[QUOTE=Prime95;89885]You and everyone else reading this thread believes in the death penalty.

Scenario: A home invader breaks into your home and is about to plunge a knife into your wife. Fortunately you heard the commotion and enter the room with a gun. In that moment, you believe in the death penalty.[/QUOTE]You clearly have a different concept of the phrase "death penalty" than I do.

To me, and I believe many others, the phrase "death penalty" means death after due process of law.

Please try to keep to the topic under discussion: should the criminal justice system be permitted to kill people.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;89889]You clearly have a different concept of the phrase "death penalty" than I do.[/QUOTE]

So you agree that you believe in the death penalty. Now we just need to argue over what entities (individuals, judicial systems, military, spy agencies, etc.) can administer the penalty and under what circumstances.

You may want to call the death penalty in my scenario something else to make you feel better about your position, but deep down inside there are circumstances where you do believe in the death penalty.

Having fun stirring the pot,
George

[QUOTE=Prime95;89891]So you agree that you believe in the death penalty. Now we just need to argue over what entities (individuals, judicial systems, military, spy agencies, etc.) can administer the penalty and under what circumstances.

You may want to call the death penalty in my scenario something else to make you feel better about your position, but deep down inside there are circumstances where you do believe in the death penalty.

Having fun stirring the pot,
George[/QUOTE]I said nothing about whether or not I believe killing anyone is justified or not, nor how circumstances alter that judgement.

Please read what I wrote. I was clarifying the meaning of the technical term "death penalty". The statement was purely linguistic in nature and was ethically and morally neutral.

With the definition I gave for the phrase "death penalty", I do not believe that the "death penalty" is justified. To that extent, I claim you are wrong in your earlier statement that "You and everyone else reading this thread believes in the death penalty."

I remain firmly of the opinion that the majority of the discussion up to now, and the majority of the participants here, have been using the phrase "death penalty" with a meaning close to the one which I elaborated. I'm quite prepared to accept that you have not been doing so, but it's valuable, IMO, to get the definitions and assumptions visible for all to see.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;89894]... technical term "death penalty"...[/QUOTE]

I agree that the technical term "death penalty" today refers to the government executing a prisoner after a trial. I'm attempting to get the anti-capital-punishment crowd to do some "soul searching" by considering the English meaning of the words "death penalty" - to end a life as the consequence of some act.

There are a number of anti-capital-punishment supporters that use the argument: "It's a precious human life, it must be saved. It is morally wrong to take a human life". This argument does not hold up (or must be modified) given that in my scenario these same people would end the "precious human life" threatening their spouse.

Earlier in this thread I was attacking another common anti-capital-punishment argument: "You cannot be for capital punishment because an innocent prisoner might be punished." Again, though many failed to see my point, this is an illogical argument (or one that must be modified) because if you truly believed that then the argument "You cannot be for life sentences because an innocent prisoner might be punished" would also hold.

Some have modified (or clarified) their argument to: "You cannot be for capital punishment because life sentences give the system maximum possible time to end the punishment of an innocent prisoner". A perfectly valid argument.

Some have opined: "Life sentence is a harsh enough sentence for any crime." A perfectly valid opinion, not one I agree with, but who's to say which opinion is "right".


In general, with hot button issues such as abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, drug legalization, etc. it seems that those with the loudest voices and illogical reasoning get most of the air time. Reasoned debate is often lacking. And most times it simply comes down to a matter of personal opinion.

[QUOTE=Prime95;89895]I agree that the technical term "death penalty" today refers to the government executing a prisoner after a trial. I'm attempting to get the anti-capital-punishment crowd to do some "soul searching" by considering the English meaning of the words "death penalty" - to end a life as the consequence of some act.[/QUOTE]As a self-confessed member of that crowd, I claim that I have already performed soul-searching as you put it, though I'd phrase it as research into and in-depth thinking about the subject. A consequence of this prior consideration is that I think it important to draw distinctions as clearly as possible between different classes of actions which take human life. One clear distinction I make is to use the term "death penalty" with the meaning I explained earlier.

[QUOTE=Prime95;89895]Some have modified (or clarified) their argument to: "You cannot be for capital punishment because life sentences give the system maximum possible time to end the punishment of an innocent prisoner". A perfectly valid argument.[/quote]And one I made earlier in this thread.

