Death Penalty

[Warp12]

These has been a mountain of arguments presented here by opponents of the death penalty, (which your selective vision can't see), and a dearth of arguments presented by yourself, in spit of repeated requests for same.

The same argument repeated over and over does not amount to "a mountain of arguments". It amounts to a mountain of liberals. When all is said and done, it really comes down to one argument: "I don't think that killing murderers is ethical". And, as I said early on, certain people want to dress that up, or obscure it, when it is really their foundation.

 

[Bob001]

The same argument repeated over and over does not amount to "a mountain of arguments". It amounts to a mountain of liberals. When all is said and done, it really comes down to one argument: "I don't think that killing murderers is ethical". And, as I said early on, certain people want to dress that up, or obscure it, when it is really their foundation.

It's more complicated than that. The possibility of killing an innocent person goes way beyond ethics. But you haven't explained why you think it is ethical for the state to kill people in our names.

 

[AmyStrange]

The same argument repeated over and over does not amount to "a mountain of arguments". It amounts to a mountain of liberals. When all is said and done, it really comes down to one argument: "I don't think that killing murderers is ethical". And, as I said early on, certain people want to dress that up, or obscure it, when it is really their foundation.

Well, you should know, especially since you haven't supplied us with even one single argument in favor of your position.

The argument that we should take the black guy out back (or anyone for that matter), lynch them, and to hell with due process.

That argument is sad, sick, barbaric, and makes you no better than the Gacys, Bundys, and Ridgways of the world.

 

[Warp12]

It's more complicated than that. The possibility of killing an innocent person goes way beyond ethics. But you haven't explained why you think it is ethical for the state to kill people in our names.

No, Bob. I don’t have to justify execution, as it should be the default in certain cases. It is practically insane that this is being presented as the default:

1) House inmate for life
2) Feed inmate for life
3) Clothe inmate for life
4) Provide healthcare for life
5) Provide counseling services for life
6) Provide security services for life
7) Create risk for staff and other inmates for life

I have not seen much legitimate justification for this mindset. The threat of an innocent person being executed would be the only one, and I have already addressed further minimizing that risk, via reforms.

But you have already expressed that no crime is heinous enough, nor evidence strong enough, for you to advocate execution. So, we are back at square one.

 

[AmyStrange]

No, Bob. I don’t have to justify execution, as it should be the default in certain cases. It is practically insane that this is being presented as the default:

1) House inmate for life
2) Feed inmate for life
3) Clothe inmate for life
4) Provide healthcare for life
5) Provide counseling services for life
6) Provide security services for life
7) Create risk for staff and other inmates for life

I have not seen much legitimate justification for this mindset. The threat of an innocent person being executed would be the only one, and I have already addressed further minimizing that risk, via reforms.

But you have already expressed that no crime is heinous enough, nor evidence strong enough, for you to advocate execution. So, we are back at square one.

You must've written them in invisible ink, because you haven't mentioned one specific reform yet.

 

[TomB]

The same argument repeated over and over does not amount to "a mountain of arguments". It amounts to a mountain of liberals. When all is said and done, it really comes down to one argument: "I don't think that killing murderers is ethical". And, as I said early on, certain people want to dress that up, or obscure it, when it is really their foundation.

No. You're wrong.

I think there are several on this thread who have expressed that they have no ethical problem executing murderers.

But they do have ethical problems executing the innocent. For them, the ethical problems with potentially executing the innocent are more important. Not executing murderers is a side effect of avoiding killing the innocent which they are willing to live with.

Another way to look at it...
Arguably, when a murderer is executed, it is justice, not murder. It's one of a few special circumstances when killing someone is not murder.
But when the state executes an innocent person, it is not justice. In those cases, the state is committing murder. In our name.
Do you think people might have a problem with murder being done in their name? Does it not, in a sense, make us all complicit in the murder of an innocent?

Unfortunately, there is no way I can conceive of to write a law that empirically defines when evidence of guilt is unquestionable enough to warrant the death penalty. The closest you can come is the judgment of a judge and jury. Judgment is unreliable.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Come back here! I demand a civil debate about why the state shouldn't get to kill people! You have the burden of proof!"

Pathetic.

 

[Foster Zygote]

My opposition to the death penalty has **** all to do with sympathy for murderers. Someone like Ted Bundy could have been dragged out into the street and had a bullet put through the back of his head, then been dumped in a ditch to rot and I would have felt nothing for that worthless piece of ****.

My opposition stems from a number of facts. Most troubling is that it is undeniable that people are sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit. The ones who are cleared by new evidence before their sentences are carried out are the lucky ones - lucky to lose only years of freedom rather than their lives.

Another troubling fact is that the death penalty is unequally applied based on economics and ethnicity. A wealthy white person is less likely to be sentenced to death than a poor black person who commits the same type of crime.

My opposition isn't based on the ethics of killing murderers, it's based on the ethics of killing innocent people who were wrongly convicted, and it's based on the sheer racism of applying the death penalty more frequently to non white people.

 

[junkshop]

Nope. Eye for an eye.That is the default.

How literally are you taking this?

I understand (not agree with, but understand) the idea that if a person takes a life, they should pay with their life. But where is the line drawn?

