Thread: What is the purpose of Capital Punishment?

Originally Posted by wasup

Bravo, Kromoh.

You say you are against capital punishment but you just completely defended it.

Maybe death penalty is a nightmare, and can install fear in to-be murderers and all. But I believe that everyone has the right to life. If I were arrested, I'd spend my time reading and doing all the boring but cultural stuff, to leave prison renewed in a way. But that is just me.

Not to mention the pain for the criminal's family, to have him/her killed. Capital punishment is simply not human. Aren't we supposed to be smarter than monkeys? I have my doubts.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't accept the argument that because an act is impulsive the actor has zero sense of the consequences.

You don't have to accept it because I’m not making that argument.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I feel like hitting people sometimes, but I know that it would get me in legal trouble and ruin my professional reputation, so I don't do it. That does not mean I go into a detailed analysis of the consequences at that moment. I just have a sense of the consequences.

Bingo. That last part is my point. I’m not saying that people have zero understanding of the consequences when they kill someone in the heat of the moment, but they sure as hell aren't going into a detailed analysis of the consequences...like, i dunno, deciding whether or not to kill this person based solely on if the state they are in has/doesn't have the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A potential murderer has the same sense. That sense is not always enough, but it is there. How many of them do you think would stop themselves if they suddenly had a gun pulled on them?That would show that the fear of death does have an impact, and it would cause a greater impact than just saying, "Hey buddy, you'll go to prison."

Too bad comparing death row with a gun in the face is a poor comparison. But perhaps we can demonstrate the same point with a different, more accurate comparison. How many people do you think would stop from killing someone if, in the heat of the moment, the other person were to say "hey buddy, did you know that the death penalty isn't abolished in this state?"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A lot of the people who are not scared enough of prison to refrain from impulsively killing would hold back if they were certain that they would be put to death in a short time.

So you too are attempting to justify the death penalty based off of some idealized/hypothetical/fictional version of what the death penalty could be? Can't you see what’s wrong with that?? You are basing your stance off of something that just isn't real! "As I said before, and will continue to say as necessary, if you have to change the reality of the punishment in order to justify it, then there is something seriously wrong with your logic."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But we can't measure that with what we have right now because the death penalty is very rare and takes twenty years to come around once a person is sentenced to death.

Yeah, and that happens to be the very death penalty you are advocating, by the way. You can't just advocate something based on untrue premises simply because the reality of the situation is far more flawed than what it needs to be for your argument to hold water. We are talking about the real death penalty, the one which is being used to this day, the imperfect one. Considering the death penalty, and all of its real imperfections, what purpose does it satisfy that life in prison without parole doesn’t? Because, realistically speaking, it doesn’t deter murders any better.

Arguments like this just won't let me walk away. There's something about my making so much sense that spurs me onward.

Originally Posted by ethen

That’s evidence that the death penalty, as it is, isn't more of an effective deterrent than life in prison with parole.

You know, it's funny how - to prove your point - you are allowed to change the way things are done but you deny me the same privilege. You talk about how the current system "doesn't work" and propose a change. Well, I propose a change too. The difference is that my change means actually enforcing the death penalty that we already have. Yours involves playing footsies with murders. The fallacy of your argument is astonishing, to be frank.

You keep basing your argument on some idealistic notion of what the death penalty should be, and not what it actually is.

I base my position on the way the law is supposed to be handled, not how do-gooders try to interpret the law. The death penalty should be... wait for it... THE DEATH PENALTY! Imagine that, using to death penalty to put those who deserve it to death! Wow, the novelty of it is brilliant. Now, can we finally enforce our own damn laws for once? Thank you in advance.

As I said before, and will continue to say as necessary, if you have to change the reality of the situation in order to justify the death penalty, then there is something seriously wrong with your logic. And that’s exactly what you are doing.

And as I've said before, you can't use the current state of non-enforcement to back your claim that enforcement doesn't work. Something can't work if it's not enforced. All your claims "prove" (if you could even call it that) is that NON-enforcement doesn't work.

If you get an infection in your leg, do you A) get medical treatment, or B) remove the leg? I think it's safe to say that "enforcement" (actually doing something about it, in this case seeking medical help) is the superior option to "removing the leg" (discontinuing or ignoring enforcement issues). I could sit here for days coming up with examples of how actual enforcement trumps passivity every time.

There are several mistakes in this statement. First, you are falsely equivocating crimes in general with murder.

No. You are falsely pretending that murder is somehow a minor offense, worthy only of living an uncomfortable life.

Secondly, you are falsely equivocating murder in general with premeditated murder.

Actually, no I'm not.

The reason they call this type of murder “a crime of passion” is because such people aren't thinking straight, meaning that they probably aren't weighing the pro's and con's of life in prison vs. the death penalty in their fit of uncontrollable rage.

I'm tired of people making artificial degrees of right and wrong. Some things - like murder - are wrong. No matter how thickly you sugar the sh!t, it's still sh!t. And I'm also tired of the liberal mentality that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. Intentional murder is murder. Any shades of gray you concoct to justify your disapproval of capital punishment are contrived at best.

Just because some one was dumb enough to perform an action without thinking it through does NOT absolve them from the consequences of said actions. And if you say it does then you are wrong.

This doesn't make sense. If people are thinking they will not get caught, what's it matter to them what the punishment is going to be? They believe they aren't going to get caught regardless. If what you just said is true, there is no ratio being considered. But if people actually do weight the odds/penalty ratio, that’s only in cases of premeditated murder, for obvious reasons.

See: my previous statement.

See also: Universal Mind's previous statement.

"The Devil made me do it" is not a valid excuse.

This is only relevant for people who actually think before they kill someone, not for those who kill someone in the heat of the moment.

"The Devil made me do it". Sorry, not valid.

Two things wrong with this, 1.) You are using the deterrence of an idealized/hypothetical/fictional example of death penalty to justify the actual death penalty,

No, I'm saying to KEEP the death penalty. And not only that but, actually enforce the death penalty.

You - on the other hand - are saying: "Not enforcing the death penalty doesn't work so let's enforce it even less." That's the very definition of fallacy of logic.

and 2.) The only type of murder a more utilized death penalty would deter is premeditated murder anyway. Crimes of passion are not thought out before hand, meaning the consequences of such actions do not play a role in committing the act, no matter how sever.

I'll refrain from providing yet another compelling analogy because they are obviously too complicated for you to grasp.

Instead, I'll invite you re-read Universal Mind's last statements. And, seriously, if you honestly believe that every action you take is thought out in minute detail beforehand then you have deep misconceptions about even your own most basic actions. The weight of consequences are ingrained in all of our minds (notice I said "weight". That implies that enforcement must be a factor). We don't have to sit down and go over a thousand-point checklist to understand what can happen as result. For you to keep pretending that to be the case is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ethen

...deciding whether or not to kill this person based solely on if the state they are in has/doesn't have the death penalty.

