El Cid
Death IS a degree of loss! I know it’s an unpleasant truth, but is it really that hard to understand?

YES being released is BETTER than being executed. YES you have a chance at a normal life afterward. That’s why it’s BETTER. Being executed is WORSE. But the difference is quantifiable. It would only not be so if life were infinite, which it is not.

Being executed can't even be classified with having a prison sentence. Yeah, it's better, but everything is better than being executed. You're losing years of you life when you're in prison and you can feel the years getting lost, but when you lose your life, there's nothing to feel; there's just nothing.

El Cid
Both you and Isukun: I’ll try this again, because y’all are both just restating what I said but ignoring the observations I made.

I don't see what points me or Isukin are ignoring, but I see some you're ignoring; Ozone's last post, way up, which had very good points in it.

El Cid
Me too, which is sort of the whole point, isn’t it? Execution is intended to be the greater punishment.

But it isn't a punishment. You can't learn anything from it. You can't feel the consequences of the punishment. You can't reflect "Gee, I won't do that again, I don't want to have to endure that punishment again" because your dead.

and also

El Cid
“You can’t do it because you might screw up and hurt somebody” doesn’t hold water, and is not exclusionary, either in legal practices or a lot of other things for that matter.

Even if no one ever screwed up and they always executed the right person, that person doesn't get hurt, his life gets taken away. There's nothing he can take out of this that will influence his later decisions because he isn't going to have any later decisions.

isukun
And tou have yet to present any solid argument as to why my argument is invalid in this case.

The risk of punishing innocents is, to steal a quote from Scalia, a truism, not a revelation. It's an assumed risk for any punishment and its acceptance is implicit. You restating something that is already assumed by definition does not constitute an argument, and is rejected both by the courts and the public at large. You just don't have a leg to stand on with that one.

isukun
The original question posted was not "is capital punishment legal?" it was "is capital punishment right?" You can sit there and preach about court cases till you're blue in the face, but they mean nothing. Between the two of us, I'm the only one who seems to actually be debating the topic at hand. You're offering nothing to support the death penalty except the existance of the death penalty, which isn't really an argument.

I thought you were the one trying to argue court cases here but whatever. The death penalty is "right" as much as any other penalty is "right," and defensible on the same grounds. The only difference between this and any other penalty is its severity, which at best would merit only additional safeguards, which we already have.

ParkerFarker
I don't see what points me or Isukin are ignoring, but I see some you're ignoring; Ozone's last post, way up, which had very good points in it.

I took no issue with Ozone's last post. While I disagree there is a slippery slope with capital punishment (the trend seems to be toward reducing its use, not increasing it), I don't mind him suggesting that there may be. And if he's glad they got rid of the death penalty in Australia, that's fine with me too. Believe it or not, I'm not actually required to respond to every quibbling point people make here, especially given that there are like a dozen of you anti-death penalty folks here and just one of me. I ain't got that kind of time.

ParkerFarker
But it isn't a punishment. You can't learn anything from it. You can't feel the consequences of the punishment. You can't reflect "Gee, I won't do that again, I don't want to have to endure that punishment again" because your dead... Even if no one ever screwed up and they always executed the right person, that person doesn't get hurt, his life gets taken away. There's nothing he can take out of this that will influence his later decisions because he isn't going to have any later decisions.

To put it eloquently: So what? I don't think anyone defends capital punishment on grounds of rehabilitation. And anyway, if you really want to look at a system that kills hundreds of innocent people in America, have a gander at the parole system!

I can see that this has become quite the heated debate.

El Cid makes a good point that he kinda has been backed into a corner here judging by the pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty ratio in this forum.

But there might be a good reason why he's in minority.

In the western world, the death penalty has almost been completely abolished. As you can see by this map, The States are among the last few countries in the Atlantic region to maintain this practice.

Hint: Blue is complete abolishment. Brown is full practice. Orange and green are somewhere in between.

It's easy to notice that most of the countries with good internet connectivity and a high ratio of English speaking people are blue in color. On top of that there are heavy protests against capital punishment in the states themselves. Most executions have to deal with crowds of people lining up around the prison, protesting the deed. With this in mind it's easy to see why few people in this discussion thread are willing to stand up and defend this form of punishment.

