Boston Mayor does not support death penalty, but supports it for Boston bomber

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The world would be such a better place if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hitler could play poker together and read novels with their taxpayer funded meals and taxpayer funded healthcare until they died from old age. Isn't no exceptions absolutism grand (unless it's being pushed by Republicans in regards to gun control/abortion, that is)?

Do you seriously think that's what ADX Florence is like?

Since that's probably where he's going if he avoids a death sentence I'd argue executing him would actually be more merciful. Especially with how long he'd be locked up there at his age.

[free my dawg]

Not really. In extreme cases or ones where the prisoner is unable to feel remorse for his actions, he deserves the death penalty.

This is both of these cases.

[muon2]

I've still not quite understood why you want to go to all this trouble to justify the state killing people? Particularly when I've never heard a credible argument for what the United States gains by maintaining the death penalty.

I have trouble believing that the country is so unique that it wouldn't get by without as most other civilzed countries do.

I don't think it's about justifying its use. I get that there is a difference of opinion here and around the world, but I philosophically believe that it is a just penalty for certain crimes.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess it's like the people who say that abortion is murder until their daughter gets pregnant from a rape.

It's exactly like that.

That is why I am pro-life except in cases of rape and if the health of the mother is threatened.

What is your reason for being pro-life than?  The rape exception that most pro-lifers apply really is logically inconsistent.

It's not logically inconsistent Inks.  There is a logically coherent defense of that position, even if you disagree with it.  We debated that last year in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167705.msg3594597#msg3594597

Sure, if you believe that removal of mental anguish is a justification of murder.  But that could lead to some pretty bad vigilante justice / revenge justifications if you're going to adopt that logic train.  The unwilling participant rationale still exists, of course, but I don't see how that counters the fact that necessity does not justify murder, since the basis of that wasn't someone who willingly decided to participate in the events that led them to "need" to murder someone.

[Mr. Morden]

Sure, if you believe that removal of mental anguish is a justification of murder.  But that could lead to some pretty bad vigilante justice / revenge justifications if you're going to adopt that logic train.  The unwilling participant rationale still exists, of course, but I don't see how that counters the fact that necessity does not justify murder, since the basis of that wasn't someone who willingly decided to participate in the events that led them to "need" to murder someone.

Inks, most pro-choice activists believe that even if the fetus was a person, the mother should still be allowed to abort, because of the fact that she should not be forced to have her body appropriated for the pregnancy, to keep the fetus alive, against her will.  This argument is made all the time in abortion debates.  You may think that's a terrible opinion to hold, but it's out there, and not logically inconsistent.

From there, it's really no big leap to take the somewhat milder "pro-life with exceptions" version of the argument, which is that if the woman willingly engaged in behavior (that is, had consensual sex) that led to the conception of the fetus, then she has an obligation not to kill it during the prenancy.  But if she was raped, then she never signed on for creating a new life, or keeping it alive for nine months, so she should then not be forced to use her body to keep it alive.

Again, you may think that those positions have troubling consequences.  But I don't see them as logically inconsistent.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

So if a handful of gangbangers get shot and killed tonight in Boston, will he advocate for the death penalty for the perpetrators?  No.

Hypocrite.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sure, if you believe that removal of mental anguish is a justification of murder.  But that could lead to some pretty bad vigilante justice / revenge justifications if you're going to adopt that logic train.  The unwilling participant rationale still exists, of course, but I don't see how that counters the fact that necessity does not justify murder, since the basis of that wasn't someone who willingly decided to participate in the events that led them to "need" to murder someone.

Inks, most pro-choice activists believe that even if the fetus was a person, the mother should still be allowed to abort, because of the fact that she should not be forced to have her body appropriated for the pregnancy, to keep the fetus alive, against her will.  This argument is made all the time in abortion debates.  You may think that's a terrible opinion to hold, but it's out there, and not logically inconsistent.

From there, it's really no big leap to take the somewhat milder "pro-life with exceptions" version of the argument, which is that if the woman willingly engaged in behavior (that is, had consensual sex) that led to the conception of the fetus, then she has an obligation not to kill it during the prenancy.  But if she was raped, then she never signed on for creating a new life, or keeping it alive for nine months, so she should then not be forced to use her body to keep it alive.

Again, you may think that those positions have troubling consequences.  But I don't see them as logically inconsistent.

It's only logically consistent if you either (1) disagree with the opinion that necessity does not justify murder, or (2) why there should be an exception to the rule for where the person's body has been appropriated to sustain the other. To believe the latter is fine, if you can reach that end through some logical justification; however, merely forming that exception, without any true reasoning, results in the exception merely being created as a convenient way to justify abortion without having the exception impact anything else. The whole rationale works backwards from the end goal, which while technically logically consistent at times (it depends who is making the argument), is totally arbitrary.