If you KNEW that being caught meant you WOULD die then you can bet your ass it would make a huge impact.

Too bad comparing death row with a gun in the face is a poor comparison.

Actually, it was a brilliant comparison because that's what actually enforcing the death penalty would be like.

But perhaps we can demonstrate the same point with a different, more accurate comparison. How many people do you think would stop from killing someone if, in the heat of the moment, the other person were to say "hey buddy, did you know that the death penalty isn't abolished in this state?"

Again, you're trying to incorrectly use the condition of NON-enforcement to prove that enforcement wouldn't work.

So you too are attempting to justify the death penalty based off of some idealized/hypothetical/fictional version of what the death penalty could be?

No, like me, he is using actually enforcing the law to be the answer.

Can't you see what’s wrong with that?? You are basing your stance off of something that just isn't real!

And the same is being asked of you...

"As I said before, and will continue to say as necessary, if you have to change the reality of the punishment in order to justify it, then there is something seriously wrong with your logic."

If actually enforcing the law is your definition of "changing it" then yes. You - on the other hand - are also proposing "changing the reality of the punishment". Only, in your approach, you want to eliminate the punishment.

Let me ask you: Since when does removing the punishment for being bad encourage one to be good?

Yeah, and that happens to be the very death penalty you are advocating, by the way.

Will you please quit talking about the death penalty as if there actually was a death penalty? Please? When Mommy threatens you with an ass whipping every day for years you start to learn that there is no ass-whipping, only words that talk about it.

You can't just advocate something based on untrue premises simply because the reality of the situation is far more flawed than what it needs to be for your argument to hold water.

Yet, that's exactly what you continue to do.

We are talking about the real death penalty,

YES!!! The REAL death penalty. You know, one that would actually exist if only it were enforced.

the one which is being used to this day, the imperfect one.

Oh, you mean the one that actually doesn't exist because it's virtually NEVER enforced? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Considering the death penalty, and all of its real imperfections,

There's only one real imperfection worthy of concern. That imperfection is it's virtual non-existence.

Because, realistically speaking, it doesn’t deter murders any better.

There must be something TO deter for a deterrence to be in place. I have an idea for a great deterrence: The Death Penalty!

Ahh, the sweet, sweet taste of justice. Gotta' love it! It's finger-licking good!

I know this is my thread and all, but you’re just wasting my time now. I know what I am saying makes sense, as does your hypothetical banter, but you are too stubborn to admit that, as it is now, the real death penalty is very different than the one you use to support your argument. And since its clear to me that you probably aren’t going to stop using that idealized version of the death penalty to justify the not so ideal version, otherwise known as the actual version, then I see no point in continuing this exhaustive process. But, since this is will be news to you after you had already wrote out some long-winded response, Ill respond to this nonsense one last time. It’s only fair.

And let it be know that the rebuttal you have no choice but to post in response to this will be in vain. I’ll make sure of that

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

You know, it's funny how - to prove your point - you are allowed to change the way things are done but you deny me the same privilege. You talk about how the current system "doesn't work" and propose a change. Well, I propose a change too. The difference is that my change means actually enforcing the death penalty that we already have. Yours involves playing footsies with murders. The fallacy of your argument is astonishing, to be frank.

And what exactly have I changed in order to make my point? I haven’t changed anything about how life imprisonment is currently handled, I haven’t change the statistics that show the death penalty isn’t a better deterrent, and I haven’t changed the legal definitions that I have used to support my arguments. All I have done is point out the problems with the death penalty, which requires nothing but noting the facts. You, on the other hand, have resorted to changing many aspect of the death penalty itself in order for it to make any sense. The only problem is that it doesn’t make sense now, regardless if it could be more effective than it currently is. In short, my argument doesn’t have to assume anything that isn’t already the case, your does…and it does to a significant degree.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I base my position on the way the law is supposed to be handled

And yet not the way that it is handled, which happens to be what we are talking about here. Its supposed to be about the death penalty vs. life in prison without parole, as they are right now, imperfections and all. The problem is that you refuse to accept these terms, probably because your stance doesn’t make a lick of sense unless you assume things about it that aren’t actually true, despite if they could be.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

And as I've said before, you can't use the current state of non-enforcement to back your claim that enforcement doesn't work. Something can't work if it's not enforced. All your claims "prove" (if you could even call it that) is that NON-enforcement doesn't work.

The death penalty is being enforced, just not the way you think it ought to be. Nevertheless, the way it is enforced is not something you can dismiss just because it’s devastating to your case. It takes a long, its expensive, its rare…that’s just how it is, and that is what we are talking about. The reality of the situation, that which is real right now.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

No. You are falsely pretending that murder is somehow a minor offense, worthy only of living an uncomfortable life.

Not a minor offense at all, just one that can be as effectively dealt with in ways other than the death penalty, with the possible exception of premeditated murder.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Actually, no I'm not.

Indeed you are, because you seem to ignore the key differences between an act of murder that has been thought out before hand, and an act of murder that just happens in the heat of the moment. It’s ridiculous to think that the difference between the death penalty and life in prison would be the deciding factor for person who is about to kill someone in a state of mental/emotional instability. And the same could probably be said for the majority of premeditated murders, too. Yes, I understand that if the death penalty were different, then perhaps people would react differently. But that isn’t the reality of the situation, nor is assuming those hypotheticals the point of the discussion. We are talking about reality, not fantasy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I'm tired of people making artificial degrees of right and wrong. Some things - like murder - are wrong. No matter how thickly you sugar the sh!t, it's still sh!t. And I'm also tired of the liberal mentality that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. Intentional murder is murder. Any shades of gray you concoct to justify your disapproval of capital punishment are contrived at best.

The only reason you would feel this way about what I have said, is if you refuse to consider that perhaps death isn’t the only thing that can properly punish murderers. Since you refuse to entertain the idea, its not suprise that you cannot see the reasoning behind my argument. To you murderers indisputably deserve death, and there is nothing that can be said to change that. So I’m not even going to bother trying.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Just because some one was dumb enough to perform an action without thinking it through does NOT absolve them from the consequences of said actions. And if you say it does then you are wrong.

I’m not saying that all. I am saying that those who are dumb enough to kill someone without thinking about it, are the one who don’t even take into account the consequences of their crimes before doing it, in which case the deterrence doesn’t play a role in them committing the crime, regardless if that deterrence is life in prison or the death penalty. That factor doesn’t even enter your mind when you are kill someone in a crime of passion. At best, you have a general sense that what you are doing is seriously wrong. I’ll give you that. But, I think its clear that in such cases, people aren’t collected enough to weight the differences between the two possible consequences, much less use those difference as the deciding factor for it they will or will not kill the person.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

"The Devil made me do it" is not a valid excuse.

