Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[RandFan]

You can not.
This is why I am having a hard time to understand what " justice " there is, in sending a guy to die.

I'm having a hard time understandin why such an extreme result of crime should work to the favor of the perpetrator.

Basically, are you repairing any wrong-done, this way?

Not all wrongs can be fixed. Justice however can be served.

Death ( of the victim ) can not be repaired sending the criminal to die, as sending the criminal to die do not take back the victim` s death

Again, that the dead cannot be brought back to life is hardly a point in favor of the perpetrator.

1) taken out the worst example of criminal sent to life in prison, not the average one;

Agreed. 100%

AND I'm opposed to the death penalty. My point is an abstract one. Using an extreme example is quite apropos.

2) posted a link to an article saying that some inmates were having sex and drugs, and used this to suggest that inmates, usually?, have sex and drugs in prison ( which I do not think it is the usual case );
3) said that it is difficult to prevent inmates to have sex and drugs in prison, a position I contest;
4) say that keeping an inmate in such a way, costs a lot, which I contest.

That's fine, I stand by my statements. Even if we give them all to you the guy still gets to live his life. He cannot be cruely or unusually punished so at the least he gets to enjoy some level of life free of pain and torment.

That's not justice in my eyes. That's my only point.

 

[fuelair]

and a good point it is.

 

[jsfisher]

RandFan,

I thank you for "violently agreeing" with others on the death penalty. You have been clear on your stand, that you lean towards opposing capital punishment, but your honesty and your insistence on exploring that position with others more opposed than you is very refreshing and educational, both.

 

[Z]

So, you take no responsibility for the society you want to create?

Sure I do. But that doesn't mean I have to be the executioner. Though, if you actually read what I wrote, I could be.

I understand wiccans much better than you like.

Evidence?

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
Personally, I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes, when the evidence is as clear as possible. Executions should be done in public (televised, if possible, on major networks), and we should use more gruesome, old-fashioned methods (I'm a fan of the drawn-and-quartered school of execution).

My reasoning is simply this: the number one purpose of the death penalty should be future crime deterrant.

The problem is, that 99,999% ( or more ) of the people watching that show, were not planning or would not be willing to commit the " heinous crimes ", the inmates were condemned for.
By the way, showing such a " gruesome " show on television, you would offer them another view on the issue: killing in " gruesome " ways is not that bad, if the state does it and even broadcast it to the public.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'm having a hard time understandin why such an extreme result of crime should work to the favor of the perpetrator.

I do not get it.
You mean, you do not understand why the fact of having killed another person should play in favour of the perpetrator?
Please, remind that I am not in favour of letting him go loose, he can well serve life in prison, with no sex, no freedom, no drugs, no walking with the dog, no having a family, not having a job, not making trips around..
I do not think this can be considered as a " favor "

Not all wrongs can be fixed. Justice however can be served.

Justice, in my opinion, has two meanings:
1) repair a damage ( i.e. put back things at their place );
2) avoid that damage to occur in the future

Point 1) can not be reached, death penalty or not
Point 2) can equally be reached by death penalty and life in prison

It looks like you also are considering point 3) revenge.
Which I do not subscribe

Again, that the dead cannot be brought back to life is hardly a point in favor of the perpetrator.

I would not consider " a point in favor " passing life in jail, in particularly secluded conditions

Agreed. 100%

AND I'm opposed to the death penalty. My point is an abstract one. Using an extreme example is quite apropos.

That's fine, I stand by my statements. Even if we give them all to you the guy still gets to live his life. He cannot be cruely or unusually punished so at the least he gets to enjoy some level of life free of pain and torment.

That's not justice in my eyes. That's my only point.

