Why did people feel like they had the right to be outraged at Singapore?
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.
Why did people feel like they had the right to be outraged at Singapore?
You are argueing against issueing punishments of equal value to the crime. You are double standarding.I never argued against punishing criminals for the crimes they committed... please cite where I said that, otherwise it's time to move on.
You aren't being particularly logical about it.I am emphasizing my disagreement with the death penalty as a form of punishment.
You are making a double standard in that you don't want the punishment for murder to be equal to the crime committed, you want it to be waned.It's not a double standard to suggest that no one should be executed.
And what are you insinuating is the significance of that? It's still the punishment of a crime, and the poor have worse lawyers regardless of the crime so your problem lies within the quality of public defenders not with any one specific crime (of many different one) that can be sentanced.Except other crimes don't involve people being killed by the State.
Again, this applies to ALL crimes and your issue in this regard is with the prosecution process NOT the punishment. Think about it, outlaw capital punishment, there problem fixed? No more systematic abuse of the poor just because they cannot be killed? Wrong, now the poor will just be subjected to life terms instead and at the exact same rate.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.
They actually do suffer the same fate IF THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY. Richer people get aquitted more often, which means, again, your problem is with the trial not the verdict.If the death penalty were uniform, a rich man and a poor man would both suffer the same fate.
They will get aquitted or found guilty of lesser charges if they have better lawyers, but the second someone is found guilty of X crime, X punishment is consistent yes. The lawyers make the difference of whether or not they are found guilty to begin with.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...
He committed the crime knowing what the punishment of being cought and found guilty was. And btw before throwing a "therefor" at me you might want to recheck your logic.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.
Take this into consideration. Let's say guy robs a bank, gets caught and sentanced to however many years in prison. His family is certainly going to be upset are they not? So according to your logic, A. the state is responsible for making his family upset, and B. This means we should lessen the punishment so that they don't feel so bad. does this sound about right?
A. What if they applied it consistently? Now it is OK? If not, then you need to take your argument somewhere else.This is a bogus argument since the system applies capital punishment inconsistently,
B. Your problem is with the inconsistencey not the punishment.
There is no way to know whether you will be executed because there is no way to know whether or not you will be found guilty. And this is true of any crime. Also, my arguement has nothing to do with deterrent.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.
He should have thought about that before taking an innocent person's life.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.
A. Because he is a murderer.Why is the criminal's family selfish for not wanting their loved one to die?
B. They want him to live at the expense of justice.
It doesn't matter, punishment has to be issued objectively without regard to how the criminals family will feel about it.The criminal is still a human being with human ties.
I'am speaking on behalf of my own ideals so my word is as good a proof as you will get or need. My argument has nothing to do with vengence, it's that simple.Prove it.
It doesn't matter, it could be all of them or could be none of them it has no relevence to my arguement. I was saying on a side note. And I couldn't prove it, what constitutes as a loving family is ambiguous and it's not recorded anyway.Provide evidence for the bolded assertion.
The cost of incarceration vs. execution is independent of the legal proccedings. And where is your proof that incarceration is cheaper than executing someone? Which post?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.)
Why do you think the feelings of the family is relevent? Is this how are legal system works now?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.
It's beside the point because it IS beside the point, not just because I say it is you are right.Sorry, but it's not beside the point just because you say it is.
Argueing that people watching the executions is barbaric is not an arguement to end executions is an arguement to prevent people from watching them, thus, besides the point. Continue.
It's besides the point because people who support CP also support preventative measures. Until you can demonstrate how those are mutually exclusive, YES it is beside the point.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?
Every intentional murder does.So then why doesn't every murder deserve an execution?
Death = death. Is that a complicated formula?How do you decide if the punishment is "equal to the crime"?
There are always contributing factors. And you are admitting they had free-will? They freely choose, consciously, to murder another person, by their own will? You agree with this?Hmmm... I never really said that the person lacks free will, I was talking about contributing factors.
