Your arguments are based on the precarious point that ‘government isn’t different’. Government is fundamentally very different. Society empowers government to act on their behalf, and that moral authority permits justice to be exacted by society in ways that individuals cannot. Courts can compel people to pay fines, for an individuals that is called blackmail. Courts can deprive people of their freedoms through incarcerations; if an individual did that it would be kidnapping. And courts can deprive people of their lives, individuals cannot.

Your entire argument could be re-written to apply to most forms of court-administered punishment, which I’m guessing you would then disagree with.

M is J if and only if S.
Only S if D.
P is not D
—————————–
Thus, M of P is not J

M being murder
J is moral
S is self defense
D is imminent danger
P is prisoner(s)

If this was your intended argument you may want to think of a proof of how prisoners do not pose any imminent threat.

your line “P is not D” is not proven. Therefore you cannot prove your conclusion. The premises must support the conclusion for a strong or true argument and in this case that is not how things play out.

This should help clear the fog.

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

23 recent deterrence studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

E Fink – Not very high. Almost all 1st degree murderers die in prison.

Rabbis and lawyers, always adding qualifiers!

What is the recidivism rate of murderers? Not those convicted of the legal construct we call “1st degree murder”. Also, please try to keep in mind that “recidivism” doesn’t only mean “after prison/jail”.

Incarceration protects us. Period.

What is the recidivism rate for murderers? How many juvenile offenders grew up to repeat as adults?

Not very high. Almost all 1st degree murderers die in prison.

Is it moral to maintain a justice system that punishes the innocent and makes them pay with their lives, for the unwillingness to execute capital punishment?,/i>

No. But that is not what happens. Not by a long shot.

What is the recidivism rate for murderers? How many juvenile offenders grew up to repeat as adults?

Is it moral to maintain a justice system that punishes the innocent and makes them pay with their lives, for the unwillingness to execute capital punishment?

What is the recidivism rate for murderers? How many juvenile offenders grew up to repeat as adults?

Is it moral to maintain a justice system that punishes the innocent and makes them pay with their lives, for the unwillingness to execute capital punishment?

the sample sizes are completely skewed and cannot be accurately compared.

Re the deterrent aspect, statisticians have been carefully monitoring those states with the death penalty and those without. In addition, they have looked at pre-death penalty figures and post-death penalty figures. They are pretty much unanimous in saying that having the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent based on state by state comparisons and pre and post comparisons

this is disingenuous since there is no consensus. the only thing everyone agrees on is that there is no real data to corroborate either claim on a state by state comparison since all comparisons end up being apples to oranges. the data, at worst, is inconclusive…

for example, you cannot honestly compare Florida and Massachusetts. there are too many other factors to consider.

I’d agree that the deterrent aspect is a very weak point to support a pro-death penalty argument.

Further, there no evidence that executing a killer “send a message” to any would be killer and certainly not to a “psychopath” who likely won’t get ANY messages…

I think execution is a kind of societal self-defense. When a criminal’s deeds are so severe that they disrupt the very fabric of society, we can either lock him away forever, or send a violent message back to other would-be psychopaths.

You wrongly, amorally or immorally, equated murder and execution.

“Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution–very-distinct-moral-differences–new-mexico.aspx

If so, then the Federal Government has no right to apply such a punishment. HOWEVER, since it is not mentioned in the Constitution, the States have every right to legislate it as they see fit.

no thats wrong too. all are affirmative defenses that can be classified colloquially as “justifiable homicide”. defenses like mental defect, or other mitigating factors are not in the same framework.

“The Law”: you could hardly conceive of more “malice aforethought” than taking the life of another, deliberately, at a pre-designated place and time.

even if i were to accept this as correct, which i dont (so arguing in arguendo) you still havent satisfied the basic elements of murder.