Now, if I allow myself to wander of topic, I wish to attempt to understand the general American mentality. I seem to be getting the impression that they're kinda stuck in their ways. Hesitant of changing things, possibly out of fear that it might screw with the status quo and make things worse.

I started thinking about this as I paid attention to the recent health care reform protests. Despite being the only western country left that doesn't offer a universal health care there sure is allot of resistance for it. People scream bloody murder, claiming that this is the start of a fascist regime. Now if that were the case, I wonder why the rest of the western world doesn't seem to see it in the same way. In fact, the general attitude that other westernized countries have towards the American health care system feels borderline sympathetic.

Then we have these examples. America still uses the Imperial system as opposed to the Metric system. A measurement system that many consider to be considerably easier and more efficient to use. Unusually loud protests are heard over there about the Evolutionary theory being taught in schools, instead of the biblical creation myth.

Now, I'm not attempting to take pot shots at this country. While many "enlightened" people would look at this list and think "Gee. America sure sounds dumb." consider this: This is the country that managed to become the leading figure of the world during the late 20th century. The economy of the world revolves around America. They're responsible for many of the greatest technological innovations in these recent times. They put man on the moon. These are not dumb people.

But despite this, they seem to cling onto the older traditions. The practice of Capital Punishment are among those traditions. Whether or not the "old" is better then the "new" or not doesn't even seem to become a discussion among many people living there. I've entered countless of conversations where I'm attempting to describe "my way" as opposed to "their way" and the results of those discussions seem to often fall under these two categories: 1) They've never attempted to research "my way" and are perfectly contempt with "their way" and have no desire to hear about any alternatives. 2) They've researched/studied/know of "my way" and often agree with me that it's better but usually don't see the point in switching.

They're not the only ones to fall into this "stuck in their ways" pitfall though. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the European nations were incredibly resistant towards adopting the Arabic number system instead of the Roman one. While the old system certainly worked, the new number system from the east proved to be much easier to use. Especially when dealing with high numbers and complex calculations. It wasn't until several centuries later, during the invention of the printing press, that the Arabic numbers became commonly used among the Europeans.

So what's my point? Good question. I don't fully know myself. These half baked thoughts of mine are still a work in progress. I believe the death penalty is a barbaric form of punishment and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would support it. Maybe this rant of mine is my way of attempting to find a way to explain it to myself.

Damn! You opened up a lot of cans of worms there! Personally, I don't believe Americans continue to support capital punishment simply on grounds of tradition. I know you folks across the pond have seen all those moldy old Reconstruction-era lynching postcards, with the grinning white folks picnicking under a gaggle of charred black guys hanging from a tree, but I doubt too many of us look back fondly upon those days (me particularly, because it was my relatives up in the tree, not down there eating the sandwiches).

I think generally, Americans tend to do things "their own way" because we can still get away with it. For the time being at least, we're still strong enough to operate on our own terms which means we don't have to bend as much to international pressures or make sweeping changes to our infrastructure in order to join organizations like the EU (you know, like that one country who recently had to scrap their death penalty statutes to get in... it's named after a fat bird). That's probably one of the reasons why the U.S., Japan, India, and China are still "red." We're not changing because we don't have to.

El Cid
Damn! You opened up a lot of cans of worms there!

Yeah... Sorry about that. I tend to go all over the place when my mind wanders.

While my intention was not to derail the topic I felt like it was an interesting observation that seemed to relate with the death penalty issue. At least when it comes to the question of "why does America still practice it?".

The risk of punishing innocents is, to steal a quote from Scalia, a truism, not a revelation.

And this is not an argument against what I have said. So we knowingly put innocent people's lives at risk and since we know we're doing it that makes it right? I think you're missing something here. Just because the risk is implicit, it doesn't mean it is all right to take that risk. You don't think it devalues human life at all that the life of an innocent person is less important than the death of a guilty one?

and is rejected both by the courts and the public at large.

