Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
You are deciding what is and is not evil.
Death Penalty
- Thread starter David
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
You are deciding what is and is not evil.
C
Chazwozel
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
I am? I've never executed anyone.
Worth has nothing to do with it. It's about justice.
Instead of condemning the death penalty system, what's your solution to the problem? Packing a bunch of serial killers together in a box on a remote island is not a solution. You only end up with countries full of convicts that watch rugby all day and drink Fosters beer.
Necronic
Staff member
I'm surprised there are as many supporters of the death penalty here as there are. A couple points.
1) It costs more. That's a fact. Should it? That's a different point. If you think that the appeals process is too long, then there's that, but its a different argument.
2) Is it a deterrent? There's 2 arguments here, scientific and rational. The scientific argument has correlations like the one Tin showed, or other correlations like the fact that states without death penalties have lower murder rates, or....you can look at the rest of the first world. But it doesn't matter, because, and this is a secret so I'll say it quietly CORRELATION DOES NOT SHOW CAUSATION. If you don't understand that then please just GTFO and let the grownups talk. The sad fact is that you are not going to be able to show anything other than correlations with this argument (in either direction), and you are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone of a cause and effect relationship.
The second part, the rational part, where we say "if they see that people are(n't) being put to death for committing murders then they will be (dis)inclined to commit more murders". It makes sense. To a rational person. To bad people that commit first degree murders aren't always rational. A crime of passion is one thing, but to methodically plan and kill a person, that's different. That takes a mindset that very few people have. Cop Killers are another thing as people don't usually plan to kill a cop, it happens in the moment. Its actually the only place I do agree with the death penalty, as there needs to be punitive protection for our boys in blue.
Either way, the rational argument rests on some very shaky ground; it assumes to know the mind of a killer.
3) What if it's thought of as a purely punitive action? Well, then there's no argument against that. It's a moral determination, and can only be countered by a different set of morals. Which means there is no middle ground.
4) Do some people simply not deserve to live? On a moral stance, I find it hard to make that statement, but there are other viewpoints that are equally as valid (the beauty of morality is that it is fluid.) On a societal/utilitarian stance (for the good of all), I believe it's fair to argue that removing them from society is all that matters. Once they are removed from society, they are no longer a threat. Assuming that point 2 is considered to be up in the air, and point 3 doesn't have a significant societal impact (victims families not getting vengeance doesn't cause societal unrest).
-----------
I guess my point is, at the end of the day there is only one point that isn't subjective or unprovable, and that is that it costs more. So, guess where I stand.
1) It costs more. That's a fact. Should it? That's a different point. If you think that the appeals process is too long, then there's that, but its a different argument.
2) Is it a deterrent? There's 2 arguments here, scientific and rational. The scientific argument has correlations like the one Tin showed, or other correlations like the fact that states without death penalties have lower murder rates, or....you can look at the rest of the first world. But it doesn't matter, because, and this is a secret so I'll say it quietly CORRELATION DOES NOT SHOW CAUSATION. If you don't understand that then please just GTFO and let the grownups talk. The sad fact is that you are not going to be able to show anything other than correlations with this argument (in either direction), and you are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone of a cause and effect relationship.
The second part, the rational part, where we say "if they see that people are(n't) being put to death for committing murders then they will be (dis)inclined to commit more murders". It makes sense. To a rational person. To bad people that commit first degree murders aren't always rational. A crime of passion is one thing, but to methodically plan and kill a person, that's different. That takes a mindset that very few people have. Cop Killers are another thing as people don't usually plan to kill a cop, it happens in the moment. Its actually the only place I do agree with the death penalty, as there needs to be punitive protection for our boys in blue.
Either way, the rational argument rests on some very shaky ground; it assumes to know the mind of a killer.
3) What if it's thought of as a purely punitive action? Well, then there's no argument against that. It's a moral determination, and can only be countered by a different set of morals. Which means there is no middle ground.
4) Do some people simply not deserve to live? On a moral stance, I find it hard to make that statement, but there are other viewpoints that are equally as valid (the beauty of morality is that it is fluid.) On a societal/utilitarian stance (for the good of all), I believe it's fair to argue that removing them from society is all that matters. Once they are removed from society, they are no longer a threat. Assuming that point 2 is considered to be up in the air, and point 3 doesn't have a significant societal impact (victims families not getting vengeance doesn't cause societal unrest).
-----------
I guess my point is, at the end of the day there is only one point that isn't subjective or unprovable, and that is that it costs more. So, guess where I stand.
S
Soliloquy
Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]
You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.[/QUOTE]
I am? I've never executed anyone.
Worth has nothing to do with it. It's about justice.
Instead of condemning the death penalty system, what's your solution to the problem? Packing a bunch of serial killers together in a box on a remote island is not a solution. You only end up with countries full of convicts that watch rugby all day and drink Fosters beer.[/QUOTE]
That's actually a pretty awesome solution. We need more Australias.
(No one in Australia actually likes fosters, btw.)
