Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

From CNN.com just now:

Quote:

"Michael Ross did not have any final words," said Shelly Sindland, a reporter for WTIC in Hartford who witnessed the execution. "When asked if he wanted any final words, he said, 'No, thank you.'

Gotta love them journalists.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.

That doesn't answer my question though, because you may not have the option of not getting your hands bloody. You get your hands bloody when you vote for mushy laws that fail to deter murders, and you get your hands dirty when you vote for tough laws that make the state execute people. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that even assuming that capital punishment does save more lives by deterring murder than it kills through executions, you would still be against it. So my question, to rephrase it in the vocabulary of your latest answer, was this: On what basis do you prefer one way of getting your hands bloody over another? Why would you rather leave some murders undeterred to save the lives of some (lower number of) murderers?

Eorl wrote:

I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.

So,what you are saying is that if you are forced to make a choice,kill me or watch me kill your wife and kids,you would stand there and watch me kill your family?

I don't believe that for a minute.
You can say whatever you want,but unless you have been in that position,you have no idea what you would do.

mysteryman wrote:

Eorl wrote:

I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.

So,what you are saying is that if you are forced to make a choice,kill me or watch me kill your wife and kids,you would stand there and watch me kill your family?

I don't believe that for a minute.
You can say whatever you want,but unless you have been in that position,you have no idea what you would do.

No, that is not at all what I'm saying. I'd kill to save my wife and baby under attack no question.

But...what if it turned out he was not trying to kill them? He was trying to help them after some-one else attacked and I've just arrived on the scene and I've killed the wrong man....only I shouldn't be carrying a knife, so under your system...I'm to get the death penalty !!!! but I digress......

What I'm saying is I would risker a higher general threat of murder due to the death penalty not being applied as a deterrent (which is in doubt anyway, but beside the point)

Eorl wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Eorl wrote:

I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.

So,what you are saying is that if you are forced to make a choice,kill me or watch me kill your wife and kids,you would stand there and watch me kill your family?

I don't believe that for a minute.
You can say whatever you want,but unless you have been in that position,you have no idea what you would do.

No, that is not at all what I'm saying. I'd kill to save my wife and baby under attack no question.

But...what if it turned out he was not trying to kill them? He was trying to help them after some-one else attacked and I've just arrived on the scene and I've killed the wrong man....only I shouldn't be carrying a knife, so under your system...I'm to get the death penalty !!!! but I digress......

What I'm saying is I would risker a higher general threat of murder due to the death penalty not being applied as a deterrent (which is in doubt anyway, but beside the point)

I hate to say this my friend,but you just shot yourself in the foot.

You do not advocate the DP,saying..."Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer."

So,while you dont want the govt killing a CONVICTED murderer in your name,you have no problem administering the DP yourself if it became neccessary.
That seems a little strange to me.
You are in favor of the DP,but only under limited circumstances,it seems.

Is there some confusion between the death penalty as a judicial order and self defence which might result in the death of the attacker? If so, there is a big difference. I'm opposed to the death penalty for many reasons but no way would I deny the right to self defence even to the point where someone needed to use lethal force.