Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Tucker Case said:

My arguemtn is that the govenrtment should not have the power to kill its citizens for any rteason. It's clear. I could give two ****s about what the crime is, or preventing future crime. The only issue at hand is should the government have the right to murder it's own citizens for any reason(I clarify "citizens" so that the red herring of "war" is not tossed around yet again)

Click to expand...

Who do you want to do it then? The family of the victim?

Invayne said:

Who do you want to do it then? The family of the victim?

Click to expand...

No one. It is unnecesary except as vengence, and we as a nation should be above such savagery.

Vengence is a purely emotional response to a heinous action. It is unnecessary. The victims family has a right to that emotionality, but they do not have a right to vengence.

Capital punishment is a crazy immoral idea for multiple reasons:
1.It is not cheap.
2.The guy/girl could be proven innocent later.
3. All life should be protected.
4. It is not a deterrent.
5. It is barbaric.

1. Capital punishment is an extremely complex process. Therefore, it is much more expensive than just a life sentence. It costs millions of dollars to be carried out. Having convicts rot in jail is much cheaper.

2. Our legal system is not fallible. It is very possible for new evidence to come in after the conviction that may prove the convict's innocence .But that wont matter if the convict is already dead. At least 350 US citizens were sentenced for the death penalty and proven innocent later.

3. The most important reason is that all life is valuable and equal. Whether it be the life of a fetus or someone that raped and killed thousands of Asian babies. No crime, no matter how detestable it is, makes a convict unworthy of life. I find it rather distasteful that society can choose which among us should die. I wonder how the Christian right has the gall and stupidity to go against its values by supporting this.

4. The supporters of CP is often saying that having CP will stop rapes and murders. It is wrong because only a small percent of criminals that do these crimes are executed. In fact, there is no statistical evidence that shows that countries rate of violent crimes are elated to their possession or lack of CP.

5. There is no difference between the angry right-wingers chanting, "Kill the scum!" and the bloodthirsty mobs in the roman Colosseum. It seems like the 75% of Americans have degenerated into to savages every time someone is convicted of a crime. Killing people for sheer revenge should not be allowed in civilized society.

Pinu7 said:

Capital punishment is a crazy immoral idea for multiple reasons:
1.It is not cheap.

Click to expand...

It could be very cheap, but not without increasing the likelihood of innocents being killed.

2.The guy/girl could be proven innocent later.

Click to expand...

That is tue, but if the "greater good" is the goal, colateral damage is acceptable to many.

3. All life should be protected.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree with that statemnt. What logical reason do we have to protect all life? In fact, there are plenty of logical reasons to not protect all life.

4. It is not a deterrent.

Click to expand...

But that isn't why it exists.

5. It is barbaric.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is a savage, base response, but that alone is not reason enough to stop the death penalty.

I'm on your side, and I oppose the death penalty, bu tthe reasons you give against it are of the same sort as the reasons for it. Purely emotional reasons.

Teh only issue at hand is weather or not we think it is OK to give the governemtn this kind of power.

Because everyone agrees to some degree that there exist reasons to kill. Be it self-defense or what have you,. but everyone agrees that circumstances exist that make killing/murder OK.

Once we open that box, the justifications are mere topics of debate. The main thing is that once this conclusion is reached, justifications can be made to morally accept all sorts of murder/killing.

So then teh limitations become the scenarios. Self-defense vs vengeance. Preemptive self-defense vs. direct self defense. Defense of otehrs vs. defense of an ideology. etc. etc. etc.

Thus the problem is one of opinions. Some people feel it is perfectly moral to act in vengence of others. But when asked "Should the Government have more rights than it's citizens, including the right to muder those citizens?"

I oppose the death penatly becaus eI feel that the Government does not and should not have the right to kill/murder its citizenry. I believe that an individual has the right to kill/murder anotehr individual in direct defense for another or for themselves. That means if they or anotehr person is in imminent danger, lethal force is within their rights.

this includes any individual who works for the govenremtns in some capacity such as Police oofficer etc.

What I have issue with is the premeditated murder of someone by the governments for any reason, justified or not. I do not feel that any citizen has a right to premeditated killing/murder thus, neither should the govenrment. The govenrment should have fewer rights that the people.

As soon as Bush, Cheney, and Gingritch are excuted, I will say that I am satisfied.

dragonslayer said:

As soon as Bush, Cheney, and Gingritch are excuted, I will say that I am satisfied.

Click to expand...

