Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Wessexman · Dec 9, 2008

Invayne said:
If he supports the death penalty for the rape of children, does he also support the death penalty for himself for the murder of children?

:roll:....

Invayne · Dec 9, 2008

Wessexman said:
:roll:....

What's with the eye rolling? He supports partial birth abortion, and he also supports leaving a living child...I mean, a botched abortion...in a back room to die.

Wessexman · Dec 9, 2008

Invayne said:
What's with the eye rolling? He supports partial birth abortion, and he also supports leaving a living child...I mean, a botched abortion...in a back room to die.

Didn't he just vote against a bill banning partial birth abortion due to some of things in the bill. That is what he claimed.

BlueKC · Dec 9, 2008

Wessexman said:
Didn't he just vote against a bill banning partial birth abortion due to some of things in the bill. That is what he claimed.

Don't let facts stand in the way of extremism.

"On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."

4/27/08 Interview on Fox News

Orion · Dec 10, 2008

Invayne said:
:2rofll: Yes, People like Jeff Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy just needed a little forgiveness and a hug. How dare the parents of those victims be angry?

I never said anything about hugs. I never even said anything about forgiving them to their faces. Forgiveness is something that you do for yourself, so that you can move on. But people prefer to hold onto things bitterly, and they continue to do so even after criminals get executed. Again, it's not about justice, but about the draconian idea that revenge is supposed to make you feel better. It doesn't.

And I never said "how dare them", like being angry means there is something wrong with them, so stop twisting my words. Their anger is totally understandable... but their anger isn't just their own. It becomes systemic anger that translates into a death penalty.

Again, I don't wish for my tax dollars to fund someone's murder, which is why I am happy with Canada's lack of a death penalty.

Abashi · Dec 10, 2008

I don't believe in my eye for an eye, that is not what my family has taught me. Most of my family is against the death penalty, and I don't care for it either.

There are much more important issues, IMO.

Unrein · Dec 10, 2008

Orius said:
I don't think it's about justice, but it's about revenge. Most people who are put to death also fear for their lives, and that, in principle, is supposed to make the family and friends of their victim somehow feel better. I will never understand how reproducing fatal suffering is supposed to right a wrong.

I'am not talking about vengence I'am talking about logic.

I don't believe murdering a murderer makes us any better.

But they aren't the same thing, the muderer killed an innocent person and the state did not.

You might as well be saying that imprisoning people who commit kidnapping is wrong, or ordering someone to pay back theft.

Well, herein lies the problem. Why does one person who murders deserve the death penalty while another does not? The law is not applied consistency. Why is one instance more grave than another? It all has to do with subjectivity sensibilities... what jury you get, what the judge thinks, what city you're in, if what people think you did is "bad enough" to warrant execution. There are plenty of mentally disturbed murderers idling away in jail for the rest of their lives, yet others die.

Your problem here has nothing to do with the death penalty itself but state rights. I agree that capital punishment should be federal. You shouldn't die or live based on where you committed the murder, nor should you be denied the right to marry based on which state you live in, etc. State laws should limited to things that effect only them.

It's not just about rehabiliating the criminal, it's also about what our treatment of them does for us.

Well go on, what does it 'do for us'?

That's not exactly what I meant. I didn't mean finding a murder suspect, sitting them down and trying to get to the root of the problem. By then it might be too late. I mean... when the kid grows up, is bullied, has strange tendencies, clearly is "different", shows patterns of behaviour that aren't quote/unquote "normal". A lot of people just don't want to get involved, or they contribute to the problem. Murderers aren't just born, they develop.

How is that preclusive of supporting capital punishment?

And why do they view society as something to exploit? Why do they feel lives are dispensible? They got that impression from somewhere, or someone. This is what I'm talking about. Execution is putting away a mistake that is partially a collective one.

That could be said of any criminal. Sorry but it doesn't matter who is to blame for thier mental instability, but the fact is they ARE murderers and need to be removed from society completely. I agree that society should take measures to prevent it from happening, but in a realistic sense we can't excuse people over social determinism.

I'am not argueing from a moral sense, I'am argueing from a pragmatic sense. You can always blame someone else for another persons behavior and I even agree it is true, but at the end of day we have to hold someone responsible and the only effective, justifiable way of doing it is dealing with the individual who physically committed the crime.

I'm not trying to absolve the person of responsibility, they did their crime.

It seems like you are though.

