In article ,
DSK wrote:
Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has
no moral right to capital punishment; then by logic, the
state would also have no right to wage war.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.

???
Is this one of those 'meaning of life' type statements? Does
it serve any purpose to live in the first place?

Of course. I mean, who the f*ck knows.

In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It
removes a threat & a waste of good oxygen.

He wasn't a threat any more. In fact, he did some good while in
prison. While this in no way justifies or excuses he prior actions, it
does remove the "threat" concern from the table.

... There are worse things that are less expensive.


The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that
it's the subject of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile,
health care for prisoners is not a trivial expense for the
state, either.

I agree! I think there should be very few appeals. However, there
would be even fewer right now, if the DP were removed from the table.

The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.


Well, here's the problem. "The best interest of a small
group in certain circumstances" always opposes the best
interest of certain other groups. Some people are opposed to
anybody owning a gun, others are opposed to drunk driving,
beer in cans, etc etc. Obviously not everybody gets their
own way all the time.

Sure. I know. That's why we have courts, lawyers, politicians, etc.

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.

But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.

... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."

When the state faces utter destruction (we're talking about a
legitimate state of course).

... There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It puts the guards at risk, the person
could escape, a change of administration policy, or a
paperwork mistake could release them, etc etc.

There is no recidivism from the death penalty.

Not much. There's always a slight chance of just about everything, but
I don't think it's much of a chance in reality. It would be
interesting to see some stats about something like that
happening.. I'm sure it has happened, but it's so rare.

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.


Pretty much equivalent cases, I'd say. The difference is a
matter of scale.

Scale is one of those important details. In the case of some things,
looking at the limiting cases doesn't really help.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com