Death penelty debate.

[Tiervexx]

This is one of the few issues that I were I am sort of ambivalent.

If there was a way to really know who was guilty all the time I would support using it for all adult thieves, murderers, and rapists, but we all know that is not the case, and that it is far to easy for a government to abuse this power.

I want to hear everyone's throughts. I did not post a poll because I want reasons, not statistics.

 

[psychedout]

IMO, if someone who is in prison for life pleads guilt to a crime, they should get the death penalty.

However if someone does not plead guilty, then you cannot know for sure that they commited the crime and cannot be put to death.

 

[Tiervexx]

I really think that the death penelty is more humian than life in prison. I would rather die than know I was stuck there for life.

 

[psychedout]

I really think that the death penelty is more humian than life in prison. I would rather die than know I was stuck there for life.

Plus I hate the idea my tax paying dollars pay to give someone who raped and killed a good person food, a home, etc.

 

[casualbb]

My main issue with the death penalty is it doesn't work. There's statistically no difference in violent crime between states that have it and states that don't.

I think, given that, the risk of a wrongful killing is enough to warrant not having it.

 

[Atomic Punk]

IMO, if someone who is in prison for life pleads guilt to a crime, they should get the death penalty.

However if someone does not plead guilty, then you cannot know for sure that they commited the crime and cannot be put to death.

WHY IN THE WORLD, would someone in Prison for life already, plead guilty to a crime if they knew the Death Penalty would result??? O MY GOD!

 

[Fina Junkie]

I would venture to guess that percentage of wrongfully convicted criminals put to death is almost non existant. Forensic science is pretty advanced, at least that's what i gather from the dicovery channel.

I think the process should be speeded up. Instead of the usual 10 years on death row it should be less than 10 months.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I'm for the death penalty. I think the death penalty is more for the families than anything else. It brings closure and redemption to an unforgivable crime. Society and the family can know 100% that this criminal will never breath the same air as they. Tiervexx said that the death penalty is more humane than life in prison because a criminal would be burdened with knowing he or she was stuck in prison for life. I don't think this is true. Most murderers are unrepentant about their crimes, and couldn't give a shit less about what their conscious tells them, because they are apathetic about their crime. They're also hedonistic and selfish in the sense that they would rather live than die, because if you're dead you can't experience pleasures... if you present them death, they will all of a sudden have a consciouss and start repenting, claiming to find Jesus or religion -- in reality, it's just their selfishness starting to work overdrive. I know that the death penalty takes a while to be carried out, but I would rather have a criminal knowing he or she is going to die, rather than knowing he or she is going to live. Make them think about death, their death. Let families bring closure. Keep society safer.


Also, as technology, crime fighting techniques and DNA matching gets better, the ratio of innocent to guilty who gets fried lowers. In the future, you will see fewer and fewer innocent people killed.


The only problem I have about the death penalty, is that it generally costs more than a life in prison term, and the process moves like molasses.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

At the point I can be guaranteed 100% that the person being put to death is the person who comitted that crime, then I'd still not be for it. Rationalizing taking the life of another as justice, is immoralatily at it's most arrogant.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

In the future, you will see fewer and fewer innocent people killed.

LOL. if we kill a single innocent person we are the equivalent of Iraq or Stalin. It is not something where compromise is allowed.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

LOL. if we kill a single innocent person we are the equivalent of Iraq or Stalin. It is not something where compromise is allowed.

how do you equate that? I don't think our government will purposely and knowingly excecute someone who's innocent. the innocents are always found out after they're dead, or before execution and set free. stalin and hussein knowingly and purposely killed innocents, thousands of them.

when i said 'fewer and fewer' killed, i meant killed by error on the government's behalf because of faulty evidence.

 

[SoKlueles]

If your child was raped and murdered by a person....would u not want the ulimate revenge? I would.. I would want them to pay with their own life. Yes it woudnt bring my child back, but yes at least I KNOW for a fact that person would NOT ever have a chance of parole and to do it again to another child.

 

[Sub-Zero]

i think as long as there is a chance that innocent people can be convicted, we should have the deathpenalty.








this way, innocent people dont have to go to hardcore jails and be assraped

 

[strongsmartsexy]

If your child was raped and murdered by a person....would u not want the ulimate revenge? I would.. I would want them to pay with their own life. Yes it woudnt bring my child back, but yes at least I KNOW for a fact that person would NOT ever have a chance of parole and to do it again to another child.

And how does taking his/her life make one any less of a murderer?

 

[SoKlueles]

You didnt answer my question.... if it was your child who got brutally raped and beaten and murdered would u say..oh just put him in prison for 50 years and lets feed him and let him watch HBO and maybe if hes good, he can go outside and play.
Or would you want the murderer of your child..or wife or loved one...to pay for what they had done? I vote the latter, but you do what u want. I would want my childs life avenged.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

You didnt answer my question.... if it was your child who got brutally raped and beaten and murdered would u say..oh just put him in prison for 50 years and lets feed him and let him watch HBO and maybe if hes good, he can go outside and play.
Or would you want the murderer of your child..or wife or loved one...to pay for what they had done? I vote the latter, but you do what u want. I would want my childs life avenged.

I understand that you would. And after you'd taken that person's life, wouldn't his/her family then be avenged by taking yours? At what point in this cycle should it stop? *insert Hatfields and McCoys referrence here*

 

[SoKlueles]

It shoudlnt have started at all...but this is the real world and we have laws...if you break the laws....you pay.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

It shoudlnt have started at all...but this is the real world and we have laws...if you break the laws....you pay.

So, the law is not to murder someone. But, you're willing someone should be murdered since they murdered someone else?

Now, for a moment, let's put the shoe on the other foot. Say your child is convicted of murdering someone at some point. They're given the death penalty. What do you say mom?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

You guys are being rediculous.

If you violate the law, and are convicted of first degree murder, you shall die or spend your life in prison because the law says so.

