So, death penalty

[ReservoirAngel]

I'm against the death penalty. I don't think it's a justifiable thing for any civilized society to still be doing.

Though just to mess up some people's heads I'm very much pro-abortion and pro-assisted suicide. Work that out.

How would that mess with people's heads? You want people to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives? Oh, the unimaginable horror of freedom.

Well most people I end up talking about the death penalty tend to be very right-wing people so to them apparently being in favour of some forms of death but not others is just baffling. Let's just ignore the fact that that's exactly what they are too.

Heh heh... If people realized their own hypocrisies, we would never tell people our opinions.
In all seriousness though, I agree with you on that. I think people have a right to control their lives, at least to the degree that they can. If that makes sense.

Exactly. If a woman makes the decision to terminate her pregnancy, that's her right. If someone who's like terminally ill or some shit chooses to end their life to save themselves the prolonged suffering they are in or would be in, that's their right to do that.

But the government killing someone against their wishes just because said person killed someone else? I will never be in favour of people literally holding an unwilling person's life in their hands because hey, that's just the way it is. It makes no logical sense to me and I doubt it ever will.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Normally I'd agree, but there isn't a way to improve accuracy far enough to make this viable. It can never reach 100%, at least not now, and the current methods of improving the accuracy (appeals etc) actually increase the cost.

There are ways, but it would be an additional financial cost, in addition to time required for verification. I will never require a system to run at 100% accuracy; it?s unrealistic. Appeals don?t actually improve accuracy as much as you would think; but I?m perfectly acceptable with an additional external source verifying the process after a particular time to insure everything was accurate and nothing was missed.

Because you're killing them. Doesn't matter if you've made it look all nice and formal and pretty on the surface. The fact is; you're killing them. And I'd argue against these trials always being fair. Especially in the US.

Where's the difference? It's all killing, it's the same. Just because one side made it legal for themselves, doesn't change it, and just because that person has officially done something morally wrong doesn't change it either.

The only thing similar between different types of killing is that a life ends. The point of the killings is actually what separates them from each other. Whether you kill for food, protection, ideological differences, because they have a pair of shoes you want, self defense, etc; it actually *does* matter for the reasons. Willy nilly offing someone in the heat of the moment is quite different then the state enforcing punishments on criminals based on laws that were voted into affect by the society they serve and protect. It?s why when I defend myself and an attacker dies; I don?t serve the rest of my life in prison. Failing to draw a distinction between them is a big problem you need to personal address.

Not really for you to decide that fate though.

Correct, it?s usually up to me and eleven other people by unanimous verdict supported by a judge and the entire legal system. A lot of people seem to think the Death Penalty is some common punishment dolled out by random judges in hickville USA. Seriously, it takes serious efforts.

If prison life is so bad and the death penalty a better fate, why not give it to everyone? You're really just applying this argument to different situations to suit yourself.

Because then we?d get into a discussion regarding government sanctioned euthanasia, and I can imagine how terrible a conversation would be. I don?t have an issue with people taking the cowards way out. I would guess that people would still find fault in society not doing enough to help these poor bastards that would rather die than deal with a life without freedom. Death Penalty for all!

True, but there is still an apparent correlation. Anyway, this can be applied to the US on its own. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Correlation is not causation.

And the number of jobs is affected by the price of labour. It's not the only factor, but it's a significant one.

So you?re suggesting that we create free labor through the use of prisoners? I no you?re not suggesting that, I?m just pointing out the flawed logic in doing so.

True, but this is an issue separate to the death penalty. You'll still have prison life with or without it.

It?s not a separate issue at all! Either you insure someone?s health and well being for the rest of their lives at the cost of a few freedoms or you end their life and be done with it.

I think we've covered this already. What does this have to do with the death penalty anyway?

Whether or not the death penalty could be consider a merciful alternative to a life of physical, emotional and psychological torment at the hands of your fellow criminals.

Cars actually have a use though. The mistakes in the death penalty system are just so pointless. What's the point of it in the first place?

Preventing certain individuals from ever harming or costing society anything ever again; whether it be civilians on the outside, inmates on the inside or resourced devoted to their care.

Punishment? Isn't worth it really. And it's too much of a subjective, emotional response.

That?s why they call it the Death ?Penalty?. Its worth is entirely subjective. The emotional responses to it are merely a philosophical quandary for internet denizens. Should they find themselves in a slightly different context, their tune might change.

Deterrent? Has been shown not to work.

The issue I have with this statement is because it was never correctly applied in the first place. The Death Penalty can?t really be a deterrent is the appeals process can keep you on death row for the remainder of your life. Actually utilize it correctly, and then tell me how it works.

Cost? Costs more to execute someone than imprison them for life.

Technically speaking that?s incorrect. The cost comes from the system, not the act itself. It?s a ridiculous argument all things considered.

Odd, because emotion is usually the cause of arguments in favour of it. I'm thinking of the issues to do with incorrect convictions, and corruption in the system which also leads to incorrect convictions. Those are the main ones.

Funny how appeals to emotion work eh? I?d suggest checking out http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty for information as to the current requirements for the Death Penalty to be applied. Corruption can?t really be solved objectively speaking; the best you can do is attempt to regulate it by laws and removing judges who appear to be favoring specific circumstances out of character. Incorrect convictions go back to our methodology in criminology and forensic sciences. I feel it?s more of a funding issue than anything else; a redistribution of finances from the appeals process could compensate the forensics teams with better training and equipment; cutting down inaccuracies.

 

[runnernda]

I'm not cool with the death penalty. "We'll kill someone to show you that killing is wrong!" It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Easton Dark]

To quote the "God Bless America" trailer:

"I only want to kill people who deserve to die."

Yeah I'm ok with the death penalty.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Normally I'd agree, but there isn't a way to improve accuracy far enough to make this viable. It can never reach 100%, at least not now, and the current methods of improving the accuracy (appeals etc) actually increase the cost.

There are ways, but it would be an additional financial cost, in addition to time required for verification. I will never require a system to run at 100% accuracy; it?s unrealistic. Appeals don?t actually improve accuracy as much as you would think; but I?m perfectly acceptable with an additional external source verifying the process after a particular time to insure everything was accurate and nothing was missed.

I still don't understand why you think this system is necessary enough that it's ok to execute the wrong people.

It?s why when I defend myself and an attacker dies; I don?t serve the rest of my life in prison.

And this is a completely different thing altogether, which we've already talked about.

Failing to draw a distinction between them is a big problem you need to personal address.

Could you get a bit more condescending please?
I can see this isn't something gonna be something we can convince each other either way. It's all down to how you basically view it.

Not really for you to decide that fate though.

Correct, it?s usually up to me and eleven other people by unanimous verdict supported by a judge and the entire legal system.

With "you" I'm talking about people in general.

A lot of people seem to think the Death Penalty is some common punishment dolled out by random judges in hickville USA. Seriously, it takes serious efforts.

If it's so uncommon, why is it necessary?

If prison life is so bad and the death penalty a better fate, why not give it to everyone? You're really just applying this argument to different situations to suit yourself.

Because then we?d get into a discussion regarding government sanctioned euthanasia, and I can imagine how terrible a conversation would be. I don?t have an issue with people taking the cowards way out. I would guess that people would still find fault in society not doing enough to help these poor bastards that would rather die than deal with a life without freedom. Death Penalty for all!

ugh

True, but there is still an apparent correlation. Anyway, this can be applied to the US on its own. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Correlation is not causation.

Yes but I'm not the one trying to prove something here. There's nothing to suggest the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

And the number of jobs is affected by the price of labour. It's not the only factor, but it's a significant one.

So you?re suggesting that we create free labor through the use of prisoners? I no you?re not suggesting that, I?m just pointing out the flawed logic in doing so.

I'm not suggesting we do that, but you were the one who originally made this out to be an issue.

True, but this is an issue separate to the death penalty. You'll still have prison life with or without it.

It?s not a separate issue at all! Either you insure someone?s health and well being for the rest of their lives at the cost of a few freedoms or you end their life and be done with it.

The death penalty won't eliminate the problem of there being poor prison life for other prisoners, which you're suggesting there is.

I think we've covered this already. What does this have to do with the death penalty anyway?

Whether or not the death penalty could be consider a merciful alternative to a life of physical, emotional and psychological torment at the hands of your fellow criminals.

The death penalty won't eliminate the problem of there being poor prison life for other prisoners.

Cars actually have a use though. The mistakes in the death penalty system are just so pointless. What's the point of it in the first place?

Preventing certain individuals from ever harming or costing society anything ever again; whether it be civilians on the outside, inmates on the inside or resourced devoted to their care.

Inside prison they can't harm civilians.
The death penalty won't eliminate the problem of there being poor prison life for other prisoners.
Costs more to put someone to death. And if you really wanted to eliminate that problem you'd just make it even more dodgy.
Anyway, if the death penalty verdict is, as you say, that uncommon, would it really make that much of a difference?

Punishment? Isn't worth it really. And it's too much of a subjective, emotional response.

That?s why they call it the Death ?Penalty?. Its worth is entirely subjective. The emotional responses to it are merely a philosophical quandary for internet denizens. Should they find themselves in a slightly different context, their tune might change.

Deterrent? Has been shown not to work.

The issue I have with this statement is because it was never correctly applied in the first place. The Death Penalty can?t really be a deterrent is the appeals process can keep you on death row for the remainder of your life. Actually utilize it correctly, and then tell me how it works.

Well until you do you can't prove anything. But do you really think the difference between "execution" and "rest of your life on death row, in prison, fighting to prevent your execution" is enough to deter people? People don't usually even think about those things when they go out to kill, so that won't make a significant difference, if any.

Cost? Costs more to execute someone than imprison them for life.

Technically speaking that?s incorrect. The cost comes from the system, not the act itself. It?s a ridiculous argument all things considered.

And you need the system along with the act, or else the system is even more inaccurate and corrupt.

Odd, because emotion is usually the cause of arguments in favour of it. I'm thinking of the issues to do with incorrect convictions, and corruption in the system which also leads to incorrect convictions. Those are the main ones.

Funny how appeals to emotion work eh? I?d suggest checking out http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty for information as to the current requirements for the Death Penalty to be applied. Corruption can?t really be solved objectively speaking; the best you can do is attempt to regulate it by laws and removing judges who appear to be favoring specific circumstances out of character. Incorrect convictions go back to our methodology in criminology and forensic sciences. I feel it?s more of a funding issue than anything else; a redistribution of finances from the appeals process could compensate the forensics teams with better training and equipment; cutting down inaccuracies.

Forensics are already pretty accurate, money will do little to change that. Incorrect convictions are often down to false confessions or faults with the actual criminal materials/evidence anyway. And the appeals system is necessary to stop the execution of innocent prisoners, especially those found guilty due to corruption.

Still unconvinced that this system is at all necessary.

Prison life DOES need fixing, HOWEVER, it does not need to be a summer vacation. My true reference is to a life-sentence. Here, there is no hope of escape, parole, etc. You are condemned. It abolishes all your rights, except for the right to live.

There are still rights.

The alternative to the death penalty would be to abolish a life sentence. I actually would prefer this. Something like Norway's maximum sentence of 22 years would be an interesting place to start. Then having special programs to assist in the mental health/reintegration of an individual into society.

Yes, the Scandinavian system is good and works much better than most other countries' systems. I wonder what could be more important than it...

But with this comes the question of cost.

Oh right, money.
Interesting coming from a country that spends so much on its military. Maybe you should look there first.

Either way, I don't see something like a maximum sentencing period being adopted in the world at large.

Why not? Not really sure why you think it's and "either/or" situation anyway.
It costs more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life.

Because of this, I'd rather have the death penalty, which will avoid long term mental anguish, to the egregious act of keeping an already dead person alive.

What does that have to do with it? I thought the death penalty was meant to be the absolute harshest of punishments; you're using some other and irrelevant topic to justify it. If prison life is so bad, fix that. Is it really worth the fact that you will get the wrong people sometimes?

It's literally a moral equivalent of keeping a man who has terminal cancer and in severe pain every day of his life alive despite his wishes to die.

No.
If they want to die, that's something else entirely.

I thought the death penalty was meant to be the absolute harshest of punishments; you're using some other and irrelevant topic to justify it. If prison life is so bad, fix that.

I'm here to discuss, not prove myself right.

Lol wow.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I think the death penalty should only exist for certain offenders of vast multiple crimes, such as Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (did anyone cry in outrage when they were killed?), because everyone, including they, are 100% sure that they were the perpetrators of each and every one of their crimes.

I mean, what about the victim(s) and their family? Should they not get some kind of equal retribution for their suffering? People seem to forget them far too often in these cases. Someone has immediately sacrificed their own human rights if they remove someone else?s, especially one of, if not the most important one: the right to life.