Thread: What is the purpose of Capital Punishment?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YAF94uWX0WA

And to add to that, notice how utterly relieved Simpson was when he was "found" "not guilty" (due to technicalities for the most part). Now, anyone who thinks that murderers don't value their own lives enough to be influenced by an enforced death penalty, think again. He obvious was extremely relieved not to have the pay the price he so very much deserved.

Universal Mind, if you keep changing what I "said", then you're not really debating.

For instance, you aren't retarded, right? The "So why not give them 5$ tickets for murder?" is quite retarded. Could I have made it any More clear that I am talking about the difference between 20-year-and-up and death penalty? I remember stating that quite clearly at least 2 times in my post. Yet you still make such a stupid assertion, and you could even know is an invalid one.

That was, if you weren't so confined in your thought that somehow the death penalty is something good those pesky liberals want to abolish.

Like someone else said, lets hop in line with Iran and China. I mean, I wish we (the west) had such great justice systems.

-

Anyhow. You still haven't properly answered to the fact that the difference between 20-years of jailtime doesn't scare more or less than death sentence. If people get out of jail fucked up, and kill again, than there is something wrong with the people who let them free. It doesn't mean you can just kill people, because it's more easy/efficient.

If society truly revolved around eliminating crime, we might just as well put the death penalty on every crime. You stole something? Well, gosh, you cost society money, even without the cost of jail, so we better kill you. Oh, you were stealing because you are addicted to drugs, and have at least a 10% chance of becoming a good citizen? Aww, too bad : (

Okay, luckily you aren't that obsessed with eliminating crime. But still, your arguments for taking a person's life are pretty weak, if you ask me. "other people's (victims) happiness" and "more efficient/cheaper" aren't enough to let me be pro-death-penalty, at least.

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

And to add to that, notice how utterly relieved Simpson was when he was "found" "not guilty" (due to technicalities for the most part). Now, anyone who thinks that murderers don't value their own lives enough to be influenced by an enforced death penalty, think again. He obvious was extremely relieved not to have the pay the price he so very much deserved.

What kind of assertion is this? Just because OJ simpson looked a certain way, you generalize it extremely into 'so the death penalty works'? Have you seen OJ Simpson's face after he heard he wouldn't be going to jail for life? You did? Gosh, I didn't. Well yeah, if you know how he reacted after he knew he didn't have to go to jail and get ass-raped, you can totally make the claim you did. Lucky you so totally do have that knowledge.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Universal Mind, if you keep changing what I "said", then you're not really debating.

For instance, you aren't retarded, right? The "So why not give them 5$ tickets for murder?" is quite retarded. Could I have made it any More clear that I am talking about the difference between 20-year-and-up and death penalty? I remember stating that quite clearly at least 2 times in my post. Yet you still make such a stupid assertion, and you could even know is an invalid one.

Oh, you called my argument retarded. I guess that means you win. But just in case you didn't, try to understand this. You say that one punishment works no better than a less severe form of punishment, so I am showing the absurdity of doing that. If more severe punishment does not work as a better threat than a less severe punishment, then why not use very unsevere punishments as threats?

Originally Posted by Neruo

Like someone else said, lets hop in line with Iran and China. I mean, I wish we (the west) had such great justice systems.

Like someone myself said, sometimes evil bodies use threats that work. It doesn't mean we should be like them in all aspects.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Anyhow. You still haven't properly answered to the fact that the difference between 20-years of jailtime doesn't scare more or less than death sentence. If people get out of jail fucked up, and kill again, than there is something wrong with the people who let them free. It doesn't mean you can just kill people, because it's more easy/efficient.

That's right. We should not let them free. We should kill them.

Originally Posted by Neruo

If society truly revolved around eliminating crime, we might just as well put the death penalty on every crime. You stole something? Well, gosh, you cost society money, even without the cost of jail, so we better kill you. Oh, you were stealing because you are addicted to drugs, and have at least a 10% chance of becoming a good citizen? Aww, too bad : (

Those people don't deserve to die. Murderers of the innocent do.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Okay, luckily you aren't that obsessed with eliminating crime. But still, your arguments for taking a person's life are pretty weak, if you ask me. "other people's (victims) happiness" and "more efficient/cheaper" aren't enough to let me be pro-death-penalty, at least.

That's because you have such deep compassion for murderers of the innocent, right? I hope this conversation isn't making you weep for them. Meanwhile, my compassion will be with the people who deserve it.

