Capital punishment

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Your only argument is against using faulty evidence to convict people.

You don't think that's an important argument when discussing the death penalty, the fact that people are convicted on faulty evidence?

My point is that mistakes/misconduct happens, and innocent people go to jail. And not even when people are incompetant or mishandling evidence, or operating based on prejudice. We are limited in our scientific scope. Sometimes there are just errors that even an honest, competant person can make.

You're right, my point is not the morality of the death penalty in and of itself, but the fact that we operate within a flawed justice system. So how can you not only support the death penalty but also wish to extend it to include more crimes then it does now, when you KNOW that innocent people go to jail, when you know evidence can be faulty, and when you know juries can convict people based on personal prejudices rather than evidence.

Or do you just not care that innocent people die?

 

[Bikewer]

I would no doubt be at odds with most of my colleagues in police work in opposing the death penalty.
We know it has little or no deterrent effect. We know that most of the civilized nations on the Earth have abandoned it... It's inequitably applied... (If you are poor and Black your chances of being executed are vastly out of proportion.)
It's expensive...Mandatory appeals and such soak up huge amounts of money and time.
Etc, etc.
And there is always the looming prospect of making a mistake. It's hard to imagine anything much worse than being unjustly executed.
Yes, life-sentenced prisoners can be problems. That's why there are "Supermax" prisons.
(we can have a separate thread on those...)

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

If I catch some piece of crap in the act of raping my (as of yet non-existent) daughter, he is going to die.

And according to your arguments (in that you just don't seem to care about innocent people being executed, they are worth it to get the bad guys), you would not only shoot the rapist, you would go out into your neighborhood, find some random schmuck who didn't do anything, and would kill him too.

Because that's what the death penalty would effectively do if you extended it to cover rape as well.

 

[dtugg]

OK the rewarding bit was a silly point (just trying to illustrate my concept) but the stats seem to show that locking scumbags up forever doesn't lead to less scumbaggery, if anything it leads to more scumbaggery.

Demonstrate that the stats show this.

Not sure if this comparison is going to help or not, but harsh parenting doesn't necessarily lead to well-disciplined kids. If you beat your kids and lock them in the cupboard under the stairs chances are they might end up a bit mental.

That comparison does suck. If the scumbags who are locked away forever lash out, they are already in prison.

 

[dtugg]

You don't think that's an important argument when discussing the death penalty, the fact that people are convicted on faulty evidence?

My point is that mistakes/misconduct happens, and innocent people go to jail. And not even when people are incompetant or mishandling evidence, or operating based on prejudice. We are limited in our scientific scope. Sometimes there are just errors that even an honest, competant person can make.

You're right, my point is not the morality of the death penalty in and of itself, but the fact that we operate within a flawed justice system. So how can you not only support the death penalty but also which to extend it to include more crimes then it does now, when you KNOW that innocent people go to jail, when you know evidence can be faulty, and when you know juries can convict people based on personal prejudices rather than evidence.

Or do you just not care that innocent people die?

I am actually on the fence on the death penalty because of this.

I think weren't following the discussion, which drifted a little, too closely. Ramsus asked what the point of locking people up forever is. I told him, ad said that I would it extend it too rapists.

 

[dtugg]

You have just stated here that you have an intent to commit murder. Should we be better safe than sorry and lock you up for life?

No I didn't. It's not illegal to kill a rapist that you caught in the act of raping your daughter.

 

[DC]

If I catch some piece of crap in the act of raping my (as of yet non-existent) daughter, he is going to die.

and then you would support the state killing you? because then, you are also a murderer.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Of course I'd have a problem with the rapist's brother killing the father, since the killing wouldn't be at all justified. I was using the example of a father catching his daughter's rapist in the act as an instance where I believe a deadly response is justified. Frankly, I'm rather surprised that anyone would consider the father in this instance a "violent offender murderer."

Perhaps you don't think the rape of a daughter is sufficient cause to use deadly force (which I admit I do, perhaps because I do in fact have a daughter and can only imagine what I'd do if I caught someone trying to harm her). So how about this: The father catches someone in the act of lobotomizing his daughter. It isn't self-defense per se, because the offender isn't killing the girl, and the father's life is not threatened. Do you think the father would be justified in killing the perpetrator then? If not, what would an appropriate response be: "Oh please stop doing that, it isn't nice"? Or maybe the father should just beat the guy senseless -- but in doing so, what happens if he dies, does the father get charged wtih manslaughter?

My point is, some people do things so heinous that I have zero qualms about their lives ceasing to exist. I don't think society shouldn't be the ones to do that, but in certain cases, if the offended party takes things into their own hands, I am very sympathetic.

It might be 'justified' to you, but if my son or brother was murdered by a father for raping his daughter I would probably feel he was unjustified in doing so. This is why the victim's (or anyone else's) emotions and feelings are not the way we make laws, nor should they be. If someone was raping my daughter no doubt I would feel like killing that person, that doesn't mean I believe we should execute rapists.