No its not, and never did I say or imply that it was. I simply said that those who kill on an impulse aren’t cognizant enough to be deterred by the more sever punishment of death, as compared to life in prison. Again, I doubt the difference between the two is the deciding factor in murders of passion, and possibly in premeditated murders too.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

No, I'm saying to KEEP the death penalty. And not only that but, actually enforce the death penalty.

We do enforce it, just not your wanton standards. What you mean to say is that they should enforce it the way you feel they ought to. But they don’t, so that’s neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

You - on the other hand - are saying: "Not enforcing the death penalty doesn't work so let's enforce it even less." That's the very definition of fallacy of logic.

See above, note your fallacy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Instead, I'll invite you re-read Universal Mind's last statements. And, seriously, if you honestly believe that every action you take is thought out in minute detail beforehand then you have deep misconceptions about even your own most basic actions.

Not all actions, and not even all crimes. But all murders that are crimes of passion, yes (by definition).

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

The weight of consequences are ingrained in all of our minds (notice I said "weight". That implies that enforcement must be a factor). We don't have to sit down and go over a thousand-point checklist to understand what can happen as result. For you to keep pretending that to be the case is ridiculous.

All I have said is that, in murders of passion, people don’t tend to really think about what they are doing when they are doing it. That’s it. The rest is you putting words into my mouth and invalid arguments into my stance.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

If you KNEW that being caught meant you WOULD die then you can bet your ass it would make a huge impact.

Yeah, if you were collected enough to realize the consequences of your actions, but not so much if you are temporarily “out of it”.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Actually, it was a brilliant comparison because that's what actually enforcing the death penalty would be like.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Again, you're trying to incorrectly use the condition of NON-enforcement to prove that enforcement wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

No, like me, he is using actually enforcing the law to be the answer.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

If actually enforcing the law is your definition of "changing it" then yes. You - on the other hand - are also proposing "changing the reality of the punishment". Only, in your approach, you want to eliminate the punishment.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Will you please quit talking about the death penalty as if there actually was a death penalty? Please? When Mommy threatens you with an ass whipping every day for years you start to learn that there is no ass-whipping, only words that talk about it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

YES!!! The REAL death penalty. You know, one that would actually exist if only it were enforced.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Oh, you mean the one that actually doesn't exist because it's virtually NEVER enforced? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

There's only one real imperfection worthy of concern. That imperfection is it's virtual non-existence.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

There's only one real imperfection worthy of concern. That imperfection is it's virtual non-existence.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

There must be something TO deter for a deterrence to be in place. I have an idea for a great deterrence: The Death Penalty!

Ahh, the sweet, sweet taste of justice. Gotta' love it! It's finger-licking good!

Since it’s obvious that the death penalty is being enforced in this country, even though not to your demands, these arguments aren’t valid. You assume that, simply because people aren’t executed as quickly or easily as you think they should be, that the death penalty isn’t being enforced. Do I really have to tell you what wrong with that?

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

And the same is being asked of you...

And yet, nothing about my argument is based on anything BUT that which is actually real, unlike using some pretend version of the death penalty to justify the real version, which make much less sense than the make-believe version.
.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Let me ask you: Since when does removing the punishment for being bad encourage one to be good?

I never said removing the death penalty would make people act better, just that having it doesn’t make people better either. And not matter how much you try to beat around the bush with fabricated hypotheticals, this is the reality of the situation. Its not more of a deterrent, and that is based on real facts, not hypothetical ones.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Yet, that's exactly what you continue to do.

Too bad that clever switch-a-roo makes no sense whatsoever when its applied to my argument

Oh boy, reciprication (even when "in vain", as you put it) is fun.

Originally Posted by ethen

I know what I am saying makes sense, as does your hypothetical banter, but you are too stubborn to admit that, as it is now, the real death penalty is very different than the one you use to support your argument.

You say I support a hypothetical, huh? What are you supporting? A hypothetical. I say the law should be properly enforced - you say the law shouldn't even be as enforced as it is. How is my stance any more "hypothetical" than yours?

And since its clear to me that you probably aren’t going to stop using that idealized version of the death penalty to justify the not so ideal version, otherwise known as the actual version...

Actually, that's what you're doing. What I'm talking about is already what's being done. Only it's being done in a very half-assed manner. And, as such, it's not being done effectively.

And what exactly have I changed in order to make my point?

I'm not saying you changed what you said. I said that you are talking about change. E.g., you want to change the way the death penalty is being handled. You want to make it so it's not used at all. I want to make it so that it's used PROPERLY.

And yet not the way that it is handled, which happens to be what we are talking about here. Its supposed to be about the death penalty vs. life in prison without parole, as they are right now, imperfections and all. The problem is that you refuse to accept these terms, probably because your stance doesn’t make a lick of sense unless you assume things about it that aren’t actually true, despite if they could be.

No, I'm just sick of the BS. How am I supposed to talk about it if you won't accept my talking about it.

Even you think it's not working the way it is now. Right? Yes, obviously. That's why you keep going on about how wrong it is and that you want it done away with. So you get to talk about "idealations" but refuse to let me do the same.

You know why? Because you know I'm right. And you know that if both my and your arguments are laid out side by side and drawn to their logical conclusions, yours falls flat in rather short order.

The death penalty is being enforced, just not the way you think it ought to be. Nevertheless, the way it is enforced is not something you can dismiss just because it’s devastating to your case.

No, it actually supports my case. Unlike what it does to your case.

Indeed you are, because you seem to ignore the key differences between an act of murder that has been thought out before hand, and an act of murder that just happens in the heat of the moment. It’s ridiculous to think that the difference between the death penalty and life in prison would be the deciding factor for person who is about to kill someone in a state of mental/emotional instability. And the same could probably be said for the majority of premeditated murders, too. Yes, I understand that if the death penalty were different, then perhaps people would react differently. But that isn’t the reality of the situation, nor is assuming those hypotheticals the point of the discussion.

You continue to make excuses for those who do wrong.

We are talking about reality, not fantasy.

YES!!! So will you please stick to reality with the rest of us?

The only reason you would feel this way about what I have said, is if you refuse to consider that perhaps death isn’t the only thing that can properly punish murderers. Since you refuse to entertain the idea, its not suprise that you cannot see the reasoning behind my argument.

No, but it's damn sure the most effective. I like it when things are effective. Kind of warms the cockles of my heart.

To you murderers indisputably deserve death, and there is nothing that can be said to change that.

