Should killing in self-defense be removed too?

[SeattleUte]

I'm choosing to not take offense to this opinion, even though it casts me in a very poor light.

A question though, how can something "inevitably come" from something if it is indeed a "gift?"

I don't understand your question.

[wuapinmon]

I see the death penalty as a kind of litmus test, along with gay marriage. No doubt there are good people who favor the death penalty or oppose gay marriage. But they certainly lack that special profound and sensitive perspective on civil liberties that inevitably comes from intense study and thought. I hate to generalize, but I think that's generally true. They lack that gift. To me this is the redeeming virtue of Christianity: I think the creators of the Gospels and Paul's letters had this gift. To hear purported Christian belief invoked in favor of the death penalty is sickening, revolting. It's a good example of how American Protestantism has utterly distorted Christianity beyond recognition.

I don't understand your question.

In the first bolded section, I understand you to be saying that all it takes to get the special profound and sensitive perspective on civil liberties is intense study and thought. That it is inevitable to those that do.

Then, you claim that it is a "gift." I always understand a "gift" to be a talent, that while it can be honed to perfection (or close to it), it is innate. If it is a gift, then it would appear that it cannot be inevitable.

[SeattleUte]

In the first bolded section, I understand you to be saying that all it takes to get the special profound and sensitive perspective on civil liberties is intense study and thought. That it is inevitable to those that do.

Then, you claim that it is a "gift." I always understand a "gift" to be a talent, that while it can be honed to perfection (or close to it), it is innate. If it is a gift, then it would appear that it cannot be inevitable.

I don't accept your definition of gift. In any event, what I mean is that our natural selves are killers. But as humans we have the capacity through reason to see humanity even in heinous killers, and the dehumanizing aspect of killing. That takes a lot of effort; granted, probably thought and study is not enough, but it helps a lot. I think that the Gospels tell you to strive to get there, by the way. That's the crux.

[RobinFinderson]

I don't accept your definition of gift. In any event, what I mean is that our natural selves are killers. But as humans we have the capacity through reason to see humanity even in heinous killers, and the dehumanizing aspect of killing. That takes a lot of effort; granted, probably thought and study is not enough, but it helps a lot. I think that the Gospels tell you to strive to get there, by the way. That's the crux.

Bravo to SU for his solid and persuasive moral reasoning! I just can't imagine SU taping an M80 to a carp and releasing it into the water (fuses contain enough O2 to stay lit underwater)... but then again, it is hard to imagine SU mustering the moxie to thread a worm onto a hook to catch the carp in the first place.

[woot]

In the first bolded section, I understand you to be saying that all it takes to get the special profound and sensitive perspective on civil liberties is intense study and thought. That it is inevitable to those that do.

This is a good point. In the recent book "Unscientific America" (which I hated, but nonetheless makes this point well), the authors argue that the problem with America isn't ignorance born of laziness, but rather ignorance born of actively seeking out evidence and points of view that fit one's preconceived conclusions. 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists, birthers, and many other movements comprise many individuals who have done a ton of study and who have given the issues a great deal of thought. The problem is that they don't know how to study and they don't know how to think.

[Clark Addison]

I see the death penalty as a kind of litmus test, along with gay marriage. No doubt there are good people who favor the death penalty or oppose gay marriage. But they certainly lack that special profound and sensitive perspective on civil liberties that inevitably comes from intense study and thought. I hate to generalize, but I think that's generally true. They lack that gift. To me this is the redeeming virtue of Christianity: I think the creators of the Gospels and Paul's letters had this gift. To hear purported Christian belief invoked in favor of the death penalty is sickening, revolting. It's a good example of how American Protestantism has utterly distorted Christianity beyond recognition.

I am 2 for 2 on SU's litmus test. Take that all you insensitive suckers!

[wuapinmon]

I don't accept your definition of gift. In any event, what I mean is that our natural selves are killers. But as humans we have the capacity through reason to see humanity even in heinous killers, and the dehumanizing aspect of killing. That takes a lot of effort; granted, probably thought and study is not enough, but it helps a lot. I think that the Gospels tell you to strive to get there, by the way. That's the crux.

I am fully aware of the humanity of even killers; I've had several disagreements on this very board for advocating against using cruel and unusual punishment against people, and that everyone has rights before the law, even terrorists.