In world history, "liberals" historically do ultimately come to murdering individually and then in mass all opposing voices. I've posted many times that as I came into politics I was stunned by the extreme intolerance in general and hatred of freedom and free speech most liberals have. Liberal and Dictator come to be the same word.

Tucker Case said:

I clearly state repeatedly power to murder their own citizenry.

And I only agree with military action if it is in direct defensze of us or anotehr nation. Not preemptive defense, but direct defense.



My arguemtn is that the govenrtment should not have the power to kill its citizens for any rteason. It's clear. I could give two ****s about what the crime is, or preventing future crime. The only issue at hand is should the government have the right to murder it's own citizens for any reason(I clarify "citizens" so that the red herring of "war" is not tossed around yet again)

Click to expand...

Since you don't believe - apparently - that criminal sentencing should have anything whatosover to do with societal vengence or punishment - AGAIN do you believe that people in prison should be subjected to murder by other inmate?

Murderers kill other inmates who are their for reasons including drug crimes. I gather you approve of non-murderer inmate citizens being murdered - because the government isn't doing the murdering, rather just staging the murders.

Death penalty is NOT the cruelest punishment. Even of unthinkably torturous Devil's Island and those POWs tortured in Vietnam, they claimed the cruelest punishment of all was solitary isolation.

Therefore, in fact of reality and not just your theory, you must either support:
1. That punishment murder will be the absolute cruelest and most life long tortuous of all possible punishment OR
2. That people in prison have sacrificed their lives regard of the crime they were found guilty of OR
3. It is better that 1,000 innocent citizens be killed than 1 murderer be executed.

Which one then in the alternative to capital punishment do you pick? If you pick solitary confinement for life, are there any other less cruel tortures you also want in the legal code?

Somehow demanding the government engage in the ultimate form of torture of murderers to avoid the injustice of executing murderers doesn't seem to hold ethical water. How about, instead, chopping off their arms and legs? That isn't murder and would seem to nearly always end their ability to hurt others. Since that is less torturous than life long solitary confinement, I suppose your ethics calls for amputations instead for moral reason?

Bonnie1988 said:

Since you don't believe - apparently - that criminal sentencing should have anything whatosover to do with societal vengence or punishment - AGAIN do you believe that people in prison should be subjected to murder by other inmate?

Click to expand...

Never said that. Nor have I implied that. In fact I don't believe that teh issues are related. One is about the government killing it's citizens, the other is about the abysmal state of our prison system.

It's a red herring and a non-sequitor argument.

Murderers kill other inmates who are their for reasons including drug crimes. I gather you approve of non-murderer inmate citizens being murdered - because the government isn't doing the murdering, rather just staging the murders.

Click to expand...

Again, different issue altogether.

If you want to discuss the way to fisx the abysmal state of the prison system, so be it, I'll discuss it with you in another thread, but this is about capital punishment. Your argumnets are sillogical because the risk to other inmates is not caused by teh lack of death penalty, it is caused by a failure of the prison system.

Death penalty is NOT the cruelest punishment. Even of unthinkably torturous Devil's Island and those POWs tortured in Vietnam, they claimed the cruelest punishment of all was solitary isolation.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant emotional tripe. I never made any arguments about cruelty.

Therefore, in fact of reality and not just your theory, you must either support:
1. That punishment murder will be the absolute cruelest and most life long tortuous of all possible punishment

Click to expand...

What nonsense, bonnie. You know I never made any such argument about cruelty.

2. That people in prison have sacrificed their lives regard of the crime they were found guilty of

Click to expand...

Again, noinsense unrelated to my arguments.

3. It is better that 1,000 innocent citizens be killed than 1 murderer be executed.

Click to expand...

STILL unrelated to my arguments. If yuo want to argue against MY [points on the issue, please do so. Until then, please give up trying to paint my arguemtn into something it most assuredly is not.

Which one then in the alternative to capital punishment do you pick? If you pick solitary confinement for life, are there any other less cruel tortures you also want in the legal code?

Somehow demanding the government engage in the ultimate form of torture of murderers to avoid the injustice of executing murderers doesn't seem to hold ethical water. How about, instead, chopping off their arms and legs? That isn't murder and would seem to nearly always end their ability to hurt others. Since that is less torturous than life long solitary confinement, I suppose your ethics calls for amputations instead for moral reason?

Click to expand...

You are missing my point entirely, but still making up arguemtns that are totally unrelated to my point. So I am forced one final time make the point that is the ONLY relevant point on the issue.

Logical sequence:


Premise 1: The Governmnt should not have more rights than the Citizens it exists for.

Premise 2: The citizens do not have the right to kill other citizens in a premeditated fashion.

Premise 3: The Death Penalty is killing in a premeditated fashion

Conclusion: The government should NOT be allowed to give out the Death Penalty.




That is the entirety of my argument. If you disagree with my argument, tell me which premise you find to be in error, or that you do not agree with. Show me what premise you would prefer.

Responding with emotion-laden nonsense about cruelty, prison murders, etc, will be construed as failure to have a logical response and a tacit agreement that the deat penalty is illogical, irrational and unjustified.

My argumetn is about teh death penalty, and the government's right to have it. I am not making any emotional pleas.

Cephus said:

And I have no problem with that, should they have new evidence that demonstrates factual innocence. However, that doesn't happen very often, most appeals are simply because the condemned doesn't like the sentence, not because they're even pretending they didn't do it.

Click to expand...

appeals are based upon procedural errors and such
mishandled DNA later proved wrong and the likes
not "I am innocent"

Tucker Case said:

No one. It is unnecesary except as vengence, and we as a nation should be above such savagery.

Vengence is a purely emotional response to a heinous action. It is unnecessary. The victims family has a right to that emotionality, but they do not have a right to vengence.

Click to expand...

Why does no one care about the savagery inflicted on the victim? At least if you put the sonofabitch to death, he won't be doing it to anyone else.

Cephus said:

And I have no problem with that, should they have new evidence that demonstrates factual innocence --

Click to expand...

The problem comes when an innocent has been put to death and then the new evidence turns up proving the case was wrong.

Invayne said:

Why does no one care about the savagery inflicted on the victim? At least if you put the sonofabitch to death, he won't be doing it to anyone else.

Click to expand...

Not all "sonofabitches" will be male and if they are put to death and found later to be innocent then what will you say to the victims who died because the real perp was still out there committing crimes?

Infinite Chaos said:

The problem comes when an innocent has been put to death and then the new evidence turns up proving the case was wrong.




Not all "sonofabitches" will be male and if they are put to death and found later to be innocent then what will you say to the victims who died because the real perp was still out there committing crimes?

Click to expand...

With all of the new technology they have today, I would say that rarely happens. (and I didn't mean they'd all be male, it's just a general term!)

Tucker Case said:

Conclusion: The government should NOT be allowed to give out the Death Penalty.




That is the entirety of my argument. If you disagree with my argument, tell me which premise you find to be in error, or that you do not agree with. Show me what premise you would prefer.

Responding with emotion-laden nonsense about cruelty, prison murders, etc, will be construed as failure to have a logical response and a tacit agreement that the deat penalty is illogical, irrational and unjustified.

My argumetn is about teh death penalty, and the government's right to have it. I am not making any emotional pleas.

Click to expand...

“Life in prison” means the parole board can release the person after 12 years in some states, and they go out and kill again. Even if it were REAL life imprisonment, it’s deterrent effect will never be as great as that of the death penalty, especially when prisons these days are more like country clubs than anything else! The death penalty is the only irrevocable penalty. Because of that, it is the one that people fear the most. I would say it most certainly is a deterrent. Anyone who takes some one’s life should know that he will give up his own and not just suffer a minor inconvenience being stuck in a country club atmosphere for a few years.

Do you believe the government should allow and PAY FOR abortion? If you do, then that's a bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say? I know leftists are all for banning the death penalty, yet are gung-ho for killing an INNOCENT child through abortion. Makes no sense to me.

Invayne said:

“Life in prison” means the parole board can release the person after 12 years in some states, and they go put and kill again. Even if it were REAL life imprisonment, it’s deterrent effect will never be as great as that of the death penalty, especially when prisons these days are more like country clubs than anything else! The death penalty is the only irrevocable penalty. Because of that, it is the one that people fear the most. I would say it most certainly is a deterrent. Anyone who takes some one’s life should know that he will give up his own and not just suffer a minor inconvenience being stuck in a country club atmosphere for a few years.

Click to expand...

The fact that "life in prison" does not actually mean "life in prison" is a separate and distinct issue. The issue at hand is the death penalty.

Tucker Case said:

The fact that "life in prison" does not actually mean "life in prison" is a separate and distinct issue. The issue at hand is the death penalty.

Click to expand...

I just added some more....

Invayne said:

Why does no one care about the savagery inflicted on the victim? At least if you put the sonofabitch to death, he won't be doing it to anyone else.

Click to expand...

Justice is not about revenge. That is the only purpose of the Death Penalty. I have stated that ad nauseum in this thread. The only issue at hand is the one laid out in an earlier post about Govenrmental rights versus citizen rights.


