• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Death Penalty: Pt XXIV

The Atheist

The Grammar Tyrant
The Atheist
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
36,401
I've always had the opinion that one is either for or against capital punishment, and that the number of victims or manner of killing, is irrelevant.

Yet, there are two separate cases at the moment where people seem to have drawn a line that some crimes are horrific enough to warrant the death penalty as an exception - the ISIS Poms and Japanese cult leader.

Those cases have been enough for people to say things like:

These people are cold blooded murderers; they don't deserve to live, to occupy space on the planet or to breathe the air the rest of us do.

(NOTE: I am generally against the death penalty, but not in this case)
Click to expand...

Lots of people are cold-blooded murderers, so where is the line drawn?

Note: if you're pro-capital punishment, your views are irrelevant, so feel free to leave them in your head. I'm interested in finding out where the line is that means people who don't support the death penalty will allow for its use.

Norway seems to have no problem with the worst mass-murderer this century not being put to death, and neither do I.

The difference is stark: if the ISIS Poms are executed, they will become martyrs to their cause, while Brievik alive but behind bars is a laughing-stock.
 
I don't want anyone killed in my name. I don't care how utterly terrible they are, I really don't.

In regards to those who are likely to be sent to the US for kangaroo court and execution, someone used to have this as their signature:

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. "

Robert Bolt, A Man For All Seasons.
 
There are cases I would not choose to use as the poster children for the abolition of the death penalty, but that's just a question of choosing one's battles. Never, no way, no matter what.
 
Once you allow judicial murder for one crime, it's a short step to allow it for another, and another, and so on, so don't allow it all.

It's just revenge, because there's no pragmatic gain; most people kill because they don't care, or they're irrational, or they know they won't get caught, so there's no deterrent.
 
The Atheist said:
I've always had the opinion that one is either for or against capital punishment, and that the number of victims or manner of killing, is irrelevant.

Yet, there are two separate cases at the moment where people seem to have drawn a line that some crimes are horrific enough to warrant the death penalty as an exception - the ISIS Poms and Japanese cult leader.

Those cases have been enough for people to say things like:



Lots of people are cold-blooded murderers, so where is the line drawn?

Note: if you're pro-capital punishment, your views are irrelevant, so feel free to leave them in your head. I'm interested in finding out where the line is that means people who don't support the death penalty will allow for its use.

Norway seems to have no problem with the worst mass-murderer this century not being put to death, and neither do I.

The difference is stark: if the ISIS Poms are executed, they will become martyrs to their cause, while Brievik alive but behind bars is a laughing-stock.
Click to expand...

You asked for people who don't support the death penalty to explain why they support the death penalty, then told everyone who supports the death penalty not to post...
 
I don't hypothetically object to the death penalty. I do in reality for practical reasons. We convict the wrong people too often for me to support it and my experience with it is CA where a person on death row is more likely to die of natural causes or suicide than execution.

Side note, there is some evidence(based on my memories of a college sociology course years ago) that it works as a deterrent for a certain kind of murder. Murders done to cover up other crimes. That sort of murder increased in some states after the death penalty was banned in the US during the 70s. It makes sense, its about the only time murder is a rational decision.

Diablo said:
Once you allow judicial murder for one crime, it's a short step to allow it for another, and another, and so on, so don't allow it all.

It's just revenge, because there's no pragmatic gain; most people kill because they don't care, or they're irrational, or they know they won't get caught, so there's no deterrent.
Click to expand...
The first is the slippery slope argument, not always wrong but not always right either and generally considered a fallacy. As I noted, murder is usually not a rational choice but it is sometimes.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
You asked for people who don't support the death penalty to explain why they support the death penalty, then told everyone who supports the death penalty not to post...
Click to expand...

Yep.

Seems the question/invitation is really directed at those whose opinion varies from case to case.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You asked for people who don't support the death penalty to explain why they support the death penalty, then told everyone who supports the death penalty not to post...
Click to expand...

I think it's basically just a long-winded way of calling certain anti-capital-punishment folks hypocrite or something. He wants us pro-capital-punishment folks to keep our mouths shut, as an actual debate about capital punishment would distract from the clever nuance of his message.
 
Diablo said:
Once you allow judicial murder for one crime, it's a short step to allow it for another, and another, and so on, so don't allow it all.

It's just revenge, because there's no pragmatic gain; most people kill because they don't care, or they're irrational, or they know they won't get caught, so there's no deterrent.
Click to expand...