If it's death penalty, then you die. Why? Because that's what law says. A lot of law is circumstantial.Also, the state doesn't just decide one day that they will go out and murder you -- you have to bring it upon yourself and face the consequences of breaking the law. Law is about structure, and if you mess with that structure, you face consequences.

 

[SoKlueles]

I would hope i would raise my child better than to rape and murder someone else. I, of course, would fight for their life, but in the end, if it is the law, then what can i do?
So, dad you didnt answer my question. would u want them pat on the back and given free cable or would u want the murderer or ur child/ wife/ mother/brother etc to pay for the law they broke?

I would be broken hearted already to know that my child raped and murdered or just murdered someone else, they would probably be put in a maximum security prison anyway..
I have a cousin that is a convicted felon. He screwed up once, he should have learned...but after he got out of prison, he kept tempting fate, he kept trying to break the law...and when they caught him, he stabbed himself in the neck and when that didnt work, he cut his wrists...
Why is it, that we are the largest country with the largest amount of murders etc etc? We let them get away with it. We pamper them, we are afraid to do anything to them because we will get sued.
I see your point on what your saying, I just think that if the punishment fits the crime....

 

[Synpax]

My support of the death penalty is predicated upon how valuable life is. Murder is so heinous a crime that it must be punished with the ultimate penatly.

The justice system isn't about discouraging crime. It is about upholding a concept. That is why every criminal case is 'the people' versus a suspect. The person who was murdered is already dead. By committing a crime against the concept of justice, however, all are harmed.

And when justice is traversed, the penalty must with severity equate with the crime.

Some bring up that the death penalty is 'murder.' But murder is unjustified and intentional homocide. Application after a trial is hardly unjustified.

Similar criticism comes from people who mis-read the Ten Commandments as saying 'Thou Shall Not Kill.' That is a mis-translation. It actually says 'Thou shall not commit murder.' See above paragraph.

Still, it doesn't seem like it's much of a penalty at all, particularly if you are single. Life in prison seems far worse. Yet no anti-death penalty advocacy groups actually make this argument.

 

[Tiervexx]

You guys are being rediculous.

If you violate the law, and are convicted of first degree murder, you shall die or spend your life in prison because the law says so.

If it's death penalty, then you die. Why? Because that's what law says. A lot of law is circumstantial.Also, the state doesn't just decide one day that they will go out and murder you -- you have to bring it upon yourself and face the consequences of breaking the law. Law is about structure, and if you mess with that structure, you face consequences.

Hold on a minute.

You honestly believe that something is justified just because the law says so?!

Hitler basicly was the law in Germany, so does that mean the holocost was ok?

It was legal in America for police to harass people in gay bars all they wanted, so does that mean it is ok?

Thanks to socialism the law says that you must give YOUR income to people that you might never have agreed to give it to, does that make it any less of a theft?

Morality is independent of the law. If you are going to support the death penelty you need to find a better reason.

 

[Tiervexx]

how do you equate that? I don't think our government will purposely and knowingly excecute someone who's innocent. the innocents are always found out after they're dead, or before execution and set free. stalin and hussein knowingly and purposely killed innocents, thousands of them.

when i said 'fewer and fewer' killed, i meant killed by error on the government's behalf because of faulty evidence.

it does not take an entire government to do such a thing. It only takes a few sick officals.

 

[atlantabiolab]

And how does taking his/her life make one any less of a murderer?

Killing a murderer does not make one a murderer. Murder is the taking of life for personal gain or irrational reasons. Killing a person who is attacking you does not make you a murderer, since you are justified in protecting your life.

Society is justified in capital punishment for the reason that if implemented properly, this action promotes "good". Killing one who has demonstrated that they have no regards for human life and the rights of others protects the individuals of society from the action of this person in the future. Life imprisonment is not equal to capital punishment since the members of society are forced to house and feed those who have murdered others of society, guarding these individuals places these men and women in harms way and there is always a risk of escape.

The reasons for justice are not deterence, but equity and restitution under the law.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Hold on a minute.

You honestly believe that something is justified just because the law says so?!

Hitler basicly was the law in Germany, so does that mean the holocost was ok?

It was legal in America for police to harass people in gay bars all they wanted, so does that mean it is ok?

Thanks to socialism the law says that you must give YOUR income to people that you might never have agreed to give it to, does that make it any less of a theft?

Morality is independent of the law. If you are going to support the death penelty you need to find a better reason.

My support for the death penalty was mostly in my first post. I am basing my posts off of American law.

In my last post I was pointing out HOW THINGS WORK in the context of current American law. I should have mentioned that just because something is law, it does not make it right.

I believe in the structure of law, and the consequences of breaching that structure.

As for Hitler, his law was based on just a few people's decisions. I don't see our leaders advocating for mass murder, and even if they did, we would not go with it even if it was law. There's a line between law and morality, you're correct.

 

[SoKlueles]

Self defense is not a execution verdict. Willingly going out and murdering someone innocent to steal their money or...whatever else the sickos do when they kill someone, is totally different.
If you break the law in the manner that the law is broken and the law enforces the death penalty, then you should know what you are up against.
If you go out and kill someone, i think that murder of a child, and policeman and what are the other reasons that call for the death penalty? Murdering more than one person? Im not sure on that, but if you willingly go out and murder someone, then you should be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

it does not take an entire government to do such a thing. It only takes a few sick officals.

Well, assuming that the defense lawyers, prosecutors, governor, judge, jury, attorney general, and media (to not report it) are all collaborating and crooked, then yes an innocent man can be knowingly and purposely killed by the state

 

[Tiervexx]

As for Hitler, his law was based on just a few people's decisions. I don't see our leaders advocating for mass murder, and even if they did, we would not go with it even if it was law. There's a line between law and morality, you're correct.

hitler was elected with +80% of the popular vote. And he made it very clear to people that he hated the jews...he convinced the masses that they deserved it.