Maybe, in a sense, executing them is permanently putting away something that we feel is a mistake... something that we are so ashamed of that we don't ever want to see it again. After all, if a vicious person is still alive in jail, then we cannot convince ourselves that our society is such a great place. Killing them at least puts that disgrace to an end.

It has nothing what-so-ever to do with that (at least not for me)

Bodi · Dec 10, 2008

Originally Posted by Orius
I don't think it's about justice, but it's about revenge.

No it's not... it is about CONSEQUENCE and has NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTION.

Bodi · Dec 10, 2008

Orius said:
I never said anything about hugs. I never even said anything about forgiving them to their faces. Forgiveness is something that you do for yourself, so that you can move on. But people prefer to hold onto things bitterly, and they continue to do so even after criminals get executed. Again, it's not about justice, but about the draconian idea that revenge is supposed to make you feel better. It doesn't.

And I never said "how dare them", like being angry means there is something wrong with them, so stop twisting my words. Their anger is totally understandable... but their anger isn't just their own. It becomes systemic anger that translates into a death penalty.

Again, I don't wish for my tax dollars to fund someone's murder, which is why I am happy with Canada's lack of a death penalty.

Then what is wrong with forgiving them and then killing as a consequence of their actions?

You are not making sense. You are continually talking about emotions, as if this negates a criminal being put to death for their refusal to follow moral and legal laws set forth by a society.

Also, your tax dollars are being spent on criminals that many times, when released from prison, go out and murder, rape and rob AGAIN. So, in a sense you are contributing to the problem and aiding criminals in their future crimes against your neighbors.

Orion · Dec 11, 2008

Unrein said:
But they aren't the same thing, the muderer killed an innocent person and the state did not.

This is subjective so I will not continue to argue it, but I disagree.

Unrein said:
You might as well be saying that imprisoning people who commit kidnapping is wrong, or ordering someone to pay back theft.

You know as well as I do that that is not the same issue. We are debating the death penalty, not simple imprisonment. You are trying to make it seem like a no-brainer that murderers should be executed, but that is the very issue we are debating. I need not remind you again.

Unrein said:
Your problem here has nothing to do with the death penalty itself but state rights. I agree that capital punishment should be federal. You shouldn't die or live based on where you committed the murder, nor should you be denied the right to marry based on which state you live in, etc. State laws should limited to things that effect only them.

Though inclusive of State rights, my argument was broader than that. Approximately 90 percent of those on death row can not afford to hire a lawyer when when being tried. The poor tend to be subject to the death penalty far more than those who can afford better legal counsel. If their crime is so heinous, it shouldn't matter how much money you have, the sentence should be automatic. But it's not... it is instituted completely unfairly and inconsistently.

Unrein said:
Well go on, what does it 'do for us'?

The criminal also has a family, friends and people who love them. Capital punishment suggests that they too should go through the same loss, suffering and trauma that the victim went through, all because the system demands revenge. So instead of having just one family going through hell because of a death, the system seeks an eye for an eye. How do those people suffering the loss of their loved ones in turn affect their surrounding community? How is their functionality affected?

Furthermore, how many public executions are spectator sports where people go to watch someone die. How is this contributing to a civilized, humanitarian society? It's barbaric.

Unrein said:
How is that preclusive of supporting capital punishment?

I guess it's not, when it comes down to it, because people just see murder as murder. They don't want to consider the root causes and maybe try to take preventative measures in the future. The same thing can be said of other forms of death such as suicide. People see the warning signs but choose to ignore them.

Unrein said:
That could be said of any criminal. Sorry but it doesn't matter who is to blame for thier mental instability, but the fact is they ARE murderers and need to be removed from society completely. I agree that society should take measures to prevent it from happening, but in a realistic sense we can't excuse people over social determinism.

I agree they need to be separated, but the issue at stake is whether or not it's acceptable to murder them.

Also, please define what you mean by social determinism, so I can be clear.

Unrein said:
I'am not argueing from a moral sense, I'am argueing from a pragmatic sense. You can always blame someone else for another persons behavior and I even agree it is true, but at the end of day we have to hold someone responsible and the only effective, justifiable way of doing it is dealing with the individual who physically committed the crime.

Again, I am not arguing against holding the person responsible for the crime, so you don't need to bring up that point again. You can hold them responsible in other ways that don't involve putting them to death.

How is it pragmatic to kill someone and cause everyone they know suffering? How is it "logical" to try and right a wrong by committing another wrong? It's an eye for an eye and it never works.

