Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

Over here we call it apples and oranges. But really, we are getting carried away with pedantic trivia here. No offense, but I need to recharge somewhere.

Comparisons are made ( between nations ) all the time on:
- military expenses
- GDP
- scholarization ratio
- population
- economic trends
- ..

I can not see why we can not make them for homicide rates..
 
Why do you separate killing an ordinary citizen in "normal society" from killing a fellow prisoner?

Aren't both equally immoral?

Well, two points here:
1) murders among fellow prisoners are bad, but, the point that Bob Klase was making is:
" Well, since you admit that the death of the victim can not be repaired, then the only thing left from your above opinion is avoiding its occurrence in the future. "
Now, about an inmate killing a person in the outside, that will not happen, unless the inmate escapes.
About, an inmate killing another inmate, this is bad, but, if you keep inmates that should have been sent to death together, it is far better for the inmate, in my opinion, to escape a death for sure ( death-sentence ) than to risk an accidental murder from another inmate
2) if inmates that should have been sent to death are properly segregated, the risk of a murder can be low ( IMHO )

And no, people escape from prison every year. Year after year, time after time.

1) do you have any evidence for that?
2) do you have any evidence that the number of people escaping can not be reduced to a reasonable minimum ( or, to zero ), if the inmates are properly segregated in particular areas of the prison?
 
Comparisons are made ( between nations ) all the time on:
- military expenses
- GDP
- scholarization ratio
- population
- economic trends
- ..

I can not see why we can not make them for homicide rates..

This is getting frustrating.

I said there were social and cultural factors, obviously, that affect such issues.

I said that making simplistic statistical comparisons with societies and cultures that have little in common makes that form of comparison basically useless.

You are getting too pedantic for this to lead anywhere.

Nite.
 
Well, two points here:
1) murders among fellow prisoners are bad, but, the point that Bob Klase was making is:
" Well, since you admit that the death of the victim can not be repaired, then the only thing left from your above opinion is avoiding its occurrence in the future. "
Now, about an inmate killing a person in the outside, that will not happen, unless the inmate escapes.
About, an inmate killing another inmate, this is bad, but, if you keep inmates that should have been sent to death together, it is far better for the inmate, in my opinion, to escape a death for sure ( death-sentence ) than to risk an accidental murder from another inmate
2) if inmates that should have been sent to death are properly segregated, the risk of a murder can be low ( IMHO )



1) do you have any evidence for that?
2) do you have any evidence that the number of people escaping can not be reduced to a reasonable minimum ( or, to zero ), if the inmates are properly segregated in particular areas of the prison?


Just wow!

Are you mentally incapable of doing a Google search?
 
This is getting frustrating.

I said there were social and cultural factors, obviously, that affect such issues.

I said that making simplistic statistical comparisons with societies and cultures that have little in common makes that form of comparison basically useless.

You are getting too pedantic for this to lead anywhere.

Nite.

I agree that there are social and cultural factors affecting such issues.
Still, the fact that the murder rate in the US is so high, should suggest something..
Not proving, just strongly suggesting..
If you do not want to look at the comparison pf the number of murders between the US and nother countries in Europe, well, that is up to you..
 
Last edited:
"The Life of David Gale" - Makes a better arguement than OP.

One really shouldn't use rare occasions to create general standards.
 
"The Life of David Gale" - Makes a better arguement than OP.

One really shouldn't use rare occasions to create general standards.

Agreed with that.
Anyway, my aim was not to show that death penatly was wrong using my ( supposed, not real ) example as " proof ", but, I wanted to show the inconsistency of the morals underlying the death penalty.
Again, just my opinion.
 
Again, I would not consider homosexual sex a " pleasure ", if you are not homosexual yourself, and/or you are forced into it.

I wouldn't either. But since we're not talking about you and me I don't think we consititute a definite majority on the issue.

Also, I have yet to see evidence that taking drugs and having sex is a common behaviour in US prisons, and evidence, that this behaviour can not be stopped somehow.

I didn't make the claim that it is common. I suspect that it's much more common than you think, but if I really cared I suspect that it wouldn't take long to find evidence one way or the other- I'm sure a google search would turn up something.