Originally Posted by Neruo

What kind of assertion is this? Just because OJ simpson looked a certain way, you generalize it extremely into 'so the death penalty works'? Have you seen OJ Simpson's face after he heard he wouldn't be going to jail for life? You did? Gosh, I didn't. Well yeah, if you know how he reacted after he knew he didn't have to go to jail and get ass-raped, you can totally make the claim you did. Lucky you so totally do have that knowledge.

The threat of punishment works. Harsher threats work better than weaker threats. If O.J. had been facing 40 hours of community service, he would not have been acting like that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The threat of punishment works. Harsher threats work better than weaker threats. If O.J. had been facing 40 hours of community service, he would not have been acting like that.

Thank you. That's the point I was trying to make with the O.J. example. I don't know whether he would have been facing death or life in prison but, what I do know is that harsher punishments definitely invoke higher levels of fear.

I cannot possibly imagine how death would not be more fearful (as punishment) than living.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hey, Moonbeam. I haven't talked to you in a while. How have you been?

Good--did you see what I said about you changing your avatar?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Of course the emotions of the victims' family are an emotional consideration, but that does not mean their emotions should be ignored. What they go through has something to do with why murder is illegal in the first place. I am on their side way over the murderers. How they feel is much more important to me than how the murderer is treated.

Some people's families may be against the death penalty; should we then do whatever they want? Maybe let the family kill the person themselves? What if they don't want any punishment at all? It shouldn't be up to a person under extreme emotional stress and grief; it should be decided when people are rational.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't care how ancient or barbaric capital punishment is. I support what works against the evil and for the good.

But it's not practical, and it doesn't work--too expensive, too arbitrary, too many mistakes. Very few people are actually executed, so it's not really good for revenge or deterrent either one (reality, not hypothetically). I read that a prisoner is much safer on death row than one of his cohort out on the street. So really you're giving them a nice cozy place to stay for twenty years, meanwhile spending millions of dollars letting lawyers argue about whether it should be done or not. These are pratical arguments, not hypothetical. Again, hypothetically, in a utopia where we could prove beyond a doubt that someone was guilty, I'd be for expanding it to include a few other crimes. (However: there are some people who have been put in jail for life for murder committed at a young age, and then go on to be educated in jail and totally change and probably become better citizens than a lot of people--these are probably few and far between, but maybe exceptions should even be made sometimes.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know a lot of money is spent on investigations that don't lead to convictions, but I don't think that money is wasted. It is well spent on demonstrating to potential murderers that the government is willing to scour the Earth for them if they murder the innocent.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. There are many, many murders that are not investigated beyond a cursory examination, but that's not the ones you hear about. And that's just the cases that get ruled as homicide, not suicide or accident by an incompetent investigator, so the statistics are probably even higher than that. They'll definitely find someone to convict for the high-profile cases tho; cases that people's careers are riding on.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I also think capital punishment saves far more innocent people than it kills. There have not been too many cases in U.S. history of an execution that turned out to be of a person who was innocent. Has there ever been one?

I don't know, they probably don't look to hard for that, but there have been people on death row taken off because they were.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I cannot possibly imagine how death would not be more fearful (as punishment) than living.

I can. And I doubt most murderes who are caught think about it much at all.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, you called my argument retarded. I guess that means you win. But just in case you didn't, try to understand this. You say that one punishment works no better than a less severe form of punishment, so I am showing the absurdity of doing that. If more severe punishment does not work as a better threat than a less severe punishment, then why not use very unsevere punishments as threats?

Haha, okay, I am not joking here, not just saying "haha, you silly delusional kid" because I disagree with you. I mean it. Are you ACTUALLY that delusional? Do you even read my posts? Don't you have the slightest idea what I am saying, (while it is even backed up by facts)?

Really, I mean, you do know you are twisting my words, do you? I don't actually know how I could have made it more clear.

Really... wtf.. are you that insane? No matter what opinion you have, what the hell are you doing, do you even try to understand what other people are saying?

Things like this shock me. Like Christians completely ignoring facts about evolution, with their face Just Saying "I don't care, because I am right". It's insane. I am beginning to think more and more that great numbers of people have as distorted world views as, for instance, people with anorexia. They really see themselves as fat, no matter how thin. Like this, Christians often really think they are wrong, not matter what facts are show, and some American's or fascists are certain they are Right and morally superior, not matter what.

Damn...

But to try to explain, for -I am dead serious-, the 4th time.

I said, gosh I still can't believe you have been able to close this argument out from your mind all this time... lol, it's insane!