So, I'm wondering if people who support the death penalty are comfortable with the fallibility of the system. Let's say you have 100 people on death row. Let's say 98 of them are guilty and deserving. Do you guys feel that execution of 2 innocent people is an acceptable cost for the other 98? Of course I don't have actual numbers to back this up, merely the fact that innocent people are occasionally wrongfully sentenced to death.
That's okay, no one outside of Australia likes it either.
Dave
Staff member
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy. Guys like that or situations where the person admits it with no remorse or the crime is particularly heinous. I would give the death penalty to that Texas lady who drowned her two kids in her car and tried to pin it on an imaginary black man.
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy. Guys like that or situations where the person admits it with no remorse or the crime is particularly heinous. I would give the death penalty to that Texas lady who drowned her two kids in her car and tried to pin it on an imaginary black man.
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
All Gacy admitted to was running an unlicensed cemetery.
Dave
Staff member
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy. Guys like that or situations where the person admits it with no remorse or the crime is particularly heinous. I would give the death penalty to that Texas lady who drowned her two kids in her car and tried to pin it on an imaginary black man.
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
All Gacy admitted to was running an unlicensed cemetery.[/QUOTE]
Huh?
Guys like him or that Couey guy in Florida that abducted, repeatedly raped and then buried alive that little girl, then admitted it. Death penalty.
C
Chibibar
Interesting. I am late in the thread.
I personally support the death penalty, but the current process is pretty lengthy for "partly good reason"
Lovely Boner's view is interesting, but I'm having a hard time to see his view on it. So LB doesn't agree there should be death, but willing to spend countless LB's money (in form of tax) to keep these people fed, house, and well better medical than other people out there (in some cases)
* "Partly good reason" is when a REALLY good person/lawyer manage to frame an innocent to death. I has happen in the past, but not as often. Personally, if you are caught red-handed, proven, and sentence, after 3 appeals, you are done and dead. It bothers me that some of these people continue to live for another 20-30 years waiting to die and will never be let go and wasting tax payer's money.
Why even bother keeping them in prison forever LB? the original idea was so rehabilitate, but if the person is not willing, then repeat offender happens. It suppose to be a deterrent, but to some look forward to prison cause it is "easier" life than living under a bridge and homeless with no food.
"How does killing a criminal help the victim?" to some victim, just knowing the person is alive and in jail scare them. Sure mass murderer don't escape everyday, but as long they are alive, there is a chance of that happening. Some murderers DO get out and could murder again. It is more of a peace of mind for the victim's family and society.
That is what I believe.
I personally support the death penalty, but the current process is pretty lengthy for "partly good reason"
Lovely Boner's view is interesting, but I'm having a hard time to see his view on it. So LB doesn't agree there should be death, but willing to spend countless LB's money (in form of tax) to keep these people fed, house, and well better medical than other people out there (in some cases)
* "Partly good reason" is when a REALLY good person/lawyer manage to frame an innocent to death. I has happen in the past, but not as often. Personally, if you are caught red-handed, proven, and sentence, after 3 appeals, you are done and dead. It bothers me that some of these people continue to live for another 20-30 years waiting to die and will never be let go and wasting tax payer's money.
Why even bother keeping them in prison forever LB? the original idea was so rehabilitate, but if the person is not willing, then repeat offender happens. It suppose to be a deterrent, but to some look forward to prison cause it is "easier" life than living under a bridge and homeless with no food.
"How does killing a criminal help the victim?" to some victim, just knowing the person is alive and in jail scare them. Sure mass murderer don't escape everyday, but as long they are alive, there is a chance of that happening. Some murderers DO get out and could murder again. It is more of a peace of mind for the victim's family and society.
That is what I believe.
It is a quote attributed to Gacy when he was arrested.
"The only thing I'm guilty of is running an unlicensed cemetery."
---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------
It just made me sick all the people that were trying to get Susan Atkins out on parole for humanitarian reasons.
"The only thing I'm guilty of is running an unlicensed cemetery."
---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------
Manson still gets his parole hearing each time it comes around.
It just made me sick all the people that were trying to get Susan Atkins out on parole for humanitarian reasons.
I
Iaculus
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy. Guys like that or situations where the person admits it with no remorse or the crime is particularly heinous. I would give the death penalty to that Texas lady who drowned her two kids in her car and tried to pin it on an imaginary black man.
There's going to be fallibility in every system. But it's not that hard to minimize the likelihood of it happening.[/QUOTE]
That's not a great incentive for pleading guilty, is it? Generally, the justice system tries to encourage that.
Personally, I've always been slightly unsettled by the casual dehumanisation of the folks involved in these arguments. One of our oldest and biggest issues as a society is that perfectly normal, ordinary people can sometimes do utterly horrible things, and to simply dismiss those who commit such acts as inhuman monsters seems like sweeping it under the carpet. Of course they're human. That's half the problem right there.
Also, you have to remember that it's not a case of 'if you rape/commit murder/abuse a child, you have forfeited your humanity'. Instead, it's 'if we think that you raped/committed murder/abused a child, you have forfeited your humanity'... and if you've looked at how much guesswork, politics, and emotion overcoming logic goes into that sort of case already, that is goddamned terrifying.
