What up capitol punishment thread guys. I love me a good debate but Im am willing to admit I browsed most of the ten pages up to this point to get the jist of how you guys are arguing the facts. Of course like any debate loving person the first thing I did before responding was combine my understanding of the current options with a healthy amount of research, followed by some deep introspection. First I want to clear up what we are debating. The first post in the thread did nothing for setting up framework and I think that's been a problem. I see a lot of people posting under the assumption that we all live in the USA or that others understand the basic world situation. So here I am to pull you guys a step back and look at the big picture for a moment without supporting one side or the other: America is only ranked 5th in estimated total executions. Totaling 46 this year. That's also 5th place in a person per million standard with about 1.5 people per million. China has a much lower person per million rating but estimates for how many people are executed are as high as 5k this year (The actual number is regarded as a state secret). And you can be killed for a wider range of crimes including tax evasion. Culture and morals actually vary quite widely in the world, and what one society deems punishable by death may not apply to others. The reason its important not to disregard politics in this matter is that in order to oppose capitol punishment that we deem unfit, we would have to be careful what we tolerate at home. For this reason I see not supporting the death penalty as a political benefit. However taking into consideration the brief time when the US repealed capitol punishment, and the statistically solid rise in murder cases during the time, I would argue that as a deterrent it does serve a purpose. The severity of removing this deterrent is hard to gauge. And its hard to call it morally justified to sanctify human life when stopping the death penalty would statistically lead to more murders. The duel edged nature of capitol punishment cant be denied, you sacrifice morals either way, but it is effective when implemented. For this reason I would argue that on a law enforcement basis capitol punishment is very beneficial. On a purely moral level we are looking at taking human life of course. A physically present human life. That is somewhat different than causing a death by removing a deterrent, to some people, because its easier to measure. These systems of morals tend to vary greatly based on religion, cultural background and even level of education. Imposing a system of morals on others is a rather egotistical thing in itself. If you can argue that life and death choices should be made on a system of morals you yourself believe to be "correct" you are essentially arguing your moral superiority. Almost any atrocity committed by a society has been at its root, built upon a belief of superiority. People that think like this are usually least suited to make moral decisions. (especially for a collective whole) So Im going to challenge the idea that we can measure or apply any morality or religion when it comes to decided weather or not its right to take a human life, as an act of deterrence. (or as a punishment for murder as most people like to think of it) From a point of view that ignores morality and takes into account what is best for an individual as well as the group (or in this case society) we have to get back to what is a natural vs what is responsible. Natural meaning what impulses we have to correct a situation that causes us or others harm, vs what we should do to benefit society as well, rather than just ourselves. So the obvious first impulse we have towards violence is fight or flight. But in a defensive situation our groups/families/society can not flee so the obvious remainder is to fight. Removing a threat that wants to kill you, or members of your group, means killing them first. Thats nature. However, we should also take into account escalating violence in our group. Saying its ok to kill someone leads to saying it ok to kill someone for other things, like threatening behavior or the possibility that they could harm you or your group. For this reason, even in today's society we resist the urge to justify murder with murder because its an aspect of our social survival kit. We dont want others to justify killing members of our group lightly. This social survival kit applies in today's world. If citizens of the USA are accused of terrorism they can be executed without what we consider due process in many countries. The ability to demand those prisoners over on the basis that we cant condone capitol punishment, based on their cultural beliefs or our legal precedence, is pretty flimsy and insulting. What we are doing by supporting the death penalty can actually be very damaging to relations with other countries. This level of responsibly that goes against our instinct to remove a threat from society is at conflict with out social survival kit. Political positioning aside, cultural values affect the quality and health of any nation. There is the greater aspect of social decay in any society that is marked by a decline in commonly accepted morals. Im not talking about personal or religious morals right now, but rather about blood sports and their popularity in many declining societies. Whatever the truth of those connections are, its worth considering the effect of capitol punishment on moral norms. There have been many great civilizations that have risen and fallen, but all of them have had government sanctioned executions. We live in a time and place that only has 23 countries that practice capitol punishment. Will they follow the same patterns as history? On a closing note, Im actually pro capitol punishment. Im just stating some of the things that I like to contemplate as I consider such a broad and important issue. Also if you like my posts or want to invite me to other debates send me a PM, Im always looking to make new friends. Especially intellectuals who value healthy debate.