-

OKAY:

There is a difference between a very soft punishment and a harsh one. However it seems like, and numbers back this up, that criminal behaviour is not really affected by how harsh the harsh punishment is. It is easy to see, or to 'feel' (when thinking about it) the difference between 2 weeks of jailtime, and 20 years. But tell me, universal mind, can you Truly see or 'feel' the difference between 25 or 40 years of jail time? Can you really? Can you really imagen the difference between 10^5 and 10^6, as well as you can imagen the difference between 1 and 10? No. The human brain just isn't build for thinking about such scales.

Do you understand the psychology behind the numbers proving the difference in effect of crime-repelling between lifetime-sentence and death-sentence is noticeable not there?

Still, really, why did you act as if I proposed giving murderers 5 minutes jailtime, as if I thought it would be as efficient as lifetime-sentence? Do you actually not see, willingly ignored what I said the last 4 posts, or actually lost the capacity to think differently about criminal psychology than you, with all of your 'knowledge', think normally?

That's right. We should not let them free. We should kill them.

Why not kill you, you broke the law, did illicit drugs. People that have done drugs are probably somewhere between 5-100% more likely to be a burden to society.

Those people don't deserve to die. Murderers of the innocent do.

I just saw a documentary, some camera crew walked along with some American troops. They saw a car standing still somewhere, some some guy in them. It looked fishy. When the car drove away, the soldiers ordered the guy to stop. When he didn't, they shot the car.

The guy was dead. Some old woman in the neighbourhood told them the man was a taxi-driver. That was why he was standing around. When he drove away, he saw some soldiers yelling in some foreign language, and making some hand-signal (stop) people in the middle-east don't use. That is why the innocent man got shot.

We should kill those soldiers too.

Actually, probably most murderers were only slightly bigger idiots, and with proper psychological help, they would fit in society as good as those soldiers (which is to say: Poorly, but not a huge risk of emotional breakdown and criminality.)

That's because you have such deep compassion for murderers of the innocent, right? I hope this conversation isn't making you weep for them. Meanwhile, my compassion will be with the people who deserve it.

All people deserve compassion. If you just 'chose' who deserves your compassion, you might as well start gassing Jews, if you don't like them.

The threat of punishment works. Harsher threats work better than weaker threats. If O.J. had been facing 40 hours of community service, he would not have been acting like that.

Yeah read the first part of my post. What part of my previous posts gave you the idea I was in favour of giving OJ 40 hours community service? Oh, what was that, you just made that up?

I still would like to see how exactly you know OJ Simpson would have acted or reacted differently, if it had been life-sentence instead of death-sentence for his murders.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Good--did you see what I said about you changing your avatar?

Yeah, I saw that. I think I might keep my current avatar for a while, partly because I am sick of the crash course in computer I was having to take to do two simple things. I might try again later.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Some people's families may be against the death penalty; should we then do whatever they want? Maybe let the family kill the person themselves? What if they don't want any punishment at all? It shouldn't be up to a person under extreme emotional stress and grief; it should be decided when people are rational.

Because I think capital punishment is good for more than the family members, I would be for it even if the family wasn't pushing for it. But I like the idea of the family members killing the scum themselves. That would help them heal faster.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

But it's not practical, and it doesn't work--too expensive, too arbitrary, too many mistakes. Very few people are actually executed, so it's not really good for revenge or deterrent either one (reality, not hypothetically). I read that a prisoner is much safer on death row than one of his cohort out on the street. So really you're giving them a nice cozy place to stay for twenty years, meanwhile spending millions of dollars letting lawyers argue about whether it should be done or not. These are pratical arguments, not hypothetical. Again, hypothetically, in a utopia where we could prove beyond a doubt that someone was guilty, I'd be for expanding it to include a few other crimes. (However: there are some people who have been put in jail for life for murder committed at a young age, and then go on to be educated in jail and totally change and probably become better citizens than a lot of people--these are probably few and far between, but maybe exceptions should even be made sometimes.)

The issue of trying juveniles as adults is a completely different area. It is not what I am talking about. And like I have said, I am for using capital punishment the right way, not the way it is being used right now.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Unfortunately, that's not the case. There are many, many murders that are not investigated beyond a cursory examination, but that's not the ones you hear about. And that's just the cases that get ruled as homicide, not suicide or accident by an incompetent investigator, so the statistics are probably even higher than that. They'll definitely find someone to convict for the high-profile cases tho; cases that people's careers are riding on.

We would still be showing that we will push as hard as we can, and we get far enough in the vast majority of cases to show potential murderers that they would be playing with fire.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't know, they probably don't look to hard for that, but there have been people on death row taken off because they were.

