4 ms·

In Canada it was argued that democratic consent of the death penalty means you personally would be prepared to act as executioner. Most voters said no, legalize

In Canada it was argued that democratic consent of the death penalty means you personally would be prepared to act as executioner. Most voters said no, legalized murder of other adult citizens is ethically unacceptable whatever the conditions. If the death penalty was done like jury duty, where citizens were asked to take turns being executioners nobody except the deranged would agree to it. Reminds me of various cables from the front sent to commanders of the 'Axis' where they lamented how soldiers were uncomfortable or downright refusing to execute prisoners so they abstracted the entire nasty work of organized state murder away to solve this problem. Replace human conscience with bland prison bureaucracy and systems structures. Everybody passes paper, nobody thinks they are ethically responsible.

mistermann 11y ago
> If the death penalty was done like jury duty, where citizens were asked to take turns being executioners nobody except the deranged would agree to it. I don't know, if I had the details and felt confident that the person was indeed guilty, I don't think it would cause me much anguish to push the button. However, if I didn't agree with the jury's decision of guilt, forcing that person to do it would be extremely inhumane, it could ruin your life.
- derefr 11y ago
  That's an interesting thought. Imagine if you needed the same jury of twelve people who were present at the trial, to all push a button simultaneously in order to mete out whatever punishment they had decided was fair. (Anyone other than those twelve might be acting on bias or stereotype due to a lack of information about the case, after all.) In fact, to go a bit further with this—imaging that ongoing punishment required getting this group of people back together at regular intervals and getting them all to push the button again. (For example, meting out a lifetime prison sentence one year, or one month, at a time.) It isn't meant to cause re-evaluation due to the meeting being a hassle, so maybe they could just do this online—but it should cause re-evaluation of whether each juror still feels as strongly about the person's sentence now as they did before. One could even imagine a situation where any capitol punishment would be measured in QALYs, and then the jury each have to do that many man-years of confirming in order to apply the punishment. (Thus, applying a sentence of death to an eighteen-year-old would require decades of total work, or years per juror.) That seems about the right weight upon one's conscience. It would also mean you'd probably never be able to do jury duty more than once in your life.
gizmo686 11y ago
I don't like the arguement that if you are not willing to do or watch something that it should not be done. I, for example, do not want to inform people that their loved ones have died, but that does not mean that as a society we should not do it.
JesperRavn 11y ago
Does Canada have an armed forces? Is everyone in it deranged?
- pakled_engineer 11y ago
  Do you know what a court martial is? It's typically where you end up after executing prisoners.
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    Why do you consider execution so different from killing people in combat?
    - cromulent 11y ago
      They are by definition different things, and legally considered so by the signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Execution is putting someone to death, typically where they have no power to affect the outcome. Killing uniformed soldiers in open combat is not execution - (it's combat, hence the name). Killing civilians, prisoners, wounded, etc can be considered execution and as such a war crime.
beloch 11y ago
"Most voters said no" I'm curious about your argument. The death penalty was suspended, limited, limited again, and finally the last loopholes allowing it in special case were closed by the passing of more than one bill by parliament, none of which were referendums. Are you basing this on polls?
- pakled_engineer 11y ago
  Basing it on representatives who campaigned with abolitionist policy who were elected like Pearson and Trudeau. Constituents also let their MPs know in the 1980s the attempt to reinstate executions wouldn't be tolerated so it failed to pass, of course back when representative democracy sort of worked and parties weren't just hawkish theatre like they are now.

mistermann 11y ago

> If the death penalty was done like jury duty, where citizens were asked to take turns being executioners nobody except the deranged would agree to it. I don't know, if I had the details and felt confident that the person was indeed guilty, I don't think it would cause me much anguish to push the button. However, if I didn't agree with the jury's decision of guilt, forcing that person to do it would be extremely inhumane, it could ruin your life.

derefr 11y ago
That's an interesting thought. Imagine if you needed the same jury of twelve people who were present at the trial, to all push a button simultaneously in order to mete out whatever punishment they had decided was fair. (Anyone other than those twelve might be acting on bias or stereotype due to a lack of information about the case, after all.) In fact, to go a bit further with this—imaging that ongoing punishment required getting this group of people back together at regular intervals and getting them all to push the button again. (For example, meting out a lifetime prison sentence one year, or one month, at a time.) It isn't meant to cause re-evaluation due to the meeting being a hassle, so maybe they could just do this online—but it should cause re-evaluation of whether each juror still feels as strongly about the person's sentence now as they did before. One could even imagine a situation where any capitol punishment would be measured in QALYs, and then the jury each have to do that many man-years of confirming in order to apply the punishment. (Thus, applying a sentence of death to an eighteen-year-old would require decades of total work, or years per juror.) That seems about the right weight upon one's conscience. It would also mean you'd probably never be able to do jury duty more than once in your life.

gizmo686 11y ago

I don't like the arguement that if you are not willing to do or watch something that it should not be done. I, for example, do not want to inform people that their loved ones have died, but that does not mean that as a society we should not do it.

JesperRavn 11y ago

Does Canada have an armed forces? Is everyone in it deranged?

pakled_engineer 11y ago
Do you know what a court martial is? It's typically where you end up after executing prisoners.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  Why do you consider execution so different from killing people in combat?
  - cromulent 11y ago
    They are by definition different things, and legally considered so by the signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Execution is putting someone to death, typically where they have no power to affect the outcome. Killing uniformed soldiers in open combat is not execution - (it's combat, hence the name). Killing civilians, prisoners, wounded, etc can be considered execution and as such a war crime.

beloch 11y ago

"Most voters said no" I'm curious about your argument. The death penalty was suspended, limited, limited again, and finally the last loopholes allowing it in special case were closed by the passing of more than one bill by parliament, none of which were referendums. Are you basing this on polls?

pakled_engineer 11y ago
Basing it on representatives who campaigned with abolitionist policy who were elected like Pearson and Trudeau. Constituents also let their MPs know in the 1980s the attempt to reinstate executions wouldn't be tolerated so it failed to pass, of course back when representative democracy sort of worked and parties weren't just hawkish theatre like they are now.