Whoever said that 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the law' never did a study into eyewitness accuracy, for a start.
GasBandit
Staff member
What about the guy who said "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?"
I
Iaculus
What about the guy who said "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?"[/QUOTE]
Was working for a murderous, fascist superstate dealing with mind-corroding eldritch abominations on a daily basis. Dismissing someone as inhuman isn't quite so objectionable if they have, y'know, tentacles for a face and a daemon living inside the hollowed-out remains of their brain.
I realize that there simply are some people who are a menace to society. But as long as there is the remote risk of being wrong, even if it's a 0.00001% chance, the death penalty should be out of the question until the chance of being wrong is at absolute 0. People make mistakes. Evidence can be planted. Suspects can be coerced into pleading guilty. Jury members can discriminate. Suspects can commit the crime of having the wrong skin color in the wrong district and receive something that doesn't even remotely resemble a fair trial. I believe in parental logic with capital punishment: if everybody can't use it fairly, nobody gets to use it.
What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
I
Iaculus
Would that not be dependent on the number of lives it saves, though? I mean, you have to be sure that the drop in the murder rate caused by using the death penalty for certain criminals (rather than imprisoning them for life) will exceed the number of innocents killed by the legal process. That's without considering the extra factor of how many lives might be saved by the potential budgetary differences either way, mind.
C
crono1224
Agreed sorry your family member or wife died because she happened to just left a liqueur store before it got robbed where both the clerks were shot dead, and the eyewitness was so scared that they identified your wife/family member though they left just moments before the occurrence, and there wasn't any video evidence one way or another. So now they because of the death penalty they died. (*Not always necessary* But you couldn't afford a decent defense cause you and your wife (or family member) barely make ends-meets.)
Necronic
Staff member
What about the guy who said "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?"[/QUOTE]
"A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty."
What about the guy who said "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?"[/QUOTE]
Was working for a murderous, republican superstate dealing with mind-corroding religious nutjobs on a daily basis. Dismissing someone as inhuman isn't quite so objectionable if they have, y'know, beards and turbans for a face and a fundamentalist living inside the hollowed-out remains of their brain.[/QUOTE]
Yeah yeah.
I
Iaculus
... Yeah. I'm just staying the hell away from that one.
This shitsack should be put to death: Clifford Olson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Instead he lives in a comfy jail, collects his old age pension (thankfully this got revoked just recently) and applies for parole whenever he eligible (and thankfully it has been denied).
He confessed to raping and murdering two children and nine youths. If you feel sorry for this miscreant at all... there's probably something wrong with you.
Instead he lives in a comfy jail, collects his old age pension (thankfully this got revoked just recently) and applies for parole whenever he eligible (and thankfully it has been denied).
He confessed to raping and murdering two children and nine youths. If you feel sorry for this miscreant at all... there's probably something wrong with you.
I don't feel sorry for him. But I don't think it's our right to kill him.
P
Papillon
Pretty much everyone who is for the death penalty that I've read has said that they like it in cases where it's obvious or admitted. Like Gacy or Ted Bundy.[/QUOTE]
Or Romeo Phillion?
So, wait. Just locking someone up in prison is cruel and unusual punishment? Should we deal with murderers and rapists by giving them a fine and probation?
You said that prison is "cruel and unusual punishment". We shouldn't lock them away, we shouldn't execute them...what exactly does that leave?
You are seriously stating that killing someone for pleasure, money, etc is on the same level as punishing someone, under the law, after they have been tried, convicted, and given multiple chances to get both the conviction and sentencing overturned?
P
Papillon
SHU doesn't sound like a country-club jail to me. And nothing is lost by allowing anyone to apply for parole. If they don't deserve parole, it will be denied.
They should be locked away. But prison is the lesser of two evils - it needs reform. And it's not on the same level as what the people in chains did at all. But I think it's kind of evil to wish torture and painful death on someone!
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.
For some reason, edit isn't working and is locking up, but clarifying up there: I said "just as evil" and I meant that in that still, on its face, murderers and death penalty supporters both want painful death on another human being. In a lot of cases, it's even for the same reason: revenge.
Necronic
Staff member
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.
GasBandit
Staff member
I never claimed it was infallible, I've just noted that there were periods in our history where the equivalent of grand theft auto was a capital offense and yet somehow liberty survived, even flourished as compared to today's soft tyranny of the government protecting you from yourself.
That doesn't have to be a fact. It's only more expensive because we let it be. As pointed out, it could be as cheap as the price of a single bullet if we wanted it to be. The fact of the matter is that the emotional argument is the one screeching how wrong it is to kill criminals, not the dispassionate logic of what could be the most cost effective method of removing a criminal from society.
Necronic
Staff member
But that's an entirely different argument, and one that you won't win on this board or in a general election or in a court of law. Partially because your argument rests on the assumption of how easy it is to define a criminal. We have centuries of abuse of judicial authority in human civilization, and due process is a method of limiting that. This concept of a fast track is tempting because due process is a painful and expensive process, but removing it is simply not an option.
C
Chazwozel
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.
- Status