Is Capital Punishment Legalised Murder?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know, especially in a comicbook universe. If a supervillain is about to set off a nuclear weapon isn't it less wrong to kill him and save thousands of people then to let him kill thousands of people.

Originally posted by 753
in batman's universe there is always another way. his refusal to kill never leads to an immediate body count (not counting people he could have killed, commiting murder away from his eyes when they run from arkham) and the victims the villains do kill, he wouldn't be able to save with lethal methods

Should it matter that the body count isn't immediate?

What if the bomb is on a 1hr delay? 2 hours? A day?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know, especially in a comicbook universe. If a supervillain is about to set off a nuclear weapon isn't it less wrong to kill him and save thousands of people then to let him kill thousands of people.

that might be true, if we make some type of utilitarian moral "cost/benefit" descision, but the point was in terms of the character batman.

There are many times that he has had the opportunity to kill Joker... iirc in "Hush" Gordon yells at him for trying to save Joker's life. The point is, to Batman, killing is what makes evil people evil.

My point wasn't that the world wouldn't be a better place without the Joker, but rather, that not killing is so integral to the motivation Batman has for being batman, that if someone thinks he should just go out and kill evil people, they are missing the point entirely.

So, same with Spider-Man, sure, he could decide some night that the burden of keeping people safe isn't his alone, spend it with his wife, etc. But integral to the character's narrative universe is the fact that, it is his duty to help because he is able to. This is why terrible things always happens when he takes a night off.

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't know, to me I don't think violence solves anything.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Except during World War II.

so, in your opinion, the only time it is ethical to use violence is when faced with a fascist state intent on global conquest through force and mass genocide?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, in your opinion, the only time it is ethical to use violence is when faced with a fascist state intent on global conquest through force and mass genocide?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sounds like a good enough to reason to take a stand.

ok, but killing a murderer, or even a child murderer, does not fit that qualification.

so, in terms of the death penalty, if we use WW2 as a resonable example, the only people who should be executed are those who are part of an organization akin to the Nazi government of Germany.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but killing a murderer, or even a child murderer, does not fit that qualification.

so, in terms of the death penalty, if we use WW2 as a resonable example, the only people who should be executed are those who are part of an organization akin to the Nazi government of Germany.

Americans fighting British people/Nazis is mankind's ultimate (and only) justification for violence.

so, in the regular, day to day, use of the death penatly, you would agree that it surves no real purpose? or that it shouldn't be used, except in the incredibly limited scope you presented (re: in practice, essentially never)

Originally posted by inimalist
so, in the regular, day to day, use of the death penatly, you would agree that it surves no real purpose? or that it shouldn't be used, except in the incredibly limited scope you presented (re: in practice, essentially never)

I would argue the death penalty serves as a potential three-way of either one or a combination of A.) punishment, B.) deterrent, and C.) cost-saving device. I've heard the argument that the lethal injection method, and the lengthy appeal process can cost many millions... But remove them and replace them with a final verdict and a rope--cost drops significantly.

As ruthlessly efficient as that model is though, I have a personal problem with sacrificing the few, but very real, people who are wrongfully convicted. I've amended my stance so that the death penalty should only be performed on the mass murderers/serial killers (the likes of Bundy, or the guys who committed the Oklahoma Bombing or Columbine shooting [should they have lived]), and those who confess to murder (for whatever their reason). To the... comparatively casual killer--life in prison, no parole. But at least they may one day be proven innocent (if they are).

But aside from laws, and costs, and risks, I have no ethical problem with executing a murderer/rapist/terrorist/traitor.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Should it matter that the body count isn't immediate?

What if the bomb is on a 1hr delay? 2 hours? A day?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, I was being frivolous.

I would argue the death penalty serves as a potential three-way of either one or a combination of A.) punishment, B.) deterrent, and C.) cost-saving device. I've heard the argument that the lethal injection method, and the lengthy appeal process can cost many millions... But remove them and replace them with a final verdict and a rope--cost drops significantly.

As ruthlessly efficient as that model is though, I have a personal problem with sacrificing the few, but very real, people who are wrongfully convicted. I've amended my stance so that the death penalty should only be performed on the mass murderers/serial killers (the likes of Bundy, or the guys who committed the Oklahoma Bombing or Columbine shooting [should they have lived]), and those who confess to murder (for whatever their reason). To the... comparatively casual killer--life in prison, no parole. But at least they may one day be proven innocent (if they are).

