Thought experiment

Willtell
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Do you think its better whether he was guilty or innocent?

As I said above..

Capital punishment is also unfair on the relatives, for example, imagine YOUR child being told that daddy is going to be killed tonight.

reply to post by Willtell


I would need more information.

You say there is a chance he's innocent. What does that mean? A high chance? A slim chance? Did the jury feel it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do you want him to be innocent or guilty?

Do I want it to be true he murdered someone?

I think it goes "innocent until proven guilty", if there is reasonable evidence that would determine he is innocent then he shouldn't be executed until that evidence is proven true or false. So, I'd say postpone the execution.

It's been said we all choose our life before we incarnate on earth, and we all choose our own death.
We are given a life to live and learn from. Barring suicide, when our purpose is complete, we move on.

If he is guilty, he has degraded the level of his soul.

I would hope for his innocents.

reply to post by Willtell


I don't know how you even came across this thought, as most people probably do not even think like this...

That is, I don't think they are thinking, "I want him to be guilty", nor are they thinking, "I want him to be innocent."

I think they are thinking, "I want justice, be he innocent, or guilty."

So, at this stage / point, the focus is likely to be on the justness of the conviction, and not of the man -- the justness of the man was tried at the courtroom -- that is when people would be contemplating the justness of the man (your question).

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Yes, my point is that deep inside the intellect is out of the picture. We then default to subjective desire

There have been cases where evidence that a person is innocent of murder results from a "prison confession." and it happens at the last moment, where the innocent man is already in the chair. In the case of murder a conviction these days is very difficult to prosecute without a body, weapon and opportunity.

Motive such as a threat or that the inmate would have considered killing him is often not enough for a conviction.

How do I feel about the idea that someone was set up and I am a Governor of a State?

I would order a stay as long as the information is a good as the OP claims, order a new trial.

In terms of the morality of killing a person found guilty of murder keep in mind that a members asked for the case.

That is important because there is a difference between a case where say a man kills another man over a dispute and both men were armed, a case where people were cut up into pieces while alive.

Killing people that are guilty of murder in the past to a some extent was due the potential of escape. A issue is, the extent to which one placed today in death row, has a reasonable chance of escape to commit more murders. "Supermax" Prisons, are alleged to be impossible to escape from and thus far no one has ever escaped.

Perhaps it is time to look again at the reasoning behind letting the inmate live and let God sort it out.

Perhaps one day a Axe Murder will escape from a Supermax prison and kill 100's of people.

reply to post by Willtell

Yes, my point is that deep inside the intellect is out of the picture. We then default to subjective desire

I'm sorry I just don't understand your point. I need you to paraphrase and or elaborate.

reply to post by Willtell


I would want him to be guilty otherwise it would suck, a innocent man murdered

reply to post by Willtell


Prisoner to be executed after due process followed. (There is usually an element of doubt somewhere)

Question.
1. How are we to think?
2. What subjective attitude do we take?
3. Should we desire him to be innocent or desire him to be guilty

Ok i numbered it for ease but these are your initial questions.

1. Normally ?
2. One of subjectivity - a prisoner will be executed after being found guilty of a capital crime as we have no other facts to go on.
3. Guilty

Guilty = 'justice' seen to be done
Innocent = a random citizen is executed and the criminal is free to commit more capital offences.

Seems fairly clear cut to me

Willtell
Come on all you great philosophers and deep tinkers we need your input

A guy is going to be executed at 12midnight. All his appeals have been exhausted. The state is determined to execute him for murder. Though there is, according to many, reliable possibilities of his innocence, yet the state is adamant he will die midnight. Yet there is doubt of his guilt.

Question. How are we to think? What subjective attitude do we take?
Should we desire him to be innocent or desire him to be guilty

We shouldn't "Desire" him to be anything, we should be objective and objectively speaking if there is any possibility of innocence executing him is nothing less than murder...

Willtell

Question. How are we to think? What subjective attitude do we take?
Should we desire him to be innocent or desire him to be guilty

I don't find myself desiring anything. Things are as they are. Perhaps he is really innocent, perhaps he is really guilty, perhaps it is something in between. I will never know for sure. I think I would only feel something on that question if I knew and had some sort of relationship to the man in question.

Willtell
Come on all you great philosophers and deep tinkers we need your input

A guy is going to be executed at 12midnight. All his appeals have been exhausted. The state is determined to execute him for murder. Though there is, according to many, reliable possibilities of his innocence, yet the state is adamant he will die midnight. Yet there is doubt of his guilt.

Question. How are we to think? What subjective attitude do we take?
Should we desire him to be innocent or desire him to be guilty

Why do the thoughts of people who weren't involved with the trial and therefore never saw the evidence presented matter? I'm sure some of the people who are presuming his innocence are family and friends. So we can throw obvious (and even non-obvious) bias into the mix.

This is like a reverse of the George Zimmerman trial. After the verdict was laid down, a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the trial decided that he was definitely guilty. Well what do they know? They didn't sit in the courtroom all those weeks and view and listen to the evidence being discussed.

In the end, unless you can show a mistrial of some sort, your or my personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. We don't know all the details of the case. This country doesn't convict and acquit based on popular opinion, that is why we have courtrooms, lawyers, judges, and juries.