The reason for a death penalty

[CFLarsen]

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?

Read post #13 again. Really really read it.

 

[linusrichard]

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

You can't prevent people from committing crimes against other people, except by killing them. That's something everyone needs to understand. So the answer to your question is "no." However, it makes it more difficult for him to commit crimes against other people, and it does prevent him from raping babies.

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.

Please feel free to point out where I defined civilized as being against the death penalty. I only said that incarceration is more civilized than the death penalty.

If the goal is to get him to stop killing people, how does locking him up with other people fit that goal?

How does locking him up, restricting his access to weapons, and having armed guards watch him most of the time, fit the goal of stopping him from killing people? I'm sure I can think of a way...

My method makes sure that he never hurts society again.

Fair enough.

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.

Like incarceration.

It's measured reaction based on facts rather than hope in the bright light of day.

Like incarceration.

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?

It's the fundamental difference between self-defense and punishment. What you don't get is this - if I kill the burglar, I'm not punishing him in any sense of the word. I am protecting my life (and my family's lives). The key is in what will happen (or what it is reasonable to believe is likely to happen) if I don't kill him. Once the burglar is locked up, the same question applies - what will happen if we don't kill him? Nothing.

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.

True, and just because someone's been convicted of a crime doesn't mean it's 100% certain that they committed it.

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?

Because preventing someone from murdering has a benefit, and taking revenge on a murderer does not.

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.

Did you type this with a straight face?
Here is your argument, applied to other areas:
"Seat belts do nothing to save lives, since people wearing seat belts have still been killed in car crashes."
"Condoms do nothing to prevent pregnancy, since people using condoms have still gotten pregnant."

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Absolutely.

Think about Hess. What is his historical legacy?

A nut who wasn't put to death, but kept in prison. Überloser.

That he killed himself emphasizes why we shouldn't execute people: Don't give them the satisfaction of becoming heroes after their deaths. Saddam Hussein became even more of a hero after his execution. Hitler himself recognized the value of going down with the ship. He was frantically scared of being exhibited as a prisoner.

Keep them locked up. That is the ultimate punishment: Take away the most prized of all things: Freedom.

...right?

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.

No, I haven't defined civilized as being against the death penalty. It is one of the things that shows if a society is more civilized than others.

 

[Leftus]

I did read it. You were using it as a strawman. Then you proceeded to ignore everything else when it didn't work.

If freedom is more valuable than life, how is taking away their freedom more civil? The truth is that without life there is no freedom. The death penalty takes their freedom away longer and more permanently without the ability for them to ever regain it. As a method of removing freedom it is perfect. If the penalty is to take away their freedom forever I know of only one way to be 100% certain that happens.

---

If the goal is to get them to stop, and there are ways such as education and employment and others for those who do want to give up the life of crime and are done a disservice being locked up with those who are in there forever and have no desire to either help or stay out of the way. It's far less civil to those who are trying to change their ways to lock them up with the same people, or take away their chances by taking away the resources that would make that possible.

If the goal is less crime, and less crime includes what happens in prison to prisoners, and less crime means more civilization, then the death penalty does what a cage can not. Make that happen.

Self defense is an instant death penalty that makes the average citizen judge, jury and executioner. To say that you aren't punishing the burglar by killing him distorts the word punishment beyond any ability to apply it to anything else. You are, in fact, judging this burglar who may not be in the process of committing an act that is death penalty worthy, and giving it to him without any due process.

Self defense has no due process for the dead. The death penalty is filled with due process. Why is the former more civilized and the latter not? Which is more likely to be wrong?

How do you know that the burglar you are shooting in your house is a murderer?

You don't. You are applying the death penalty before it is warranted. At least the justice system lets you earn it based on actions.

You missed the point of the last sentence. Locking up the bad guys lowers does make the outside more civil. But it doesn't lower it as much as the death penalty. Warehousing people isn't civil because it does nothing to improve their lives nor does it allow them the chance to do so. And that is what prisons have become. Warehouses of people. If you can remove the people who have committed acts so uncivil that they would have rated an instant self defense death penalty then you have more resources to improve and change the lives of the inmates in a positive manner.

