The death penalty.

[GlennB]

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:

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."

You deserve a reasoned answer, but I suspect you won't get one.

 

[Tricky]

I'm against it except in the most extreme of cases. Like this guy. Brian David Mitchell. Kidnapped a 14-year Elizabeth Smart. Tied her to a tree and raped her countless times. Kidnapped other young girls and tried to get Elizabeth to "teach them the ropes". Doesn't even deny it. Gets kicked out of court each day for loudly singing hymns.

Is he insane? Maybe so. In my mind that's an even better reason not to waste time trying to rehabilitate him.

 

[brenn]

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

I stated the rational reasons in post #26. I'm sure there are others.

 

[brenn]

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!"

You may be the MASTER of what I referred to as the standard JREF argument technique. Congratulations...I guess.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I don't think the death penalty deters any more or less than life in prison deters. I don't think the power of this deterrence would change. I would like to know if the countries where the death penalty was reduced witnessed a rise in the murder rate.

 

[Halfcentaur]

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.

Oh, I agree with you. I don't think it's correct to punish someone based on what they deserve. It opens a whole can of worms for how we deal with anyone who breaks the law and why we punish them. I think it's all in need of major reformation and a different way of looking at it. We are left with what worked best and seemed to work to the people of the past, and this isn't an easy issue to find an answer to.

Still, when it comes to people losing their life in lieu of these questions, I think that one thing should be stopped immediately. We need time as a species to refine our morals and ethics, and it will take a lot of time to really examine and change these sort of thing, but in the meantime, I wish we would stop taking lives using the power we've all agreed to support.

 

[Halfcentaur]

This idea of who deserves what is an illusion created from an emotional view of the world. People that murder people, or steal, or break the law at all often would never have expected them self to have ever been capable of it until the moment and situation arises when it does indeed happen. After they make that choice, they are not magically changed and turned into bad people. Many people feel remorse immediately. But this is a very sticky issue. There are indeed many people who would kill and steal constantly, the problem is we cannot afford the time and resources and the chance they won't do it again to do anything at the moment but create this massive impartial system that turns everyone into a number. How does one sort out these people? I am not proposing an answer by any means at this point to what we should be doing instead, but I will recognize the need for a change.

I don't think anyone will agree we have a perfect system, we have a system we hope will work though, and seems to be doing a job. But as long as this system is only good enough, I don't think it should ever have the chance to end a life permanently. That's one of my biggest problems with the death penalty.

 

[Corsair 115]

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...

Substantial reason: the person deliberately murdered thirty (perhaps more) human beings in cold blood (i.e. a serial killer).

2. In the case of the death penalty, substantial reason has not been provided.

See prior reply.

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."

Once again, the very same thing can be said of your position, and you have yet to offer anything equalling the demands you've made of me. You appear content that you are right no matter what and will not countenance any questioning or examination of your own position.

I have stated my position in a way I thought rather clear. I will restate them once more: the punishment for a crime generally scales in accordance with the severity of that crime. For the most heinous of crimes I believe that the scale of punishment should allow for the perpetrator to forfeit his/her own life as payment for their crimes. You do not share that view and think the scale of punishment should stop short of that.

We could just as easily argue about the merits of any sentence for any crime as to whether it is justified or not. There is no single objective standard to which everyone can look that says, "This punishment is acceptable for this crime but that punishment is too severe." People will vary in their judgement as to where the lines should be drawn.

You appear to consider the death penalty and prison sentences as two entirely separate categories of punishment. I do not. I consider them both as falling under the singular heading of punishment, and are part of the continuum which that heading provides.

So I end where I began: show me Ted Bundy and I say you've shown me someone for whom the death penalty is an entirely fitting punishment given the enormity of his crimes. To me that scale is completely just and appropriate.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Corsair, I think his question would be why killing people in cold blood is a reason to willfully end their life. I think you need to explore why that is your reason, and not let it stand on it's own as why. You've already addressed why in some ways with me. Why do you think people deserve things, and why is killing them the only way to remove the problem from society?

 

[Halfcentaur]

It makes me wonder, if a person who committed a crime would not do the same thing if given the same chance( or the chance to do it over again), and if they refused out of empathetic regret for their harming another and not out of regret for losing their own freedom, do they still deserve a punishment?

 

[Corsair 115]

I don't think the death penalty deters any more or less than life in prison deters.

Which is precisely why I personally do not cite deterrence as a reason for allowing the death penalty in certain circumstances.

I don't think anyone will agree we have a perfect system, we have a system we hope will work though, and seems to be doing a job. But as long as this system is only good enough, I don't think it should ever have the chance to end a life permanently. That's one of my biggest problems with the death penalty.

Which is why I made the comment earlier about distinguishing between the concept of the death penalty as a possible punishment and the actual application of the death penalty to date. To my mind, in many instances a sentence of death was applied in cases where it had no business being applied—the crime either did not meet the level of severity I would attach as being necessary for the death penalty, or the level of proof demonstrating the accused's guilt was insufficient. (Personally, while "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is sufficient for conviction, I would say to apply death as the sentence the standard should be, "guilty beyond almost any doubt," a much higher burden of proof and one likely only to be met in a very small number of cases.)

 

[Corsair 115]

Corsair, I think his question would be why killing people in cold blood is a reason to willfully end their life.

One could just as easily ask why killing people in cold blood is a reason to sentence someone to fifteen years in prison or thirty years in prison or the rest of their life in prison. We're arguing degrees of punishment. You just happen to draw your line in a different place than I draw mine.

Why do you think people deserve things, and why is killing them the only way to remove the problem from society?

