Executions

[Ivor the Engineer]

What's humane about being kept in a cage for decades, possibly with the risk of getting assaulted by other inmates? (Or if you are in solitary confinement, going long periods of time with no contact with other people.) Living your whole life knowing you will probably never be free again, that you will die in prison.

Perhaps we shouldn't keep people in cages at all, or put them in solitary confinement for long periods of time.

What if we could 'fix' killers? Should they be released if they posed no more risk than you or I?

Do you really think being forced to "think about your upcoming execution" in any way competes with what (for example) Ted Bundy's victims went through?

Why is it important to consider how someone killed their victims for how they should be treated in prison, other than for reasons of safety and/or rehabilitation?

 

[Segnosaur]

What's humane about being kept in a cage for days/months/years thinking you're going to be killed, then forcefully walked or dragged to your death by either electrocution or being strapped to a table while some idiot bumbles around trying to find a vein with a needle to inject you with a fatal overdose?

Who argued that executions were humane?

Actually I used the term "humane". However, I used it as a term when arguing against Ivor's claims that executions were "tit for tat".

I pointed out that regardless of how brutally a killer's victims were treated, if/when that killer is executed it will be done in a manner that is far more "humane" than how the victims were treated (meaning that the person won't be subject to, for example, physical torture or a long painful death. Assuming of course that the execution is carried out properly.)

Ivor the Engineer became fixated on my use of the word "Humane" and ignored the context in which it was used.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What if we could 'fix' killers? Should they be released if they posed no more risk than you or I?

That depends. Is the process by which we "fix" killers enough of a punishment to deter future killers?
If not, then first punish them, then fix them. We need people to understand that there are real consequences to killing.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

That depends. Is the process by which we "fix" killers enough of a punishment to deter future killers?
If not, then first punish them, then fix them. We need people to understand that there are real consequences to killing.

Do you have any evidence that capital punishment works as a greater deterrent than life imprisonment?

 

[Segnosaur]

What's humane about being kept in a cage for decades, possibly with the risk of getting assaulted by other inmates? (Or if you are in solitary confinement, going long periods of time with no contact with other people.) Living your whole life knowing you will probably never be free again, that you will die in prison.

Perhaps we shouldn't keep people in cages at all, or put them in solitary confinement for long periods of time.

In which case you may be putting either the killer, or the remainder of the prison population, at greater risk. (Remember Dahmer was assaulted a couple of times in prison.) After all, your complaint was "being on death row is inhumane". Well, frankly, anything that happens in prison would probably be considered "inhumane".

What if we could 'fix' killers? Should they be released if they posed no more risk than you or I?

That's a question I don't have an answer for.

I do believe that rehabilitation does play a part in our criminal justice system. However, I also believe that deterrence and punishment must also be considered.

Do you really think being forced to "think about your upcoming execution" in any way competes with what (for example) Ted Bundy's victims went through?

Why is it important to consider how someone killed their victims for how they should be treated in prison, other than for reasons of safety and/or rehabilitation?

Because earlier on you were arguing that executions were somehow "tit for tat" and/or had some sort of moral equivalence with what a murder does.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

That depends. Is the process by which we "fix" killers enough of a punishment to deter future killers?
If not, then first punish them, then fix them. We need people to understand that there are real consequences to killing.

Why is being locked up or physically assaulted the only way to do that?

 

[Segnosaur]

Why is being locked up or physically assaulted the only way to do that?

Well, what would you consider to be an alternative form of punishment?

Remember, when you're talking deterrence you're not talking about the person who's actually committed the crime, you're talking about the people who might decide to commit a crime in the future. If they think "Hey, if I kill someone all they'll do is fiddle with my brain and I won't go to jail" they may think the risk of punishment is rather low.

(Not that we'll have masses of people all of a sudden decide to become serial killers; we're talking about people on the "border".)

 

[AvalonXQ]

Do you have any evidence that capital punishment works as a greater deterrent than life imprisonment?

I do not.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Remember, when you're talking deterrence you're not talking about the person who's actually committed the crime, you're talking about the people who might decide to commit a crime in the future. If they think "Hey, if I kill someone all they'll do is fiddle with my brain and I won't go to jail" they may think the risk of punishment is rather low.

Right. If the only consequence of ending someone's life is having one's desire to end anyone else's life removed, without a significant change in personality or impact on circumstances, I think the murder rate would go way up.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I do not.

Then I remain far from persuaded.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Then I remain far from persuaded.

Sorry, what was it that you thought I was trying to persuade you of?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Sorry, what was it that you thought I was trying to persuade you of?

That

We need people to understand that there are real consequences to killing.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You remain unpersuaded that deterring murder is important? That seems unlikely.

I have a feeling that what you're actually unconvinced of, is a position that I have not actually espoused in this thread.

 

[Babbylonian]

You remain unpersuaded that deterring murder is important? That seems unlikely.

I have a feeling that what you're actually unconvinced of, is a position that I have not actually espoused in this thread.

Ah, so you're claiming that capital punishment is unique in that it is primarily a retributive punishment.

I disagree. I believe that the primary purpose for criminal punishments in our society is deterrence, and I believe that neither prison nor execution have much rehabilitation effect.

The obvious implication here (given the first paragraph of the second post) is that the "primary purpose for [capital punishment] is deterrence."

If that's the primary purpose, then it should be proven effective in that before it's utilized, right?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

You remain unpersuaded that deterring murder is important? That seems unlikely.

I have a feeling that what you're actually unconvinced of, is a position that I have not actually espoused in this thread.

Oh if you don't believe that capital punishment is better at showing people that there are "real consequenses" than life imprinsonment then I must have got you muddled with someone else when I was skimming the thread.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If that's the primary purpose, then it should be proven effective in that before it's utilized, right?

Absolutely. Or, at least, if it could be demonstrated that it doesn't perform that purpose (showing that eliminating capital punishment has no effect or lowers crime rates), it should be eliminated.

I have not expressed support for capital punishment on this thread, nor was I attempting to persuade anyone that capital punishment successfully deters. I'm not convinced that it does.

 

[Drachasor]

Oh if you don't believe that capital punishment is better at showing people that there are "real consequenses" than life imprinsonment then I must have got you muddled with someone else when I was skimming the thread.

There's no evidence that it has any such effect.

 

[Babbylonian]

I have not expressed support for capital punishment on this thread, nor was I attempting to persuade anyone that capital punishment successfully deters. I'm not convinced that it does.

Fair enough.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Right. If the only consequence of ending someone's life is having one's desire to end anyone else's life removed, without a significant change in personality or impact on circumstances, I think the murder rate would go way up.

Isn't that the same argument used to condemn atheism?

Does removing the fear of god and hell result in people committing more crime?

The murder rate is much lower in Europe than in the USA even though no European country has the death penalty. Clearly the reasons people commit murder or not are far more influenced by factors other than whether or not the death penalty is considered an option.

 

[bikerdruid]

Absolutely. Or, at least, if it could be demonstrated that it doesn't perform that purpose (showing that eliminating capital punishment has no effect or lowers crime rates), it should be eliminated.

I have not expressed support for capital punishment on this thread, nor was I attempting to persuade anyone that capital punishment successfully deters. I'm not convinced that it does.

how can a christian support capital punishment without being a hypocrite?