These emotional arguments regarding "savagery inflicted on the victim" are irrelevant to my logical argument.

That is, unless you saying that emotional pain is reason enough for the Government to have the power kill its citizens. Is that what you are saying?

Tucker Case said:

The fact that "life in prison" does not actually mean "life in prison" is a separate and distinct issue. The issue at hand is the death penalty.

Click to expand...

And I stated why the death penalty was a good thing.

If you think the gov. has no right to kill murderers, then we'll have to ban all wars, huh? Soldiers aren't murderers, but they do kill.

Tucker Case said:

That is, unless you saying that emotional pain is reason enough for the Government to have the power kill its citizens. Is that what you are saying?

Click to expand...

No, I find it to be a deterrent to more murders. You know as well as I do that alot are set free to kill again. There's something very wrong with that.

Invayne said:

I just added some more....

Click to expand...

Technically, you added some more irrelevancies and non-sequitors.

What does that have to do with the argument about the Government killing its own Citizens? (Notice the carefgull word-choice throughout the thread? )




P.S. Your accusation of "leftist" is nonsensical. How is it leftist to argue for less governmental power over its citizens, espeically against teh governemtns' right to murder it's citizens?



P.P.S. Even though it is a red herring, non-sequitor argument based on your own incorrect assumptions regarding those who are anti-death penalty, I have already stated my feelings about govenrment funded abortions on this very thread. If you look, you shall find.

Immediate Termination

"Immediate Termination"

DNA links man to TV anchor's death, police say (ln)

Is it possible to construct provisions of law which guarantee with 100% accuracy that the perpetrator commited the crime?

What is the uncertainty here?

Enact due process and promptly execute this maggot.

Invayne said:

No, I find it to be a deterrent to more murders. You know as well as I do that alot are set free to kill again. There's something very wrong with that.

Click to expand...

YEs, that is wrong, but irrelv ant to the discussion. Teh discussion is if the death penalty is justified. My calim is that teh Governemtn should not have the right to kill it's citizens in a premeditated fashion.

Here is my logic:

Tucker Case said:

Premise 1: The Government should not have more rights than the Citizens it exists for.

Premise 2: The citizens do not have the right to kill other citizens in a premeditated fashion.

Premise 3: The Death Penalty is killing in a premeditated fashion

Conclusion: The government should NOT be allowed to give out the Death Penalty.

Click to expand...

My whole thing is that all emotionally ridden arguements are based on the concept of Vengeance. I can agree that teh perpetrator's of the crimes DESERVE TO DIE. I'm on board with that. I don't care about innocence, nor do I care about Cruelty, nor any of teh pother emotional arguments made by most anti-death penalty proponents.

I only care about the issue of govenremntal power. I believe that the death penalty is grantign too much power to the government, and I always have.

I've given my logic behind that. That is what needs to be discussed. If you disagree with my premises, then feel free to do so. Trying to take it dwn a different path, especially an emotionally based one, is pointless because it does nothing to discredit my logic.

Invayne said:

With all of the new technology they have today, I would say that rarely happens. (and I didn't mean they'd all be male, it's just a general term!)

Click to expand...

Have you read up much on Low Copy Number DNA evidence? Sorry to say that there are problems even with new technology and not even where LCN DNA is concerned.

There is no 100% foolproof yet and so the Death Penalty can't be 100% correct for the victims concerned.

Re: Immediate Termination

Monk-Eye said:

--Is it possible to construct provisions of law which guarantee with 100% accuracy that the perpetrator commited the crime?

What is the uncertainty here? --

Click to expand...

Yeah and in another case, the "guilty maggot" whose DNA linked him to a murder turned out to be 4 years old when the murder was committed.

Heck yeah, kill all maggots and get someone else to say sorry later when the mistakes or real killer is caught... :roll:

I am torn on which side I am for this topic. As a mother I'm sure if my kids were killed I could be easily swayed to the direction of KILL KILL KILL!
But for the most part I am pro life and have a hard time choosing to kill another person. I personally could not choose to end the life of another human being because I don't think it is my right to choose who gets to live or die.
However, I have not been put in a situation where I have had to choose or had emotions that might make me choose.
On the other side I can understand where people would want to keep the death penalty. Children not being able to be disciplined are showing what happens when there are no consequences. They don't listen because by law they don't have to. If you so much as hit them now, you're an abusive parent.
So perhaps if you remove the consequence of the death penalty, people would be more likely to kill others because a life sentence in jail with the possibilty of parole is a better option "for them".