Barbarism, or, the Death Penalty

William S. Lear rael at zopyra.com
Tue Mar 2 13:52:59 PST 1999


On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 22:53:04 (EST) MScoleman at aol.com writes:
>I confess that I am only opposed to capital punishment because it is
>too expensive. ...

Of course --- the hallowed pragmatic concern.


> .... It is simply less expensive to keep someone in jail for
>life than it is to put them to death. And no I don't think the death
>penalty has a deterrent effect. And yes I am sure that many of those
>on death row are there because of some form of institutional racism
>(although in New York State in particular, the majority of death row
>inmates are white males). HOWEVER, some people commit such grievous
>offences they should be put to death. ...

So you therefore feel the premeditated murder of a defenseless human being (carried out by the state, no less) is morally justified? Welcome to the Dark Ages ...


> ... I also think that
>individuals should take responsibilities for their own actions. To
>not require responsibility on the part of the individual is to demean
>the individual, to say s/he is incapable of responsibility. To not
>put someone to death of taking actions which society finds abhorrent
>means that we admire those people who do take responsibilty of their
>lives less. What about all the white men who grew up in Texas who
>DON'T engage in racist practicies, who DON'T lynch blacks, etc.?
>Aren't we saying less about them?

This is a horrific mess. Demanding that people "take responsibility" does not mean that they should be murdered in cold blood. You only tacked that on because it makes you feel good, not because it follows from your assumptions. Of course people should take responsibility --- and they should be held responsible --- for their actions. To murder a defenseless human being is wrong. Anyone who engages in such a practice is committing a moral crime against humanity. Ergo, to choose *not* to murder a defenseless human being is to uphold principles taken by those humans who choose to act as moral agents --- it is not to demean these principles as you wrongly claim.


>From time to time, sadly, we will find it necessary to remove people
from society because they pose too great a threat to others' freedoms (including life, naturally). At the time we find such removal necessary, we are obligated as moral agents to do so in the most humane manner possible. To do otherwise is simply to abandon moral responsibility and to let hatred and vengeance govern our actions.

Bill



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list