Yes, this is true. I believe that people who intentionally and maliciously take someone else's life deserve to be treated in kind. Yes, that's what I believe.

I’m not saying that all. I am saying that those who are dumb enough to kill someone without thinking about it, are the one who don’t even take into account the consequences of their crimes before doing it, in which case the deterrence doesn’t play a role in them committing the crime, regardless if that deterrence is life in prison or the death penalty. That factor doesn’t even enter your mind when you are kill someone in a crime of passion. At best, you have a general sense that what you are doing is seriously wrong. I’ll give you that. But, I think its clear that in such cases, people aren’t collected enough to weight the differences between the two possible consequences, much less use those difference as the deciding factor for it they will or will not kill the person.

Stop making excuses for the murderers. "The Devil made me do it" IS NOT a valid excuse.

We do enforce it, just not your wanton standards. What you mean to say is that they should enforce it the way you feel they ought to. But they don’t, so that’s neither here nor there.

What percentage of people on death row ever reach their final destination? VERY FEW. How many people have committed crimes that are "punishable by death"? A HELL of a lot more than who ever make the waiting list. And remember what I just told you about that waiting list.

See above, note your fallacy.

You mean where I clearly pointed out your fallacy? You know, the one where you somehow make the illogical leap to conclude that to make a law that's not being enforced work properly you must enforce it even less? I'd say that's quite the retarded logic on your part. Pretzels come to mind.

All I have said is that, in murders of passion, people don’t tend to really think about what they are doing when they are doing it. That’s it. The rest is you putting words into my mouth and invalid arguments into my stance.

Stop making excuses for murderers.

And dammit, stop trying to justify their actions. Quit trying to sugar coat shit.

Yeah, if you were collected enough to realize the consequences of your actions, but not so much if you are temporarily “out of it”.

STOP trying to excuse the actions of murderers.

And yet, nothing about my argument is based on anything BUT that which is actually real,

Incorrect. Everything you're saying is based on your fantasy of abolition of the death penalty.

I never said removing the death penalty would make people act better

But you damn sure think it's the solution.

...just that having it doesn’t make people better either.

But enforcement does have a funny way of making people take you more seriously.

And not matter how much you try to beat around the bush with fabricated hypotheticals, this is the reality of the situation.

Beat around the bush? I know you aren't talking about me.

Too bad that clever switch-a-roo makes no sense whatsoever when its applied to my argument

The only thing clever about all of this is how I manage to make sense and logically counter every weak point you spew forth. Your argument, however, is as shallow and flimsy as it was when you began.

It's been a pleasure teaching you today. Join me tomorrow for your next lesson.

Originally Posted by ethen

You don't have to accept it because I’m not making that argument.

You are saying the potential murderer has zero sense of a detailed analysis of the consequences? Or are you saying that he has a partial sense of it? Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by ethen

Bingo. That last part is my point. I’m not saying that people have zero understanding of the consequences when they kill someone in the heat of the moment, but they sure as hell aren't going into a detailed analysis of the consequences...like, i dunno, deciding whether or not to kill this person based solely on if the state they are in has/doesn't have the death penalty.

If they have a sense that they could die for committing the act, they have a sense that they would be better off not committing the act. Get it? The greater the sense of consequences, the greater the deterrent effect. Like I said, if somebody pulled a gun on them, it would have an effect. The threat of death has an effect. And let's not forget that first degree murderers are part of the issue also.

Originally Posted by ethen

Too bad comparing death row with a gun in the face is a poor comparison. But perhaps we can demonstrate the same point with a different, more accurate comparison. How many people do you think would stop from killing someone if, in the heat of the moment, the other person were to say "hey buddy, did you know that the death penalty isn't abolished in this state?"

Too bad you didn't explain why the gun scenario is irrelevant. The threat of death has an effect. If the death penalty is used consistently and quickly, a death penalty reminder would mean something to most people. But saying, "Hey buddy, you might be one of the very rare cases of murderers who are put to death, and it could happen as soon as 20 years from now," probably wouldn't mean so much to street scuzz with very little vision of the future. Would the threat of death mean anything to you?

Originally Posted by ethen

So you too are attempting to justify the death penalty based off of some idealized/hypothetical/fictional version of what the death penalty could be? Can't you see what’s wrong with that?? You are basing your stance off of something that just isn't real! "As I said before, and will continue to say as necessary, if you have to change the reality of the punishment in order to justify it, then there is something seriously wrong with your logic."

You haven't explained yourself on that. Talk of what could work is what public policy is based on. By your insane reasoning, we shouldn't ever even talk about changing the law because that would involve hypotheticals about what could work. You might say, "Hand gun legislation would be successful if we made all guns illegal." Would it be legimate for somebody to say, "You are talking about something that is not real at the present moment, so we can't even consider it."? Somebody might make the common argument, "Terrorists would not hate us if we were not occupying the Middle East." That is of course an argument I disagree with, but imagine my response being, "Oh, you can't make that argument. You are talking about something that is not presently the case. We are in fact presently occupying the Middle East, so your argument is flawed." That would be a silly counter, wouldn't it? What in the world are you talking about?

I just read Oneironaught's response to you, and he pointed out that YOU are talking about a hypothetical situation of NOT having the death penalty. Well, I guess you can't talk about that because right now many states DO have the death penalty. Get back to reality. No hypotheticals allowed!

Originally Posted by ethen

Yeah, and that happens to be the very death penalty you are advocating, by the way. You can't just advocate something based on untrue premises simply because the reality of the situation is far more flawed than what it needs to be for your argument to hold water. We are talking about the real death penalty, the one which is being used to this day, the imperfect one. Considering the death penalty, and all of its real imperfections, what purpose does it satisfy that life in prison without parole doesn’t? Because, realistically speaking, it doesn’t deter murders any better.

The present death penalty is a joke. However, the death penalty has the potential of being employed effectively. Any questions?

I chose other because I believe it goes much deeper into a social wound than just revenge. To be honest I think it's bloodlust. Our appeals system has destroyed any economical benefits to capital punishment and if it were a matter of revenge then the families would be overwhelmed by protestors because there'd be no por-side to argue with them since no one else would care. There's a reason for a politcal backing of capital punishment, and that's because it's still popular with a large portion of our society. There's something gratifying about taking care of someone completely that is labeled as a villain, that's just what it is, and the media perpetuates violence so people live in fear so when killers are caught they get all wriled up like "Let's kill them."

That's the reason it's still in this country, violence is so over-reported (excluding war) that we are just too afraid to let go of it. Killing people on the basis of fallible court systems has become one of our society's many comfort blankets.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are saying the potential murderer has zero sense of a detailed analysis of the consequences? Or are you saying that he has a partial sense of it? Please elaborate.