Unrein said:
It seems like you are though.

Well, I can't help the way you feel... I have stated otherwise. If you don't want to accept it, then it's your problem.

Unrein said:
It has nothing what-so-ever to do with that (at least not for me)

I was trying to look at the social and perhaps philosophical side of the death penalty, but I see you want to stick to the same tired old arguments. Ok, we can do that.

Orion · Dec 11, 2008

Bodhisattva said:
Then what is wrong with forgiving them and then killing as a consequence of their actions?

You are not just hurting them but also everyone they know. You claim it's an idle consequence but it's revenge. Revenge is defined as a harmful action enacted upon someone in response to wrongdoing. That is precisely what the death penalty is. You killed someone, now you die. Eye for an eye.

Bodhisattva said:
You are not making sense. You are continually talking about emotions, as if this negates a criminal being put to death for their refusal to follow moral and legal laws set forth by a society.

No, I haven't just been talking about emotions, and if you think that, then you haven't been paying attention.

The laws and their enforcement are not fair. The majority executed are poor and cannot afford proper legal counsel. If the law were fair, then everyone who committed murder would be put to death, regardless of their age, gender, mental status, etc. That's what Singapore does, and they have one of the lowest murder rates per capita in the world.

The United States would never enact such laws, because "moral and legal laws" that you refer to are always subjectively interpreted, and juries vote for the death penalty based on their feelings towards the case. You argue that I talk too much about emotion, but emotion is the exact reason why people are put to death, and in a place like the U.S., it is carried out non-uniformly and illogically.

Bodhisattva said:
Also, your tax dollars are being spent on criminals that many times, when released from prison, go out and murder, rape and rob AGAIN. So, in a sense you are contributing to the problem and aiding criminals in their future crimes against your neighbors.

Depends on which criminal you are talking about. If they end up being released, then it means that the justice system has warranted such a release. Your argument is predicated upon the idea that all people who meet probation or their sentence release date end up committing the same crime. What a lovely generalization.

Also, the idea that the death penalty makes costs cheaper than prison time is a myth.

Some financial facts:

The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.

Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)

In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).

In Indiana, the total costs of the death penalty exceed the complete costs of life without parole sentences by about 38%, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and reduced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002).

The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).

Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).

In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

American · Dec 11, 2008

The way the current prison system works, I support the death penalty and believe it isn't carried out enough. I've heard that only 10% of those on death row are ever executed. Nevertheless, the real reason is because prisoners serve no useful purpose in prison, and are a burden to society. This is wrong. Lifting weights and watching TV should not be a regular pasttime in prison. They should be worked daily, and worked hard; so hard they are too tired to lift weight, rape each other or carry on riots.

Unrein · Dec 11, 2008

Orius said:
This is subjective so I will not continue to argue it, but I disagree.

How convenient.

You know as well as I do that that is not the same issue.

Punishment by the law. Yes it is the same issue and according to your logic if the state cannot kill a killer than neither should be allowed imprison an imprisoner, steal from a thief, etc. You need to make the distinction as to why that standard applies to THIS crime only and any crime.

You are trying to make it seem like a no-brainer that murderers should be executed, but that is the very issue we are debating. I need not remind you again.

You are making a double standard.

Though inclusive of State rights, my argument was broader than that. Approximately 90 percent of those on death row can not afford to hire a lawyer when when being tried. The poor tend to be subject to the death penalty far more than those who can afford better legal counsel.

The poor tend to be subject to MOST crimes compared to those who can afford layers. So we are taking this to something unrelated to the death penalty specificly and now crime in general.

If their crime is so heinous, it shouldn't matter how much money you have, the sentence should be automatic. But it's not... it is instituted completely unfairly and inconsistently.

The lawyers generally make the difference between whether or not they are found guilty, if they ARE found guilty (of 1st degree murder) the sentence is pretty consistent regardless of how much money you spent on your defence.

But again, it's besides the point of the debate.

The criminal also has a family, friends and people who love them.

the law isn't punishing them the person who committed the crime is responsible for their families woes. I'am not prepared to lighten ANY laws LET ALONE murder convictions just to make thier family feel slightly better. It's a consequence that they have to live with.

Capital punishment suggests that they too should go through the same loss,

It does no such thing. Capital punishment deals with the one who committed the crime and no one else. Any consequences are purely subsequent and not the responsibility of the government.

