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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REVENGE.
Prove it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.