Execution Is Inherently Murder Analysis
Just because you hyperbolically assert that I’m “conflating all kinds of different arguments” does not make it so. Twice I alluded to the opposing argument I hear most. Never did I suggest that is the only argument one could make. I said “As for those who would say that the DP is inherently murder …” and “DP opponents who argue that execution is murder…” There is no substantive difference in meaning. You are needlessly hung up on my use of the word inherently.
One could make a case that the dp is immoral in the 21st century US without arguing that’s it’s always “inherently” so.
Some implications hidden in your unsupported argument as quoted from you above, stated in a few different ways:
- For the sake of morality, the personal cost (penalty)
for committing murder in the US should go down in the 21st century.
- A would-be murderer in the 21st century US may steal the lives of innocents (see * below) while reasonably and rightly expecting to incur a lesser punishment than they would have 15 years ago.
- The lives of the innocent in the US should now be cheaper to take in the 21st century than in previous centuries.
No further comment on this for now.
And one can certainly argue that it is immoral without claiming that it’s the “equivalent” in immorality to the types of crimes that currently can yield death sentences.
Yes, one could argue that. One would need to support that argument. You did not.
No, it isn’t. One doesn’t have to be innocent to be murdered.
* “Innocents” was used in the legal sense, meaning that their murder is not legally justified, that killing them is unlawful. And by legal definition, judicial execution is not murder.
One could make a case that the dp is immoral in the 21st century US without arguing that’s it’s always “inherently” so.
Some implications hidden in your unsupported argument as quoted from you above, stated in a few different ways:
- For the sake of morality, the personal cost (penalty)
for committing murder in the US should go down in the 21st century.
- A would-be murderer in the 21st century US may steal the lives of innocents (see * below) while reasonably and rightly expecting to incur a lesser punishment than they would have 15 years ago.
- The lives of the innocent in the US should now be cheaper to take in the 21st century than in previous centuries.
No further comment on this for now.
And one can certainly argue that it is immoral without claiming that it’s the “equivalent” in immorality to the types of crimes that currently can yield death sentences.
Yes, one could argue that. One would need to support that argument. You did not.
No, it isn’t. One doesn’t have to be innocent to be murdered.
* “Innocents” was used in the legal sense, meaning that their murder is not legally justified, that killing them is unlawful. And by legal definition, judicial execution is not murder.