[QUOTE=Prime95;89895]]In general, with hot button issues such as abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, drug legalization, etc. it seems that those with the loudest voices and illogical reasoning get most of the air time. Reasoned debate is often lacking. And most times it simply comes down to a matter of personal opinion.[/QUOTE]Fair comment. I am attempting to participate in reasoned debate, a prerequisite for which is mutual understanding of the subject in question and the meanings of the terms used. I claim that your use of the term "death penalty" earlier was ambiguous, confusing, and possibly confused.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;89896]I claim that your use of the term "death penalty" earlier was ambiguous...[/QUOTE]

Intentionally so, for the purpose of furthering reasoned debate and in-depth thinking (yes, "soul searching" was a very poor choice of words).

In the soap box forum, I do like to throw chum in the water before getting down to the more reasoned debate. One of my many character flaws :smile:

[QUOTE=Prime95;89885]Scenario: A home invader breaks into your home and is about to plunge a knife into your wife. Fortunately you heard the commotion and enter the room with a gun. In that moment, you believe in the death penalty.[/QUOTE]
I do not know about the USA, but here in Western Europe, the only cases of self defence with shooting in the case of burglary I can remember, end in confusion, as it is a member of the family who is shot at in the misconception that it is burglar. Moreover this example is about a crisis moment, not about the (theoretically) cold blooded execution of a prisoner.

Another thing to remember about the justice system, and especially about the death penalty, is that the system is more lenient towards people with a better (richer?) background. Just look at statistics about crime versus punishment against the social background of the condemned. This can be even more flagrant in countries where the prosecutor only investigates one side of a case (guiltiness), leaving the defendant to pay to prove his or her innocence. The number of condemnation to the death penalty, later overturned is frightening unless one is of the opinion that "I prefer the execution of 9 innocents than to let one culprit escape." as publicly professed by a politician from the United States.

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;89900]I do not know about the USA, but here in Western Europe, the only cases of self defence with shooting.......[/QUOTE]
Not all of the various states within the U.S. of A. have the same laws in this regards. Some states have no provision for self defense for murder (I am not a lawyer/barister). Some, once an invader is in your home, as long as there is a reasonable circumstance that you may have feared, you are covered. Some, if there is someone on your property (not even inside) in "the dark of night", you are free to fire upon them.:et_:

[QUOTE=BotXXX;89875]It always puzzles me that people can be for the death penalty.

When some one kills an other human, it is wrong and he/she gets capital punishment.

When the executionor kills a human in capital punishment, it is ok?
When a soldier kills a human, it is ok? or only when the other is also a soldier?
When a police officer kills a human, it is ok? or only when that human would kill an other human if it wouldn't be killed by the police officer?

Only the first person gets punishment, the other three are allowed to go home, drink a cup of coffee, eat pies and life their life further without any restrictions for their actions.

( /me grew up in a country that doesn't have capital punishment and has liberal abortion laws (yes yes that country) since i was born)[/QUOTE]Well, the executioner is the one who acts on the punishment. It's not murder to kill a murderer. Killing in a war is not murder. A policeman can only kill a person who can't be stopped any other way during a criminal situation. I think you know these things already. Murder requires intent to commit the actual crime. The others don't meet that qualification. Personally, right now, I don't know which country you mean specifically.

[QUOTE=Prime95;89891]So you agree that you believe in the death penalty. Now we just need to argue over what entities (individuals, judicial systems, military, spy agencies, etc.) can administer the penalty and under what circumstances.

You may want to call the death penalty in my scenario something else to make you feel better about your position, but deep down inside there are circumstances where you do believe in the death penalty.

Having fun stirring the pot,
George[/QUOTE]Um, George, the death penalty and self-defense are 2 different things. Your scenario is about self defense or defense of your loved ones.

On a different note, am I the only one seeing a "This forum requires that you wait 300 seconds between posts. Please try again in xxx seconds." message?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;89904]Not all of the various states within the U.S. of A. have the same laws in this regards. Some states have no provision for self defense for murder (I am not a lawyer/barister). Some, once an invader is in your home, as long as there is a reasonable circumstance that you may have feared, you are covered. Some, if there is someone on your property (not even inside) in "the dark of night", you are free to fire upon them.:et_:[/QUOTE]That's true, in Texas, the last time I checked, even if it's not the dark of night, if someone is not welcome on your property and refuses to leave and won't be forcibly removed, you are welcome to shoot them. That part of the law may have changed from several years ago, but I don't know for sure. Texas has a "right to carry" law, so we are legally allowed to carry concealed weapons as long as we have permits and such.