Albert Einstein on the death penalty

[MMMMMM]

Einstein also said (paraphrasing from memory) that he had no inherent objection to the killing of bad and useless people, but that he had no condidence in humans beings being capable of implementing such things fairly.

I think the above, along with his point about irreversibility in case of error, are very significant arguments against the death penalty. Whether they are entirely sufficient as stand-alone arguments is another matter.

One problem with allowing government such powers is that such powers have the potential to be terribly abused if government should somehow turn fascistic or tyrannical.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have "opinions" on physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely wrong, modern physics is filled with opinions.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to understanding the morality of society around us does a person have to have special qualifications? I don't understand that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original poster implicitly claimed greater authority for the statement about morality because it came from Einstein. I claim that Einstein's unscientific observations or opinions should carry no more weight than my own, and should be judged on their merits, not on their author.

[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about how killing people makes a society sick. Who could argue with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could argue with that, and I can say with truth, and a little pride, that my I.Q. is in the same general neighborhood of our friend Albert. Killing people does not necessarily, in and of itself, make a society sick. We kill a lot fewer people than a lot of societies in history than were considered quite advanced and moral.

[ QUOTE ]
It's obvious that taking for granted life has done to this country and others like it who practice the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not obvious to me, or to many others. People who say things are obvious generally lack any objective foundation for their pronouncements. As a quick example off the top of my head, compare the US (with capital punishment) with France (without it). I would argue that the US is head and shoulders over France in terms of morality and intestinal fortitude. In a preemptive stike against other objections, I will admit that the US invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But the world situation that precipitated it was greatly exacerbated by the moral spinelessness of the French.

[ QUOTE ]

And what about 'Thou Shall Not Kill' as empirical evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cite mythology, not empirical (i.e., scientific) evidence. Granted, mythology is an educaton process for getting truth to the masses, and "Thou shalt not kill" is a generally correct principle for the good of society. But every principle has exceptions, as does this one. To reiterate, there is no emipirical (scientific, historical, measureable) evidence that captial punishment, in and of itself, is morally decaying. I don't claim that that proves that it is not morally decaying, I merely state that those who make the claim have the burden of proof, annd have failed.

[goofball]

We already have innocent people convincted "beyond all reasonable doubt"

what standard are you suggesting? Unreasonable doubt?

[QuadsOverQuads]

I think benfranklin's response, above, pretty much sums it up. My only addition would be that Einstein's first reason is -- in and of itself -- sufficient to sustain the point.

As a more general observation, I find it interesting how it is almost always the so-called "conservatives" -- who allegedly believe in "limited government" -- who will aggressively advocate giving that same government the authority to kill its own citizens (provided that the government's courts first declare that person guilty, of course).


q/q

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
I could argue with that, and I can say with truth, and a little pride, that my I.Q. is in the same general neighborhood of our friend Albert. Killing people does not necessarily, in and of itself, make a society sick. We kill a lot fewer people than a lot of societies in history than were considered quite advanced and moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

America is one country (out of a small handful) that practices capital punishment out of hundreds who don't. That's nothing to be proud of.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And what about 'Thou Shall Not Kill' as empirical evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cite mythology, not empirical (i.e., scientific) evidence. To reiterate, there is no emipirical (scientific, historical, measureable) evidence that captial punishment, in and of itself, is morally decaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whereas I agree the bible represents myth, the actual writing is recorded of 'thou shall not kill' as part of the moral code one is to abide by as a true follower. Most religions have laws along these lines. So to violate that law clearly is a proveable sign that the moral code is being corrupted.

The evidence is right there in your face. Is it no arguement to say that a majority of the world's population measure moral purity by the books that identify their religion. Q'uran, Torah, Bible and the basic precepts of Buddhism. The act of executing people contravenes this measure of moral purity.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
We already have innocent people convincted "beyond all reasonable doubt"

what standard are you suggesting? Unreasonable doubt?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I personally am opposed to the death penalty in virtually all cases, I would prefer to see a standard of complete certainty (if, that is, the death penalty is to be a part of law). Yes, a standard of "beyond ANY doubt"; essentially a mathematical certainty (the completely absurd excepted, such as a defense that Elvis came with little green men and kidnapped the defendant, and hypnotized him by repeatedly singing "Hound Dog", while aliens implanted an indetectable bionic chip in his brain which contained a code for the specific murder).

Lesser punishments may be commuted or reversed upon later proof that the convicted did not commit the crime. Hence a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not inappropriate. Be aware that "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not require proof to a mathematical certainty, and that the jury is left to determine what is reasonable or not. The death penalty, however, cannot be reversed, so the standard of proof should be yet higher.

[Iplayboard]

As far as the moral decay argument, I believe Einstein has some validity. The South has by far the most executions of any region in this country and has by far the highest murder rate. The Northeast has the least executions (and many northern states like Massachusetts have no death penalty), and the lowest murder rate.

One of the arguments for the dealth penalty is that it should deter future murders. It appears as though the opposite may be true.

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that the US is head and shoulders over France in terms of morality and intestinal fortitude. In a preemptive stike against other objections, I will admit that the US invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But the world situation that precipitated it was greatly exacerbated by the moral spinelessness of the French.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn I am so sick of criticism of the French like this. It's really ridiculous. What did the French do that was so "spineless"? They dared disagree with the big, bad US of A? The nerve of them.

You're free to criticize the French for their position on the Iraq war. I didn't agree with their position either. But I hardly feel that them standing up to us, and trying to suggest an alternative to a war, makes them "spineless". To the contrary, I think they took the most active role in pushing a path to avoid a war. One could reasonably argue that it was quite courageous of them to do so.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Whereas I agree the bible represents myth, the actual writing is recorded of 'thou shall not kill' as part of the moral code one is to abide by as a true follower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have read that the closest translation, going back to the root words of the day, is not "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but rather "Thou Shalt Not Murder". This would also appear to make more sense, as the Old Testament does not forbid people from defending themselves, nor from killing animals for food.

So is legal execution merely killing, or is it murder?