Thread: what do you think about the death penalty?

Originally Posted by Marvo

I am dead serious. A 5 year old thinks far enough to ask a question like that. And there's no legitimate answer.

Equating an execution with a murder is as asinine as equating murder with manslaughter.

Similarly, no rational person would advocate jailing jailers, but would advocate locking up a kidnapper.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Equating an execution with a murder is as asinine as equating murder with manslaughter.

Not if intetional murder is universally wrong.

Which it is, unless it's self defense.

Not if intetional murder is universally wrong.

An execution is not the same as murder (though someone could be murdered by an execution).

Killing in self-defense is also not murder. A soldier killing an enemy combatant in a legal war is not a murderer. Someone who accidentally hits someone with their car and kills them is not a murderer.

Just because the end result is the same (someone kills someone else), the morality and background can be completely different, as evidenced in my "you don't want to jail the jailers" comment, which you ignored. If convicting someone of a serious offense and executing them is murder, then jailing people is equally as bad a crime as kidnapping, or holding someone hostage.

You can't have it both ways; you have to recognise that convicting and sentencing someone through the process of law can be completely different. And you then have to justify the statement "executing someone is murdering them", instead of just claiming it on no basis as you've done so far.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

An execution is not the same as murder (though someone could be murdered by an execution).

Killing in self-defense is also not murder. A soldier killing an enemy combatant in a legal war is not a murderer. Someone who accidentally hits someone with their car and kills them is not a murderer.

Just because the end result is the same (someone kills someone else), the morality and background can be completely different, as evidenced in my "you don't want to jail the jailers" comment, which you ignored. If convicting someone of a serious offense and executing them is murder, then jailing people is equally as bad a crime as kidnapping, or holding someone hostage.

You can't have it both ways; you have to recognise that convicting and sentencing someone through the process of law can be completely different. And you then have to justify the statement "executing someone is murdering them", instead of just claiming it on no basis as you've done so far.

Killing a man through law is pointless. It serves no purpose, except for some kind of sick revenge. Law driven by revenge has no place in modern society in my opinion.

I still consider an execution murder. A person kills another person for no good reason.

Originally Posted by Marvo

A person kills another person for no good reason.

Oh, there's plenty of really great reasons for killing someone.

^ I can't think of any. ._.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

^ I can't think of any. ._.

What if someone kidnapped, raped, and murdered your child? You would probably want to kill them, and you would probably be justified in doing it.

Honestly, I'd want them imprisoned and rehabilitated. Killing them wouldn't bring my child back. Even if I did do something in a fit of rage, I'd feel like a sack of shit for doing it as soon as I settled down. =/

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Honestly, I'd want them imprisoned and rehabilitated. Killing them wouldn't bring my child back. Even if I did do something in a fit of rage, I'd feel like a sack of shit for doing it as soon as I settled down. =/

Fair enough. I think I'm just a less forgiving person than you.

Not to worry Scherron, we'll have you fixed up in no time. =D
-----
I'd rather we focused on rehabilitating inmates and integrating them back into society once it's safe to do so rather than going ahead with the death penalty. And like it was mentioned earlier, it's just too risky in the event of a miscarriage of justice and the wrong person being put to death. My Law teacher also told us that historically, in nations where the death penalty is enforced, these states have used it to their advantage to put people to death when they shouldn't have. No state should have the power to legally get away with the murder of it's own citizens.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

What if someone kidnapped, raped, and murdered your child? You would probably want to kill them, and you would probably be justified in doing it.

Even if it's perfectly understandable that you as an individual would want that, doesn't mean that it's all right for a government to sanction it.

Honestly, I'd want them imprisoned and rehabilitated.

Some are beyond rehabilitation.

For it, as long as what they did was really horrible, and there is no doubt that they did it, and they are mentally competent. No executing retarded people, Texas.

Yet another generally liberal, educated, and pacifistic DV member from the US in favour of revenge killing. This is really interesting.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yet another generally liberal, educated, and pacifistic DV member from the US in favour of revenge killing. This is really interesting.

Punishment has 2 main purposes:

1: To revenge

2: When people know that there's a high chance of punishment after doing something "wrong", they're (supposed to be ) less likely to do that thing "wrong"


The way I see it, both prison sentence and death penalty are a mix of both. It's not purely revenge. It's not purely a control system. It's both.


I fully also support death sentence if the prisoner chooses that instead of a life in jail.

When people are in a state of circumstances or a state of mind that permits murder they are clearly not in the business of weighing up the consequences of their actions.

I'm not really going to argue this point because here comes our good old friend empiricism!

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

There is no evidence at all that capital punishment deters homicide.

Hence the reason is purely revenge and, as I've detailed before, the state should never engage itself in something so emotional and unthinking.

I'm ambivalent about people opting in for the death penalty. I suppose that falls under personal autonomy.

By the way, I'm not remotely religious, but I heard somewhere on the internets that the U.S. really is. And... I'm pretty sure there aren't any caveats in the Ten Commandments. Just an interesting thought.

I've never been religous at all, and i live in finland.

Your point with this all is? My point here is: Why waste money on life sentence in prison? Waste of resources, and the prisoner is never going to benefit the society in any way whatsoever anyhow (he/she is in prison, after all, and trapped there) How is this an emotional impulse? It's really none at all. I'm fine both ways, but I don't think the death sentence is bad in the way most people make it out to be.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

Fair enough. I think I'm just a less forgiving person than you.

