On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:26:49 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
The strongest reason to not allow the justice system to execute
people is that courts sometimes make mistakes. Someone who has
been
jailed innocently can be freed at given at least economic
compensation. But someone who has been executed innocently cannot
be
brought back to life.

In that case, I'd ask you why you don't argue for banning motor
vehicles
from the roads.

FYI: running over people by cars to kill them on purpose is illegal
and considered to be murder. Even without purpose it's usually
illegal - careless driving is punishable.

If you want to eliminate all traffic accidents it's not enough to ban
just motor vehicles. You must then also ban horses, camels and riding
any other animal. Trains, planes and boats must also be banned. Even
runners and bicycles must be banned because you can kill someone by
running or cycling into him. Perhaps slow walking could be allowed.

However there's a big difference between death by accident and
killing on purpose.


Just as cars are useful for hauling food quickly to stores, capital
punishment may be more effective in deterring more simple-minded
people
from committing crimes than mere imprisonment.

If you think it's OK to kill others for efficiency reasons, you are
entering a horrible path. The next step would be to kill people who
are hopelessly ill (like we do with snimals) because health care is
expensive. Then you could kill people who are not productive enough
in the society, or who strongly oppose the government etc, etc. I
think you agree that such a society would be horrible even if it
would be more efficient.

You completely disregarded the moral problem of having the state
execute innocent people due to mistakes by the courts. It's a moral
issue, not an efficiency issue.

Finally I repeat: there is a big difference between deaths by
accident and killing on purpose.