Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

[RandFan]

Just use your own judgement. Imagine any capital crime you know about, and I doubt you can say that person was swayed even for a moment by the death penalty, or life in prison for that matter. They either don't care, don't think, or think they are too smart to be caught.

This is a specious argument. Besides it is not objective to exclude all data except those who commit murder. What about those who chose not commit murder? By this logic there is no deterent for anything since we could find examples of criminals who commited the crime without considering the consequences.

I'll get to the other points later.

 

[RandFan]

Well, we go to war even though people could die, but the point is that in the case of executions we have a clear and simple choice to do it or not.

Yes, so? We have a clear and simple choice to put in traffic lights in many places where there are none now. Both decisions could potentially kill an innocent person.

It's entirely our choice as a society and saying that there are other examples of innocent casualties is not an argument for the act itself; it's just a cop out without relevance to the issue.

You can keep saying "cop out" but that is just rhetoric. Further I'm not using the example as you suggest.

If someone kills again in prison, the failure is in the prison. You can't just say that we should kill them "just in case they do it again" and we are too feeble to prevent it.

I'm not saying any such thing. You are putting words into my mouth. It's quite simple really.

• Put the killer to death and risk killing an innocent person.
  
• Don't put the convicted killer to death and risk him killing an innocent person.

You have not logically rebutted that fact. Putting words in my mouth or calling my argument a cop out is just gainsaying and is not an argument. Do you have an argument?

Hey, why not sterilize all unwed single mothers on welfare after the first or second child, just in case they have more and place a burden on us all? So what if a few are wrongly selected?

A straw man and entirely besides the point. Please try not to stray far field?

Not correct. Most people are not depressed to the point of wishing for death under such circumstances, and the ability to have that "fight" at all is probably it's own justification for doing so, given that there is little else they can do that gives them some ability to control their lives.

Interesting hypothesis but I don't at all buy it.

Again. You want guarantees of punishment and worry that it will not be tough enough.

No, not true at all. I hate to sound like a broken record but please don't tell me what I want and what I worry about. I'm simply responding to your argument.

I don't think you will find many lifers who will tell you that they "enjoy" life and if you could talk to them I don't think you will find many executed ones who think they were severely punished except for some anxiety for a short while before the event. How prisons are managed is something that will forever be debated, but is not relevant to this principle of capital punishment.

It's relevant to YOUR point.

I have no sympathy for killers in my argument. It's simply that I think it puts society on a lower level to do this when it doesn't need to, and I see no benefit to society. The revenge pleasure aspect that some see in killing when they don't have to, I think is demeaning.

I respect your opinion. I happen to disagree to at least some degree. More importantly I don't think your arguments are all that persuasive. And believe me I am someone who is on the fence. I'm more than willing to change my mind but you are going to need something more than specious argument and rhetoric.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[Elind]

This is a specious argument. Besides it is not objective to exclude all data except those who commit murder. What about those who chose not commit murder? By this logic there is no deterent for anything since we could find examples of criminals who commited the crime without considering the consequences.

I'll get to the other points later.

By this logic you can prove anything by examples that cannot be proven. Do you seriously believe that "potential" murderers actually say to themselves; "no, I'm not going to do this because if I get caught they'll execute me.....but if they would only get rid of the death penalty I would do it; after all life in prison has plenty of drugs and sex, or so I hear on the internet from this Rand guy"

 

[Elind]

It's quite simple really.

• Put the killer to death and risk killing an innocent person.
  
• Don't put the convicted killer to death and risk him killing an innocent person.

You have not logically rebutted that fact. Putting words in my mouth or calling my argument a cop out is just gainsaying and is not an argument. Do you have an argument?

I have made my points. What I read in yours is:

a: The death penalty is a deterrent to potential killers.

b: The death penalty is a protection for other prisoners against being murdered (never mind that most killers are kept with other killers).

I don't see much argument FOR those assumptions, just opinions, and I don't think they have weight.

I think you are being ruled by emotion, not logic.

 

[Beth]

By this logic you can prove anything by examples that cannot be proven. Do you seriously believe that "potential" murderers actually say to themselves; "no, I'm not going to do this because if I get caught they'll execute me.....but if they would only get rid of the death penalty I would do it; after all life in prison has plenty of drugs and sex, or so I hear on the internet from this Rand guy"

No one is arguing that potential murderers think that way. However, there is some evidence that jurisdictions that employ the death penalty have lower murder rates than those that don't. Legal penguin posted a link to such a study. While I don't think one such study is conclusive, it does provide evidence for a deterent effect.

 

[crimresearch]

No one is arguing that potential murderers think that way. However, there is some evidence that jurisdictions that employ the death penalty have lower murder rates than those that don't. Legal penguin posted a link to such a study. While I don't think one such study is conclusive, it does provide evidence for a deterent effect.