And that said, I would give more favor to the family of the victim who wants to see justice served then the apperently selfish family of the murderer.

suffering and trauma that the victim went through, all because the system demands revenge.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REVENGE.

How do those people suffering the loss of their loved ones in turn affect their surrounding community? How is their functionality affected?

HOw many people are sentenced to death each year? relatively not that many. Of those put to death how many have loving caring families? Probably not most of them. Is the effect of a few dozen families grieving over thier childs death going to severly (or even remotely) effect society? No.

Furthermore, how many public executions are spectator sports where people go to watch someone die. How is this contributing to a civilized, humanitarian society? It's barbaric.

A. That's besides the point completely.
B. The main reason people watch is for oversight purposes.

I guess it's not, when it comes down to it, because people just see murder as murder. They don't want to consider the root causes and maybe try to take preventative measures in the future. The same thing can be said of other forms of death such as suicide. People see the warning signs but choose to ignore them.

That is besides the point, again. I'am sure most people who support the death penalty wouldn't disagree that more effort should be put into prevention. Just like people who support abortion also support measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

I agree they need to be separated,

No when I say removed I mean REMOVED.

but the issue at stake is whether or not it's acceptable to murder them.

It a punishment equal to the crime so yes. If someone steals 500 dollars does it make any sense to order them to pay back 400 of it?

Also, please define what you mean by social determinism, so I can be clear.

]

You described it quite fine yourself. It's the notion that peoples' actions are based on the collection of pycho-social interations, and that behavior is determined completely by the system as a whole and not individual free-will.

You can hold them responsible in other ways that don't involve putting them to death.

It wouldn't be just however.

How is it pragmatic to kill someone and cause everyone they know suffering?

They are burdening everyone else with thier existence and their family is being selfish if they want justice waivered to protect their feelings.

How is it "logical" to try and right a wrong by committing another wrong?

Punishment by law is "wrong"?

It's an eye for an eye and it never works.

So we shouldn't have a legal system at all then because that's how the whole thing works? Anarchy then? Please distinguish "eye for an eye" and "law". What is the difference between the two?

I was trying to look at the social and perhaps philosophical side of the death penalty, but I see you want to stick to the same tired old arguments. Ok, we can do that.

You weren't being 'philosophical' it was completely random conjecture. The death penalty has NOTHING to do with "sweeping away our mistakes" that is nonsense.

Invayne · Dec 11, 2008

Orius said:
The laws and their enforcement are not fair. The majority executed are poor and cannot afford proper legal counsel. If the law were fair, then everyone who committed murder would be put to death, regardless of their age, gender, mental status, etc.

I totally agree. I mean, they should have just taken OJ Simpson out in back of the courthouse and shot his sorry ass.

Orius said:
That's what Singapore does, and they have one of the lowest murder rates per capita in the world.

I do believe you just made the best argument FOR capital punishment. You are starting to see the logic in it. Good for you!

BlueKC · Dec 11, 2008

Invayne said:
I totally agree. I mean, they should have just taken OJ Simpson out in back of the courthouse and shot his sorry ass.

Time for a history lesson.

"The Lacedamonians, when they had conquered the Athenians, appointed 30 men to govern their state. These 30 began their administration by putting to death, even without trial, all who were notoriously wicked, or publicly detestable; acts at which the public rejoiced, and extolled their justice. But afterward, when their lawless power gradually increased, they proceeded, at their pleasure, to kill the good and the bad indiscriminately, and to strike terror into all; and thus the state, overpowered and enslaved, paid a heavy toll for its imprudent exultation."

-Julius Caesar "On the Treatment of the Conspirators"

Invayne · Dec 11, 2008

BlueKC said:
Time for a history lesson.

"The Lacedamonians, when they had conquered the Athenians, appointed 30 men to govern their state. These 30 began their administration by putting to death, even without trial, all who were notoriously wicked, or publicly detestable; acts at which the public rejoiced, and extolled their justice. But afterward, when their lawless power gradually increased, they proceeded, at their pleasure, to kill the good and the bad indiscriminately, and to strike terror into all; and thus the state, overpowered and enslaved, paid a heavy toll for its imprudent exultation."

-Julius Caesar "On the Treatment of the Conspirators"

Oh please. OJ had a trial. They should have shot the jurors too.:lol:

Bodi · Dec 11, 2008

Orius said:
You are not just hurting them but also everyone they know. You claim it's an idle consequence but it's revenge. Revenge is defined as a harmful action enacted upon someone in response to wrongdoing. That is precisely what the death penalty is. You killed someone, now you die. Eye for an eye.