I also am completely aware of the dehumanizing aspect of killing; there is a finality involved in take someone else's life that has no comparisons. Life is that thing which cannot be restored, and taking it away from someone, in essence, takes from them the very quality of their humanity, their life. What strikes me the most about your statement is the sanctimonious tone of how you've said what you said. You make it seem like the only way to view someone else's humanity is through the lens your propose as a 'gift." I think that Humanists abhor all pre-meditated killing (whether legal or illegal), but I also think that the Humanist ideals are not the end-all be-all of human creation. As human thought advances, changes to our laws are often made. Perhaps I'll change my stance someday. I'm not saying that I'm static, hardly, but at this point in my thought process, in which I believe that I have invested the amount of reading and time that you say will lead me to inevitably arrive at your beliefs, I do not think that retribution is the sole reason for the death penalty, and while rehabilitation for some people isn't an option, I do not think that the lifetime spent in isolation is much less dehumanizing than the state-sanctioned killing of someone as a just punishment for their crime(s).

How 'humanist' is it to incarcerate someone for their entire life? You stated that the majority of executions are in the "South" (which I'm sure was not meant as a positive) against people who are minorities with low IQs. Yet, you can get a life sentence in Canada for street racing that results in a death. Doesn't the emotional and psychological toll against someone's humanity, imposed by the state in a life sentence, also dehumanize them? They become inmates, to be housed and monitored for the duration of their lives in a Foucault panopticon model of stripping them of everything they have. Depression abounds, and substance abuse and violent behavior often lead to the ultimate non-lethal punishment: life with isolation.

The problem I see in what you're saying is that humanist principles applied to punishment, as human thought 'progresses,' lead us to a future wherein a humanist perspective could evolve to view all 'punishment' as dehumanizing. While it would be best to rehabilitate people, there are some that can never be rehabilitated. Recidivism in our culture is very high. While we can work to reduce this, I think that sometimes the gravity and seriousness of a crime, especially one that involves the perpetrator dehumanizing their vicitims (e.g. Idi Amin) demands that the punishment be final. This isn't a "let God sort them out" attitude. This is one of careful thought. I think that some crimes demand something greater than life spent in a cell. Surely the substantial increases in the suicide rates of European prisons since the death penalty was abolished point to the agony of the dehumanizing feeling of being confined for life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...detainee-death

The Gospels are a jumbled mess of morality; even Jesus tells people that the Romans are coming (the implication being that Jerusalem will be destroyed as a just punishment for his execution).

[RobinFinderson]

wuap, I agree with you about the cruelty of a life sentence. In some ways 'banishment' is the most philosophically decent thing to do... maybe we can turn Texas into a big penal colony.

[Moliere]

The founding of this country was all about rejecting theocracies and putting government out of theocratic reach and into the hands of the people. Essentially divorcing government from religion. There is even a provision in the Constitution that requires that.

I'm not a consitutional lawyer, but if you are referring to the first amendment then I don't like your argument. Weren't the amendments added only after trying to get ratification from the states. If that is the case, it seems this concept was not at the forefront of the thoughts of the founding fathers (the ones drafting the original constitution).

[SeattleUte]

I am fully aware of the humanity of even killers; I've had several disagreements on this very board for advocating against using cruel and unusual punishment against people, and that everyone has rights before the law, even terrorists.

I also am completely aware of the dehumanizing aspect of killing; there is a finality involved in take someone else's life that has no comparisons. Life is that thing which cannot be restored, and taking it away from someone, in essence, takes from them the very quality of their humanity, their life. What strikes me the most about your statement is the sanctimonious tone of how you've said what you said. You make it seem like the only way to view someone else's humanity is through the lens your propose as a 'gift." I think that Humanists abhor all pre-meditated killing (whether legal or illegal), but I also think that the Humanist ideals are not the end-all be-all of human creation. As human thought advances, changes to our laws are often made. Perhaps I'll change my stance someday. I'm not saying that I'm static, hardly, but at this point in my thought process, in which I believe that I have invested the amount of reading and time that you say will lead me to inevitably arrive at your beliefs, I do not think that retribution is the sole reason for the death penalty, and while rehabilitation for some people isn't an option, I do not think that the lifetime spent in isolation is much less dehumanizing than the state-sanctioned killing of someone as a just punishment for their crime(s).

