The reason for a death penalty

[Tricky]

No, Claus, I've made my points. They are clear and understandable and do not require further dissection. I will leave it at that. Good day sir.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus, I've made my points. They are clear and understandable and do not require further dissection. I will leave it at that. Good day sir.

Should you choose to return to this thread, the questions will be here:

• Will you allow even a petty criminal a chance to be beneficial to society?
  
• Why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?
  
• Are there requirements for you to be productive to society, if you are to be free?
  
• What, exactly, would those "extremely stringent contingencies for release" be?
  
• How rare, exactly, are these rare cases where it is worse for society to keep them alive?
  
• What is the "great frequency" with which a prisoner does something horrible to a guard or another prisoner?

 

[Tricky]

Should you choose to return to this thread, the questions will be here:

• Will you allow even a petty criminal a chance to be beneficial to society?
• Why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?
• Are there requirements for you to be productive to society, if you are to be free?
• What, exactly, would those "extremely stringent contingencies for release" be?
• How rare, exactly, are these rare cases where it is worse for society to keep them alive?
• What is the "great frequency" with which a prisoner does something horrible to a guard or another prisoner?

I can answer each one of those with one answer. Every case is different. We judge them based on evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

I can answer each one of those with one answer. Every case is different. We judge them based on evidence.

No, you can't get away with that. Only this one:

What, exactly, would those "extremely stringent contingencies for release" be?

could reasonably be answered with "every case is different". But if you want to say "every case is different", then you are not using precedent at all, the very cornerstone of justice. You don't have justice, but mob rule. You can't tell if something is illegal or not, because you make it up as you go.

Please answer the remaining questions:

• Will you allow even a petty criminal a chance to be beneficial to society? Yes or no?
  
  
• Why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?
  
  
• Are there requirements for you to be productive to society, if you are to be free?
  
  
• How rare, exactly, are these rare cases where it is worse for society to keep them alive?
  
• What is the "great frequency" with which a prisoner does something horrible to a guard or another prisoner?

 

[Leftus]

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.

Same thing about self defense, which most people are in favor of but with less due process. Nobody, with few exceptions is saying that about self defense. I may never be able to get around false executions but you will never be able to get around false imprisonment. And since you, CFLarsen, claimed that life imprisonment was worse than capital punishment, it is a problem that you can never get around.

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

It's a merit based system. You get the punishment you earned. Just because you are in prison doesn't mean you deserve to be in danger and putting some of these people who have earned the death penalty have done just that. Be it in prison or in the outside world, no life is more important than another. Some people may get executed falsely but some are killed wrongly under self defense as well and since the death penalty comes with due process it's more likely than not to get it right. Sure, improvements can be made and we are getting better at it but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Life imprisonment denies due process that the death penalty earns.

Why do those who get locked up for life, who are having a death sentence extracted from them just not directly, earn less due process?

No. Learn something about logical fallacies, please.

Someone who uses straw men and defines things with circular reasoning shouldn't be offering advice on learning about logical fallacies. Textbooks could have used that as an example of circular reasoning.

---

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.

But it makes allowances for a death penalty. It then allows the states to define those crimes. Only one crime is mentioned in the Constitution but that doesn't mean there is only one crime in the US. Each state with capital punishment has a law that allows it as a punishment.

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.

Most of the appeals for death penalty cases are required by law. They are forced appeals. This doesn't happen in life cases. Since the capital crimes require more due process by act of law they also require the taxpayers to foot that bill. Again, this is not the case in life cases. Lifers can get to the point that their inability to pay stops due process and they reach that point earlier in the process than death row inmates. Which is why death penalty cases costs more. While not a perfect metric of due process, money is a good one and far more money is spent on due process of death row inmates than on lifers.

I'll retract my statement that nobody is doing DNA for lifers. Gladly.

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

Which is the heart of the problem. I don't see the wrong in taking a life under certain circumstances some of which were mentioned here that we really don't need to go into it unless you wish. I also don't see the taking of a life under those circumstances being a negative on civilization. If I had more coffee in me I'd make it sound better but we are, on the whole, talking about a self selected group that by their actions earns the process that gets them into the cull pile. It might meet a more basic need, but so are sex and eating and both of those ain't too bad for civilization either.

It's not that I disagree with that premise. I just don't share the first part of it.

