So, death penalty

[AnarchistFish]

So what, we just let them rot in prison for life? Do you have any idea how aweful prison is?

You're given two options: subsist on a deserted island with a single tree that occassionally drops coconuts or use the single hand gun on the island to blow your brains out. Oh, and there's no chance of escape, rescue, or any other source of food. What would you do?

essentially, this is prison.

I once read an EXTREMELY convincing short story that convicted me not only of the justification of the death penalty, but it's moral (yes, moral) superiority. I WISH TO THE HIGH HEAVENS I KEPT THE FREAKING TITLE! but alas, when I was 14, online forum debates weren't a daily occurrence. At any rate, life sentences are the equivalent to slow, mental torture, draining the humanity out of a person until there is nothing left but a diabolical, empty shell full of resentment and hatred. It is a living death. The death penalty is an end to the torture, allowing a person to pass away with at least the dignity of retaining their humanity.

Even if I was innocent, I'd probably prefer the death penalty. It would be better than wasting away in a prison, and even if I was let lose 10 years, 20 years, etc. down the line I don't know I'd have much humanity left in me to care about the world.

I don't know where to start with this.

Prison life and the death penalty are separate. If prison life is bad, that's what needs fixing, the death penalty is another issue. And even if there were a death penalty, there'd still be the existence of a prison life for the other prisoners. If it's so much better, are you suggesting we kill them all?
If it's so bad, they should have the option. And I thought the death penalty was reserved for the worst crimes? If the worst criminals are being given death penalties, then you're saying they're getting off better than lesser criminals.

 

[The Task Master]

I think the death penalty is something we need but not something we use all the time. Like if there is enough evidence to convict the murderer the first time,(like DNA evidence such as skin from the accused underneath the fingernails of the victim from scratching at there attacker or other kind of substantial evidence), than the jury should be able to exercise the sentence of the death penalty so the case can be over as fast as possible providing closure for the family's involved.

However if there isn't such water tight evidence but still the defendant is accused, than other avenue's should be taken do to such a weak conviction. I think at least this way the people that did kill someone will be sentenced justly and people that might not have killed someone will wont be put to death immediately. It seems fare that if you didn't kill someone there wouldn't be a whole lot of evidence to convict you.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

So what, we just let them rot in prison for life? Do you have any idea how aweful prison is?

You're given two options: subsist on a deserted island with a single tree that occassionally drops coconuts or use the single hand gun on the island to blow your brains out. Oh, and there's no chance of escape, rescue, or any other source of food. What would you do?

essentially, this is prison.

I once read an EXTREMELY convincing short story that convicted me not only of the justification of the death penalty, but it's moral (yes, moral) superiority. I WISH TO THE HIGH HEAVENS I KEPT THE FREAKING TITLE! but alas, when I was 14, online forum debates weren't a daily occurrence. At any rate, life sentences are the equivalent to slow, mental torture, draining the humanity out of a person until there is nothing left but a diabolical, empty shell full of resentment and hatred. It is a living death. The death penalty is an end to the torture, allowing a person to pass away with at least the dignity of retaining their humanity.

Even if I was innocent, I'd probably prefer the death penalty. It would be better than wasting away in a prison, and even if I was let lose 10 years, 20 years, etc. down the line I don't know I'd have much humanity left in me to care about the world.

I don't know where to start with this.

Prison life and the death penalty are separate. If prison life is bad, that's what needs fixing, the death penalty is another issue. And even if there were a death penalty, there'd still be the existence of a prison life for the other prisoners. If it's so much better, are you suggesting we kill them all?
If it's so bad, they should have the option. And I thought the death penalty was reserved for the worst crimes? If the worst criminals are being given death penalties, then you're saying they're getting off better than lesser criminals.

Quoted the wrong guy dude.
I most certainly didn't write that rhetoric

 

[AnarchistFish]

Quoted the wrong guy dude.
I most certainly didn't write that rhetoric

I did, I apologise >.<
I was quoting him through you and got the wrong person. Hang on, I'll redo it.

So what, we just let them rot in prison for life? Do you have any idea how aweful prison is?

You're given two options: subsist on a deserted island with a single tree that occassionally drops coconuts or use the single hand gun on the island to blow your brains out. Oh, and there's no chance of escape, rescue, or any other source of food. What would you do?

essentially, this is prison.