 

[Leftus]

No, I haven't defined civilized as being against the death penalty. It is one of the things that shows if a society is more civilized than others.

Circular.

 

[Kaarjuus]

I said if someone kills another individual for any reason other than self defense, they have given up their right to their own life. I didn't specify methods. If I murder someone, I would fully expect to get the death penalty, and I wouldn't appeal. I understand that I've given up my right to live by taking the life of another, as the law is currently written.

There's a logical problem with your approach, which should be quite obvious. Who should kill the convicted killer? And who should then kill the killer of the first killer, since it wasn't a kill in self defense? And who should then kill the killer of the killer of the..

Because, by killing, the killers have given up their right to their own life.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

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.

That's your opinion. But I don't understand how you would decide who "deserves" to be put to death. I don't think anyone deserves it. I think that that law is uncivilized.

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

But do you think that philosophy is based in reality? I think people understand that they would be punished, either by long-term incarceration or by death, if they were to kill someone, yet people do it every day.

The problem is, it's not a perfect system and there are probably innocent people on death row. Casualties of an imperfect system. Sucks, but what are you going to do?

That's kind of cavalier, isn't? Maybe we can stop executing prisoners?

Do you imprison someone for life? It's simply not cost effective, and frankly, their lives are NOT worth the cost IF the really did kill an innocent person or nine.

As the system is today, I don't like it.

It has been suggested that we should only execute prisoners that we are absolutely sure are 100% guilty. However, most prosecutes feel that the murderers they convict are 100% guilty or they wouldn't prosecute them. What do you think that says about our ability to determine without error who should get the death penalty?

The facts are that prosecutes and juries make mistakes. Innocent people go to prison and onto Death Row on occasion. Do you have some magical crystal ball that tells you who, beyond any doubt, is and who isn't guilty?

Also, putting aside your statement that a particular person's life is not "worth the cost [of imprisoning them]", you're wrong about it being too costly to keep someone in prison for life as opposed to executing him. It is much more expensive to prosecute someone for the death penalty, especially when you include the appeals process.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

Report to Washington State Bar Association regarding costs

• At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 inadditional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.
• On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.
• Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional$137,000 in public defense costs.

FINAL REPORT OF THE DEATH PENALTY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC DEFENSE, Washington State Bar Association, December 2006).

This study also suggests that it is less expensive to lock someone up "and throw away the key" than it is to execute them.

Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases
That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)

It seems like it would save a lot more tax dollars if you would just lock them up for the rest of their lives.

If there is no doubt that someone murdered a family, and they are caught, knife in hand, they should be put to death within the month.

If there is ANY doubt, the death penalty shouldn't be an option.

Sure would be easier if people didnt' resort to crime, huh?!

People are convicted of murder every day "beyond a shadow of a doubt", yet we have already agreed that, on occasion, innocent people are convicted of murder. What does that suggest?

And I am not sure what you're getting at with that last (highlighted) statement? It would be easier if people didn't resort to crime, but we live in the real world where people commit crimes every day. Pinocchio is always going to be wood.

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?

Can you provide me with the law, constitutional amendment, whatever, that states that a person gives up his or her right to life if they murder someone? I don't see it. Or is that just your personal belief?

I think it was Loss Leader who said it too, but if someone were to kill my family, I would probably want to kill that person myself, but that's just the reason why I shouldn't be allowed to. The person should be tried by his peers, convicted and locked up forever. That's fine with me really. Nothing would bring back my loved ones and so that person's death is not going to make me feel any better.

 

[Leftus]

This study also suggests that it is less expensive to lock someone up "and throw away the key" than it is to execute them.

Only because of due process that is essentially denied to those not getting the death penalty. Those who you "lock up and throw away the key" get far less justice than those executed if measured by due process. They don't get new trials and better lawyers because the punishment isn't important enough. Nobody is running DNA evidence against lifers to get them off the hook. Nobody cares about them. They get less justice.

