The reason for a death penalty

[billydkid]

Reading some of the comments on the blog makes me think that some people who wrote them are almost as sick as the accused.

Who are we to judge him?

I didn't click the link because I don't really want to know - I just read the post talking about it and that was more than enough. If that post is an accurate description - you can't be serious "Who are we to judge him?" I'm sure some of the comments are more than harsh, but that is certainly understandable.

 

[D'rok]

Um, what definition of rationalizing is that? As I read it UserGoogol is "only" pointing out that to a baby, with its limited cognitive facilities, it likely makes no difference if it's killed by anal rape or being stabbed or shot even if we find it some ways of causing pain and leathal blood loss more abhorrent than others. Which seems correct to me, even though it's a uselessly limited argument.

I could be totally wrong in this interpretation, (apologies in advance if so), but I think he's trying to shift the focus away from sodomy as part of the evilness of the crime for his own purposes, thus the rationalization. (Just for the record: I approve of sodomy between consenting adults of whatever gender and I sympathize fully and completely with those who suffer discrimination and bigotry based on the practice of it. Yay sodomites!).

But that point is that we find raping newborns to death more abhorrent than stabbing them to death. It's not rational, but there it is. Minimizing the crime is offensive.

And yes, my use of the term thought crime was partly hyperbole, and partly that I was lumping your response in with those of cloudshipsrule and GroundStrength.

Since it wasn't there when I replied I'd also like to comment on your added point. Why shouldn't we be allowed to debate ideas with the rationality of a judge in a courtroom?

You are allowed to. And I'm allowed to point out that it's inappropriate.


ETA: Hmmm...after some searching, I think I am confusing UserGoogol with another poster. An apology is owed. UserGoogol, I apologize and retract what I said above (the bit about the rationalization).

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, as a proper expression of society's revulsion to certain acts.

Having said that, I can understand many Europeans' opposition to it, having had political executions in living memory.

First, you can't extrapolate what happened in individual European countries to the whole of Europe.

Second, that's not why Europeans (EU member states) are against the death penalty. It is simply recognizing and protecting humans rights. Read more here and here.

You want to talk about the Rosenbergs?

 

[Leftus]

It is more civilized to keep someone locked up in a prison until they die.

We object strongly to what we see as barbaric punishments. We don't punish people by throwing them to the lions. We don't draw and quarter people anymore. We don't even chop off their heads, even though that's as quickly and effective as it get. We have evolved into much more compassionate human beings, and we still evolve.



Money is the compensation in the case where you can't get the old thing back. Otherwise, your eye for an eye.



...thereby missing the point that the Bible isn't against slavery itself. Some "compassion".

The compassion thing was a joke. Specifically - irony. Sorry I didn't put the smiley out there for it to be decoded but I will next time since it didn't get caught. But you picked the source so I'm really not responsible for any flaws in it.

Since you can't get life back then how can you pretend that all of your examples of "an eye for an eye" hold true? Keep in mind that you, and nobody else here, used the bible as a source so any defending of it must come from you. You are using it as yet another strawman. The biblical injuction of "an eye for an eye" is the upper limit and not the end all and be all of biblical justice. At most you are to be made whole and not more than that. Most of the crimes, including the death of a fetus by an outside force, is paid for in cash. It doesn't require you to take another life. It just leaves that open as the most you can get. But, again, you picked the source.

Interesting that your choice of methods aren't the ones being used today. Do you need to use a strawman to defend your position or are you capable of doing so without it? Defining civilized, or quanitifing civilization as not having a death penalty is circular reasoning. You haven't established that the death penalty as uncivilized and you've totally ignored my statements that it's just wasteful in resources.

So lets define civilized as making the society do less harm to itself. By not using the death penalty to remove those who have nothing but ill will towards society you do damage to civilization. By using the resources to cage those people you can better direct those resources and help those who want to rejoin society into doing so instead of robbing them of their chances. Combine that with the fact they those who have no intention of rejoining civil society in an acceptable manner will do damage to those in prision who do, locking all of them in the same system does more damage to society than the percieved damages that the death penalty brings.

Is it OK for you kill someone to prevent another crime? Be it murder, rape, or something else really serious that is about to happen, is it OK? I'd wager that most people would, under certain circumstances, kill to protect themselves or others. How does such a moment of action become more civilized than a robust system of checks and balances that, hopefully, uses reason proof and thought to come to the same conclusion? Some crimes are just worthy of the death penalty if you accept the notion that there are things that you would be right in killing someone over. In fact, some crimes are worthy of the death penalty before they are actually committed when self defense is justified. So why is it ok to kill someone before they have done a wrong and not after? How is that more civilized?

 

[Crossbow]

But is it civilized to put people to death?