I once read an EXTREMELY convincing short story that convicted me not only of the justification of the death penalty, but it's moral (yes, moral) superiority. I WISH TO THE HIGH HEAVENS I KEPT THE FREAKING TITLE! but alas, when I was 14, online forum debates weren't a daily occurrence. At any rate, life sentences are the equivalent to slow, mental torture, draining the humanity out of a person until there is nothing left but a diabolical, empty shell full of resentment and hatred. It is a living death. The death penalty is an end to the torture, allowing a person to pass away with at least the dignity of retaining their humanity.

Even if I was innocent, I'd probably prefer the death penalty. It would be better than wasting away in a prison, and even if I was let lose 10 years, 20 years, etc. down the line I don't know I'd have much humanity left in me to care about the world.

I don't know where to start with this.

Prison life and the death penalty are separate. If prison life is bad, that's what needs fixing, the death penalty is another issue. And even if there were a death penalty, there'd still be the existence of a prison life for the other prisoners. If it's so much better, are you suggesting we kill them all?
If it's so bad, they should have the option. And I thought the death penalty was reserved for the worst crimes? If the worst criminals are being given death penalties, then you're saying they're getting off better than lesser criminals.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I'm against it because I do not believe that there has ever been or will ever be a system reliable enough to justifiably hand out such sentences.
I do believe that use of lethal force to stop those committing serious crimes at the moment that they are committing them is acceptable though.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I don't wish death upon anybody but at the same time there are people I think should be killed rather the captured. Harming children is one of the reasons.

 

[ADDmuse]

I personally like how the Norwegians handle their prisoners. The worst of them are sent to a form of rehabilitation camp that teach them to be better people. In fact, the maximum sentence is only 21 years. They made it so that the people become MORE productive after they go to prison instead of making the problem worse, like here in the US. Over here even if all you got was a few months in prison you are marked for life. Not many people want a convicted felon on the payroll and few people will trust you after they learn about it.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison

 

[DrOswald]

Also, can you point me to the studies that have been done on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent? You see, people always claim the Death Penalty is ineffective because states that have it have a high rate of crimes that would qualify a person for it, but a higher murder rate in death penalty states actually makes sense. Places with less murder would not need as extreme a deterrent. As we see, correlation does not imply causation.

If I put irradiated uranium dust into the water systems of the states with the highest cancer rates because I was convinced it would cure cancer, and I saw cancer rates go up in those states after a while, it would not be appropriate to say "Probably it's working but these states are just extra cancerous!"

Ok, just reminding you, I am anti-death penalty except under certain very extreme circumstances that you already agreed with. Not trying to be argumentative here. I agree with you.

That said, not sure what your point was in the uranium dust analogy. We understand the effects of radioactive materials and we can draw conclusions because of that. We don't understand the effects of the death penalty so we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or non effectiveness of the death penalty based on statistics. Everything you linked below agrees on this point. Your uranium dust analogy is a completely opposite situation in the only way that matters to my point of understanding causation.

If you introduce a practice in order to cut down the occurrence of a certain activity, and that activity does not go down, you can determine prima facie that the deterrent was not successful. Despite how many times our politicians use it, the argument "It would have been worse without my plan" is illogical; something is not a deterrent by definition, if the activity it attempts to deter does not happen less often after it is introduced.

If the argument "It would have been worse without my plan" is illogical then the counter argument of "Your plan did nothing" is just as illogical. Unless one has actual data to support their argument. "It would have been worse without my plan" is a valid argument if there is data to support the stance, just as "Your plan did nothing" is a valid argument if there is data that supports the stance. In our current case we have no data either way. by your own admission we cannot prove anything.

We cannot draw conclusions based purely on statistics. We must understand the underlying cause of those numbers before we can draw conclusions. I have yet to see a study that attempts to do so, if you know where one is I would love to see it. In particular can you point me to studies of areas when the death penalty has changed? These sorts of things can be very difficult to find from a reliable source, and if you already know where they are it would be a great help.

Dr. Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University: ?There is no reliable, scientifically sound evidence that [shows that executions] can exert a deterrent effect."

Read this study: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf

Otherwise, most law journals charge for reading, but this is a good quote too:

"The UCLA study conducted by Berk found that in many instances the number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable used by researchers, despite the fact that many states in most years execute no one and few states in particular years execute more than five individuals. These values represent about 1% of the available observations that could have been used by researchers to draw conclusions for earlier studies claiming to find that capital punishment is a deterrent. In Professor Berk's study, a re-analysis of the existing data shows that claims of deterrence are a statistical artifact of this anomalous 1%."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

These show conclusively that, while the argument "the death penalty raises the murder rate" is not provable, there is no way to argue effectively that killing criminals deters other criminals.

The only thing this study shows conclusively is that our current understanding of the death penalty is insufficient to draw any conclusion at all. Saying the death penalty is not a deterrent is just as wrong as saying it is a deterrent. To quote the study you linked:

"Over the past half century the U.S. has not experimented enough with capital punishment policy to permit strong conclusions."

Now, we may use the fact that there is no real evidence in any direction as a point of argument, but we can't justifiably say the death penalty is not a deterrent.

P.S. Still against the death penalty. But I am even more against irrationality dictating our stance on important issues like this.

 

[orangeban]

Whats more inhumane? Painless execution, or life in prison being a toy for someone named Bubba?

As for this topic, While this doesn't apply to everyone, does anyone ever notice the same group of people who defend abortion being fine and acceptable, slam execution as barbaric? While the same people who cry murder at abortion, defend executions? Until you people get in the line all life needs to be preserved or all life is expendable; it comes off as entirely insincere.

Pro-choice people don't think that all life is expendable, they (or, at least, I) think that a fetus' right to life is less important than the woman's right to choose. In my opinion, a criminal's right to life is more important than a fetus', because a fetus isn't a sentient creature.

Justify it all you want, it's hypocritical. A person commits a crime, the punishment is legal and in the books for years, they get that punishment. A criminal CHOOSES to commit a crime, thus CHOOSES to get the penalty if they get caught. S/he chooses their fate. Are there innocent prisoners, Yep. What about unborn children? How many future cancer curing scientists have been aborted? How many future mothers, fathers, people that advertise on this website don't get the chance to do so? They are equally wronged and are equally innocent. They too end up in a bad spot at a bad time. Im not debating the right and wrong, I am annoyed by the hypocrisy of the people debating.

Ever masturbated? Ever had sex with contraception? Do you realise that any of those sperms could of been doctors, scientists, nobel prize winners?

Or, if you're a lady, ever had a period without fertilising that egg? That egg could of been a famous politician!

The argument that every aborted fetus could have been someone amazing has never convinced me for the reason that trying to protect every sperm would be ridiculous. And in my eyes, a non-sentient fetus is pretty close to a sperm, depending on how far into pregnancy you are.

Here's my morals on the matter of the death penalty, it's two-fold.

1) The aim of the justice system should be to rehabilitate
2) It is morally wrong to kill a sentient being

A fetus is not sentient, or at least, not until late into the pregancancy, and clearly have nothing to do with the justice system, so I'm not being hypocritical in my morals.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

I am against it, not for anything to do with potential innocents being condemned, but I don't think it is effective (we can find correlative statistics in favor of both outcomes, nothing definitive imho).

I am pretty firmly of the belief that if someone can commit an act heinous enough to "deserve" the death penalty, they are severely ill. I would go so far as to say most criminals either do not believe in the law they are breaking or are ill (or both). It should be the criminal justice system's responsibility to teach them why said law is important (and consistently analyze laws that may become obsolete with evolving mores). Punitive justice does nothing because in the end, most people with the mentality to commit acts in the extreme will default to thinking they will avoid punishment or that it is still worth committing despite their eventual demise; because, their perspective is fundamentally flawed.

 

[axlryder]

As others have mentioned, in its current form the death penalty is an expensive and inefficient process. Ultimately it costs more money and there is the risk of error. I don't even have to consider the moral quandary for me to say it really doesn't do anybody any good.

 

[kgpspyguy]

I just love how all of you people have no problem with killing unborn baby's but you think its cruel and sick to kill a pedophile child murderer.

 

[thelonewolf266]

I don't understand why lots of people hate the Death Penalty but support Civilian and Police gun ownership by saying its for self defence its essentially giving them the right and the ability to carry out an instant death penalty without the trail and appeal system that the actual death penalty has.Also I apologise for bringing up gun control I'm not looking to start a flame war I just believe its a valid point.

