this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
289 points (98.7% liked)

News

23364 readers
4367 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Alabama is set to perform the second-ever nitrogen gas execution in the United States on Thursday.

Alan Eugene Miller, 59, was sentenced to death for the 1999 murders of his then-coworkers Lee Holdbrooks and Christoper Scott Yancy, and his former supervisor Terry Lee Jarvis.

Miller was to be executed in September 2022 via lethal injection, but it was called off after officials had trouble inserting an intravenous line to administer the fatal drugs and were concerned they would not be able to do so before the death warrant expired.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s also not an immoral killing, but that’s a separate conversation.

Actually, let's have that conversation.

I have two questions for you:

  • Do you believe it can ever be moral to take an innocent person's life?
  • Do you believe that our judicial system has never wrongly convicted an innocent person and sentenced them to death?

If the answer to those questions is no, then I do not understand how you could ever say the death penalty can be moral.

If you answered yes to the first, you're a monster. If you answered yes to the second, you're hopelessly naive.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
  • Do you believe it can ever be moral to take an innocent person's life?

Absolutely not. But you’ll agree this guy is not innocent.

  • Do you believe that our judicial system has never wrongly convicted an innocent person and sentenced them to death?

That line of reasoning would be paralyzing. There’s a high chance that you’ll kill an innocent person while driving, but you’re still driving. I suppose the alternative is even worse.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Absolutely not. But you’ll agree this guy is not innocent. At all.

Perhaps. But the question of the death penalty is larger than just this guy.

That line of reasoning would be paralyzing. There’s a reasonably high chance that you’ll kill an innocent person while driving, but you’re still driving. I suppose the alternative is even worse.

And there, I suppose, is the difference between you and me. You are willing to murder people, some portion of whom you know are not murderers, because somehow you've decided that their deaths are worth it in this instance. I am not. I find the murder of even one innocent immoral. And frankly, in a democratic system where the state acts on behalf of the people, we all have that innocent blood on our hands. We are all murderers; we are made that way by the state. Should we all, then, die?

You're also comparing accidents to deliberate acts in order to justify their murder. Those two things should not be conflated. No execution is an accident.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
  1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
  2. The death penalty has a chance of killing innocent people.
  3. Therefore, the death penalty is wrong.

Versus:

  1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
  2. Driving a car has a chance of killing innocent people.
  3. Therefore, driving a car is wrong.

Clearly, this argument is not sound. You’ll need to come up with another.

For a more nuanced discussion on this topic I’d recommend a modern Ethics textbook, such as Shafer-Landau’s Living Ethics, which breaks down arguments over the death penalty to their syllogistic form.

EDIT: more examples.

  1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
  2. Practicing medicine has a well known chance of killing innocent people.
  3. Therefore, practicing medicine is wrong.

Etcetera

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When I set out to drive, or paraglide, I do not set out to kill a person.

If I were to execute the death penalty, I would set out to kill a person.

Intent matters.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Here, let me help you.

  1. Intending to kill a person is always wrong.
  2. The death penalty involves intending to kill a person.
  3. Therefore, the death penalty is always wrong.

This argument is valid. It is not sound.

I’m actually against the death penalty. But I am also against forming strongly held beliefs for no reason and occasionally stumbling on the correct conclusion by accident.