echi wrote:Ticomaya wrote:echi wrote:What I argue is that capital punishment hurts our society, corrupting our moral principals and promoting a practice of denial so extreme that it requires the cold-blooded killing of a defenseless person.
"Cold-blooded killing"? "Defenseless person"? What bizarre concepts. Talk about "denial."
?
Capital punishment is not "cold-blooded killing," at least under my understanding of the concept. The capital murderer is aware of the existence of the death penalty as a possible sanction for his actions, or such knowledge is imputed to him. The execution of the capital murderer, following the lengthy legal process involved, is not a ruthless killing as you would characterize it. Nor is the capital murderer a "defenseless" person. In contrast, the convict's victims are probably defenseless, and probably innocents; the convict is neither. The capital defendant has the availability of the legal process at his disposal, to provide him with due process, fairness, and justice, all of which he likely denied to his victim(s).
Quote:Tico wrote:Let me ask you this, echi: Is there any scenario, outside of the CP discussion, where you might find the killing of a human being to be justified or appropriate?
Absolutely. Self-defense is the obvious scenario. There may be others, but I can't think of any.
(Defense of others? What about to protect a woman from being raped? What about if a doctor has to kill one conjoined twin in order to save the life of the other?)
You recognize the justification of taking a human life under certain, limited circumstances. The stated circumstance being defense of self. Thus, it appears your moral code dictates to you that a life can be taken in order to preserve your own (presumably you would apply this rule to preservation of others).
Why do you suppose your moral code ceases to allow you to recognize the authority of the government to execute capital murderers? Why do you think it's moral to allow a ruthless, cold-blooded killer of defenseless innocents the right to live when he denied that right to his victims?
The government is charged with protecting its citizens, and in applying the rules of proportionality to justice. Thus, deadly force is permitted to be used to counter deadly force. This is unquestioned in the law (and in your moral code). That's what capital punishment does: it applies this concept of proportionality to the justice it metes out.
Does that mean he's a has been?
If you're a passenger in an airplane, and a terrorist group takes over the plane. What will you do?