Can you provide me with the law, constitutional amendment, whatever, that states that a person gives up his or her right to life if they murder someone?

Amendment 5.

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

Amendment 14

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

It lets the states define the crime, which was the point of the document, but the death penalty as a concept is permitted and endorsed.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You can't prevent people from committing crimes against other people, except by killing them.

Life in prison would not help?

 

[UserGoogol]

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.

Stopping him from murdering people is not the ultimate good, but merely is a subgoal on the way to maximizing the overall goodness. Stringing murderers up by their intestines and beating them with baseball bats would stop them from murdering people, but it would cause unnecessary pain and suffering which I think would detract from the overall good. (Of course, when you go that far, it's also rather blatantly a violation of the constitution.)

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.

I'm actually not much of a fan of self-defense, exactly for the reasons you say. But there are some rather important differences. When a person is having their life threatened, you can't reasonably expect them to be so magnanimous as to turn the cheek for the greater good. Furthermore, when a person is being attacked, they really don't have the option of carefully weighing the plusses and minuses. Thus, self-defense isn't so much a "good thing" as a justifiable thing. Although in an ideal world, people would not be killed by people acting in self defense, punishing a person for acting in self-defense (provided that that self-defense was not egregiously disproportionate) just makes a bad situation worse.

 

[Tricky]

The only reason to execute a person is because they have shown themselves to be a continual and, as well as can be determined, incurable risk to society.

Sadly, there are some people like this. Happily, not many.

 

[Matteo Martini]

The only reason to execute a person is because they have shown themselves to be a continual and, as well as can be determined, incurable risk to society.

Sadly, there are some people like this. Happily, not many.

Why would life in prison not do?

 

[DanishDynamite]

But is it civilized to put people to death?

Certainly it is. In fact, it is barbaric not to allow people who wish to die the oppertunity to do so.

 

[Tricky]

Why would life in prison not do?

In my opinion, it is cruel. Also, it doesn't guarantee they won't do something horrible to a guard or another prisoner. Since you have no plans to rehabilitate the person, what is the point? Just to assuage your guilt feelings?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Only because of due process that is essentially denied to those not getting the death penalty. Those who you "lock up and throw away the key" get far less justice than those executed if measured by due process. They don't get new trials and better lawyers because the punishment isn't important enough. Nobody is running DNA evidence against lifers to get them off the hook. Nobody cares about them. They get less justice.



Amendment 5.

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

Amendment 14

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

It lets the states define the crime, which was the point of the document, but the death penalty as a concept is permitted and endorsed.

All those are saying is that someone accused of a capital crime must not be punished for that crime unless they are indicted by a grand jury and provided with a fair trial. It says nothing about that person giving up his or her right to life if they murder someone.

I'll grant you that prisoners facing execution are more motivated to take advantage of the appeal process, but that does not mean that lifers don't have the same right.

And it is untrue that "nobody is running DNA evidence against lifers to get them off the hook". It happens quite frequently (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/issues/volume62/number3/christian.pdf). It's just that they don't get as much attention in the press.

The fact remains that there have been and will continue to be people wrongly convicted of capital crimes. As long as that possibility exists, there should be no death penalty. Even if there wasn't that possibility, I think it would be wrong. Either it's wrong to take a human life or it's not and that goes for an individual as well as the State.

In my opinion, it is cruel. Also, it doesn't guarantee they won't do something horrible to a guard or another prisoner. Since you have no plans to rehabilitate the person, what is the point? Just to assuage your guilt feelings?

That is a good question, what is the purpose of the Federal prison system? Is it solely for punishment or for rehabilitation? Or both? Right now all I see is that the system is really good for punishment, but not so much for rehabilitation, so what we get are ex-convicts that are even more pissed off and less able to get along in society. The recidivism rates reflect that. And yes, there are some among the prison population that are beyond reach and perhaps they should remain behind bars for the rest of their lives, but it's the ones that might be turned around that concern me.