You are leaving out the most important part of "Revenge" and that is that it is done in a resentful or mean way...

revenge /rɪˈvɛndʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-venj] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -venged, -veng⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother's murder.

revenge definition | Dictionary.com

Revenge is done out of an emotive response. The DP is not about revenge for me. It is about CONSEQUENCE.

consequence /ˈkɒnsɪˌkwɛns, -kwəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-si-kwens, -kwuhns] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
4. importance or significance: a matter of no consequence.
5. importance in rank or position; distinction: a man of great consequence in art

CONSEQUENCE definition | Dictionary.com

If my kid eats a cookie before dinner without asking, then they get a time out.
Is that "Revenge"? No... it is a CONSEQUENCE for the action that she undertook.

Perhaps I am just more logical than you? No rip or anything, but I can disassociate myself from an emotive response with regards to this subject. If a man hits my daughter, then I might get angry and go and smash him, that is revenge... sure. It is also a CONSEQUENCE. The two can be independent, and they can be linked... for me, the DP is not linked... it is independent of emotion and revenge. It is about CONSEQUENCE and nothing more.

BlueKC · Dec 11, 2008

Invayne said:
Oh please. OJ had a trial. They should have shot the jurors too.:lol:

He certainly did, and he was acquitted. Out of curiosity, who is this "they" that should have extra-judicial power to murder United States citizens?

Unrein · Dec 11, 2008

BlueKC said:
Time for a history lesson.

"The Lacedamonians, when they had conquered the Athenians, appointed 30 men to govern their state. These 30 began their administration by putting to death, even without trial, all who were notoriously wicked, or publicly detestable; acts at which the public rejoiced, and extolled their justice. But afterward, when their lawless power gradually increased, they proceeded, at their pleasure, to kill the good and the bad indiscriminately, and to strike terror into all; and thus the state, overpowered and enslaved, paid a heavy toll for its imprudent exultation."

-Julius Caesar "On the Treatment of the Conspirators"

I hope you aren't trying draw a parrallel between ancient Athens and modern US democracy.

Orion · Dec 12, 2008

Unrein said:
Punishment by the law. Yes it is the same issue and according to your logic if the state cannot kill a killer than neither should be allowed imprison an imprisoner, steal from a thief, etc. You need to make the distinction as to why that standard applies to THIS crime only and any crime.

The necessity of the death penalty law is what we are debating in of itself. Imprisoning someone or killing them are two entirely different things. I never argued against punishing criminals for the crimes they committed... please cite where I said that, otherwise it's time to move on.

I am emphasizing my disagreement with the death penalty as a form of punishment. If you cannot even discern that basic fact in what I'm saying, then there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Unrein said:
You are making a double standard.

It's not a double standard to suggest that no one should be executed. A double standard would be the one that already exists, wherein some people get life in prison and some get executed for the exact same crime.

Unrein said:
The poor tend to be subject to MOST crimes compared to those who can afford layers. So we are taking this to something unrelated to the death penalty specificly and now crime in general.

Except other crimes don't involve people being killed by the State. Again, please try to focus on the topic at hand. If a person's life is at stake but they cannot afford acceptable legal counsel, and the majority of people on death row come from a poor background, then there is systemic bias taking place.

If the death penalty were uniform, a rich man and a poor man would both suffer the same fate.

Unrein said:
The lawyers generally make the difference between whether or not they are found guilty, if they ARE found guilty (of 1st degree murder) the sentence is pretty consistent regardless of how much money you spent on your defence.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who only has a public defender provided to them is going to stand the same chance of a lesser sentence than someone who can afford a good lawyer? Wow...

Unrein said:
the law isn't punishing them the person who committed the crime is responsible for their families woes. I'am not prepared to lighten ANY laws LET ALONE murder convictions just to make thier family feel slightly better. It's a consequence that they have to live with.

The person isn't committing suicide last time I checked, the State is killing him. Therefore the State is responsible for the family's woes. Your argument would seem to imply that the criminal knew they would get the death penalty when they committed their crime and therefore knew the suffering it would cause their families.

This is a bogus argument since the system applies capital punishment inconsistently, so there is no way to know for sure if you will be killed or not. This is why the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent in the U.S.

Unrein said:
It does no such thing. Capital punishment deals with the one who committed the crime and no one else. Any consequences are purely subsequent and not the responsibility of the government.

