners.

[United Marxist Nations]

If the morality were far more important than the economic side, then there wouldn't have been a war over it. It was economically beneficial to the South, so the South invented moral reasons for it. One could just as easily say it was economics over morality.

You've lost my point mate.
What I mean is that morality is more important than economics philosophically because it concerns our sense of justice.
Of course in the real world what matters most isn't what is just, therefore every war has economic interests behind it.

These seem to be contradictions, yes?

[Nazi Flower Power]

If you're going to execute people, it doesn't make a big difference whether you use injection, a firing squad, hanging, or any other quick and simple method of execution.

But I don't have any particular desire for my own state to follow Utah's example. I don't think the death penalty is really needed. Many states do a fine job of enforcing their laws without it.

[MERIZoC]

"some people deserve the death penalty"
Why? On what basis? What is your argument for that? Does it have any basis at all?

A murder is almost never just for fun. There is a reasoning. However depraved, there almost always is a reasoning. We aren't talking about psychos who get up one day, get their shotgun and open a human hunting season. They don't 'go around killing people'. Besides, even if they did, they have the right to life. Something you can't take away.

That's the point right there, people who find it acceptable to kill someone and have no mental issues blocking their vision, deserve death, people like that put their own self interest over someone's life. It's not only the psychopaths who deserve the death penalty, but most often gang leaders or hired killers, people who find the act of killing others an acceptable means to get their ends.

Who are you to arbitrarily decide who deserves death? Who is anyone to do that?

[Imperializt Russia]

That's the point right there, people who find it acceptable to kill someone and have no mental issues blocking their vision, deserve death, people like that put their own self interest over someone's life. It's not only the psychopaths who deserve the death penalty, but most often gang leaders or hired killers, people who find the act of killing others an acceptable means to get their ends.

Who are you to arbitrarily decide who deserves death? Who is anyone to do that?

It is a choice that is not only made, but often must be made, by almost all levels of any structure that operates on a legitimate use of force.

In short - "the state".

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

A nigh-infinitely more sensible and appropriate move would be to commute any capital sentences to life and abolish the death penalty entirely.

You can keep all the money I've just saved you, Utah. Name a road after me, if you must.

It's incredible that a country that claims to be progressive and part of the first world, still uses capital punishment.

[Camelza]

This is NOT new, Utah has ALWAYS had firing squads as an option.

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

It was removed from the books a few years ago. I assume because that one guy four years ago asked for, and received (I further assume), a firing squad.
The discussion here is about re-introducing it.

You know what else is expensive? Feeding and housing someone with a life sentence.

And yet it's still cheaper.

Funny world, isn't it?

It is an answer. I answered where the people deserving that money more than prisoners would get them from and I also compared the morality of throwing money to nuclear weapons and paying taxes for life in prison.

If America dismantled its entire nuclear stockpile, those costs wouldn't be recirculated into other areas of government. They'd be cut. This would have a significantr negative impact on the civil and military fuel cycle, the air force, navy, army and sites thereof. Imagine the job losses of the tens of thousands of nuclear workers and weapons handlers in the US.

And then, everyone would just be languishing in Russian prisons anyway, when Russia invades waving its own nukes around.

It's a damn red herring, if not total tangent.

Ok, I did one mistake in that particular post. I admit it.
Could you move on and discuss about my other posts that followed and have nothing to do with the matter of nuclear disarmament?