Poll: Death Penalty

[Ultrajoe]

Yes it may be more expensive

Apparently, its not, Msh linked to a fascinating article the page before. And i'm with you on the mercy thing.

The one thing i've noticed about this argument, is that it is viewed on a 'National Scale' far to readily. I would have thought there were few issues more personal than taking someone into a room and showing them a piece of paper that lets them feel the lethal punishment you are about to inflict on them is for the 'good of the whole'.

Even if 'Lifers' cost more than a death-sentence, i'm sure we could feel ever so happy rolling around in all the economic savings we made. The day we can use 'economic advantage' in all seriousness as a reason to have a man killed is a sad, dark day indeed.

The crime aside, the criminal out of the picture, can we as a society afford to let their actions cause us to pervert our own ethics and morals? On a personal level is the price of freedom and safety putting down like a beast our fellow humans? We don't kill our own for a reason.

Put simply, killing makes us no better than those we profess to enforce justice upon.

Its not more complex than that, there's not more 'To it'. Its easy to slaughter someone out of this reality, its harder to turn to the rest of your fellow man and say 'The World Is Now A Better Place'.

You can dress up your excuses in all the pretty words you want, but its far too easy to point in the other direction while you shove a lethal injection into someone's arm because its 'easier'.

Don't kid yourselves, there may not be a hell, but i'm sure as shit the road to it is paved in good intentions.

 

[rossatdi]

I think you ignored my point. I'm not saying we should just kill whenever we feel like it and I damned well didn't say it was macho. you say outside of rare cases people locked away for fifteen years don't re-offend. right well that's why I said there should still be life sentences.(oops, forgot to say in my other post there should still be life sentences as well) but what do you do with the one's that DO re-offend?. what your saying is that it's ok if people who don't deserve to die, people who there is hope for, get killed by someone who there is no hope for. just so you can keep your hands clean. don't you dare go on about worthiness.

and I want to say this again just so the message is clear, the death penalty should NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. if it's put in place again it has to be reserved for people who have PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE NO WISH OR CAPACITY TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

Jesus man, did insult your mother or something? The world is not an ideal place but prisoner on prisoner murder is obviously something that should be avoidable given high risk isolation and well funded & organised prison.

I'm not saying it's okay anyone dies but it is important that the state keeps it's hands clean. That's very much the point. A civilisation may be judged on how it treats those who it need not treat well; repeat offender or not they are still human. A man who rapes 15 babies and then eats them is different from you or I only in their brain chemistry. That is certainly not to say they are not to blame, nor should they be released back into society lightly, if at all.

The line of responsibility is too thin to morally draw. The majority of homicides occur between people who know each other, who are male, young and poor. Very few people can be blamed for being poor whilst they're still young and unless we are suggesting a genetic preference for violence amongst the lower classes then the vast majority of murders are simply normal people placed in a difficult situation.

Yes, there are the crazies, the psychos and the persistent offenders but more often than not they are born with defective or unbalanced brain chemistries. I fundamentally believe in a person's responsibility for his actions but it is ignorance of the highest calibre to assume that given the same background (genetic, physiological or social) that we would act any differently. And that is not to say they shouldn't be punished. Of course they should but even when rehabilitation fails it is not our right to kill them off.

If we give the state the authority to kill those who will always be a danger to society then we give them the authority to kill some mentally disabled people on pure basis of them being born differently and unable to contribute. Criminals are simply people, even the worst re-offenders are people. They are not demon possessed scum and everyone deserves a thousand chances of redemption, even if they are kept in a safe environment whilst they fail. When society gives up on it's worst, it gives up on us all. A utopia standing on the corpses of it's own murder citizens is not one I would wish to live in.

 

[rossatdi]

Don't kid yourselves, there may not be a hell, but i'm sure as shit the road to it is paved in good intentions.

Truer words are rarely spoken. And the State is one of few things that can't readily hauled back from hell when it starts slipping.

 

[Falconus]

rossatdi. I'm sorry for being rude, but your talking about the worthier route seemed like narcissism. after your response I can see this is not the case. it was a grave misjudgement.

I can see now that we each stand on opposite sides of that thin moral line. do we let killers keep killing?.(and no matter what precautions are taken this does still happen, not as much but still.) or do we kill the killers before they do more damage?. neither one is particularly pleasant.

