Lucy Letby- An example of why the death penalty is needed?

[horsefly 4,318]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And yet we'll cheerfully kill tormented dogs for biting people.

First, I doubt anyone "cheerfully" puts down a dog. Secondly, if you believe that a dog has an identical moral standing to a human being I think you may need to think again. Or are you seriously suggesting we should set up dog prisons where dangerous dog offenders can serve time after being sentenced for their crimes?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

First, I doubt anyone "cheerfully" puts down a dog. Secondly, if you believe that a dog has an identical moral standing to a human being I think you may need to think again. Or are you seriously suggesting we should set up dog prisons where dangerous dog offenders can serve time after being sentenced for their crimes?

Why not? If we've put God out of the equation and we're simply down to considering sentient beings with varying degrees of intelligence, why shouldn't a dangerous human be likened to a dangerous dog? In fact, why shouldn't they be judged less forgivingly than a dog, given a dog is reactng  by instinct, with no thought at all, in contrast to an intelligent person coldly pre-meditating murder after murder?

Dogs are dependent on us. You could liken them to children in the degree of personal responsibility that should be attributed to them for their actions. Mistreated dogs will likely be vicious because they'll fear people and what they'll do to them. Ironically, you'll have a much easier time teaching a dog to trust and behave in a non-dangerous way than you will a human being.

Going back to Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, those two were some of the brightest and the best, and they were heading down the path of seeking to rehabilitate people. That put them in direct contact with a convicted terrorist who they were supposed to be involved in rehabilitating who killed them as payment for their efforts. I don't see any morality in placing value on the life of someone who so brazenly snuffs out two young lives like that, particularly when they were only there to help him.

[horsefly 4,318]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Why not? If we've put God out of the equation and we're simply down to considering sentient beings with varying degrees of intelligence, why shouldn't a dangerous human be likened to a dangerous dog? In fact, why shouldn't they be judged less forgivingly than a dog, given a dog is reactng  by instinct, with no thought at all, in contrast to an intelligent person coldly pre-meditating murder after murder?

Dogs are dependent on us. You could liken them to children in the degree of personal responsibility that should be attributed to them for their actions. Mistreated dogs will likely be vicious because they'll fear people and what they'll do to them. Ironically, you'll have a much easier time teaching a dog to trust and behave in a non-dangerous way than you will a human being.

Going back to Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, those two were some of the brightest and the best, and they were heading down the path of seeking to rehabilitate people. That put them in direct contact with a convicted terrorist who they were supposed to be involved in rehabilitating who killed them as payment for their efforts. I don't see any morality in placing value on the life of someone who so brazenly snuffs out two young lives like that, particularly when they were only there to help him.

Why not? Well you partially answer that question yourself by noting that animals are to varying degrees sentient (and sapient). The degree of sentience/sapience of an animal should indeed entitle it to corresponding moral respect (e.g. a dog should not be subject to cruelty, because it is capable of feeling pain). However it is clear that the level of consciousness (in particular the sapience) of a dog is nowhere near that of a human being. Dogs don't plan careers, have religious beliefs, reflect upon moral responsibilities, etc, etc. A dog being put down is not aware of what will happen to it, can not express regret for its behaviour, promise not to do it again, etc, etc.

To cut to the chase, the fundamental reason for opposing the death penalty is not primarily focused upon the criminal or the moral question of what they deserve. I think there are many murderers who in terms of pure desert alone deserve to die. However, the primary focus for me is the question of what sort of society we want to be, as that is expressed through our system of law and justice. I do not want to live in a society which has allowed the depraved and despicable acts of murders to turn the state into an authority that kills a human being in an act of cold revenge. Letby's crimes repulse me; the thought of state officials handcuffing her, marching her out of a cell, putting her head in a noose, and pulling a lever to break her neck, also repulses me. Society should seek to rise above the actions of a killer, not replicate them, however much that might be deserved.