Actually, this isn't entirely true. The public at large is divided on the subject mostly because they don't understand how the justice system works. When asked if they would prefer life without the possibility of parole as an alternative to the death penalty, the majoriy of people say yes. People continue to support the death penalty because they think there are no alternatives that are absolute, and that just isn't true.

I thought you were the one trying to argue court cases here but whatever.

I brought up court cases to show the system isn't infallible, you're the one who seems convinced that morality is defined by legality, which quite frankly it's not.

which at best would merit only additional safeguards, which we already have.

Not enough, apparently.

That's probably one of the reasons why the U.S., Japan, India, and China are still "red." We're not changing because we don't have to.

Actually, with the appointment of the new prime minister, Japan has gone blue now, as well. I'm not sure I like us being compared to China and India when it comes to human rights issues.

Product Placement
Yeah... Sorry about that. I tend to go all over the place when my mind wanders.

No need to apologize! Your post was ten times more interesting than anything else we've been squabbling over so far!

Product Placement
While my intention was not to derail the topic I felt like it was an interesting observation that seemed to relate with the death penalty issue. At least when it comes to the question of "why does America still practice it?".

I'd ask a counter question to that: "Why don't more countries still practice it?" I'd ask that because from what I've seen there isn't that much difference in the level of support for capital punishment in the U.S. as compared to a lot of other countries where it's banned. Canada and Mexico don't have the death penalty anymore, but I've seen polls that show they support capital punishment at times even more than Americans do. And likewise in South America, where the death penalty is virtually nonexistent, you see majorities supporting it in Brazil and Peru (couldn't find anything on other countries down there, but didn't look too hard either). And South Africans support the death penalty in overwhelming numbers (72 percent of South Africans want it reinstated), but they don't have it there either.

I can at least understand why they don't have it in Europe, with the EU and all that crap. Poland's vocal chafing on the subject tells a lot about how heavy the abolitionist pressure is from Europe's governing elites, and how it's virtually impossible to reinstate capital punishment once it's been done away with. But I don't get that either, because Europeans aren't that unanimously opposed to it either, especially eastern Europe. And even in the west, abolitionists don't appear to be that big of a majority in most countries other than maybe Spain and Portugal. So why are the politicians there so hard-assed on the subject? Like, no American politician could afford to ignore a forty-something percent minority opinion on something like this with the same air of dismissal you see in Europe. They'd at least pretend to be working toward a compromise, just to pander for votes. But in Europe, they just thumb their nose and say "This is against European values!" WTF?!! I guess it's because of WWII. That's what gave killing such a bad name. Just one more thing Hitler managed to screw up for the rest of us!

Okay, so now I've topped your ramble with a ramble of my own. I guess my point was, I don't see that the current state of capital punishment in the world is entirely because people across the world have "evolved" past it or anything; I think most people still support it, but maybe governments elsewhere are just more insulated against public opinion than here in the US? I really don't know.

isukun
Actually, this isn't entirely true. The public at large is divided on the subject mostly because they don't understand how the justice system works. When asked if they would prefer life without the possibility of parole as an alternative to the death penalty, the majoriy of people say yes. People continue to support the death penalty because they think there are no alternatives that are absolute, and that just isn't true.

The “life in prison or death” question is misleading and, from what I’ve heard at least, has been scrapped recently by Gallup for this very reason. It’s asking an “either-or” question where there is no “either-or.” Saying, in a purely general sense, that you generally prefer life in prison as opposed to the death penalty doesn’t mean you’re against the death penalty. Honestly, I’d probably choose that answer, because I’d likely generally prefer capital punishment only for certain exceptional cases. Choosing one does not preclude the other, anymore than choosing chocolate chip cookies means I’d like to see raisin oatmeal abolished.

Also, when asked a more appropriate question, in a specific death penalty-eligible offense, the affirmative answers tend to be much higher. 81 percent of Americans agreed that the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh should be executed, and 85 percent of those polled favored execution for a child murderer. This is a truer-to-life representation of people's feelings on the matter because it's more relevant to how capital punishment is administered in real life. Interestingly enough, a La Monde article in 2006 found that surprising majorities of Europeans even in staunchly abolitionist countries like Spain favored the execution of Saddam Hussein.

isukun
Actually, with the appointment of the new prime minister, Japan has gone blue now, as well.

Actually, that would make them orange.

Product Placement
Speech

Yeah, I actually made that same observation when I was living in America. Things like fahrenheit, did you know it was based off the number of times a cricket chirps in a minute? Like WTF?

El Cid
But in Europe, they just thumb their nose and say "This is against European values!" WTF?!! I guess it's because of WWII. That's what gave killing such a bad name. Just one more thing Hitler managed to screw up for the rest of us!

Killing a bad name? Are you serious? Killing is terrible! From what you said are you saying you support killing in general? I don't know if you can't grasp what killing actually means or not, but killing, no matter the circumstances, is bad. I know it sounds like I'm insulting you, and I am just arguing everything you say, but there are just so many things wrong with those few sentences.

This is a truer-to-life representation of people's feelings on the matter because it's more relevant to how capital punishment is administered in real life.

Not really. Besides the fact that one of those questions is from an older survey, you're still applying it to particular cases which don't represent the majority of real life cases. How is that any less misleading? Especially since it allows you to pull a higher number out of your ass when you take numbers from a targeted poll.

Actually, that would make them orange.

Actually, it wouldn't. Did you even look at what the colors mean? Or even what the map is indicating?

isukun

Actually, that would make them orange.

Actually, it wouldn't. Did you even look at what the colors mean? Or even what the map is indicating?

Ok. Let me nib this in the bud so that it won't become an issue.
Blue means: Abolished for all offenses.
Green means: Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (High treason, serious war crimes and similar).
Orange means: Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (it's still legally viable but isn't in practice).
Brownish/Red: Retains death penalty.

So I don't know. If the new Japanese prime minister is legally abolishing the death penalty, then they've turned blue as well. If he's stated that he dislikes the practice but doesn't intend on rewriting the legal system, then it's still Red but will turn orange in 10 years, if no executions will be held during that time.

El Cid
I can at least understand why they don't have it in Europe, with the EU and all that crap. Poland's vocal chafing on the subject tells a lot about how heavy the abolitionist pressure is from Europe's governing elites, and how it's virtually impossible to reinstate capital punishment once it's been done away with. But I don't get that either, because Europeans aren't that unanimously opposed to it either, especially eastern Europe. And even in the west, abolitionists don't appear to be that big of a majority in most countries other than maybe Spain and Portugal. So why are the politicians there so hard-assed on the subject? Like, no American politician could afford to ignore a forty-something percent minority opinion on something like this with the same air of dismissal you see in Europe. They'd at least pretend to be working toward a compromise, just to pander for votes. But in Europe, they just thumb their nose and say "This is against European values!" WTF?!! I guess it's because of WWII. That's what gave killing such a bad name. Just one more thing Hitler managed to screw up for the rest of us!

....

Also, when asked a more appropriate question, in a specific death penalty-eligible offense, the affirmative answers tend to be much higher. 81 percent of Americans agreed that the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh should be executed, and 85 percent of those polled favored execution for a child murderer. This is a truer-to-life representation of people's feelings on the matter because it's more relevant to how capital punishment is administered in real life. Interestingly enough, a La Monde article in 2006 found that surprising majorities of Europeans even in staunchly abolitionist countries like Spain favored the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Since you mentioned Saddam Hussein and Nazis, I might as well mention that the ring leaders of the Nazi regime were executed after the war during the Nuremberg Trials (although the trials were lead by the United States Military). Some people might be more open to the ideas of execution when the guilty is responsible for untold numbers of death but I myself was against the execution of Saddam Hussein. What did that accomplish anyways? How did his death improve things?

You're right that the trend has increased after the end of WWII but it was far from being a new thing. Movements to abolish capital punishment has resurfaced again and again in human history and often taken effect for a limited time. It was banned in China for two decades in the 7th century. A religious movement in England campaigned to have it abolished there in the 13th century. Portugal's last execution took place in 1846 and was officially banned 20 years later. In the constitution of Iceland it is forbidden to attempt to introduce capital punishment into the legal system. I can guaranty that the EU had nothing to do with that decision.

