Trial by Fire - a case of death penalty in Texas

[Agelastus]

On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.

Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.

So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.

However, I also believe that life sentences should mean exactly that. A murderer should be imprisoned for the rest of their life with no possibility of parole, preferably being forced to perform an action of benefit to society while imprisoned. Since we do not know if anything of ourselves continues after death, punishment is for this world, not the next; I would make murderers (and rapists) suffer for every day of their remaining lifespan.

[grumbler]

On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.

Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.

So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.

I love arguments that start with a definition completely at odds with the normally-accepted definition.

I start from the premise that murder (defined as as allowing Agelastus to post) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of languish; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of the forum will always continue after Agelastus posts.

Moderators (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its posters; therefore a forum government that elects to allow Agelastus to post is breaking its moral contract with the rest of the forum. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by allowing Agelastus to even register.

So, I oppose the ability of Agelastus to register, and am sorry that my forum has not abolished it.

See how this works?  I just define murder as something, then state that murder is morally wrong, and then state that authorities who commit comit this immoral act are criminals.  The fact that my definition is fucked up is completely ignored.  Anyone can play this game (except those with any sense of intellectual honesty).

[Kleves]

Not really.  You can already achieve that much with any kind of sentencing.  I.e. the crime is worth 10 years in jail, you offer 5 and a possibility of parole in 3 years for good conduct.  If the crime is worth 20 years, you offer 10, if it's life imprisonment without possibility of parole you offer 25 years and parole at 2/3, etc.

The death penalty is imposed only in the most serious of crimes, where life without parole is usually the other option. Your scenarios are only workable if the U.S. is willing to let convicted murderers out of prison early. We're not willing to do this (sometimes even when they're innocent).

[Neil]

There is only one reason to oppose the death penalty:  Moral cowardice.

[Pat]

On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.

Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.

So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.

I love arguments that start with a definition completely at odds with the normally-accepted definition.

I start from the premise that murder (defined as as allowing Agelastus to post) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of languish; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of the forum will always continue after Agelastus posts.

Moderators (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its posters; therefore a forum government that elects to allow Agelastus to post is breaking its moral contract with the rest of the forum. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by allowing Agelastus to even register.

So, I oppose the ability of Agelastus to register, and am sorry that my forum has not abolished it.

See how this works?  I just define murder as something, then state that murder is morally wrong, and then state that authorities who commit comit this immoral act are criminals.  The fact that my definition is fucked up is completely ignored.  Anyone can play this game (except those with any sense of intellectual honesty).

What is fucked up is your way of arguing. That in the Unites States a premeditated state-sanctioned killing is not considered murder is so for no other reason than that that is the way the law is written. He is clearly talking about how it should be, and not how it is. When you say his definition is contrary to the commonly accepted one you say "this is how it is". That is no more than simple appeal to authority. And that is a game anyone can play, whenever anyone say anything contrary to what is commonly accepted. Except, of course, those with any sense of intellectual honesty.

[Agelastus]

On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.

Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.

So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.

I love arguments that start with a definition completely at odds with the normally-accepted definition.

I start from the premise that murder (defined as as allowing Agelastus to post) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of languish; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of the forum will always continue after Agelastus posts.

Moderators (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its posters; therefore a forum government that elects to allow Agelastus to post is breaking its moral contract with the rest of the forum. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by allowing Agelastus to even register.

So, I oppose the ability of Agelastus to register, and am sorry that my forum has not abolished it.

See how this works?  I just define murder as something, then state that murder is morally wrong, and then state that authorities who commit comit this immoral act are criminals.  The fact that my definition is fucked up is completely ignored.  Anyone can play this game (except those with any sense of intellectual honesty).

You are really starting to get unoriginal in the bollocks you post.

Although I will admit that that definition should have been written as "the deliberate taking of human life in any circumstance other than self defence". I blame the time of night for that omission, and apologise for it profusely. To be absolutely clear on my position, I should also have added the qualifier that assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness is also not murder, which I inexplicably forgot in my post above. Despite my personal discomfort with the idea, it does involve a person's free choice, so I would be somewhat hypocritical to oppose it.