But aren't you Christian?

0___________________0

Originally Posted by JussiKala

Your point with this all is?

Erm what? My points were refuting yours... that was the point.

My point here is: Why waste money on life sentence in prison?

That wasn't your point, your point was that capital punishment is as a deterrent, as well as for revenge. This is a new point. Come on, if your arguments are shown to have an incorrect basis then accept it and modify your position if necessary, don't maintain exactly the same position with some totally different reason as if nothing happened; that should be raising some self-critical flags.

Waste of resources, and the prisoner is never going to benefit the society in any way whatsoever anyhow (he/she is in prison, after all, and trapped there) How is this an emotional impulse? It's really none at all.

The measure of human worth is only one's value to society? This is seriously the argument..? Humans aren't intrinsically valuable?

And I've already addressed this 'it costs money therefore don't do it' argument;

"Since when is the function of society to 'reduce risk in a resourceful manner'? That argument by itself is nonsense; how about we ban all cars? Yes society should reduce hazards to citizens, but you're supposed to take into consideration what is a reasonable and moral approach, not what costs less."

Do we pull the plug on recoverable coma patients because they aren't providing any benefit to society in the long term, and they're very expensive? Of course not. We consider our morals way before we consider how efficiently implement them. So the argument makes no sense. The only 'emotion' a state should relay is compassion, or at least tolerance, for every citizen. Revenge killing is not permitted because that is a non-compassionate emotion; a violent emotion. But if we kill criminals out of consideration for resources, i.e. a totally unemotional response, then that is not permitted either because the state is supposed to show compassion/tolerance to the criminal. In both of the aforementioned circumstances it is very easy indeed to envisage other circumstances in general where the touted principle is unequivocally a bad one.

Originally Posted by Xei

The measure of human worth is only one's value to society? This is seriously the argument..? Humans aren't intrinsically valuable?

No, yet what kind of value do these people have if they are for life in jail? It does not have to be valuable for the society. What value do these people have, if we disregard the usual "every human is equal and very important" notion? I personally don't believe that every human should be considered equal or worthy of something merely because they exist. (does not apply to everything)

Originally Posted by Xei

And I've already addressed this 'it costs money therefore don't do it' argument;

"Since when is the function of society to 'reduce risk in a resourceful manner'? That argument by itself is nonsense; how about we ban all cars? Yes society should reduce hazards to citizens, but you're supposed to take into consideration what is a reasonable and moral approach, not what costs less."

Because cars benefit people and prisoners do not benefit anyone, aside from maybe small talk buddies with other prisoners, therefore this metaphor is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Xei

Do we pull the plug on recoverable coma patients because they aren't providing any benefit to society in the long term, and they're very expensive? Of course not. So the argument makes no sense.

Life sentence in prison and recoverable coma are not comparable like that. Life sentence and UNrecoverable coma are the same thing in my eyes. The person will never get out of it.



The appeal to morality is kind of odd, since morality is subjective, and people can consider life in prison worse than death sentence too.

I dont believe in the death penalty. I think we should lock up the murdurers in small cramped dark cells and treat them like animals. Murderers are animals that don't deserve the peace of death. They deserve to rot in a small cell and given only enough food and water to survive. We should encase them into devices that only allow them to move thire heads and leave them in the cramped cell for 18 hours a day every day until they die. Of course there is this voice in my head telling me it dissagrees but this is still how I feel wrong or not.
So no death penalty.

Originally Posted by Osmodin

I dont believe in the death penalty. I think we should lock up the murdurers in small cramped dark cells and treat them like animals. Murderers are animals that don't deserve the peace of death. They deserve to rot in a small cell and given only enough food and water to survive. We should encase them into devices that only allow them to move thire heads and leave them in the cramped cell for 18 hours a day every day until they die. Of course there is this voice in my head telling me it dissagrees but this is still how I feel wrong or not.
So no death penalty.

we are all animals

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Some are beyond rehabilitation.

Then keep them behind bars and put their to work so their time in prison is being put to good use. eg. Working the cafeteria, washing clothes, etc.

Originally Posted by JussiKala

Because cars benefit people and prisoners do not benefit anyone

If all you do is keep them locked in a cell, then they don't benefit anyone. Put them to work around the prison and they'll be benefiting all the other inmates as well as the prison staff.

Originally Posted by Osmodin

I dont believe in the death penalty. I think we should lock up the murdurers in small cramped dark cells and treat them like animals. Murderers are animals that don't deserve the peace of death. They deserve to rot in a small cell and given only enough food and water to survive. We should encase them into devices that only allow them to move thire heads and leave them in the cramped cell for 18 hours a day every day until they die. Of course there is this voice in my head telling me it dissagrees but this is still how I feel wrong or not.
So no death penalty.

I pity you.

Originally Posted by Osmodin

I dont believe in the death penalty. I think we should lock up the murdurers in small cramped dark cells and treat them like animals. Murderers are animals that don't deserve the peace of death. They deserve to rot in a small cell and given only enough food and water to survive. We should encase them into devices that only allow them to move thire heads and leave them in the cramped cell for 18 hours a day every day until they die. Of course there is this voice in my head telling me it dissagrees but this is still how I feel wrong or not.
So no death penalty.

Someone has watched one too many SAW movies.