I myself wish to attempt and see the good in man. Give him the chance to redeem himself. Sure, many may be beyond salvation but should we turn our backs on him because of that? Are we any better then him if we do just that? I might be a dreamer and possibly naive one at that but I'd like there to be a better alternative.

Product Placement
You're right that the trend has increased after the end of WWII but it was far from being a new thing. Movements to abolish capital punishment has resurfaced again and again in human history and often taken effect for a limited time. It was banned in China for two decades in the 7th century. A religious movement in England campaigned to have it abolished there in the 13th century. Portugal's last execution took place in 1846 and was officially banned 20 years later. In the constitution of Iceland it is forbidden to attempt to introduce capital punishment into the legal system. I can guaranty that the EU had nothing to do with that decision.

You should also not forget the Hittites. While execution wasn't entirely unheard of in their society, it was very rarely utilized. Even in cases of outright treason and revolt you were more likely to end up getting exiled than beheaded. And also the United States. We abolished it for a few years back in the 70s, but brought it back with a vengeance. The one observation I would make from all of this is that this would go against the idea that abolishing the death penalty is part of some kind of "social evolution," seeing as it's nothing new. It seems more that it's just a feature contemporaneous to certain political movements which may flare up at any given time. An interesting thing about the Iceland example, and this ties in with the Poland thing I was rambling about earlier too, is that what they've essentially done is taken a view popular with their current social/political ideology and then passed legislation so that future generations can't alter the decision, even if these views become anachronistic. That's just baffling to me how a society could be so sure in their "rightness" that they forbid any future reconsideration of their present political decisions.

Product Placement
I myself wish to attempt and see the good in man. Give him the chance to redeem himself. Sure, many may be beyond salvation but should we turn our backs on him because of that? Are we any better then him if we do just that? I might be a dreamer and possibly naive one at that but I'd like there to be a better alternative.

I also believe in redemption. My brother spent six years in prison for carjacking. He's been out for like a year now, he's married and his wife just had a baby. He's doing good, has a decent-paying job, and I'm going to make sure he doesn't fuck up again. But if instead of just robbing people, he'd gone out there and killed somebody, over a f---ing car no less, and the state decided he should pay for it with his life, I would not object. It'd piss me off, but he made that choice himself, and he knew the consequences. Yes, some people should be given a second chance, but I don't believe everyone deserves a shot at redemption, and I certainly don't believe society owes it to them. Forgiveness may be a virtue, but it is not an obligation, and would be of dubious substance if it were so.

ParkerFarker
Killing a bad name? Are you serious? Killing is terrible! From what you said are you saying you support killing in general? I don't know if you can't grasp what killing actually means or not, but killing, no matter the circumstances, is bad. I know it sounds like I'm insulting you, and I am just arguing everything you say, but there are just so many things wrong with those few sentences.

While I probably meant a little bit of it, at least in spirit maybe, I was trying to make an off-color joke.

Product Placement
I seem to be getting the impression that they're kinda stuck in their ways.

heh, I never really thought about it that way man, but you're SO right! I suppose it could be because it's such a powerful country right now that they think because it's dominant they can stay socially backwards and not progress in a lot of ways. -That's a positive interpretation, a bad one would be that it's because of something innate in the country itself... :(
But so many things are surprisingly reverse of other first world countries: Attitudes to narcotics, the growth of religious groups, the retention of the imperial measurement system, leading opposition to an international war crimes court, retention of the death penalty, sex censorship in the media, retaining and building new nuclear weapons, The slowness on the global warming front, the worship of guns for their own sake, and the overall tilt to the right politically, socially and economically.

But then it's had to be a lot more progressive on race relations, and however bad it's been with that it's really taken on a leadership role in that respect. it's also been fairly good with rights for homosexual people, free speech, freedom for religion, and pretty much leads the world in the production of porn.

And while it might be generally behind first world countries in many ways (mainly socially), it's obviously not like that all over the country; it's very diverse and some parts are more progressive than others.
And again, because of the dominant position in the world, America always has the potential to reign back the more progressive countries and make them follow the same ways- whether by actively encouraging them (making other countries vote the same way about the war crimes court, narcotics etc), or just providing such a powerful example (the growth of religion).

ozoneocean
the worship of guns for their own sake

Hey, that's pretty much the best part of America. Probably shouldn't go dumping that in with the problems the country has, because that simply isn't one of them.

