The death penalty.

[Halfcentaur]

Where is the poll you took to back this up? The ones I've seen disagree with you.

I consider everyone our equals. What are you implying here? We aren't special.

There are actually polls one can cite in favor of both views, funny enough. Where does that leave us?

Of course America is not special, but you're being belligerent if you don't admit that a great many people do consider western civilization morally and politically superior to the East and Middle East. I am sarcastically alluding to those who consider these countries barbaric while still maintain their sense of superiority for being American, I am not a proponent of their view that we are inherently superior people. As for that western democracy thing I was alluding to,... meanwhile we're basically the only western democracy that's still taking the lives of people based on what they supposedly "deserve". Which was my point, to be clear.

Privileged frame of reference? Whatever.

I am not afraid to speak my mind and stand up for what I believe in. You go ahead and remain impartial on this one. I will not.

Privileged frame of reference as in not having your point of view clouded by the fact someone just murdered your loved one, not as in privileged for being superior. You're free of course to say "whatever" though, disregard for others opinions can really help you to keep yourself focused on your own points I suppose. I don't see why you're talking about not being afraid or not.

I digress, let's not get distracted. I apologize if I have switched subjects too much in my previous posts on this topic.

Basically, you feel people deserve punishment. Please explain to me the mechanism for what deserving something really means and why it's actually important. What happens when someone get's what they deserve, exactly?

I am impartial because I find the idea of people deserving anything at all nothing but a human construct rooted in the behavior of our ape like past that we need to do away with. Something hurt your hand and it stings and you feel angry so you want to make that thing that stung you feel this stinging too. It solves nothing at all, it makes no progress at all, it is nothing more than self indulgent masturbation. Masturbation is all well and good, but not when people are being killed by a system meant to avoid the pitfalls of such self indulgent motivation.

Execution should be nothing more than a removal of a danger from society, not a solution to what someone deserves. I don't feel it's a necessary length to go to in order to remove that danger however, there should be alternatives and there can be. It would take a shift from our current penal system's methods, however.

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

Nor have you demonstrated the opposite, that executing a serial killer is unjustified, in spite of your many repetitions of the claim.

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

 

[tkmikkelsen]

Death penalty costs more than life in prison.

Doesn't have to be so, take guy outback of the courthouse. Put guy in guillotine and pull the lever. Throw body in nearby incinerator. Total pay 2, maybe 3, minimum wage guys for an hour and your are done.

Life in prison, much more expensive.

We also frequently convict the wrong guy.

This is why I am against the death penalty.

And I am with you on that. I am against death penalty, but have no problem with locking up people and forgetting the combination to their cell.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Actually, I don't think I am correct at all in this post, apologies. I misread exactly what was being said. I am incorrect I think in paraphrasing what they were saying, please disregard.

Nor have you demonstrated the opposite, that executing a serial killer is unjustified, in spite of your many repetitions of the claim.

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

As their contention you are questioning above seems only to be that deserving something makes no sense, and not the question of capitol punishment's justification through it's supposed ability as a deterrent, I would say because the idea of deserving something as I said above is nothing but a purely psychological construct and is an exercise in self indulgence that has nothing to do with achieving progress outside of satisfying the desire for retribution.

What happens when someone get's what they deserve? What progress is made beyond simply removing a possible threat? I want to know what happens when someone deserves something and why it's important.

 

[Corsair 115]

The death penalty deters nobody?

Since crime of various types (including murder) still happen in spite of prison sentences for the perpetrators, it would seem jail time isn't much of a deterrent either.

I don't see a need for it, especially with the questions it creates. Apparently much of the world we Americans consider our equals agree, and I only hope we come to that point as well some day.

I will simply note that one can be in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for certain kinds of crime while being against the way the death penalty has been applied in law up to this point. It seems to me that some are conflating these two separate matters.

 

[Corsair 115]

As their contention you are questioning above seems only to be that deserving something makes no sense, and not the question of capitol punishment's justification through it's supposed ability as a deterrent, I would say because the idea of deserving something as I said above is nothing but a purely psychological construct and is an exercise in self indulgence that has nothing to do with achieving progress outside of satisfying the desire for retribution.

What happens when someone get's what they deserve? What progress is made beyond simply removing a possible threat? I want to know what happens when someone deserves something and why it's important.

You realize that all of those exact same questions can be applied to prison sentences for crimes, yes? Or, indeed, to any punishment meted out by the justice system for a given crime. Does a twenty-five year sentence for murder mean the perpetrator is "getting what they deserved"? Is a twenty-five year sentence "purely psychological construct and is an exercise in self indulgence that has nothing to do with achieving progress outside of satisfying the desire for retribution"?

How exactly is the death penalty "retribution" while a sentence of life in prison is not? It seems to me both punishments are retribution, an assessment by society and its legal system of what the perpetrator must pay for his/her crime. The only practical difference in this "retribution" is the amount of the payment.

You want that payment to never include the forfeiture of the life of the perpetrator under any circumstances; I take the position that, in rare and unusual cases, the perpetrator forfeiting his/her life can be proper payment.

