Human imperfection is one of the reasons I don't support killing even heinous murderers. You can't actually have a system that kills only heinious murderers. You can only have system that kill those highly imperfect people in a highly imperfect system decide are heinious murderers.
There is another point too. Yes governments and human decisions to make life and death decisions; as a non-pacifist I agree that sometimes they have to. But my feeling is that when death is the decision the only excuse is neccesity; defensive wars where it is him or you; the cop on the street who kills the guy about to smash in the head of the baby. And you know that both these excuses get abused. We fight wars that are not defensive in the name of defense. Cops kill people on occassion when they are not in danger. I don't think we should ever kill anybody when there is a reasonable alternative. Imprisonment is such a reasonable alternative. Not perfect; an imprisoned murder may get out and kill again, or kill someone in prison; but reasonable nonethless - usually none of those things happen.
In short I accept killing on ocassion as a lesser evil - an imperfect choice in an imperfect world. I do not accept killing because some one deserves it. I do not accept killing to try and achieve justice, or to satisify the emotional need for veangence or to try and achieve perfect safety. We are not as gods, when we try to act as though we are we are, we are much more likely to achieve the opposite and become devils.
And, it's always been sort of odd to me that we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong.
That's my big intellectual objection: the message is actually that killing people without the proper authority to do so is wrong. My practical objections are, as noted, that we are fallable, and bureaucratically speaking, extremely fallible. (Can't decide which way to spell that. See? Falliable.) My moral objections are that the system as it exists is so incredibly heavily weighted in favor or some and against others, that it is a reprehensible notion to carry that imbalance to choosing who has the right to live. Add to all of that that it is far from established that the death penalty has any deterrent or crime fighting factor whatsoever, and there's just no justifying it.
And I'll conclude by echoing this:
In short I accept killing on ocassion as a lesser evil - an imperfect choice in an imperfect world. I do not accept killing because some one deserves it. I do not accept killing to try and achieve justice, or to satisify the emotional need for veangence or to try and achieve perfect safety. We are not as gods, when we try to act as though we are we are, we are much more likely to achieve the opposite and become devils.
Three-peat:
Now, on weightier matters:
I am finally home from work. It is cold outside. It is warm inside. I will shortly adjourn to the bath, with a novel I picked up on a whim that is unexpectedly meaty and engrossing. But. I have no wine. Do I want
a)Port
b)Drambuie, or
c)Ponche Caballero?
Things to consider:
The port is unopened. The Ponche is open, but low, and damn near irreplaceable once it's gone. The Drambuie has neither of these problems. But I really kind of want the Ponche.
the message is actually that killing people without the proper authority to do so is wrong
But that's standard, as long as we prosecute murderers and go to war. I can't see either stopping.
mmmmm CHiPs
Ooh, speaking of (kinda). Reichen from Chip and Reichen is on the cover of one of the gay mags here. Boy put some of that million bucks into a personal trainer, and it was clearly not wasted.
I have friend who is a public defender. Once when we were talking about how so many of her peer burn out (amazing number of alcoholics on her team,) she said she keeps herself sane and healthy by not seeking justice, but seeking to make the justice system work to the best of its abilities (well, and she plays a lot of Grand Theft Auto, but that's not relevant here.) That sort of sums up my thinking on ...well, a lot of things. I'd love that justice is served, but..no. A system is served. In the interests of serving justice. But...it's still a system. And I don't honestly trust that to unilaterally deliver true justice. Hell, I don't really trust myself. So no death penalty in my imperfect world.
But that's standard, as long as we prosecute murderers and go to war. I can't see either stopping.
I don't think so. As Gar noted, there are some cases (war, in theory) when killing is unavoidable. We don't prosecute people for killing by necessity, i.e., self-defense. We do prosecute people for killing for vengeance, even when it would be considered arguably just. Only the state gets to do that.
But that's standard, as long as we prosecute murderers and go to war. I can't see either stopping.
Well, execute murders. Its the where we get to Typo Boy's occasional lesser evil.