I disagree with you because you are putting an inherent value to life that I just don't see. I see live as having only the value that you give it, how you affect the world around you for better or worse, is what you are worth. that's not to say that if you are worthless you should die, far from it. but if you only exist to cause misery. if you actively harm others for no reason other then you feel like it, then I cannot agree that these people deserve life. and I know a number of mentally unstable people (I have severe clinical depression, and one of my teachers suffered from schizophrenic psychosis for example), I know that they can be good people who certainly deserve chances. but an infinite number?.

personally I would be willing to kill a person if they intend to harm others, and suffer whatever punishment I get for doing so. but you're right, allowing the state to do this is another thing entirely. people have to be able to trust the state, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. so on that point I will concede.

as for for the ignorance of assuming I would do different. Frankly, I'd probably do worse.

 

[Slycne]

...

Yeah, as long as the executioner is executed for murder.
And as long as the executioner is executed.
And as long as that new executioner is executed.
And so on until there is no more human population.

If you want death penalty for a murder, it means that to be consistent, you must kill any person killing another. That includes the guy pulling the plug or giving the injection.

Go look murder up in a dictionary.

Capital punishment has never been about revenge or any one person being so evil that they don't deserve to live. The countries that still practice it do so because of the deterrent it causes to other criminals. That said the actual effectiveness of that deterrent is almost impossible to determine. Can't exactly poll people to find out if they didn't commit a crime for fear they could be later put to death. There is always going to be crime regardless. The current trend seems to be to stop capital punishment. Several US states no longer practice it.

I don't feel any regret for someone executed who was truly guilty. My only qualm with capital punishment is when it's practiced in countries with far fewer appeal processes.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Close. I'm saying that we have a system that is corrupt. Jury works... most of the time, but if a case is so high profile that the jury is influenced, then the system falls down. We have situations where we know someone is guilty (see lethal force reference earlier), but we can't convict because we know they're guilty.

See how I'm seeing it?

OK, so you can't give them a prison sentence but you can kill them? I'm sorry, but that seems to be decidedly odd. If a government can decide to kill someone it can sure as hell sentence them to life without parole. Why should they be killed just because a normal public jury would be guaranteed to convict them. Would they get life if they could get an unbiased trial? If so I really don't see why you are using the example you are. Not that I would agree to a death penalty in either case.

The lethal use of force is a different issue. The police officer has judged there is a clear danger to themselves or others that cannot be solved without immediate use of force. With a prisoner in custody that can be held indefinitely there is no need to go so far as to kill them, just lock them up forever.
If the law doesn't allow that, change the law to do so, you don't have to go the whole hog and decide, 'well, we can't lock them up forever under current laws, well just change the law so we can kill them instead.'
It would be like getting into a fight with a guy you know you can beat senseless with your fists but pulling out a gun and blowing him away because there's a sign on the wall saying 'no punch ups'...and you wrote the sign, it's your pub.
Or to use your use of lethal force analogy, if a police officer goes to arrest a dangerous armed criminal but shoots them in the head after they've been arrested, the police officer would be charged with murder.

You still haven't given any indication as to why the argument 'you cannot take back a death penalty if they are subsequently found innocent' is invalid. Maybe it is irrelevant to you if you are of the belief that it doesn't matter if a few innocent people are executed along the way as long as we get as many criminals as possible, but that doesn't make it an invalid argument.

 

[TOGSolid]

Bill Engval had a little bit that kinda sums up the death penalty:

Yesterday, my son was out in the yard playing with his friend, and he hit his friend. I walked up to him, and I said, "Hey..." (pantomimes hitting his son) "We don't hit". He looked at me like, "Here's your sign, Dad".

 

[TheLoneOne]

here's my take on it... nowadays, if you're convicted of MURDER, your ass should fry. Period. And those folks who sit on death row tryin to prolong the inevitable as long as possible, I say this. You get one shot... ONE SHOT for an appeal. Can't get it turned, then you get the needle the followin morning. Of course, more strict procedures regarding search and seisure should be in place to ensure any evidence collected during the course of an investigation could be used in court.

 

[RebelRising]

I personally am against the death penalty. It is inhumane and cruel, no matter who it is directed towards. And if the person gets a life sentence, they have to suffer and think about what they did each day until they die.

How exactly is "have to suffer and think about what they did each day until they die." humane? Death penalty eliminates a dangerous, probably unrehabilitated killer, keeps the populace safe from him or her, and gives the convicted a release from the misery and desolateness of a life sentence.