El Cid
An interesting thing about the Iceland example, and this ties in with the Poland thing I was rambling about earlier too, is that what they've essentially done is taken a view popular with their current social/political ideology and then passed legislation so that future generations can't alter the decision, even if these views become anachronistic. That's just baffling to me how a society could be so sure in their "rightness" that they forbid any future reconsideration of their present political decisions.

Actually. If you research the history, you'll find that they've never been major supporters of capital punishment. The closest thing they had was exile. Should the convicted ignore the exile, he became fair game. In those cases, the family, that the exile wronged, was now allowed to pursue him and kill him without any legal consequences. The only times executions were practiced there, was when the Danish king claimed ownership over it and Iceland was forced to adopt the Danish legal system. The laws they were forced to uphold demanded executions for things like adultery, infanticide and witchcraft. This time period is publicly considered to be the darkest history of the country by the locals.

In 1928, capital punishment was abolished in Iceland. Five years before Denmark did the same. By then, executions had not been practice there for almost 100 years, despite being legally viable. The move to introduce executions as an unconstitutional act was accepted unanimously. No one objected. No one protested. Now, should something occur that would cause a complete reversal in the Icelandic mentality regarding capital punishment, changes could be made to the constitution again. You yourself should know that it's possible. The 21st Amendment to the US constitution, repealed the 18th Amendment, which prohibited consumption of alcohol.

Funny enough, I might as well take the opportunity and throw back at you this question: How could the early 20th century society of America be so sure of their own "rightness" to forbid consumption of alcohol in such a totalitarian way that it had to be introduced to the constitution?

Anyways, by tying a law to the constitution, you make the progress of adopting a new law which contradicts it a more complex and a lengthy progress. One that a nation would not undertake unless it was dead serious.

You may find it baffling that a society could become this sure of their sense of "rightness" but it's a sense of "rightness" that makes me proud to be a member of that society.

Product Placement
..Now, should something occur that would cause a complete reversal in the Icelandic mentality regarding capital punishment, changes could be made to the constitution again...

My bad then. It sounded like you said the very act of trying to change the law was a crime in Iceland, which sounded bizarre to me. I must have misread.

Rich

ozoneocean
the worship of guns for their own sake

Hey, that's pretty much the best part of America. Probably shouldn't go dumping that in with the problems the country has, because that simply isn't one of them.

Damn straight! I mean, if you're not gonna worship guns, what the hell else is there?!!

El Cid

Product Placement
..Now, should something occur that would cause a complete reversal in the Icelandic mentality regarding capital punishment, changes could be made to the constitution again...

My bad then. It sounded like you said the very act of trying to change the law was a crime in Iceland, which sounded bizarre to me. I must have misread.

Well... not exactly a crime but it's impossible as long as the constitution states otherwise. You have to change that first before you can propose a bill to allow capital punishment.

The one observation I would make from all of this is that this would go against the idea that abolishing the death penalty is part of some kind of "social evolution," seeing as it's nothing new.

Not really. Not all social progress is initially embraced. Would you also consider racial tollerance to not be some kind of social evolution under that same reasoning? I was going to say something reguarding the 14th amendment, but I think Product Placement got the same idea across in the post about the 18th.

Forgiveness may be a virtue, but it is not an obligation, and would be of dubious substance if it were so.

And yet it is important for government to stand as an example to the people. A virtue is meaningless if those in power don't uphold it.

isukun
I was going to say something reguarding the 14th amendment, but I think Product Placement got the same idea across in the post about the 18th.

*Slaps forehead*
That would have been a much better example. I guess that shows everyone where my priorities lie.

I'm also thinking about another thing now. While it's easy to accuse EU of bullying prospecting candidates, willing to join them, into adopting some laws that would make them more compatible with the EU mentality, the United States went through a similar process when it incorporated the nearby colonies into themselves.

isukun
Not really. Not all social progress is initially embraced. Would you also consider racial tollerance to not be some kind of social evolution under that same reasoning? I was going to say something reguarding the 14th amendment, but I think Product Placement got the same idea across in the post about the 18th.