I mainly just wanted to point out that saying "because it's the law" is not a good reason for anything.

 

[Fina Junkie]

.

I mainly just wanted to point out that saying "because it's the law" is not a good reason for anything.

Amen

 

[strongsmartsexy]

You guys are being rediculous.

If you violate the law, and are convicted of first degree murder, you shall die or spend your life in prison because the law says so.

If it's death penalty, then you die. Why? Because that's what law says. A lot of law is circumstantial.Also, the state doesn't just decide one day that they will go out and murder you -- you have to bring it upon yourself and face the consequences of breaking the law. Law is about structure, and if you mess with that structure, you face consequences.

Ok leave out the mudslinging remarks and name calling so we can have a civil debate about this. I understand that it's a highly charged issue, but you don't strengthen your point by name calling or otherwise attempting to belittle another for their viewpoints.

Being convicted of first degree murder and having actually committed first degree murder may be two entirely different things.

Not all states, or all countries support the notion of the death penalty for differeing moral reasons. Just because it's law doesn't make it morally correct, not does it mean that anyone has to agree with it.

Just because the law rationalizes that it can premeditatedly take someone's life with the death penalty doesn't make it any less first degree MURDER. Yes, one can rationalize how it's "just" all one wants, but in the end it's still murder. And it could be argued that those who in support of the death penalty are accomplises to that murder.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I would hope i would raise my child better than to rape and murder someone else. I, of course, would fight for their life, but in the end, if it is the law, then what can i do?
So, dad you didnt answer my question. would u want them pat on the back and given free cable or would u want the murderer or ur child/ wife/ mother/brother etc to pay for the law they broke?

I would be broken hearted already to know that my child raped and murdered or just murdered someone else, they would probably be put in a maximum security prison anyway..
I have a cousin that is a convicted felon. He screwed up once, he should have learned...but after he got out of prison, he kept tempting fate, he kept trying to break the law...and when they caught him, he stabbed himself in the neck and when that didnt work, he cut his wrists...
Why is it, that we are the largest country with the largest amount of murders etc etc? We let them get away with it. We pamper them, we are afraid to do anything to them because we will get sued.
I see your point on what your saying, I just think that if the punishment fits the crime....

I had already stated my position. I do not support the death penalty. Primarily because the legal system and such is not 100%. If it could ever be 100% I can not rationalize in my mind or moral fiber how the taking of another life is any more just.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

hitler was elected with +80% of the popular vote. And he made it very clear to people that he hated the jews...he convinced the masses that they deserved it.

I mainly just wanted to point out that saying "because it's the law" is not a good reason for anything.

Hitler preyed upon the people's emotions with pipe dream promises too. The people were more apt to believe him because of their willingness to change Germany for the better. It was like one giant cult


"because it's the law" works, but only to a certain point.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Not all states, or all countries support the notion of the death penalty for differeing moral reasons. Just because it's law doesn't make it morally correct, not does it mean that anyone has to agree with it.

Correct, but this idea is based on moral reasoning.

Just because the law rationalizes that it can premeditatedly take someone's life with the death penalty doesn't make it any less first degree MURDER. Yes, one can rationalize how it's "just" all one wants, but in the end it's still murder. And it could be argued that those who in support of the death penalty are accomplises to that murder.

It is no more murder than self-defense in murder. Capital punishment is the protection of society's individuals from those individuals who have no regard for the lives of others.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Killing a murderer does not make one a murderer. Murder is the taking of life for personal gain or irrational reasons. Killing a person who is attacking you does not make you a murderer, since you are justified in protecting your life.

Society is justified in capital punishment for the reason that if implemented properly, this action promotes "good". Killing one who has demonstrated that they have no regards for human life and the rights of others protects the individuals of society from the action of this person in the future. Life imprisonment is not equal to capital punishment since the members of society are forced to house and feed those who have murdered others of society, guarding these individuals places these men and women in harms way and there is always a risk of escape.

The reasons for justice are not deterence, but equity and restitution under the law.

I'd suggest that capital punishment is killing for irrational reasons.

Some societies rationalize that capital punishment is "good". The end result is the taking of a life, whether it's individually or institutionally. That rationalizaton doesn't make that death any more moral that the person who took a life to begin with.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Correct, but this idea is based on moral reasoning.



It is no more murder than self-defense in murder. Capital punishment is the protection of society's individuals from those individuals who have no regard for the lives of others.

Murder can be reasoned morally?

And society has no regard for the lives of the people they have institutionally decided should no longer live.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I'd suggest that capital punishment is killing for irrational reasons.

Then you would have to argue why it is irrational to protect the individuals of society from the actions of those who have demonstrated a lack of respect for human life. I am waiting to here this one.

Some societies rationalize that capital punishment is "good".

Societies do not determine truth, truth is the correspondence of reason with reality. I don't care what some tribes in New Guinea think, nor that of America; I only trust the process of reason.

The end result is the taking of a life, whether it's individually or institutionally. That rationalizaton doesn't make that death any more moral that the person who took a life to begin with.

The end result does not determine the morality of the action. As I presented, self-defense does not make one a murderer. There are numerous cases where a person can kill another and not be a murderer, killer yes, murderer no.

 

[Imnotdutch]

hitler was elected with +80% of the popular vote. And he made it very clear to people that he hated the jews...he convinced the masses that they deserved it.

I mainly just wanted to point out that saying "because it's the law" is not a good reason for anything.

This is a bit off topic but I tought I'd chip in. I'm currently reading Mein Kampf and I can see how Hitler would be very persuasive. However, I have decided that the man was a total fruit loop.........no suprises there then huh

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Then you would have to argue why it is irrational to protect the individuals of society from the actions of those who have demonstrated a lack of respect for human life. I am waiting to here this one.

Removing them from society by life in prison is a way to handle it and protect society. Capital punishment IS a "lack of respect for human life".