 

[Matteo Martini]

In my opinion, it is cruel.

While killing them is not cruel?

Also, it doesn't guarantee they won't do something horrible to a guard or another prisoner.

Unlikely, if the prison system works well

Since you have no plans to rehabilitate the person, what is the point? Just to assuage your guilt feelings?

What is the point of living, since we all have to die?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Either it's wrong to take a human life or it's not and that goes for an individual as well as the State.

Agreed 100%.
I keep getting humiliated, as I see people expressing my thoughts in an English which is by far superior than mine.
Alas, I will never be like a native speaker..

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Actually, you write just fine, but thanks. Tricky is a much better writer than I am. Wait and see!

 

[CFLarsen]

I did read it. You were using it as a strawman. Then you proceeded to ignore everything else when it didn't work.

If freedom is more valuable than life, how is taking away their freedom more civil? The truth is that without life there is no freedom. The death penalty takes their freedom away longer and more permanently without the ability for them to ever regain it. As a method of removing freedom it is perfect. If the penalty is to take away their freedom forever I know of only one way to be 100% certain that happens.

What if you are wrong? You will never get around the problem of false executions. At some point, you will execute innocent people.

Of course, you could argue that it would be worth it. But then, you are putting the right to execute higher than the freedom of innocents.

If the goal is to get them to stop, and there are ways such as education and employment and others for those who do want to give up the life of crime and are done a disservice being locked up with those who are in there forever and have no desire to either help or stay out of the way. It's far less civil to those who are trying to change their ways to lock them up with the same people, or take away their chances by taking away the resources that would make that possible.

If the goal is less crime, and less crime includes what happens in prison to prisoners, and less crime means more civilization, then the death penalty does what a cage can not. Make that happen.

Self defense is an instant death penalty that makes the average citizen judge, jury and executioner. To say that you aren't punishing the burglar by killing him distorts the word punishment beyond any ability to apply it to anything else. You are, in fact, judging this burglar who may not be in the process of committing an act that is death penalty worthy, and giving it to him without any due process.

Self defense has no due process for the dead. The death penalty is filled with due process. Why is the former more civilized and the latter not? Which is more likely to be wrong?

How do you know that the burglar you are shooting in your house is a murderer?

You don't. You are applying the death penalty before it is warranted. At least the justice system lets you earn it based on actions.

You missed the point of the last sentence. Locking up the bad guys lowers does make the outside more civil. But it doesn't lower it as much as the death penalty. Warehousing people isn't civil because it does nothing to improve their lives nor does it allow them the chance to do so. And that is what prisons have become. Warehouses of people. If you can remove the people who have committed acts so uncivil that they would have rated an instant self defense death penalty then you have more resources to improve and change the lives of the inmates in a positive manner.

You worry about how people's lives are in prison, but you don't worry about killing them?

Circular.

No. Learn something about logical fallacies, please.

There's a logical problem with your approach, which should be quite obvious. Who should kill the convicted killer? And who should then kill the killer of the first killer, since it wasn't a kill in self defense? And who should then kill the killer of the killer of the..

Because, by killing, the killers have given up their right to their own life.

The only way we can get around that, is to allow the state to take our lives. Thus, putting the state higher than freedom.

Certainly it is. In fact, it is barbaric not to allow people who wish to die the oppertunity to do so.

That's an entirely different issue.

 

[Tricky]

While killing them is not cruel?

It is less cruel, IMO.

Unlikely, if the prison system works well.

In reality, it happens with great frequency. If our government systems all worked well, nobody would be falsely imprisoned either. But they don't. This really shouldn't surprise you.

What is the point of living, since we all have to die?

Each life is different. This really shouldn't surprise you.

Here is the point where you ask "Do you think the prisoner would prefer to die?". (Yes, we've been through this discussion before). My answer is, "No, but then if you asked the prisoner, he'd probably prefer to be released. Our justice system is not in place for the purpose of granting the prisoners' wishes. It is there to benefit society as a whole."