What are the best philosophical / religious arguments on supporting

>>2087656
For society, effectively murdering dangerous criminals, is, for all terms and purposes, cheap.
That is, if you take ethics our of the picture, but frankly, the fact that society will make mistakes, and murder innocents, is made to be a bigger issue than it is.

File: YooniqImages_102033058.jpg (271KB, 700x978px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 700x978px

>>2087656
That the failure to execute a criminal only results in:
>the victims never fully getting closure
>The endangerment of all other inmates assuming the individual is guilty of a sex offense or violence
>The moral wrong of forcing tax payers to pay for someone who is actively harming society
>The lazy intellectualism that makes weak hearted 1st worlders to equate execution with murder.
>The long cruelty of making an inmate wait for death through natural means rather than swiftly and painlessly ending it.
>The societal ill that weak repercussions for crime result in more crime in said civilization
and those are just the ones off of my head
>Inb4 "Heuhheuh death penalty costs too much" fuck off economic need spurs invention and innovation - there are cheaper and more humane methods to end human life and we would find them.

>>2087709
It's not killing people that's expensive, it's t he appeals and judicial process for death row that's expensive.

>>2087656
it makes people appreciate life more

File: 1480963985045.jpg (92KB, 960x722px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 960x722px

>>2087656
Good question OP.
Its nice to see threads on /his/ that arent "Is he our guy, why is this country/culture different from another country/culture, Is communism really that bad? tell me about orthodoxy or convince me not to tip my fedora"

>>2087716
I do remember hearing that the mixture of chemicals are hard to come by and extremely expensive but maybe things have changed since I researched this stufff 2 years ago.
Again, economic need spurs innovation. If there was a need the judicial system would be reformed to accommodating, less appeals ect to speed up/cheapen the process.

>>2087656
Utilitarianism

if killing the few will grant pleasure to the many you are morally obligated to do so.

>>2087741
what's wrong with a firing squad?

>>2087744
Or Steve, the happiest man in the world.

>>2087744
on the flipside, I don't think it will work on Kantism

>univeral maxim that you can kill people that killed people
>snowballing that everyone can kill anyone because they all killed someone

Best argument for : It is rational means to deter criminals from committing murder.

Counter-argument : If a ethics theory is to be impersonal it must be founded on ideals. Moral actions are therefore absolute, and killing is always immoral.

>>2087709
>>The societal ill that weak repercussions for crime result in more crime in said civilization
The data on the ineffectiveness of the harshest penalties on crime rates is well-researched.
If you want hyperretributive justice, then just say so - it's legitimate to value that - but don't pretend that you're doing it for utilitarian reasons.

Most people say the death penalty is for serial killers but serial killers are pretty rare with is why they get the most attention. Usually the reasons for murder is adultery, political assassination, and a side effect for theft. Barring adultery, political murder is simple in that the opposing side is already evil by the standards of their ideal so their death is justified (extreme yes but, if you found Hitler on the street would you kill them? If from /pol/, replace Hitler with Stalin or Mao). Theft-based murder is even more ambiguous. So one says that one should kill those that threaten their lives but ones life is constantly under threat by poverty. To alleviate that threat you take what will do so (money, food, etc.) if one gets in the way of that then they prevent you from alleviating the threat and thus threatening your life. Even moreso since the law identifying you disobeying it is in itself a threat to your life so there's no point following its laws after the fact since you are already marked as an enemy of society. So the punishment gets trivialized by simple cost-benefit analysis. Either way you are fucked whether you follow the order or not. Only difference is that if you do follow the order the fucking is certain whereas if you don't it isn't. If the law makes it effective enough for the fucking to be certain (the "tough on crime" argument) then the cost:benefit is 50:50 (so at least the crime-rate won't get worse).

File: 1464682595658.jpg (180KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 517x768px

>>2087766
>Taking kant as a legitimate philosopher
Ohkay.

>>2087827
>The data on the ineffectiveness of the harshest penalties on crime rates is well-researched.