Or evidence that jurisidictions with the death penalty also do other things differently, which could also be the reason for any lower homicide numbers.

 

[Beth]

Or evidence that jurisidictions with the death penalty also do other things differently, which could also be the reason for any lower homicide numbers.

Perhaps. The particular study referenced took into account a great many different factors, but no study can examine every possible factor of such an issue. At any rate, it is evidence (not proof) that having and using the death penalty does reduce the murder rate.

 

[Elind]

Perhaps. The particular study referenced took into account a great many different factors, but no study can examine every possible factor of such an issue. At any rate, it is evidence (not proof) that having and using the death penalty does reduce the murder rate.

Evidence but not proof? Suggestion but unprovable? Wishfull thinking?

In any case, such weak suppositions are trivia against the larger issue of whether it is any more than crude revenge, or possibly an irreversible error.

Most studies I have seen referencing lower crimes suggest that it is due to the ever increasing rate of incarceration.

Murdererers commit less murders when in prison. Simple.

 

[RandFan]

By this logic you can prove anything by examples that cannot be proven. Do you seriously believe that "potential" murderers actually say to themselves; "no, I'm not going to do this because if I get caught they'll execute me...

Yes, I believe that it does cross some minds.

..but if they would only get rid of the death penalty I would do it; after all life in prison has plenty of drugs and sex, or so I hear on the internet from this Rand guy"

This is just a straw man. No, I don't think this at all.

 

[crimresearch]

Perhaps. The particular study referenced took into account a great many different factors, but no study can examine every possible factor of such an issue. At any rate, it is evidence (not proof) that having and using the death penalty does reduce the murder rate.

In the case of homicides, no study can take into account all of the *important* factors. It isn't like the victims can self report, which is considered the more accurate (but still lacking) method of assessing crime rates.

 

[RandFan]

I have made my points. What I read in yours is:

a: The death penalty is a deterrent to potential killers.

b: The death penalty is a protection for other prisoners against being murdered (never mind that most killers are kept with other killers).

I don't see much argument FOR those assumptions, just opinions, and I don't think they have weight.

I think you are being ruled by emotion, not logic.

1.) I have not, in this thread, tried to make a case FOR the death penalty. Instead I have opted only to make rebuttal arguments.

2.) I have admitted that I am to a degree influenced by emotion when it comes to this issue.

Would you have the decency to admit the above?

 

[Suddenly]

2.) I have admitted that I am to a degree influenced by emotion when it comes to this issue.

I think emotion has a place in this argument.

We are human beings. We will emotionally react to violent crime, in particular murder. We will want to see those that commit crimes pay a price. Goes with membership in the species...

While I would maintain that this should not be the driving force behind our system of justice, I do think that denying this altogether and ignoring it causes more problems then it solves. People will dislike a system that ignores the human emotions w/r/t crime, and a backlash is inevitable.

Better to acknowledge those emotions in an ordered way, IMO, recognizing them as a legitimate concern rather than dismissing them as barbarism or whatever buzzword. They may be primitive barbaric urges, but that doesn't make them wrong and darn well doesn't make them disappear...

 

[RandFan]

I think emotion has a place in this argument.

We are human beings. We will emotionally react to violent crime, in particular murder. We will want to see those that commit crimes pay a price. Goes with membership in the species...

While I would maintain that this should not be the driving force behind our system of justice, I do think that denying this altogether and ignoring it causes more problems then it solves. People will dislike a system that ignores the human emotions w/r/t crime, and a backlash is inevitable.

Better to acknowledge those emotions in an ordered way, IMO, recognizing them as a legitimate concern rather than dismissing them as barbarism or whatever buzzword. They may be primitive barbaric urges, but that doesn't make them wrong and darn well doesn't make them disappear...

I would agree. Further I would note that emotions are in part derived from evolutionary processes that have largely served us well.

However emotions can and do fail us. You are correct. Emotions absent any reason are at very best problematic. I would only rely on raw emotion if I were alone facing a predator and perhaps a few other instances that I can't think of at the moment.

 

[Elind]

1.) I have not, in this thread, tried to make a case FOR the death penalty. Instead I have opted only to make rebuttal arguments.

2.) I have admitted that I am to a degree influenced by emotion when it comes to this issue.

Would you have the decency to admit the above?

Decency? Are we getting testy now?

You have most certainly been making the case (supporting) that the death penalty as opposed to life in prison is a significant deterent to murder. I will however admit, decently, that your case is based soley on your opinion with little supporting argument, which you call rebuttals.

I also, decently, admit that your judgement is ruled by emotion, as you state. No doubt we all are to some degree, but degrees matter.