I am sure the person has a partial sense of the consequence, but not enough for the difference between the death penalty and life in prison to alter the outcome. People know murdering someone is serious (with serious consequences either way), and this is most likely true even in crimes of passion. But I have a hard time believing that the threat of the death penalty, as opposed to life in prison, would actually make a difference in the outcome of these types of murders. Premeditated murders, maybe. But not murders that happen because of a fleeting moment of madness. These people may be aware that what they are doing has serious consequences, but only in a general sense, and probably not one specific and rationalized enough for these people to decide whether or not to kill someone, based solely on if they will receive life in prison or if they will get death row. Or in other words, I don't think this is running through their head in a murder of passion "well, I'll kill this person if I get life in prison without parole...but not if I get the death penalty". It’s probably more like "YOUR GUNNA F*CKIN DIE RIGHT NOW BLAGAHAHAAHHA!!"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If they have a sense that they could die for committing the act, they have a sense that they would be better off not committing the act. Get it? The greater the sense of consequences, the greater the deterrent effect. Like I said, if somebody pulled a gun on them, it would have an effect. The threat of death has an effect. And let's not forget that first degree murderers are part of the issue also.

Yes, if someone had a gun pulled on them just before they were about to kill someone else, then that would definitely be a more effective deterrent than if the threat were life in prison...or the death penalty, at that. That sort of immanent death, though very effective, isn't what the death penalty actually is, nor could be. I’m not arguing that a gun to the face isn't a better deterrent than life in prison without parole, I am arguing that the death penalty isn’t more of a deterrent than life in prison. Do you see what I mean? Though both involve the death of the murder, they are not the same thing.

By making this analogy, you are implying that the death penalty is just as much of a deterrent as a gun in the face, but for obvious reasons this isn't true at all. Yes, if the death penalty were somehow magically able to threaten the potential murderer with sudden death just before he was about to kill someone, like a gun would do, then I would have a different opinion of the situation. But for this scenario to be a valid one to consider, you have to assume many fictional things about the death penalty: 1.) that the death penalty has the ability to kill someone the instant someone commits a murder, 2.) That this can somehow happen in all cases of murder, and 3.) That death is a certain outcome of murder.

I don’t have to do this with my argument, however.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Too bad you didn't explain why the gun scenario is irrelevant. The threat of death has an effect. If the death penalty is used consistently and quickly, a death penalty reminder would mean something to most people. But saying, "Hey buddy, you might be one of the very rare cases of murderers who are put to death, and it could happen as soon as 20 years from now," probably wouldn't mean so much to street scuzz with very little vision of the future. Would the threat of death mean anything to you?

Yes, but as I have just established, the threat of death in the scenario you presented is very different than the threat of death by the law ever could be. It could not be as immediate as your scenario suggests, and that would impact the deterrence of such a punishment. Its not be as certain as your scenario would suggest, and that too would have an impact on its level of deterrence. And it also cannot threaten to end the life of a person before that person commits murder...which has a HUGE impact on its deterrence factor, especially in murders of passion. That’s why your example is a poor one. It depends on these unrealistic factors for it to make sense, and I don't accept that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You haven't explained yourself on that. Talk of what could work is what public policy is based on. By your insane reasoning, we shouldn't ever even talk about changing the law because that would involve hypotheticals about what could work. You might say, "Hand gun legislation would be successful if we made all guns illegal." Would it be legimate for somebody to say, "You are talking about something that is not real at the present moment, so we can't even consider it."? Somebody might make the common argument, "Terrorists would not hate us if we were not occupying the Middle East." That is of course an argument I disagree with, but imagine my response being, "Oh, you can't make that argument. You are talking about something that is not presently the case. We are in fact presently occupying the Middle East, so your argument is flawed." That would be a silly counter, wouldn't it? What in the world are you talking about?

Oh give me a break. My argument isn't based on changing policies, but yours is. This discussion is supposed to be about the pro's and con's of life in prison without parole vs. the pro's and con's of the death penalty. There are no hypotheticals involved with making this comparison, because the comparison is based on how BOTH of those penalties actually are, not how one could be "if...". This is where our arguments differ. Yours is based on possibilities, which is a valid argument...just not the subject/point of this discussion. Mine is based on comparing the punishments how the actually are as of now, which is the point of this discussion. To recap, I am not saying that we ought not to consider possibilities when it comes to changing the law...I am only saying that such an argument is a different subject than the one being discussed. Again, this subject is about comparing the pro's and con's of life in prison without parole vs. the pro's and con's of the death penalty, AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE. I have said this several times, and I am beginning to think it is intentionally being ignored.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I just read Oneironaught's response to you, and he pointed out that YOU are talking about a hypothetical situation of NOT having the death penalty. Well, I guess you can't talk about that because right now many states DO have the death penalty. Get back to reality. No hypotheticals allowed!

Not quite. Though I have brought up the possibility of the death penalty being done away with, that hypothetical played no role in the validity of my argument. I don't have to assume that the abolition of death penalty in order to justify the argument that life in prison without parole costs far less money, nor do I have to assume that the abolition of death penalty in order to justify the argument that it isn't a better deterrent than life in prison. But, you have to assume that the death penalty is instant, certain, and possibly preemptive for you to make the argument that its a better deterrent than life in prison, all of which are hypotheticals (as compared to my facts).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The present death penalty is a joke. However, the death penalty has the potential of being employed effectively. Any questions?

See the difference?

Originally Posted by ethen

I am arguing that the death penalty isn’t more of a deterrent than life in prison.

But it is, so long as it's consistently enforced. You keep trying to use the fact that it's not even being properly enforced as an argument that it doesn't - and can't - work. That's as silly as saying my car is useless because it doesn't get me to the store. Well, it won't get you there unless you USE IT.

By making this analogy, you are implying that the death penalty is just as much of a deterrent as a gun in the face, but for obvious reasons this isn't true at all.

It's very close though. And by making your analogies, you keep implying that life in prison is as much a deterrent as being put to death, but for obvious reasons this isn't true at all.

3.) That death is a certain outcome of murder.

That's called enforcement. If the law was enforced then it would make a huge difference.

And it also cannot threaten to end the life of a person before that person commits murder...which has a HUGE impact on its deterrence factor, especially in murders of passion.

So, you'd rather punish the "murderer" BEFORE he commits murder? Hmmm, yeah that makes sense.

That’s why your example is a poor one. It depends on these unrealistic factors for it to make sense, and I don't accept that.

That’s why your example is a poor one. It depends on these unrealistic factors for it to make sense, and I don't accept that.

Oh give me a break. My argument isn't based on changing policies,

Really? Because doing away with the (currently poorly enforced) death penalty sounds much like policy change to me.