Societies do not determine truth, truth is the correspondence of reason with reality. I don't care what some tribes in New Guinea think, nor that of America; I only trust the process of reason.

I'm not sure what it is you're attempting to tell me here...

The end result does not determine the morality of the action. As I presented, self-defense does not make one a murderer. There are numerous cases where a person can kill another and not be a murderer, killer yes, murderer no.

So, is the argument then that capital punishment is actually the "self-defense" of society?

 

[atlantabiolab]

Murder can be reasoned morally?

Not in the manner that you choose, which is to consider all cases of homocide as murder, no differentiation of scenarios. Your idea would label all women who kill a potential rapist as a murderer, all people who kill intruders, murderers, all people who kill others unintentionally in numerous scenarios where the person was not known to be present, murderers.

And society has no regard for the lives of the people they have institutionally decided should no longer live.

No, it regards the lives of the innocent as greater, and worthy of protection, over that of individuals who have shown no regard for the lives of others.

 

[Synpax]

hitler was elected with +80% of the popular vote. And he made it very clear to people that he hated the jews...he convinced the masses that they deserved it.

I mainly just wanted to point out that saying "because it's the law" is not a good reason for anything.

No, I call BS on this. It was in the 30s% (maybe just over 40?) and he had a coalition government.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Not in the manner that you choose, which is to consider all cases of homocide as murder, no differentiation of scenarios. Your idea would label all women who kill a potential rapist as a murderer, all people who kill intruders, murderers, all people who kill others unintentionally in numerous scenarios where the person was not known to be present, murderers.

Ok, I'm not opposed to limiting this discussion to those who have been convicted of a capital crime. I'm even willing to ignore the differences in how that is defined in law across states and countries.

No, it regards the lives of the innocent as greater, and worthy of protection, over that of individuals who have shown no regard for the lives of others.

So, then society can show no regard for the life of this individual and still be considered "greater"?

 

[Synpax]

Removing them from society by life in prison is a way to handle it and protect society. Capital punishment IS a "lack of respect for human life".

No, it demonstrates respect for innocent human life. Because it is so horrid, so wrong to kill an innocent individual, the violation of justice must be penalized in the ultimate matter.

Human life is not all the same. The value of the life of an innocent is in the eyes of justice the greatest of all. The value of the life of someone who would negate that value is zero. That is a syllogism that defines justice.

 

[the nature boy]

I'm all for the concept of capital punishment, however since all people cannot get the same level of legal defense I lean towards being against capital punishment.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

No, it demonstrates respect for innocent human life. Because it is so horrid, so wrong to kill an innocent individual, the violation of justice must be penalized in the ultimate matter.

Human life is not all the same. The value of the life of an innocent is in the eyes of justice the greatest of all. The value of the life of someone who would negate that value is zero. That is a syllogism that defines justice.

That would be wonderful if our system was 100%. What do we say when this splendid system makes a mistake? Whoops?

Mind you, even if the system was 100%, I'd still not be in favor of capital punishment.

 

[atlantabiolab]

That would be wonderful if our system was 100%. What do we say when this splendid system makes a mistake? Whoops?

You have now changed the debate, since the original discussion was merely the morality of capital punishment. How this is applied is not the same as "is capital punishment good or bad?".

Do we get rid of the whole justice system and set up anarchy because all distribution of justice is fallable? I agree that capital punishment is a very delicate issue, due to the potential to kill an innocent, but based on your argument you only advocate perfect systems, which we know don't exist.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

You have now changed the debate, since the original discussion was merely the morality of capital punishment. How this is applied is not the same as "is capital punishment good or bad?".

Do we get rid of the whole justice system and set up anarchy because all distribution of justice is fallable? I agree that capital punishment is a very delicate issue, due to the potential to kill an innocent, but based on your argument you only advocate perfect systems, which we know don't exist.

The debate is about the Death Penalty and peoples viewpoints on it.

When I was much younger, I was all for the death penalty. Everything was so black and white. Do the crime, then pay the penalty. As I discovered it wasn't all that black and white, my viewpoints started to change. The "what if someone is put to death and they didn't actually do it" came into play.

Then at some point it occured to me that if it's not moral to take a life in a premeditated murder sense, then how is it any more moral to have capital punishment. It's not the only solution. And I really had to question my own moral viewpoint if I felt it was alright to condone the taking of the life of through capital punishment. Just because we attempt to define it differently, or rationalize it, doesn't make it so. It just allows us to ease our own conscience in a "higher" moral cause...

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Do we get rid of the whole justice system and set up anarchy because all distribution of justice is fallable? I agree that capital punishment is a very delicate issue, due to the potential to kill an innocent, but based on your argument you only advocate perfect systems, which we know don't exist.

I don't see that removing capital punishment is getting rid of the whole justice system and setting up anarchy. Recognizing that the system is not 100%, and that captial punishment IS 100%, is that reasonable, just or moral?

 

[atlantabiolab]

Just because we attempt to define it differently, or rationalize it, doesn't make it so. It just allows us to ease our own conscience in a "higher" moral cause...

But you admit that there is a right answer. If not, then your debate as well as your introspection is meaningless. You admit that there is a black and white, even though it is not self-evident.

How an act is implemented will determine its moral value. If we decide that it is right to take the life of murderers to protect society, but we implement this in a haphazard manner and kill innocent people, then the system is not moral, for it does not safeguard against error. But this does not nullify the idea that "killing murderers is moral".

 

[Synpax]

That would be wonderful if our system was 100%. What do we say when this splendid system makes a mistake? Whoops?

Mind you, even if the system was 100%, I'd still not be in favor of capital punishment.

Yes, that's pretty much it. We say whoops and learn from the error.

Police officers on occasion shoot an innocent person. Would you like to disarm them all? Or would you rather improve the system?

Every year, the US Military has friendly fire incidents. You usually only hear about them in a combat zone, but they happen * a lot * on training missions. The US Marines have a magazine periodical dedicated *solely* to ways Marines get killed by accident in HumVees. Shall we disperse the military? Or reduce the potential for friendly fire incidents?

