Current Events > Electric chair execution last night in Tennesse.

(+) Yeah! (+)

CyricZ posted...

The point I'm trying to make is that NO ONE should have the authority to declare someone else's life forfeit. Not a crazed man with a gun, not a message board user, not a judge, not a federal government.

We are not psychologically built for killing each other. We know deep down in our hearts that it is wrong. Everyone who has killed someone else could tell you that.

That's the reason we have such complicated methods for committing executions, ie. lethal injection. They're not implemented so the condemned doesn't feel as much pain. They're implemented to make us as a society feel better about state sponsored killing.

I would think we only know killing is wrong is because society has conditioned us to think so. If not killing would not be such a major thing through out history.

In other words morals are a man made thing.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I would think we only know killing is wrong is because society has conditioned us to think so. If not killing would not be such a major thing through out history.

In other words morals are a man made thing.

I could agree with that, but in the end "so what"? Does it matter if our aversion to killing each other is hardcoded in us or a result of our thousands of years of development as a human culture?

It's not like we can flip a switch to "unmake" our aversion to killing.

---

CyricZ posted...

The point I'm trying to make is that NO ONE should have the authority to declare someone else's life forfeit. Not a crazed man with a gun, not a message board user, not a judge, not a federal government.

We are not psychologically built for killing each other. We know deep down in our hearts that it is wrong. Everyone who has killed someone else could tell you that.

That's the reason we have such complicated methods for committing executions, ie. lethal injection. They're not implemented so the condemned doesn't feel as much pain. They're implemented to make us as a society feel better about state sponsored killing.

Thats honestly a very religious argument. Someone who has killed someone had the authority to kill them. You can claim they didnt have the authority all you want but the matter is that they factually did it and without a god why should they care morally what others think whether they had the right to or not?
Theres also of course self-defense, killing to defend another, euthanasia, and to some people, abortion so its not an accurate statement anyway.

And uh, as much as it would be ideal for it to be true I dont think you genuinely believe that. Violence comes natural to humans. The millennia of wars throughout history are evidence of that. Even until a few centuries ago people were casually killing each other. The point of society and laws is to suppress that urge with repercussions.
The first kill may be shocking to an average person but any paramedic, 911 operator, police, and hard gang members can tell you many grow numb to it. Theres also of course the 1 out of 100 people who are sociopaths and wouldnt be phased by it to begin with.
And this is talking from a privileged developed countrys perspective.
---

CyricZ posted...

I could agree with that, but in the end "so what"? Does it matter if our aversion to killing each other is hardcoded in us or a result of our thousands of years of development as a human culture?

It's not like we can flip a switch to "unmake" our aversion to killing.

Well its also a case of not the whole of humanity has those morals. Didferent cultures and all that. Could be wrong but i tend to assume countries that are war torn and have been for a long time probably dont think much about killing someone.

Death penalty has been a part of American culture for ages so naturally some still agree with it.

---

GiftedACIII posted...

The first kill may be shocking to an average person but any paramedic, 911 operator, police, and hard gang members can tell you many grow numb to it.

And would you consider that psychologically healthy? Of course, they have to shut down part of their own humanity because otherwise they wouldn't be able to carry on, but how many carry that with them for the rest of their lives?

EDIT: Also I'd like to point out your mentioning of 911 operators and paramedics. I'm not talking about people "seeing death" and finding ways to cope. I'm specifically talking about killing. As we're all fated to die, we cannot avoid seeing death. We can prevent ourselves from killing.

It's not religion. It's idealism. That we're here in modern society with modern ways of dealing with our problems. I'm very aware of humanity's history of violence and death. Yes, people will fall back to killing as a solution, because we are fallible, but as you and I sit here in front of our computers on a lazy Sunday, what does it say about us to entertain killing as a solution to society's problems? What does it say about us to accept and sometimes encourage the state declaring someone's life as forfeit? Should they truly have the right? Should any of us?