How 'humanist' is it to incarcerate someone for their entire life? You stated that the majority of executions are in the "South" (which I'm sure was not meant as a positive) against people who are minorities with low IQs. Yet, you can get a life sentence in Canada for street racing that results in a death. Doesn't the emotional and psychological toll against someone's humanity, imposed by the state in a life sentence, also dehumanize them? They become inmates, to be housed and monitored for the duration of their lives in a Foucault panopticon model of stripping them of everything they have. Depression abounds, and substance abuse and violent behavior often lead to the ultimate non-lethal punishment: life with isolation.

The problem I see in what you're saying is that humanist principles applied to punishment, as human thought 'progresses,' lead us to a future wherein a humanist perspective could evolve to view all 'punishment' as dehumanizing. While it would be best to rehabilitate people, there are some that can never be rehabilitated. Recidivism in our culture is very high. While we can work to reduce this, I think that sometimes the gravity and seriousness of a crime, especially one that involves the perpetrator dehumanizing their vicitims (e.g. Idi Amin) demands that the punishment be final. This isn't a "let God sort them out" attitude. This is one of careful thought. I think that some crimes demand something greater than life spent in a cell. Surely the substantial increases in the suicide rates of European prisons since the death penalty was abolished point to the agony of the dehumanizing feeling of being confined for life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...detainee-death

The Gospels are a jumbled mess of morality; even Jesus tells people that the Romans are coming (the implication being that Jerusalem will be destroyed as a just punishment for his execution).

First, whatever you may think about the terrible lot of people serving life sentenes, 99% of incarcerated killers would rather be that way than killed. I had a very memorable discussion with someone in that position just recently. How many volunteer to die, like Gary Gilmore?

In any event, the state as killer and the state as incarcerator is different at a cellular level, I submit. If the state kills prisoners, history shows there IS a slippery slope. Indeed, your own posts show that if you can make a case for killing someone who committed first degree murder you can make a case for someone being put to death who's a traitor. Pretty soon people speaking out against the war are traitors deserving death. You don't think it can happen here? In how much of human history have we had free speech and representative government? Look what happened in the French Revolution, originally motivated by the highest ideals, idolizing the Americal Revolution. The state should not be in the execution business. It's a good bright line.

Killing is a terrible thing; it changes the participants in very destructive ways, regardless of who is being killed. I don't believe it solves anything for victims' families, might even distress them further whether they recognize it or not. Aren't the Gospels adamant that you need to find solace someplace else than vengeance? Let's be honest, vengeance is really the whole point of the death penalty. Right. It's a pretty pathetic lot I see states like Louisiana and Texas seeking vengence against. Meanwhile, I don't see Mark Hoffman volunteering to die. Killing in any context is is so terrible that most of the U.S., including Utah, can't even bring itself to employ the death penalty in any regular or systematic way. It's mostly the province of a few states in the souteast U.S. That should tell you something.

I understand the practical importance of punishment. You can also say there's a metaphysical or moral element, infusing laws with power and meaning. In the end, though, the purpose is to make the laws function, to give them utility. On the other hand, if there were some way to totally rehabilitate criminals and be absolutely sure of no recidivism I'm not sure that the lack of practical necessity for incarceration wouldn't rob it of moral force. Because this is not a realistic scenario I have not given it a lot of thought.

[SeattleUte]

I'm not a consitutional lawyer, but if you are referring to the first amendment then I don't like your argument. Weren't the amendments added only after trying to get ratification from the states. If that is the case, it seems this concept was not at the forefront of the thoughts of the founding fathers (the ones drafting the original constitution).

I don't understand your point. This is the ratification timeline (source: Wikipedia):