 

[Matteo Martini]

See above. We don't let criminals decide what they want to do. They would surely decide to be freed.

The point of the judicial system is that it judges. Not the criminal. What other situations do you think that the criminal should be allowed to choose their punishment?

This was in reply to your statement that it is cruel to have a person in life for prison.
My point is that it is maybe more cruel ( on prisoner` s perspective ) to have him killed.

We've been through this before, and I've showed you cases where murderers killed again. They don't have to be free to do this either.

I think this problem can be controlled with the use of high security prisons, etc.

Again, each life is different. Each case is different. We should do our best to try to make these decisions based on the differences. As you have earlier agreed, there are cases where it is acceptable to take another human life. We disagree on what those cases are. I respect that.

I do not see how can this comment of your address the point I was making

 

[Matteo Martini]

You have no faith in the criminal justice system to determine guilt, but you have near perfect faith in their ability to incarcerate? That seems odd to me.

It is much easier to prevent an inmate to commit a killing when he/she is already in a high secutiry jail, than to determine if a person is actually guilty or not, if you were not a direct witness of the crime

No, it is killing for a reason, your argument from emotion notwithstanding.

Killing an innocent, you call it " killing for a reason "?

There were other cases as well. Self defense, for example. But if you accept any scenario whatsoever in which it is acceptable to kill another human, then utilizing argument from emotion, I should, by your argument, get to call you a cold-blooded murderer. I do not do that. Instead I say that we differ in our scenarios in which it is acceptable to kill another human.

Again, for the 100th time, I have condoned killing another human being when there is no other way out, like in wars or so on.
If you have a prison system, like in the US, this is not the case

 

[Matteo Martini]

The legal system decides who is "rehabilitatable", as I have said before.

You have too much faith on the judiciary system.
The jury is made by people, not gods.
They can not see inside the brain of the inmate, and decide who is " rehabilitable " or not.
Not even the greatest psychologist on Earth can do that.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Which is the heart of the problem. I don't see the wrong in taking a life under certain circumstances [ .. ]

Exactly.
This is the center of the problem.
If it is OK for the judiciary system ( which is made up by men and women ), to " take a life under certain circumstances ", then, it is OK also for everybody else to do the same

 

[Tricky]

Killing an innocent, you call it " killing for a reason "?

They are not killed unless the court has determined that they are not innocent. We cannot throw out the judicial system because it is not perfect.

Again, for the 100th time, I have condoned killing another human being when there is no other way out, like in wars or so on.

What do you mean there is no other way out? You are a human with free will, aren't you? There is always a way out. Just don't pull the trigger. What you are doing is making a judgment on when it is right to kill a human. It is not impossible to do otherwise. You can deny it 100 more times, and it will still be incorrect.

You have too much faith on the judiciary system.
The jury is made by people, not gods.
They can not see inside the brain of the inmate, and decide who is " rehabilitable " or not.
Not even the greatest psychologist on Earth can do that.

I have stated time and time again that they are fallible. They will make mistakes, some times fatal ones. They will sometimes make that mistake in deciding to release a dangerous criminal. But we must invest our courts with the power to make such decisions, even knowing they will sometimes be wrong, otherwise they are useless.

 

[Tricky]

If it is OK for the judiciary system ( which is made up by men and women ), to " take a life under certain circumstances ", then, it is OK also for everybody else to do the same

Incorrect and fallacious. The judiciary system is hired (or elected) and trained to make such decisions. "Everybody else" is not. It is not OK for you to do anything a policeman can do either.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Incorrect and fallacious. The judiciary system is hired (or elected) and trained to make such decisions. "Everybody else" is not. It is not OK for you to do anything a policeman can do either.

Well, up to a point.
As I have discussed here ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91494&highlight=death+penalty ), there are cases in which a person could be in a better position to decide about the guiltiness of a criminal than any of the member of a jury, for example, being him/her the witness of a crime

 

[Matteo Martini]

They are not killed unless the court has determined that they are not innocent. We cannot throw out the judicial system because it is not perfect.

No, but we can minimize the consequence of the imperfection ( that is, abolish death penalty )

What do you mean there is no other way out? You are a human with free will, aren't you? There is always a way out. Just don't pull the trigger. What you are doing is making a judgment on when it is right to kill a human. It is not impossible to do otherwise. You can deny it 100 more times, and it will still be incorrect.