So why exactly are you opposed to capital punishment? I presume you are also pro-life right? Or maybe not. Support of capital punishment and opposition to abortion are both predicated on ultimate respect for innocent life.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

But you admit that there is a right answer. If not, then your debate as well as your introspection is meaningless. You admit that there is a black and white, even though it is not self-evident.

How an act is implemented will determine its moral value. If we decide that it is right to take the life of murderers to protect society, but we implement this in a haphazard manner and kill innocent people, then the system is not moral, for it does not safeguard against error. But this does not nullify the idea that "killing murderers is moral".

No more than it would nullify the idea that "killing murders is amoral".

From my current perspective in life I do not see the killing of a convicted murder as moral. For two reasons in particular. The first is, that it's not the only way to handle the person. Secondarily, the system is not 100%.

 

[SoKlueles]

well, to lighten this thread up.


this thread is useless without all the testosterone filled penis shots

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Yes, that's pretty much it. We say whoops and learn from the error.

Police officers on occasion shoot an innocent person. Would you like to disarm them all? Or would you rather improve the system?

Every year, the US Military has friendly fire incidents. You usually only hear about them in a combat zone, but they happen * a lot * on training missions. The US Marines have a magazine periodical dedicated *solely* to ways Marines get killed by accident in HumVees. Shall we disperse the military? Or reduce the potential for friendly fire incidents?

So why exactly are you opposed to capital punishment? I presume you are also pro-life right? Or maybe not. Support of capital punishment and opposition to abortion are both predicated on ultimate respect for innocent life.

I'm not sure how your examples relate to the subject at hand.

I'm opposed to capital punishment for a few reasons which I've stated in other posts on here, so I won't repeat.

My opinion, as a man, on abortion is that I haven't a right to that one. It's not my body. At the point I can give life through my body, I"ll get back to you.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

well, to lighten this thread up.


this thread is useless without all the testosterone filled penis shots

Actually, with the exception of one post, this has been a very civil presentation of viewpoints. Threads like this will rarely if ever change someone elses mind, but it does present a garden from which to plant things others may have not considered previously.

 

[SoKlueles]

dont even get me started on abortion buddy, its the womans body yes, but its another life shes carrying in there...and im not getting into it tonight, im going to bed ..abortion sucks tho

 

[Synpax]

I'm not sure how your examples relate to the subject at hand.

Yes you do. Everyone else here can. You just don't want to address them.

My opinion, as a man, on abortion is that I haven't a right to that one. It's not my body. At the point I can give life through my body, I"ll get back to you.

Funny, none of that has stopped you from opening your pie hole on capital punishment.

PS - you can give life through your body. Maybe someone here can draw a picture. I just hope you don't.

 

[Tiervexx]

No, I call BS on this. It was in the 30s% (maybe just over 40?) and he had a coalition government.

You are thinking about the Nazi party as a whole I think. Hitler personaly got +80% of the vote according to a reading in AP government.

 

[samoth]

I don't think I could form an opinion without knowing the statistics of what percent of all prisoners have a life sentence. If it was high enough, I would support the death penalty.

I understand the humaneness of not killing, however, how much money is spent on those who have no hope of seeing the light of day?

Also, how many states do or do not allow the death penalty? I know here in Wisconsin, we have not had the death penalty for over a century... but I don't know about other states. Perhaps states with much higher populations would be better off to adopt the death penalty for financial reasons. I am sure California and New York have many more life sentences than Wisconsin.

Overall, I do feel it should be the choice of the individual state.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Yes you do. Everyone else here can. You just don't want to address them.

The reason that you examples of Police and military are not relevant to this debate is that in the case of the Death Penalty, it's one of the options available.

Do I support disarming police? No.

Do I support removing the military? No.

Do I support Capital Punishment? No.

Funny, none of that has stopped you from opening your pie hole on capital punishment.

PS - you can give life through your body. Maybe someone here can draw a picture. I just hope you don't.

And this solves or proves what? Just that you can be nasty and snide in an exchange of views and ideas? I disagree with what you're putting forward, but I don't need to resort to being nasty to do so. Why don't you try a bit of it.

Although I may be the donor of sperm, the carrying of life is in the woman's body. I make choices about my body, I do not have the right to make choices about a woman's body.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

how do you equate that? I don't think our government will purposely and knowingly excecute someone who's innocent. the innocents are always found out after they're dead, or before execution and set free. stalin and hussein knowingly and purposely killed innocents, thousands of them.

when i said 'fewer and fewer' killed, i meant killed by error on the government's behalf because of faulty evidence.

The funny thing about the death penalty is it does not matter *why* the person is executed from an outcome standpoint. They are still dead. Killing an innocent person, whether or not you knew they were innocent, is murder.

With imprisonment, if they are found innocent, you release and compensate them. It is not perfect but it is the best we can do. There is no such mechanism for the DP. The justce system fails, innocent people go to jail, we accept in cases of error and we havea methoid for compensating the victims of injustice.

Compensate a dead person and I will agree with you.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

If your child was raped and murdered by a person....would u not want the ulimate revenge? I would.. I would want them to pay with their own life. Yes it woudnt bring my child back, but yes at least I KNOW for a fact that person would NOT ever have a chance of parole and to do it again to another child.

by your loigic you would be OK w/ life imprisonment and no parole. Me too.

While your question is frequently asked by the pro-DP side, it is loaded and not a viable argument. Our society DOES NOT HAVE a means to determine absolute guilt. We convict on "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Absent this "absolute certainty" method, your question is a non-starter.

 

[vinylgroover]

It may be said that it doesn't act as a deterrant in the case of violent crime such as murder.

However, in countries such as Singapore, Thailand etc they have the death penalty for drug trafficking...........there would be no doubt given those countries tough stance on drug trafficking, that it would act as a deterrant to many would-be drug traffickers, particularly foreign nationals.

