• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Capital Punishment

Cephus said:
First off, if they're humiliated, then they already understand that what they're doing is wrong. Social pressure, which is exactly what humiliation is, is a valuable tool for adjusting behavior into line with what is socially acceptable. Only an idiot is going to continue to do things that are unacceptable because they feel bad about doing things that are unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Way wrong.

Strongly recommend a book, "Violence" By James Gilligan.

Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic: James Gilligan: 9780679779124: Amazon.com: Books
 
That's what the report button is for. :shrug: If you don't like my posts, feel free to report them.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm for the death penalty (and I can think of an argument that I think would convince even the staunchest of opponents).
Click to expand...

What's that argument? Very curious because I'm among the "staunchest of opponents."
 
nota bene said:
What's that argument? Very curious because I'm among the "staunchest of opponents."
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps not an argument so much as a hypothetical example. It goes like this:

Let's suppose first that we have a principle: the death penalty is not to be applied in any case.

Next, let's suppose there is an absolutely murderous, very intelligent, and very physically capable, criminal who is incarcerated for some crime or other. This person's abilities are genuinely legendary (assume they're the result of some evil genetic experiment or something like that). While in prison, he or she begins murdering other prisoners, some of whom are incarcerated for such things as DUI or possession of marijuana. This person is put in isolation, but manages to escape, and then kills still more people.

This person has a cult following; if we find a cage strong enough to contain the supercriminal, stopping attempts to break out from the inside, then it becomes inevitable that their followers break them out from the outside.

So forth and so on: the idea is simply that we have someone on our hands who can defeat any attempt at incarceration, and the only way to keep them from killing others who in no way deserve to be murdered, is to kill the supercriminal.

It seems to me that in such a case, no reasonable person would support keeping the supercriminal alive. And if I'm right about that, then the principle we started with is incorrect. In at least one case, the death penalty should be applied.

But then we can start modifying the example: suppose rather than there being a 100% probability that the supercriminal will be able to escape and kill from any given cage, the probability is 99%. I think that, still, a reasonable person would think the death penalty should be applied. What about 98%? 97%? Etc.

People are going to have different instincts and intuitions about when we should start drawing the line, and I think this will reflect how they view the death penalty itself. Nevertheless, the point of the example is to point out that there are sometimes practical reasons we kill people.

Most of the time, I would agree, the death penalty is applied with at least a touch of vengeance in mind. This is why I say we use it too often, and usually for the wrong crimes. The death penalty is not really a deterent in most cases of murder, and it's hardly anything that someone who's seen the process up close would call justice. However, these are not the only elements of the death penalty that deserve consideration. My example is meant to bring out one that I think is neglected.
 
Last edited:
I stopped reading at "Well, perhaps not an argument so much as a hypothetical example."
 
ecofarm said:
I hope they have an outside-the-prison work program!

This touches on a point. Working gives the prisoners a way to earn their own snacks from the kiosk and, probably more importantly, an opportunity to interact with each other as something other than inmates, as a team of sorts (and not against the guards).
Click to expand...

As much of a hard-ass as I am about supporting the death penalty in specified cases (defined earlier in the thread), I do highly support contructive rehab for other prisoners, even violent ones who have not committed murder. A few years ago, I read a newspaper article about a prison that runs a kennel for dogs, where the prisoners have to feed, care for, groom, and exercise the dogs, This has been pretty successful in emotionally and psychologically rehabbing some of the prisoners, as it gives them something to care for, and care about. They love the dogs, and the dogs love them. Another prison has a purple martin colony which nests on the prison grounds, and the inmates are involved in taking care of the site, and monitoring the martin nests etc. I'd love to see some actual rehabbing of prisoners, because so many of them are emotionally and psychologically isolated and turned off. They need something positive in their lives to help turn their attitudes and psyches around in a constructive direction. What many of these inmates are lacking in is the ability to love and identify with other people, or other living creatures. They missed out on some critical developmental skills and support in their early lives.
 
lizzie said:
As much of a hard-ass as I am about supporting the death penalty in specified cases (defined earlier in the thread), I do highly support contructive rehab for other prisoners, even violent ones who have not committed murder. A few years ago, I read a newspaper article about a prison that runs a kennel for dogs, where the prisoners have to feed, care for, groom, and exercise the dogs, This has been pretty successful in emotionally and psychologically rehabbing some of the prisoners, as it gives them something to care for, and care about. They love the dogs, and the dogs love them. Another prison has a purple martin colony which nests on the prison grounds, and the inmates are involved in taking care of the site, and monitoring the martin nests etc. I'd love to see some actual rehabbing of prisoners, because so many of them are emotionally and psychologically isolated and turned off. They need something positive in their lives to help turn their attitudes and psyches around in a constructive direction. What many of these inmates are lacking in is the ability to love and identify with other people, or other living creatures. They missed out on some critical developmental skills and support in their early lives.
Click to expand...

