The reason for a death penalty

[Tricky]

The fact remains that there have been and will continue to be people wrongly convicted of capital crimes. As long as that possibility exists, there should be no death penalty.

I disagree. Perfection of anything is impossible. I could turn this around and say, "The fact remains that some murderers have, and will continue to kill or commit other crimes. As long as that possibility exists, we must continue to allow use of the only certain way of stopping them."

Either it's wrong to take a human life or it's not and that goes for an individual as well as the State.

I disagree. Every case is different. Even Matteo has admitted that there are situations where it is acceptable, even noble to take a human life. We differ on what those situations are.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is less cruel, IMO.

What an odd argument in favor of the death penalty.

If it is less cruel to kill them than to keep them in prison, why not kill all criminals, regardless of their crime? Why should murderers get less cruel punishment than other criminals?

Because not all criminals are incarcerated until they die? Then, do away with "life in prison". No more of that.

That, of course, raises a much bigger problem: Then you have to let some really hard criminals (but not hard enough to get them executed) out into society again at some point. How does that benefit society?

In reality, it happens with great frequency. If our government systems all worked well, nobody would be falsely imprisoned either. But they don't. This really shouldn't surprise you.

Each life is different. This really shouldn't surprise you.

Here is the point where you ask "Do you think the prisoner would prefer to die?". (Yes, we've been through this discussion before). My answer is, "No, but then if you asked the prisoner, he'd probably prefer to be released. Our justice system is not in place for the purpose of granting the prisoners' wishes. It is there to benefit society as a whole.

If the justice system is there to benefit society, why distinguish between keeping the prisoner in jail and killing the prisoner?

He might escape? That goes for all criminals. But you don't execute burglars, to stop them from more burglaries, do you? And if you can't keep criminals in jail, why have jails at all?

If you mean to punish the prisoner, and the prisoner would rather be alive than dead, you should keep him in jail instead of killing him. Of course, if you mean to punish the prisoner, and the prisoner would rather be dead than alive, you should definitely keep him in jail instead of killing him.

What is the punishment if the prisoner is not aware that he is being punished? You can only argue that the prisoner is being punished by being killed, if you believe that the prisoner goes to hell.

I'm not sure all that many people on this forum wants to argue that one...

 

[CFLarsen]

I disagree. Perfection of anything is impossible. I could turn this around and say, "The fact remains that some murderers have, and will continue to kill or commit other crimes. As long as that possibility exists, we must continue to allow use of the only certain way of stopping them."

Then you put the state's right to kill a citizen higher than the freedom of the citizen.

 

[Tricky]

Then you put the state's right to kill a citizen higher than the freedom of the citizen.

Yes, I think it is one of the defining marks of civilization that the wishes of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. We even codify these things. They are called "laws".

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I think it is one of the defining marks of civilization that the wishes of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. We even codify these things. They are called "laws".

Then you don't need rights to protect you from your own government.

 

[svenax]

Yes, I think it is one of the defining marks of civilization that the wishes of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. We even codify these things. They are called "laws".

Right, and if the laws tell you to stone someone to death because they had an extra-marital relation, then you are fine with that? It's in the law, right?

 

[Matteo Martini]

It is less cruel, IMO.

For who?
For the prisoner him/herself?
Then, let him/her decide

In reality, it happens with great frequency. If our government systems all worked well, nobody would be falsely imprisoned either. But they don't. This really shouldn't surprise you.

It happens with great frequency that prisoners escape from maximum security prisons?
Evidence

Each life is different. This really shouldn't surprise you.

So?
Again, what is the point of living, since we all have to die?

Here is the point where you ask "Do you think the prisoner would prefer to die?". (Yes, we've been through this discussion before). My answer is, "No, but then if you asked the prisoner, he'd probably prefer to be released.[..]

What if you give him/her the alternative between life in prison or death?

 

[Tricky]

What an odd argument in favor of the death penalty.

If it is less cruel to kill them than to keep them in prison, why not kill all criminals, regardless of their crime? Why should murderers get less cruel punishment than other criminals?

The justice system should be for the benefit of society. If a person can be a benefit to society, they should not be killed. If you never plan to let them be, then it is cruel. BTW, I would reserve the death penalty for those deemed by the justice system to be unrehabilitatable, which would not include all murderers, though it might include some other types of criminals.

That, of course, raises a much bigger problem: Then you have to let some really hard criminals (but not hard enough to get them executed) out into society again at some point. How does that benefit society?

Hopefully, they can become productive. Some will, some won't. No system is perfect. The job of the justice system is to decide this.

If the justice system is there to benefit society, why distinguish between keeping the prisoner in jail and killing the prisoner?

Because each case is different.

He might escape? That goes for all criminals. But you don't execute burglars, to stop them from more burglaries, do you? And if you can't keep criminals in jail, why have jails at all?

The primary purpose of our justice system should be rehabilitation. If we have no intention of rehabilitating them, then we should not just keep them around just so we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves "civilized".