I don't consider racial tolerance an indicator of social evolution or progress. There have been plenty of cosmopolitan civilizations throughout history, and I believe that people with similar or compatible cultures will always be able to get along regardless of whether they look different from one another. I'd guess we've had so many ancient conflicts between different-looking people because of the fact that people tended to live in homogeneous communities due to the difficulties of long distance travel. And a lot of the racism we see in modern times stems from imperialism and fascist ideologies, along with the slave trade and the philosophies used to justify it, which were themselves contemporary fabrications. So it's hard to say society evolved out of something it invented.

By the way, real subtle there, trying to tie in supporting capital punishment with racism.

isukun
...A virtue is meaningless if those in power don't uphold it.

I did not realize virtue derives its meaning from government support.

Product Placement
I'm also thinking about another thing now. While it's easy to accuse EU of bullying prospecting candidates, willing to join them, into adopting some laws that would make them more compatible with the EU mentality, the United States went through a similar process when it incorporated the nearby colonies into themselves.

And likewise America has no grounds to claim any of those changes mean the Samoans and Puerto Ricans accept American values (though I believe they do anyway). You could make similar points about when the Union Army put the smackdown on the rebel South. Didn’t mean the Confederate states accepted that slavery was evil (though it was); it just meant they’d been bitch-slapped into submission. I’m definitely not trying to point out the EU’s bullying tactics to wag my finger at you folks; America’s history is as bloody and screwed up as anybody else’s. What I’m saying is that countries going “blue” doesn’t mean the people in all those countries have an overwhelmingly different opinion than we do, especially when the decision to scrap capital punishment is often made for diplomatic reasons, and may at times even be undemocratic. I take issue when people (not in this forum, of course) try to make some kind of half-cocked point to the effect of “Well, everybody else has moved on, so America needs to catch up.” “Moved on?” Moved on to where? Moved on to what? There is no "where." They just moved. *shrugs* Maybe some day they'll move back. We did.

I don't consider...

That whole paragraph there is full of some of the most backwards logic I've ever read in a post. What you've basically said is that society NEVER evolves. No change would be a sign of social evolution by your definition because all changes are a result of contemporary idealogies. So ALL social change is a result of something society invented. That's possibly the most BS argument you've made in here.

By the way, real subtle there, trying to tie in supporting capital punishment with racism.

Although not the intent. You just like to make youself seem like a victim, here. If I really wanted to make that point, I'd bring up the stats on cases by race. Honestly, though, I don't think supporting the death penalty makes someone racist, even though the sentencing system so clearly is.

I did not realize virtue derives its meaning from government support.

Social standards tend to be defined by the laws that govern us, either religious or political. Besides, just because the government chooses not to kill someone, that doesn't obligate the individuals effected by that person to forgive them for what they may have done, so your point is moot, anyway.

isukun
That whole paragraph there is full of some of the most backwards logic I've ever read in a post. What you've basically said is that society NEVER evolves. No change would be a sign of social evolution by your definition because all changes are a result of contemporary idealogies. So ALL social change is a result of something society invented. That's possibly the most BS argument you've made in here.

Just because you don't understand or disagree with an argument doesn't mean it's "BS," Isukun. I consider a lot of things true instances of social evolution, for example a primitive hunter-gatherer society which learns to domesticate crops and animals, or a bartering society which develops a complex monetary system. The integration of diverse groups into a population is not, to me, a meaningful evolution, but only constitutes a superficial change in demographics. I do not believe people are innately racist, and so any obstacles to overcome in that arena are artificial ones. Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but I think my logic there goes to a higher level than "BS."

Also, many of the things some will tout as "evolutions" are of subjective value, and will be likewise bemoaned by others as a symptom of social decline (we're seeing some of that here, in fact).

isukun
...You just like to make youself seem like a victim, here.