How?
If a person is in prson for life, how can he kill people in normal society ( i.e. outside prison ), unless he manages to escape ( quite difficult, it seems )?

Person in prison for life- difficult to escape and kill people in normal society.
Person executed- Impossible to escape and kill people in normal society.

Person in prison for life- difficult kill prison guards (who I would consider part of normal society).
Person executed- Impossible kill prison guards (who I would consider part of normal society).

Person in prison for life- difficult to kill other prisoners.
Person executed- Impossible to kill other prisoners.

How?
If a person is in prson for life, how can he kill people in normal society ( i.e. outside prison )

Conclusion- it appears from that claim that you don't mind the death penalty for people who are already in prison as long as they're killed by another inmate and not the state (ie- Jeffrey Dahlmer).
 
About, an inmate killing another inmate, this is bad, but, if you keep inmates that should have been sent to death together, it is far better for the inmate, in my opinion, to escape a death for sure ( death-sentence ) than to risk an accidental murder from another inmate
2) if inmates that should have been sent to death are properly segregated, the risk of a murder can be low ( IMHO )

And if there's no death penalty, how would you [society- not you actually] decide which prisoners "should have been sent to death".

Currently, the law decides what crimes are eligible for death, then a jury decides whether the death penalty should be applied, then (depending on the state) a judge makes the final decision.

If there is no death penalty then none of that will happen. So, do we just let the warden or the prison guards decide "gee, 50 years ago this guy would have got death, so we'll just violate his rights and put him with the other "guys who should have died" without worrying about a jury or judge or any of that worthless legal-type stuff.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't either. But since we're not talking about you and me I don't think we consititute a definite majority on the issue.

I think the vast majority of etherosexual prisoners would not have sex with a big bubba, if they can avoid it ( just my opinion )

I didn't make the claim that it is common. I suspect that it's much more common than you think, but if I really cared I suspect that it wouldn't take long to find evidence one way or the other- I'm sure a google search would turn up something.

Already did some research.
Also, please note, that the possibility of having sex + using drugs in jail, can be furtherly reduced if the inmate(s) are put in special secluded sections

Person in prison for life- difficult to escape and kill people in normal society.
Person executed- Impossible to escape and kill people in normal society.

Person in prison for life- difficult kill prison guards (who I would consider part of normal society).
Person executed- Impossible kill prison guards (who I would consider part of normal society).

Person in prison for life- difficult to kill other prisoners.
Person executed- Impossible to kill other prisoners.

Person in prison for life- extremely difficult to escape and kill people in normal society ( if they are properly secluded )
Person executed- Impossible to escape and kill people in normal society.

Person in prison for life- extremely difficult to kill prison guards ( if they are properly secluded )
Person executed- Impossible kill prison guards (who I would consider part of normal society).

Person in prison for life- extremely difficult to kill other prisoners( if they are properly secluded )
Person executed- Impossible to kill other prisoners.

Disclaimer
The " extremely difficult " thing, is just my opinion ( based on what I know about the Italian high security prisons

Conclusion- it appears from that claim that you don't mind the death penalty for people who are already in prison as long as they're killed by another inmate and not the state (ie- Jeffrey Dahlmer).

Well, I think that it is better to work for having no inmate ( one of who would be sent to death according to the current law ) killed by another inmate, even if we can not rule out this possibility, than to kill them all ( the ones of who would be sent to death according to the current law )
 
And if there's no death penalty, how would you [society- not you actually] decide which prisoners "should have been sent to death".

Basically, you can have life in prison without parole in specially secluded parts of the prisons for inmates who committed particularly bad crimes ( more or less, the same crimes that, today, could lead someone to death capital )
 
Sorry I'm a little late to this thread, what with the parking situation and all. Man, that traffic....

Oh, yeah, ok, sorry.

Anyway, IMHO, the death penalty as it currently stands is wrong. Executions well out of public view after years - even decades - of support? Totally wrong. Personally, I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes, when the evidence is as clear as possible. Executions should be done in public (televised, if possible, on major networks), and we should use more gruesome, old-fashioned methods (I'm a fan of the drawn-and-quartered school of execution).