Presumably, given your rather poor attempt to ridicule my position, you believe murder to be morally correct? THAT would surprise me immensely, given your normally quite sane positions compared to some members of this board, but it is one of the things that could be intuited from your half-assed response.

I am unaware of any definitive proof that some form of our existence continues after death; I would be greatly interested if you have such proof as it is a matter of obvious concern to most people in this world? If you do not have any proof, then I find your objection to my contention that punishment should be for this world, not the next, spurious in the extreme.

Your attacking my intellectual honesty for expressing my own personal opinion on the subject of the death penalty is also pretty low. I expected better of you Grumbler. Although your previously expressed opinion that somebody was "happy to die" should have warned me of the possibility, I suppose.

[DontSayBanana]

Agelastus, there is a flaw in your argument, although I think it's not one quite so dramatic as Grumbler's making it out to be- the government does have the authority to take lives for military and law enforcement purposes.  If that were not the case, we'd have a huge standing army suddenly out of work.

[Razgovory]

On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.

Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.

So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.

I love arguments that start with a definition completely at odds with the normally-accepted definition.

I start from the premise that murder (defined as as allowing Agelastus to post) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of languish; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of the forum will always continue after Agelastus posts.

Moderators (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its posters; therefore a forum government that elects to allow Agelastus to post is breaking its moral contract with the rest of the forum. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by allowing Agelastus to even register.

So, I oppose the ability of Agelastus to register, and am sorry that my forum has not abolished it.

See how this works?  I just define murder as something, then state that murder is morally wrong, and then state that authorities who commit comit this immoral act are criminals.  The fact that my definition is fucked up is completely ignored.  Anyone can play this game (except those with any sense of intellectual honesty).

What is fucked up is your way of arguing. That in the Unites States a premeditated state-sanctioned killing is not considered murder is so for no other reason than that that is the way the law is written. He is clearly talking about how it should be, and not how it is. When you say his definition is contrary to the commonly accepted one you say "this is how it is". That is no more than simple appeal to authority. And that is a game anyone can play, whenever anyone say anything contrary to what is commonly accepted. Except, of course, those with any sense of intellectual honesty.

That makes sense since Murder is a legal term.  Perhaps you are looking for a word like "homicide"

[Agelastus]

Agelastus, there is a flaw in your argument, although I think it's not one quite so dramatic as Grumbler's making it out to be- the government does have the authority to take lives for military and law enforcement purposes.  If that were not the case, we'd have a huge standing army suddenly out of work.

May I point out that that is mostly covered by the "self defence" portion of my definition. The military is used to protect the country (although definitions of what constitutes legitimate protection can be somewhat fluid) and the only police officers who would fall foul of my definition that I can think of are the members of Latin American deathsquads, whose activities I am convinced all Languishites would revile.

Military personnel deliberately killing unarmed civilians are court-martialled - that's murder; military personnel who shoot at people who are armed and capable of shooting back - that's not murder. Police officers who kill in circumstances other than self-defence are generally not swept under the carpet these days either.

[DontSayBanana]

May I point out that that is mostly covered by the "self defence" portion of my definition. The military is used to protect the country (although definitions of what constitutes legitimate protection can be somewhat fluid) and the only police officers who would fall foul of my definition that I can think of are the members of Latin American deathsquads, whose activities I am convinced all Languishites would revile.

Military personnel deliberately killing unarmed civilians are court-martialled - that's murder; military personnel who shoot at people who are armed and capable of shooting back - that's not murder. Police officers who kill in circumstances other than self-defence are generally not swept under the carpet these days either.

Police and soldiers will open up fire to protect others as well, even when those officers are not targeted directly.  The reason is that the government has given instructions that individuals in certain situations are so great a threat that they forfeit their basic right to life.  The death penalty's use is not as a deterrent (no authoritative, conclusive studies support that assumption), but as a societal protection against individuals who have become so great a threat that they could not function in either general society or the specialized inmate society of the penal system.

[Pat]

That makes sense since Murder is a legal term.  Perhaps you are looking for a word like "homicide"

I know that. You're missing the point.

mur·der  (mûr'dər)   
n. 
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.


What decides what is lawful killing and what is not lawful killing? The law decides that. The law is different in different places and has been different in different times. The legal definition of murder can be anything. A dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law.

If you are talking from the perspective of morals, and how you personally feel on the matter, i.e. how it SHOULD BE, and not from the perspective of what the law currently IS, then it makes perfect sense to come up with your own definition of murder.

What Grumbler is saying is that Angelastus' definition of murder is different from the definition in the law, and therefore Angelastus is intellectually dishonest. Do you find that intellectually honest?

[Agelastus]

Police and soldiers will open up fire to protect others as well, even when those officers are not targeted directly.  The reason is that the government has given instructions that individuals in certain situations are so great a threat that they forfeit their basic right to life.  The death penalty's use is not as a deterrent (no authoritative, conclusive studies support that assumption), but as a societal protection against individuals who have become so great a threat that they could not function in either general society or the specialized inmate society of the penal system.

Police and soldiers opening fire to protect others are still covered in a rather broad sense by "self defence". After all, a credible threat to another in most cases can also be a credible threat to you (snipers, admittedly, skirt this definition somewhat.) The key word, of course is "defence".

I would also point out that the "government" is not normally directly involved with situations where officers have to choose whether to shoot or not. The government has given them a weapon to use in protection of themselves and others, as you have pointed out. It has not said, "In circumstance A, kill him. In circumstance B, let him live, in circumstance C you decide" to a police officer.

It has, of course, said this to the courts, with laws regarding which crimes justify the death penalty. Which is where the argument between death penalty advocates and those opposed to capital punishment rests.

Now, I could write a twenty thousand word or more essay on all the specific circumstances that would justify the taking of a life by a soldier or police officer, or I could just sum it up with a phrase such as "self defence", since that would cover the majority of cases.

Presumably like yourself, I also get frustrated when people quote the deterrent value of the death penalty asd a justification for it given the lack of evidence for this assumption, but I dispute your assertion that "societal protection" requires the killing of certain members of that society. It requires the punishing of certain members of society, and such punishments should include incarceration for life for the protection of society, if neccessary. The list of available punishments should not include the taking of an individual's life.

All I can add to that is my own view that Grumbler included in his ridicule - that punishment is a matter for this world; if I had faith in an afterlife, I might not be so vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I freely admit.

[Agelastus]

I am ashamed to admit it, but Miglia is defending my position more ably than I am.

[Razgovory]

That makes sense since Murder is a legal term.  Perhaps you are looking for a word like "homicide"

I know that. You're missing the point.

mur·der  (mûr'dər)   
n. 
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.


What decides what is lawful killing and what is not lawful killing? The law decides that. The law is different in different places and has been different in different times. The legal definition of murder can be anything. A dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law.

If you are talking from the perspective of morals, and how you personally feel on the matter, i.e. how it SHOULD BE, and not from the perspective of what the law currently IS, then it makes perfect sense to come up with your own definition of murder.

What Grumbler is saying is that Angelastus' definition of murder is different from the definition in the law, and therefore Angelastus is intellectually dishonest. Do you find that intellectually honest?

That would be an exercise in pointlessness.  If anyone can define a legal term any way they want it loses all meaning.  Laws are nifty in that we have an agreed upon definition of stuff.  Otherwise we have all sorts of silly stuff such as Murder including the killing of My WoW character.

[Pat]

That would be an exercise in pointlessness.  If anyone can define a legal term any way they want it loses all meaning.  Laws are nifty in that we have an agreed upon definition of stuff.  Otherwise we have all sorts of silly stuff such as Murder including the killing of My WoW character.

I give up. There is no other way for me to explain it.



As for the discussion on the death penalty, I suppose everything has been said so many times and there is very little to be done about the fact that America as the only civilized country in the world resorts to practices elsewhere only found in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. But I suppose that's what you get from irrationality and bronze-age morals. The same american right who on one hand say that the government can not be trusted with their money is suddenly just fine with giving the government power over life and death. So much for limited government.