Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Crime & Punishment Capital punishment: Why not?

Not really. I wrote collectivist or socialist. Collectivist would include nationalists, uberpatriots, National Socialists, monarchists, Islamists, Dominionists, etc. Take a shot.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Your argument against capital punishment is pragmatic and economic -- pre-supposing that in differing circumstances where it provided an economic or financial benefit, and was effective, capital punishment would be the right thing to do. It is thus not an argument against capital punishment so much as an argument against capital punishment under your listed conditions.
Yours,
Issodhos

The only true justice has been thoroughly delimited in the Bible. The only fair, effective and efficient punishment is death. A dead thief or adulterer or murder will never do any one any harm again and the sooner the transgressor will reap his eternal reward. If they were mistakenly punished, will not the Almighty take that in consideration when deciding their everlasting fate? What is this transient existence compared to all eternity?

Schlack,

I think you read very far into my posts for something that isn’t there. Perhaps I’m wrong, and I’ve posted something in the past that led you to believe I am inconsistent in being against capitol punishment while “supporting war”. If I’ve posted something that has you confused about my stance, I’d actually enjoy discussing it with you via PM, or on a different thread, mate. I’m not pro-war.

As I stated in my original post, I personally have a difficult time reconciling the state killing a citizen for acts previously committed – let me explain a little about what I mean by this, in the hope of clearing up any inconsistency on my behalf.

Let’s say that citizen “a” threatens to violently attack citizen “b” with deadly force. If the threat is perceived to be real enough (let’s say citizen “a” has already launched a violent attack against citizen “b”) I personally believe that citizen “b” has a right, and sometimes an obligation, to use deadly force in order to protect himself or others from citizen “a”, even if citizen “b” is acting under orders of the state. If the aggressor (citizen “a”) voluntarily ceases his aggression against citizen “b”, then I believe that citizen “b” should respond likewise and cease his aggression against citizen “a”. If our citizen “b” happens to be acting on behalf of the state, than it his duty to bring the aggressor before a group of his peers to receive a judgment likely to prevent the aggressor from endangering his fellow citizens in the future. I personally do not believe it is in the states nor in individual members of the states best interest to seek a penalty of death against an aggressor after the threat of violence is removed.

Neither would I support a POW being killed or even tortured after he is removed from the field of battle during war-time.

Am I inconsistent?

Issodos,
It's really a pain in the ass trying to frame answers to your questions within the given parameters. You ask us to become something we are not to explain beliefs we honestly hold. Then you shoot us down. I don't understand your recent fascination for answers from a socialist viewpoint. If it is to prove that socialism is a bad thing I think we already agree with you.
There have been sufficient cases of misplaced justice to show that capital punishment should be avoided on that count alone. To the gents arguing whether or not the state should be in the killing business let me point out briefly that states have always been in the killing business, only in our current Utopian era could it even be considered that killing is not a state function.
There are some crimes where it seems that justice should be true and swift and a sword plunged into the heart of the evil criminal
but sometimes that doesn't work out like it should.
Rattlesnakes? Evil? No no no, just because they have the potential to hurt you doesn't make them bad, they are very effective at rodent control and certainly bear you no ill will, just shoo them away and you will likely never see them again. Once you've decided that anything with the potential to hurt you deserves death then you have become extremely dangerous yourself.

I hate to wear the contrarian hat, but here's a question for the group - if capitol punishment is a form of vengence, is there any documented instance in history when vengence has served a greater moral purpose?

Mal, your question assumes that vengeance is a moral purpose - does it not?

I don't see a connection between vengence and capital punishment. IMO they are two different things. As are "threating" to hurt someone and actually hurting someone.

You commit a crime, you should be punished. And the punishment should fit the crime. All wrist slapping does is just create more criminals.

I don't think that vengeance always serves a legitimate moral purpose, but I think it's worth considering why it is we have searched so long after the crime for Nazi's, and former members of the Klan suspected of murders committed many decades ago?

In these instances, vengeance has served a moral purpose, has it not?

Edit: I couldn't spell vengeance without some help from Microsoft.

Vengeance is personal. Period.

from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ven·geance
Pronunciation: 'ven-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from venger to avenge, from Latin vindicare to lay claim to, avenge -- more at VINDICATE
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : RETRIBUTION



Hunting down Nazi's and KKK is not just or only for vengeance- it's because they commited crimes.