My reasoning is simply this: the number one purpose of the death penalty should be future crime deterrant. As it currently stands, it isn't deterring much at all - because it's hidden away, and is all neat and peaceful. Let the viewers of Fox watch in horror as J. Dahmer is bled to death by leeches! Let the ABC network broadcast images of C. Manson undergoing painful vivisection! It might not help deter the mental cases, but it might well help keep a few more people in line, if they could SEE the results of their potential crimes.

But considering that no one's going to start broadcasting public executions (think about the CHILDREN!), my second choice would be to have some special island prison constructed, in such a way as to be extremely difficult to escape from - and just drop them off and leave them on this island. No more medical care, no providing them meals - let them fend for themselves among their fellow psychopaths. Shoot anything that tries to leave the island with maximum prejudice. The taxpayers cover the cost of transport - probably helicopter fuel and maintenance - , guard salaries and upkeep, ammo for the weapons, and occasional reinforcement of the security that keeps the prisoners inside.

But I'm known to be pretty draconian in these cases...
 
Anyway, IMHO...

But I'm known to be pretty draconian in these cases...

Dear Z,

Humble opinions indeed. My question to you is, why so restrained? Who needs rapists, for instance? Why bother supporting convicted rapists at the expense of the state? Isn't rape worth discouraging? Ask a woman about that one. What about car thieves? Have you ever had your car stolen? If you have, you'll know how debilitating and frustrating it is. What do we need people like that around for? And so forth.

You're very prepared to disregard all tenets of humanism and human rights, and willing to degrade the humanity of both prisoners and executioner-cum-torturers, but why draw some arbitrary line for "the worst" killers? Pimps, thieves, molesters, arsonists, why wouldn't you, in your dehumanised world, simply eradicate them all for the benefits of the good, law-abiding people who certainly don't need them around for anything?

Cpl Ferro
 
Sorry I'm a little late to this thread, what with the parking situation and all. Man, that traffic....

Oh, yeah, ok, sorry.

Anyway, IMHO, the death penalty as it currently stands is wrong. Executions well out of public view after years - even decades - of support? Totally wrong. Personally, I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes, when the evidence is as clear as possible. Executions should be done in public (televised, if possible, on major networks), and we should use more gruesome, old-fashioned methods (I'm a fan of the drawn-and-quartered school of execution).

My reasoning is simply this: the number one purpose of the death penalty should be future crime deterrant. As it currently stands, it isn't deterring much at all - because it's hidden away, and is all neat and peaceful. Let the viewers of Fox watch in horror as J. Dahmer is bled to death by leeches! Let the ABC network broadcast images of C. Manson undergoing painful vivisection! It might not help deter the mental cases, but it might well help keep a few more people in line, if they could SEE the results of their potential crimes.

But considering that no one's going to start broadcasting public executions (think about the CHILDREN!), my second choice would be to have some special island prison constructed, in such a way as to be extremely difficult to escape from - and just drop them off and leave them on this island. No more medical care, no providing them meals - let them fend for themselves among their fellow psychopaths. Shoot anything that tries to leave the island with maximum prejudice. The taxpayers cover the cost of transport - probably helicopter fuel and maintenance - , guard salaries and upkeep, ammo for the weapons, and occasional reinforcement of the security that keeps the prisoners inside.

But I'm known to be pretty draconian in these cases...

You have also changed your stance quite radically:

"An it harm none" also includes yourself, your family, etc.

How this line is interpreted is purely up to the individual Wiccan.

In my own case, I choose to interpret it to mean, "So long as no humans are deliberately harmed, do as you please." By harm, I refer to physical, mental, and economic harm; I am uninterested in emotional harm or other, less-defined forms of 'harm'. I also choose to interpret this as not causing needless harm to other living things, meaning no sport-hunting, casual abortions, child abuse, etc. No chopping forests down just to get a better view. No smoking around other people.

There really is no single, hard, fast answer to the question, Larsen.

Death is merely part of the cycle of life. Things must die so other things can live. Things die casually all the time in nature. Some harm always happens, but between humans, this need not be so.