I support rehabilitative efforts as well, but still think the death penalty is a necessary punishment in some cases. Some people simply do not deserve rehab, or cannot be rehabilitated.
 
nota bene said:
I stopped reading at "Well, perhaps not an argument so much as a hypothetical example."
Click to expand...

Well...why?
 
lizzie said:
As much of a hard-ass as I am about supporting the death penalty in specified cases (defined earlier in the thread), I do highly support contructive rehab for other prisoners, even violent ones who have not committed murder. A few years ago, I read a newspaper article about a prison that runs a kennel for dogs, where the prisoners have to feed, care for, groom, and exercise the dogs, This has been pretty successful in emotionally and psychologically rehabbing some of the prisoners, as it gives them something to care for, and care about. They love the dogs, and the dogs love them. Another prison has a purple martin colony which nests on the prison grounds, and the inmates are involved in taking care of the site, and monitoring the martin nests etc. I'd love to see some actual rehabbing of prisoners, because so many of them are emotionally and psychologically isolated and turned off. They need something positive in their lives to help turn their attitudes and psyches around in a constructive direction. What many of these inmates are lacking in is the ability to love and identify with other people, or other living creatures. They missed out on some critical developmental skills and support in their early lives.
Click to expand...

"Have to" is the critical phrase. Because of Ruiz vs. Estelle, "have to" is more than a little flexible despite increased resources to provide therapy/counseling, job training, and education.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well...why?
Click to expand...

Why are you even asking?

You claimed that you could provide "an argument that I think would convince even the staunchest of opponents."

I was eager to learn what this might be, but then you posted, "Well, perhaps not an argument so much as a hypothetical example."

A hypothetical example does not an argument make, so why waste my time reading beyond this statement?
 
nota bene said:
Why are you even asking?

You claimed that you could provide "an argument that I think would convince even the staunchest of opponents."

I was eager to learn what this might be, but then you posted, "Well, perhaps not an argument so much as a hypothetical example."

A hypothetical example does not an argument make, so why waste my time reading beyond this statement?
Click to expand...

If you were all that eager, you'd have read it anyway. It's quite short. And I think if someone believes in the principle that "the death penalty should not be applied in any case," the example I gave will show that principle to be flawed. Now, I could make an argument out of the example, but my experience is that most people want things short and sweet on these boards, so I opted for just that. In any case, I think the gist of the argument follows closely from the example.
 
Knowledge=power said:
I support rehabilitative efforts as well, but still think the death penalty is a necessary punishment in some cases. Some people simply do not deserve rehab, or cannot be rehabilitated.
Click to expand...

As do I, as I made clear in my initial post in this thread.

Murderers who can be proven guilty without any doubt whatsoever, and who kill with premeditation, get no pass imo. I would readily kill someone like that, as they haven't the humanity to control their lowest instincts.
 
Knowledge=power said:
I support rehabilitative efforts as well, but still think the death penalty is a necessary punishment in some cases. Some people simply do not deserve rehab, or cannot be rehabilitated.
Click to expand...

What's the point of rehabilitating people who are never going to get out of prison? For those that will be returned to normal life, absolutely, no one should get out of prison without being rehabilitated, trained to do a job, educated, etc.
 
I truly believe some crimes deserve the death penalty.But the justice system is so unfair when it come to passing judgement out to the people who deserve it. Two people can commit the same crime,and get two different punishments. Life in prison until the legal system get it's act together.My opinion! :peace
 
Knowledge=power said:
Where do you stand, and why?

There are arguments to be made for both sides. I personally support the death penalty, but also realize the cost of keeping an inmate alive for the average 10 year waiting period on death row, and the possibility of people executed who may later be proven innocent.
Click to expand...