But aside from laws, and costs, and risks, I have no ethical problem with executing a murderer/rapist/terrorist/traitor.

ok, but now Liberator's point is valid. When we are talking about murderers who are already caught and in prison, what purpose does killing them solve?

punishment? hardly, if we want to be vindictive, there are fates much worse than dying by a noose

deterent? there is no evidence that this works

costs? the costs of killing a person are part of the legal process that ensure that innocent people aren't killed. Reducing costs actually increases the chance that innocent people are going to die, the specific thing you said you didn't want to have happen.

in all but a very few examples (and ww2 isn't as hot of an example as you think, were the world actually not singing the graces of Hitler's economic transformation of Germany, there were plenty of opportunities to stop him short of a world war), killing and violence really do solve nothing.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but now Liberator's point is valid. When we are talking about murderers who are already caught and in prison, what purpose does killing them solve?

punishment? hardly, if we want to be vindictive, there are fates much worse than dying by a noose

Originally posted by inimalist
deterent? there is no evidence that this works

Originally posted by inimalist
costs? the costs of killing a person are part of the legal process that ensure that innocent people aren't killed. Reducing costs actually increases the chance that innocent people are going to die, the specific thing you said you didn't want to have happen.

To the willing confessors of "lesser" murders, such as the recent case of Russell Williams... hang 'em. He even tried to off himself.

I also forgot to add justice to the list. Don't start pontificating on just what "justice" is. To me, it's a murderer being killed. Maybe tortured some too, depending on what they did.

Originally posted by inimalist
in all but a very few examples (and ww2 isn't as hot of an example as you think, were the world actually not singing the graces of Hitler's economic transformation of Germany, there were plenty of opportunities to stop him short of a world war), killing and violence really do solve nothing.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Name them, and apply them. Just not the expensive ones.

solitary confinement

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, there isn't. But in the minds of the few... "few" can be any number you like... that DO fear death, and who will think twice when a long drop and a short stop are on the line... then good.

that is totally not true. The only type of murder this might apply to are hitmen, as people who otherwise commit murder do it out of emotion or compulsion.

Fear of reprecussion is not something people are considering when they commit murder

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm not looking for discount killings at the Saturday matinee. I want a rope, a trap door, a lever, and a guy to pull it. Pierrepoint-style. I know that courts cost money. There's no "cheap" trial. But when a mass murderer/serial killer is proven guilty, kill him. READ: mass-murderer/serial killer. Not your run-of-the-mill stabbing or drive-by. Psycho f*cks.

To the willing confessors of "lesser" murders, such as the recent case of Russell Williams... hang 'em. He even tried to off himself.

all you have done is restate what I said was errorous. You are right, eliminating the lengthy and costly court process would reduce costs, but there is no way to do this without also increasing the number of innocent people who are killed

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I also forgot to add justice to the list. Don't start pontificating on just what "justice" is. To me, it's a murderer being killed. Maybe tortured some too, depending on what they did.

wow, clearly you have a strong impression of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

EDIT: and this addresses the OP's point anyways, as these things can only be seen as "ok" if we accept the principle that "when the state does it, its not illegal"

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Really didn't get it, huh? The whole World War II and Star Wars thing wasn't serious.

so you don't think violence was justified to stop the Nazis? You agree that violence solves nothing?

like, way to be all snarky and a prickly pear, but you have to make your sarcasm internally consistent with the point you are making, but you are right, brining up ww2 was a bad example on your part, as it has nothing to do with the death penalty except in tangentals

Originally posted by 753
this does not matter. if the bomb will go off in an hour or a day, how does killing the joker help diffuse it?

The Joker is about to press the button that will in 5 hours blow up a random city. Batman, or you, can only stop him from pressing it by lethal force for [contrived reason].

Can you really say that it is moral to let the Joker kill hundreds of thousands of people just because they're more removed in time and space than he is?

Originally posted by 753
in his universe he can either prevent murder through non-lethal ways or there is nothing he can do to prevent it. he's never let people die by not taking an action he could take to eliminate the threat while it existed. you could claim the joker always escapes and kills again another day, but that's different, it's speculation on future events and he does not pose a threat while incarcerated.

It's not really any more speculation than "If drop an apple it will fall to the ground." Yes, it might shoot off to the left but after hundreds of experiments the apple always falls to the ground and the Joker always kills again.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Joker is about to press the button that will in 5 hours blow up a random city. Batman, or you, can only stop him from pressing it by lethal force for [contrived reason].

Can you really say that it is moral to let the Joker kill hundreds of thousands of people just because they're more removed in time and space than he is?

It's not really any more speculation than "If drop an apple it will fall to the ground." Yes, it might shoot off to the left but after hundreds of experiments the apple always falls to the ground and the Joker always kills again.

Originally posted by inimalist
solitary confinement

Originally posted by inimalist
that is totally not true. The only type of murder this might apply to are hitmen, as people who otherwise commit murder do it out of emotion or compulsion.

Fear of reprecussion is not something people are considering when they commit murder

Originally posted by inimalist
all you have done is restate what I said was errorous. You are right, eliminating the lengthy and costly court process would reduce costs, but there is no way to do this without also increasing the number of innocent people who are killed

Originally posted by inimalist
wow, clearly you have a strong impression of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: and this addresses the OP's point anyways, as these things can only be seen as "ok" if we accept the principle that "when the state does it, its not illegal"

Originally posted by inimalist
so you don't think violence was justified to stop the Nazis? You agree that violence solves nothing?