Maybe in your ideal world it does, but in reality the death of anyone causes suffering to all those who know them and love them.

Unrein said:
And that said, I would give more favor to the family of the victim who wants to see justice served then the apperently selfish family of the murderer.

Why is the criminal's family selfish for not wanting their loved one to die? The criminal is still a human being with human ties.

Careful, your bias is showing.

Unrein said:
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REVENGE.

Prove it.

Unrein said:
HOw many people are sentenced to death each year? relatively not that many. Of those put to death how many have loving caring families? Probably not most of them. Is the effect of a few dozen families grieving over thier childs death going to severly (or even remotely) effect society? No.

Provide evidence for the bolded assertion.

I agree that the number of executions a year is small compared to how many criminals are actually in jail in the U.S., but the cost of the legal proceedings and the executions themselves far outweighs simple incarceration. (Please see my previous post for evidence.)

Murdering people ruins the lives of others. I'm not interested in whether or not you think the effect is small. You haven't been in the position to know your loved one is going to be killed in a pre-meditated fashion. That is torturous.

Unrein said:
A. That's besides the point completely.
B. The main reason people watch is for oversight purposes.

Sorry, but it's not beside the point just because you say it is. Also, prove B with evidence. Public executions make it a spectator sport. More than just the family and friends are allowed to go. That is an excellent commentary on how some people in society, such as yourself, feel satisfied with the deaths of others, as it suits your brand of morality.

Unrein said:
That is besides the point, again. I'am sure most people who support the death penalty wouldn't disagree that more effort should be put into prevention. Just like people who support abortion also support measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

It's not that it's beside the point, it's that you aren't understanding the point. Take suicide as an example. It's a person killing oneself. If a person ends up taking their own life then it's because they lacked support, were perhaps isolated in their thoughts, and they ended up carrying out an act in response to an impulse. Not enough people know the warning signs of depression. The same could be said of murderers... how often do people ignore others who are clearly displaying disturbing behaviour? How many people walk on and decide to not get involved?

That's what I mean when I say execution is a way of throwing away a collective mistake. It's a righteous way to try and make the rest of society feel just in the way they live.

Unrein said:
It a punishment equal to the crime so yes. If someone steals 500 dollars does it make any sense to order them to pay back 400 of it?

So then why doesn't every murder deserve an execution?

How do you decide if the punishment is "equal to the crime"?

Subjective non-sense.

Unrein said:
You described it quite fine yourself. It's the notion that peoples' actions are based on the collection of pycho-social interations, and that behavior is determined completely by the system as a whole and not individual free-will.

Hmmm... I never really said that the person lacks free will, I was talking about contributing factors. Again, you misunderstood. For some murderers, perhaps the only intervention they've had in their whole life is when they end up in court and are found guilty. Why does it take so long for the system to catch up with some of these people? Some murderers are even repeat offenders. Why do we only discover some of them when it's too late?

And how is killing them without even a chance at rehabilitation going to do any damage control? You claim that most murderers can't be rehabilitated. I agree, because they are given a death sentence instead! Some people on death row sit there for 15-20 years doing nothing whatsoever, while the State wastes time and money to satisfy the revenge impulse of people like you.

In that time, the person could have been taught to live a better life and understand the gravity of what they did. Instead, people like me pay to have them sit there because people like you want to continue to shovel money into a financial black hole in order to do away with them.

Unrein said:
They are burdening everyone else with thier existence and their family is being selfish if they want justice waivered to protect their feelings.

You aren't understanding. It's not about the family wanting the verdict wavered, but the system causing a family suffering in order to try and provide "justice" to another family that is suffering. It tries to transfer the suffering, but instead you have two groups of people who suffer. How does that make any sense?

Unrein said:
So we shouldn't have a legal system at all then because that's how the whole thing works? Anarchy then? Please distinguish "eye for an eye" and "law". What is the difference between the two?

When did I ever say that there should be no justice system or that criminals don't deserve punishment? Please provide a quote as evidence in your next post.

In this case, an eye for an eye and the law are the same thing, which is unfortunate.

Orion · Dec 12, 2008

Invayne said:
I do believe you just made the best argument FOR capital punishment. You are starting to see the logic in it. Good for you!

I am still stolidly against the death penalty, but if it is going to exist then it should be uniform. So the latter is the second best option in my mind.

