Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[CFLarsen]

No. This statement cannot possibly be true. If we started killing everybody who ate peanut butter sandwiches, are you saying that the number of peanut butter sandwiches eaten would not go down?

But that's the thing, isn't it? You don't kill everybody on death row. You let them sit, often for decades, maybe even for the rest of their lives. The current rate of executions will never catch up with the number of people sent to death row.

No. This statement cannot possibly be true. If we started killing everybody who I would feel better than knowing I was killed because society did not practice the death penalty.

Not compared to an impossible situation, please. How much faith in the legal system would you have, if you were sent to your death even though you were innocent?

Since you are so reluctant, I think I can answer for you: You would have zero faith in the legal system. I doubt that anyone would.

Since you seem to have a problem understanding other people's ideas, can you answer this: how would you feel if you or someone you loved or cared about was killed because the death penalty was abolished? Are you getting it yet? Does this make sense to you? Does this answer you question? This is what "it's a two way street" means. You can't just consider ideas that are consistent with your worldview and not think about things that challenge it. You have to actually think about them.

You will have to explain how you know the killing would not have occurred otherwise.

You're right, I will stop pointing out your nonsensical statements, since you seem to be unable have a coherent discussion about your thoughts. The rest of your post was pretty nonsensical and I'm not playing snip and disassemble with you.

How come you can't come up with a concise, coherent reason why the death penalty should not be practiced? What conclusion should I draw from this?

It is pretty clear that you have already drawn your conclusion before this thread, and will fall back on your stock reply to any argument against the death penalty.

Closing your mind and reject all arguments beforehand does not make a valid response, though.

Are you saying that 1 of every 8 executed was later found innocent? Or that for every 8 executed, 1 person on death row was found innocent? If the latter then the 'statistic' is meaningless.

I doubt that one of every 8 people actually executed since 1973 has been found innocent after execution- but I'll look at any actual evidence if that's your claim.

Read what I said: Not one of every 8 people. 8 executed, 1 is innocent.

You either need to compare the number of innocent actually executed to the total number executed, or the number of innocent sentenced to death (whether actually executed or still waiting) to the total number sentenced to death (whether actually executed or still waiting). Otherwise you might as well just make up random numbers and connect for random reasons.

That is one of the most serious problems with the death penalty: Once the execution has taken place, it isn't checked if the killed person was innocent or not.

However, if we do a bit of math: If, for every 8 people executed, 1 is innocent, how many of the 3,350 people on death row are innocent?

Now, that's a scary number, isn't it?

I will preface this by stating that I will discard any argument that is situational (that is, it applies to certain situations, but not all). That is not an argument against capital punishment as a whole, but rather against a certain situation in which capital punishment is used, and cannot be extended to all situations.

No, no, no. Now you are making up a new rule, after you have seen what I presented. You can't do that: You have to go with the rules you set up for yourself, before you saw my arguments.

Brutalization of society.
Sorry, I have problems with this. It is a statement purely of opinion, but I would need to see evidence that countries that use capital punishment are consistently more 'brutal' than countries that don't,

Use of capital punishment by nation

Read this: Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty

In 2006, 91 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the USA.
...
Iran executed 177 people, Pakistan 82 and Iraq and Sudan each at least 65. There were 53 executions in 12 states in the USA.

Striking, isn't it?

and that people in countries that have the death penalty are more likely to kill than people in countries that don't.

Why?

Again, I have real problems with individuals like yourself who expect me to accept arguments just because that is what you believe. I've also done plenty of research on the death penalty, and have never seen any evidence that actually supports such an argument. If you have such evidence, feel free to present it. If not, I see no reason whatsoever why anyone should accept this as an argument.

See the above list of countries. Not exactly your calm, peaceful group of democratic nations.

Revenge.
I agree that using the death penalty as a form of revenge is wrong; but the death penalty is not always used for revenge. It is, in fact, quite possible to have the death penalty applied for reasons other than revenge. So this argument falls into the situational category -- it is "wrong" if it is used for purposes of revenge.

Just as it would be wrong to imprison or otherwise punish criminals with the intent of 'revenge' in mind; but that does not mean that imprisonment or punishment are implicitly wrong.

Given that the death penalty can and is used for revenge, and the impossibility of retribution, it makes it a truly oppressive weapon.

How will you ensure that the death penalty isn't used for revenge?

Arbitrary.
Here you are referring to a specific system (the U.S. system). It would be quite possible to have a non-arbitrary legal system that used the death penalty. Capital punishment is not implicitly, inevitably arbitrary.

What country has a non-arbitrary legal system that uses the death penalty? How could it be applied in a non-arbitrary way?

Racist.
Again, you are referring to one specific country. By the same argument, the proportion of blacks who are incarcerated in the U.S. is a far higher proportion than the general black population in the U.S. This does not prove that incarceration is wrong; it proves only that the way it is applied is wrong.

Dude, you seem to suffer under the illusion that the whole world is the same as the U.S. You offer arguments that are based on abuses in the American system, and expect me to accept them as some sort of universal argument. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Such arguments demonstrate that in specific situations, the death penalty can be abused (as can any form of punishment); they do not in any manner, shape, or form demonstrate that capital punishment is universally wrong.

Yes, I am referring to one specific country. That doesn't make the racist aspect go away. Deal with it.

Human rights.
This is a personal opinion, based on your own moral standards. There are, obviously, many people who disagree entirely, and who feel that capital punishment is completely morally justifiable.

You don't even bother to give reasons as to why it is morally wrong; you simply state it as a fact, implicitly assuming that only your moral perspective is the correct or proper one, and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong.

This certainly leads to impassioned arguments from you (as we've seen); but is not in any way logical or empirical.

Given your claim that you have studied the subject in depth, I would think that you were familiar with the arguments against the death penalty. Since that is not the case, you can start here.

Government-imposed killing of citizens.
This is complete nonsense. Again, if you want to make such an argument, you would have to demonstrate that countries that use the death penalty have more oppressive governments than countries that do not.

See above. Impressive list, no?

If a government had the power to impose the death penalty for any reason, I might perhaps agree with you. But when a government states that only those who commit first degree murder or rape can have the death penalty imposed, then the only people in danger from that government are people who have committed first degree murder or rape.

No. Those found guilty can have the death penalty imposed. As evidenced, this does not mean that those found guilty are necessarily those who did it.

Again, you give me opinions which are entirely unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, and expect me to just swallow it. Obviously, you have a very high opinion of yourself, however I hope you'll understand that I expect a little bit more evidence than "this is what I believe".

Do you have evidence to support this argument? Then let's see it.

You have studied this subject, but weren't aware of e.g. the high ratio of innocent vs. executed?

Appeal system.
I'll put this together with the "innocents will be killed" argument below, they are essentially the same thing.

Mob justice.
Again -- evidence. Where is your evidence for this claim? In the U.S. system, the accused has a choice of trial by judge, or by jury. If by judge, he has a professional who is trained to judge based on evidence, not on emotion. If by jury, he has a group of 12 people who knew little or nothing about him and his crime in advance, and who are kept isolated from all outside influencing forces.

Where is the "mob justice" aspect here?

You cannot possibly be ignorant of the public pressure in high profile cases. If you want to argue that the legal system is entirely without pressure from the political one, you are seriously in denial.

In addition -- repeating a common theme here -- if "mob justice" proves that the death penalty is wrong, then it would mean many other forms of legal punishment are wrong also. Hell, by this argument, it would be morally wrong to convict any murderer at all, for fear that his conviction might be because of "mob justice"...which is plainly a ridiculous argument.

Again, there is no possibility of retribution with the death penalty.

Is someone punished by being dead?
This one depends on the argument that the death penalty is for the purpose of punishment...that is not the case for many death penalty advocates. They would argue that the death penalty is not for the purpose of punishment, but for the purpose of protection.

Which they can't back up with evidence. Therefore, the argument is invalid.

Is society protected from any potential for future murders/rapes by this person if they are executed? Absolutely, completely, beyond all doubt. Any other form of punishment offers the possibility that this criminal could be released, or escape, and kill/rape more people.

By that line of reasoning, we'd better put everyone in jail, because that will ensure that no crime is ever committed again.

Freedom.
Again, you are relying on the 'revenge' or 'punishment' arguments of the death penalty.

I could simply turn around and ask a rape victim, or the family of a murder victim, "Would you feel safer knowing that he is dead, and cannot come back again? Or would you feel safer knowing that he is incarcerated, but could be released in the future, and/or escape from confinement?"

We can ask that question to all victims of all crimes. What if there would be no possibility of release? He won't do it again, but there would still be possible retribution, if he was found not guilty later on. The best of all solutions.

It doesn't always happen to others.
I wouldn't like to be on death row. Neither would I like to be put in prison. My basic solution to this is don't commit murder. The fact that I would not like to be put in prison does not mean that putting people in prison is wrong; the fact that I would not like to face the death penalty does not implicitly mean that the death penalty is wrong.

That "solution" doesn't wash, given that innocent people are sent to jail. There is a huge difference between innocently jailed and innocently killed.

I do not believe that executions are morally wrong. If it was possible to determine a criminal's guilt with 100% certainty, I would likely support the death penalty for a specific class of criminal -- those who committed premeditated murder, and those who committed rape.

Why only those two? Murder, I can understand (although not agree with), but why rape and not other crimes?

My focus is on protection. I consider the rights of victims (both actual victims, and potential victims) to absolutely supersede the rights of any convicted murderer or rapist. And in my opinion, the greatest moral responsibility of the government is to do everything they can to prevent even the possibility of a convicted murderer or rapist from committing such a crime again. The most absolute, certain means of doing this is executing the criminal. Any other form of punishment leaves open the possibility that the murderer/rapist will be released, or will escape, and subsequently murder or rape more people.

Now, if the guilt of a murderer/rapist could be determined with absolute certainty, then I would have no problem whatsoever with imposing the death penalty. However, the fact that it is more than adequately proven that innocent people do get convicted, I would oppose it.

I would, of course, also oppose specific instances where the death penalty was abused; for example, if it is used for political reasons to get rid of enemies, or if it is demonstrable that there is a strong racial bias in regards to death sentences. But I would only oppose that specific abuse, not the death penalty in general. Just as I would oppose any other abuse of legal punishments.

Pro et con, yes. But at the end of the day: Are you in favor of the death penalty or not?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo,

Tell ya' what...I'll answer your question, if you'll answer mine (which was posted quite a bit earlier).

??
I post my question in post #1..

To answer your question -- no, I do not believe it is either moral nor legal for a person to kill another person, in the scenario you have proposed. I will clarify, however, that this does not mean I think that killing another person is always wrong or immoral.

OK.
Now, would the jury had known for sure that the burglar was guilty of murder, in that case, would have death penalty be moral?

Now, here's my question for you in return:

A person invades your home. They kill your wife, and rape your daughter. You know who did it, but in trial, that person is released due to lack of evidence. Now, if instead of killing that person, you go and kidnap that person, and imprison them in your basement for the next 30 or 40 years, do you believe that is moral, or that such behavior should be legal?

I've answered your question clearly; I'd appreciate it if you would do the same for my question.

I do not have a definite reply for this.
I do not know if there is a red line between moral and immoral ( no, that is NOT a way to avoid your reply ).
In the case you quoted, I would say it is less immoral, than killing the man, even it should not be legal by any way..
If I were that man, and I could imprison the killer, I would maybe do it..

 

[Wolfman]

Pro et con, yes. But at the end of the day: Are you in favor of the death penalty or not?

Dude, I already answered that question. Here it is again -- please read.

I do not believe that executions are morally wrong. If it was possible to determine a criminal's guilt with 100% certainty, I would likely support the death penalty for a specific class of criminal -- those who committed premeditated murder, and those who committed rape.

However, as you've stated, it is not possible to be 100% sure, and it is a documented, proven fact that a certain percentage of those on death row (and even some who have actually been executed) are innocent of the crimes for which they are being punished. For that reason, and for that reason only, I am opposed to the death penalty.

I don't see how I can make my answer, or my reasons for it, any clearer. As to the rest -- obviously, you and I have very different standards of what demonstrates 'evidence' or 'proof'. In my opinion, the only valid arguments to prove that capital punishment is always wrong are arguments that are consistent in all cases where capital punishment is used. Proving that capital punishment is sometimes abused only proves that it is wrong in those situations.

In regards to the issue of not being able to be 100% certain that all those given death sentences are actually guilty (and the verifiable, proven fact that a number of them actually are innocent), this is something that seems to be true in all instances, across all political systems and cultures. So it is a valid argument against the death penalty, and as I stated, is the reason I oppose the death penalty.

If that barrier could be somehow removed (and I don't think this is likely, at least not in the near future), then I would support the death penalty, and would not consider it immoral.

Now, would the jury had known for sure that the burglar was guilty of murder, in that case, would have death penalty be moral?

I would say yes.

I do not have a definite reply for this.
I do not know if there is a red line between moral and immoral ( no, that is NOT a way to avoid your reply ).

Sure seems like it, when you insist that everyone must answer your question.

In the case you quoted, I would say it is less immoral, than killing the man, even it should not be legal by any way..

Well, I would say that, in your scenario, killing the man outright would be less immoral than very slowly and painfully torturing him before killing him; does that make killing him more moral or acceptable?

If I were that man, and I could imprison the killer, I would maybe do it..

And if I were that man, and I could kill the killer, I would maybe do it. Despite the fact I do think it is 'wrong'.

 

[CFLarsen]

Dude, I already answered that question. Here it is again -- please read.
I don't see how I can make my answer, or my reasons for it, any clearer.

If you are against the death penalty for these reasons, then you do not consider the rights of victims (both actual victims, and potential victims) to absolutely supersede the rights of any convicted murderer or rapist. Hence the confusion.

As to the rest -- obviously, you and I have very different standards of what demonstrates 'evidence' or 'proof'.

Yes, that is quite clear. You ask for evidence, I provide it, yet you ignore it - as well as the questions put to you.

If you don't want evidence, just say so. But don't ask for evidence under the pretense that you will go where the evidence leads you, unless you really are prepared to do so.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

How come people who think that the death penalty is wrong can't explain why to the rest of us? How come they always end up posting incoherent threads like this?

Because the state must NEVER be in a position where it deliberately kills an innocent person.

Until you have a justice system which NEVER falsely convicts, the death penalty is unacceptable to me.

How come death penalty proponents always end up lumping everyone who disagrees with them together and pretending they are incapable of logical arguments? Or, just possibly, are ridiculous generalisations like this not remotely helpful?

 

[CFLarsen]

Because the state must NEVER be in a position where it deliberately kills an innocent person.

Until you have a justice system which NEVER falsely convicts, the death penalty is unacceptable to me.

That is a huge problem with the death penalty: That it is the state/government that not only decides who should die, but is also the one carrying out the killing.

When a state/government can legally take your life, what other rights you have become meaningless. E.g., your right to freedom is trumped by your government's right to kill you.

One particular case is those who insist on having a right to own guns, because they don't trust their government. OK, fine. They don't trust their own government.

Yet, in the case where they also favor the death sentence, they have no problem at all with the government they so mistrust to have the power to kill them.

Mind-blowing.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

What a confusing OP.

I'm very opposed to the death penalty for a number of reasons but I find myself missing how the man's actions here are CLEARLY immoral. I don't think its as clear cut as its being made out to be. A case could be made either way IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE. Is it only me that thinks this?

The link to the death penalty is also somewhat vague. The case discussed is such a specific case that its virtually useless as a tool to extrapolate a general principle from.

Never a big fan of posts which only reveal half the argument either... why not state your case and let others weigh it up rather than rationing it out piece by piece presumably trying to set some kind of trap for the unsuspecting reader.

 

[Wolfman]

If you are against the death penalty for these reasons, then you do not consider the rights of victims (both actual victims, and potential victims) to absolutely supersede the rights of any convicted murderer or rapist. Hence the confusion.

Certainly I do. The rights of a victim to be protected from an actual killer supersede the rights of the killer. And, as I stated, if I could be 100% certain that convictions were correct, and there were no errors, then I'd support the execution of those killers.

However, since we cannot prove that, and it is in fact a demonstrated certainty that some of those who are convicted are, in fact, innocent...then killing an innocent person is not protecting victims, it is creating another victim, while leaving the actual killer free. Neither of these results benefits or helps potential victims in any manner, shape, or form.

Yes, that is quite clear. You ask for evidence, I provide it, yet you ignore it - as well as the questions put to you.

If you don't want evidence, just say so. But don't ask for evidence under the pretense that you will go where the evidence leads you, unless you really are prepared to do so.

You and I seem to have a communication problem. I doubt that repeating the same thing I've said at least four or five times now will penetrate your skull, but I'll give it one last shot nonetheless.

Here is an example of logical and illogical arguments.

Illogical = Some people who drink milk suffer severe indigestion due to lactose intolerance; therefore, drinking milk is bad. Logical = For those people who have lactose intolerance, drinking milk is bad (at least without taking suitable precautions), but it is fine for everyone else.

Illogical = In 1996, over 42,000 people died in car accidents in the United States (that is, irrevocable death), therefore driving cars is immoral and wrong; Logical = There are certain driving behaviors (ie. speeding, dangerous driving, etc.) that significantly increase the danger of causing a fatal accident, and such behaviors should be punished, but driving in and of itself is neither immoral nor should it be illegal.

Illogical = The proportion of blacks who are incarcerated in American prisons is significantly higher than the proportion of blacks in American society; therefore, the American legal system is racist and it should be immoral or illegal to imprison any person. Logical = There are definite inequalities in the American justice system that need to be addressed, but it is still both moral and necessary to imprison those who have broken certain laws.

Now, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. Well, actually, no...I'm not sure, since I've actually made the same point several times over, and it has completely failed to penetrate.

Racism is not an innate or inevitable aspect of capital punishment. Certainly, where such problems exist, they should be addressed and dealt with, just as they should be dealt with in any other situation.

Tell ya' what, CF. Do this for me.

Demonstrate that all of your arguments are true for all situations of the death penalty, in every country and in every legal system. Demonstrate to me that your arguments are inevitable results of having the death penalty in place.

I can prove that virtually any legal penalty that the state can impose can be abused. The fact that those penalties can be abused does not mean that the penalties themselves are wrong! This is, so far as I can tell, a self-evident truth. So proving that the death penalty can be abused (a claim with which I have no disagreement whatsoever) does not mean that the death penalty itself is wrong.

As I stated, the principle concern I have with the death penalty is that we can not be certain we are not killing an innocent person.

If it were possible to determine with 100% certainty the question of innocence or guilt, then I would support the death penalty. That is not currently possible; so I oppose it. That's all. Very simple.

 

[CFLarsen]

Tell ya' what, Wolfman. Address the evidence you asked for.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Doesn't the case for the death penalty pretty much boil down to a) do you believe it is ever right to kill someone for any reason (some will say no) and b) how many false positives (innocents executed) are you prepared to accept (some will say zero)?

Questions of deterrence etc are pretty much secondary to those 2 concerns since the answers to the above can pretty much end the argument there and then.

 

[Wolfman]

Tell ya' what, Wolfman. Address the evidence you asked for.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the parts where you gave evidence that the death penalty is applied in a racist manner in every country that uses it; that capital punishment is always arbitrary; that death sentence convictions are always based on mob rule; etc., etc., etc.

Please point out to me where you provided this evidence, and I'll gladly respond to that.

Otherwise, I continue in my stance that it is a fundamentally illogical argument to state that because abuses happen in some instances, the issue being discussed is therefore 'wrong'. As argued in my previous post. And in quite a number of posts preceding that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the parts where you gave evidence that the death penalty is applied in a racist manner in every country that uses it; that capital punishment is always arbitrary; that death sentence convictions are always based on mob rule; etc., etc., etc.

Where has anyone said that this always applies in each case?

Please point out to me where you provided this evidence, and I'll gladly respond to that.

Otherwise, I continue in my stance that it is a fundamentally illogical argument to state that because abuses happen in some instances, the issue being discussed is therefore 'wrong'. As argued in my previous post. And in quite a number of posts preceding that.

You can argue all you like. I have asked you twice to address the evidence you asked for. It is clear that you refuse to do so.

 

[Wolfman]

More for CF:

Perhaps the only area in which you've actually provided any sort of proof for your arguments (besides the issues of innocent people being executed, which both of us agree on and is not a point of contention) is the issue of countries that allow the death penalty. It was your contention that the use of the death penalty by the government will somehow make the society more 'brutal', and I challenged you to provide proof of that. You responded with this statement:

In 2006, 91 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the USA.
...
Iran executed 177 people, Pakistan 82 and Iraq and Sudan each at least 65. There were 53 executions in 12 states in the USA.

Now, that's a handy little bit of cherry-picking in regards to facts and figures there.

Here is a list of other countries that actively use the death penalty: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Not countries that I would consider to be at all brutal or oppressive.

And here is a list of other countries that have outlawed the death penalty: Bhutan, Liberia, Rwanda, Colombia. Now, if you'd care to address the levels of "brutality" in these countries that do not have the death penalty, with the levels of "brutality" in the countries that I listed above, I think it will become very readily apparent that there is no "cause-and-effect" issue here.

I'd far, far, far rather live in a country like Singapore (that has and actively uses the death penalty) than in a country like Colombia (where the death penalty is illegal).

If you're going to argue that "capital punishment brutalizes society", you need to demonstrate adequate proof of this. Yet there are numerous examples of terribly brutal countries that do not have the death penalty; and very stable, non-brutal countries that do have the death penalty.

The ability to pick-and-choose particular countries that suit your argument may have impressed your primary school teacher, but is hardly a method that is going to win you many debates in here.

 

[Wolfman]

Where has anyone said that this always applies in each case?

Okay...do you actually read what I write? As I've argued numerous times now, if the argument does not always apply, then it cannot be used to condemn all instances of capital punishment. It can be used to condemn only those instances where those particular abuses take place.

If you still cannot understand this argument, go backwards five or six posts, where I explained it in excruciatingly clear terms that I was hopeful even you would be able to comprehend.

You can argue all you like. I have asked you twice to address the evidence you asked for. It is clear that you refuse to do so.

Ummm...perhaps you could clarify exactly which evidence it is you are referring to? Because pretty much everything you've stated has been based on personal opinion, or on gross generalizations.

If you re-state for me the specific evidence you want me to address, I'll happily do so.

 

[SomeGuy]

No. This statement cannot possibly be true. If we started killing everybody who ate peanut butter sandwiches, are you saying that the number of peanut butter sandwiches eaten would not go down?

False analogy, the choice isn't between no punishment and death penalty, the choice is between jailing someone for 18 years to life, or death penalty.

Do you really think there is a huge amount of people that would eat peanut butter sandwiches if they got lifetime jail for it, but not when the might face the death penalty?

You are somewhat right in that of course the death penalty is a deterrent, but what you have failed to show so far is that it's a BIGGER deterrent than lifetime imprisonment.

Statistics from countries(Sweden, the UK) that have abolished the death penalty, have shown that there is no increase in crimes previously punishable by death.

I would feel better than knowing I was killed because society did not practice the death penalty.

As I said the statistics in those countries where the death penalty was abolished show that being killed does not become more likely.

Since you seem to have a problem understanding other people's ideas, can you answer this: how would you feel if you or someone you loved or cared about was killed because the death penalty was abolished?

You have not shown that this is likely to happen, you've got only your proposition that in countries where there is no death penalty, people get killed because of that. That is something you made up, whereas the example that CFL gave was at least an example of something known to happen (innocently on dead row). Of course his argument is also not entirely fair, because I'm white middle-classed male and assuming that you and CFL are both also at least middle-classed, the chance that it would happen to any of us is practically zero.

Are you getting it yet? Does this make sense to you? Does this answer you question? This is what "it's a two way street" means. You can't just consider ideas that are consistent with your worldview and not think about things that challenge it. You have to actually think about them.

You should try to practice what you preach.

While there's enough middle ground to debate CFL's arguments on, calling them nonsensical is simply a lie.

You only call them nonsensical because they don't agree with your worldview, you don't even really argue why they are nonsensical.

You're right, I will stop pointing out your nonsensical statements, since you seem to be unable have a coherent discussion about your thoughts. The rest of your post was pretty nonsensical and I'm not playing snip and disassemble with you.

You should indeed stop, from where I was sitting it was really making you look like an arse, because of what I wrote in the previous paragraph.

How come you can't come up with a concise, coherent reason why the death penalty should not be practiced? What conclusion should I draw from this?

Your conclusion should be that there's more than enough reasons to be against the death penalty.

Opposite to what you believe in, all but 11 countries in the world do not consist and are run by complete idiots.

Note that there are also argument to be made in favor of the death penalty, that does not change the fact that your dismissal of points made in this thread was fair. It was irrational, reactionary, deffensive tripe, to be honest.

 

[Dan Beaird]

The, please reply to my question, at the beginning of this thread.
Was the husband behaviour " immoral "?

Okay then...The husband's behaviour was illegal. That's not the same as immoral. The morality of vengeance is questionable and I will answer like this: I believe the husband's behaviour could be called moral in a society where justice is denied the victims of crime. I will point out that despite your contention that the husband possessed the same information as a jury, the husband is not authorized to dispense justice. But as another famous Italian once said: "For justice, we must go to Don Corleone". Which system do you prefer?

Two bads do not make one good - Grandma

And your choice to ignore greater injustice in order to ride your hobby horse speaks volumes about your actual agenda. Don't you have the stones to just come out and say what you think?

I do not think the U.S. prison system had over-helming problems to keep those 52 condemned to death in life, somewhere..

Then you don't know the problems facing our prison system. But it's not a question of resources; as I pointed out U.S. taxpayers spend, on average, four times more to execute a criminal than they would to warehouse and guard him for life.

 

[Cainkane1]

Put Kenneth McDuff in your search engine and then tell us what you think.

 

[CFLarsen]

More for CF:

Perhaps the only area in which you've actually provided any sort of proof for your arguments (besides the issues of innocent people being executed, which both of us agree on and is not a point of contention) is the issue of countries that allow the death penalty. It was your contention that the use of the death penalty by the government will somehow make the society more 'brutal', and I challenged you to provide proof of that. You responded with this statement:

Now, that's a handy little bit of cherry-picking in regards to facts and figures there.

Here is a list of other countries that actively use the death penalty: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Not countries that I would consider to be at all brutal or oppressive.

And here is a list of other countries that have outlawed the death penalty: Bhutan, Liberia, Rwanda, Colombia. Now, if you'd care to address the levels of "brutality" in these countries that do not have the death penalty, with the levels of "brutality" in the countries that I listed above, I think it will become very readily apparent that there is no "cause-and-effect" issue here.

I'd far, far, far rather live in a country like Singapore (that has and actively uses the death penalty) than in a country like Colombia (where the death penalty is illegal).

If you're going to argue that "capital punishment brutalizes society", you need to demonstrate adequate proof of this. Yet there are numerous examples of terribly brutal countries that do not have the death penalty; and very stable, non-brutal countries that do have the death penalty.

The ability to pick-and-choose particular countries that suit your argument may have impressed your primary school teacher, but is hardly a method that is going to win you many debates in here.

You constantly fall back on this "all or nothing" fallacy. See further.

Okay...do you actually read what I write? As I've argued numerous times now, if the argument does not always apply, then it cannot be used to condemn all instances of capital punishment. It can be used to condemn only those instances where those particular abuses take place.

If you still cannot understand this argument, go backwards five or six posts, where I explained it in excruciatingly clear terms that I was hopeful even you would be able to comprehend.

Ummm...perhaps you could clarify exactly which evidence it is you are referring to? Because pretty much everything you've stated has been based on personal opinion, or on gross generalizations.

If you re-state for me the specific evidence you want me to address, I'll happily do so.

You say that unless the argument doesn't always apply, it cannot be used to condemn all instances.

You are wrong. We do it all the time. We condemn cannabis, even though not all uses are harmful. Some chemo patients apparently are helped with smoking it, yet they are breaking the law. Morphine is forbidden to use, unless it is outside medical care.

And so on, and so on. There are innumerable examples of something that is forbidden in some places because it is considered harmful, yet in other circumstances, it is A-OK.

Therefore, your contention is invalid. You cannot use that argument.

As for the countries using the death penalty: Take the countries where the death penalty is used the most:

In 2006, 91 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the USA.

China. Iran. Pakistan. Iraq. Sudan. Nice bedfellows, eh? Want to take a look at various African countries with the death penalty, and expound on their lack of brutality?

I see you ignored the other evidence I provided, and the points, and the questions. Let's try again:

Why do I have to show that people in countries that have the death penalty are more likely to kill than people in countries that don't?

Did you read the link I provided to the international organizations that oppose the death penalty? What do you have to say about that?

Do you agree that it isn't those who commit crimes but those who are found guilty of crimes that can be executed?

Why do you claim you have studied this subject, but clearly aren't aware of e.g. the high ratio of innocent vs. executed?

Likewise, if you have studied this, how can you be unaware of the public pressure in high profile cases? Are you really arguing that the legal system is entirely without pressure from the political one?

Why do you only want two crimes to result in the death penalty (murder and rape)?

I'll add a couple more follow-ups:

Should all murders and all rapes result in the death penalty?

Should all sent to death row be executed as soon as possible?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Okay then...The husband's behaviour was illegal. That's not the same as immoral. The morality of vengeance is questionable and I will answer like this: I believe the husband's behaviour could be called moral in a society where justice is denied the victims of crime.

So, I assume you conclude the husband` s behaviour was somehow moral

I will point out that despite your contention that the husband possessed the same information as a jury, the husband is not authorized to dispense justice.

Of course

But as another famous Italian once said: "For justice, we must go to Don Corleone". Which system do you prefer?

We do not go to Don Corleone any more, now, the boss is SantaPaola..

And your choice to ignore greater injustice in order to ride your hobby horse speaks volumes about your actual agenda. Don't you have the stones to just come out and say what you think?

I wrote it clearly in the title of this thread

Then you don't know the problems facing our prison system. But it's not a question of resources; as I pointed out U.S. taxpayers spend, on average, four times more to execute a criminal than they would to warehouse and guard him for life.

So, it is a question of money?

 

[balrog666]

Because the state must NEVER be in a position where it deliberately kills an innocent person.

Why not?