Trump Reinstates Federal Executions

[Madner Kami]

If such a person is locked up then they shouldn't be a danger to the people around them or society as a whole (although that raises the whole question about violence in prisons).

I don't necessarily mean danger in terms of the violence they might personally commit. I'm thinking of offenses closer to treason, domestic terrorism, a cult leader in the vein of Charles Manson, a domestic Hitler, etc. Someone like Anders Breivik, whose guarantee of continued survival could serve as inspiration to whackjobs everywhere (and might have been part of the plan from the beginning). Like I said, I don't know exactly what such a person would look like, it's just possible that they might exist.

Before getting them locked up, well, most (probably all) countries, including those without the death penalty, are prepared to resort to killing someone if they're posing a great enough threat and can't be stopped and tried and locked up any other way.

Well that's one of the points I was getting at, a person who was sufficiently dangerous would probably be killed one way or the other. I could be convinced otherwise, but I tend to think there should be a legal "nuclear option" to deal with the possibility of such people existing.

Executing such people creates martyrs. They are a rallying point one way or the other, so all the more reason to rise above solving your problems with pointless violence and rather demonstrate, that you are the better man.

Besides that, do you realize that you are argueing for the execution of political prisoners? Really think about the implications of that practise, because it's next dumbest thing to do, right after condoning the death of possible innocents.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's conceivable that there might be a convict whose continued survival is a danger to the people around them or society as a whole. I don't know exactly what that person would look like, but it's possible. To me, it makes sense to have a legal avenue for dealing with such a person.

Before getting them locked up, well, most (probably all) countries, including those without the death penalty, are prepared to resort to killing someone if they're posing a great enough threat and can't be stopped and tried and locked up any other way.

What is this referring to?

It doesn't sound different than police resorting to deadly force in the name of public security.

Executing such people creates martyrs. They are a rallying point one way or the other, so all the more reason to rise above solving your problems with pointless violence.

Are we going fishing? Because I smell a fresh can of worms that has been opened.

If such a person is locked up then they shouldn't be a danger to the people around them or society as a whole (although that raises the whole question about violence in prisons).

I don't necessarily mean danger in terms of the violence they might personally commit. I'm thinking of offenses closer to treason, domestic terrorism, a cult leader in the vein of Charles Manson, a domestic Hitler, etc. Someone like Anders Breivik, whose guarantee of continued survival could serve as inspiration to whackjobs everywhere (and might have been part of the plan from the beginning). Like I said, I don't know exactly what such a person would look like, it's just possible that they might exist.

Putting this into consideration, the only measure I can think of would involve actually expediting death row, not to mention putting more people on it.

[Riedquat]

It's conceivable that there might be a convict whose continued survival is a danger to the people around them or society as a whole. I don't know exactly what that person would look like, but it's possible. To me, it makes sense to have a legal avenue for dealing with such a person.

Before getting them locked up, well, most (probably all) countries, including those without the death penalty, are prepared to resort to killing someone if they're posing a great enough threat and can't be stopped and tried and locked up any other way.

What is this referring to?

It doesn't sound different than police resorting to deadly force in the name of public security.

Pretty much. I was trying to draw a distinction between having to kill someone there and then because not doing so will result in others getting killed and killing someone, no matter how bad, once you've got them in a position where they're no real threat any more. The former can be a necessary evil, the latter it's too hard to justify from a "they might pose a threat" argument - if anything as has already been pointed out the danger then is creating a martyr.

The world is full of people I really wish had never been born but empty of those who absolutely deserve to die.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's conceivable that there might be a convict whose continued survival is a danger to the people around them or society as a whole. I don't know exactly what that person would look like, but it's possible. To me, it makes sense to have a legal avenue for dealing with such a person.

Before getting them locked up, well, most (probably all) countries, including those without the death penalty, are prepared to resort to killing someone if they're posing a great enough threat and can't be stopped and tried and locked up any other way.

What is this referring to?

It doesn't sound different than police resorting to deadly force in the name of public security.

Pretty much. I was trying to draw a distinction between having to kill someone there and then because not doing so will result in others getting killed and killing someone, no matter how bad, once you've got them in a position where they're no real threat any more. The former can be a necessary evil, the latter it's too hard to justify from a "they might pose a threat" argument - if anything as has already been pointed out the danger then is creating a martyr.

The world is full of people I really wish had never been born but empty of those who absolutely deserve to die.

Right. I think for lack of a better word it would just considered murder, as it would apply to a citizen under the same circumstance.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

Executing such people creates martyrs. They are a rallying point one way or the other, so all the more reason to rise above solving your problems with pointless violence and rather demonstrate, that you are the better man.

The point isn't, or shouldn't be, petty revenge or "pointless violence", the point should be in asking whether such an extreme action might be necessary to protect society.

The shooters going out in what was perceived as a "blaze of glory" helped to make the Columbine shooting, in my estimation, one of the most consequential crimes in American history. The death penalty doesn't have that glamour. How much influence might they have had if they were still sitting in prison? I suspect what happened was the worst of those three options, but I don't know.