My view of crime and punishment is that the primary purpose of punishment is to satisfy the community's sense of justice. It assigns responsibility and gives closure to a damaging event in the community. I think that in order to thrive, a community has to believe that criminals will generally get what they deserve. I think that's why some people who oppose the death penalty will still make exceptions in what they perceive to be egregious or exceptional cases.

It's great if the punishment also works as a deterrent. It's probably good if a community invests resources in making punishment deterrent as well as just. But the justice of the punishment is absolutely necessary. The deterrent isn't.

And rehabilitation isn't part of punishment at all, and shouldn't be viewed as such. The purpose of punishment isn't to rehabilitate. It's great if a community wants to rehabilitate criminals where practical, but that should be separate from the community's efforts to impose punishments that satisfy their sense of justice.

I think if you're against the death penalty, and you find yourself saying "... but for *these guys* I'll make an exception", it's a good opportunity for you to take a step back and examine your sense of justice, and how it's satisfied.
 
ahhell said:
I don't hypothetically object to the death penalty. I do in reality for practical reasons. We convict the wrong people too often for me to support it and my experience with it is CA where a person on death row is more likely to die of natural causes or suicide than execution.

Side note, there is some evidence(based on my memories of a college sociology course years ago) that it works as a deterrent for a certain kind of murder. Murders done to cover up other crimes. That sort of murder increased in some states after the death penalty was banned in the US during the 70s. It makes sense, its about the only time murder is a rational decision.

The first is the slippery slope argument, not always wrong but not always right either and generally considered a fallacy. As I noted, murder is usually not a rational choice but it is sometimes.
Click to expand...
If it's not always right then I'll take the instances where it is right, since people's lives are at stake. If murder is not usually a rational choice, as you say, then the death penalty is not generally a deterrent, and any argument for its use disappears - except for revenge.
 
People, please clearly state you overall stance, and your exceptions. Otherwise, how will we know on what basis to dismiss your opinion.
 
theprestige said:
My view of crime and punishment is that the primary purpose of punishment is to satisfy the community's sense of justice. It assigns responsibility and gives closure to a damaging event in the community. I think that in order to thrive, a community has to believe that criminals will generally get what they deserve. I think that's why some people who oppose the death penalty will still make exceptions in what they perceive to be egregious or exceptional cases.

It's great if the punishment also works as a deterrent. It's probably good if a community invests resources in making punishment deterrent as well as just. But the justice of the punishment is absolutely necessary. The deterrent isn't.

And rehabilitation isn't part of punishment at all, and shouldn't be viewed as such. The purpose of punishment isn't to rehabilitate. It's great if a community wants to rehabilitate criminals where practical, but that should be separate from the community's efforts to impose punishments that satisfy their sense of justice.

I think if you're against the death penalty, and you find yourself saying "... but for *these guys* I'll make an exception", it's a good opportunity for you to take a step back and examine your sense of justice, and how it's satisfied.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to mainain law and order and reduce crime, not provide for the lynch mob. The death penalty satisfies the latter but not the former, since the deterrent effect is small.

Some communities would like to bring back public executions and flogging but we gnerally don't want that sort of thing.
 
Diablo said:
If it's not always right then I'll take the instances where it is right, since people's lives are at stake. If murder is not usually a rational choice, as you say, then the death penalty is not generally a deterrent, and any argument for its use disappears - except for revenge.
Click to expand...

Is there no value in satisfying a communities desire for revenge? I think there is.
 
Diablo said:
So allow the lynch mob...
Click to expand...

Yup, no difference between the criminal justice system carefully and impartially deciding an appropriate punishment for a crime and a lynch mob stringing someone up outside the county jail. You got me.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yup, no difference between the criminal justice system carefully and impartially deciding an appropriate punishment for a crime and a lynch mob stringing someone up outside the county jail. You got me.
Click to expand...
Revenge is the motive.
 
Diablo said:
I disagree. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to mainain law and order and reduce crime, not provide for the lynch mob. The death penalty satisfies the latter but not the former, since the deterrent effect is small.

Some communities would like to bring back public executions and flogging but we gnerally don't want that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
If you limited to just those types of murder then it would be.

I don't actually support the death penalty just pointing out the one case where there might be a reasonable non revenge argument for it.
 
theprestige said:
Carefully? Maybe. Impartially? Not at all. A community's criminal justice system must necessarily, and by design, be partial to the community's sense of criminal justice.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose that is true. I mostly meant to say that justice is carried out by parties that are not emotionally invested in the victims. As in, the judge and juries are not members of the victims family as they would be in a lynch mob.

Seems like the criminal justice system should provide multiple things: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. Retribution isn't the only reason, or perhaps even the primary reason, but it's not nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom