Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Matteo Martini]

$1,000,000. Simple, easy to remember, reasonable.

Is the life of Bill Gates worth the same as the life of an homeless in Sudan?

 

[Z]

Bottom line. I don't believe in pussyfooting around when it comes to career criminality and incompetent parenting.

I'm STRONGLY of the opinion that all people old enough to conceive should be under reversible (medically, not by your own methods) sterility until they pass a reasonable battery of tests to prove they are fit to parent a child.

Then they should first be issued any available orphans...

 

[Yiab]

Hire a better lawyer. Obviously, that one did an incredibly bad job.

Obviously. After all, nobody could ever be given the death penalty without some particular individual majorly screwing up. The occasional execution of an innocent can't possibly be a necessary conclusion of an imperfect system even when everyone directly involved does their best to keep it from happening.
/sarcasm
Even if someone did screw up how do you know it was the lawyer? What makes you think there was no false testimony or prosecutor misconduct involved? What about evidence tampering? What about simply not being able to afford the extremely lengthy and expensive appeals process?
Do you believe that the wealthy deserve a lesser chance of being wrongfully executed by the state simply because they are wealthy?

$1,000,000. Simple, easy to remember, reasonable.

So, I take it you are in favour of slavery, then?
I'm not talking about racial slavery, that has nothing to do with this. I mean that if some man in a third world country wanted to give his family a better life, you wouldn't object to a billionaire paying his family $100000 to keep the man as a slave for ten years then torture and kill him?
(Frankly, if the man agrees to it of his own free will, I see no problem with that situation, but putting a particular price tag on a human life means he could do it without the man's permission.)
Perhaps you would agree that if a wealthy person is convicted of murder they can forgo the jail time by paying a $1000000 fine to the victim's family/estate/whatever?

I'm STRONGLY of the opinion that all people old enough to conceive should be under reversible (medically, not by your own methods) sterility until they pass a reasonable battery of tests to prove they are fit to parent a child.

Then they should first be issued any available orphans...

Who designs the tests?
I've got to say, I'm struggling to come up with a different analogy, but the only place I'm aware of where regulations even remotely like this have been put into practice is Nazi Germany. Seriously, look up the "Law for the Preservation of German Blood and German Honor" sometime, then tell me who in the world you'd be willing to trust to design those tests.

Also, I think you should take into account the history of other standardized testing methods, like IQ tests:

As a result of his views on intelligence and society, Goddard lobbied for restrictive immigration laws. Upon his “discovery” that all immigrants except those from Northern Europe were of “surprisingly low intelligence;” such tight immigration laws were enacted in the 1920s. Testing caused him to conclude that, for example, 87 percent of Russian immigrants were morons. Of course it didn’t take into account that they were given a test in English, with questions based on American cultural assumptions, to people who could barely, if at all, speak English. Vast numbers of immigrants were deported in 1913 and 1914 because of this test.

 

[Tricky]

I strongly disagree with you.

I know you do, and I respect that. I was once on your side. I remember what it was like.

You are reasoning in absolute terms, one innocent sent to death, together with 99 culpables sent to death, means one percent.

I believe that you are reasoning in absolute terms. You are making the absolute assumption that we should never intentionally kill another person. When I became a skeptic, I learned to challenge my own assumptions, and this is one of the ones that didn't make the cut.

Our world is necessarily full of death. It has to be. So the choice is not to keep people alive, but how hard we should try to keep people alive. I don't draw a solid line between human life and other kinds of life. I think that we kill when we need to, but only when we need to. If you believe that there are occasions where it is justifiable to kill another human, like in the situation where you are defending your own life or your family's, then you and I simply draw the line differently of when it is justifiable.

But, if you are that innocent man, it means 100%.

I'm sorry, but bad math is not very convincing to me. Innocent people die all the time. Some, are murdered without anything approaching due process. The number of these are orders of magnitudes greater than those executed. So your system is not going to keep innocents from dying. In my opinion, it won't even reduce the number.

" A life is worth nothing, nothing is worth a life "
I will put it in my sign

That is a very foolish quote, in my opinion. One obvious thing that is worth a life is another life, sometimes more. Bumper-sticker philosophy seldom deals with the fuzzy boundaries of morality. If, for example, you knew that some madman was going to cut off the right hands of a thousand people without killing them, and you had one opportunity to stop him, by killing him, would you do it? Yes, I know it is a hypothetical situation and a false dichotomy, but IF it were true, and without adding any other possible outcomes, would you agree that in this case, some things are worth more than a life? Greater good, Matteo, greater good.

 

[CFLarsen]

...no no no. I'd be quite pleased - well, I'd be completely oblivious, actually - to see me go down with the rest of the species. I'm no better than most, and a lot worse than a few. And I fully realize that any such totalitarian regime I might imagine would have cracked down on a few of my vices years ago.

Let's just say that I'd rather see mankind undergo a massive shift in behavior and thinking patterns to become an almost entirely benign and enlightened species before I'd hope for their ultimate survival. That is, if the species is going to survive and thrive, let it first learn how to cure its own woes; otherwise, we may as well follow in the footsteps of the Neanderthals and Cros, and step aside to let some other species take over.

That's how Creationists also think: That we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, as the end product.

In the meantime, we should either consistantly apply draconian measures to deter crime, or we should stop whining about the prevalence of criminals and the perversity of justice that is our current system (speaking as a USer).

Isn't the latter exactly what you are doing? Whining about the prevalence of criminals and the perversity of justice that is your current system?

Personally, I think the use of capital punishment in the US is inconsistant, takes too long to apply, and is not in proportion with the punishments for other crimes. Yes, I'm all for it as a deterrant, but at present, capital punishment isn't much of a deterrant. So given that fact, I'm against it in its current form. For that matter, I'm against a lot of punishments, on the ground that they appear ineffective in deterring crime. Parking tickets are the worst yet, except for the whole points on your license thing. If it weren't for points, all a parking ticket would amount to would be a permit for the wealthy to park wherever they damned well please.

Why are you so certain that deterrence is the best way to prevent crime? You seem to think that humans are best controlled - and happiest - when scared into submission.

But I think Clausy

Childish namecalling generally works against your argument.

is right in many ways - I do lack compassion in general. Oh, sure, I empathize when I see a hurt child, or a homeless person. I've given to hoards of charities and beggars, even when I didn't have much more than they did. I regularly employ a few down-on-their-luck guys in our neighborhood for yardwork or other simple tasks, just to help them out - even if they are just taking the $20 I gave them to buy beer or a bit of crack (at least they're doing something to earn the money).

But I lack compassion for people who would murder, steal, destroy, maim, rape, molest, etc. I also lack compassion for people who choose to remain ignorant, who choose to remain impoverished, who choose to remain in bad relationships (I do have compassion for those for whom there is no choice). And I feel strongly for those who cannot help themselves when they kill, or steal, or destroy, etc. Of course, that's a tiny piece of the criminal population, and usually if they can prove they were the slaves of their own damaged brains and chemical imbalances, they don't get punished in the same ways. I'm fine with that. For the rest, however, no mercy. No compassion. No love, nor care, nor interest, really. Because they have caused harm to society, and will continue to do so if not stopped.

But that is only a minority. Unless, of course, you don't have compassion either for those average joes, who are neither hurt or homeless, or in distress, or are criminals.

This, to me, is the greater good - preventing harm to society/humanity as a whole at the cost of the rights of individual humans.

What about drug dealers? They destroy people and cause harm to society, too.

That being said, I can't honestly say that I believe a totalitarian, fascist regime is any better for mankind than any other. But it seems to me (and I'm speaking purely on feelings and memories) that the crime rates among civilians (for normal crimes, not anti-gov't ones) generally are lower in fascist nations than in, say, corporate republics like the U.S. (Of course, that's largely because the governments in those regimes are doing most of the crime, and the general population is too terrified to break the law...)

I could be wrong.

Given that you have not actually done anything to find evidence for your claim, that would most likely be true.

But even if it was true, is that really a society you would prefer, to one that is not totalitarian? You would sell your freedom for security that is nothing but oppression?

You really think people who lived in fascist Germany and Italy felt safe?

I feel similarly about stem cell research or research on human subjects. If a few thousand people have to suffer or die so that millions of future humans can have healthier lives, I'm all for it. Even if I'm the one who has to suffer (I've volunteered for dozens of medical experiments, but I usually get rejected - usually to abnormally acidic Ph levels. Once I got rejected for being too tall, and once for being male. Hmmph.).

Are you talking about volunteers, or will some people be forced to participate in these deadly experiments? Convicts, perhaps?

 

[RandFan]

Sometimes it's better to just lurk. Some good stuff.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I know you do, and I respect that. I was once on your side. I remember what it was like.


I believe that you are reasoning in absolute terms. You are making the absolute assumption that we should never intentionally kill another person. When I became a skeptic, I learned to challenge my own assumptions, and this is one of the ones that didn't make the cut.

Never intentionally kill another person, if not in case of self defense..
Yes.
BTW
I started this thread with the precise reason to challenge my assumptions

Our world is necessarily full of death. It has to be. So the choice is not to keep people alive, but how hard we should try to keep people alive. I don't draw a solid line between human life and other kinds of life. I think that we kill when we need to, but only when we need to. If you believe that there are occasions where it is justifiable to kill another human, like in the situation where you are defending your own life or your family's, then you and I simply draw the line differently of when it is justifiable.

Agreed with that
BTW, I still dream of a world with no wars, no bombs, etc. therefore, the necessity to defend your own life killing another human being, can be reduced to the minimum

I'm sorry, but bad math is not very convincing to me. Innocent people die all the time. Some, are murdered without anything approaching due process. The number of these are orders of magnitudes greater than those executed. So your system is not going to keep innocents from dying. In my opinion, it won't even reduce the number.

But, if we agree that it is wrong to kill another person, how can you even say that the state has the right to do it?
Let alone, that you are even agreeing that, sometimes, the state can even kill an innocent.
What makes the state, in this very case, different from a cold blood criminal?

That is a very foolish quote, in my opinion. One obvious thing that is worth a life is another life, sometimes more.

This is why I do not blame homicide for self defense
As I pointed out, this is not the case with death penalty, as I believe that, this is not a case of self defense any more

Bumper-sticker philosophy seldom deals with the fuzzy boundaries of morality. If, for example, you knew that some madman was going to cut off the right hands of a thousand people without killing them, and you had one opportunity to stop him, by killing him, would you do it? Yes, I know it is a hypothetical situation and a false dichotomy, but IF it were true, and without adding any other possible outcomes, would you agree that in this case, some things are worth more than a life? Greater good, Matteo, greater good.

OK, you are making an irrealistic case to prove your point.
Please, tell me, where, down to earth, can it happen that " some madman was going to cut off the right hands of a thousand people without killing them, and you had one opportunity to stop him "?/

 

[Tricky]

Never intentionally kill another person, if not in case of self defense..
Yes.
BTW

We can cut that sentence even shorter. "Never intentionally kill another person, except ____________ (fill in the blank). You and I fill in the blank differently. Not that differently though. We both want do do the right thing.

I started this thread with the precise reason to challenge my assumptions.

I hope it has been stressful in doing so.

Agreed with that
BTW, I still dream of a world with no wars, no bombs, etc. therefore, the necessity to defend your own life killing another human being, can be reduced to the minimum.

Well, I do too, but I'm not an absolutist.

But, if we agree that it is wrong to kill another person, how can you even say that the state has the right to do it?

I guess because we don't agree that is wrong. We agree that it is usually wrong. We both make exceptions. The state has the right to kill others in defense of the state. It is a right that should not be exercised lightly or unfairly.

What makes the state, in this very case, different from a cold blood criminal?

Due process of law.

This is why I do not blame homicide for self defense
As I pointed out, this is not the case with death penalty, as I believe that, this is not a case of self defense any more.

Here we disagree. As I say, I don't hold human life on some sort of pedestal just because it has the word "human" in front of it. Life is life. If I would kill a marauding bear who had killed people in the past and could not be rehabilitated (as best as we could determine), then I would do the same to a marauding human who had killed people in the past. Greater good, Matteo.

OK, you are making an irrealistic case to prove your point.
Please, tell me, where, down to earth, can it happen that " some madman was going to cut off the right hands of a thousand people without killing them, and you had one opportunity to stop him "?/

I'm just saying that IF this were the case, you might not agree that it is always better not to kill a human intentionally. I tried as best as I could to make it clear that it was hypothetical, tell you that you couldn't rewrite the question, and frame the question in a way that you would answer it instead of challenging the question. I see I was unsuccessful.

My point is to illustrate that we all draw lines about when it is acceptable to kill. A small change in a situation could shift a case from one side of the line to another. The same person you wouldn't execute, you might kill in self-defense, even if you knew he was only going to cut off your hand. In my opinion, you would be justified to do so.

 

[Elind]

Is the life of Bill Gates worth the same as the life of an homeless in Sudan?

Depends how you look at it. The many thousands of families who can thank him for creating a good living for them, and the millions of people who benefit from the billions he provides for worthwhile causes, would probably say it is worth more, in the cause of the common good.

 

[Elind]

I'm STRONGLY of the opinion that all people old enough to conceive should be under reversible (medically, not by your own methods) sterility until they pass a reasonable battery of tests to prove they are fit to parent a child.

Then they should first be issued any available orphans...

Lisa is going to get at you for upsetting some people if you keep talking like that.

 

[Beerina]

I'm STRONGLY of the opinion that all people old enough to conceive should be under reversible (medically, not by your own methods) sterility until they pass a reasonable battery of tests to prove they are fit to parent a child.

Then they should first be issued any available orphans...

I would prefer to not turn over evolution to the vagaries of politics, the art of swaying the ignorant to get angry.

 

[jsfisher]

I did not pretend to give any answer.
Just pointing out the absurdity of say, OK, we can accept innocents executed, if the percentage of innocent on the total of the executed is, let` say, less than 1 or 5 or 10%.

You cannot gauge any of that unless you do put a value on a human life.

First, as it is difficult to assess if an innocent is executed, since the law would not have considered him guilty, in first place.

But the justice system ("the law") must have found him guilty in the first place, else why the execution?

Second, most important, this logic does not work as, if you are the innocent sent to death, the error is not 1% or 5% or 10%, but 100%

Nonsense. By making the argument personal you are hoping for an emotional response. That doesn't change the logic of the argument.

 

[Bob Klase]

That's how Creationists also think: That we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, as the end product.

Good one! Creationists that think we are part of a evolutionary tree!

 

[Mobyseven]

A story:

I have recently had to challenge my assumptions regarding the death penalty, in a strong way.

See, I live in Australia. We don't have the death penalty, and we don't look to be getting it any time soon - as such, I always de facto assumed that the death penalty was wrong.

But at the moment, I'm in the ensemble of an opera called Dead Man Walking. Specifically, I'm in the male ensemble, and in this opera we all play - you guessed it - death row inmates. We do not have very long to rehearse, and as we are onstage for very little time compared to the principle characters the director has given us only one direction in regards to our character: Think about what your crime was. What did I do to land on death row?

It is a very, very uncomfortable feeling when you actually get into that mindset - in the past, I have killed someone, and in the foreseeable future I will die...the opera as a whole is not particularly 'light'.

But it all got me thinking - the type of crime that can land a person on death row is generally pretty horrific. You don't get executed for tax fraud. You get executed for rape and murder - crimes which make victims not only of those attacked, but also of their friends and family. The desire to see some kind of retribution - not just rehabilitation - must be very strong, and to a certain degree, justifiable. Very Old Testament 'eye for an eye' type stuff.

So that's the emotional justification...a subjective justification, to be sure, but given the nature of the crime it is at least a reasonably strong justification. But from a practical point of view there is a fairly strong argument too - if the death penalty did not exist, these criminals would likely be spending the rest of their life in jail. The rest of their life. And forgetting any arguments as to the quality of 'life' in prison, one has to ask the question: Why should the government, and by extension the taxpaying public, pay for the meals, lodging and healthcare of a violent criminal for the rest of his or her life? Certainly it may seem harsh to argue from an economic point of view, but all that money is money diverted from other more worthy causes than keeping a convicted criminal alive and (somewhat ironically) healthy.

It is, of course, ironic, that an opera that espouses a stance that is rather against the death penalty (from the point of view of the main character, though it does show the other side of the story as well) has led me to challenge my beliefs and come to this conclusion...but I suppose that's life.

 

[balrog666]

I did not pretend to give any answer.
Just pointing out the absurdity of say, OK, we can accept innocents executed, if the percentage of innocent on the total of the executed is, let` say, less than 1 or 5 or 10%.
First, as it is difficult to assess if an innocent is executed, since the law would not have considered him guilty, in first place.
Second, most important, this logic does not work as, if you are the innocent sent to death, the error is not 1% or 5% or 10%, but 100%

So? Bad lawyers exist.
World is not perfect

 

[balrog666]

Is the life of Bill Gates worth the same as the life of an homeless in Sudan?

Oh, come on, we are selecting a value for human life to use in policy analysis, nothing more.

 

[balrog666]

Even if someone did screw up how do you know it was the lawyer?

Because it's his job.

What makes you think there was no false testimony or prosecutor misconduct involved?

There was. Go read the article.

What about evidence tampering?

Ditto.

What about simply not being able to afford the extremely lengthy and expensive appeals process?

It's free. And there are many activists who participate for various reasons.

Do you believe that the wealthy deserve a lesser chance of being wrongfully executed by the state simply because they are wealthy?

Do I "believe" that? No.
Do I think that it's a bad idea that their wealth makes a difference? No.


As for slavery, do you own your body, your life, your labor or does the state?

 

[Tricky]

I hope it has been stressful in doing so.

Just caught this, but too late to edit. I used the spell checker and didn't check the word I was substituting. I didn't mean "stressful". I meant "successful". I had misspelled it successfull. Sorry if this didn't make sense.

 

[jsfisher]

Just caught this, but too late to edit. I used the spell checker and didn't check the word I was substituting. I didn't mean "stressful". I meant "successful". I had misspelled it successfull. Sorry if this didn't make sense.

Gee, and all this time I was thinking some Zen inner turmoil sort of thing that finally leads to enlightenment.

I guess Tricky is just as shallow as the rest of us.

 

[Z]

Who designs the tests?
I've got to say, I'm struggling to come up with a different analogy, but the only place I'm aware of where regulations even remotely like this have been put into practice is Nazi Germany. Seriously, look up the "Law for the Preservation of German Blood and German Honor" sometime, then tell me who in the world you'd be willing to trust to design those tests.

Also, I think you should take into account the history of other standardized testing methods, like IQ tests:

Oh, I know coming up with the testing conditions would itself be a terrible exercise. What makes a person fit to be a parent, and what doesn't?

Yet we use tests to determine who should drive, and who shouldn't - although those tests are woefully inadequate.

Personally, I feel that there should be strict psychological tests for anyone wanting to parent, drive a car, vote, own weapons, and live on their own. I've gone over this in other threads before. And the full test regiment should be designed, modified, and improved over time by those qualified to understand what does and does not make a good parent. We already have some minimal standards for what does NOT make a good parent - we should simply expand upon those.

(And I know the problems with IQ tests - I've been battered by dozens of variations over the course of my childhood. At least for me, they all came up with roughly the same results.)

But I don't think our current 'democratic' system is capable of handling such a process. Too many people who would fall into the 'bad parent' category would be in position to fatally alter the procedure in their own favor, of course.