I oppose it.

Probably the strongest argument against death penalty, meaning that a maximum of people can accept this argument, is the fact that no legal system is flawless, and death is a punishment that cannot be redeemed. No number of guilty people who get that punishment can weight out one person who is innocently executed. Life in prison at least allows for later release and compensation.

Another reason for my opposition to death penalty is the belief that legal punishment should not take revenge into consideration. It is my belief that the person giving in to feelings of revenge is damaged more than the target of his revenge. Legal punishment has the purpose of protecting society/potential victims from the perpetrator and deterrence, meaning it should deter potential perpetrators from committing the crime, and ideally, it should work towards rehabilitation when possible. I don't see that death penalty serves this purpose better than life in prison, when revenge is off the table. And it makes rehabilitation impossible.

Another reason is my belief that human life is a basic right that cannot even be forfeit by committing heinous crimes. I don't think anything justifies taking human life (with the exception of saving human life, i.e. self-defense, or in a just war). A religious figure said that the only difference between murder and taking the murderer's life is that "the first act was committed sooner, the other later". Now this quote was referring to vigilante revenge, not a legal process, but I take it into consideration when I state that the legal system should not serve the purpose of satisfying feelings of revenge.

I hope this makes sense.
 
German guy said:
I oppose it.

Probably the strongest argument against death penalty, meaning that a maximum of people can accept this argument, is the fact that no legal system is flawless, and death is a punishment that cannot be redeemed. No number of guilty people who get that punishment can weight out one person who is innocently executed. Life in prison at least allows for later release and compensation.
Click to expand...



I see your point here and it is one of the stronger ones that people who oppose CP make. However, I feel that the legal system, while not flawless, does prosecute some criminals who are 100% guilty beyond any doubt, such as mass shootings, confessions, many eyewitnesses, etc. These people are not possibly innocent, and should IMO, be put to death for their crimes.

German guy said:
Another reason for my opposition to death penalty is the belief that legal punishment should not take revenge into consideration. It is my belief that the person giving in to feelings of revenge is damaged more than the target of his revenge. Legal punishment has the purpose of protecting society/potential victims from the perpetrator and deterrence, meaning it should deter potential perpetrators from committing the crime, and ideally, it should work towards rehabilitation when possible. I don't see that death penalty serves this purpose better than life in prison, when revenge is off the table. And it makes rehabilitation impossible.
Click to expand...


Rehabilitation should be viewed as a privilege, not a right. If you are in prison for a less violent crime and you truly have a problem, I can see rehabilitation being something you earn. However if you kill someone, or many people, rehabiliation is not a right you have.

German guy said:
Another reason is my belief that human life is a basic right that cannot even be forfeit by committing heinous crimes. I don't think anything justifies taking human life (with the exception of saving human life, i.e. self-defense, or in a just war). A religious figure said that the only difference between murder and taking the murderer's life is that "the first act was committed sooner, the other later". Now this quote was referring to vigilante revenge, not a legal process, but I take it into consideration when I state that the legal system should not serve the purpose of satisfying feelings of revenge.

I hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...

The basic right to life is voided when you take someone else's in my opinion.

I don't see a lot of difference between killing a criminal who is 100% guilty and killing an enemy for attacking our country, civilians in their country, etc.
 
You make a good argument and I understand where you are coming from.

Knowledge=power said:
I see your point here and it is one of the stronger ones that people who oppose CP make. However, I feel that the legal system, while not flawless, does prosecute some criminals who are 100% guilty beyond any doubt, such as mass shootings, confessions, many eyewitnesses, etc. These people are not possibly innocent, and should IMO, be put to death for their crimes.
Click to expand...

Probably you are right, but I am not sure how the line can be drawn. But I didn't think this through in all details.

Rehabilitation should be viewed as a privilege, not a right. If you are in prison for a less violent crime and you truly have a problem, I can see rehabilitation being something you earn. However if you kill someone, or many people, rehabiliation is not a right you have.

The basic right to life is voided when you take someone else's in my opinion.
Click to expand...

While I think it's true that the rehabilitation of certain perpetrators is very hard, unlikely or even impossible, I believe we, as a society, have a responsibility to at least aim at that goal. Executing someone because we feel incapable of another solution to deal with him and protect society seems like a capitulation to me.