Such mistakes practically never happen, but if one does once in a while, it is unfortunate collateral damage in a worthy cause that saves many times more lives than otherwise. That is... in a situation of capital punishment being used the right way.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Haha, okay, I am not joking here, not just saying "haha, you silly delusional kid" because I disagree with you. I mean it. Are you ACTUALLY that delusional? Do you even read my posts? Don't you have the slightest idea what I am saying, (while it is even backed up by facts)?

Really, I mean, you do know you are twisting my words, do you? I don't actually know how I could have made it more clear.

Really... wtf.. are you that insane? No matter what opinion you have, what the hell are you doing, do you even try to understand what other people are saying?

Things like this shock me. Like Christians completely ignoring facts about evolution, with their face Just Saying "I don't care, because I am right". It's insane. I am beginning to think more and more that great numbers of people have as distorted world views as, for instance, people with anorexia. They really see themselves as fat, no matter how thin. Like this, Christians often really think they are wrong, not matter what facts are show, and some American's or fascists are certain they are Right and morally superior, not matter what.

Damn...

But to try to explain, for -I am dead serious-, the 4th time.

I said, gosh I still can't believe you have been able to close this argument out from your mind all this time... lol, it's insane!

-

OKAY:

Look at how much post space you just wasted by saying absolutely nothing that qualifies as counterargument. You must be stumped or something. You are exuding the behavior of religious fanatics, such as anti-American hate mongers, who have been repeatedly stumped. Thanks for illustrating that.

Originally Posted by Neruo

There is a difference between a very soft punishment and a harsh one. However it seems like, and numbers back this up, that criminal behaviour is not really affected by how harsh the harsh punishment is. It is easy to see, or to 'feel' (when thinking about it) the difference between 2 weeks of jailtime, and 20 years. But tell me, universal mind, can you Truly see or 'feel' the difference between 25 or 40 years of jail time? Can you really? Can you really imagen the difference between 10^5 and 10^6, as well as you can imagen the difference between 1 and 10? No. The human brain just isn't build for thinking about such scales.

Yes, I can. In 25 years, the non-elderly part of my life will still be going on. In 40 years, I will be 75. A forty year sentence would be much worse. And a death sentence would be worlds worse than that. At least I could still have hope of having fun on some occasions if all I got was a prison sentence. It would be a nightmare, but at least I would still be able to talk to my family, watch television, listen to music, write, play sports, laugh, etc. I would also have hope of escaping from prison and living in Central America or something. I can't do any of that in death.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Do you understand the psychology behind the numbers proving the difference in effect of crime-repelling between lifetime-sentence and death-sentence is noticeable not there?

Still, really, why did you act as if I proposed giving murderers 5 minutes jailtime, as if I thought it would be as efficient as lifetime-sentence? Do you actually not see, willingly ignored what I said the last 4 posts, or actually lost the capacity to think differently about criminal psychology than you, with all of your 'knowledge', think normally?

Assertions don't cut it for me. I have major issues with the studies you are referring to. Many of them measure the death penalty as it is and therefore involve confounding variables, which other research also has. There is also research that says the threat of death is very effective, but I see you are ignoring it. Don't numbers mean anything to you? And I see you are now avoiding my points about how death threats work in organized crime.

And again... (Read carefully this time.) My points about riduculously short jail sentences are meant to illustrate that the more severe a threat, the more effective it is. You keep falsely claiming that I think you support five minute jail sentences and so forth. Try to understand the actual truth this time.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Why not kill you, you broke the law, did illicit drugs. People that have done drugs are probably somewhere between 5-100% more likely to be a burden to society.

I hope you are reading this post, unlike my last one. People don't deserve to die for doing drugs. People do deserve to die for murdering the innocent.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I just saw a documentary, some camera crew walked along with some American troops. They saw a car standing still somewhere, some some guy in them. It looked fishy. When the car drove away, the soldiers ordered the guy to stop. When he didn't, they shot the car.

The guy was dead. Some old woman in the neighbourhood told them the man was a taxi-driver. That was why he was standing around. When he drove away, he saw some soldiers yelling in some foreign language, and making some hand-signal (stop) people in the middle-east don't use. That is why the innocent man got shot.

We should kill those soldiers too.

Actually, probably most murderers were only slightly bigger idiots, and with proper psychological help, they would fit in society as good as those soldiers (which is to say: Poorly, but not a huge risk of emotional breakdown and criminality.)

Research the definition of "murder". Those soldiers were making an understandable war decision, and such acts do not fit the definition of "murder". I don't believe for two seconds that that guy thought the soldiers were telling him to haul ass away. He knew they wanted something and that he was obligated to stop and find out what it was. Something ironic is that you actually do wish those soldiers would be killed. Don't think for a second I don't notice your hypocrisy in this.

