@smallfox Incorrect, they do.
That you don't hear about something does not mean it doesn't exist. it just means you don't hear about it. So is always a good idea to google things just to see if it is a thing or not.
You can google "EU statement USA death penalty" if you feel like reading the EU complaining about death penalty in the USA.
random example
eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/pc_1152_eu_on_death_penalty_us.pdf I find it sad that such a great power of USA still has gun laws - but I'm not american so I can't really speak....
I recently went to NYC where you can only have a gun if it was from another state. Isn't that stupid?
OK you can google whatever you like but don't be too sure what you get.
I was refering to how th subject is dealt with in our european massmedia, mainly the "free" newspaper, TV etc.
#10 Jacob 531
Dubbel standards: You declare moral values but you only practice when it suits you. As American you should Know the problem.
Dubble standards - still better than bubble standards
I beg to differ. Do me the bubble standards any day.
In Germany, specifically in Hessen, the death penalty is still part of the legislation. It will never again be executed because a) one needs precedence and b) higher instances. Regarding the moral point of the discussion. It's a conflict within practical philosophy. There is no moral standard to uphold and no ex ante right perspective on this issue to claim this is immoral. Morality is part of cultural development and is to be executed and understood intuitively by the people committed to this moral standards. The US constitution is quite the solid case when you grasp the moral of f.e. gun control but you lack the support.
What are you rumbling about. Yes it is immoral to kill anyone period. Now if u want to discuss if immorality is sometimes needed to preserve order/justice okay. But it is immoral to kill, be it for "capital punishment", "infidelity", "money",... doesn't matter the cause.
@Proustino Okok It is still a conflict. Life is valuable up to a certain point. If you go to a train station it gets obvious. You could technically install a System that rules out someone falling onto the tracks. But, societies don't do it because it is too expensive. And yes people die in train stations. They drown in swimming pools. Children that are not even able to represent themselves legally. It's a difference to pulling a trigger. Yes, I give you that. But our moral implicitly accounts for casualties. So where do you draw the line? When is killing killing. I'm not talking about my moral views here. I'm talking about intuitive and applicable actions based on "our" (in the sense of inter-subjective) moral. Moral is not a transcendent thing, it is how people actually feel and decide.
Lets do some lobotomies B*****s. Yeah, it just a cheap trick... zapzapzap and ice pickle into the head... ehm... into the brain I mean... I mean just go berserk in the neocortex. Just cut it until you are satisfied with the amount of damage. Brain dead people are just easier to handle than adhd kids. Botomies... Still a thing... in the 70s