I think it can definitely act as a deterrant depending on it's application......that's not t say that i support or oppose it's use......it's a tough one.

 

[BileStew]

It may be said that it doesn't act as a deterrant in the case of violent crime such as murder.

However, in countries such as Singapore, Thailand etc they have the death penalty for drug trafficking...........there would be no doubt given those countries tough stance on drug trafficking, that it would act as a deterrant to many would-be drug traffickers, particularly foreign nationals.

I think it can definitely act as a deterrant depending on it's application......that's not t say that i support or oppose it's use......it's a tough one.

Most people who oppose the death penalty in America are the one's who say it would never work. The reason it never works is because of the numerous delays and appeals.

If the delays and appeals were cut down and sentences were carried out on a regular basis, then the crime rate would naturally drop.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Most people who oppose the death penalty in America are the one's who say it would never work. The reason it never works is because of the numerous delays and appeals.

If the delays and appeals were cut down and sentences were carried out on a regular basis, then the crime rate would naturally drop.

Yee Haw! And we could rush someone through so quickly that who's have to worry about if they were innocent or not. They're already dead. Ooooops,

 

[BileStew]

Yee Haw! And we could rush someone through so quickly that who's have to worry about if they were innocent or not. They're already dead. Ooooops,

Sure, why not?

I know the system is flawed, but appeal after appeal is rediculous. 3 appeals and the evidence is 100%, then to the chair.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Sure, why not?

I know the system is flawed, but appeal after appeal is rediculous. 3 appeals and the evidence is 100%, then to the chair.

You'd do well in Texas. I'm surprised they don't just string 'em up right off the bat there.

 

[BileStew]

You'd do well in Texas. I'm surprised they don't just string 'em up right off the bat there.

I don't look good with a 10 gallon hat on.

And that's a good idea.

 

[vinylgroover]

Here's an interesting read on the topic. Texas departmet of criminal justice's website has info on death rowe, including the last statements of those just before they get executed. A bit spooky.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Yes, that's pretty much it. We say whoops and learn from the error.

Police officers on occasion shoot an innocent person. Would you like to disarm them all? Or would you rather improve the system?

Every year, the US Military has friendly fire incidents. You usually only hear about them in a combat zone, but they happen * a lot * on training missions. The US Marines have a magazine periodical dedicated *solely* to ways Marines get killed by accident in HumVees. Shall we disperse the military? Or reduce the potential for friendly fire incidents?

So why exactly are you opposed to capital punishment? I presume you are also pro-life right? Or maybe not. Support of capital punishment and opposition to abortion are both predicated on ultimate respect for innocent life.

Your examples are not analogous. Police and the military, when they shoot innocent people, make quick decisions. We accept it because we recognize that police and soldiers often have to do things under intense pressure.

A trial as you know is a detailed information gathering process, not a snap judgment often made under duress.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Your examples are not analogous. Police and the military, when they shoot innocent people, make quick decisions. We accept it because we recognize that police and soldiers often have to do things under intense pressure.

A trial as you know is a detailed information gathering process, not a snap judgment often made under duress.

Matt, the problem with this debate is that when some argue the morality of the actual idea of capital punishment, which is what I was addressing, it quickly becomes a discussion (articulated by those who are against this idea) of the application of the idea. We realize that there are problems with its current application, but this has nothing to do with the morality of the idea of capital punishment.

It is analogous to marriage: someone can ask, Is marriage "good" or "bad"? It soon becomes entangled with the statistical evidence of adultery, divorce, separation, etc., which are not part of the original discussion.

 

[atlantabiolab]

No more than it would nullify the idea that "killing murders is amoral".

I don't hold that this is "amoral" since I believe that it has morality attached and that it is promoting of "good", there are objective reasonable benefits to this action.

From my current perspective in life I do not see the killing of a convicted murder as moral. For two reasons in particular. The first is, that it's not the only way to handle the person.

You have to demonstrate how the alternatives reduce the risk of harm to innocents compared to capital punishment.

Secondarily, the system is not 100%.

This has nothing to do with the morality of the idea of capital punishment, this deals with its manner of application. One can determine the manner of applying this practice without swaying in his belief that capital punishment is "good".

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I don't hold that this is "amoral" since I believe that it has morality attached and that it is promoting of "good", there are objective reasonable benefits to this action.

Sorry, I meant immoral, not amoral.

You have to demonstrate how the alternatives reduce the risk of harm to innocents compared to capital punishment.

Do you mean innocents as the victims or a crime, or the innocents as the convicted who didn't actually commit the crime but are about to pay for it with their lives?

This has nothing to do with the morality of the idea of capital punishment, this deals with its manner of application. One can determine the manner of applying this practice without swaying in his belief that capital punishment is "good".

Killing an innocent person who has been convicted of a capital crime is not good.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Matt, the problem with this debate is that when some argue the morality of the actual idea of capital punishment, which is what I was addressing, it quickly becomes a discussion (articulated by those who are against this idea) of the application of the idea. We realize that there are problems with its current application, but this has nothing to do with the morality of the idea of capital punishment.

It is analogous to marriage: someone can ask, Is marriage "good" or "bad"? It soon becomes entangled with the statistical evidence of adultery, divorce, separation, etc., which are not part of the original discussion.

I understand, I have read the thread end to end. Capital punishment is not immoral when it removes a murderer from a society that values the right to life - agreed.

The permanence of the DP changes that context of the discussion, and the flawed nature of the application of it render it untenable. Thus it is analogous to marriage only in the way the discussion sometimes flows, but not in any substantive way.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I understand, I have read the thread end to end. Capital punishment is not immoral when it removes a murderer from a society that values the right to life - agreed.

A society values the right to life, but is willing to take the life of another to remove them from society?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

A society values the right to life, but is willing to take the life of another to remove them from society?

