China, Iran, Vietnam totally pwn the US

[Kuciwalker]

I suppose the qualified right to freedom of movement is dangerous, too, isn't it UR?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I suppose the qualified right to freedom of movement is dangerous, too, isn't it UR?

Exactly. I can't think of a right that isn't qualified in some way. There have historically been arbitrary, capricious qualifications to every right, but there have also been reasonable qualifications (like not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is a reasonable qualification on the right of free speech). Right to life is very important, but it's not utterly sacrosanct and inviolable. For instance, it's legally acceptable in the US to use lethal force against someone if they are trying to rape you. As I've outlined, I see that there are some actions that people can take that revokes their right to life.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Is there any reason why murder is actually immoral?

Granted that I'm a bit of a nihilist, I'd say that no, there is no external force that ultimately dictates in an absolute way that murdering another is wrong.


However, there are very many practical reasons why, within the confines of human society, we have decided that murder is immoral and wrong. In effect, it's as close to being absolutely immoral as anything gets.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Is there any reason why murder is actually immoral?

Net detriment to utility?

[cinch]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

One innocent death is too many.

[Kuciwalker]

Because we have guns and you don't?

[Kuciwalker]

Because it means only those that obey our rules survive

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kontiki
nye, I think you're looking at it from a different perspective than what was being discussed. I actually agree with you (I think) about the DP - I don't have a problem with it for people like Clifford Olsen. But that doesn't really speak to the deterrence value of having the DP in the first place.

I agree, mostly, however isn't the bigger issue whether the DP can be justified in many, some, few, or no cases?

People who think it would be good for run of the mill cases cling to deterence when 'statistics' say otherwise.

People who favour abolition cling to cases of innocence when there are clear cases of no possibility of that state.

Both are arguing based on imperfect sets of facts, ie faith.

[Master Zen]

I find the whole "death penalty deters crime" argument to be utter bollocks and quite disproved by most empirical evidence.

Personally I am in favor of the DP but for other reasons: that some crimes are so hineous, done by people who are so messed up mentally that they are a burden to the state and do not deserve to be alive. By these I mean rapists, kidnappers, serial killers and particular pre-determined murderers.

I would not expect it to deter more such crimes though. I merely stand by it for the "eye for an eye" principle.

[Alexander's Horse]

I've always thought the death penalty makes crims more desperate, leads to more murder.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Funny I always thought life imprisonment lead to the same. Afterall once sentenced to life whats the worst that can happen to you? More life sentences.

Once immunized by the life sentence that pretty much means liscense to kill the poor bastard that looks cross ways at you in the pen.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Funny I always thought life imprisonment lead to the same. Afterall once sentenced to life whats the worst that can happen to you? More life sentences.

Once immunized by the life sentence that pretty much means liscense to kill the poor bastard that looks cross ways at you in the pen.

Not if the life sentence works like here in Germany.
Here Life sentence doesn´t necessary leads to the person imprisoned for his whole remaining lifetime.
Normally even if a delinquent is imprisoned for life, it means that after 15 years there is a revision where it will be examined, if his behavior in prison leads to a positive social prognosis and his time of imprisonment can be considerably shortened.
After this date, revisions can take place quite regularly (every couple of years).
Only if he is sentenced to "lifelong with a very grave guilt" (for example because he murdered someone in a very cruelsome way) this revision can be suspended.
Even in these cases a revision could take place, but AFAIK there is no fix date, just the rule that the first revision can take place no earlier than after 18 years of imprisonment.

So let me see, lets assume you killed someone, for example you wanted to rob a bank and thereby killed a security guard who drew a weapon.
At which instance would you be more inclined to panic and kill all the other witnesses within the bank (instead of just taking the money and fleeing)?
If you knew you could be sentenced to death, or if you knew that the worst thing that could happen to you would be a sentence for life (and you had a certain chance to come out of prison, even if it would take 2 decades)?

[Alexander's Horse]

I like to see my murderers rot in jail

[DanS]

Planning ahead?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I agree, mostly, however isn't the bigger issue whether the DP can be justified in many, some, few, or no cases?

People who think it would be good for run of the mill cases cling to deterence when 'statistics' say otherwise.

People who favour abolition cling to cases of innocence when there are clear cases of no possibility of that state.

Both are arguing based on imperfect sets of facts, ie faith.

Actually, I argue against the death penalty based on the fact that society has other means to protect itself. If you have the ability to put somebody in a cage for the rest of their life, then killing them is wrong. Lethal force is to be used, both by individuals and society at large, as a last resort.