[BartSimpson]

Hurley and Andy, your 'yes' answers get more to the root of your problem with the death penalty: you're against it for emotional reasons.

I respect that.

But where that's the case be honest with everyone that you oppose the death penalty no matter how guilty the accused is nor how awful the crime and that the innocence or guilt of the accused has nothing to do with your opposition to the death penalty.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

In this test tube we have the US, in this one all the other western democracies without the death penalty.

Japan is considered a Western democracy and Japan has the death penalty.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hurley and Andy, your 'yes' answers get more to the root of your problem with the death penalty: you're against it for emotional reasons.

I respect that.

But where that's the case be honest with everyone that you oppose the death penalty no matter how guilty the accused is nor how awful the crime and that the innocence or guilt of the accused has nothing to do with your opposition to the death penalty.

I'm totally honest with it.

But that doesn't prevent me from making logical arguments against the death penalty. Of course the person I'm arguing with has to have some sense of empathy, and actually care if innocents are put to death.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hurley and Andy, your 'yes' answers get more to the root of your problem with the death penalty: you're against it for emotional reasons.

I respect that.

No, I'm against it because it's inconsistent for the state to say that killing is wrong and then turn around and kill. I'm against it because there's no going back if you execute an innocent person. I'm against it because there's no way to eliminate all possible errors in process when that process is carried out by human beings who are, even at their best, fallible.

$1:

But where that's the case be honest with everyone that you oppose the death penalty no matter how guilty the accused is nor how awful the crime and that the innocence or guilt of the accused has nothing to do with your opposition to the death penalty.

I can't be against the death penalty for multiple reasons?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

But that doesn't prevent me from making logical arguments against the death penalty.

It is illogical to say that you make logical arguments against the death penalty when you will not consider logical arguments in favor of it.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

But that doesn't prevent me from making logical arguments against the death penalty.

It is illogical to say that you make logical arguments against the death penalty when you will not consider logical arguments in favor of it.

There's a logical argument for the death penalty? I've yet to see you make one. As I see it, you're the one playing to emotion by posting pics of Karla and invoking Oklahoma.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

No, I'm against it because it's inconsistent for the state to say that killing is wrong and then turn around and kill.

What nation state refuses to ever kill anyone?

Canada is killing people in Afghanistan. Canadian cops kill people in the line of duty all the time.

To be consistent, would you prohibit Canadian cops from being able to use lethal force even in self defense since they represent the state and you say the state should never be able to kill someone?

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

There's a logical argument for the death penalty?

Yes. No murderer who has ever been put to death has subsequently reoffended. This means that society is then 100% safe from that person.

The only way to guarantee that society is 100% safe from a serious murderer is to execute the murderer. Otherwise you're just hoping that the person won't kill again inside or outside of prison.

It's also fair to note that murderers who are sentenced to life pose a threat to other inmates. Can't it then be argued that the other inmates deserve to be safe from such killers?

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

No, I'm against it because it's inconsistent for the state to say that killing is wrong and then turn around and kill.

What nation state refuses to ever kill anyone?

Canada is killing people in Afghanistan.

That's war, not criminal justice.

$1:

Canadian cops kill people in the line of duty all the time.

That's the moment, not dispassionate justice.

$1:

To be consistent, would you prohibit Canadian cops from being able to use lethal force even in self defense since they represent the state and you say the state should never be able to kill someone?

The state should be held to a higher standard given the benefit of not having to make a split-second decision, when there are other alternatives.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

There's a logical argument for the death penalty?

Yes. No murderer who has ever been put to death has subsequently reoffended. This means that society is then 100% safe from that person.

But you can't protect them from those that haven't murdered yet. You can't protect society from murder, just one particular murderer. One can also imagine (admittedly fanciful) scenarios in which a condemned murderer puts out a hit on someone, to be carried out if and only if he is executed. Isn't it murder to order a murder?

You can, though, protect the innocent from wrongful execution by ceasing executions.

$1:

The only way to guarantee that society is 100% safe from a serious murderer is to execute the murderer. Otherwise you're just hoping that the person won't kill again inside or outside of prison.

It's also fair to note that murderers who are sentenced to life pose a threat to other inmates. Can't it then be argued that the other inmates deserve to be safe from such killers?

Solitary confinement. Supermax security. Sure, you can't protect everyone from everyone else, but if you're doing your best to protect the lives of some from the one without infringing on the right to life of the one then at least you can claim that moral ground.

[hurley_108]

And I'm waiting on how invoking Karla and McVeigh isn't an emotional argument.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

You can, though, protect the innocent from wrongful execution by ceasing executions.

Which is an irrelevant argument coming from you when you've clearly stated that you oppose executing the clearly guilty.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Solitary confinement. Supermax security.

Prolonged solitary confinement and prolonged Supermax security are already found to be a violation of human rights, even for convicted mass murderers. You may do it to indivduals for a period of time, but not for a lifetime.

Believe it or not, I agree. Social isolation for too long a time is every bit a form of torture as is waterboarding.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

You can, though, protect the innocent from wrongful execution by ceasing executions.

Which is an irrelevant argument coming from you when you've clearly stated that you oppose executing the clearly guilty.

There is no way in a system run by human beings to make sure that only the clearly guilty are executed. Or even that a convicted murderer will, if released, kill again. The probability isn't 0, but it's also not 1.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Solitary confinement. Supermax security.

Prolonged solitary confinement and prolonged Supermax security are already found to be a violation of human rights, even for convicted mass murderers. You may do it to indivduals for a period of time, but not for a lifetime.

Believe it or not, I agree. Social isolation for too long a time is every bit a form of torture as is waterboarding.

But how how do you compare the inhumanity of solitary / supermax with the inhumanity of execution?