Hanging is not a bad thing ..

... for those that deserve it.

There is a lot of PC nonsense surrounding the death penalty.
Morality does not demand that those who commit heinous crimes should not be done away with.

The Iraqis had the good sense to hang Sadam Hussein. And, in the Middle East, there are any number of other deserving candidates. Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad, Netanyahu, the various Abdullahs, Khamenei and who knows who else.

Only realpolitik intervenes to let them survive. And that is also true in the USA.

In China, the 2nd and 3rd tiers are regularly shot "pour encouragez les autres".

More countries should adopt the Chinese moral code.

 

I don't want that in my country. Lethal injection is fair enough.

 

The method is largely immaterial if done properly. The candidates are.

In the US they are shielded by their money.

In China, they would be shot.

 

What exactly does the death penalty acheive though? Lower crime rates? Less cost?

What is the problem that it is supposed to solve?

 

Justice and peace of mind!

 

The Iraqis thought it was a good idea. It rid them of a murderer at a less cost than keeping him alive.

Think cost-benefit.

And symbolism.

 

Cost benefit should be done and actually worked out, not just assumed.

And I don't advocate murder for symbolism. You might, but I think that's immoral.

And I certainly don't want the iraqi justice system to be held up as a paragon of good justice.

 

Justice isn't revenge.

Peace of mind? Killing people makes you feel better?

 

So you would have kept Sadam alive?

As you have kept G W Bush alive?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

 

Yes I would, I would treat them as I would like to be treated.

 

I would have kept both alive if it was in my power to decide whether they live or die.

I don't advocate the murder of the innocent or the guilty.

 

The idea of sanitizing death is just a tool to placate the masses and the courts. Really it's complete bul(*)(*)(*)(*). Best methods for death are guillotine and firing squad.

 

Uh-huh. So, according to your Golden Rule, if you murdered thousands of your own people, or sent thousands of your own troops to their death and maiming on a concocted excuse, you would expect to be treated as you treated them.

I think you're on the right track.

 

That's nice of you.

Bush would have been happy to send you to your death in Iraq if you were one of his troops. Sadam would have gassed you if you were a Kurd.

 

You are hoping that if you murder thousands of people, you will be forgiven?

 

And I wouldn't. Who's the one with the moral high ground between us?

 

No you do not understand. Whenever someone wrongs you or others, you treat them as you would like to be treated. If someone viciously assaults you and hurts you, and you later have the choice of what justice to deliver to that person, you take mercy upon them. You do not let them get of scot free, but you give them better than they deserve. This is compassion.

 

Yes of course, I would be in no way deserving of forgiveness, but this is what I grant to others. I am a Christian and a humanist and like so many other followers of different moral codes I forgive.

 

You wouldn't have what?

So the "moral high ground" is not executing mass murderers?

You have invested rightful death with too much religious-infused glamour. It is merely a conversion of bodies from one state to another.

If that occurs as the result of infamous behaviour at the hands of an executioner, the result is the same.

More importantly, it rids an already over-crowded planet of people who are a risk to it and do not deserve to live on it.

 

I forgive most things too - in the spirit of rationality. But I would also be happy to pull the plug on a Bush or Sadam Hussein.

But then I am not confused by theology.

 

Killed people.

The moral high ground is not executing anyone.

You have me mistaken for someone else. I am not religious, and abhor murder for purely practical and logical reasons.

I don't know where you get the idea that killing people is moral, but I think we have laws against it for a good reason. I don't endorse murder for any reason bar immediate and present danger to another individual. And even then only in exceptional circumstances that prevent any other action to dissolve that danger that doesn't involve murder.

How many people do you think killing murderers will remove from the planet? Is it perhaps outweighed by the moral consequences of a state having the legal right to murder its citizens?

 

I agree with you except for the last part.

 

Killing murderers is a moral issue how?

I am actually against the death penalty. But only because of the risk that innocent people will die.

Where the evidence is clear, I would execute them without a qualm.

I have no problem killing people who are clearly deserving of being removed from the planet. And there are clearly many who have yet to meet that fate.

It is not even a matter of revenge or symbolism. It is simply an inexorable equation. You kill, therefore you die.

If there is a social benefit other than the removal of a proven risk to society, I am not particularly conscious of it, or care about it.

PS Where did I say that killing people is moral? All I have said is that it is practical.

Morality does not come into it.

 

I'm curious you think it isn't a moral issue. It's a moral issue because it involves giving the state the ability to kill its citizens.

It's not a risk, it's a self evident fact.

You may have no issue with murder, I do. I find the death of anyone, good or bad, murderer or innocent, to be abhorrent.

I disagree that anyone "deserves" to be removed from the planet.

Well you said it was symbolism. And you appear to think that murder for murder is not revenge. It's certainly not practical or morally defensible to allow the state the right to kill its citizens, not least because governments have an unfortunate habit of abusing that right.

Your math doesn't add up.

I don't know of any social benefit that comes from allowing the state to kill for revenge. I can see quite a few downsides though.

And what limits it to murder for murder? Why not murder for injury? Why not murder for dangerous driving? Why not murder for corporate fraud? The slope isn't just slippery, it's practically vertical.