Excuse me but you are in no postion to argue what is civil since you will kill anyone that you see on a plane with a gun.

 

[billydkid]

Excuse me but you are in no postion to argue what is civil since you will kill anyone that you see on a plane with a gun.

You are deliciously evil.

 

[CFLarsen]

The compassion thing was a joke. Specifically - irony. Sorry I didn't put the smiley out there for it to be decoded but I will next time since it didn't get caught. But you picked the source so I'm really not responsible for any flaws in it.

Fair enough.

Since you can't get life back then how can you pretend that all of your examples of "an eye for an eye" hold true? Keep in mind that you, and nobody else here, used the bible as a source so any defending of it must come from you.

Hmmmm...no.

First, I didn't use the bible as a source. I pointed out that the principle is also used in the bible - that's where we know it mostly from.

Second, I am not defending "an eye for an eye", or the bible, quite contrary.

 

[332nd]

Having talked to family and friends who work in state and federal correctional facilities, it is my opinion that when some one sexually assaults a child (even if said assault causes the child's death,) they should not be killed. They should be placed in GenPop. Death would be the easy way out.

 

[Matteo Martini]

If the law says "You will be put to death if you kill someone and it was not for self defense.", then, yes.

I justify it this way. If I went out and shot someone, I would have no problem with the state killing me for my crime. I would deserve it. End of story.

Don't kill anyone and you won't get the death penalty!

[..]

Loss,

Assuming you have a family, (don't know if you're single or not) If someone broke in to your house and killed everyone in you family except yourself just for fun, what right do they have to continue living? I mean really.

[..]

I am against death penalty, in any case, for two reasons:

1) it is not proven that it deters criminal to kill/rape/steal/sell drugs, etc. more than life in prison, and I have quite the suspect that it is the opposite ( let me not explain why here );

2) if killing another human being not in case of self defense ( homicide ) is wrong, than also death penalty, which is killing another human being not in case of self defense, is wrong

 

[Leftus]

Hmmmm...no.

First, I didn't use the bible as a source. I pointed out that the principle is also used in the bible - that's where we know it mostly from.

Second, I am not defending "an eye for an eye", or the bible, quite contrary.

The first person to bring the bible, an eye for an eye or even the principal into the discussion was you. Because it was you that first used the principal and it was you that cited the bible as the source (as a straw man of course) you are responsible for it. It was, and still is, your evidence and nobody else's responsibility in this discussion.

Any reason you chose not to respond to the rest of refutation?

---

if killing another human being not in case of self defense ( homicide ) is wrong, than also death penalty, which is killing another human being not in case of self defense, is wrong

Why is punishing them as you would before the act somehow wrong after the fact? Before the act they haven't done the act worthy of the death penalty but you are willing to allow a death penalty for them. Somehow, after they commit the act they should escape that very same punishment they so deserved before the act.

Has any study proven that any punishment prevents any crime?

 

[MaGZ]

For those who claim to be against the death penalty...those who were executed at the Nuremberg Trials... are you against these executions?

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Here's to you, Nicola and Bart

For those who claim to be against the death penalty... those who were executed at the Nuremberg Trials... are you against these executions?

Yes.

A principle is either universal, or it's not.
If it is not, you are on a slippery slope.


My biggest beef with the death penalty is political.
History shows again, and again, that when ever the death penalty is available it will be abused as a instrument of oppression.
It is to much power in the hands of the State.

The US is however a special case.
It's legal system is very politicised, many off it's chief officers are elected (which makes them politicians).
And many of them seem to feel that they can further their careers by seeming 'though'.
And none of them are of cause free from bias.

Case in point would be the Sacco and Vanzetti case.
It's very clear that the prosecutor and the judge (and the rabble) didn't care whether or not these two gentlemen got a fair trail.
They were dagos anyway, and anarchists to boot.
The lowest common denominator ruled, rather then the highest principles.
It boils down to judicial lynchings.

The single fact that death-row inmates are practically colour-coded should get everybody's feathers in a ruffle.

The treat the death penalty poses to a free society far outweigh any hypothetical benefits.
(Which I doubt exist.)

Killing people to proof the point that it is wrong to kill people is a logical inconsistency.

 

[Matteo Martini]

For those who claim to be against the death penalty...those who were executed at the Nuremberg Trials... are you against these executions?

Life in prison without parole would be a better suited penalty for them, in order to spend the remaining time of their life thinking about the crimes committed.
Did all the executions of all Nazi criminals bring one dead Jew child back to life?

 

[linusrichard]

If your position against the death penalty is based on reason, appeals to emotion won't shake that position.

TITCR. People seem to think that death penalty opponents just haven't heard of a horrible enough criminal yet. I don't know if it's similar to thinking your gay son just hasn't met the right girl. I've never heard an argument against the death penalty that was based on the point of view that criminals on death row aren't that bad, really.