 

[darthzew]

In principle I am against the death penalty. However, in practice... there are people out there so horrible and grotesque that there is only one way. I don't think the death sentence should be taken lightly. If there is at all reasonable doubt that someone didn't do something, then he shouldn't be executed.

But people like Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and other remorseless multi-murderers? Then yes and good riddance.

 

[Beowulf DW]

Human life should not be this easy to throw away or destroy for a civilized society. The fact that it is still legal in the US says something about the country and its people.

It varies from state to state. Some states haven't had an execution in decades, while others like Texas seem intent on putting the death penalty into express lane. The Federal government knows that the death penalty is a sensitive topic, so the State legislatures generally decide for themselves.

 

[werepossum]

I think you ignored my point. I'm not saying we should just kill whenever we feel like it and I damned well didn't say it was macho. you say outside of rare cases people locked away for fifteen years don't re-offend. right well that's why I said there should still be life sentences.(oops, forgot to say in my other post there should still be life sentences as well) but what do you do with the one's that DO re-offend?. what your saying is that it's ok if people who don't deserve to die, people who there is hope for, get killed by someone who there is no hope for. just so you can keep your hands clean. don't you dare go on about worthiness.

and I want to say this again just so the message is clear, the death penalty should NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. if it's put in place again it has to be reserved for people who have PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE NO WISH OR CAPACITY TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

Jesus man, did insult your mother or something? The world is not an ideal place but prisoner on prisoner murder is obviously something that should be avoidable given high risk isolation and well funded & organised prison.

I'm not saying it's okay anyone dies but it is important that the state keeps it's hands clean. That's very much the point. A civilisation may be judged on how it treats those who it need not treat well; repeat offender or not they are still human. A man who rapes 15 babies and then eats them is different from you or I only in their brain chemistry. That is certainly not to say they are not to blame, nor should they be released back into society lightly, if at all.

The line of responsibility is too thin to morally draw. The majority of homicides occur between people who know each other, who are male, young and poor. Very few people can be blamed for being poor whilst they're still young and unless we are suggesting a genetic preference for violence amongst the lower classes then the vast majority of murders are simply normal people placed in a difficult situation.

Yes, there are the crazies, the psychos and the persistent offenders but more often than not they are born with defective or unbalanced brain chemistries. I fundamentally believe in a person's responsibility for his actions but it is ignorance of the highest calibre to assume that given the same background (genetic, physiological or social) that we would act any differently. And that is not to say they shouldn't be punished. Of course they should but even when rehabilitation fails it is not our right to kill them off.

If we give the state the authority to kill those who will always be a danger to society then we give them the authority to kill some mentally disabled people on pure basis of them being born differently and unable to contribute. Criminals are simply people, even the worst re-offenders are people. They are not demon possessed scum and everyone deserves a thousand chances of redemption, even if they are kept in a safe environment whilst they fail. When society gives up on it's worst, it gives up on us all. A utopia standing on the corpses of it's own murder citizens is not one I would wish to live in.

Wow, you just perfectly summed up the liberal position. People don't commit murder unless they are mentally ill; therefore anyone committing murder is mentally ill and should not be punished. More succinctly, society is to blame, so punish society and not the criminal. If the murderer used a gun, abolish guns. If a knife, abolish knives.

On a related note, there is no such thing as life imprisonment without parole. Eventually liberals will come into power, persuade a judge to reduce a sentence, or just give the murderer weekends off; therefore all sentences of life imprisonment without parole are more properly life imprisonment until liberals successfully intervene.

On a less related note, isn't it odd how most death penalty supporters are anti-abortion whilst most death penalty opponents are pro-abortion?

 

[H.R.Shovenstuff]

I think you ignored my point. I'm not saying we should just kill whenever we feel like it and I damned well didn't say it was macho. you say outside of rare cases people locked away for fifteen years don't re-offend. right well that's why I said there should still be life sentences.(oops, forgot to say in my other post there should still be life sentences as well) but what do you do with the one's that DO re-offend?. what your saying is that it's ok if people who don't deserve to die, people who there is hope for, get killed by someone who there is no hope for. just so you can keep your hands clean. don't you dare go on about worthiness.

and I want to say this again just so the message is clear, the death penalty should NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. if it's put in place again it has to be reserved for people who have PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE NO WISH OR CAPACITY TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

CAPS LOCK MEANS MY ARGUMENT IS MORE VALID THAN YOURS SO SHUT UP!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

 

[bad rider]

The death penalty is retarded people suffer more alive and in a hole where they can't hurt anyone and it allows them to reform.

 

[bad rider]

I think you ignored my point. I'm not saying we should just kill whenever we feel like it and I damned well didn't say it was macho. you say outside of rare cases people locked away for fifteen years don't re-offend. right well that's why I said there should still be life sentences.(oops, forgot to say in my other post there should still be life sentences as well) but what do you do with the one's that DO re-offend?. what your saying is that it's ok if people who don't deserve to die, people who there is hope for, get killed by someone who there is no hope for. just so you can keep your hands clean. don't you dare go on about worthiness.

and I want to say this again just so the message is clear, the death penalty should NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. if it's put in place again it has to be reserved for people who have PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE NO WISH OR CAPACITY TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

CAPS LOCK MEANS MY ARGUMENT IS MORE VALID THAN YOURS SO SHUT UP!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

Don't flamebait he's just trying to draw attention to the main points of his arguement.

 

[H.R.Shovenstuff]

On a less related note, isn't it odd how most death penalty supporters are anti-abortion whilst most death penalty opponents are pro-abortion?

While you make a good point and I don't like to speak for other 'pro-choicers' I will be a little pedantic and say that I wouldn't say I was pro-abortion, just literally pro choice. I don't go out on the street and wave placards about trying to get people to abort their children.

 

[H.R.Shovenstuff]

I think you ignored my point. I'm not saying we should just kill whenever we feel like it and I damned well didn't say it was macho. you say outside of rare cases people locked away for fifteen years don't re-offend. right well that's why I said there should still be life sentences.(oops, forgot to say in my other post there should still be life sentences as well) but what do you do with the one's that DO re-offend?. what your saying is that it's ok if people who don't deserve to die, people who there is hope for, get killed by someone who there is no hope for. just so you can keep your hands clean. don't you dare go on about worthiness.

and I want to say this again just so the message is clear, the death penalty should NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. if it's put in place again it has to be reserved for people who have PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE NO WISH OR CAPACITY TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

CAPS LOCK MEANS MY ARGUMENT IS MORE VALID THAN YOURS SO SHUT UP!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

Don't flamebait he's just trying to draw attention to the main points of his arguement.

Yeah sorry about that. But maybe in future [b­]this[/b] will do the job.

 

[werepossum]

If you support the death penalty, and the law kills an innocent person, then you support murder; now you are subject to the death penalty.

By that logic, if I support the prison system, which may or may not be the imprisonment of an innocent person, then I support kidnapping, making me subject to going to prison. Yeah, that's not exactly how it works.

But you do acknowledge that innocent people go to prison. Is killing innocent people okay in order for criminals to be "permabanned?" How many innocent people is it okay to sacrifice per dead criminal? 1? 10? 100? Seriously, I'd like to know. What do we tell their familys?

"Sorry, your husband/father/wife/child was innocent, but we also gassed a couple other bad guys today, so it's a fair trade."

That goes both ways. It is equally difficult to tell a family that its loved one has been murdered by a convicted murderer serving life in prison without possibility of parole, whether the loved one was an innocent murdered by a criminal on work release (a la Willie Horton, released on weekends by Governor Dukakis) or a convicted criminal murdered whilst serving a sentence. Executing murderers will lead to an innocent man being executed - several people on death row have been freed due to DNA evidence conclusively proving innocence. On the other hand, convicted murderers kill people as well, whether when released, in the general population, or guards when in solitary confinement (there is no way to completely isolate a prisoner from human contact without denying him basic medical care.) Either way, convicted murderers will kill more people; the question is whether the punishment should be execution or loss of library privileges.

One odd thing about the death penalty - there was a story a couple of years back about an execution postponed because the prisoner was ill. Can you be too ill to be killed? If you are gravely ill and you are executed, have you not been sufficiently punished? What's up with that?

 

[Zombie_King]

I'm pro penalty, ish. I believe that we should take criminals to do a real life to the death counter strike match, and the winners get to go to prison and serve their sentence...

Tell them they'll play paintball for their freedoms.
"Why did Johnny just die from a paintball headshot?"
"He's probably not that hardcore."