If you mean to punish the prisoner, and the prisoner would rather be alive than dead, you should keep him in jail instead of killing him. Of course, if you mean to punish the prisoner, and the prisoner would rather be dead than alive, you should definitely keep him in jail instead of killing him.

I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment. I only believe that it should be one tool used in rehabilitation, and not the only tool by any means.

What is the punishment if the prisoner is not aware that he is being punished? You can only argue that the prisoner is being punished by being killed, if you believe that the prisoner goes to hell.

I'm not sure all that many people on this forum wants to argue that one...

Certainly I won't. As I say, I'm not into gratuitous punishment. It must have a purpose.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I disagree. Perfection of anything is impossible. I could turn this around and say, "The fact remains that some murderers have, and will continue to kill or commit other crimes. As long as that possibility exists, we must continue to allow use of the only certain way of stopping them."

Two points:
1) Keeping a person in prison for life without danger of having him escape is possible, IMHO ( him or her );
2) If the state sends an innocent to death, it becomes at the same level of a cold blood murderer

I disagree. Every case is different. Even Matteo has admitted that there are situations where it is acceptable, even noble to take a human life. We differ on what those situations are.

Wait.
I made the case of death penalty during wars, when you can not put the prisoner in prison, etc., not in the United States or Europe of 2007

 

[Matteo Martini]

The justice system should be for the benefit of society. If a person can be a benefit to society, they should not be killed. If you never plan to let them be, then it is cruel.

What if a person is terminally ill and guilty of murder?
He/she can not be of any benefit for the society.

 

[Tricky]

Right, and if the laws tell you to stone someone to death because they had an extra-marital relation, then you are fine with that? It's in the law, right?

No, I would work to change that law. But the thing about civilization is, you don't get to break laws because you disagree with them. You have to convince your government that they are harmful to your society.

Then you don't need rights to protect you from your own government.

Where do "rights" come from? Thomas Jefferson's impassioned argument from emotion aside, they come from the government of the people.

For who?
For the prisoner him/herself?
Then, let him/her decide

See above. We don't let criminals decide what they want to do. They would surely decide to be freed.

It happens with great frequency that prisoners escape from maximum security prisons? Evidence.

We've been through this before, and I've showed you cases where murderers killed again. They don't have to be free to do this either.

So?
Again, what is the point of living, since we all have to die?

Again, each life is different. Each case is different. We should do our best to try to make these decisions based on the differences. As you have earlier agreed, there are cases where it is acceptable to take another human life. We disagree on what those cases are. I respect that.

What if you give him/her the alternative between life in prison or death?

The point of the judicial system is that it judges. Not the criminal. What other situations do you think that the criminal should be allowed to choose their punishment?

 

[Tricky]

What if a person is terminally ill and guilty of murder?
He/she can not be of any benefit for the society.

Actually, they could be. They could be useful in learning how to treat the terminally illl and lessen suffering for society in general. Of course, every case is different.

 

[Tricky]

Two points:
1) Keeping a person in prison for life without danger of having him escape is possible, IMHO ( him or her );

You have no faith in the criminal justice system to determine guilt, but you have near perfect faith in their ability to incarcerate? That seems odd to me.

2) If the state sends an innocent to death, it becomes at the same level of a cold blood murderer.

No, it is killing for a reason, your argument from emotion notwithstanding.

I made the case of death penalty during wars, when you can not put the prisoner in prison, etc., not in the United States or Europe of 2007

There were other cases as well. Self defense, for example. But if you accept any scenario whatsoever in which it is acceptable to kill another human, then utilizing argument from emotion, I should, by your argument, get to call you a cold-blooded murderer. I do not do that. Instead I say that we differ in our scenarios in which it is acceptable to kill another human.

 

[CFLarsen]

The justice system should be for the benefit of society. If a person can be a benefit to society, they should not be killed. If you never plan to let them be, then it is cruel.

"Let them" be a benefit? Now you are taking the responsibility away from the prisoner.

But, OK: Can't a prisoner be a benefit to society by making products? Clothes pins, packing license plates, whatever? Even one sentenced of a crime that would land him on death row?

BTW, I would reserve the death penalty for those deemed by the justice system to be unrehabilitatable, which would not include all murderers, though it might include some other types of criminals.

The problem with that is that you don't know what will be possible in the future. How can you predict how a person will develop, to the point where you say "Nah, kill'im now"?

You can't.

Hopefully, they can become productive. Some will, some won't. No system is perfect. The job of the justice system is to decide this.

No, no, no. It isn't a question of them becoming productive once they are let back into society again. It's a question of them being let back into society, period.

People aren't free only because they are productive. If they are to be free, they are to be free with no strings attached.

Would you do away with "life in prison"?

Because each case is different.

In which case you can't have laws. Laws distinguish between classes of crimes, there is not a law for each specific crime. You may be driving a Ferrari when speeding, while I may be driving a bike. But the same law applies to both of us, even though our cases are different.