Because first of all, they don't deserve rehabilitation. Second, it doesn't exist unless you can proove otherwise. And third, even if a method did exist it isn't worth the risk of them lying or misleading just to get out (and commit more murders).And how is killing them without even a chance at rehabilitation going to do any damage control?
The reason they sit there for so many years is to give them time to repeal and possibly find more evidence to the contrary. Why do you insist with this stupid, childish "revenge" bulls***?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.
They knew, unless they are clinically insane, what they were doing, what the gravity of their actions would be, the pain they would cause the victims family, the possibility of being cought, and because they are the most selfish people imagineable they choose to murder another person. There is no rehabilitating that, and they don't deserve it either way.In that time, the person could have been taught to live a better life and understand the gravity of what they did.
No it has to do with objective punishment, in fact, if the criminal had no family what-so-ever (possibly because he is the one who killed them) the punishment would be exactly the same.but the system causing a family suffering in order to try and provide "justice" to another family that is suffering.
That's where your logic goes when extrapolated. You are saying that we should wane a punishment because it causes grief to the criminals family, yet ALL punishment will cause grief to all criminals' families, which leads us to the conclusion that there should be no punishment as to prevent ALL further grief of peoples' families.When did I ever say that there should be no justice system or that criminals don't deserve punishment?
No what is the difference ever? Just in theory what should punishment be based on to you?In this case, an eye for an eye and the law are the same thing, which is unfortunate.
Last edited by Unrein; 12-13-08 at 05:05 PM.
Id like to know the thoughts of judges who know they sentanced an innocent man to death.
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.
The defendant has a right to trial by judge rather than jury, if he/ she wishes it.
I think if I were falsely accused of a crime, I would go this route.
If I were rightly accused of a crime, I would go the jury route.
Unless you can display how ALL criminals are given the Death Penalty as a result of their crime, like a rapist might just as a shoplifter might, then your understanding of what makes a logical analogy is ridiculously flawed.
Then you have never faced me, or my line of reasoning.I've provided enough logical evidence to debunk your claim that I'm only making emotional appeals.
My rationale and my evidence is not debunkable.
explains the rightness of actions in terms of the goodness of the state of affairs that occurs because of that action. If some action genuinely brings about greater good in the world, then it is a right action, and this rightness is independent of the nature of the action or the intentions of the person carrying out the action.
Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers- John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
"It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."
"Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not."
Lord Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeals in England said to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1950
Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.
In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." -Exodus 21:12
Pro Capital Punishment Page
The Death Penalty is a consequence. End of story. Those that commit murder and rape and such forfeit their lives as a matter of fact, not as an emotional vengence or anything else, their life is not worth anything, so it is ended. Done.
Provide irrefutable proof that:
1. The death penalty stance is based purely on emotion.
2. A logical argument would have to refer to deterrence theory
There is nothing illogical about it... you are letting your emotions rule your thinking, that is all. Not only that, but you are projecting your fears onto me and trying to make a logical argument based off of emotions (hence the cyclical and ironic aspect of your position) hoping to make my rationale one not of logic, but of emotion!I come from a country that, long ago, realized the impracticality and illogical nature of the death penalty.
Wrong. Nice opinion though.A society that wishes to harbour humanitarian ideals cannot kill its own people, no matter what.
I am glad that you respect life just as I do...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.
It serves a great purpose actually...The death penalty is a consequence that serves no purpose in the United States.
This is the flaw in your approach to "debunk" my logic for supporting the DP.It's been debunked as a deterrent.
Irrelevant...It's been debunked as a financially efficient method to deal with criminals.
Irrelevant...It's been debunked as a form of justice that brings relief to the people left behind (especially the criminal's family).
And that should be addressed and rectified... but it doesn't mean that the reasoning behind the DP is flawed, just the application, and that is a human factor.It's not even applied uniformly, since two people committing the same crime could get two difference sentences based on a number of factors.
Nope...The only thing left to look at is its use as a revenge tactic...
Ahhh.. so it is only what you believe. Gotcha...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