This discussion is supposed to be about the pro's and con's of life in prison without parole vs. the pro's and con's of the death penalty. There are no hypotheticals involved with making this comparison, because the comparison is based on how BOTH of those penalties actually are, not how one could be "if...". This is where our arguments differ.

You can invent whatever qualifiers you need to fudge your argument into credibility but, in the end, yours falls short of an effective solution because it is based on the theory that "being nicer" to bad guys is the way to change the world for the better.

Yours is based on possibilities, which is a valid argument...just not the subject/point of this discussion.

That's right, discount anything that might point out the weakness of your theories.

Again, this subject is about comparing the pro's and con's of life in prison without parole vs. the pro's and con's of the death penalty, AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE. I have said this several times, and I am beginning to think it is intentionally being ignored.

No, this discussion is about whether or not the death penalty is an effective deterrent. I say it is, you say it's not. I base my viewpoint on the knowledge that even the most terrible amongst us value their own lives. You base yours on the weak foundation that "because it's being mishandled at the present time it should be abandoned because it's "obviously" not able to work."

But, you have to assume that the death penalty is instant, certain, and possibly preemptive for you to make the argument that its a better deterrent than life in prison, all of which are hypotheticals (as compared to my facts).

No, our argument is based on the death penalty, as opposed to words that mean nothing. You are the only one saying anything about "preemptive" punishment. Universal Mind pointed out the concept of preemptive threat, which is exactly what penalty is all about: the presence of threat before the crime is even committed. NOT the doling out of punishment before a crime is committed.

See the difference?

Well, do you?

Ethen, you have transformed this discussion into a debate about capital punishment for voluntary manslaughter. Everything got on that track when you said this...

Originally Posted by ethen

And besides, most murders are either accidents or crimes of passion, neither of which involves the perpetrator weighing the legal consequences of their actions before committing the crime anyway.

I told you that manslaughter is not considered murder, so YOU are talking about a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with reality. First degree murderers are the people who get put to death under the current system. I expressed disagreement with your point that impulsive killers cannot be affected by the threat of being put to death, but that is not a topic about how things are actually being done. My point on that has led you to a big argument about the threat of death for voluntary manslaughter, the "crime of passion" you keep talking about. There is no death penalty for that, so why are you violating your own bizarre rule about not talking about policies that don't exist? You seem to think that second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter are the same thing. They are not, and neither call for capital punishment under the current system.

So to continue with your tangent about a policy that doesn't even exist, I do think the threat of capital punishment, if capital punishment were used with a substantial degree of consistency, would have a deterring effect even on people who commit crime of passion killings. However, it would not be as effective in the case of voluntary manslaughter as it would second degree murder, and it would be far more effective with first degree murder. None of this can be measured by the joke of a capital punishment system we currently have.

So basically, I disagree with your point that impulsivity is NEVER affected by the threat of a death sentence, as illustrated by the of course more extreme than death sentence threat of a gun being pulled. The gun pulling example refuted your point about impulsivity in general and showed that even thought a death sentence threat is less immediate and less threatening, the threat of capital punishment is a smaller scale version of a death threat that you agree would work. But if you want to talk exclusively about policy that currently exists, you are not doing that right now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Ethen, you have transformed this discussion into a debate about capital punishment for voluntary manslaughter. Everything got on that track when you said this...

The only reason I even brought up that example was to demonstrate that most murders are not sufficiently thought out to consider the differences between life in prison vs. the death penalty...meaning the difference between the two (in terms of deterrence) are non-applicable to most murders, seeing as most are 2nd degree.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I told you that manslaughter is not considered murder, so YOU are talking about a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

But the validity of my argument doesn't depend on manslaughter being considered murder anyway. In fact, that is why I stopped using "accidental killing" as viable examples, and turned my attention to murders of passion instead. Seeing as those impulsive types of murders are considered murder, and seeing how they are categorized as killing without a detailed analysis of the consequences (such as life in prison vs death penalty), then the deterrence that could only be know by that detailed process doesn't come into effect with these types of murders.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

First degree murderers are the people who get put to death under the current system. I expressed disagreement with your point that impulsive killers cannot be affected by the threat of being put to death, but that is not a topic about how things are actually being done.

Sure they can be affected by the threat of being put to death. But not nearly as much as a gun to the face, and not nearly as effectively when the murder is a crime of passion, as opposed to premeditated murder. People don't tend to be cognizant enough to mind the differences of the two punishments when they are mentally/emotionally unstable, which is why I don't agree that the death penalty would be any more of a deterrent than life in prison in those specific situations.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

My point on that has led you to a big argument about the threat of death for voluntary manslaughter, the "crime of passion" you keep talking about. There is no death penalty for that, so why are you violating your own bizarre rule about not talking about policies that don't exist? You seem to think that second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter are the same thing. They are not, and neither call for capital punishment under the current system.

Oh, I get that. You were only talking about 1st degree murder, since that is the only type of murder in which the death penalty is applicable. Fair enough. So let’s look at stats on first degree murder only, and how they change when the death penalty is removed/instated. That would make things a lot simpler.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So to continue with your tangent about a policy that doesn't even exist, I do think the threat of capital punishment, if capital punishment were used with a substantial degree of consistency, would have a deterring effect even on people who commit crime of passion killings. However, it would not be as effective in the case of voluntary manslaughter as it would second degree murder, and it would be far more effective with first degree murder. None of this can be measured by the joke of a capital punishment system we currently have.

Since 2nd degree cannot be punished with the death penalty (didn’t know that), then it wouldn't matter. Those who kill without thinking about it probably will not be affected by a consequence they are momentarily oblivious to, and those who do manage to think about it (in the moment) will realize that they are exempt for the death penalty anyway. Either way why would there be a significant change is deterrence? On one hand you aren’t really thinking about it, which is why it wouldn’t deter you more effectively; and on the other hand you are thinking about it (and how that punishment is N/A), which is why it wouldn’t work as a better deterrent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So basically, I disagree with your point that impulsivity is NEVER affected by the threat of a death sentence, as illustrated by the of course more extreme than death sentence threat of a gun being pulled.

I never said that, only that such effects probably wouldn't be enough to be the deciding factor for if the murder happens or not (in cases of 2nd degree), and therefore wouldn’t be a better deterrent…just a scarier, but equally effective, threat.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The gun pulling example refuted your point about impulsivity in general

Only in extreme conditions that are unlike those of the death penalty, which is why they cannot be used to justify the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

... and showed that even thought a death sentence threat is less immediate and less threatening, the threat of capital punishment is a smaller scale version of a death threat that you agree would work. But if you want to talk exclusively about policy that currently exists, you are not doing that right now.

The only thing similar about that example was the ultimate end, which, in itself, isn’t why such an example is so effective. The reason that example was a better deterrent was because of the specific details of the gun example, those which aren't shared by the threat of the death penalty. For this reason, they are not equal in terms of deterrence because the gravity is in the unshared details.

And since you are correct in the fact that the only type of murder punishable by death is 1st degree, then there is no need to consider the deterrence effect is has on second degree murder anyway, for reasons mentioned above.

Since this is going to mark the start of a differen't point of view, then I feel it ought to be in a separate post. Things learned: only first degree murder is punishable by the death penalty, so naturally that is the only type of murder that we need to consider when discussing the deterrence effect of the death penalty.


Shall we go from here?

So we finally have some agreed upon common ground. Can I get an AMEN !

I'll quickly summarise my position within the context of: 1) The death penalty is only being discussed as it applies to 1st degree murder, and 2) We are only concerned with the effectiveness of the currently in-place system.

* I don't think the system the we have in place right now is very effective at all. And that's what I've been saying all along by pointing out the biggest reasons it isn't working.

* I think IF the penalty was implemented properly it would be a bigger deterrent. I define "properly" as I have been (stronger enforcement).

The death penalty is obviously immoral. Taking a life is wrong. Its my belief that a person is a subject of 2 things, what they were born with, and the way that socety and those around them have moulded them. So, sort of fate, but not. So really, if you believe in pre-determined fate, or anything like it, the death penalty is wrong.
Or if you just believe in the sacredness of life.
Killing anything is wrong,.

Originally Posted by imran_p

The death penalty is obviously immoral. Taking a life is wrong.

I don't see how you can say that punishment in kind (that fits the severity of the crime committed) is immoral. To me, that's exactly what morality dictates in such a case.

Its my belief that a person is a subject of 2 things, what they were born with, and the way that socety and those around them have moulded them. So, sort of fate, but not.

I agree that one's environment affects their upbringing and ultimately their views. And, to some extent, their behaviour. But your view leaves no room for what really matters: personal responsibility and accountability. People must be held accountable for their own actions. You are playing the "the Devil made me do it" card. That card is not allowed here.

So really, if you believe in pre-determined fate, or anything like it, the death penalty is wrong.

How so? What if the "predetermined fate" is that of the death penalty? How would predetermined fate necessarily mean that one shouldn't pay the ultimate price for the ultimate crime. How would the most heartwarming outcome have to be what's "predetermined"? And really, that's what the intention of the death penalty is: to predetermine the fate of a 1st degree murderer. By committing murder, you predetermine your fate.

Or if you just believe in the sacredness of life.
Killing anything is wrong,.

But, if you believe in justice then you can see that killing is sometimes justified and even warranted. This is war, Man. War is not pretty.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

* I don't think the system the we have in place right now is very effective at all.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

* I think IF the penalty was implemented properly it would be a bigger deterrent. I define "properly" as I have been (stronger enforcement).

I also agree, however to what lengths would the death penalty have to be implimented in order for it to be a more useful form of punishment, and would those lenghts possibly cause more injustice than justice (seeing as we would have to be far more laxed about killing people)?

And also, like what was mentioned earlier, I feel that in most cases of 1st degree murder are primarily determined by how likely it is that the person will get caught. And eventhough the consequences of their actions no doubt plays a part in the deciding factor, I am wondering if it plays enough of a part for it to make a signficant difference. I mean, between life in prison and the death penalty, both are bad enough to deter people if they really think about what could happen if they get caught. And eventhough death seems like a worse punishment, I don't think its sufficiently more worse then life in prison to make much of a difference.

The only way I could see it really making a difference is if we began killing people in all cases of 1st degree murder, without hestiation or serious deliberation, regardless of the coniditons of the specific case. But in order to do that, we would have to relax our policies on what is considered sufficient evidence to convict someone of murder, and we would also have to not take into account why these murders had occured. To me, the "why" is very important, and shouldn't be ignored. And as hard as it is for me to say, people, even bad people, deserve fair trials.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

EDIT:

Notice how people stopped being asinine pornographic pricks in chat as soon as people started getting banned for it? That's the difference between "having rules" and "enforcing rules".

Wow, someone doesn't know what he is saying.

If they first had a 1-day ban on posting some porno in chat, and people would do it, but they then changed the punishment to a 1-week ban, and it worked, Then you would have an argument that even remotely had something to do with capital punishment.

-

Anyhow, nice to see big long posts I am not going to read here.

You're wrong if you support capital punishment.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Wow, someone doesn't know what he is saying.

If they first had a 1-day ban on posting some porno in chat, and people would do it, but they then changed the punishment to a 1-week ban, and it worked, Then you would have an argument that even remotely had something to do with capital punishment.

One day vs. one week? What does that analogy have to do with anything? The permanent ban threat works, obviously. The threat of capital punishment is a threat of a permanent ban from life. I am nowhere near buying the idea that death threats are no more effective than prison threats. Some people's lives on the streets are not very different from lives in prison, but they are very different from death. The mafia seems to think death threats work. Have they been wasting their time with them all these years? I don't hear too much about the mafia sending people dead fish in the mail to symbolize that they are going to be sent to live in a rough mafia camp. It wouldn't have quite the same effect.

I think this conversation has lost track of the fact that capital punishment goes beyond deterrence. It also involves a revenge element for the victims' families, which does have a therapeutic effect they deserve, and it does provide closure. The victims' families can move on after the perpetrator is dead. Thinking about him playing basketball and watching T.V. with his friends every day doesn't have the same closure effect. Prison is sometimes escaped, and the families have to think about that too. That also makes prison more threatening for society. A dead person can't perpetrate again. A prisoner still has a shot at it.

Originally Posted by Neruo

If they first had a 1-day ban on posting some porno in chat, and people would do it, but they then changed the punishment to a 1-week ban, and it worked, Then you would have an argument that even remotely had something to do with capital punishment.

Alright, I'll give you that it was a weak argument point.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Alright, I'll give you that it was a weak argument point.

I don't think it was.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

One day vs. one week? What does that analogy have to do with anything?

lol, you don't get it, but Orio does, and it was his remark.

You can't compare *no punishment* with *ban* and act like it is the same as *jail time* and *death sentence*. *No jail time* and *death sentence* could be slightly comparable with *no punishment* and *ban*.

It isn't that case that you aren't already fucked a lot when you kill someone. You are fucked. And numbers show that people don't really care as much about the difference between 20-years and death sentence, like they would care about no jailtime and 20-years.

The permanent ban threat works, obviously. The threat of capital punishment is a threat of a permanent ban from life. I am nowhere near buying the idea that death threats are no more effective than prison threats.