I'm asking as we stand here in the year of our dog 2020 do we want to continue that cycle of violence for the sake of revenge or "closure"?

Is it really worth it?

mooreandrew58 posted...

Death penalty has been a part of American culture for ages so naturally some still agree with it.

And that's the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition. Other countries have had the death penalty "for ages" and abolished it.

---

CyricZ posted...

And would you consider that psychologically healthy? Of course, they have to shut down part of their own humanity because otherwise they wouldn't be able to carry on, but how many carry that with them for the rest of their lives?

It's not religion. It's idealism. That we're here in modern society with modern ways of dealing with our problems. I'm very aware of humanity's history of violence and death. Yes, people will fall back to killing as a solution, because we are fallible, but as you and I sit here in front of our computers on a lazy Sunday, what does it say about us to entertain killing as a solution to society's problems? What does it say about us to accept and sometimes encourage the state declaring someone's life as forfeit? Should they truly have the right? Should any of us?

I'm asking as we stand here in the year of our dog 2020 do we want to continue that cycle of violence for the sake of revenge or "closure"?

Is it really worth it?

Its a fact of life. I dont think its any less psychologically unhealthy than being aware of the stuff going on in war torn countries or done by the cartel. Ignorance may be a bliss but its not completely healthy itself. Like I said, youre kind of speaking from a privileged perspective where you havent been in a situation where a threat to you or others had to be neutralized. I dont think its wrong for people to be mentally and physically prepared to kill people who are a threat to them or their loved ones. I think the main contention here is that many dont trust our government in specific with its history of screw-ups but yes I do believe an ideal government has a right to kill dangerous people, more than criminals who give themselves the right to do so at least.
There are many other benefits other than revenge such as preventing the risk from hurting other inmates and guards or escaping and saving on food, electricity, medical supplies, garbage disposal, and other resources that can be used on suffering law-abiding citizens
---

GiftedACIII posted...

Like I said, youre kind of speaking from a privileged perspective where you havent been in a situation where a threat to you or others had to be neutralized. I dont think its wrong for people to be mentally and physically prepared to kill people who are a threat to them or their loved ones.

I'm not talking about imminent threats to oneself or one's loved ones. "Killing is wrong" is my ideal. "Killing may be unavoidable for the sake of oneself or others" is the reality. I do not consider it my place to judge those who killed someone in an immediate threat circumstance. This topic is about the death penalty.

This is about people at the mercy of the state with whom we've decided that killing them is just, and have done so in the face of them having broken the rules of society, often by killing.

How does "the government says it's okay" make it better?

GiftedACIII posted...

There are many other benefits other than revenge such as preventing the risk from hurting other inmates and guards or escaping

Again, this is a critique on prisons in America, not a justification for state-sponsored killing. A prison system that focused on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punishment and packing in as many prisoners as possible would reduce this.

GiftedACIII posted...

saving on food, electricity, medical supplies, garbage disposal, and other resources that can be used on suffering law-abiding citizens

This has already been cleared in this topic as being baloney. We spend far more resources justifying a state-sponsored killing and carrying it out than we do letting someone serve out their sentence.

---

I'm all for it, tbh. As stated earlier, some people shouldn't be allowed to carry on living.

What interests me is the method used varying for different countries. Funny how we mostly seemed to stop beheading and stoning people because it's seen as too visceral and violent, but is electrocution and lethal injection really any more humane?

---

CyricZ posted...

And would you consider that psychologically healthy? Of course, they have to shut down part of their own humanity because otherwise they wouldn't be able to carry on, but how many carry that with them for the rest of their lives?

EDIT: Also I'd like to point out your mentioning of 911 operators and paramedics. I'm not talking about people "seeing death" and finding ways to cope. I'm specifically talking about killing. As we're all fated to die, we cannot avoid seeing death. We can prevent ourselves from killing.

It's not religion. It's idealism. That we're here in modern society with modern ways of dealing with our problems. I'm very aware of humanity's history of violence and death. Yes, people will fall back to killing as a solution, because we are fallible, but as you and I sit here in front of our computers on a lazy Sunday, what does it say about us to entertain killing as a solution to society's problems? What does it say about us to accept and sometimes encourage the state declaring someone's life as forfeit? Should they truly have the right? Should any of us?

I'm asking as we stand here in the year of our dog 2020 do we want to continue that cycle of violence for the sake of revenge or "closure"?

Is it really worth it?

And that's the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition. Other countries have had the death penalty "for ages" and abolished it.

Just pointing out the fallacy in the arguments about killing being against our morals. Americans have always had instances where killing was fine. Death penalty and war.

---

CyricZ posted...

I'm not talking about imminent threats to oneself or one's loved ones. "Killing is wrong" is my ideal. "Killing may be unavoidable for the sake of oneself or others" is the reality. I do not consider it my place to judge those who killed someone in an immediate threat circumstance. This topic is about the death penalty.

This is about people at the mercy of the state with whom we've decided that killing them is just, and have done so in the face of them having broken the rules of society, often by killing.

How does "the government says it's okay" make it better?

Because the government has deemed them a continuous threat to society. Did you bat an eye when Bin Laden was killed when he couldve probably been easily taken in? The idea is that general society has deemed them unforgivable and the government confirms it with their resources. I mean, with the lack of god, general society and the government are about as high of a being there is. The problem here is that governments across the world as being seen as untrustworthy not that in concept with an ideal government its a bad thing. At the mercy of the state isnt a guaranteed thing either.
CyricZ posted...

Again, this is a critique on prisons in America, not a justification for state-sponsored killing. A prison system that focused on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punishment and packing in as many prisoners as possible would reduce this.

Harming guards and chance of escape is a possible risk in any kind of prison. Rehabilitation isnt a guarantee and even then even justice systems like Norway do put punishment into account when sentencing. Its why something like rape has so many years and not dependent on when the rapist becomes remorseful.
CyricZ posted...

This has already been cleared in this topic as being baloney. We spend far more resources justifying a state-sponsored killing and carrying it out than we do letting someone serve out their sentence.

Those are entirely separate from stacks of paper given to lawyers.
---

reading through this topic, i'm surprised that there are so many apologists for the death penalty on CE

---

hockeybub89 posted...

The specific job being cheap doesn't mean the road to get there will be. Sitting in a space shuttle when it takes off is easy, but it's extremely expensive to get everyone to that point.

That is not equivalent.

The death penalty is expensive because we make it expensive. Full stop. If we want a legit argument against executions, just stick to the possibility of killing an innocent person. That is the real concern.

---

SpaceBear_ posted...

What interests me is the method used varying for different countries. Funny how we mostly seemed to stop beheading and stoning people because it's seen as too visceral and violent, but is electrocution and lethal injection really any more humane?

As you bring that up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lTczPEG8iI&t=1006s

mooreandrew58 posted...

Just pointing out the fallacy in the arguments about killing being against our morals. Americans have always had instances where killing was fine. Death penalty and war.

Which fallacy would that be? We've done it before so it's fine?

GiftedACIII posted...

Did you bat an eye when Bin Laden was killed when he couldve probably been easily taken in?

Yes, I did. I'll go on record on that. People were celebrating in the streets and I seriously did not feel good about that.

GiftedACIII posted...

Rehabilitation isnt a guarantee

Never said it was. Just think it should be a goal.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

If we want a legit argument against executions, just stick to the possibility of killing an innocent person. That is the real concern.

If you want to focus there, that's fine. I think looking inward and asking ourselves why we decided we want this has more long term value.

EDIT: One last thing. "Governments decide who should be killed" rings real hollow when not all governments even within the USA can agree on what deserves execution. The very fact alone that our learned and elected governments can't come to a consensus on what deserves death should caution people casting their own judgment.

---

CyricZ posted...

Was he killed immediately after killing the inmate? Are you also reading the same topic?

it depends, doe. he was killed before he could kill yet another person. as for the bold, lol...

---

GiftedACIII posted...

Thats honestly a very religious argument. Someone who has killed someone had the authority to kill them. You can claim they didnt have the authority all you want but the matter is that they factually did it and without a god why should they care morally what others think whether they had the right to or not?
Theres also of course self-defense, killing to defend another, euthanasia, and to some people, abortion so its not an accurate statement anyway.

And uh, as much as it would be ideal for it to be true I dont think you genuinely believe that. Violence comes natural to humans. The millennia of wars throughout history are evidence of that. Even until a few centuries ago people were casually killing each other. The point of society and laws is to suppress that urge with repercussions.
The first kill may be shocking to an average person but any paramedic, 911 operator, police, and hard gang members can tell you many grow numb to it. Theres also of course the 1 out of 100 people who are sociopaths and wouldnt be phased by it to begin with.
And this is talking from a privileged developed countrys perspective.

This actually makes the death penalty sound even sillier. If anyone can kill anyone and humans are born to kill, then why does any of it matter. Makes the death penalty less an inherent justice and more something anyone can do as long as you really want to and have the might to back it up

---

CyricZ posted...

Which fallacy would that be? We've done it before so it's fine?

That it falla whitin our cultures morals considering we still do it. Sure a lot of people disagree with it. But thia country has been divided for a good while now on lots of issues.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

The death penalty is expensive because we make it expensive. Full stop. If we want a legit argument against executions, just stick to the possibility of killing an innocent person.

Reducing the possibility of killing innocent people is precisely the expensive part.

---

Ex-Kefiroth posted...

Murder laws are already on the books.

There are also laws against kidnapping, but we allow jailers to hold people in cages.

"We need to ban the death penalty and give them a life sentence instead!"

"Prisons are too overcrowded!"

Liberal logic.

Of course prisons will be more full when the only way to make room is for them to die or to let them back out in society (but imagine being a person who wants to let a child rapist back out onto the street, hmm)

HiddenRoar posted...

"We need to ban the death penalty and give them a life sentence instead!"

"Prisons are too overcrowded!"

Liberal logic.

Of course prisons will be more full when the only way to make room is for them to die or to let them back out in society (but imagine being a person who wants to let a child rapist back out onto the street, hmm)

Nearly half of all prisoners in the United States are incarcerated due to a drug offense.

Oh furthermore, as of 2016, we have 2.3 million people incarcerated. But hey, I'm sure we can make a dent in that if we execute all prisoners on death row right now!

All *checks* 2,721 of them.

Ah, conservative logic.

---

CyricZ posted...

Nearly half of all prisoners in the United States are incarcerated due to a drug offense.

Oh furthermore, as of 2016, we have 2.3 million people incarcerated. But hey, I'm sure we can make a dent in that if we execute all prisoners on death row right now!

All *checks* 2,721 of them.

Ah, conservative logic.

Please Cyric, Don't Hurt 'Em

---

CyricZ posted...

Nearly half of all prisoners in the United States are incarcerated due to a drug offense.

Oh furthermore, as of 2016, we have 2.3 million people incarcerated. But hey, I'm sure we can make a dent in that if we execute all prisoners on death row right now!

All *checks* 2,721 of them.

Ah, conservative logic.

While ive only looked up a fraction of the people at my unit that doeant appear the case unless there are way more minimum custody then I realize. Seen one guy in this medium custody unit for simple possession. Hes also only serving a year and some change where as most here are serving decade plus sentences. Only other drug offense only people ive seem is for manufacturing stuff like meth or being a dealer and I dont mean petty dealer more like selling by pound dealer

You dont get 10 years for a small bag of weed like ive seen some people make out. Granted I'll give you they shouldn't get anything but still

---