The death penalty.

[LukeB]

Maybe I can help him. Murders happen in prison all the time even in maximum security lockups. Why not eliminate that threat to the staff and inmates serving sentences for lesser crimes?

You still haven't provided any evidence that the death penalty effects the murder rate within prison.

 

[jharyn]

It's costs less to carry out the sentence than to incarcerate for how ever many years.

Permanently removes the worst criminals from society. Prisons are a part of society.

Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there. For details of these go to wwwDOTcjlfDOTorg/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

I don't know if I can paste links yet. If it doesn't work I will provide it as soon as I can.

Singapore.
Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down, so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the sub-consciousness of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?
In 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes.

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

It's costs less to carry out the sentence than to incarcerate for how ever many years.

As mentioned in previous posts it is the litigation which is costly, no one is saying needles are expensive.

Permanently removes the worst criminals from society. Prisons are a part of society.

Depends what you mean by part of society, care to give a clearer definition.
If you are giving a very broad definition of society then I would say that people in prison are unable to interact with society (thus in my book removing them from society, but hey that's just semantics).

Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there. For details of these go to wwwDOTcjlfDOTorg/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

and I have posted statistics saying that it isn't a deterrent, however when I posted mine I'm pretty sure I said something to make it clear that I was aware that only some statistics show this.

Singapore.
Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down, so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the sub-consciousness of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?
In 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes.

Well gotta say that that sounds like just a lovely old place to live, a few hangings ought to be more effective then an ASBO. How about a public burning, or maybe crucifixion, now that would be a good deterrent.

 

[dirtywick]

Being against the death penalty is not really about feeling sympathetic or emotional for these poor little murderers. It's about rising above this pathetic primitive emotional cage our primate minds are trapped inside and ending emotional decisions that are not founded in logic but arise from irrational passion. People want to lash out and hurt those who hurt them because it's what creatures do when they are unable to resist primitive urges. Just like the criminals we are punishing were unable to resist.

Emotions aren't necessarily irrational. It's not irrational for me to be angry when something bad happens to me; it'd be irrational to be happy or sexually aroused. Likewise I don't think it's irrational to want justice or even revenge to person who caused that bad thing to happen. Emotions are a part of humans and it's rational to take measures to alleviate unpleasant emotions.

Besides which, the people who are most effected by the crimes of someone put to death aren't involved in the process of conviction or execution. Ideally unbiased and factually based convictions of comparatively horrid crimes receive worse punishments. Theft is theft, there are degrees between types, other crimes are no different. The only difference is some people feel that life imprisonment isn't the absolute worst punishment a moral society can bestow and still be moral. It's all philosophy after that point.

After all, when someone murders someone else, neither of us disagrees that the offender should be punished. It's the degree of punishment. I don't think any different emotions are involved when deciding if a punishment is appropriate or not, the same emotions are still there.

That said, you can't have it both ways in saying that it's primitive emotions that drive a person's want of the death penalty but it's coldly logical not to want it; sympathy and empathy are emotions too and as logical as any other.

 

[I Am The Scum]

There is nothing irrational about emotions. To look at another person and desire their death is not inherently bad. You can't control the way you feel.

Action, however, is different. Whereas a desire for revenge is not irrational, it is another matter entirely to act solely upon those desires, all the while pretending that you are not killing another human being so that you might derive pleasure from death.

 

[Alt+F4]

People want to lash out and hurt those who hurt them because it's what creatures do when they are unable to resist primitive urges. Just like the criminals we are punishing were unable to resist.

What "primitive urge" was Steven Hayes engaging in when he drove Jennifer Hawke-Petit to her bank to withdraw $10,000 so she could try to save her life and the lives of her daughters?

What "primitive urge" was Steven Hayes engaging in when he drove to a gas station, bought gas and poured around the house, murdering three when they never even resisted?

 

[Rolfe]

The number of wrongly convicted people in the USA compared to those rightfully convicted are not enough to even bother thinking about. Yes it happens. But not near enough to justify using the numbers in an argument.

Remind me not to bother petitioning on your behalf if you ever find yourself one of these people.

Rolfe.

 

[dirtywick]

There is nothing irrational about emotions. To look at another person and desire their death is not inherently bad. You can't control the way you feel.

Action, however, is different. Whereas a desire for revenge is not irrational, it is another matter entirely to act solely upon those desires, all the while pretending that you are not killing another human being so that you might derive pleasure from death.

I don't think you've articulated any reasoning as to where the action on a rational desire becomes an irrational action.

I think it's fine that some people feel sympathy or empathy or some sense of higher moral ground being gained are more important rational actions, but that doesn't make the opposite irrational simply because they disagree on importance.

 

[brenn]

Being against the death penalty is not really about feeling sympathetic or emotional for these poor little murderers. It's about rising above this pathetic primitive emotional cage our primate minds are trapped inside and ending emotional decisions that are not founded in logic but arise from irrational passion. People want to lash out and hurt those who hurt them because it's what creatures do when they are unable to resist primitive urges. Just like the criminals we are punishing were unable to resist.

Ypou CONCLUDE that it's irrational to want to kill these people, but you forgot to say why. Seems pretty logical to me, so I'd have to see your argument to udnerstand the post.

 

[brenn]

I don't think you've articulated any reasoning as to where the action on a rational desire becomes an irrational action.

I think it's fine that some people feel sympathy or empathy or some sense of higher moral ground being gained are more important rational actions, but that doesn't make the opposite irrational simply because they disagree on importance.

I agree - if anything, the "higher moral ground" is, as usual, more open to attack on grounds of irrationality.

 

[brenn]

Why do you say this is a myth? I've heard that it was more expensive many times, but I knew this was due to litigation, not the actual cost of the execution. Any time I saw anti death penalty literature talking about the cost of execution in detail expressly stated the cost was due to litigation. I have never heard it claimed, ever (and this is a subject I have read a lot about) that the actual EXECUTION cost more money, only that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison due to the cost of litigation.

Can you provide evidence to the contrary? Can you provide any documentation distributed by anti death penalty advocates which lies and states that the cost lies in the actual execution rather than the legal process involved, or rather than just saying in general that it is more costly for the state to have someone executed than to keep them in prison (which is true)?

So, using the standard JREF method, you object to the word "myth," since I probably should have called it "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification" or something more like that. Well done.

Whatever we call it, the costs are not legally required and are intentionally and voluntarily generated in order to advance opposition to executions, specifically and generally. Since the part actually connected with the legal requirements of execution (a trial and 1 appeal) are no higher than any other case and much lower than a major organized crime drug case, I call BS on the argument that all of these collateral expenses are either necessary or fairly considered as part of the cost of execution. They are a cost of a system that refuses to curtail them.

If I voluntarily get an MRI every time I slip and fall, that doesn't, IMO, give me or my doctor a legitimate basis to argue that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accident.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I would still appreciate an explanation of why it's immoral to painlessly execute a Brit convicted of murder and rape, but apparently just dandy to bomb Afghan villages.

I'm sure there is a good reason why this isn't racist hypocrisy.
I just can't think of one at the moment.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well this is awfully misleading, isn't it? I would agree that there is no practical method of completely eliminating wrongful convictions.

Well, in theory you could restrict the death penalty to only certain cases where there is no chance of mistakes being made. I'm thinking of cases (rare as they may be) where an individual is caught in the act and detained immediately by police, or where both DNA and fingerprint evidence eliminate any doubt of guilt. (Well, unless someone says "alien mind control rays made me do it".)

 

[dirtywick]

I would still appreciate an explanation of why it's immoral to painlessly execute a Brit convicted of murder and rape, but apparently just dandy to bomb Afghan villages.

I'm sure there is a good reason why this isn't racist hypocrisy.
I just can't think of one at the moment.

War needs it's own set of morals.

 

[Segnosaur]

Being against the death penalty is not really about feeling sympathetic or emotional for these poor little murderers. It's about rising above this pathetic primitive emotional cage our primate minds are trapped inside and ending emotional decisions that are not founded in logic but arise from irrational passion.

Ummm... why exactly are you assuming that those who support the death penalty are necessarily basing their opinions on "irrational passion"?

I've stated before that I'm not necessarily for the death penalty (because of the chance of wrongful conviction); however, I'm not against the concept of the death penalty. There is no "master book" that indicates what a logical punishment should be for any crime. So somewhere along the line we have to form our own opinions about what a proper punishment is for the worst possible crimes.

I find it a little ironic that you would complain about accusations that anti-death penalty advocates are motivated by "sympathy for murderers", yet you'll turn around and paint all pro-death penalty people with a brush just as wide by saying they're driven by "irrational passion".

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Ask the parents of a dead child. I hope that the legislators stop listening to the bleeding heart garbage so as to make the criminals more comfortable. I love the line "lethal injection is inhumane!" that these idiots came up with.

Ever seen a murdered child's body at the scene of the crime?
Ever seen a women who had been brutally raped, tortured and murdered?

Only to find out that the person(s) who are responsible have done this before and were released?


Anyone?


Anyone at all?


They deserve sympathy why?

The number of wrongly convicted people in the USA compared to those rightfully convicted are not enough to even bother thinking about. Yes it happens. But not near enough to justify using the numbers in an argument.

Look up the Sharon Tate crime scene photos and tell me why anyone involved in that brutal murder deserves to live. Because that is what this debate is all about.

Do you honestly not see the ridiculousness of a post which in one breath begs us to consider of the life of a murdered person, while in the next breath saying that the wrongly executed are not even worth thinking about?

This goes back to my earlier post about how feelings about the death penalty are so wrapped up in people regarding the lives of men being intrinsictly worth less than the lives of women and children, which from your post seems like what you are doing here, though I may be wrong on that one. You bemoan (as you well should) the lives of dead women and children, but a wrongly executed person (the vast majority of whom are men) are not even worthy of your consideration or sympathy.

I personally don't think turning 18 or having a Y chromosome makes someone's life less worthy of consideration.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Ummm... why exactly are you assuming that those who support the death penalty are necessarily basing their opinions on "irrational passion"?

Can you point out a post in this thread that elaborates on the rational basis for the action of executing a human being?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

So, using the standard JREF method, you object to the word "myth," since I probably should have called it "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification" or something more like that. Well done.

Whatever we call it, the costs are not legally required and are intentionally and voluntarily generated in order to advance opposition to executions, specifically and generally. Since the part actually connected with the legal requirements of execution (a trial and 1 appeal) are no higher than any other case and much lower than a major organized crime drug case, I call BS on the argument that all of these collateral expenses are either necessary or fairly considered as part of the cost of execution. They are a cost of a system that refuses to curtail them.

If I voluntarily get an MRI every time I slip and fall, that doesn't, IMO, give me or my doctor a legitimate basis to argue that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accident.

Well first off, even if you had an MRI every time you slipped and fell, a whole body MRI at my hospital costs around 7K, which is far less than the average cost of many other kinds of accidents. But I know what you're trying to say. So let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that WITH an MRI included, slipping and falling is the most expensive kind of accident. If ONLY YOU get an MRI every time you slip and fall, no, a doctor would not have a legitimate argument that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accidents. However, if EVERYONE, or NEARLY everyone who slipped and fell received an MRI when they slipped and fell, then a doctor WOULD have a legitimate basis to argue that slipping and falling is the most expensive type of accident. Just as is the case of the death penalty.


Again, I don't see where you get "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification" considering I have not seen an anti death penalty book, web site, etc which did not explain that the cost was due to litigation. I have never seen it claimed that this was due to trial costs or execution costs alone. I have never seen it claimed that this cost was due to anything other than litigation, for which the state must incurr a great deal of cost. So, again, the fact that "it costs the state more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life" is still true. And the reason why this is true has always been well presented to me in anti death penalty literature I have read as being due to litigation.

But I'm sure you're having great fun at slandering people who disagree with you. So please, don't let me stop you from continuing with your fabricated conspiracy theories.


Edit- also, I work in finance at a major hospital. One part of my job is coming up with price estimates for the cost of a patient's care plan. There are MANY services which are not actually required for a patient's treatment, for instance, diagnostic testing, but which a patient elects to receive because it improves their quality of life, because they are being extra vigilant in their preventative care, etc. When I come up with cost estimates, I do not just include the REQUIRED elements of their treatment plan, I add in all of the non required stuff too because that's what it cost. It costs the patient and/or their insurance that money whether it's a required service or not. Just like it still costs the state the money in litigation whether it's required or not to actually perform the execution.

Quick Brenn, call the AMA! Let them know that every health care provider in the country is guilty of "an intentionally misleading gross oversimplification!"

 

[Corsair 115]

Can you point out a post in this thread that elaborates on the rational basis for the action of executing a human being?

Is it irrational to take the position that the just penalty for a serial killer is the forfeiture of his own life? Because I cannot see at all how such a position is irrational.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Is it irrational to take the position that the just penalty for a serial killer is the forfeiture of his own life? Because I cannot see at all how such a position is irrational.

What is the basis for your judgment that those who kill others must in-turn be killed? You have not shown why this is true, despite your many repetitions of the claim.

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.