Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I'm in favor of assassination. Killing someone like bin Laden saves lives, lives that wouldn't be saved merely by his incarceration. I don't see it as state-sanctioned murder but as warfare on an incredibly limited scale. I don't feel that it always is. I feel like the system we have frequently frees murderers and kills innocent people.

Then when you kill someone and get sentenced to life in solitary confinement you can opt to be executed instead.But we don't have to force that on anyone else.

Well, luckily, convicted criminals don't get to choose what type of punishment they want. I can only support the death penalty not enforce it. So we can chillax...- Oni

It's the same thing in the end. Some form of authority saw fit to terminate someone's life.Question is, why do you trust that the government did the proper work to ensure guilt but not feel the same about the courts?Do you trust the government that blindly? Seems like you favor it when the military does it but not when the prisons do the same thing.Granny! I beg you, please, do you not see the OBVIOUS inconsistencies here?- Oni

Sorta. I think S.E.A.L. assassinations are more proper than lethal injections.The former has that war-ness, while the latter is so much more deliberate.

It certainly makes for a better game of COD. I like the deliberate one best though. It has the sense that a lot of people have looked at the evidence, that last minute possible stay of execution is available if something was seen, and the final execution is carried out with respect to the person going through it. Even a last meal and some final words.Bin Laden got a bullet to the dome and his body tossed out like fish chum. I was told he was guilty so fuck it he must be, right? I don't really know.If I was to support one though, I prefer the death penalty.- Oni

On this thinking capital punishment wouldn't be applied on the basis of what crime was committed. It would instead be applied on the inmates potential for violence to other inmates.A small weedy serial killer whose multiple victims are young children probably wouldn't be much of a danger to other inmates. In fact he'd probably be scared of them. But a big aggressive guy who happens to be in jail for stealing cars might well be deemed a threat to other inmates coz he is a bit of a nutter.So which inmate should be killed off in your view? I'm not convinced that state sponsored cold blooded killing is morally justifiable. Why should the state be able to kill people where there is no self-defense issue any more than an individual can?It seems more like an act of revenge than an act of justice.

Well, in the first place, he was guilty. Are we going to have to go through your watered-down 9/11 Truther thing again?In the second place, he wasn't assassinated. He was killed resisting arrest. That sometimes happens in the justice system you're suddenly so keen on. If he'd surrendered, he'd now be on trial in New York, with an attorney and everything.

I think that coverage of the Breivik trial has misled you as to how widespread this sort of system is in Europe. It is not the norm, it's a departure from it. The only countries in Europe not to use life imprisonment are Norway, Spain, Portugal and the former Yugoslav republics. Only in Norway is the maximum period of imprisonment so short - in Portugal it's 25 years, and in Spain and Yugoslavia it's 40 years.Just for your information!

Oh, ok. Can you point to when his trail was, or the evidence presented against him? Or is it just guilty cuz you said so? We can if you want to. I don't see how that makes Bin Laden guilty or innocent. You hear that guys? Resisting Arrest! The go-to excuss of any cop who wants to fuck you over. "He was resisting arrest, your honor. I had to shot the man." But unfortunately, he was resisting arrest. "Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do as we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you! "- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Christ, just kill me... Well, if you're just asking why the state can. I would say because there is a trail, where a person was usually found guilty of an extremely violent crime. Where as an individual only uses their judgement, usually during a very crazy moment of panic, and may end up taking the life of someone who was no threat at all.I also find it wrong that cops in the US walk around armed, making use of that weapon when they see fit. You know, having debated in the gun-control thread, how many mistakes cops have made killing innocent people.So we, as a society, don't oppose killing human beings, we just use a very selective moral compass to decide when it is right and wrong.For some reason, government sponsored assassinations, sometimes carried out by groups like Black Water, are ok. We trust that the government did all the work it needed to do to ensure us that the individual was guilty.But for some odd reason, if you break down the government into states, and then the state decides to assassinate some (execute them) we no longer trust that the work has been done to ensure the person is guilty.Even more perplexing is the comfort of handing a man a weapon and telling him to go and police the city, and go ahead and use lethal force whenever they see fit! This is either bizarro world or the worse case of cognitive dissonance this site has ever witnessed. It's justice for the victim and their family, not for you, some dude judging it. But that's more of an opinon of mine. Justice and revenge can overlap, and are subjective terms.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Which one? It's a simple question. I find that wrong too. We don't on the whole have armed police here. And I think that is better. See above. I don't think that is OK. If it's not done in defense when is killing ever morally right? What criteria are you applying? Look if someone broke my car window I might well want to smack the bastards face in. If someone raped my daughter I might well be inclined to lock them in a dungeon and inflict tortures on them or something.But that doesn't mean we should base the law or legal punishments on such retributional thinking does it? The law has to take a rational approach to morality rather than emotive otherwise it cannot be applied consistently. The law has to have a reasoned basis beyond pandering to who shouts the loudest or who is the most upset. It may seem cold. But it has to be rational otherwise it is chaos.So what are your criteria for deciding whether or not someone can be killed? My criteria is self defense or the defense of others. I don't think I am being selective. But I think you might be..... Explain to me the basis on which you think we can justify killing someone who is a prisoner, who poses no threat to society as long as they remain a prisoner and who does not wish to be killed.What criteria are you applying?