 

[Rolfe]

If I was one of these people, I wouldn't deserve it.

So, if you were one of "these people", that is people wrongly sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit, then you wouldn't deserve any support or help to get you out of your predicament?

Are you seriously asserting that only "bad" people, who deserve death on some higher level, are ever wrongly convicted and condemned? So that's OK then, it doesn't matter?

I've heard some ridiculous justifications for capital punishment, but this takes the biscuit.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Then you are agreeing with me? The death penalty deters nobody? Or are you saying those who are weakest in regard to shame and empathy will respond to the threat of being killed if they are not careful with their regard for others because the taboo and shame of the act is not a factor in their choice?

I don't see a need for it, especially with the questions it creates. Apparently much of the world we Americans consider our equals agree, and I only hope we come to that point as well some day.

Apologies for the delay in reply. Time zones. All the interesting threads take off in the middle of my night.

I think the death penalty works as a deterrent on some people, in the same way fear of any retribution deters some people. It deters the timid more than the bold and the bold more than the desperate. People in extreme situations take a lot of stopping and may be acting so impulsively that only main force will stop them.

I don't really see execution as punishment. I see it as a solution to a problem. A distasteful solution, but sometimes the fairest solution. "Least bad" , perhaps.

Death is in no sense unusual, nor need it be cruel . A vet is not cruel to a dog she must "put down" and and execution can and should be a humane procedure.

My view is that there exist people whose demonstrated disregard for the laws of society and for the rights of others is so thorough and habitual that they must be removed permanently from society.
This can be done in two ways, neither of which is pleasant- execution or life incarceration. To my mind, the latter achieves nothing beyond ongoing punishment, at cost to society.
Execution is a far faster and to my mind more humane solution which has several advantages- cost, long term safety of prison staff and other prisoners, avoidance of ongoing crime-outside the gaol- carried out in direct connection with the prisoner, and removal of any possibility of blackmail or threat to families of those dealing with the prisoner.
Another potential advantage is the use of organs and tissue removed from the deceased for use in life saving surgery. This makes possible some degree of repayment of a debt to society. This is disturbing to some, but perhaps less so to those on transplant waiting lists.

Jailing someone for life, on the other hand, is merely an expensive, unending form of societal sadism, which I'm surprised to find supported by many people who show no other signs of sadism.

Their justification is generally two-pronged:-
1. The system is imperfect. We might execute the wrong person.
or
2. Execution is barbaric under all circumstances.

I am convinced by neither argument.

1.Everyone makes decisions a dozen times a day, as a result of which innocent people may benefit or suffer and even die. Drivers make mistakes. Soldiers make mistakes. So do doctors, butchers, electricians, car mechanics, gas fitters, oil rig managers. So do we all.
Why are only the victims of Lawyers' mistakes to be so protected? Is the legal system so prone to error? If so, should we not fix it?

and

2. This is an assumption. An assumption we conveniently forget when it comes to foreign villagers who wear funny hats and may have a cousin who knows somebody in al qaeda. It's an assumption I happen not to share.

These are matters of opinion. No more , no less.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Nor have you demonstrated the opposite, that executing a serial killer is unjustified, in spite of your many repetitions of the claim.

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

I don't have to. You're arguing from ignorance.

Are you honestly trying to argue that one is justified in any action they take that has not been demonstrated to be irrational? Killing another human being is alright so far as we have not been shown why it's bad?

 

[dafydd]

What double standard? World peace isn't here and you can't fight a war without killing people under normal circumstances. That's unavoidable reality. Being a citizen doesn't necessitate killing under normal circumstances. I don't see what's confusing there.

Execution of prisoners of war should be avoided if possible. Being the enemy isn't a crime.

You have never been a civilian on the receiving end during a war.It's not a computer game.

 

[dafydd]

So, if you were one of "these people", that is people wrongly sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit, then you wouldn't deserve any support or help to get you out of your predicament?

Are you seriously asserting that only "bad" people, who deserve death on some higher level, are ever wrongly convicted and condemned? So that's OK then, it doesn't matter?

I've heard some ridiculous justifications for capital punishment, but this takes the biscuit.

Rolfe.

I wonder how the proponents of the death penalty would feel if they were wrongly accused and convicted of murder,they wouldn't be so gung-ho then.

 

[dirtywick]

You have never been a civilian on the receiving end during a war.It's not a computer game.

I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with anything we're talking about.

But it's true.

 

[Worm]

It comes from the "Flower Child" era, where "every man's death diminishes me" made the stoners feel so much love.
There's so many men alive today who shouldn't see tomorrow!

I'm afraid it comes from no such place. Not that it wasn't very much a vogue at the time, but I'm far from old enough or socially aware enough to have picked it up from there.

It comes from my heart. It's something I've always felt in a vague way, and then I spent a very moving and emotionally draining afternoon listening to one of the parents of the Dunblane massacre speak very strongly about his feelings towards the killer. He spoke with dignity and clarity and made it very clear that to condemn such people as 'evil' is entirely missing the failings within our own society.