Ratification Timeline

September 17, 1787 - Final draft of the Constitution is signed and convention adjourns.
September 28, 1787 - Continental Congress approves sending proposed Constitution to states for their consideration.
December 7, 1787 - Delaware is 1st state to ratify the Constitution.
December 12, 1787 - Pennsylvania is 2nd state to ratify the Constitution.
December 18, 1787 - New Jersey is 3rd state to ratify the Constitution.
January 2, 1788 - Georgia is 4th state to ratify the Constitution.
January 9, 1788 - Connecticut is 5th state to ratify the Constitution.
February 6, 1788 - Massachusetts is 6th state to ratify the Constitution.
March 24, 1788 - Rhode Island REFUSES to call ratifying convention.
April 28, 1788 - Maryland is 7th state to ratify the Constitution.
May 23, 1788 - South Carolina is 8th state to ratify the Constitution.
June 21, 1788 - New Hampshire is 9th state to ratify the Constitution.
June 25, 1788 - Virginia is 10th state to ratify the Constitution.
July 26, 1788 - New York is 11th state to ratify the Constitution.
March 4, 1789 - The Constitution goes into effect.
September 25, 1789 - Congress proposes Bill of Rights.
November 20, 1789 - New Jersey is 1st state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
November 21, 1789 - North Carolina is 12th state to ratify the Constitution.
December 19, 1789 - Maryland is 2nd state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
December 22, 1789 - North Carolina is 3rd state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
January 19, 1790 - South Carolina is 4th state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
January 25, 1790 - New Hampshire is 5th state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
January 28, 1790 - Delaware is 6th state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
February 24, 1790 - New York is 7th state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
March 10, 1790 - Pennsylvania is 8th state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
May 29, 1790 - Rhode Island is 13th state to ratify the Constitution.
June 7, 1790 - Rhode Island is 9th state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
October 17, 1790 - Peace treaty between New York and Vermont paves way for Vermont's admission to the union.
January 10, 1791 - Vermont becomes 14th state to ratify the Constitution - except that it's not a state until March 4, 1791.
November 3, 1791 - Vermont is 10th state to ratify the Bill of Rights.
December 15, 1791 - Virginia is 11th state to ratify the Bill of Rights, and Bill of Rights goes into effect.

Clearly whatever the political machinations, the Bill of Rights were a high priority to those titans from the start. Political machinations as well as lip service to "God" should surprise no one. They were remaking the world, after all.

[All-American]

I don't understand your point. This is the ratification timeline (source: Wikipedia):



Clearly whatever the political machinations, the Bill of Rights were a high priority to those titans from the start. Political machinations as well as lip service to "God" should surprise no one. They were remaking the world, after all.

So RI turned us down. Did we ever re-extend the invitation? Seems to me they shouldn't be in the Union.

Stupid Rhode Island. Not even a real state.

[Moliere]

I don't understand your point. This is the ratification timeline (source: Wikipedia):



Clearly whatever the political machinations, the Bill of Rights were a high priority to those titans from the start. Political machinations as well as lip service to "God" should surprise no one. They were remaking the world, after all.

My point is if separation of church and state was the main reason they were remaking the world, then why wasn't it included in the body of the constitution? Seems odd it would be found in an amendment. I'm just saying that based on where it was found, it would appear to me this was not at the forefront of the founders thinking.

Just my $0.02 as I see it from a non-lawyer perspective.

[SeattleUte]

My point is if separation of church and state was the main reason they were remaking the world, then why wasn't it included in the body of the constitution? Seems odd it would be found in an amendment. I'm just saying that based on where it was found, it would appear to me this was not at the forefront of the founders thinking.

Just my $0.02 as I see it from a non-lawyer perspective.

The whole notion of rejecting the king and establishing a new republic founded on democracy involved rejecting religion. The King's sole authority and justification for being was God, and the Church agreed with him in this. Making government by the people implied rejecting government by God, it was a necessary corrollary. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were worked on concurrently as you see. They were adopted in phases.

My basic point is that America was all about rejecting religion as a foundation or cornerstone for a nation. That was essential in the very nature of what they were doing. And when they gathered together and made their plans or talked less formally or whatever, they were not talking about interstate commerce, etc., they were talking about liberty. The values in the Bill of Rights fired their collective imagination and impelled them to their unprecedented acts from the start.

[Pheidippides]

I don't understand your point. This is the ratification timeline (source: Wikipedia):



Clearly whatever the political machinations, the Bill of Rights were a high priority to those titans from the start. Political machinations as well as lip service to "God" should surprise no one. They were remaking the world, after all.

My recollection (and I'm very rusty here) is that the BoR was a significant bargaining issue and several of the more prominent Fathers refused to recommend ratification until they had received adequate assurances that the BoR would follow immediately. I can't remember which faction it was. Wikipedia tells me that it was the anti-Federalists, but I am not sure I trust Wikipedia. You never know who is doing the editing.