" Justice is not of this world ", they say.
You would not get justice, in my opinion, even if you send him to die.
Now, we have to find which is the best solution.
Sending him to die might have some advantages:
1a) the community does not have to pay for him being in jail for maybe many years;
2a) reduces to zero the occurrence of the perpetrator to commit other crimes;
and maybe some other point..
But, it has some other disadvantage, such as:
1b) you can always be wrong, and you can always make the mistake of killing an innocent ( to clarify, also sending a person in jail for life, is very bad but, it is not as bad as sending him to die - IMHO - and it is revertible );
2b) most important, if you admit, even in principle, the legality of death penalty, you are claiming that murder, or homicide ( which is the right word? ) is sometimes justified, outside the boundaries of strict self-defense
I am especially claiming death penalty wrong for the point 2b)

 

[RandFan]

RandFan,

I thank you for "violently agreeing" with others on the death penalty. You have been clear on your stand, that you lean towards opposing capital punishment, but your honesty and your insistence on exploring that position with others more opposed than you is very refreshing and educational, both.

Thank you. I've spent much time debating and discussing the issue.

I suspect that the death penalty will be abolished in all western nations in the foreseeable future.

 

[Matteo Martini]

RandFan,

I thank you for "violently agreeing" with others on the death penalty. You have been clear on your stand, that you lean towards opposing capital punishment, but your honesty and your insistence on exploring that position with others more opposed than you is very refreshing and educational, both.

What about my honesty??

 

[Matteo Martini]

I suspect that the death penalty will be abolished in all western nations in the foreseeable future.

I am suspecting death penalty will be restored in many countries where now it has been banned.
In many European countries, including Italy, pro-death penalty movement is on the rise

 

[CplFerro]

All kidding aside, though, if I were to write up the legal code, rapists would face public castration (again, televised). Child molesters would be publicly castrated, and then isolated on my island prison with the worst murderers. Thieves... well, theft is, to me, a very different sort of crime. I'm not sure I have the words to explain, but I've always had a somewhat different view on property than I probably should, in that if someone can take what I have, they deserve it and I don't. But of course, society disagrees... I think the tendency to steal can be reformed, but for repeat offenders, life imprisonment works well for them. They deserve life; they're just a threat to the property rights of those who accept society's take on property.

Arson would fall into the murder category, unless it was just property damage, so if no one was hurt, I'd categorize them with the thieves.

.....

Yeah, I'm a little frustrated with our soft and lazy legal system.

Dear Z,

I'm still unclear why you arbitarily decide rapists and thieves shouldn't be executed. Why bother with this "island" of yours? Your "kidding" suggests you have little conception of the rights of man. Outside that conception, and presuming you have any desire to be consistent, why not execute all those convicted of serious theft or worse? Do you have any principles you're applying, or, to be frank, are you just pulling your punishments out of your ear?

Cpl Ferro

 

[jsfisher]

What about my honesty??

Unlike RandFan, you challenged only those who disagreed with your position.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Unlike RandFan, you challenged only those who disagreed with your position.

I have no time to challenge also people agreeing with what I say.
Just a question of time.

 

[RandFan]

I do not get it.

There's not much to get.

You mean, you do not understand why the fact of having killed another person should play in favour of the perpetrator?

Yeah, that's it.

Please, remind that I am not in favour of letting him go loose, he can well serve life in prison, with no sex, no freedom, no drugs, no walking with the dog, no having a family, not having a job, not making trips around..

There's certainly no gurantee of a number of those things. Regardless, the perp gets to live.

I do not think this can be considered as a " favor "

No one says it is a favor. I'm just saying that it isn't justice.

Justice, in my opinion, has two meanings:
1) repair a damage ( i.e. put back things at their place );
2) avoid that damage to occur in the future

This most certainly is not my idea of justice.

Justice is paying a penalty for wrongs that have been commited i.e. punisment.

Point 1) can not be reached, death penalty or not

This should not work in the perpetrators favor. Saying, well, we can't bring the victim back to life therefore we shouldn't give you the harshest punishment".

That's just nuts. How can it work in the perps favor?

It should be, "because we can't bring the victim back to life we reserve the harshest punishment for you."

Point 2) can equally be reached by death penalty and life in prison

No, clearly not. Asserting this does not make it so.

It looks like you also are considering point 3) revenge.

NO! Punishment. Justice.

" Justice is not of this world ", they say.

They are idiots.

You would not get justice, in my opinion, even if you send him to die.

You are entitled to an opinion.

{snipped}

You are making this much more than it need to be.

I respect your opinion, I strongly disagree. Living a life in prision is NOT justice. It might be the closest thing we as a society can mete but it is not justice.

 

[Elind]

I have no time to challenge also people agreeing with what I say.
Just a question of time.

Sure you do. You agree with me on principle, and I with you, but then everything goes crazy from there.

Honestly this topic is right up there with gun control. If there hasn't been one for a while try it. Post a position for, or against, gun control. As wacky as you want, and it'll be 20 pages before you wake up.

Have fun kids.

 

[Z]

Dear Z,

I'm still unclear why you arbitarily decide rapists and thieves shouldn't be executed. Why bother with this "island" of yours? Your "kidding" suggests you have little conception of the rights of man. Outside that conception, and presuming you have any desire to be consistent, why not execute all those convicted of serious theft or worse? Do you have any principles you're applying, or, to be frank, are you just pulling your punishments out of your ear?

Cpl Ferro

The 'rights' of man are whatever the prevalent society see fit to provide man. Frankly, I don't feel much for the rights of criminals. Once someone stoops to committing a crime, they forfeit certain rights automatically.

But I've always felt the punishment should be appropriately scaled to the crime, with murderers being executed, rapists being castrated, etc. And in my mind, the main deciding factor in a punishment isn't justice or reparation for past crime; it's deterrance of future crime. The best deterrant, then, would be one that would both prevent repeat offenses by the same person, and would add a psychological impetus to avoid committing the crime in other people.

Unfortunately, as pointed out above, there are elements of society that, rather than being deterred from committing a crime by watching a gruesome public execution, are going to instead embrace such acts as reasonable and civil, and will themselves become more prone to similar acts of violence.

The key, then, would be to get a good grip on how public displays of justice actually affect the population, and to attempt to determine whether there is sufficient net deterrance in effect to justify the cost in those who will instead be encouraged to violence, or not.

Of course, no system is going to be 100% effective until we perfect brain alteration - so let's all hope that day comes sooner, rather than later.

 

[Elind]

The key, then, would be to get a good grip on how public displays of justice actually affect the population, and to attempt to determine whether there is sufficient net deterrance in effect to justify the cost in those who will instead be encouraged to violence, or not.

Of course, no system is going to be 100% effective until we perfect brain alteration - so let's all hope that day comes sooner, rather than later.

So in the meantime do you propose some controlled experiments to see what, other than the present system of deterrence, works better?

We could go back to the days of public hangings, from a tree or better staged for example. Ooops, that didn't work did it?

So since deterrence is your primary focus, and since most of us will agree, I think, that 100% effectiveness is never achievable, what percentage would you suggest and what forms of gore would you like to see?

Of course you could be having us on, just trolling so to speak, but always give the benefit of the doubt, I say.

 

[Bob Klase]

Justice, in my opinion, has two meanings:
1) repair a damage ( i.e. put back things at their place );
2) avoid that damage to occur in the future

Point 2) can equally be reached by death penalty and life in prison

That's either dishonest or your math skills are below 2nd grade.

The chance that someone put to death can murder again is zero. It has never happened. It can not happen.

It is possible for someone serving life in prison to kill again. No matter how small the chance that they can kill again it is more than zero. Any number, that is not zero is not equal to zero.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sure I do. But that doesn't mean I have to be the executioner. Though, if you actually read what I wrote, I could be.

That is completely out of sync with what you have previously said. Which is in sync with how Wiccans react to real life.

Evidence?

I have done it before, and I am continuing to rip your silly, inhuman beliefs apart.

Dear Z,

I'm still unclear why you arbitarily decide rapists and thieves shouldn't be executed. Why bother with this "island" of yours? Your "kidding" suggests you have little conception of the rights of man. Outside that conception, and presuming you have any desire to be consistent, why not execute all those convicted of serious theft or worse? Do you have any principles you're applying, or, to be frank, are you just pulling your punishments out of your ear?

Wiccans, when faced with reality, has to do the latter. Watch this...

The 'rights' of man are whatever the prevalent society see fit to provide man. Frankly, I don't feel much for the rights of criminals. Once someone stoops to committing a crime, they forfeit certain rights automatically.

List all of the rights they "automatically" forfeit.

But I've always felt the punishment should be appropriately scaled to the crime, with murderers being executed, rapists being castrated, etc.

What about female rapists?

And in my mind, the main deciding factor in a punishment isn't justice or reparation for past crime; it's deterrance of future crime. The best deterrant, then, would be one that would both prevent repeat offenses by the same person, and would add a psychological impetus to avoid committing the crime in other people.

What about thieves? Are you going to steal from them?

What about people who break the speed limit? Are you going to out-speed them?

What about spies? Are you going to spy on the spies?

What about extortionists? Are you going to extort them?

What about people who commit identity theft? Are you going to steal their identities?

What about stalkers? Are you going to stalk them?

What about smugglers? Are you....well, what are you going to do with smugglers?

You mentioned arson before. Arson is simply setting fire to stuff. If you were consistent, you would set fire to an arsonist's property. Or, if you liken arson to murder, set fire to the arsonist.

Unfortunately, as pointed out above, there are elements of society that, rather than being deterred from committing a crime by watching a gruesome public execution, are going to instead embrace such acts as reasonable and civil, and will themselves become more prone to similar acts of violence.

The key, then, would be to get a good grip on how public displays of justice actually affect the population, and to attempt to determine whether there is sufficient net deterrance in effect to justify the cost in those who will instead be encouraged to violence, or not.

You use that word quite a lot: "Prone". How do you determine who are "prone" to similar acts of violence?

Is it not already punishing those whom you have deemed are "prone" to something, but haven't yet actually committed a crime?

Of course, no system is going to be 100% effective until we perfect brain alteration - so let's all hope that day comes sooner, rather than later.

In the likely event that you are serious, should we all be altered to become believers in (your brand of) Wicca?

 

[Matteo Martini]

This most certainly is not my idea of justice.

Justice is paying a penalty for wrongs that have been commited i.e. punisment.

Basically, we have two different ideas about " justice "..

This should not work in the perpetrators favor. Saying, well, we can't bring the victim back to life therefore we shouldn't give you the harshest punishment".

Life in prison should be the harshest punishment, as killing another human being, not for self-defense, should be wrong.

That's just nuts. How can it work in the perps favor?

It should be, "because we can't bring the victim back to life we reserve the harshest punishment for you."

Then, why not tortured for one month, and then killed?
This is harsher than death penatly alone ( maybe ).

No, clearly not. Asserting this does not make it so.

I have yet to see a relevant number of inmates escaping from a high security prison, except on movies.

NO! Punishment. Justice.

You call it " justice ", I call it revenge.

They are idiots.

The sentence " Justice is not of this world ", means that, sometimes, you can not reach perfect justice whatever you do. And, you should not call " idiots " people who think differently from you..

You are entitled to an opinion.

I did not not that you had to write this

I respect your opinion, I strongly disagree. Living a life in prision is NOT justice. It might be the closest thing we as a society can mete but it is not justice.

OK.
If you want to cut it short, it is OK for me.
Just telling you that I have never said that life in prison is perfect justice, just, is the harshest punishment that a society should use.
Basically, I think that death penalty is wrong, it should be wrong for the layman, and for the state too.
But, we apparently disagree on that.

 

[Matteo Martini]

That's either dishonest or your math skills are below 2nd grade.

The chance that someone put to death can murder again is zero. It has never happened. It can not happen.

It is possible for someone serving life in prison to kill again. No matter how small the chance that they can kill again it is more than zero. Any number, that is not zero is not equal to zero.

OK.
Probably my math skills are below 2nd grade.
I thought it was unneccesary to write " Point 2) can almostequally be reached by death penalty and life in prison ", if the inmate is put under life penalty in a particular secluded prison.
Yes, you may argue that the possibility of an escape still exists; even if very small, and I will not deny this, but we also agree that there are also possibilities that an innocent is mistakenly sent to die.
And, I have the suspect that the possibility that an innocent is mistakenly sent to die can be even bigger than the possibility of a guy escaping from a secluded prison
We live in an imperfect world, and I think ( personal opinion ) that it is better to bear the possibility that an inmate could escape from a prison than that an innocent is sent to die, as the latter would make the state a murderer