White supremacist executed for Texas dragging

[MikeH]

Well, I think it's wrong to pass up on an opportunity to save innocent life.

As the Death Penalty isn't a deterrent, (as I pointed out above) that's not relevant.

[MikeH]

This guy says it better than me:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-capital-punishment.html

[Hauldren Collider]

If the SWAT team had not gone in the hostage takers might have killed all the hostages, or eventually they might have been talked out. We don't know if it was the right move, we don't know what would have happened if they hadn't gone in.

Certainly in that situation, people would lose jobs, there'd be a massive public outcry, it would be an international scandal etc.

Don't try to play armchair general with the hypothetical. The construct is the same. This is a classic ethics problem. The generalized version is, you can do nothing and x people will die or you can kill y people, thereby saving x people. If y is less than x, you have made a good decision.

[MikeH]

and yet when versions of that scenario are played out in various experiments, when people have to choose to actively take a life to prevent a possible future accident, the majority can't choose to do that, because they feel it's so wrong to actively take a life.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, that's just because they're stupid. If they were thinking rationally they wouldn't even hesitate.

[Lorizael]

Well, that's just because they're stupid. If they were thinking rationally they wouldn't even hesitate.

No, it suggests that our built in moral system generally doesn't operate on utilitarian principles. Whether or not we should listen to our built in morals is another question, however.

[Elok]

Of course not. Let's say you have a hostage crisis. The SWAT team comes in and kills the hostage-takers and 4 innocent people were killed in the crossfire by bullets from the SWAT team. Had nothing been done, the hostage-takers would have killed all 10 hostages. Clearly, sending in the SWAT team was the right move. More people were saved, even though they were killed by the people trying to protect them.

That is not at all comparable to the situation with the DP. You're talking about killing one group of people to (in theory) discourage an entirely different group of people from following in the first group's footsteps. The imminent danger of the SWAT scenario does not apply. And, in general, there is a meaningful distinction between failing to save an innocent life and actively taking one. Do you think a man who fails to save another man's life should be charged with murder, or even manslaughter? I have not paid money to one of those charities that buys mosquito netting for malaria-plagued countries. Should I get jail time, a fine, or lethal injection?

[Asher]

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? You need to provide evidence that without the death penalty, their murder rates would be lower to prove your point, something you cannot do by pointing out that many states without the death penalty have low crime.

Why do I need to do that?

You need to provide evidence that the death penalty deters murder. You're the one killing people, not me. Burden of proof is on you.

My stance is that I support the death penalty as long as it is an effective tool at reducing crime and innocent deaths.

An interesting position considering I've not seen any convincing evidence, ever, that it is an effective tool.

I'm not convinced that someone who murders his wife in a fit of rage would say "wait, in 15 years I could get lethal injection for this!" and not murder afterall. In fact, I think anyone who thinks this is a reasonable assumption should consider self-abortion.

People who murder are largely irrational. And irrational people aren't thinking of long-term consequences.

[Tupac Shakur]

I thought you're a proponent for the death penalty.

I'm pretty sure I've never discussed the issue here before. Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions about other posters' views?

[MikeH]

Asher, as it's not effective at either of those things so I guess he doesn't support it.

[Tupac Shakur]

If there's more than one penis, it's gay. Especially if they're rubbing together. The presence of a woman is irrelevant.

Wrong. If there's a honey in the middle there's some leeway.

[DinoDoc]

I'm pretty sure I've never discussed the issue here before. Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions about other posters' views?

Well a lot of your career was at Death Row Records.

[Tupac Shakur]

**** Suge.

[Jon Miller]

I'm not convinced that someone who murders his wife in a fit of rage would say "wait, in 15 years I could get lethal injection for this!" and not murder afterall. In fact, I think anyone who thinks this is a reasonable assumption should consider self-abortion.

People who murder are largely irrational. And irrational people aren't thinking of long-term consequences.

I would say 'irrational' or 'does not believe that long-term consequences are relevant'.

JM

[MikeH]

People mostly are acting in rage or are planning on not getting caught, so the punishment is irrelevant.