Loss,

Assuming you have a family, (don't know if you're single or not) If someone broke in to your house and killed everyone in you family except yourself just for fun, what right do they have to continue living? I mean really. If the person is caught, and there is NO doubt they did it, what right do they have to live their life after taking the lives of other, innocent individuals? When they pull the trigger on an innocent person, they give up their right to life themselves.

Says you. As a statement on what the law is, you're right in some states, and wrong in others. As a statement on what the law should be, I don't happen to agree.

If someone breaks into your home, and they are armed, do you feel that you have the right to defend your home, even if it means killing the intruder?

That's different. I have the right to live. The burglar has the right to live. If I feel sure that somebody's right is about to get violated, I'll make sure it's the burglar's. But killing somebody who's already been captured and locked up? How does that protect somebody else's right? Whom does that benefit?

I think that blog excessively demonizes anally molesting newborn babies to death.

If you have enemies on this board, you have written excellent sig material for them.

But is it civilized to keep someone locked up in a cage until they die?

More civilized than letting him out to rape and kill more babies. And more civilized than killing him. That's one of those things civilizations do - define and punish crimes, often by incarceration.

For those who claim to be against the death penalty...those who were executed at the Nuremberg Trials... are you against these executions?

Yes. I know it's hard for you to imagine that some people want the same standard for all people, without regard to race, color, or creed. But yes, we're out there.


...

I am firmly against the death penalty. That said, this does not mean that I feel bad for every person who is subjected to it.

 

[Leftus]

More civilized than letting him out to rape and kill more babies. And more civilized than killing him. That's one of those things civilizations do - define and punish crimes, often by incarceration.

Do you believe that being in prison prevents him from commiting crimes against other people?

You've fallen into the same logical flaw that Larsen and others have and that is defining civilized as being against the death penalty. It's a circular definition at that point in time and thus unworkable as a definition.

If the goal is to get him to stop killing people, how does locking him up with other people fit that goal? My method makes sure that he never hurts society again. And it's based on actions that he has already done rather than what he is likely to do in the case of self defense. It's measured reaction based on facts rather than hope in the bright light of day.

The person who has entered your house, armed, hasn't committed an act that rates the death penalty and you are willing to kill him. You are denying him the right to council, a judge, jury and an appeal process. You've denied him all of his rights and done so on a moments notice without hesitation. Why can you do that instantly and then deny society the ability to come to the same conclusion with more time to study the facts? Is it more civilized to come to judgements quickly? Just because someone's rights are "about to" be violated doesn't mean that they are 100% certain to be violated.

Why is it right to kill someone before they have done an act worthy of the death penalty and wrong to do so after the fact? Being locked up does nothing to stop criminal behavior. People can still get killed in prison after all and just because it may not be you facing it doesn't make the act any less uncivil.

 

[SomeGuy]

Loss,

Assuming you have a family, (don't know if you're single or not) If someone broke in to your house and killed everyone in you family except yourself just for fun, what right do they have to continue living? I mean really. If the person is caught, and there is NO doubt they did it, what right do they have to live their life after taking the lives of other, innocent individuals? When they pull the trigger on an innocent person, they give up their right to life themselves.

If someone breaks into your home, and they are armed, do you feel that you have the right to defend your home, even if it means killing the intruder?

I have a family if someone killed them for fun, I would kill him myself in revenge (not justice), or die trying.

I'm still against the death penalty, and fully expect to be punished for enacting my revenge.

Eventhough I would try to get my revenge in this situation I don't think I should be entitled to it, nor do I think that a judical system should be founded on revenge rather than justice.

 

[SomeGuy]

For those who claim to be against the death penalty...those who were executed at the Nuremberg Trials... are you against these executions?

Yes.


Having said that I don't think that comparing the death penalty in millitary law to death penalty in civilian/penal law is really fair.

I for one understand the usefulness of having high treason in time of war punishable by dead, I still don't support it, but I at least I can see good reasons there.

 

[skoob]

I said if someone kills another individual for any reason other than self defense, they have given up their right to their own life.

So, you propose killing every soldier who has killed for any other reason than self defence?

 

[Normal Dude]

So, you propose killing every soldier who has killed for any other reason than self defence?

Although I disagree with cloud, this is just a cheap comment. You KNOW that isn't what he means.

 

[Normal Dude]

The person who has entered your house, armed, hasn't committed an act that rates the death penalty and you are willing to kill him. You are denying him the right to council, a judge, jury and an appeal process. You've denied him all of his rights and done so on a moments notice without hesitation.

Oh spare it. The person is an IMMEDIATE threat to one's (or another's) life. This is a dishonest comparison and you know it.