It is only 'deserve' in the sense that it is an answer to the questionWhat sentence is the proper punishment for a given crime? As to the second part of your question, of course it isn't the only way of 'removing the problem from society.' But I don't think of it in that manner; I think of a sentence, any sentence, as being the answer to the question I stated.

It makes me wonder, if a person who committed a crime would not do the same thing if given the same chance (or the chance to do it over again), and if they refused out of empathetic regret for their harming another and not out of regret for losing their own freedom, do they still deserve a punishment?

The person is still guilty of the original crime, their remorse or regret nothwithstanding. So in that regard there is a price to be paid. But what that price will be typically takes into account any remorse or regret offered, along with other existing mitigating circumstances.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I stated the rational reasons in post #26. I'm sure there are others.

In this post, you cite 3 reasons.

1. Prevention. I agree that capital punishment prevents a person from committing crimes again. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure life in prison does just the same.

2. Deterrence. As has been asked many times, I will need to see evidence that this is true.

3. Retribution. This is a case of killing for pleasure. I don't find pleasure to be an adequate reason for ending one's life.

Substantial reason: the person deliberately murdered thirty (perhaps more) human beings in cold blood (i.e. a serial killer).

This is not an argument.

Let's imagine that I was about to execute someone. You ask me why. I say, "Well, he's a litterbug. Nobody wants to pick up his garbage. We've gotta get rid of him." You would probably say that this is not a very good reason, and you'd be right.

"So-and-so is a litterbug, therefore they have forfeit their life" is not an argument. And it doesn't work when you substitute littering with murder.

 

[dirtywick]

3. Retribution. This is a case of killing for pleasure. I don't find pleasure to be an adequate reason for ending one's life.

I wouldn't define this as pleasure anymore than taking an asprin when you have a headache gives you pleasure. It makes you feel better, but not necessarily good. It's relief.

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

I wouldn't define this as pleasure anymore than taking an asprin when you have a headache gives you pleasure. It makes you feel better, but not necessarily good. It's relief.

Like a bowel movement?
I'm so full of rage today, I'm just busting for a hanging!

 

[Halfcentaur]

One could just as easily ask why killing people in cold blood is a reason to sentence someone to fifteen years in prison or thirty years in prison or the rest of their life in prison. We're arguing degrees of punishment. You just happen to draw your line in a different place than I draw mine.

You're answering me here and not him. You and I just discussed this exact thing in the last reply I posted to your position. I was pointing out that it was clearly not the answer his first rule for killing someone was requesting. He said:

1. If a human's life is to be willfully ended, substantial reason must be provided...

You say that the substantial reason is that the person deliberately murdered thirty (perhaps more) human beings in cold blood (i.e. a serial killer). I think it's clear that's not the answer he was looking for, but rather why killing people in cold blood is a substantial reason to do it. He clearly did not think murder was substantial motivation for execution. I was only trying to suggest you answer have more emphasis on exactly why you feel that reason warrants this punishment. I actually enjoy your answers and in no way am I trying to suggest you were incapable of answering the question adequately. I was truly just trying to be helpful.

The person is still guilty of the original crime, their remorse or regret nothwithstanding. So in that regard there is a price to be paid. But what that price will be typically takes into account any remorse or regret offered, along with other existing mitigating circumstances.

I don't feel there is necessarily a price to be paid. What happened, happened. Many times any of us are just a single choice away from making terrible mistakes, and placed in certain situations many people who would never consider themselves capable of murder would suddenly murder. The price to be paid is only a part of indulging emotional satisfaction. I find that aspect of justice archaic and on par with legal dueling. This is difficult for me to say, as we are emotional animals and I would not be able to "practice what I preach" if I was the victim of one of these crimes most likely myself with out a great bit of mental anguish and thought on the matter. But I am not, and this gives me the ability to divorce my reason from my emotion for the time being. As I find it difficult to look at things this way, I fully understand why it is such a difficult thing for other people to do as well.

I wouldn't define this as pleasure anymore than taking an asprin when you have a headache gives you pleasure. It makes you feel better, but not necessarily good. It's relief.

I think that's just playing around with words, the meaning is still the same. Nothing is achieved but indulging emotions.

 

[dirtywick]

Like a bowel movement?
I'm so full of rage today, I'm just busting for a hanging!

I guess if your bowel movements rape, murder, and eat children, then describe the act to the parents through a letter, then sure let's hang your poop.

I think that's just playing around with words, the meaning is still the same. Nothing is achieved but indulging emotions.

I don't think that at all. I think words have specific meanings and we should use the words we want to best describe our thoughts. Relief is not the same thing as pleasure.

 

[I Ratant]

Corsair, I think his question would be why killing people in cold blood is a reason to willfully end their life. I think you need to explore why that is your reason, and not let it stand on it's own as why. You've already addressed why in some ways with me. Why do you think people deserve things, and why is killing them the only way to remove the problem from society?

.
The legal process, not cold blood, when "substantial reason" has been proved.
Bundy, McVeigh,... some guys like Speck got off.

 

[I Ratant]

It makes me wonder, if a person who committed a crime would not do the same thing if given the same chance( or the chance to do it over again), and if they refused out of empathetic regret for their harming another and not out of regret for losing their own freedom, do they still deserve a punishment?

.
Some released killers kill again.
How many lives is one persons allowed to take, before "ENOUGH" is invoked?
One is too many.
Didn't Norman Mailer bleed all over the injustice some murderer had received, and the guy was released due to the publicity, and almost before he'd changed from the prison jump suit killed again?

 

[I Ratant]

I guess if your bowel movements rape, murder, and eat children, then describe the act to the parents through a letter, then sure let's hang your poop.
...

.

.
Ever tried to put a string around poop?
About all you could do is put it in a paper bag and set it on your neighbor's doorstep, light the bag, ring the bell, and wait in the bushes.