In the broadest sense, the Rede is simply a suggestion or guideline for how to behave: when faced with a choice, determine whether any of your options will cause needless harm, and proceed from there. But it is not a Law, and many Pagans don't follow it at all.

There is also, for some Wiccans, a longer form of the Rede (Doreen Valiente's comes to mind, which is a lengthy poem full of odd concepts) that includes something along the lines of 'except in self defense, an it harm none, do what thou wilt'. Other Wiccan traditions have their own moral guidelines built roughly on this idea, or on other similar ideas.

So, do you have the same problem with, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you?" Really, most religions have some form of the Golden Rule/Wiccan Rede in them. The idea isn't to cause no harm at all to anything - that is an abomination to nature. The idea is to not cause needless harm - but to recognize that many things don't harm people at all, so why worry about them? Why shouldn't two same-sex lovers do what they want, as long as they aren't hurting other people? Why shouldn't you be allowed (if it is your wont to do so) to walk around stark naked as long as you aren't going to freeze to death or burn up?

I'll try to give more clear answers later.
 
Dear Z,

Humble opinions indeed. My question to you is, why so restrained? Who needs rapists, for instance? Why bother supporting convicted rapists at the expense of the state? Isn't rape worth discouraging? Ask a woman about that one. What about car thieves? Have you ever had your car stolen? If you have, you'll know how debilitating and frustrating it is. What do we need people like that around for? And so forth.

You're very prepared to disregard all tenets of humanism and human rights, and willing to degrade the humanity of both prisoners and executioner-cum-torturers, but why draw some arbitrary line for "the worst" killers? Pimps, thieves, molesters, arsonists, why wouldn't you, in your dehumanised world, simply eradicate them all for the benefits of the good, law-abiding people who certainly don't need them around for anything?

Cpl Ferro

Hmmm... good point! And a solid 'death penalty for all criminal offenses' law would further deter future rapists, arsonists, etc. from doing the same (though not 100% deterrence, I'm afraid)...

Of course, all of that becomes moot once we determine how to properly alter the structure of the brain so that these once criminal people no longer have any desire to commit their crimes. Why, I'd use direct manipulation on anyone inclined to breaking any law at all. From parking violations to mass child-nun-rape-murderers, they'd all go under the knife and be reformed.

By the time we reach that level of science, there'd only be about a million or so people left, though, after my hard-core Draconian execution system...

What a paradise that would be!

.....

All kidding aside, though, if I were to write up the legal code, rapists would face public castration (again, televised). Child molesters would be publicly castrated, and then isolated on my island prison with the worst murderers. Thieves... well, theft is, to me, a very different sort of crime. I'm not sure I have the words to explain, but I've always had a somewhat different view on property than I probably should, in that if someone can take what I have, they deserve it and I don't. But of course, society disagrees... I think the tendency to steal can be reformed, but for repeat offenders, life imprisonment works well for them. They deserve life; they're just a threat to the property rights of those who accept society's take on property.

Arson would fall into the murder category, unless it was just property damage, so if no one was hurt, I'd categorize them with the thieves.

.....

Yeah, I'm a little frustrated with our soft and lazy legal system.
 
You have also changed your stance quite radically:

Not particularly. I, myself, could not execute another person, unless such execution served to prevent harm to other human beings. But passiing or forming rules to allow for their execution, wherein such executions prevent further harm to other humans (by first removing those prone to causing harm, and by second deterring some from causing further harm) is by no means a violation of the nature of the Wiccan Rede.

But I don't expect you to understand that, Larsen; it doesn't fit with your own little black-and-white world.
 
Not particularly. I, myself, could not execute another person, unless such execution served to prevent harm to other human beings. But passiing or forming rules to allow for their execution, wherein such executions prevent further harm to other humans (by first removing those prone to causing harm, and by second deterring some from causing further harm) is by no means a violation of the nature of the Wiccan Rede.

So, you take no responsibility for the society you want to create?

But I don't expect you to understand that, Larsen; it doesn't fit with your own little black-and-white world.

I understand wiccans much better than you like.
 

Back
Top Bottom