Originally Posted by Neruo

All people deserve compassion. If you just 'chose' who deserves your compassion, you might as well start gassing Jews, if you don't like them.

Speaking of people who gas Jews, do you think they deserve compassion? I don't. And thanks for the laugh you gave me by saying you think all people deserve compassion. You show your lack of compassion and how cold your blood is every time you post on this site. Have you ever thought about the way you treat people who people who disagree with you in the Religion forum? It is much worse than the way you talk to people who disagree with you on politics. Calling people retarded and far worse is not compassionate, so don't even attempt to fool me with a claim that you believe in compassion. It is way too outrageous for me to take it seriously.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yeah read the first part of my post. What part of my previous posts gave you the idea I was in favour of giving OJ 40 hours community service? Oh, what was that, you just made that up?

Instead of explaining that again, I want to suggest that you take a class on reading.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I still would like to see how exactly you know OJ Simpson would have acted or reacted differently, if it had been life-sentence instead of death-sentence for his murders.

Like I explained earlier, death is much more dreadful than prison.

there's no excuse for killing, no matter why.
death penalty is just there to make who has the power feel he has it, and to get the votes of the most ignorant and grey voters that find pleasure in other's suffers.

Originally Posted by italianmonkey

there's no excuse for killing, no matter why.
death penalty is just there to make who has the power feel he has it, and to get the votes of the most ignorant and grey voters that find pleasure in other's suffers.

There are tons educated people with pigmented hair who support capital punishment. Nobody is above craving revenge against the evil, not even you.

but if this abolition thing that european union is trying to start starts, i surely will give my vote/signature/whatever

I do beleive it is more economical to kill a person...and that (I guess I should have clicked "other") there is a sort of standard releif of society when someone is put to death...not that it really does much good though, and it certainly is not revenge, the executions are done in a very clinical manner, minimizing pain...so eh.

Coming from a family full of cops and correction officers, I’ve heard a ton of opinions regarding the death penalty. As you can probably guess, most of my family is for it but I’m not so much. I think death is the easy way out for people who do these hideous acts, if someone murdered someone I loved, I’d rather them suffer in prison for the rest of their lives, enduring all the torturous things in there rather then getting off without any real punishment (Just in MY opinion).

As for the purpose, my criminal justice professor said that in his opinion, it’s simply revenge. I’d probably agree with that, too. Especially how the death penalty really doesn’t do any productive things in the process besides a victims loved ones feeling better, possibly. Sorry if what I said has been restated a few times already, just skipping through the topic.

Originally Posted by Aldrich

As for the purpose, my criminal justice professor said that in his opinion, it’s simply revenge. I’d probably agree with that, too. Especially how the death penalty really doesn’t do any productive things in the process besides a victims loved ones feeling better, possibly.

Your professor is wrong. He left out a few things. The death penalty guarantees that the perpetrator will never perpetrate again. It also makes the idea of committing capital crimes scarier than otherwise, thereby lessening the tendency. Now that I think about it, it also guarantees that the scum will not reproduce.

Originally Posted by Aldrich

Coming from a family full of cops and correction officers, I’ve heard a ton of opinions regarding the death penalty. As you can probably guess, most of my family is for it but I’m not so much. I think death is the easy way out for people who do these hideous acts, if someone murdered someone I loved, I’d rather them suffer in prison for the rest of their lives, enduring all the torturous things in there rather then getting off without any real punishment (Just in MY opinion).

I agree, I would rather them rot in prison until they die, over the death penalty. But, prisons are too over-populated for that, so it's nice for some of the useless people to be executed.

Capital punishment in an ideal civilization is seen as an extreme measure in dangerous situations. It may be needed for a sick society as a temporary solution to the mentally deranged and dangerous. When things are under control such a thing is easily eliminated and not needed. It is only needed when you get into a really cancerous situation where it's getting out of control. Even then such a thing is so easy to exploit by the very people that it should be used on in those cases. The problem is the cancer, which is the mentally disturbed, can still grow and be smarter than an entire bunch of balanced people fighting the cancer. So the disturbed elite diseased person in the group still manages to convince and exploit this strategy at the expense of everyone else unless they are educated properly enough to understand the exploitation.

example
"we need better capital punishment to solve crime and eliminate terrorists" - (exploitation of strategy but in rare cases may be needed)
"Capital punishment is a reaction to danger and not a means to solve any problem only balance things under self defense saving us from further damage" (correct logic but also can be exploited)

"without capital punishment things will get even worse" (exploitation of strategy but also can be used correctly)
"Capital punishment is a weapon against tyranny and can only be effective when used as self defense." (correct logic)