“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life...

The victim is the single WORST person to be passing judgment.

>I never said that there wouldn't be a judge or jury
What I was taking issue with was you saying that the victim (which is the accuser) should decide whether to punish the perpetrator. That's absolutely unfair, the same crime should bring the same penalty.
Also it's extremely unfair on the victim too, in this modern society hypersensibilized to violence, you're asking a victim to take upon itself a notable emotional baggage by asking it to take responsability for passing a sentence. Not to mention leaving them wayy more open to blame from the rest of society.

>the central part of OPs idea lies in the feudal/warlord governing philosophy
Not at all. If you read that part in the book, Eddard makes it very clear that he thinks it's about the judge bearing the emotional weight of the sentences he passes. It's about the ruler having to think "I'm killing this man, his blood is on my hands". Which is totally retarded. But then again so is Eddard, one of the worst characters in the story.

>I don't see how you came to that conclusion at all.

A sociopath would show no mercy. Therefore victimizing a sociopath is punished more harshly than victimizing someone with empathy. See now?

The temperment of the victim is irrelevant to the fairness of the punishment. And who could be LESS objective? Seriously, why do you think people who know the victim are automatically disqualified from serving on juries?

Retributive justice is just formalized vengeance. Anything other than restitutive justice is barbaric and accomplishes nothing than satisfy base instincts for bloodshed.

>One of the friends(who happens to be a girl) talks about "going to war" with Islamic nations, and how it SHOULD happen.
>Ask her "Are you going to go fight them, then"?
>She gives me a confused look

Wrong thread?
Also stupid fucking argument, we've got professional militaries already who are there exactly to fight in our place.

>we've got professional militaries already who are there exactly to fight in our place.

And?

What's the point in asking her if she's gonna fight herself? Are you also gonna argue that we shouldn't have public education anymore because I'm not willing to be a teacher? We've already got the personnel for war and public education, so individual partecipation is totally irrelevant.

but that's what I said. when your response to criticism is "this is how things are done around here" the only way you can reassure the populace that you have their best interests in mind is making clear you're personally bearing the weight of your choices.

rather than trying to convince them of things like due process and impartial judgement which you don't really give a fuck about the only message you can send is "I am a virtuous and responsible person".

The people who WANT war the most are often people who are furthest from the front lines. Just because we have a professional military that will literally die by the millions for her doesn't make my question any less relevant.

Basically talk is cheap and that's the only thing i meant by it. She wants war but also wants nothing do with any of its ugliness. War is unavoidable but to actively want it is an entirely different thing.

No see, the point is that Eddard is not acting for the benefit of the population, but of his own moral compass. He's not trying to govern well, he's just trying to be honorable. The fact that the two things coincide is pretty much a coincidence, as you can see by all the other fucked up bullshit he does where he puts his honor above the burden of ruling.

>The people who WANT war the most are often people who are furthest from the front lines.
So fucking what. The people who are risking their lives are certainly not the most objective about weighing pro and cons of going to war.
>She wants war but also wants nothing do with any of its ugliness.
Ah yes, that's the point of division of labour. I also want plumbing, but fuck me if I want to deal with literal shit. You're making a shit argument based on emotions here.

Paying someone to do your pluming is not the same thing as sending a 19 year old off to die because you don't like Muslims.

well if you think the way the world should be is to have a virtuous ruler in charge of things and it begins to look like you're gonna rule, it makes sense to start thinking of yourself as virtuous.

he regards the question of "is this way of thinking gonna lead to good places" as solved and focuses on part 2. if it's not, well tough shit.

user is merely saying you need to argue your point better.

It absolutely is the same. I'm paying someone to willingly do something I don't wanna do, and they accepted it. No complaining after signing the contract pls.

It's the same in your mind because you've remove any nuance from the situation

Ah but see, he's aware that he's not necessarily doing the best thing for the kingdom, yet he still prefers to be "honorable". And by doing so he gets his head chopped off, half his family murdered, and plunges his kingdom into a decade long civil war.

>It seems common sense that this should be the case

Why does a system you admit is practiced nowhere "seem common sense"? I think you mean that it seems superficially reasonable.

Inefficiency and unreliability are the main practical reasons. Besides which, people can earnestly believe that someone deserves to die without being capable of killing them.

I can't help but feel that this is a disingenuous position adopted by opponents of the death penalty. It feels similar to arguments they sometimes make about the inefficiency of eg death row systems, where inmates cost more per day than non-condemned inmates, and have an average stay of something like 15-20 years while they play out the appeals process. It certainly shares the same vulnerabilities as those arguments: the response from death penalty proponents has mainly been to set about 'streamlining' (ie, dismantling) the appeals process. So death penalty proponents need only find some push-button method of execution that minimises contact between the executioner and the condemned, and the argument really loses all teeth.

It got her thinking, which is the only thing i cared about.

What you're paying a soldier to do is much more dangerous than what you're paying a plumber to do. If plumbers were prone to dying in their line of work, then it would make sense that you should not force plumbers to work unnecessary jobs because of your feelings.

In Pipil law a convicted rapist had two fates which were up to the victims family to decide. One was that the rapist had to be enslaved and work for that victims family, the other was death.

yeah but he doesn't give a fuck. some people get fat and alcoholic, some kill puppies and some just decide "this is how much I'm gonna try, if it doesn't work then fuck the world".

think more of yourself.

>think more of yourself.

Everyone should think more, you're just stating the obvious

everyone could be criticized. doesn't mean it's invalid.

>I don't see how you came to that conclusion at all.
He means cruel people would be more prone to accusing and carrying out sentences than peaceful people.

Why don't we all just say every non invalid thing ever all the time?

Seriously, what is the point of this argument?

America has never experienced a real war.

I want to criticize you. you want to dodge.

The soldiers are not forced tho. They chose their line of work with the full understanding (or at least the implied understanding, but you know, ignorance is not admitted as an excuse) of what might happen to them.
If you don't like plumbers, use whatever other dangerous line of work, like police, or cleaning toxic shit, whatever the fuck else.
Also muh feeling is not an argument here. Arguing that my feelings are not reason enough to go to war is basically moving the goalpost to another fucking continent compared to the initial argument of "only be in favour of war if you're enlisting for it".

I've removed nuances that you applied, yet didn't fit with the situation.

Obama has taken a similar stance with drone strikes.

>Unfair
I would never ask someone to do something that I myself am unwilling to do under any circumstances. If I need a plumber, I hire one not because working with pipes is beneath me but because his service is offered to me and it is convenient for me to do so. If I buy a suit, it is not because sewing is something I'm unwilling to do, but because I would prefer a convenience.
If being personally responsible for someone's death is not something that a person can live with, then they won't apply the death penalty as a punishment at all. And if they are willing to apply the death penalty, then they are already responsible for the person's death. If anything, not having the judge as the executioner puts unfair mental strain on the person who is the executioner, as now you have multiple people bearing the responsibility for the person's death.

The American Civil War killed a higher percentage of all citizens than the Syrian Civil War has.

It killed one an five Southern men aged 15-45.

Is that not a real war either?

The American Revolution was 70,000 dead on our side out of just around 3.4 million

You're making this thing too personal. The criminal isn't being punished because he victim wants him to be, it's being punished because it's the most efficient way for society to avoid further criminal acts. If the criminal avoids it because the victim is a pussy (or was bought off, etc), society is not being best served.
Also the executioner has no unfair mental strain whatsoever, since he willingly signed up for the job. Any mental strain is totally fair and literally asked for.

>I would never ask someone to do something that I myself am unwilling to do under any circumstances.
Well if you like it that way. I have no problem doing otherwise, why should the rest of society and I not be allowed to just because you don't wanna?

Are you seriously arguing that society should hold absolutely no virtue? Your argument seems to be as follows:
>I think killing people is bad so I won't do it
>But it's not bad when other people do it
Either it's acceptable to have the death penalty or it isn't. If it is acceptable, the judge is the one responsible for the person's death. If that person can't handle that responsibility, they shouldn't be a judge where the death penalty is possible. If they can't handle that responsibility, they shouldn't have their job. A judge who holds power over life and death is only legitimate if he himself is willing to carry out his judgment. Otherwise he is worthless as a human being, and moreover does not live in accordance with his own morals; he lives an unexamined life, and as Socrates put it, that's not a life worth living.

>Your argument seems to be as follows:
My argument is: there are things I absolutely don't want to do, but I have no issue with others doing (I'm not gonna say in any situation, because firstly I don't rightly know how far I'd actually be willing to given enough incentive, and secondly because it's irrelevant to the scenario: we already have a specific situation, not any situation).
I never mentioned morality in my argument, so don't shoehorn it in pls.
Also the argument I was making was against the VICTIM having to pass the judgement, not the judge. Regardless, the judge is there to apply the law, independently of how he feels about it. If he applied for the position while disagreeing with the laws he is going to uphold, you can freely consider him a hypocrite (tho you could make a good argument against this position, but it's a whole other argument and I can't be bothered), but that has no relevance: as long as he does his job well, society is ok with him.
Again, you're forcing your own morals upon other people. You're free to try, but don't be surprised if they laugh in your face.

One point to keep in mind here is that the justice system iin GoT and the real world are vastly different.

In GoT, justice is passed down by the oord of the land, and whiile it is not completly at a whim, the opinion of your lord can very much decide your outcome. these circumstances can easily breed a noble lord who is to callous, petty, or who fails to see his subjects as people (hint: Joffrey). The northern system seems designed to hammer home the imppact of his decisions on a lord, to ensure that they don't pass judgement too quickly.

In our justice system, a judge does not decide how to penalise a criminal based on his whims, but based on the law, and they are supposed to be impartial dispensers of that law. Adding in more ways for the judge to be influenced by peer pressure or his own lack of violence is bad for that system.

Besides, the lords of Westeros are a lot more accustomed to the concept of killing people than your average modern judge. Implementing this now is just asking for a lot of mentall cases.

Tywin Lannister should be the king of the seven kingdoms. Anyone disagree?

What I am suggesting is no more "forcing my morals on others" than having a set of laws in the first place. Surely the presence of any laws, even the most extreme, is fundamentally a group of people forcing their values onto others -- you would be hard pressed to argue against that. And so I find it questionable that you have such reverence for one group performing an action while insisting that it is wrong for others to do so, while at the same time supporting values which call for a judgment free of personal bias. Indeed, any action in favor of upholding the law or punishment for breaking the law is itself fundamentally an action in accordance with the law, and thusly is biased to follow a specific set of rules.
Furthermore, I think it is impossible to discuss the law without paying heed to morality, or normative ethics, on which the law is supposedly based.
I say that in cases of life and death, a judge who is unwilling to kill the man or woman himself should always prefer to give a life sentence over a death sentence. To give a death sentence and not be willing to kill the person yourself is to refuse to act in accordance with your own moral standards, and thusly is immoral. Because laws are supposedly based on ethics, does it not make sense that we should regard ethics as something greater than laws? If not, the law is the ultimate authority and needs no basis in ethics, in which case it is morally repugnant. If so, then we should have punishment ready for those who act immorally in the same way that we have punishment for those who act against the law. And while morals are often times open to interpretation, the only thing which can be truly said about them is that one who does not act in accordance with the morals he or she has accepted is by necessity acting immorally.

He wouldn't be respected by his vassals, leading to rebellions. He has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever, and he's not gonna command any sort of resources out of his own authority to take over by force. He'd be a great hand, but king? No way.

>Tywin
I've got some bad news for you, m8...

No wait disregard this, I've confused him with the dwarf.

A man might be morally opposed to execution, but also contain within him a greater moral concern towards respecting the institution that employs his service.

There's also the simply squeamish. It's inarguable that being able to carry out an execution requires a certain character, it's not contrary to a man's morals to recommend an action he may be too ill-suited to carry out himself.

There's also the moral argument that the judge and executioner should necessarily be two separate people, in the same way the judge and lawmaker should be two separate people.

If Tommen, Marjorie, Cersei, Marjorie's brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces, and Jaime die, I believe Tyrion would be able to claim the throne legitimately since he was once the queen's brother and his name was never technically revoked.
Though, his reign would be short-lived, as he was sentenced to death for the murder of King Joffrey Baratheon.

>What I am suggesting is no more "forcing my morals on others" than having a set of laws in the first place. Surely the presence of any laws, even the most extreme, is fundamentally a group of people forcing their values onto others -- you would be hard pressed to argue against that.
That's exactly why I said you can try to do that, but don't be surprised when you fail. You don't have any force behind you, unlike the state, so how can you hope to actually manage to do it? It's pointless.
>I say that in cases of life and death, a judge who is unwilling to kill the man or woman himself should always prefer to give a life sentence over a death sentence. To give a death sentence and not be willing to kill the person yourself is to refuse to act in accordance with your own moral standards, and thusly is immoral.
The judge is not supposed to act in accordance with his own morals, but with the law (which as you rightly state is the expression of someone's morals). His (alledged) hypocrisy is irrelevant because what society wants from him is not personal coherence, but professional coherence. His hypocrisy apparently matters to you, but you don't, so in fact his hypocrisy doesn't matter. Also it's a pretty big jump on your part to assume that someone might not want to kill a person exclusively on a moral basis. They might very well find the act repugnant even if they think it morally correct, I can think of plenty of those.
>Because laws are supposedly based on ethics, does it not make sense that we should regard ethics as something greater than laws? If not, the law is the ultimate authority and needs no basis in ethics, in which case it is morally repugnant.
Morally repugnant to you, who don't matter at all.
>And while (cut char limit) immorally.
And yet another irrelevant statement. Morality not being objective, being immoral is not something the law is concerned with.

>There's also the moral argument that the judge and executioner should necessarily be two separate people

What argument? If the jury decides guilt or innocence and the judge decides on a sentence, then he is already by technicality executioner; he is as responsible for the death as the one who actually carries out the murder.

I have never met a person who is physically incapable of murdering another person by some means. Even so, then such a person shouldn't become a judge in the same way that they shouldn't get a job as an executioner. You yourself said that if someone can't handle the mental strain of killing another person, they shouldn't become an executioner; I'm simply saying that the same thing applies if the judge is the executioner.

>What argument?
The judge is a psycho and he pops a boner seeing dead bodies -> more unwarranted executions
The judge is a pussy and faints at the sight of dead bodies -> less warranted executions

>It's pointless.
I suppose you hold the strong stance that no one should ever read the works if Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, etc. unless they have a position of power. After all, it is pointless to discuss morality, law, or anything else unless you personally hold the power to change it! Ridiculous.

>In accordance with his own morals.
He passes judgment in accordance with his own morals. There has never been a case in history when death has been the only possible sentence in America. No judge has ever been forced to sentence someone to death in the history of this country. There has always been another option. If a judge chooses death as a sentence, it is because the judge PERSONALLY has decided to sentence that person to death. I am only saying that a judge should not make the PERSONAL choice to have someone killed unless he holds the conviction that the person should die so strongly that he would be willing to do it himself. It is ALREADY a personal choice.

>You, who don't matter at all
No one man matters at all. Not kings or presidents; all men die and eventually are either forgotten or become nothing more than the subject of history books. And the opinions of even temporarily powerful men, like presidents and kings, can be changed if a good enough argument is presented.

>Morality not being objective
There is a long, long list of philosophers, kings, presidents, tyrants, and laymen who disagree with that statement. By your own logic, who are you to say they are all wrong?

That is already the case. Whether the death penalty is legal or not, a judge will apply it or not apply it in accordance with his or her personal beliefs.

>I suppose you hold the strong stance that this is an internet debate and as such you have no way whatsoever to influence your interlocutor in any way
FTFY silly. It's pointless for you to force your subjective opinions upon me, not trying to change the system more to your liking.

>He passes judgment in accordance with his own morals.
Only insofar the law allows him to. Do you think there are no judges in favour of the death penalty in countries where it's not allowed?

>unless he holds the conviction that the person should die so strongly that he would be willing to do it himself
That's not what he signed up for, and it's not required of him. Why would he feel compelled to do that? Because you want him to? Fuck you.

>And the opinions of even temporarily powerful men, like presidents and kings, can be changed if a good enough argument is presented.
And this here is exactly my point. You're not making any argument. You're just saying "I feel this way" and expecting me to just go along with it.

>There is a long, long list of philosophers, kings, presidents, tyrants, and laymen who disagree with that statement.
Argumentum ab auctoritate, fallacy.

>By your own logic, who are you to say they are all wrong?
Burden on proof is on you for making the statement to begin with. Or if you consider the initial statement to be "morality is relative" then I'll prove it by stating that my morals are different than yours, there. To disprove that, you'd have to prove the objectivity of your morals, which comes up to the same thing anyway.

Deciding a sentence is not executing a sentence, the judge is not the executioner anymore so than a client commissioning a painting is an artist.

What? If the death penalty is not legal than a judge cannot legally sentence it. Once again you don't have to violate your personal beliefs to order an action you wouldn't perform yourself. Your personal beliefs might simply be that you yourself are above the dirty work that you leave to your underlings.

There have been quotes against it though.

'The Law is reason, free from passion.'
-Aristotle