As for “unlawful”, that will depend on what the law is. If unlawful is defined as any unjustified homicide, then Eli’s argument is solid. And whether homicide as punishment is justified or unjustified is, obviously, what his entire argument is about.

well the law permits it so its not unlawful. if you want to argue that the law should be changed then you need to have a completely different discussion under constitutional rubric. Fink knows this, but he also knows that he would lose 8th amend. challenge so he went emotional smoke and mirrors. the only problem is he stopped short. he SHOULD have argued that we know that ppl get wrongly convicted and later exonerated. that means we have undoubtedly executed innocent men. if thats the case, from a moral (NON LEGAL) perspective we have a duty to condemn the death penalty as its risks outweigh potential reward….

But they did … it’s the law that created capital punishment. In fact, it is a law that IIRC was once reversed and then reinstated later!

nit true. defense of other is complete defense. fleeing felon is complete defense.

– If the government is not bound, they need a law that excludes them.

government has created the law. its called teh death penalty. your argumen on this one is circular.

– deterrence is a non-starter, the statistic PROVE there is no correlation between capital punishment and deterrence.

it is a starter and since correlation can NEVER be proven 100% with anything (any statistician will confirm that fact) saying it doesnt correlate is just as weak.

– malice does not mean cold-hearted, it means intent to cause bodily harm

this is not correct, re-read your outline for manslaughter man 1. and Murder 1 and murder 2 and felony murder.

i applaud your argument, and your defense of your argument though….

How can you argue if something is “justified” (i.e. capital punishment) if the very definition of the thing you are using to base your argument on expressly uses the word “unjustified” in its definition? It is quite clear that the “unjustified taking of [a] life” is quite different than “taking [a] life”, otherwise that modifier wouldn’t be necessary!

And war is different because the power to wage war is expressly given to the Federal Government and there is no corollary to civilian law.

I think perhaps that at the base level of definition, the power to wage war is a natural right – because I believe the right to self-defence, either individually or collectively, is a natural right.

Further, I would argue that we could only wage war in self defense or a pre-emptive self defense, something that even the criminal law recognizes.

I would generally agree with these parameters on waging war. Of course that also presupposes that the current world borders are “perfect”, and there is never any excuse to wage war to capture more territory, eliminate a neighboring rival, and/or to strengthen ones own country, strategically or otherwise.

nit true. defense of other is complete defense. fleeing felon is complete defense.

– If the government is not bound, they need a law that excludes them.

government has created the law. its called teh death penalty. your argumen on this one is circular.

– deterrence is a non-starter, the statistic PROVE there is no correlation between capital punishment and deterrence.

it is a starter and since correlation can NEVER be proven 100% with anything (any statistician will confirm that fact) saying it doesnt correlate is just as weak.

– malice does not mean cold-hearted, it means intent to cause bodily harm

this is not correct, re-read your outline for manslaughter man 1. and Murder 1 and murder 2 and felony murder.

i applaud your argument, and your defense of your argument though….

still not a fallacious argument

- I note that there are other legal defenses, they are not complete defenses, thus indicated that the act of killing was still morally objectionable

- deterrence is a non-starter, the statistic PROVE there is no correlation between capital punishment and deterrence.

- malice does not mean cold-hearted, it means intent to cause bodily harm

actually its the UNLAWFUL killing of another with malice aforethought. thats murder 1.

having the gov bound is a HUGE leap.

there are other legal defenses to murder.

last you are assuming the gov only has an interest in protecting and not punishing. and no credence is given to deterrent and future prevention. since if even one life is saved by death penalty its worth it.

last line is too emotional murders kill with malice, we execute murders with just intentions not malice.

gotta work on your closing…

but you did the best with the terrible side you had to be on…

And war is different because the power to wage war is expressly given to the Federal Government and there is no corollary to civilian law. Further, I would argue that we could only wage war in self defense or a pre-emptive self defense, something that even the criminal law recognizes.

But you’ve fallen for the logical fallacy of first introducing “murder” and then “taking [a] life”, and using the fallacious relationship for the rest of the argument. It’s akin to the very common translation error of translating “לא תרצח” as “do not kill” (incorrect) rather than “do not murder” (correct). They are two completely different things and two completely different concepts.

In addition, using your fallacious argument, the logical conclusion would be that you cannot wage war except directly against those that are an immediate threat to you, which, of course, is not the way war is ever waged.