When the Nazis invade Canada, I'll be the first to cry out to it's defenders: "Violence solves nothing!"

Originally posted by inimalist
like, way to be all snarky and a prickly pear, but you have to make your sarcasm internally consistent with the point you are making, but you are right, brining up ww2 was a bad example on your part, as it has nothing to do with the death penalty except in tangentals

Originally posted by inimalist
that might be true, if we make some type of utilitarian moral "cost/benefit" descision, but the point was in terms of the character batman.

There are many times that he has had the opportunity to kill Joker... iirc in "Hush" Gordon yells at him for trying to save Joker's life. The point is, to Batman, killing is what makes evil people evil.

My point wasn't that the world wouldn't be a better place without the Joker, but rather, that not killing is so integral to the motivation Batman has for being batman, that if someone thinks he should just go out and kill evil people, they are missing the point entirely.

So, same with Spider-Man, sure, he could decide some night that the burden of keeping people safe isn't his alone, spend it with his wife, etc. But integral to the character's narrative universe is the fact that, it is his duty to help because he is able to. This is why terrible things always happens when he takes a night off.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Will the taxpayers have to pay for the food we give them?

price of incarceration was your issue, not mine

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're right there. Kinda. I've greatly desired to murder someone who didn't deserve it, but... fear of 6 years in jail stayed my hand. When I know that death is on the line, I'm even more wary. And that's just me. Not the crazy f*ck down the road who doesn't care about 6 years but who does fear oblivion. Even if there's only a dozen guys like that in a country, that's a dozen innocent people not being murdered because there would-be killer is afraid to die. If killing mass murderers and self-confessed killers uninspires even [b]one person... I'm satisfied.[/B]

lol, so you would willingly admit that, in the abscense of punishment, you would kill someone?

🙄 hard-to-the-core bra!

all existant literature on human behaviour disagrees with you, and if you REALLY believe what you said, you need psychiatric help.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There's a difference between the expensive trial and the expensive appeal. And as I've stated: in my books, a CONVICTED MURDERER, will not die. A convicted MASS MURDERER (Columbine-esque) or SERIAL KILLER (Bundy-esque, etc.) or CONFESSOR--[b]will die. So there's plenty-a time left for the "normie" killers to appeal their sentence, and why? Because their sentence isn't death. I'm getting sick of repeating this. [/B]

I can't imagine these cases make up a significant percentage of death row inmates, so there would be almost no drop in costs. Even then, convicted mass murderers deserve the same chance of appeal as anyone else, and confessions are often forced, not to mention many psychological issues that can cause people to confess to crimes they didn't commit.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't start tossing out "good and bad" morality scales. I have a clear impression of who a murderer is, and who isn't. And I leave that labeling up to police/judges/juries.

yes, you do, it is "who the state says is a murderer".

though, you really don't have a good argument for why it isn't murder when the state does it, aside from "the state can do what it wants"

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't know if you've been living in Anarchyville recently, but... when the state does it, it IS legal. Is it useful and/or just is what I care (more) about.

well, since all available statistics are against it being useful, I'll do you a solid and argue in terms of just /sigh

"when the state does it, it is just" is your argument then? "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscious bother you?"

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I agree that violence solves many things. Not everything. But many things. I also agree that there are alternatives to violence even if violence would work. Not all the time. But sometimes.

what does it solve?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
When the Nazis invade Canada, I'll be the first to cry out to it's defenders: "Violence solves nothing!"

God, I feel for the morons who ever try to invade Canada

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's sweet of you to decide when I can or when I can not joke, or when I am or am not being snarky. It's appreciated. It's also good of you to take in to consideration that I was referring to violence against the Nazis/Darth Vader, not capital punishment. 🙄

you don't see capital punishment as a form of violence?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Could you explain to me what the point is? Is it that Batman doesn't kill because it's not apart of his character? If so, that's a very horrible justification.

I'm not trying to justify his actions or apply the context of Gotham City to the real world, what I am saying, is that as a narrative, Batman's universe doesn't work if he kills. Desiring Batman to kill the Joker, or thinking it would be a better "batman", ignores this.

What I'm saying is that the poster's comment ignores Batman's character and mythos in the same way ignoring "with great power comes great responsibility" would ruin spiderman.

The Batman narrative sets a clear line of justification in Batman's actions. He is good, even when he is torturing information out of street thugs, because he doesn't kill, because he has some moral compass. We can disagree with that compass, we can speak in terms of utilitarianism, but at the end of the day, "not killing" is how batman works. He HAS to believe in redemption based on his own character, he HAS to believe not killing is more effective than killing, or else his own behaviour and perspective on the world make no sense.

Similarily, Spider-man could be much more ego-centric, but in the end, if that didn't end up, say, killing uncle ben or letting Carnage go ape-shit on Venom and Black Cat, it wouldn't be an appropriate treatment of the character's mythos. God, the entire Gwen Stacey thing is this.... but I'm not going to let myself rant about comics....