I've made no such claim and besides, you'd have to land a punch first before I could claim "victim" status. I must say though, it's disappointing that you're unable to find a more civil tone. Instead of trying to have an honest discussion of the topic, you seem to have resigned yourself to being an incessant contrarian. I almost feel like I'm wasting my time even responding to you sometimes.

isukun
If I really wanted to make that point, I'd bring up the stats on cases by race. Honestly, though, I don't think supporting the death penalty makes someone racist, even though the sentencing system so clearly is.

You should bring them up. That's what this place is for. Maybe you'll find it isn't quite so "clear" to everyone else as it is to you. That I've seen, sentencing follows conviction rates rather neatly. I've only seen disproportionate sentencing in populations which exhibit disproportionate criminality.

isukun
Social standards tend to be defined by the laws that govern us, either religious or political.

I'm afraid you may have that one backwards. It could be argued that laws derive from our social values, but I don't believe we derive our values from the law. Sort of a "chicken and the egg" problem, but in this case I think it's much more likely that social standards would have to precede formalized law.

isukun
Besides, just because the government chooses not to kill someone, that doesn't obligate the individuals effected by that person to forgive them for what they may have done, so your point is moot, anyway.

Non sequitur. This doesn't even follow from what you're quoting, unless it's being taken out of context. I'm guessing you'd already arrived at the conclusion that my "BS" statement was "moot" before you even bothered giving it any consideration. You know, if you have nothing constructive to add, you don't have to respond, especially to stuff like that which wasn't even directed at you. Just a suggestion.

I consider a lot of things true instances of social evolution, for example a primitive hunter-gatherer society which learns to domesticate crops and animals, or a bartering society which develops a complex monetary system.

And my point was that the reasoning you used to disqualify racial tolerance as an idicator of social evolution would also disqualify these examples of social evolution. Social evolution does not occur in a vacuum as you seem to suggest, but is a product of constantly changing values in society. All changes evolve out of concepts and ideologies that are at their core inventions of society, itself.

I've made no such claim

By the way, real subtle there, trying to tie in supporting capital punishment with racism.

Right, so that's not you claiming I'm calling you a racist for your views.

I'm afraid you may have that one backwards.

Nope. It is true that laws tend to be based on social values, but they also uphold contemporary values. As you said, it's a chicken and the egg case. Social values help to shape the laws, but the active laws also shape society.

This doesn't even follow from what you're quoting, unless it's being taken out of context.

No, it's still in context, it's just continuing from the previous quote about forgiveness and the obligation to express virtues, hence the "Besides" at the beginning of the sentence.

how does this topic keep backsliding from the mentality of "executions because they are too dangerous to risk returning to the public" to "executions are a form of punishment"?

more to the point, what does any of this moral garbage have to do with any of it? it's a matter of necessity, not public absolution.

I believe the necessity issue is definitely part of it, but there is a punitive element involved as well. Bad drivers kill more people than murderers every year, and I suspect it's harder to get someone to never speed again than it is to get them to never murder again. But we'll never start executing speeders. On the other hand (and this isn't my example; I stole it from former judge/author Paul Cassell), if there were a man who committed numerous atrocious murders, but was severely and permanently crippled during his capture in a manner which would prohibit him from ever harming another human being, we would still as a society feel obligated to punish him.

I'm not sure what side I'm taking with this, but in Texas they had two main methods of capital punishment, the old execution firing range and the electric chair. The electric chair has it's faults; mainly failing at it's job and causing more pain than neccesary, and a gun shot to the head is much quicker and safer. Even so, we're wasting millions of dollars we need right now housing/caring for prisoners and using lethal drugs, the chair, and other execution methods.
We need a new way of dealing with prisoners, mainly giving them fairer trials. My brother was almost hauled off to jail because the ****ing cop wouldn't beleive we were related (a.k.a, he looks hispanic, I don't) and he assumed my brother was hauling me off somewhere.
I don't think it's right to pass the judgement of death on somebody with out being sure 100%. But that RARELY happens.
I also think those that have killed for the sake of it, the really twisted ones like the BJK killer can't ever be released.
I understand that prisoners are forced to work in road crews, can't they do that for more of them, and with different jobs, so they at least support themselves?