Linus wrote on Aug 4
th, 2023 at 6:28pm:
Quote:Frank wrote on Aug 4
th, 2023 at 5:04pm:
Like that other idiot from Perth, Bbwian of Very Little Bbrain, you are only able to assert something, creepy turd, but never actually back it up with reasons or a valid argument.
Roger Scruton explains the justness of the death penalty eloquently:
The issue seems quite simple to me. We have a right to punish crimes; the just punishment is the one that is deserved; some crimes are such that they deserve death. In such cases we ought to be merciful if we can. But not if, by being merciful, we show contempt for the victim. I am not sure that I agree with all Catholic teaching on this issue, but I have always found much good sense in the Islamic view, that the murderer cannot be forgiven, except by those who have been directly injured by his act – namely the family of his victim. They can sue for mercy on his behalf, and are allowed by Islamic law to do so. We bystanders cannot sue for mercy, since we have not been injured, and to presume to grant mercy nevertheless is to trample on the rights of the victim’s family.
Of course, there are murders and murders. But how anybody could think that Hitler did not deserve death, or that it would have been wrong, had he been captured, to inflict it, beats me. I agree with Hegel here: that this kind of murderer does not merely deserve death, but has a right to it, and that the only way to respect his dignity – to treat him as the free agent that he is – is to inflict death upon him.
When we punish a criminal in this way, we are not killing him: killing is what he did. We are rectifying an injustice by inflicting the just punishment, which happens to be death. When he trampled on the rights of his victim he knew that this would be the course that the law must take: so it is from his decision, not ours, that his punishment proceeds, and he is the one who has ultimate responsibility for his punishment. It is not we, but he, who is the author of his death. Our duty is to make sure that he really is guilty beyond doubt, and to ensure, if we can, that he can die with dignity.A longer exposition of the argument for capital punishment:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/08/capital-punishment-the-case-for-just... I’ve read this. It’s very well written and articulates many points we’ve raised on OzPol (over the years ...not just in this topic).
Hmmm,Scruton is a British philosopher and conservative.
So??
Quote:It's interesting that he finds justification in Islam. I suppose if you believe in "eye for an eye" type of justice, then he'd be appealing. But this justice is promotes vengeance and thus is morally flawed in my opinion. I think a humane and rehabilitative approach is on firmer moral grounds.
Which is NOT what Scruton is arguing here at all. He is arguing about WHO has the right to forgive.
Quote:Scruton has also argued that the death penalty is a deterrent to potential criminals. It's unfortunate for his argument that studies have failed to establish a clear causal relationship between capital punishment and reduced crime rates.
Moreover, focusing solely on deterrence overlooks the importance of addressing the underlying socio-economic factors that contribute to crime.
Where did he argue THAT? Not in the quote I posted. If you introduce new material do tell us what it is, dont just assert it.
Quote:Another aspect of Scrutons argumentation is that the death penalty offers closure and healing to the victims' families. Maybe not. The prolonged and often unpredictable legal processes surrounding capital punishment can cause additional pain and trauma to the families of both the victims and the convicted. In contrast, alternatives such as life imprisonment can offer closure while avoiding the irreversible nature of the death penalty.
Nonsense. Again, you are speaking for other people without any justification or evidence to back you up.
Quote:Furthermore, the death penalty is inherently flawed due to the potential for wrongful convictions. Numerous cases throughout history have demonstrated the fallibility of the justice system, leading to the execution of innocent individuals. Once an innocent person is put to death, there is no way to rectify the grave error. This aspect of the death penalty raises profound ethical and moral concerns and undermines the argument for its justness.
This has been addressed, do not ignore it and pretend otherwise. There are criminals who are guilty beyond ANY doubt.
Quote:From a human rights perspective, the death penalty is seen as a violation of the right to life and the principle of human dignity. The United Nations and many countries consider the death penalty to be a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. It is worth considering that a society's commitment to justice and human rights can be better upheld by adopting more humane and rehabilitative approaches to criminal justice.
From a human rights perspective, premeditated murder is the violation of the right to life and human dignity.
Quote:Restorative justice and the rehabilitation of offenders is mor preferable
How?
Forum
Pages: 