It wasn't really a simple question. You presented me with a light-hearted serial killer who's victims are only kids, and then a mean, big monster who only steals cars.I would still say the serial killer. They prey on the weak and innocent, so there is no telling what such a person is capable of. Also, they have no value for human life, especially when they're killing innocent children. This person is unpredicatble, and one can only guess what evil will rise up once placed in a prison. In some cases, prisoners like that are MORE violent, to prove they are not weak. One such case I saw involved a man who wanted to be in solitary confinement. When not allowed, he killed his cellmate. They let him out into general population years later, and he killed again. The man was then convicted twice of muder inside jail and placed on deathrow. So, it was not a simple question. Nor can I pretend to understand the mind set of a child serial killer.Tough guys that steal cars, those guys I know. And they're harmless. Cool. Granny said the same thing. It must be the normal opinion with you guys in the UK.But here in the US, we have people that DO suppport it but don't support the death penalty. Which is insane to hold BOTH positions, in my opinion.Which do you think is a greater danger, armed cops making a mistake and killing an innocent person, or the likes that you'd be wrongfully convicted so much so that you'd end up on death row and be actually executed? But, as you can see from the thread, the people I'm debating DO think it's ok. But then they say the death penalty is not ok. Which is insane to hold BOTH positions, in my opinion. Well according to a few here, it seems like it's justified when the government assassinates someone they feel is a threat.My criteria is simple, try someone. If they are guilty, and the crime is an extremely violent one, like Gacy, Bundy, McVeighn, Dahmer, or serial killers like them, they should be killed. Their unpredictable nature places anyone who has to interact with the in danger. Mine too. And in the case of capital punishment, the defense of others applies too. Other inmates, guards and staff who interact with these guys.But it's not me you should be asking these questions to, it is those who's criteria is all over the place. Those who say it is cool to assassinate but not execute. Those who say if a cop shoots someone it's regretable but ok because they're cops. Look at all the posts, you'll find all of that.I on the other hand DON'T support government assassinations when there has been no trail. I DON'T support an armed police force using lethal force when they see fit. I DO however support a trail-based execution when the proper method of judgement has taken place. You are not? You said killing someone is morally justifed in self-defense or in defense of others, right?Well then WHO gets to do that? And when?Example: I thought I was acting in self-defense, but it turned out the person didn't have a weapon.Example: I told them to stop, they continued walking toward me so I shot in self-defense. Turns out the person was deaf.Example: I responded to the 9/11 call and I see a man holding what I thought was a gun. When he raised it to pioint at me I shot in self-defense. Turns out it was a flashlight that wasn't working.You selected self-defense as your basis for killing someone. And yet that is probably one of the most misused reasons for killing someone (next to resisiting arrest!) that we know of. It is very likely to be wrong. I have a few: Justice to the victim. They're a threat to other inmates and staff. The psycological abuse associated with long-term solitary confinement and how it relates to violence.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi Rahvin - there's a few points I'd like to respond on, following your response yesterday to me. I can agree with a viewpoint that an individual's desire for someone to be punished for a wrong they committed, is ultimately a negative and empty emotion. It can be characterised as a desire for revenge by that person, and a desire for revenge is not something that most of us would put high up our list of civilised behaviour.Since our justice systems do involve punishing people, it's more than possible to similarly characterise punishment by the justice system, as institutionalised revenge, and to attribute to that aspect of justice, the same analysis - ie undesirable.For me, though, I would distinguish punishment by the justice system from retribution or revenge.I would argue that all of us have a social contract with wider