Yeah, why trust those nasty things, what are they called again? Oh yeah, "FACTS". Those silly facts, saying capital punishment doesn't have any repellent effect compared to proper jail-sentences. Gosh, those FACTS were quite annoying too, when they acted all like, as if Bush lied, something he didn't. Facts, gosh, gotta hate them.

Some people's lives on the streets are not very different from lives in prison, but they are very different from death.

Yeah, but you can't see the difference between "Doing jailtime is different from death sentence" and "In what way criminals think about what might happen if they get caught." Criminals seem not to think ahead in a way, that they see death sentence as much 'worse' than 20/30/40/life in prison. A criminal, especially the murderers and rapists, are often so delusional that they just don't see that distinction. Getting caught is BAD, no matter what happens.

Really, like I said, I don't see why you are trying to argue numbers, just because you FEEL Like death sentence would be more scary for potential criminals. It's an emotional argument, isn't it?

The mafia seems to think death threats work. Have they been wasting their time with them all these years? I don't hear too much about the mafia sending people dead fish in the mail to symbolize that they are going to be sent to live in a rough mafia camp. It wouldn't have quite the same effect.

You know this is a weak argument, right? Imprisoning people really doesn't make them as quiet as a bullet does. The mafia kills out of pure efficiency, nothing else. Also, in mafia-land, you shoot people that insult you. Besides that, it is just purely silly to think it is near reasonable that the mafia would ever create mafia-jails. Probably it wouldn't change how much a gangster would rat and betray his friends, if instead of getting shot he would be outcast and locked up, something completely illogically to do for such an organisation.

Anyhow, If you have to start comparing the justice system to the mafia, there is something wrong there.

Basically, this argument is just hilariously bad. You don't know whether a 'mafia-jail' would change the behaviour of the gangsters.

I think this conversation has lost track of the fact that capital punishment goes beyond deterrence. It also involves a revenge element for the victims' families, which does have a therapeutic effect they deserve, and it does provide closure.

You base this on facts, numbers, does it really make the people feel better, or you just 'feel' like it does?

Also, I personally think the concept of "revenge" more belongs in barbaric society, or some theocratic society.

The victims' families can move on after the perpetrator is dead. Thinking about him playing basketball and watching T.V. with his friends every day doesn't have the same closure effect. Prison is sometimes escaped, and the families have to think about that too.

So basically, according to you, there is nothing wrong to lets emotions decide how to punish people? Why not torture murderers? I think a lot of people would have great closure, knowing the murderer suffered as much as their dead loved ones.

Emotions, of all things, certainly shouldn't decide over life and death.

That also makes prison more threatening for society. A dead person can't perpetrate again. A prisoner still has a shot at it.

A dead person can't turn his life around. A prisoner still has a shot at it.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Emotions, of all things, certainly shouldn't decide over life and death.

That's what I thought the flaw in the all arguments supporting the death pental was. They are basing their opinion on emotion rather than logic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think this conversation has lost track of the fact that capital punishment goes beyond deterrence. It also involves a revenge element for the victims' families, which does have a therapeutic effect they deserve, and it does provide closure. The victims' families can move on after the perpetrator is dead. Thinking about him playing basketball and watching T.V. with his friends every day doesn't have the same closure effect. Prison is sometimes escaped, and the families have to think about that too. That also makes prison more threatening for society. A dead person can't perpetrate again. A prisoner still has a shot at it.

What about the families of the 30-40% of murders in the U.S. that are never solved? Millions and millions of dollars are wasted frying a tiny minority of killers; this could be spent on law enforcement, which is underfunded (yes, it wouldn't be if it wasn't for the insane war on drugs but that is a different subject.)

It's time for the U.S. to join Europe and every civilized democracy, and leave the company of Iran and China in this matter. Surely, a few people's emotional response to the subject vs. the majority enlightened civilized viewpoint means something. In theory I would be for the death penalty too, even expanding it to include several other crimes, if you were always sure you had the right guy and it didn't cost like 10X more to kill him than put him in prison for life. I don't think prison is for revenge (emotional response), and we don't really have the luxury of rehabilitation, so the point should be keeping society safe from dangerous individuals.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The mafia seems to think death threats work. Have they been wasting their time with them all these years? I don't hear too much about the mafia sending people dead fish in the mail to symbolize that they are going to be sent to live in a rough mafia camp. It wouldn't have quite the same effect.

So, you are saying that our government should be more like the mafia, then? The mafia doesn't have trails, nor do they really have a concern with evidence, fairness, reasonable doubt, or justice. They kill first, ask questions later. Im not saying this sort barbaric mentality isn't effective, but I am saying that it is unjust. This was what I was talking about earlier when I said the follwing:

...to what lengths would the death penalty have to be implimented in order for it to be a more useful form of punishment, and would those lenghts possibly cause more injustice than justice (seeing as we would have to be far more laxed about killing people)?

And if we are going off of the mafia as an example, then I would have to say yes...it probably would cause more injustices than justice, in which case I would have to be against it. We would have to be nonchalant, nay, reckless about putting people to death for it to be as effective as the mafia's tactics. But I don't feel that our caution in ending someones life can be rightly compromised to accomplish what you are suggesting.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think this conversation has lost track of the fact that capital punishment goes beyond deterrence. It also involves a revenge element for the victims' families, which does have a therapeutic effect they deserve, and it does provide closure. The victims' families can move on after the perpetrator is dead. Thinking about him playing basketball and watching T.V. with his friends every day doesn't have the same closure effect.

You sure paint a pleasent picture of maximum security prison. I think you are trying to make it seem much more enjoyable than it actually is. Perhaps you are thinking of minimum or medium security prison.

But anyway, I agree that revenge plays a huge roll in the appeal of the death penalty, thats why I voted for revenge...and only for revenge. But the justice system is supposed to be impartial to those sorts of emotions. Justice is one thing, revenge is another. Sometims they parallel each other, other times revenge goes above and beyond justice. This is why I don't see revenge as a sutiable reason for captial punishment, especially considering how much more money it costs to get this revenge...money other people have to pay. This revenge isn't only that the expence of the murderer, its at the expense of millions of innocent tax payers. The average cost of the death penalty is $2.5 million, compared to $600,000 for the average life in prison sentence. So basically the first half million makes society safe, and the other 2 million goes to satisfying this primitive sense of payback for a very small number of people.

Prison is sometimes escaped, and the families have to think about that too. That also makes prison more threatening for society. A dead person can't perpetrate again. A prisoner still has a shot at it.

I don't see this as a good argument either. If safety is our concern, then that extra 2 million dollars per would-be executed prisoner would be MUCH more effective if it went to making prisons safer, and not merely to killing a single murder. One non-exectured prisoner could make a whole prison safer for society, where as the alternative kills one person who probably would never escape from prison anyway.