Should killing in self-defense be removed too?

[Moliere]

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.

Wow, I agree with Woot on something. I've never been pro-death penalty. I've always thought that no human should have the power by law to take another humans life. I'd much rather the convicted criminal spend his life in prison with no chance at parole then be executed.

I have the same view on torture. No human should have the power by law to torture another human being.

[UtahDan]

I agree that there is no general deterrent effect from capital punishment, that is, seeing a murderer put to death does not deter the next person. That is not the only kind of deterrence however. Special deterrence is the idea that when you get punished, you will not commit that crime again either because you don't want to experience the penalty again or you can't. Life in prison is a form of special deterrence in that the person is out of circulation, but of course convicted murderers often kill again in prison. Death is the ultimate special deterrent. You don't have to buy that it is morally right, but it is one reason to do it that has been overlooked here.

I think in the end most legal scholars have settled on the idea that it is mostly retributive. I'm on the fence on this. I do think that there are some who richly merit being forever removed from circulation even if it is just with prison staff and other inmates. On the other hand, the cost of messing it up is pretty high.

[Clark Addison]

This is a silly question (the OP). I am against the death penalty; however, I am somewhat conflicted by it, and think there are some arguments for it. I have no problem with people who believe in the death penalty.

Killing for self-defense is obviously a very different issue. I don't know anyone who is in favor of removing it as a justification for killing.

[Indy Coug]

Did long-term incarceration exist anciently? Meaning, were people who lived 2,000 years ago or more held in prison for 20, 30, 40 years or more for crimes?

[UtahDan]

Did long-term incarceration exist anciently? Meaning, were people who lived 2,000 years ago or more held in prison for 20, 30, 40 years or more for crimes?

I believe the answer is no. This is a relatively recent invention.

[All-American]

Good points on different reasons to criminalize.

As I understand it, there are three reasons to try to punish behavior:

• Deterrence (both specific deterrence, stopping the murderer from ever committing another crime, and general deterrence, stopping others from killing)
• Expressive Condemnation (assigning a value to that which the criminal has violated by punishing the violators)
• Just Deserts (giving them what they deserve)

The first is a relatively easy concept to understand, though in application it can be considerably more complex (as demonstrated).

The second comes from the idea that when you punish somebody, you are saying that their behavior was not acceptable to society, and by how harsh the punishment is, you state the degree to which the behavior offends society. This is part of the reason why you might send somebody to prison who committed a crime though she's never committed a crime before, and is almost certain to never commit a crime again.

I've seen a few arguments that sound a bit like the expressive condemnation argument. They sound something like this: "if you are a society that values life above all else, then you reserve your harshest punishments for those who violate that right for others. You protect your greatest values with the most strict punishments."

The third is not entirely dissimilar to the second, and it sounds like SoP has made a few arguments along those lines already. You did the crime; you deserve this punishment.

There are arguments and counterarguments to be made for the death penalty based on all three of these motives.

(As for the original question in this thread, it's pretty darn easy to draw the line. Nobody, as far as I can tell, seriously argues that one should not be allowed to use potentially deadly force if they reasonably see the need to protect themselves from imminent harm.)

[TripletDaddy]

Good points on different reasons to criminalize.

As I understand it, there are three reasons to try to punish behavior:

• Deterrence (both specific deterrence, stopping the murderer from ever committing another crime, and general deterrence, stopping others from killing)
• Expressive Condemnation (assigning a value to that which the criminal has violated by punishing the violators)
• Just Deserts (giving them what they deserve)

do you have any thoughts on torts, civ pro or contracts?

[All-American]

[/LIST]
do you have any thoughts on torts, civ pro or contracts?

Contracts, yes. Civ Pro was last quarter. Torts is next.

[Moliere]

I once had an accounting teacher in high school who shared his thoughts on prisons and death row inmates. This was his idea:

The prison system would be divided into four different areas of the US (north, south, east, west). There would be a huge prison built that once a year would host the Annual Death Row Inmate Battle. The inmates would be given ancient weapons and would basically be let loose on each other. The last region standing would be the winner (not sure what they would win though). The event would be broadcast as a pay-per-view event and the proceeds from the broadcast would go to support the prison system so it would not be such a drain on taxpayer funds.

Personally, I didn't like his idea but I guess you could say he was thinking outside the box.

He had many other ideas (not related to prisons) that he freely shared with his students.

[SloanHater]

Unless he is law enforecement in street clothes, how is the man in the video acting in self-defense?

I hope they tried him for manslaughter.

[UtahDan]

Unless he is law enforecement in street clothes, how is the man in the video acting in self-defense?

I hope they tried him for manslaughter.

If one person is facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, as the person with the gun pointed at him is, another person is permitted to "step into the shoes" of that person and defend them as though it were himself. Defense of another is something people don't hear as much about, but if the guy who has the gun pointed at him could shot (he clearly could) then another can do it for him.

[creekster]

This is a very impressive display, SOP. Let's see if i understand this. You think it is a religious imperative as a Mormon to support the death penalty but, as displayed by your behavior, you think it is not a religious imperative to avoid swearing at people and calling them names because they disagree with you. Is that about it?

Oh wait, I missed something, your assertion that you 'edited' wikipedia articles was the basis/justification for your righteous indignation. Yes, that was impressive.

Before you get mad and swear at me (and heaven knows that seems very possible), you should know that my moniker was once mentioned in wikipedia for about 15 minutes. So we are kind of like wiki-friends already!

[Jarid in Cedar]

So we should support the death penalty because God told us

[Indy Coug]

So we should support the death penalty because God told us

Should we not kill people because God told us?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Should we not kill people because God told us?

that is a slippery slope, given the religious inspiration that some people receive