Should killing in self-defense be removed too?

[il Padrino Ute]

It is more expensive to implement the death penalty than life in prison. I do not believe that is even under any debate anymore. Normally I'd allow a few cracks at overlawyering and such (as I'm a general critic of overlawyering, my choice of profession notwithstanding) but I do not think that is the case when the life of a human is in the balance. If you want to tie to actual figures, the last I saw the imputed value of a human life for economic purposes was somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000,000, which is a number well north of any tax figures we are talking about (IIRC).

I think I've asked you this before, but how much of the cost of an execution is the cost of housing the convicted and the cost of the appeals? Those are technically not the cost of the execution.

[Pheidippides]

I think I've asked you this before, but how much of the cost of an execution is the cost of housing the convicted and the cost of the appeals? Those are technically not the cost of the execution.

I disagree - those ARE technically the cost of the execution. If we want to make sure we get it right and/or differentiate ourselves in a practical way from the Taliban. While I'm not the guy who's marching at executions with anti-death penalty signs, I absolutely will be if you remove the system of appeals.

To ignore the costs of appeals is to suggest that we could have a system where such appeals do not exist. I suggest that not only is such a system unlikely to happen in any scenario I can think of short of the downfall of western civilization, it absolutely should NOT happen. And if it does, it's one hell of a slippery slope.

But let's assume, for a second, that we can reduce the time and cost of appeals - without reducing the efficacy thereof - such that it is half the cost, say, of life-long incarceration. If that is the case, and we're killing people based on cost factors, what we are really saying is that we can lawfully euthanize undesirables in our society simply because of cost concerns. Which, by the way, is the same argument used for abortions by women every day across the country.

[il Padrino Ute]

I disagree - those ARE technically the cost of the execution. If we want to make sure we get it right and/or differentiate ourselves in a practical way from the Taliban. While I'm not the guy who's marching at executions with anti-death penalty signs, I absolutely will be if you remove the system of appeals.

To ignore the costs of appeals is to suggest that we could have a system where such appeals do not exist. I suggest that not only is such a system unlikely to happen in any scenario I can think of short of the downfall of western civilization, it absolutely should NOT happen. And if it does, it's one hell of a slippery slope.

But let's assume, for a second, that we can reduce the time and cost of appeals - without reducing the efficacy thereof - such that it is half the cost, say, of life-long incarceration. If that is the case, and we're killing people based on cost factors, what we are really saying is that we can lawfully euthanize undesirables in our society simply because of cost concerns. Which, by the way, is the same argument used for abortions by women every day across the country.

Ok, I'll concede the costs of the appeals, as I stated my take poorly. I have no problem with appeals as long as they're for the purpose of pointing out mistakes, rather than a delay tactic.

I'll never accept the cost of housing the convicted as part of the execution. That's a cost whether there is an execution or not. But I would like to the cost of an execution less the housing and compare it to someone who received life in prison rather than the death sentence to get a better comparison of which costs more.

As for abortion and the point you made about the argument for it, I would point out that the difference is that with abortion, an innocent is slaughtered 100% of the time. The same can't be said about the death penalty.

[Pheidippides]

As for abortion and the point you made about the argument for it, I would point out that the difference is that with abortion, an innocent is slaughtered 100% of the time. The same can't be said about the death penalty.

Why does that make any difference? That's just another way of saying what I said about blood atonement.

If people believe that there are some crimes for which people must die, fine. I don't believe that, but the early saints did. It's a fundamental point of disagreement that boils down to morality and theology, and it's awful hard to prevail one way or the other in those sorts of arguments.

[il Padrino Ute]

Why does that make any difference? That's just another way of saying what I said about blood atonement.

If people believe that there are some crimes for which people must die, fine. I don't believe that, but the early saints did. It's a fundamental point of disagreement that boils down to morality and theology, and it's awful hard to prevail one way or the other in those sorts of arguments.

It makes a difference because as you pointed out, there are people who believe that there are crimes for which the perpetrator should die. I've already said that I'm an eye for an eye kind of guy and I agree that it's near impossible to prevail one way or another.