 

[Elind]

I would agree. Further I would note that emotions are in part derived from evolutionary processes that have largely served us well.

However emotions can and do fail us. You are correct. Emotions absent any reason are at very best problematic. I would only rely on raw emotion if I were alone facing a predator and perhaps a few other instances that I can't think of at the moment.

Perhaps also when facing an accused murderer from the jury box??

 

[RandFan]

You have most certainly been making the case (supporting) that the death penalty as opposed to life in prison is a significant deterent to murder.

No I haven't. I have only argued that it could be.

I will however admit, decently, that your case is based soley on your opinion with little supporting argument, which you call rebuttals.

What case? I wish you would stop painting me into a position that I do not hold. I am only tangentially interested in the thread. I am not trying to convince myself or anyone else as to the merit of the death penalty. I am however interested in YOUR arguments. And I'm interested in having a discussion of the merits of those arguments. Switching the focus of the discussion to me resolves nothing. Stick to your position and your arguments since you are the one that has posited a "case". I have not.

I also, decently, admit that your judgement is ruled by emotion, as you state.

No, my judgment is ruled in part by emotion. I find little decency in the fact that you continue to misrepresent my position. I note that you are a reasonable person and I am willing to respect you and your opinion and will agree with your arguments when I think they are cogent.

No doubt we all are to some degree, but degrees matter.

Which is my point that you so obtusely ignore.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps also when facing an accused murderer from the jury box??

Obviously not. My post makes it so clear that I would not do so that to make such a statement borders on dishonesty. In case you missed it the first time please look closer at what I said.

However emotions can and do fail us. Emotions absent any reason are at very best problematic.

Is there something about "at very best problematic" that you do not get?

In other words emotions absent any reason are bad and wrong and anything else pejorative that I can think of. In the best possible light emotions without any reson are problematic.

Help me out here, are you just pulling my chain? I have never noted you to be a troll. If you are just having fun please tell me so I can stop waisting my time. I would not do so with you please have the courtesy not to so with me.

 

[Elind]

Originally posted by RandFan

No I haven't. I have only argued that it could be.

What case? I wish you would stop painting me into a position that I do not hold. I am only tangentially interested in the thread. I am not trying to convince myself or anyone else as to the merit of the death penalty. I am however interested in YOUR arguments. And I'm interested in having a discussion of the merits of those arguments. Switching the focus of the discussion to me resolves nothing. Stick to your position and your arguments since you are the one that has posited a "case". I have not.


Perhaps you could have the decency to place a disclamer in front of your pompous posts, which says that

"I am really just trolling for others comments, and have only a tangential interest in this communication, and on top of that if I disagree with anything you say it does not mean that I actually support anything else even if it appears that way and nobody should be so indecent as to suggest that I hold an opinion when I am simply practising my rebuttal skills".

What a waste of time. You sound like AUP.

 

[crimresearch]

Mmmmmm... got mirror?

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps you could have the decency to place a disclamer in front of your pompous posts...

What in my post makes me pompous? I am often that way, I don't deny that. If I have been so then I apologize.

...which says that "I am really just trolling for others comments, and have only a tangential interest in this communication..."

You misunderstand or misinterpret my intent. The issue of the death penalty is one that has been argued to death. I'm at a point in my life where I'm not interested in defending or arguing against it.

I don't simply bend with the wind. I am capable of changing my mind but sometimes change comes slowly after much introspection and thought. I said that I was only tangentially interested in the thread. I also said I was very much interested in your arguments. This does not make me a troll since I am sincerely interested in your points. I find that I am more likely to better understand a point of view if the point of view is tested by debate and discussion.

...and on top of that if I disagree with anything you say it does not mean that I actually support anything else even if it appears that way and nobody should be so indecent as to suggest that I hold an opinion when I am simply practising my rebuttal skills".

Again, this is a misrepresentation of my beliefs and intent. It seems to me that you find it important to make straw men and wrongly attribute words and meaning to others? If that is true why? It is indecent IMO to attribute thoughts and beliefs that others do not hold.

Also, I'm not sure why you are so offended that I should question your arguments and I'm really not sure why you are going off on a tangent. Why can't we simply stick to the argument at hand and leave my beliefs and your assumptions about me out of the discussion?

I'm not practicing my rebuttal skills I'm attempting to question your assumptions without holding a position. Why is that wrong? Are you somehow above questioning?

What a waste of time. You sound like AUP.

I'm sincerly sorry that you feel that way. I am sincere in my intent. I fail at times but I'm willing to try harder. I think you need to make an argument as to why I am wasting your time. And by all means, if you feel it is a waste of time then don't respond.

Thanks,

RandFan