I was hoping you would notice that. It really highlights a lot of the issues with the DP.

Lifetime imprisonment and death are the same sentence from a 'societal' standpoint; a murderer is removed from society forever.

So why do we even consider the DP? The arguments about 'save money, execute quicker' are all emotional nonsense; we spend more on social security in a day than we have on executing people since the DP came back in the 1960s. You wanna save huge money? Start giving the death penalty to anyone over 70. A ludicrous idea right? So is the concept that justice is 'too expensive'.

The deterrence argument is demonstrably worthless; the only reasonable argument I have heard on this fact is that many murderers confess and receive life sentences without a trial in exchange for a sentence other than death; however this argument fails when one considers that the aforementioned is a confession taken effectively at gunpoint.

The 'closure for the families' argument is likewise invalid. Justice is not sought by the victims, but by the state. Families only have the right to sue in a civil court for damages, not to use the state as an instrument of their revenge.

Every pro-DP argument is basically a call for revenge and an emotional reaction to a heinous act. In other words, barbarism.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I was hoping you would notice that. It really highlights a lot of the issues with the DP.

Lifetime imprisonment and death are the same sentence from a 'societal' standpoint; a murderer is removed from society forever.

So why do we even consider the DP? The arguments about 'save money, execute quicker' are all emotional nonsense; we spend more on social security in a day than we have on executing people since the DP came back in the 1960s. You wanna save huge money? Start giving the death penalty to anyone over 70. A ludicrous idea right? So is the concept that justice is 'too expensive'.

The deterrence argument is demonstrably worthless; the only reasonable argument I have heard on this fact is that many murderers confess and receive life sentences without a trial in exchange for a sentence other than death; however this argument fails when one considers that the aforementioned is a confession taken effectively at gunpoint.

The 'closure for the families' argument is likewise invalid. Justice is not sought by the victims, but by the state. Families only have the right to sue in a civil court for damages, not to use the state as an instrument of their revenge.

Every pro-DP argument is basically a call for revenge and an emotional reaction to a heinous act. In other words, barbarism.

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to MattTheSkywalker again.

Well put!

 

[Tiervexx]

Matt, the problem with this debate is that when some argue the morality of the actual idea of capital punishment, which is what I was addressing, it quickly becomes a discussion (articulated by those who are against this idea) of the application of the idea. We realize that there are problems with its current application, but this has nothing to do with the morality of the idea of capital punishment.

It is analogous to marriage: someone can ask, Is marriage "good" or "bad"? It soon becomes entangled with the statistical evidence of adultery, divorce, separation, etc., which are not part of the original discussion.

This is what I was thinking. I decided that I am opposed to the death penelty as it is now because it's aplication is unnacceptable as matt pointed out, but I think it is definatly moral to execute those that have no respect for individual rights.

To the people that say the DP is about revenge and not justice I think people that are wronged have the right to vengence.

If my best friend is a girl who is very dear to me. If someone were to rape, kill, or badly beat her up I would not feel any guilt whatsoever for watching them die.

The same for my mother.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

This If my best friend is a girl who is very dear to me. If someone were to rape, kill, or badly beat her up I would not feel any guilt whatsoever for watching them die.

The same for my mother.

See I think this is interesting. What you described is best defined as "revenge". In this case you've rationalized it in terms of your female friend or mother. Think about it in terms of someone you love, or family being the one executed after having comitted a capital crime. Or maybe even yourself.

What's the main difference between self-defense and murder? Is it a judgement call? Do you believe it's possible to be convicted of capital murder when it may have been self defense?

 

[milo hobgoblin]

Considering how hard other inmates are on child molesters... the death penalty is too easy for them..

but if I got life in prison with no chance of parole or pardon.. you can bet your ass Id prefer death..

Id just do it myself though. Whatever is on the other side has to be way better.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

To the people that say the DP is about revenge and not justice I think people that are wronged have the right to vengence.

Actually the foundation of our justice system is that a concept such as the 'right to vengeance' is prohibited.

Criminals are prosecuted by the state; it must be so, or poorer victims would be without justice. Victims may sue in civil court for compensation, but this is under tort law, not criminal.

Your 'right to vengeance' scenario leads to a situation whereby someone is killed, so their goes and kills the killer; the initial family in turn then kills that killer's family, and so on, degenerated into savagery.

The idea of due process is that this savagery is not possible, instead there is a justice that is administered without regard for not only who the defendant is, but alo without regard for who the victim is.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Lifetime imprisonment and death are the same sentence from a 'societal' standpoint; a murderer is removed from society forever.

Correct, but both avenues are not equally protective of innocent individuals. One allows the preservation of the offender, in a secure environment, but still allowing for the threat of violence on his guardians or possible escape. Death does not allow this.

So why do we even consider the DP? The arguments about 'save money, execute quicker' are all emotional nonsense; we spend more on social security in a day than we have on executing people since the DP came back in the 1960s. You wanna save huge money? Start giving the death penalty to anyone over 70. A ludicrous idea right? So is the concept that justice is 'too expensive'.

The analogy of killing grandma is not acceptable, since the issue is not "how to save money", but what to do with violent criminals. There is no congruence in these analogies.

Every pro-DP argument is basically a call for revenge and an emotional reaction to a heinous act. In other words, barbarism.

Not so. First, emotional responses are not by necessity irrational. Is the reaction of revenge irrational in response to horrible crimes such as murder and rape? While we cannot allow this reaction to be expressed uncontrolled in society, this does not mean that the response is not reasonable.

Second, as I have stated, the idea of the death penalty, i.e. the execution of violent criminals, not innocents, is moral, for it promotes "good", in that it safeguards the lives of innocent individuals. Life imprisonment does not have the safety that death does. How this is applied to safeguard innocents being wrongfully executed is another matter.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Correct, but both avenues are not equally protective of innocent individuals. One allows the preservation of the offender, in a secure environment, but still allowing for the threat of violence on his guardians or possible escape. Death does not allow this.