I'm okay that you're not pro-death penalty, and would hope that you're okay that I am pro-death penalty.

[Pheidippides]

It makes a difference because as you pointed out, there are people who believe that there are crimes for which the perpetrator should die. I've already said that I'm an eye for an eye kind of guy and I agree that it's near impossible to prevail one way or another.

I'm okay that you're not pro-death penalty, and would hope that you're okay that I am pro-death penalty.

And I'm okay that you are. Like I said, I'm not the waive-a-sign-at-prisons guy. It's a low issue on my totem pole, callous as though that may sound.

[il Padrino Ute]

And I'm okay that you are. Like I said, I'm not the waive-a-sign-at-prisons guy. It's a low issue on my totem pole, callous as though that may sound.

Nor do I go down to the prison and tailgate on an execution day.

Speaking of that, I wonder what kind of money could be made selling tailgating kits at executions? Would it be better to set it up as an LLC or an S-corp?

[Pheidippides]

Nor do I go down to the prison and tailgate on an execution day.

Speaking of that, I wonder what kind of money could be made selling tailgating kits at executions? Would it be better to set it up as an LLC or an S-corp?

LLC. S-corp has taxation issues if you ever sell out to somebody other than an individual due to the conversion of the form being a taxable event, and you can make a pass-through taxation election in either. DDD knows more about it than I do.

I think you could sell to both sides - they all show up. It might require a move to Texas, though, as we are the current leader in occurence.

[il Padrino Ute]

LLC. S-corp has taxation issues if you ever sell out to somebody other than an individual due to the conversion of the form being a taxable event, and you can make a pass-through taxation election in either. DDD knows more about it than I do.

I think you could sell to both sides - they all show up. It might require a move to Texas, though, as we are the current leader in occurence.

As a capitalist, I would sell to both sides. And while Texas would actually be a nice place to live, I'd like to be able to do that via the internets so I could more easily accommodate those who would want to participate in all 50 states.

[RobinFinderson]

I voted: Every person is justified in killing another person in self-defense of his life and others.

I still oppose the death penalty. It is hard to understand why anyone supports the death penalty any more. It is just so unnecessary.

[Pheidippides]

I'm not interested in the deterrence effect. That's not why I support the death penalty. Setting aside mixed results about deterrence or that it has been disproven over and over, deterrence is not the only justification to support the death penalty. Nor is support of OT-style, eye-for-eye justice justice.




The death penalty does not serve to feed a bloodlust just because it doesn't clearly serve as a deterrent.



I would feel similarly, but as a Mormon I don't accept that because the murderer has removed the primary purpose of his probationary life.



Agreed.



No argument from me on that point either.



This is where I disagree based on theological grounds. I'm not sure what you mean by "blood atonement", and that may not be particularly relevant, but how is it so requisitely bound to blood lust? And it's almost like you are imputing bloodlust to the executioners, victims, legislators, jurists, jurors, or society in general. Really?



I believe as the early saints did so far as the scripture quoted below. Why don't you?



No disagreement on that point either. Do you consider that you are rejecting the scripture below as relevant to our generation, or that "scripture" was never inspired? or?...



Well, Robin, if I weren't Mormon, I'd probably feel similarly. But as a Mormon, I believe the following Mormon scripture as revelation condoning if not commanding a death penalty.

D&C 42: 18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. 19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

For me its real simple: This is a probationary life. As soon as one person murders another person, the murderer has utterly failed the probation, and the murderer's probation is done. Simply, there is no longer any purpose for him to continue his probationary life, and so it's time for the murderer to go. It's nothing more than that. Ending a murderer's life is not requisitely justifed by reference to deterrence, bloodlust, or even OT-style, eye-for-an-eye justice.

Occasionally, I have my own questions, doubts, skeptism or whatever you want to call it about things that GA's say or in regards to scripture, but those questions typically only arise in light of additional insight from other prophetic sources that gives me pause to accept that. So, I ask of intelligent Mormons who reject, doubt or question that scripture, why?

I'm going to back up a step here and suggest that if you don't know what I mean by blood atonement, any discussion we have is not going to be very fruitful. I might suggest you start with Wikipedia (which does have an article on the subject as it relates to Mormonism, IIRC) and work from there - or search The Foyer.

