The key word in both your questions is "accident".
Execution is never an accident. It's the calm, considered and in-cold-blood killing of a human being who, since they're by definition locked up, poses no threat to anyone else.
(SonofRojBlake, Sat 27 Apr 2013, 14:59, 1 reply)

I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.

It is still an accident that the person being killed is innocent. You were clearly trying to derive that the death penalty was wrong from the fact that innocent people will inevitably die from it and no one would want to be the victim of such a tragic system. If your argument works then so do the ones I suggested (and many more), as they still meet the requirements as stated above.

I think you are trying to weasel out of this conclusion by by arguing it is the nature of the killing (deliberate, state sanctioned etc. ...) that makes it bad. This cannot be derived from your argument, it is thus a non sequitur. So actually argue it rather than presenting such vacuous augments.
(fibonacci_cunt cunt, cunt, cuntcunt, cuntcuntcunt,..., Sat 27 Apr 2013, 20:27, closed)

"It is still an accident that the person being killed is innocent"

Them being innocent is not an accident. It's a fact. And them being killed is not an accident, it's very deliberate. You cannot in any sane world define executing an innocent person as an "accident".

"You were clearly trying to derive that the death penalty was wrong "

Uh, no, the argument avoids moral judgement on whether it's wrong or right. It asks only whether each voter believes in the death penalty when it's THEM that it's going to happen to. It's easy to be in favour of a death penalty that only happens to other people. The idea is to focus the mind, to get people to think. A lot of people take the attitude of "string 'em up", without stopping to think that one day, they may be one of "'em". If one is sufficiently barbaric not to be able to process the idea that killing people in cold blood is always wrong, then one might, possibly, be amenable to the concept of self-preservation. Obviously this is not guaranteed...

And yes, the state-sanctioned, deliberate, in-cold-blood bit does make it bad, but it's the fact that it's by definition being done to people who are already locked up and therefore no risk to the public that makes it vindictive and, worse, pointless.
(SonofRojBlake, Sun 28 Apr 2013, 21:54, closed)

"Them being innocent is not an accident. It's a fact."

As it is with, say a child being run over by a car. My point still stands.

"And them being killed is not an accident, it's very deliberate. You cannot in any sane world define executing an innocent person as an "accident"."

The fact that you are going to kill someone doesn't change the fact that when
you kill someone who you didn't intend to kill (an "innocent") it is still an accident. I think you are being obtuse on this point.


"Uh, no, the argument avoids moral judgement on whether it's wrong or right. It asks only whether each voter believes in the death penalty when it's THEM that it's going to happen to. It's easy to be in favour of a death penalty that only happens to other people. The idea is to focus the mind, to get people to think. A lot of people take the attitude of "string 'em up", without stopping to think that one day, they may be one of "'em". If one is sufficiently barbaric not to be able to process the idea that killing people in cold blood is always wrong, then one might, possibly, be amenable to the concept of self-preservation. Obviously this is not guaranteed..."

You contradict yourself within a single paragraph here. You are using the possible negative consequences of the death penalty as an argument for it being morally wrong, so you are not avoiding moral judgement.

"And yes, the state-sanctioned, deliberate, in-cold-blood bit does make it bad, but it's the fact that it's by definition being done to people who are already locked up and therefore no risk to the public that makes it vindictive and, worse, pointless."

Supposing a country couldn't lock up criminals (for financial, practical reasons)? What if the chances of getting caught were sufficiently low that you needed extra-strict punishment to deter (say in a "wild west" scenario)?

I don't agree with the death penalty, but I can imagine times when it is justifiable. I could also be open to change my mind on it if for instance it was shown that it did decrease the murder rate. Or what if the threat of death made it much more likely that you could, if wrongly convicted, be found to be innocent (an interesting lecture on the subject: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAW-vom5kBE)? On the other hand, the death penalty can be used by unscrupulous cops to pressure people into confessing, and thus increase miscarriages of justice. There are a lot of points to consider, and frankly "the state-sanctioned, deliberate, in-cold-blood bit does make it bad" is not good enough.
(fibonacci_cunt cunt, cunt, cuntcunt, cuntcuntcunt,..., Sun 28 Apr 2013, 23:48, closed)