Agreed. You are certainly correct with the above.

However, from an application standpoint, the same "safety" provided by death also disallows compensation in the event of an error. The absolute-ness of death renders it unviable as a sentence in a system which hands down guilty verdicts at "beyond a reasonable doubt", no?

The analogy of killing grandma is not acceptable, since the issue is not "how to save money", but what to do with violent criminals. There is no congruence in these analogies.

It was a dumb analogy, just as the arguments involving money and the DP are incongruent.

Not so. First, emotional responses are not by necessity irrational. Is the reaction of revenge irrational in response to horrible crimes such as murder and rape? While we cannot allow this reaction to be expressed uncontrolled in society, this does not mean that the response is not reasonable.

Sure, but the creation of a justice system which holds due process under law as its principal virtue negates (by design and definition) these reactions. As a example of this - juror disqualifications when a potential juror "knows" any associated party.

While those reactions may not be rational, they should not play a role in a discussion over whether or not the DP should be implemented. Too many advocates default to the "what if it was your kid?" argument, as if it is the all-encompassing answer.

We've emplaced a system to overcome "string 'em up" justice.

Second, as I have stated, the idea of the death penalty, i.e. the execution of violent criminals, not innocents, is moral, for it promotes "good", in that it safeguards the lives of innocent individuals. Life imprisonment does not have the safety that death does. How this is applied to safeguard innocents being wrongfully executed is another matter.

We're really only disagreeing about the viability of application. Or perhaps we are not; you haven't really shared your views on that.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

My opinion on the matter has changed over the years. I was once 100% for the death penalty, but some seemingly unredeemable people can serve a function. I know the victims family want blood for blood... but having first hand experience with someone close to me being murdered... I felt no reason for them to be killed as well. Solitary confinement and life in prison is a fitting hell before the real one.

On the other hand, I think death row prisoners should be given the option to take part in medical studies and experimentation. Imagine the breakthroughs we could make with human test subjects. It seems like and absolute waste to poison someone to death... the unfortunate part is that the organs can't even be harvested when this is done.

 

[Tiervexx]

Your 'right to vengeance' scenario leads to a situation whereby someone is killed, so their goes and kills the killer; the initial family in turn then kills that killer's family, and so on, degenerated into savagery.

What did I say that makes you think I am against due process?

Reread my post, I said that I do not support the DP because there is no way to be certain of guilt. I only ment to say that if guilt is certain than the DP is justified to give the victoms piece of mind.

 

[collegiateLifter]

At the point I can be guaranteed 100% that the person being put to death is the person who comitted that crime, then I'd still not be for it. Rationalizing taking the life of another as justice, is immoralatily at it's most arrogant.

on principle

for the objectivistA murder forfeits his right to life and as such may be killed.


for the reletavist
Murderers by their very actions show approval of killings. As such there is nothing wrong in doin something to them that they approve of


---

the only strong concern for me is the issue of principally not being able to have a a 100% certainty.

 

[atlantabiolab]

While those reactions may not be rational, they should not play a role in a discussion over whether or not the DP should be implemented. Too many advocates default to the "what if it was your kid?" argument, as if it is the all-encompassing answer.

We've emplaced a system to overcome "string 'em up" justice.

We're really only disagreeing about the viability of application. Or perhaps we are not; you haven't really shared your views on that.

I agree. But there is the side of me that holds true that if such instances did befall say one of my children and I knew who commited the crime (there are many instances where certainty exists), I would have little problem with killing that person and being tried before my peers for my actions. The jury system actually was designed to allow for reasonable actions to not be held to the same standard as irrational actions (jury nullification).

The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
-US Supreme Court Justice John Jay, 1794

 

[casualbb]

What's the purpose of the criminal justice system?

1) Deterrance
2) Rehabilitation

Death penalty helps neither of those causes.

You can't rehabilitate someone if they're dead, although you could argue that some people commit crimes so heinous that they could never be rehabilitated, which I agree with.

But more importantly, the death penalty as a deterrant doesn't work. States with the death penalty do not have lower homicide rates. And more importantly, they experienced no change in the homicide rate after implementing it.

So it basically just boils down to revenge, and I think we need a better reason than that.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I agree. But there is the side of me that holds true that if such instances did befall say one of my children and I knew who commited the crime (there are many instances where certainty exists), I would have little problem with killing that person and being tried before my peers for my actions. The jury system actually was designed to allow for reasonable actions to not be held to the same standard as irrational actions (jury nullification).

I hope this doesn't derail this thread. However, I find the notion of "my peers" and the existing juries don't match up. Especially in long term cases. Not to mention that just acknowledging jury nullification is enough to have you removed in the jury selection process.

 

[atlantabiolab]

What's the purpose of the criminal justice system?

1) Deterrance
2) Rehabilitation

Death penalty helps neither of those causes.

You can't rehabilitate someone if they're dead, although you could argue that some people commit crimes so heinous that they could never be rehabilitated, which I agree with.

But more importantly, the death penalty as a deterrant doesn't work. States with the death penalty do not have lower homicide rates. And more importantly, they experienced no change in the homicide rate after implementing it.

So it basically just boils down to revenge, and I think we need a better reason than that.

The two reasons you presented are not the root of justice, merely secondary effects. The basis of justice is equity in the distribution of law. It is to afford the victim due process. It's design was not focused on the welfare of the offender, but on the victim.

 

[collegiateLifter]

So it basically just boils down to revenge, and I think we need a better reason than that.

not exactly.

In principle it should also be more cost effective and should prevent rapists and others from even having the opportunity of committing such crimes behind bars.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

not exactly.

In principle it should also be more cost effective and should prevent rapists and others from even having the opportunity of committing such crimes behind bars.

What principle is that?

 

[BO-DEN]

i dont believe in life in prison...... i do believe in the death penalty but we should find a way to make it cheaper to kill people this way.