Kill, be killed.
Steal, be stolen from.
Slander, be slandered.
Rape, be raped.

To which crimes should this rule apply? Why them? Why not the others?

 

[Myriad]

Nope. Eye for an eye.That is the default.

I was wondering why the town librarian came into my home and took away one of my books and held onto it for nine days, after I had that overdue library book. And then the police department parked one of their vehicles on the street inconveniently close to my driveway for three hours, as a penalty for violating a parking rule. It was this simple ancient yet amazingly practical system in action!

 

[Bob001]

No, Bob. I don’t have to justify execution, as it should be the default in certain cases. .....

Which cases? Who is competent to decide? On what evidence? How would errors be prevented? Be specific.

 

[Warp12]

Which cases? Who is competent to decide? On what evidence? How would errors be prevented? Be specific.

Bob, this is pointless. You have already expressed that even in the McVeigh and Gacy cases, you would not endorse execution. I am not going to engage you any further on this topic, unless you open your mind.

 

[AmyStrange]

Bob, this is pointless. You have already expressed that even in the McVeigh and Gacy cases, you would not endorse execution. I am not going to engage you any further on this topic, unless you open your mind.

Translation: I don't have an answer because all my arguments are based on the closed-minded idea that we should take the black guy out back (or anyone for that matter), lynch them, and to hell with due process.

Once again, that argument is sad, sick, barbaric, and makes you no better than the Gacys, Bundys, and Ridgways of the world.

 

[Bob001]

Bob, this is pointless. You have already expressed that even in the McVeigh and Gacy cases, you would not endorse execution. I am not going to engage you any further on this topic, unless you open your mind.

And yet you are unable to answer basic questions that follow from your claims. The criminal justice system is tasked with resolving specific charges applied to specific defendants for specific crimes. "Kill'em all because I wanna!" is not a thoughtful judicial philosophy.

 

[Crossbow]

Bob, this is pointless. You have already expressed that even in the McVeigh and Gacy cases, you would not endorse execution. I am not going to engage you any further on this topic, unless you open your mind.

Well then, ...

If you can ever actually figure out just what it is that you are actually trying to implement, then kindly let the rest of us know.

Thanks much.

 

[catsmate]

It's one of the classic techniques of someone who doesn't want to have to defend their position, along with reversal of the burden of proof, which is what Warp12 has been doing throughout this thread. The question s/he has carefully avoided answering, for the most part, is:

Why should we kill murderers?

It's a fair question; the null hypothesis would be that there is no particular reason to kill murderers. Arguing against the null hypothesis would require an explanation of why killing murderers is superior to any other action that might be taken, on whatever grounds the arguer chooses. Warp12 has skipped this step and progressed to Just Asking Questions, a classic way of evading the argument.

Since I've presented my arguments against the death penalty quite clearly, I'm not going to bother discussing them until Warp12 advances some in its favour. If s/he doesn't, I'll assume that constitutes a concession that s/he doesn't have any good enough to offer.

Dave

Curiously 'amateur' murderers have a low recidivism rate when released.

 

[catsmate]

The whole question boils down to what the point is of punishing, right? Is it to keep society safe from predators, or to get even, or what?

Regarding execution being "more expensive" than life incarceration, disagreed. It is very artificially made to be more expensive. The cost could be knocked down to the $100 range with the simple dropping of pretense.

Warp asks if we are "okay with" a Gacy or Dahmer passing on a bit earlier than nature intended. Pretty sure we all are. But the question is whether we should be the ones bringing about that passing. Because of the inevitable eventual wrong verdict, we really shouldn't. It's more than a little barbaric to say "yeah, I'm ok with the occasional innocent being killed by the State as long as we can watch some guilty ones take a bullet". If we are all about Justice, that includes protecting against bad sentencing, which we can't possibly do if we kill the mother ****** in a fit of bloodlust.

The criminal justice punishment system isn't just about retribution, at least in most countries; there should be rehabilitation, incapacitation, restitution and deterrence factors too. How does execution help with them?

 

[Thermal]

The criminal justice punishment system isn't just about retribution, at least in most countries; there should be rehabilitation, incapacitation, restitution and deterrence factors too. How does execution help with them?

Well let's run them down:

-rehabilitation: I don't think a Charles Manson is going to see the err of their ways and turn to the proverbial straight and narrow, nor would it be possible for them to go on to be productive members of a forgiving and embracing society. Color me pessimist.

-incapacitation: yeah, execution is stellar for that.

-restitution: yeah, killing the killer kind of balances the scales, too. Unless you suggest the murderer should physically pay the survivors back? Via an involuntary servitude or something? Hm.

-deterrence: is there something other than the threat of your own life being ended that would more effectively deter a murderer? Making him wear last year's fashions or something?

While I agree that capital punishment is not generally a good idea, these are not the reasons.

 

[Steve]

A remarkable balancing act by our Jesus according to Mathew who also attributed the following words to him:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Thus endorsing to "eye for an eye" approach whilst pushing the forgiving line ....... remarkable dexterity.

Ah yes. The Christian Bible. A little something for everyone. Ambiguous be thy name.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nobody cares what the book that mentions unicorns 9 times says about the topic.