society. We agree to abide by the rules which we collectively decide upon, (and express through our laws), and so constrain our behaviour. We all accept some limitations on our individual freedoms, in order that everyone collectively can enjoy the widest possible freedoms.And in return, we expect society to enforce the rules and laws which we agree to abide by. If they aren't enforced by society, then we start to override the rights of others before they override ours - we express justice through individual action, which becomes vigilanteism. The enforcment of rules and laws by society is, I believe, a very large part of the glue which holds society together.And since we cannot simply procure that people will always obey the rules, we make it unpleasant for them if they break the rules, by punishing them. This is the disincentive we introduce for breaking the law, to encourage people not to.This is of course a deterrence argument, and I know that such arguments are open to attack, because deterrents do exist, and yet crime is still committed. However, I am very firmly of the view that the existence of punishment by the justice system does deter a large majority of people from breaking the law. If people see lawbreakers going unpunished, then you will get the response "if they can get away with it, then I damn well will too !"(This specific analysis is rarely applicable in relation to murder, of course, since most peoples' moral compasses would never allow them to say "if they can get away with it, then I damn well will too !" in relation to murder. But it still leads to the same sense of outrage on the part of members of society to see someone go unpunished for breaking one of the laws which we all collectively agree to abide by. And the societal-fabric-glue I mentioned earlier would still weaken).So I come from a position where I admire the purity and integrity of a moral view which condemns any sort of punishment or revenge or retribution. I have the same admiration for it as I have for the parents of murdered children, who publicly forgive their child's killer. But I believe that the pragmatic benefits to society of having our justice system include an element of punishment outweigh any desire I have to follow that moral view completely.We are 100% ad idem, when it comes to capital punishment. I believe that a genuine life term imprisonment for murder does satisfy society's requirement that justice be seen to be done - that a punishment be given for that crime. Expecting the punishment to be the killing of the criminal by society, however, is tipping the balance of my analysis way too far in favour of pragmatism - the moral outrage is hugely greater when it comes to killing, obviously.So yes, I would acknowledge and agree that on a purely moral analysis, there is no real justification for any aspect of punishment at all in our justice system. However, I think that society gains a great deal of strength from an element of punishment. My analogy of fabric glue is very abstract, I admit, but I do believe that my view is correct.(On a final point, please note that I do broadly agree with what you say in relation to rehabilitation, and in doing what we can to give people a second chance. Where I differ is in believing that (1) such an approach in relation to murder again serves to weaken my societal-fabric-glue, and (2) I have met some people who are, quite frankly, evil-minded, dyed in the wool, nasty pieces of work, who are beyond our best hopes for rehabilitation. Our rehabilitation systems need to allow for these issues).

For spell checker reasons I have had to resort to using the "s" version of "defense". It's really annoying me.... Explain to me how self-defense applies in the case of our weedy serial killer. How is he? If he genuinely would prefer to die I think that should be facilitated. The law has to be rational and morally consistent rather than pander to people's highly understandable emotional responses.If self defense (and I use the term widely to include protecting others as well) is our criteria I am failing to see how we can justify killing a prisoner who poses no serious threat to anyone as long as they are incarcerated.Explain the self defense issue to me. Sure. It's a case by case thing. Which is exactly why you need trials to decide whether or not people are guilty of a crime or whether they killed in self defense.But I am still failing to see where the self defense issue is with regard to a prisoner, who poses no threat to society or other inmates as long as they remain a prisoner.