Link? Not him I'm just curious.

File: Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg (17KB, 220x317px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 220x317px

>>2088116
name a flaw

File: Duterte-940x580.jpg (98KB, 940x580px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 940x580px

>>2087827
I just looked, those studies are taking into account "time served" as punishment - and rely on the inability of the populous to know what the punishment is.

Throwing someone in jail for 5 extra years as a deterrent and killing them is a completely different matter. Off the top of my head I would cite several Indonesian / Asian nations that started sentencing drug dealers to death in order to cut down on the heroine epidemic in the respective countries... it worked.

>>2087741
>extremely expensive
More than 15 years on death row?

>>2088137
>Posting SEA Mexican El Presidente.
Death Penalties follow a legal process.
That Guy isnt using legal means at all, but nigger justice of gangland style hits. Not to mention he's just hitting users and not druglords, some of whom could be his friends.

File: 1477748444469.jpg (439KB, 2000x1310px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 2000x1310px

>>2088129
Sure thing ive read Kant's critique of reason as well as graduated with a political science degree with a minor in history.
> The categorical imperative
Kant runs into many of the same problems that every other enlightenment secular thinker runs into (locke, ect.) which is "humanism" or secular philosophies inability to justify and form a proper set of morality or ethics without running into logical contradictions, the very fact that human rights are the quintessential boogieman of people who believe in subjective morality or a non-divine doctrine of ethics/laws which would be found in Abraham religions and others proves the philosophical roadblock which was never adressed.

"First, because all duties are absolute, it can’t help us to resolve conflicts of duty (for example, telling the truth vs. protecting your friends). Second, it discounts moral emotions like compassion, sympathy and remorse as appropriate and ethical motives for action. Third, by completely ignoring the consequences of an action, it is purposefully blind to a fact about action which, although perhaps not strictly determining moral worth, does seem to be relevant, at least sometimes."

>>2088160
Thats what is argued, yeah. Literally heard that debated in my criminaljustice101 class.

My argument is that just because "a thing" is expensive doesn't mean it wont be made affordable by proper research and development.

>>2088137
Idk for other countries but mine is only coz it is easier to catch criminals. Drug usage still is not dead here

>>2088170
t. drug addict.

Just kidding bud, but seriously by using "nigger justice" he is skipping all of the bureaucracy and inefficiency of the system and addressing the problem at the source. Im not saying this is the best way of fixing the issue but it is certainly working better than the previous governments methods.

File: 1477755937390.jpg (53KB, 490x615px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 490x615px

>>2088192
Im sorry to hear that friend, I hope your government kicks into gear and finds a proper solution to stop your countries drug problem.

Well there's the retributive argument: that there should be punitive consequences for crimes as a way of payback (Hammurabi's "eye for an eye"). Then there is the deterrent argument: the death penalty deters others from committing crimes. Personally, I'm against the death penalty, there's something really unsettling about the state killing a person in an ostensibly calm, rational and humane manner. Not to mention the CJS is fallible, as we've seen so many people on death row exonerated by new DNA evidence. And for those who say it's more cost effective, they are wrong. The appeals process for inmates on death row costs far more than paying for a life sentence.

>What are the best philosophical / religious arguments on supporting death penalty?
If you try to remove large packages of like, pizza, of the chair, you basically kill the man. I'm just saying, not implying.

*off
>sorry

>>2088199
He's hitting the symptom, not the source. That's the problem.

File: 1481328871746.jpg (58KB, 854x317px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 854x317px

>>2088263
Like I said, Im not saying its the best method. But It is definitely working better than the previous system - who knows maybe at this rate people will be too afraid to buy drugs on the ground level essentially starving the drug dealers out of business.

Either way sometimes a large quantity of violence can be used to reduce violence in the long term - Like Machiavelli wrote: we cant judge governments on the same system of morality that we judge individuals with. If killing a few hundred thousand people secures the safety of the people as well as bring in tourist dollars and reduces illegal exportation of hard drugs it could easily be justified.