The primary purpose of our justice system should be rehabilitation. If we have no intention of rehabilitating them, then we should not just keep them around just so we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves "civilized".

What happened to your argument about prevention of future crimes?

I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment. I only believe that it should be one tool used in rehabilitation, and not the only tool by any means.

So, you are in favor of the death penalty, because you don't see a reason for society to keep them alive? A sort of criminal eugenics?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I would work to change that law.

Why?

Where do "rights" come from? Thomas Jefferson's impassioned argument from emotion aside, they come from the government of the people.

Of course. So why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?

 

[CFLarsen]

In reality, it happens with great frequency.

We've been through this before, and I've showed you cases where murderers killed again. They don't have to be free to do this either.

Cases aren't equivalent to "great frequency".

What is this "great frequency"?

 

[Tricky]

But, OK: Can't a prisoner be a benefit to society by making products? Clothes pins, packing license plates, whatever? Even one sentenced of a crime that would land him on death row?

Yes you could. I have specifically said that the death penalty would be for people who (by available evidence) could not be rehabilitated. Of course, if a prisoner killed a guard with a sharpened license plate, then giving him this opportunity wouldn't have been a good choice.

The problem with that is that you don't know what will be possible in the future. How can you predict how a person will develop, to the point where you say "Nah, kill'im now"?

You can't.

You're right. No system is perfect. You have to judge based on evidence. You will be wrong sometimes, and not only in choosing the death penalty.

People aren't free only because they are productive. If they are to be free, they are to be free with no strings attached.

If you can demonstrate to me a situation, any situation, with "no strings attached", then I'll take this point seriously. Everything has consequences.

Would you do away with "life in prison"?

As a pre-determined sentence, yes I would. Sometimes it might work out that a sentence became "life in prison", but that would be when the prisoner died before a final decision could be made. I would make the sentence, "Prison with extremely stringent contingencies for release".

So, you are in favor of the death penalty, because you don't see a reason for society to keep them alive? A sort of criminal eugenics?

No, because in rare cases it is worse for society (IMO) to keep them alive.

Of course. So why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?

Where do these "rights" come from? God? Your own morality? Who decides what rights we have?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes you could. I have specifically said that the death penalty would be for people who (by available evidence) could not be rehabilitated. Of course, if a prisoner killed a guard with a sharpened license plate, then giving him this opportunity wouldn't have been a good choice.

A prisoner sent to jail because of a bike theft could also kill a guard with a sharpened license plate. Does this mean you won't allow even this petty criminal a chance to be beneficial to society?

You're right. No system is perfect. You have to judge based on evidence. You will be wrong sometimes, and not only in choosing the death penalty.

The big problem with the death penalty is that you can't take it back.

If you can demonstrate to me a situation, any situation, with "no strings attached", then I'll take this point seriously. Everything has consequences.

I'm not talking about consequences, and neither were you. You made it a condition that the prisoner, in order to be free, should be productive to society.

There are no such requirements for you to be productive to society, if you are to be free - are there?

As a pre-determined sentence, yes I would. Sometimes it might work out that a sentence became "life in prison", but that would be when the prisoner died before a final decision could be made. I would make the sentence, "Prison with extremely stringent contingencies for release".

And what would those be, exactly?

No, because in rare cases it is worse for society (IMO) to keep them alive.

How rare? Be specific.

Where do these "rights" come from? God? Your own morality? Who decides what rights we have?

Take a look at what I already said: "Of course" - they come from the people. I agreed with you.

So why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?

 

[Tricky]

A prisoner sent to jail because of a bike theft could also kill a guard with a sharpened license plate. Does this mean you won't allow even this petty criminal a chance to be beneficial to society?

The legal system decides who is "rehabilitatable", as I have said before.

The big problem with the death penalty is that you can't take it back.

Nothing can ever be "taken back". Time is a continuum. Murders can't be "taken back" either. But decisions must be made for the future based on the evidence of the past.

Take a look at what I already said: "Of course" - they come from the people. I agreed with you.

My mistake then. I thought you were arguing for innate human rights.

So why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?

That is not my argument. I think you are confusing me with Matteo.

 

[CFLarsen]

The legal system decides who is "rehabilitatable", as I have said before.

That doesn't answer the question: Will you allow even this petty criminal a chance to be beneficial to society?

Nothing can ever be "taken back". Time is a continuum. Murders can't be "taken back" either. But decisions must be made for the future based on the evidence of the past.

You can't take back time spent in jail, no. But you can make retributions, precisely the way you make retributions in other situations.

You can't do that if the guy is dead.

That is not my argument. I think you are confusing me with Matteo.

I didn't say it was your argument. I asked you a question:

Why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?

Are there requirements for you to be productive to society, if you are to be free?

What, exactly, would those "extremely stringent contingencies for release" be?

How rare, exactly, are these rare cases where it is worse for society to keep them alive?

And answer the question put to you in post #96, too, please.