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.
No they are NOT entirely different things they are all legal punishments.
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 are argueing against issueing punishments of equal value to the crime. You are double standarding.
I am emphasizing my disagreement with the death penalty as a form of punishment.
You aren't being particularly logical about it.
It's not a double standard to suggest that no one should be executed.
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.
Except other crimes don't involve people being killed by the State.
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.
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.
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 the death penalty were uniform, a rich man and a poor man would both suffer the same fate.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is a bogus argument since the system applies capital punishment inconsistently,
A. What if they applied it consistently? Now it is OK? If not, then you need to take your argument somewhere else.
B. Your problem is with the inconsistencey not the punishment.
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.
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.
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.
He should have thought about that before taking an innocent person's life.
Why is the criminal's family selfish for not wanting their loved one to die?
A. Because he is a murderer.
B. They want him to live at the expense of justice.
The criminal is still a human being with human ties.
It doesn't matter, punishment has to be issued objectively without regard to how the criminals family will feel about it.
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.
Provide evidence for the bolded assertion.
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.
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.)
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'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.
Why do you think the feelings of the family is relevent? Is this how are legal system works now?
Sorry, but it's not beside the point just because you say it is.
It's beside the point because it IS beside the point, not just because I say it is you are right.
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 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?
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.
So then why doesn't every murder deserve an execution?
Every
intentional murder does.
How do you decide if the punishment is "equal to the crime"?
Death = death. Is that a complicated formula?
Hmmm... I never really said that the person lacks free will, I was talking about contributing factors.
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?
And how is killing them without even a chance at rehabilitation going to do any damage control?
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).
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.
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***?
In that time, the person could have been taught to live a better life and understand the gravity of what they did.
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.
but the system causing a family suffering in order to try and provide "justice" to another family that is suffering.
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.
When did I ever say that there should be no justice system or that criminals don't deserve punishment?
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.
In this case, an eye for an eye and the law are the same thing, which is unfortunate.
No what is the difference
ever? Just in theory what should punishment be based on to you?