 

[Kriptonite]

I've seen a lot of people on this site saying that they wish certain people to die, and wondered if the same people believe that death penalty is something that's justifiable
And if you believe that death penalty is a justifiable punishment for some crimes, which are these crimes exactly?

So basically: Do you think death penalty is a justifiable punishment?

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, as few others have done, on the front page at least, I support the death penalty in certain cases. I wholeheartedly believe that rapists and child-molesters (and anything similar) should not be allowed to live. At all. One cannot accidentally rape or molest another human being. Period.
-----I noticed people were referencing and agreeing with what Jeremy Irons said in the video Daystar Clarion posted. I watched his video and he raises some good points, for example, statistically, the death penalty does not reduce or deter crime. However, he also says that "The death penalty targets the economically disadvantaged." If the death penalty were only in place for rape-related/sexual-assault cases, this would not be an issue. No one needs to rape others to survive, so wealth and income have nothing to do with that. He later states that humans all have at the core, two basic unalienable rights. The right to live and that no one shall be subject to torture. Well, in my opinion, rape can virtually destroy someone's life, but in all fairness, that's a subjective opinion. An objective statement though, would be that rape is torture. A rapist would be violating our two fundamental, unalienable, rights. I agree with Irons in that the horror of the wait on death-row could be unimaginable, but if there was no more rape/sexual-assault, the wait would also not exist.
-----On a personal level, I would like to disagree with his statement that no matter how much we revile someone for their actions, they are still a human being. I believe that humanity comes with being human and when one loses that humanity (by raping someone else for example), they forfeit their right to life (no one should be tortured though, I certainly agree with that, torture accomplishes nothing).
-----As said before, statistically, the death penalty does not reduce or deter crime, but do you know what it does do? It eliminates those that would happily violate those two rights. It reduces the chances of that person reproducing in the future to a beautiful 00.00%. By removing those that would happily violate our two basic rights, we make human beings better. Again, a subjective opinion, but it's how I feel so it goes in my post.

I think the death penalty is acceptable in only a few very specific circumstances.

1. Evidence means that its impossible for the criminal to be innocent. Under any circumstance. Hundreds of witnesses, CCTV or a proud criminal boasting of his crimes and showing his own evidence to damn himself.

2. 100% unrepentant of their crime, proud, revelled in it.

3. The crime has no rational motive of any description other than sadism or needless cruelty. Cold blooded murder doesnt come under this as one can murder an abuser or rapist for revenge, a poor motive but one thats understandable. A human feeling. Even if it is a poor one. If no motive is present. If crimes were commited only to make others suffer extreme agony or pain or to ruin peoples lives for the sheer sick pleasure of it. That counts. An act of anger on a cheating spouses partner also has a human motive.

Then. And only then. Do i think we can execute these... things. Because anyone who commits an act of murder or torture that fulfills these three roles cannot be called human and i think loses their right to live in society. Theres a point i feel of no return where you become something less than human and fall to utter depravity. These things should not be allowed to exist or drain resources.

Well sir, I'd like to say that I believe that you've summed up my entire argument much more understandably and concisely than I've been able to. So, I agree with ^ that fellow there.




Here is the Jeremy Irons video in case you have not watched it or would like to see what I've been referencing.

 

[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.

 

[Aprilgold]

I don't think it's worth it because it would be horrible if an innocent person was put to death.

Killing the guilty person doesn't solve anything either and the person could end up being revered as a martyr in some cases.

I think that happened last year, despite the rage over twitter and facebook, from all across the globe, the guys went ahead and gave him the chair. Countless times it was said and even pointed out to the people who were going to kill him that it wasn't the right man.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless its for someone like Hitler who deserves a special type of hell, then no, there should not be a death penalty for everything. There should be rehabilitation where there is death in our system right now.

 

[Kriptonite]

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.

 

[gideonkain]

I believe in the death penalty. It can cost as much to keep a single prisoner in a cell for a year than the annual income of a whole family.
http://www.creditloan.com/infographics/how-much-does-it-cost-to-keep-a-criminal/

"which are these crimes exactly?"
I would never draw an arbitrary line and say all crimes more serious than *this* need capital punishment.

Each crime and person is rife with circumstances and nuances that require clear headed, well informed people to weigh and act according to their beliefs, the statutes of the state/regon they live and the details of the case.

Broadly speaking, Killing somebody and being gaurenteed unlimited room & board for life doesn't sound very sensible.