Would he want the death penalty? I'm not sure, and that's probably why it's a good idea that those affected by such situations are not involved in the decision making. There is no place in statutory measures for revenge.

 

[I Ratant]

Since crime of various types (including murder) still happen in spite of prison sentences for the perpetrators, it would seem jail time isn't much of a deterrent either.





I will simply note that one can be in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for certain kinds of crime while being against the way the death penalty has been applied in law up to this point. It seems to me that some are conflating these two separate matters.

.
The recent cop-killing out here by a many times arrested, jailed, released sumbitch...
Too frequent.
Jail is merely 3 squares and a place to rest between crime sprees for too many.

 

[I Ratant]

I'm afraid it comes from no such place. Not that it wasn't very much a vogue at the time, but I'm far from old enough or socially aware enough to have picked it up from there.

It comes from my heart. It's something I've always felt in a vague way, and then I spent a very moving and emotionally draining afternoon listening to one of the parents of the Dunblane massacre speak very strongly about his feelings towards the killer. He spoke with dignity and clarity and made it very clear that to condemn such people as 'evil' is entirely missing the failings within our own society.

Would he want the death penalty? I'm not sure, and that's probably why it's a good idea that those affected by such situations are not involved in the decision making. There is no place in statutory measures for revenge.

.
It most definitely IS the failings in our societies that lead to death penalties.
Even prison sentences.
What is there in the human psyche that has so many deviants from "good" behavior?
Can that source be found and a "work around" other than jail or death be formulated?
Until that miracle occurs, jail and termination with extreme prejudice have to be in place to protect normal people living quiet lives not harming (to any major extent) their neighbor.

 

[Corsair 115]

I don't have to. You're arguing from ignorance.

So, I must prove my point, but you do not have to prove yours.

Are you honestly trying to argue that one is justified in any action they take that has not been demonstrated to be irrational?

I fail to see why your position must be accorded automatic status as the only rational position to take when you have failed to demonstrate it is so. You take great exception to my position, call it irrational, demand proof, yet you do not appear to have put your own position through an equal level of examination.

Killing another human being is alright so far as we have not been shown why it's bad?

Now where did I even suggest such a thing? A person is not sentenced to death or time in jail or any other punishment without due process in the legal system (I presume we limiting our discussion to stable representative democracies with long-established legal systems that have the appropriate checks and balances).

Once more: the degree of punishment depends on the nature of the crime and any mitigating circumstances. For some crimes, a fine, probation, or time served is deemed sufficient penalty. For other crimes, some amount of time in prison is deemed the proper punishment. For yet other crimes, having most or all of person's remaining years of life be spent in prison is judged to be the correct payment for the crime.

Now, for you, that's where your scale of justice stops.

For me, I am prepared, in rare and exceptional cases, to continue that scale so that it includes forfeiture of the perpetrator's life as proper payment, as fitting punishment, for his/her crime. But only in rare and exceptional cases. Is that limitation arbitrary? Yes, to some extent it is. But all of justice is similarly arbitrary. Is there any unequivocal, objective, rational evidence that says offence A is only ever worth three years in prison while offence B is only ever worth five? Of course there isn't.

The system is shades of grey. There is room to debate what punishment best fits what crime. You are not prepared to accept forfeiture of the life of the perpetrator, under any circumstances, as possible punishment, and that's fine. I disagree, and am prepared to accept such foreiture as a possible punishment in very limited circumstances. I do not look down upon or discount your position; I merely disagree with it.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I've posted this before in other threads, so I'll just repeat it here. This is my argument in opposition to the death penalty.

1. If a human's life is to be willfully ended, substantial reason must be provided.
2. In the case of the death penalty, substantial reason has not been provided.
3. Therefore, we should not engage in willfully ending human lives in such a manner.

It's a simple modus tollens^WP argument.

I don't think anyone has ever argued against the first premise.

So it must be the second premise you disagree with, meaning there is substantial reason. And so you say this:

For me, I am prepared, in rare and exceptional cases, to continue that scale so that it includes forfeiture of the perpetrator's life as proper payment, as fitting punishment, for his/her crime.

Why? I'm begging you to illustrate to me how this is true. Is it just your opinion, based on nothing but feeling? Have you thought of some argument that demonstrates this to be true? There has to be something more than this endless repetition of "it just is."

 

[3point14]

I think the death penalty should be reserved exclusively for those, for whom it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, who have lied to the electorate while holding public office.

 

[Skeptic]

You have never been a civilian on the receiving end during a war.

Well, living in Israel, I was just that, on three different occasions, and might well be again. And yet I think that sometimes war is, alas, unavoidable, and that to do anything just to avoid war is often a very serious mistake, one that leads, in the words of Churchill, of choosing dishonor to avoid war and then getting both.

 

[Skeptic]

I think the death penalty should be reserved exclusively for those, for whom it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, who have lied to the electorate while holding public office.

"It is shocking to think how few politicians are hanged" -- G. K. Chesterton.

He was (not 100% seriously of course) for abolition of the death penalty in all cases except for a lynch mob, since that way there is a chance some people who truly deserve it would get it.