Your second example is very different and isn't really relevant to execution or discussion of legal punishments. How far is it OK to go in self-defence? Surely as much as is necessary? Intent is also a question. If someone robs your house and you shoot him in the back as he runs off - that's not self-defence. Equally if someone is waving a gun at you threatening to blow your head off and you swing a baseball bat at his head and he dies then that's not murder. If someone threatens you with a knife and you mow them down with an Uzi..... there's so many permutations, that's why we have courts and lawyers.

 

[dtugg]

And here we get to the core: You decide who is a human being and who is a piece of crap.

why is murder a good enough reason?

Because he killed someone.

why is rape a good enough reason?

Rape, seriously?
A crime where the victim survives, possibly even without permanent injury?

Because someone who thinks it is OK to rape people is not someone I want running around.

And even murder isn't as clear cut: I am not up to date, but the British had abolished capital punishment for murder long before they did so for High Treason and Piracy. they didn't seem to think that murder was the worst crime possible.

So. I don't have a problem with using it for treason.

Why not add blasphemy to the list?

Who is the victim?

Why not kidnapping?

I don't have a problem giving a life sentence to kidnappers.

 

[dtugg]

and then you would support the state killing you? because then, you are also a murderer.

Nope. As I said above, killing a scumbag who is raping your daughter is not murder, at least not in the US. It is justifiable homicide.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Demonstrate that the stats show this.



That comparison does suck. If the scumbags who are locked away forever lash out, they are already in prison.

The stats show that societies without the death penalty/harsh sentences have less violent crime than societies that have them. I thought we'd been through that and you accepted it?

Its not the ones who are in prison who commit the crimes its the ones who AREN'T in prison. And it seems there are more of them in countries with the death penalty and harsh sentences.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I am actually on the fence on the death penalty because of this.

I think weren't following the discussion, which drifted a little, too closely. Ramsus asked what the point of locking people up forever is. I told him, ad said that I would it extend it too rapists.

That I can understand.

There is a BIG difference between supporting the death penalty "in a perfect world, where the justice system is unflawed" and "I support the death penalty as it operates today."

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Nope. As I said above, killing a scumbag who is raping your daughter is not murder, at least not in the US. It is justifiable homicide.

Doesn't matter, better safe than sorry. You have admitted you have the desire to kill in certain situations best not to wait to find out where you draw the line.

 

[dtugg]

The stats show that societies without the death penalty/harsh sentences have less violent crime than societies that have them. I thought we'd been through that and you accepted it

Yeah, and as I said, it doesn't prove anything.

Its not the ones who are in prison who commit the crimes its the ones who AREN'T in prison. And it seems there are more of them in countries with the death penalty and harsh sentences.

I doesn't mean that sentences have anything to do with more crimes.

 

[dtugg]

Doesn't matter, better safe than sorry. You have admitted you have the desire to kill in certain situations best not to wait to find out where you draw the line.

You must be getting desperate now, because this is ridiculous. Yes, I would kill somebody I caught raping my daughter. I would do it without hesitation or remorse. And I would be legally justified in doing so.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yeah, and as I said, it doesn't prove anything.

I doesn't mean that sentences have anything to do with more crimes.

So tell me what the other differences are? The only evidence we have is that harsher sentences don't lead to safer societies. And yet you want harsher still sentences.

Its not even like its a US v Europe thing; I'm sure the stats hold true for different states within the US too.

If you want to start killing more people and locking up more people don't we need a bit more evidence behind it?

 

[DC]

Nope. As I said above, killing a scumbag who is raping your daughter is not murder, at least not in the US. It is justifiable homicide.

that is when you catch him in flagrante , which is not comparable to a death penalty but to self defence.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You must be getting desperate now, because this is ridiculous. Yes, I would kill somebody I caught raping my daughter. I would do it without hesitation or remorse. And I would be legally justified in doing so.

You were the one who wanted people locked up based on what they might do in the future and being better safe than sorry. Not me.

 

[dtugg]

So tell me what the other differences are? The only evidence we have is that harsher sentences don't lead to safer societies. And yet you want harsher still sentences.

Its not even like its a US v Europe thing; I'm sure the stats hold true for different states within the US too.

If you want to start killing more people and locking up more people don't we need a bit more evidence behind it?

There are any socio-economic differences which could easily make some of the difference, even between US states. Also giving harsh sentences to people that don't deserve it like drug dealers. Because they will get out eventually and since they are felons and can't get jobs, they are likely to commit crimes when they get out. But with murders and rapists who are locked up forever, this is not a problem for obvious reasons.

And why don't you explain how locking certain people up forever could lead to more crime. They aren't going to be among society hurting people. Do you think that people are more likely to commit crimes if the sentence is harsh? Because that just doesn't make any sense.

 

[dtugg]

You were the one who wanted people locked up based on what they might do in the future and being better safe than sorry. Not me.

Only after they prove they are willing to do it. And what I said I would do isn't even illegal.