For instance, in 1999 two 18 year-old girls were executed in Singapore on drug related charges. The U.S. was among some of the Western nations that condemned the actions, mostly on emotional appeals. So why is it not okay to execute two 18 year-olds, but it's okay to execute a 45 year-old?

The cries coming from the U.S. were reflective of its own double standard.

Orion · Dec 12, 2008

Bodhisattva said:
If my kid eats a cookie before dinner without asking, then they get a time out.
Is that "Revenge"? No... it is a CONSEQUENCE for the action that she undertook.

When your child steals a cookie, do you execute him and then just go have another child? No, you give him a consequence he can learn from. Your analogy is flawed.

Unrein said:
Perhaps I am just more logical than you? No rip or anything, but I can disassociate myself from an emotive response with regards to this subject. If a man hits my daughter, then I might get angry and go and smash him, that is revenge... sure. It is also a CONSEQUENCE. The two can be independent, and they can be linked... for me, the DP is not linked... it is independent of emotion and revenge. It is about CONSEQUENCE and nothing more.

I've provided enough logical evidence to debunk your claim that I'm only making emotional appeals. I come from a country that, long ago, realized the impracticality and illogical nature of the death penalty. A society that wishes to harbour humanitarian ideals cannot kill its own people, no matter what. A person who has done something horrible deserves to be put away, and society doesn't have the right to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Those are my values.

The death penalty is a consequence that serves no purpose in the United States. It's been debunked as a deterrent. It's been debunked as a financially efficient method to deal with criminals. It's been debunked as a form of justice that brings relief to the people left behind (especially the criminal's family). It's not even applied uniformly, since two people committing the same crime could get two difference sentences based on a number of factors.

The only thing left to look at is its use as a revenge tactic... i.e. if a court feels that a person's actions were "evil" enough, then they should die. That's not justice, it's attempting to repay one deed with something of equal value. That can never be decided objectively since it's a subjective issue, and no person in society is wise enough to know who deserves to die and who doesn't. At least, that is what I believe and what my country believes.

Invayne · Dec 12, 2008

Orius said:
I am still stolidly against the death penalty, but if it is going to exist then it should be uniform. So the latter is the second best option in my mind.

For instance, in 1999 two 18 year-old girls were executed in Singapore on drug related charges. The U.S. was among some of the Western nations that condemned the actions, mostly on emotional appeals. So why is it not okay to execute two 18 year-olds, but it's okay to execute a 45 year-old?

The cries coming from the U.S. were reflective of its own double standard.

What 45 year old was executed for drug charges? Have a link?

Invayne · Dec 12, 2008

Orius said:
When your child steals a cookie, do you execute him and then just go have another child? No, you give him a consequence he can learn from. Your analogy is flawed.

THIS analogy is WHACK! No one gets executed for stealing.

Orius said:
I've provided enough logical evidence to debunk your claim that I'm only making emotional appeals. I come from a country that, long ago, realized the impracticality and illogical nature of the death penalty. A society that wishes to harbour humanitarian ideals cannot kill its own people, no matter what. A person who has done something horrible deserves to be put away, and society doesn't have the right to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Those are my values.

The death penalty is a consequence that serves no purpose in the United States. It's been debunked as a deterrent. It's been debunked as a financially efficient method to deal with criminals. It's been debunked as a form of justice that brings relief to the people left behind (especially the criminal's family). It's not even applied uniformly, since two people committing the same crime could get two difference sentences based on a number of factors.

The only thing left to look at is its use as a revenge tactic... i.e. if a court feels that a person's actions were "evil" enough, then they should die. That's not justice, it's attempting to repay one deed with something of equal value. That can never be decided objectively since it's a subjective issue, and no person in society is wise enough to know who deserves to die and who doesn't. At least, that is what I believe and what my country believes.

Don't worry, when we're forced to join the "Global Community", we'll be forced by folks such as yourself to give up our wonderful death penalty so the monsters have a chance of getting out of prison to kill again. Until then, we're alot safer with it.

BlueKC · Dec 12, 2008

Unrein said:
I hope you aren't trying draw a parrallel between ancient Athens and modern US democracy.

Certainly not since Julius Caesar was from Rome.

Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Should Capital Punishment be supported?

It should be supported in both principle and practice.

Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.

It should be opposed both in principle and practice.

Dorset Patriot

Well-known member

Dorset Patriot

Member

New member

Active member

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Trump Grump Whisperer

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Just waiting for my set...

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member