However, and for the record (A) I suspect that you believe in at least a bastardized version of blood atonement (whether you know it or not), based on what you have posted (and you should know that it was explicitly and unequivocally rejected by the GAs in the 70s, I believe, although I am not the expert), (B) I suspect I am going to disagree very strongly with your approach to scripture, church history, and the Gospel in general, (C) I utterly reject your reading of that scripture, (D) in any case, I'm not sure that I read anywhere in there that it's us that ensuring the dying, or even that the dying is physical and not spiritual and (E) you're making one heck of a jump from "he who murders isn't forgiven" to "it's our job to make sure the probationary time is up."

Your question is based on the premise that my position somehow is in violation of the scripture. It assumes that your interpretation is the only right one, and there is no room for other readings. As a word of advice, I think you'll find that sort of approach doesn't do very well here.

[Pheidippides]

Really? Really?! you just referred me to a wiki article on Blood Atonement?<groan> Give me a f*****g break. I'm a 6th generation Mormon who is well-versed in Mormon theology, scripture, etc... I questioned what YOU meant by blood atonement in that context, not BY's or anyone else's opinion on that topic. F&&&&&&&&(k! I wrote and edited a large number of the first @#$% articles on Mormonism in wikipedia starting back in 2001.



Well, then maybe not enough common ground to make a discussion worthwhile.



On the contrary, the plain reading of that verse indicates exactly that. That doesn't mean that verse cannot be interpreted in any other way, but I believe the plain reading is the correct one.



Not at all. Not at all. Give me f'ing break.



Maybe read my posts a little closer.

After this response I am no longer interested in continuing this or any other discussion with you. Again, I suggest that you rethink your approach to and existence on this discussion board if this is the style in which you wish to make your points. It is a style that I do not believe is welcome here.

[RobinFinderson]

Well, Robin, if I weren't Mormon, I'd probably feel similarly. But as a Mormon, I believe the following Mormon scripture as revelation condoning if not commanding a death penalty.

D&C 42: 18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. 19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

For me its real simple: This is a probationary life. As soon as one person murders another person, the murderer has utterly failed the probation, and the murderer's probation is done. Simply, there is no longer any purpose for him to continue his probationary life, and so it's time for the murderer to go. It's nothing more than that. Ending a murderer's life is not requisitely justifed by reference to deterrence, bloodlust, or even OT-style, eye-for-an-eye justice.

I realize you can be pro-death according to the LDS interpretation of scriptures. I was pro-death for a good chunk of my life, because that is how my parents taught me to interpret the scriptures. But anymore, it is totally optional. God will not judge you for being anti-capital punishment, especially if take that position out of an abundance of caution for the preservation of innocent life.

It is a choice. You don't have to kill people, or support killing people. That is gross. Imagine killing someone. Disgusting. Have you ever taped a firecracker to a frog? People who think it is necessary to kill murderers remind me of some of the boy scouts I used to know... taping M80s to frogs and carp. Gross and unnecessary. We have plenty of jail space for killers. Maybe before there wasn't so much jail space, but these days killing people just isn't necessary.

[Solon]

Really? Really?! you just referred me to a wiki article on Blood Atonement?<groan> Give me a f*****g break. I'm a 6th generation Mormon who is well-versed in Mormon theology, scripture, etc... I questioned what YOU meant by blood atonement in that context, not BY's or anyone else's opinion on that topic. F&&&&&&&&(k! I wrote and edited a large number of the first @#$% articles on Mormonism in wikipedia starting back in 2001.

Are you really trying to establish your authority on this matter by claiming authorship of wikipedia articles on Mormonism? That's pretty funny.

[woot]

Not to pile on, but I'd just like to point out that taking responsibility for ending a life because said life is deemed forfeit by the person's religion (or rather a particularly extremist interpretation thereof) is very scary to me. It's a good thing SoP doesn't interpret that scripture as referring to abortion, or all of a sudden it's his duty to bomb abortion clinics. What if SoP finds the stuff in the OT about killing your daughter if she has sex before marriage?