During wars, there is no way to put bad criminals in jail, then, there is no way to protect people other than kill the criminal

I have stated time and time again that they are fallible. They will make mistakes, some times fatal ones. They will sometimes make that mistake in deciding to release a dangerous criminal. But we must invest our courts with the power to make such decisions, even knowing they will sometimes be wrong, otherwise they are useless.

But we can minimize the consequence of the imperfection ( that is, abolish death penalty )

 

[Kaarjuus]

there are cases in which a person could be in a better position to decide about the guiltiness of a criminal than any of the member of a jury, for example, being him/her the witness of a crime

No, eyewitnesses are very unreliable. Plus, the testimony of the eyewitness might actually be totally true, but there's no way for the others to know that.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No, eyewitnesses are very unreliable. Plus, the testimony of the eyewitness might actually be totally true, but there's no way for the others to know that.

But eyewitnesses know what they have seen with their own eyes, and can seek justice by themselves accordingly

 

[Kaarjuus]

But eyewitnesses know what they have seen with their own eyes, and can seek justice by themselves accordingly

In what manner?

 

[Matteo Martini]

In what manner?

If a person witnessed a criminal killing his wife/son/etc., and the jury released the criminal as there were not enough proofs to charge the criminal ( death penalty being an option if the killer had been found guilty ), the person may think:
a) if found guilty, the criminal would have probably been sent to death;
b) the jury does not know the facts for sure, but I know them as I was there;
c) I will kill the criminal

 

[CFLarsen]

Same thing about self defense, which most people are in favor of but with less due process. Nobody, with few exceptions is saying that about self defense. I may never be able to get around false executions but you will never be able to get around false imprisonment. And since you, CFLarsen, claimed that life imprisonment was worse than capital punishment, it is a problem that you can never get around.

The difference is that we can make retributions to the prisoner if we later free him. There are no retributions possible to a dead man.

It's a merit based system. You get the punishment you earned. Just because you are in prison doesn't mean you deserve to be in danger and putting some of these people who have earned the death penalty have done just that. Be it in prison or in the outside world, no life is more important than another. Some people may get executed falsely but some are killed wrongly under self defense as well and since the death penalty comes with due process it's more likely than not to get it right. Sure, improvements can be made and we are getting better at it but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Life imprisonment denies due process that the death penalty earns.

Why do those who get locked up for life, who are having a death sentence extracted from them just not directly, earn less due process?

Why does life imprisonment mean no due process?

 

[Tricky]

During wars, there is no way to put bad criminals in jail, then, there is no way to protect people other than kill the criminal.

Technically, soldiers of the enemy are not criminals. I am not disagreeing that the decision to try to kill them is wrong, I am saying it is a conscious, even cold-blooded decision to do so, a decision that is made based on evidence. It should be noted, though, that in modern times, only soldiers (and a few others) are authorized by their country to do this job. A private citizen is not trained or authorized by our government to do this task. In the same way, only the judicial system is authorized to hand down the death penalty. It is incorrect to say that because the judicial system can do it that anyone could do it.

But we can minimize the consequence of the imperfection ( that is, abolish death penalty )

I am not convinced, as you apparently are, that the unjust death of a person is the worst consequence of the imperfection. I think the needs of society are greater than the life of an individual. Sounds cold, I know, but it is really no more than an extension of what you have agreed to, that there are times when it is right to kill. It is a "big picture" assessment of what those times are.

 

[Tricky]

If a person witnessed a criminal killing his wife/son/etc., and the jury released the criminal as there were not enough proofs to charge the criminal ( death penalty being an option if the killer had been found guilty ), the person may think:
a) if found guilty, the criminal would have probably been sent to death;
b) the jury does not know the facts for sure, but I know them as I was there;
c) I will kill the criminal

They might think that, but they would be wrong and would themselves be a criminal if they acted on this. Only duly appointed agencies, such as the judicial system and military branches, are authorized to make the decisions to decide in advance to kill a person. Obviously, killing in self defense is not a decision made in advance.

Believe me, I am not pleased that the concept of vigilante justice is so popular with the entertainment industry, but I do not think it can be said that such an attitude is the result of the death penalty. It is expected that citizens are able to tell reality from fiction.