Is Charles Manson more influential if he's a focus of media scrutiny, interviews, and speculation spanning decades, or if he's (relatively) quietly executed in 1970? I'm not saying that he should have been executed, I'm saying that you can't simply say that this person will be a martyr no matter what as if each option will have the same effect.

The common counterargument here is that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent, or even that it's counter-productive in actuality. Others argue that it is an effective deterrent, and both sides have studies to purportedly prove their position. A fairly recent book put out by the National Research Council concluded that, for various reasons, we simply don't know. That's why, as I already said, I don't support the death penalty as practiced. In theory, if it could be shown to be an effective deterrent in specific cases, I'm more ambivalent.

Besides that, do you realize that you are argueing for the execution of political prisoners? Really think about the implications of that practise, because it's next dumbest thing to do, right after condoning the death of possible innocents.

That's an uncharitable reading and it's not what I'm arguing. What I'm trying to say, maybe badly, is that if executions were to be practiced, they should only be practiced if both a) a person's crimes are sufficiently heinous, and b) that person can be shown to be a continued, serious threat to society. Maybe other factors would need to play into that as well. Proving "B" may very well be effectively impossible or leave too much potential for abuse of power.

[clearspira]

It's conceivable that there might be a convict whose continued survival is a danger to the people around them or society as a whole. I don't know exactly what that person would look like, but it's possible. To me, it makes sense to have a legal avenue for dealing with such a person.

Before getting them locked up, well, most (probably all) countries, including those without the death penalty, are prepared to resort to killing someone if they're posing a great enough threat and can't be stopped and tried and locked up any other way.

What is this referring to?

It doesn't sound different than police resorting to deadly force in the name of public security.

Pretty much. I was trying to draw a distinction between having to kill someone there and then because not doing so will result in others getting killed and killing someone, no matter how bad, once you've got them in a position where they're no real threat any more. The former can be a necessary evil, the latter it's too hard to justify from a "they might pose a threat" argument - if anything as has already been pointed out the danger then is creating a martyr.

The world is full of people I really wish had never been born but empty of those who absolutely deserve to die.

Right. I think for lack of a better word it would just considered murder, as it would apply to a citizen under the same circumstance.

If you believe absolutely that no one deserves to die, and that killing because ''they may prove a threat'' is just straight up murder, and that ''this should apply to everyone as it applies to a citizen'', then surely anyone wearing a uniform whom is authorised to kill is a murderer yes?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's conceivable that there might be a convict whose continued survival is a danger to the people around them or society as a whole. I don't know exactly what that person would look like, but it's possible. To me, it makes sense to have a legal avenue for dealing with such a person.

Before getting them locked up, well, most (probably all) countries, including those without the death penalty, are prepared to resort to killing someone if they're posing a great enough threat and can't be stopped and tried and locked up any other way.

What is this referring to?

It doesn't sound different than police resorting to deadly force in the name of public security.

Pretty much. I was trying to draw a distinction between having to kill someone there and then because not doing so will result in others getting killed and killing someone, no matter how bad, once you've got them in a position where they're no real threat any more. The former can be a necessary evil, the latter it's too hard to justify from a "they might pose a threat" argument - if anything as has already been pointed out the danger then is creating a martyr.

The world is full of people I really wish had never been born but empty of those who absolutely deserve to die.

Right. I think for lack of a better word it would just considered murder, as it would apply to a citizen under the same circumstance.

If you believe absolutely that no one deserves to die, and that killing because ''they may prove a threat'' is just straight up murder, and that ''this should apply to everyone as it applies to a citizen'', then surely anyone wearing a uniform whom is authorised to kill is a murderer yes?

Well cops and soldiers don't kill people because those people deserve to die, for one. Proving to be a threat isn't very precise, cops surely get away with killing people when they don't have to, but that can be considered manslaughter imo. That being said, fatally shooting imminent threats was precisely a consideration I and Reidquat were talking about anyway, and that they aren't considered a murderer, no. Proving to be a potential threat, however, doesn't sanction cops to just walk up and shoot someone.

Likewise, the government/public, can't as of now kill an inmate because they prove to be an external threat. As neither a private citizen can, which would be considered murder for all intents and purposes.

As far as who deserves to die, that's a value judgement that's specifically being scrutinized in this thread, not just by me.

[Admiral X]

I have to say, between how some of you view capital punishment, and how you view violence in general, makes you kind of scary. Like SS death squads scary.

[Yukaphile]

Well, I'm not against punishing somebody if they escape justice. Someone truly wickedly disgusting. That said, I'm simply against doing it for sadistic revenge. Only if there's no other option. I'd prefer the legal system dealt with them first. But sadly, that doesn't happen too often...

[Riedquat]

Well, I'm not against punishing somebody if they escape justice. Someone truly wickedly disgusting. That said, I'm simply against doing it for sadistic revenge. Only if there's no other option. I'd prefer the legal system dealt with them first. But sadly, that doesn't happen too often...

Hang on, you're now suggesting that they should be killed outside the legal system?!