And, as I said, I believe the right to life cannot be forfeit. When all other options have failed, it is maybe legitimate to take life in order to protect life (i.e. self-defense), but it shouldn't be the first or a default option. Every other approach is preferable.

I don't see a lot of difference between killing a criminal who is 100% guilty and killing an enemy for attacking our country, civilians in their country, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think killing in war is generally justified either. War should be the final option, after all others have failed.

And the difference between a perpetrator who gets a death sentence and a foreign enemy attacking your country is that the former is in custody already and society can be protected without killing him. When foreign enemies are in custody, like prisoners of war, I don't think killing them is justified. The moment this enemy has surrendered and accepts custody, killing him is no longer a proportional or necessary reaction.

I believe there are more similarities between killing a perpetrator who refuses to surrender and is still threatening the police with armed force, and killing foreign enemies such as terrorists. IMO, that's justified, because taking them into custody is necessary to protect society -- and when they resist and continue threatening the life of other people, violent force is justified.
 
German guy said:
You make a good argument and I understand where you are coming from.



Probably you are right, but I am not sure how the line can be drawn. But I didn't think this through in all details.



While I think it's true that the rehabilitation of certain perpetrators is very hard, unlikely or even impossible, I believe we, as a society, have a responsibility to at least aim at that goal. Executing someone because we feel incapable of another solution to deal with him and protect society seems like a capitulation to me.

And, as I said, I believe the right to life cannot be forfeit. When all other options have failed, it is maybe legitimate to take life in order to protect life (i.e. self-defense), but it shouldn't be the first or a default option. Every other approach is preferable.



I don't think killing in war is generally justified either. War should be the final option, after all others have failed.

And the difference between a perpetrator who gets a death sentence and a foreign enemy attacking your country is that the former is in custody already and society can be protected without killing him. When foreign enemies are in custody, like prisoners of war, I don't think killing them is justified. The moment this enemy has surrendered and accepts custody, killing him is no longer a proportional or necessary reaction.

I believe there are more similarities between killing a perpetrator who refuses to surrender and is still threatening the police with armed force, and killing foreign enemies such as terrorists. IMO, that's justified, because taking them into custody is necessary to protect society -- and when they resist and continue threatening the life of other people, violent force is justified.
Click to expand...

When you say rehabiliation, what kind of rehab are you talking about? If you are referring to a psychologist or a psychiatrist or a counselor, I feel that this would only increase the amount of money being dumped into the prison system, as these professionals do not work for free, or for cheap.
 
Knowledge=power said:
When you say rehabiliation, what kind of rehab are you talking about? If you are referring to a psychologist or a psychiatrist or a counselor, I feel that this would only increase the amount of money being dumped into the prison system, as these professionals do not work for free, or for cheap.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the respective inmate. When he/she will be released at some point, rehabilitation measures should aim at making them fit for a law-abiding, independent life once they are released. For example, I imagine it's good when inmates are allowed to work for education degrees or apprenticeships in prison, which they can use later after release to make a living. Or that they get paid for the work they do in prison, onto an account that's at their disposal when they're released, to teach them the value of their work -- these ideas obviously make sense in case of criminals who were lacking on that field, which maybe was a factor why they considered crime an option. Once they are released, these things are incentives in favor of a law-abiding new life.

Prison itself, with a clear-cut structure for the inmates, may have a rehabilitating effect on many. Also, I believe religious offers should be made. When a criminal turns towards religion in prison, that's a good thing.

But of course, psychologists are required to determine whether a particular prisoner has good prospects for rehabilitation or not, whether he or she is ready, before the prisoner is released on parole. And when certain prisoners have the serious wish of improving their character, and see serious flaws (such as anger issues or the like), they should not be denied psychological assistance, IMO.

Now of course there are some individuals who are so seriously ****ed up in the head that none of this is likely to yield satisfying outcomes, or who simply don't *want* to be rehabilitated. I don't think too many resources should be wasted on them.

But I believe time can change everybody, even the most heinous criminals. Imagine you are 20 or 30 years in prison -- I doubt you'd still be the same person as in the beginning. And when such a person does not just pretend to, but actually condemns his past actions and has demonstrated his will to make up for his mistakes, has really changed, I don't think such a person should be denied a second chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom