NationStates Jolt Archive

As per established Parliamentary rules of procedure, this thread is for the NS General MPs to debate and vote on the issue given in post #2 below.

A parallel thread for discussion by non MPs will be started shortly.

The voting options in this thread include options for MPs and non-MPs, and the voting is public. (You can see how your MPs voted).

Parliament is requested to debate and vote on the following:

ACT IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH PENALTY

Original proposal outline
That the death penalty be officially and solemnly opposed by this Parliament, and that it be never implemented or condoned.


Full text
The duly elected Members of the first NationStates General Parliament, hereby assembled,

Affirming their commitment to furthering and upholding the rights of all human beings,

Defining the death penalty as the lawful execution of a human being through the process of a verdict established in court,

Believing strongly that the death penalty is contrary to the most basic and fundamental of human rights, the right to life,

Believing the death penalty to be both barbaric and unnecessary,

Believing further that the risk of executing an innocent person outweighs all possible arguments in favour of the death penalty,

Believing, finally, that the recognition of the fallibility of justice implies that no condemned but innocent person should be denied the hope of having their conviction overturned in light of new evidence,

Hereby officially and solemnly oppose the death penalty, and resort never to implement or condone it.

I can not support this proposal. The ability to apply the harshest punishment to the most heinous crimes must be retained as to deter people from these crimes. Therefore, I vote nay.

I support the death penalty.

If anything, we should revise or generate a quicker means to end the lives of those who are a threat to our society.

To those of my esteemed colleagues who support the death penalty, what have you to say regarding the risk of putting to death an innocent person? Does this not override any possible justification for the death penalty?

To those of my esteemed colleagues who support the death penalty, what have you to say regarding the risk of putting to death an innocent person? Does this not override any possible justification for the death penalty?

Under the current system of free trials that was recently adopted, a guilty person is more likely to walk free than an innocent man hang.

To answer the question, no, it does not. Those who are capable of committing unspeakable atrocities must be aware that the most final and harshest punishment awaits them if they are convicted. They must know that they will get no second chance. They must know that a budget crises, a new law redefining sentencing guidelines, or parole won’t get them out of jail early. We must remove any tiny glimmer of hope that, should their crime come to light, the punishment won’t be so bad. More innocent lives are saved by the death penalty, than the amount of innocents wrongfully condemned to the death penalty. For the good of society, we must be willing to accept that the legal system is not perfect, but allow it to continue its function of deterring and punishing crime despite this hardship.

Under the current system of free trials that was recently adopted, a guilty person is more likely to walk free than an innocent man hang.

"Likelihood", to me, is not enough. There should be no possibility of an innocent person being put to death; the prospect is so horrific that every measure must be taken to prevent it, and thus the death penalty cannot be justified.


For the good of society, we must be willing to accept that the legal system is not perfect, but allow it to continue its function of deterring and punishing crime despite this hardship.

Point of order. (Bolded by me). This is the NS General Parliament; we're legislating in a context in which there is, at present, no death penalty. This is not the United States, all the more so since many of us (myself included) are not American and come from countries where there is no death penalty.

Point of order. (Bolded by me). This is the NS General Parliament; we're legislating in a context in which there is, at present, no death penalty. This is not the United States, all the more so since many of us (myself included) are not American and come from countries where there is no death penalty.

Well if you are already in that context, why make a proposal to ban it? Anyway, it is still a valid statement, when taken in the context, that even without the death penalty, law is still enforced, albeit ineffectively.

"Likelihood", to me, is not enough. There should be no possibility of an innocent person being put to death; the prospect is so horrific that every measure must be taken to prevent it, and thus the death penalty cannot be justified.

The prospect of someone brutally murdering a fellow human in cold blood because they figure that they will get out of it through parole is also horrific. If you care more about criminals than the innocents who suffer because of light sentencing, then I can see supporting this proposal. Otherwise, I can not.

Well if you are already in that context, why make a proposal to ban it? Anyway, it is still a valid statement, when taken in the context, that even without the death penalty, law is still enforced, albeit ineffectively.
That makes a lot of sense. Perhaps we should pretend that the death penalty is already in place.

I'm in a bit of a bind here. Why? Becuase I'm terrified that innocent people get hurt. You'd think that would mean I'd vote to ban the death penalty immediately. But it doesn't. Because, like it or not, the recurrence rate among certain groups of ex-cons, particularly sex offenders, is quite high. And not every rape/murder conviction is life in prison. On the one hand, there's the imperative that the state should never take innocent life, which is powerful. On the other hand, the state is just as responsible if it releases a violent criminal into society who murders, rapes, or molests a child again. So I can't vote for the death penalty or against it.

Where does that leave me? I only support the death penalty if the conviction can be supported with physical evidence. If someone were to submit that as an alternate resolution or an amendment to this one, I'd vote in favor immediately. Unless that happens, I'll wait until the end of the voting period, review the posted arguments, and vote according to what I think the strongest ones were.

Well if you are already in that context, why make a proposal to ban it? Anyway, it is still a valid statement, when taken in the context, that even without the death penalty, law is still enforced, albeit ineffectively.

I never said it was to "ban" it. It would be absurd for us to place ourselves in a hypothetical context in which the death penalty would be legal, for the reasons given previously.


The prospect of someone brutally murdering a fellow human in cold blood because they figure that they will get out of it through parole is also horrific. If you care more about criminals than the innocents who suffer because of light sentencing, then I can see supporting this proposal. Otherwise, I can not.

I strongly disagree. The conclusion to your reasoning would be to abolish any parole for the most heinous crimes, not to implement the death penalty. My point stands. Besides, the death penalty is not "necessary" as a deterrant except perhaps in countries with abnormaly high levels of violent crime; countries without the death penalty have an extremely low murder rate compared to the US.

Where does that leave me? I only support the death penalty if the conviction can be supported with physical evidence. If someone were to submit that as an alternate resolution or an amendment to this one, I'd vote in favor immediately. Unless that happens, I'll wait until the end of the voting period, review the posted arguments, and vote according to what I think the strongest ones were.

Hmm, if this doesn’t pass, I shall submit a proposal for the parliament’s approval specifying that physical evidence must be required to sentence someone to the death penalty. The most heinous acts almost always leave behind some form of physical evidence anyway. If this passes there will be little call for that, however.

It would be absurd for us to place ourselves in a hypothetical context in which the death penalty would be legal, for the reasons given previously.

I suggest we agree to disagree on this point. Our mindsets are obviously too different on the matter. For me, it is absurd to think that there isn’t any death penalty.

I strongly disagree. The conclusion to your reasoning would be to abolish any parole for the most heinous crimes, not to implement the death penalty.
This brings up a few questions.

1. Is it really any better for the state to imprison someone for their whole life wrongly than for it to kill them?

2. How extensive and expensive would the prison system have to be if there was no parole for rape, murder, and sexual assault of a minor? Enormous, that's what. I don't think that any country could afford that.

My point stands. Besides, the death penalty is not "necessary" as a deterrant except perhaps in countries with abnormaly high levels of violent crime; countries without the death penalty have an extremely low murder rate compared to the US.
I agree that the death penalty probably isn't much of a deterrent. I've seen no credible studies that support that assumption.

However, we can't really use that sort of argument in this context because we don't know what pretend country we're legislating over. No matter what country you pick, MPs of different nationalities will feel discriminated against as you're taking them out of their context and into that of others. I'd suggest that we don't use that sort of argument.

However, we can't really use that sort of argument in this context because we don't know what pretend country we're legislating over. No matter what country you pick, MPs of different nationalities will feel discriminated against as you're taking them out of their context and into that of others. I'd suggest that we don't use that sort of argument.

Agreed. The vote on this can be a sort of policy stance. We are making the laws that the not-real judges of the NS nation will follow. If it passes no death penalty may be imposed. If it doesn’t. It may be imposed.

I suggest we agree to disagree on this point. Our mindsets are obviously too different on the matter. For me, it is absurd to think that there isn’t any death penalty.

Why is that? This Parliament has never implemented one. And, besides, most of the countries represented here in NS are countries where there is no death penalty. There's no basis whatsoever for considering that there is one.

If this proposal fails, and you want there to be a death penalty, then you can submit a proposal to implement it.

[Edit:] And yes, we should just agree to disagree.

This brings up a few questions.

1. Is it really any better for the state to imprison someone for their whole life wrongly than for it to kill them?

That's a good question. I believe it is, if only because new evidence can always come to light to prove a person's innocence.


2. How extensive and expensive would the prison system have to be if there was no parole for rape, murder, and sexual assault of a minor? Enormous, that's what. I don't think that any country could afford that.

That would depend on a variety of factors, including the crime rate (i.e. how many such criminals there actually are). A case-by-case basis could be implemented, whereby parole could be allowed for some if it were deemed that there had been succesful rehabilitation. There are a number of possible measures.


I agree that the death penalty probably isn't much of a deterrent. I've seen no credible studies that support that assumption.

However, we can't really use that sort of argument in this context because we don't know what pretend country we're legislating over. No matter what country you pick, MPs of different nationalities will feel discriminated against as you're taking them out of their context and into that of others. I'd suggest that we don't use that sort of argument.

*nods*

All right, I agree.

That's a good question. I believe it is, if only because new evidence can always come to light to prove a person's innocence.
That makes sense.

That would depend on a variety of factors, including the crime rate (i.e. how many such criminals there actually are). A case-by-case basis could be implemented, whereby parole could be allowed for some if it were deemed that there had been succesful rehabilitation. There are a number of possible measures.
That's an extremely complex system that would cost an enormous amount of money to come up with, let alone to implement. It would also create enormous gridlock in the courts, as they'd have to hear extensive and dense psychological testimony as to whether the person was effectively rehabilitated.

That being said, I'm totally on the fence on the issue and could easily be persuaded by both sides. I'd like to see what you think about my original post on this thread.

That would depend on a variety of factors, including the crime rate (i.e. how many such criminals there actually are). A case-by-case basis could be implemented, whereby parole could be allowed for some if it were deemed that there had been succesful rehabilitation. There are a number of possible measures.

That is putting an awful lot of faith in judges. Clear guidelines are needed to insure that an official with an agenda doesn‘t take advantage of his position. Are you seriously suggesting that child molesters and convicted murderers should get parole?

Deleuze: It's a tricky issue, but it boils down mainly to priorities, and for me, although I acknowledge the validity of your concerns, the risk of putting an innocent person to deeath supersedes all other concerns.

That is putting an awful lot of faith in judges. Clear guidelines are needed to insure that an official with an agenda doesn‘t take advantage of his position.

Indeed.


Are you seriously suggesting that child molesters and convicted murderers should get parole?

No, I thought you were saying that would be necessary if they weren't executed. ;) Personally, I think that if it costs money to keep them in jail, then so be it. It's a sad day when money is valued over life. All the more so since putting someone to death actually costs more than life emprisonment, because of the numerous appeals and other measures it automatically implies.

No, I thought you were saying that would be necessary if they weren't executed. Personally, I think that if it costs money to keep them in jail, then so be it. It's a sad day when money is valued over life. All the more so since putting someone to death actually costs more than life emprisonment, because of the numerous appeals and other measures it automatically implies.

I never mentioned money in any of my arguments. One of the first priorities of government should be to insure that justice is carried out. To me and many others that means executing those who violate societies most basic laws. If appeals take time and money, then so be it.

Well, I'm glad we at least agree that monetary concerns shouldn't override justice or the protection of essential rights.

That is putting an awful lot of faith in judges...
...which is exactly what a parliament is supposed to do. Let them deal with justice, they are the judicative, we are the legislative. We make legislations, others enforce them. And it is therefore not our job to doubt or criticise them.

Are you seriously suggesting that child molesters and convicted murderers should get parole?
I do, if it has been shown that they are fit to return to society. Justice shouldn't be about revenge, it is merely a matter of removing dangerous people as long as they pose a danger to others. Once they're "cured", they must go free.

I therefore vote Yea, because the death penalty is only state-legislated revenge, and therefore incompatible with modern society.
--------
I'm sorry I didn't vote for a few days, but Jolt didn't seem to work for me.

Parliament is requested to debate and vote on the following:

ACT IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH PENALTY

Original proposal outline
That the death penalty be officially and solemnly opposed by this Parliament, and that it be never implemented or condoned.


Full text
The duly elected Members of the first NationStates General Parliament, hereby assembled,

Affirming their commitment to furthering and upholding the rights of all human beings,

Defining the death penalty as the lawful execution of a human being through the process of a verdict established in court,

Believing strongly that the death penalty is contrary to the most basic and fundamental of human rights, the right to life,

Believing the death penalty to be both barbaric and unnecessary,

Believing further that the risk of executing an innocent person outweighs all possible arguments in favour of the death penalty,

Believing, finally, that the recognition of the fallibility of justice implies that no condemned but innocent person should be denied the hope of having their conviction overturned in light of new evidence,

Hereby officially and solemnly oppose the death penalty, and resort never to implement or condone it.
I've got a few problems with this; namely that the death penalty is less expensive for violent criminals than keeping them in prison and giving them three meals a day until they croak. This 'turn the other cheek' attitude towards violent crime will not be a deterrant, especially to folks that know how to work prison politics. Hell, some of them might even enjoy it.

Furthermore, you speak of the 'right to life' while at the same time demanding that I give up a share of mine to fund dinner and rec time for these douchebags via tax initiatives and the like. Interesting double standard you've devised there. And, also, seeing as how the criminal in question obviously has no regard for the 'right to life,' it seems senseless not to call him on this denial of reality.

...which is exactly what a parliament is supposed to do. Let them deal with justice, they are the judicative, we are the legislative. We make legislations, others enforce them. And it is therefore not our job to doubt or criticise them.

It is in fact “our job”. We must insure that the laws we make are carried out and not ignored.

I therefore vote Yea, because the death penalty is only state-legislated revenge, and therefore incompatible with modern society.

May I remind you that civil court is part of “modern society.” That is, more often than not, very much about revenge. Otherwise people would only sue for the actual amount of damages taken, and not a cent more.

It is in fact “our job”. We must insure that the laws we make are carried out and not ignored.
No, you're thinking of a totalitarian state. It is up to the courts to deal with criminals, not us. We can only give guidelines.
Doubting judges because of whatever reason is only going to hurt the division of power, because it interferes with another branch of government.


May I remind you that civil court is part of “modern society.” That is, more often than not, very much about revenge. Otherwise people would only sue for the actual amount of damages taken, and not a cent more.
Which is of course what they should do. Maybe we have a future piece of legislation right there...
And I remain fundamentally opposed to anything to do with revenge as a form of justice, because it isn't (in my opinion).

No, you're thinking of a totalitarian state. It is up to the courts to deal with criminals, not us. We can only give guidelines.
Doubting judges because of whatever reason is only going to hurt the division of power, because it interferes with another branch of government.

I don’t think it is totalitarian. I believe in giving maximum power to elected officials, not appointed ones.

Which is of course what they should do. Maybe we have a future piece of legislation right there...
And I remain fundamentally opposed to anything to do with revenge as a form of justice, because it isn't (in my opinion).

And in my opinion the primary job of a justice system should be to punish those who break the law.

It appears that these are two ideological differences that are perhaps not able to be overcome. *Sigh* But that is how things are sometimes.

I don’t think it is totalitarian. I believe in giving maximum power to elected officials, not appointed ones.
It's a part of the checks and balances Americans are so proud of, and this is part of every democratic country on this planet.
What is to keep a successful party, who happens to win a lot of votes in parliament and senate from completely changing society, possibly even outlawing elections.
Courts are. If Bush could put his own people in those positions for example, what is there to stop him from becoming Prez for life? The constitution? That is interpreted by people he appointed just then.

People don't always know what they're doing when they vote, and you can't expect them to. I'm seeing that right now here in Australia.
Independent, non-elected, courts are an integral part of keeping the system from becoming totalitarian.

There is a clear difference between totalitarianism and a system where totalitarianism is achievable. I tend to get a little peeved when people suggest otherwise. It seems that wan not you intent though.

There is a clear difference between totalitarianism and a system where totalitarianism is achievable...
I just tend to think that wherever a possibility for something exists, it will eventually happen.

I just tend to think that wherever a possibility for something exists, it will eventually happen.

Hm, interesting. For the record you are correct about investing some power in appointed officials, though. Tis the difference between a republic and a democracy.

To the right honored people of this debate, I give to you the approriate words of the learned author Mark Twain:

THE TEN Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.

We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.

It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.

Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.

No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect--in a considerable measure--the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.

For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand--sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.

Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slaver. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.

But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice"--they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do.

Let the death penality stand.

Out of curiousity, shouldn't we hold a debate thread first and then vote? What's the point of voting then debating?

Out of curiousity, shouldn't we hold a debate thread first and then vote? What's the point of voting then debating?

I am glad somebody else thought of that. ;)

It should have been a debate thread followed up with a vote thread.

Black Forest, thank you for posting that. It has certainly intrigued me. Very wise words by Mr. Twain.

I am glad somebody else thought of that. ;)

It should have been a debate thread followed up with a vote thread.

Agreed.

My thoughts on the death penalty are as follows:

1) Despite great advances in technology and policing, there is no way to know if someone has committed a crime. There is no perfect judicial or policing system.

2) Rehabillitiation is preferable to punishment. People are not born criminals, but made criminals. Criminal rehabillitation schemes, some by governments, others by churches, have been very successful.

3) The law is not a definition of right and wrong. Legalizing the death penalty will not make it 'right'. Thus, killing a criminal simply brings the entire judicial system down to his/her level.

4) "If everybody practices the law of an eye for an eye, then soon the whole world will go blind." -Ghandi

Some have sighted their support for an eventual death penalty as being an effective deterent to those who would commit some crime of henious nature. I must retort that in my own personal opinion he who is capable of commiting a henious wrong against his fellow man cannot and will not be detered by the prospect of any punishment.

The Right Honorable Member Ariddia has suggested that the prospect of mistakenly putting to death an innocent man should deter us from ever adopting the death penalty. I must retort that the wide array of modern technologies and investigative procedures which allow us to determin with great accuracy the reasonable probability of a man's innocense or guilt would seem to make the possibility of a faulty conviction extremely slim.

The death penalty as such should not be avoided for fear of the slim chance of a faulty conviction, nor should it be adopted as a means of detering men from commiting henious crimes. It should, if anything, be adopted as a fitting punishment for the most henious of crimes. It is my opinion that a man who commits an act of cold blooded murder, rape, or child molestation forfeits his right to life. Life long imprisonment is not, in my view, a harsh enough punishment for such an individual. There is only one punishment which in its severity is a just response to such brutal and inhumane acts, and that is death by execution.

Having affirmed my stance on this issue, I must in all good conscience vote "nay".

The Right Honorable Member Ariddia has suggested that the prospect of mistakenly putting to death an innocent man should deter us from ever adopting the death penalty. I must retort that the wide array of modern technologies and investigative procedures which allow us to determin with great accuracy the reasonable probability of a man's innocense or guilt would seem to make the possibility of a faulty conviction extremely slim.


In response to the point raised by the Right Honourable Member Crimson Sith, I feel it necessary to point out that "extremely slim" would not, in my view, be sufficient, even if it were accurate. Furthermore, practice has proved that innocent men have been sentenced to death. Therefore I must maintain my point.


The death penalty as such should not be avoided for fear of the slim chance of a faulty conviction, nor should it be adopted as a means of detering men from commiting henious crimes. It should, if anything, be adopted as a fitting punishment for the most henious of crimes. It is my opinion that a man who commits an act of cold blooded murder, rape, or child molestation forfeits his right to life. Life long imprisonment is not, in my view, a harsh enough punishment for such an individual. There is only one punishment which in its severity is a just response to such brutal and inhumane acts, and that is death by execution.


As the Right Honourable Member Leonstein has pointed out, such a stance turns justice into revenge, and negates the very notion of justice. To put a person to death does not protect the community any more efficiently than locking him up, nor is it an adequate deterrent. Therefore the only "justification" for carrying out an execution is revenge. I put it that no judicial system should be founded on the concept of revenge.

I've got a few problems with this; namely that the death penalty is less expensive for violent criminals than keeping them in prison and giving them three meals a day until they croak.

Incorrect. Carrying out the death penalty is more expensive than a life sentence, due to the numerous procedures and appeals it implies. If the Right Honourable Member's only concern is monetary - which, to me, should never supersede justice - then the basis of his reasoning is flawed, as is therefore the conclusion he draws from it. If you legalise the death penalty, more of your money will go to the convicted person, as he fights to prove his innocence, than if you do not.


Furthermore, you speak of the 'right to life' while at the same time demanding that I give up a share of mine to fund dinner and rec time for these douchebags via tax initiatives and the like. Interesting double standard you've devised there.

Your comparison is obviously flawed. Whatever system is implemented, it will involve no change in your day to day life.


And, also, seeing as how the criminal in question obviously has no regard for the 'right to life,' it seems senseless not to call him on this denial of reality.

And if he is innocent?

Some have sighted their support for an eventual death penalty as being an effective deterent to those who would commit some crime of henious nature. I must retort that in my own personal opinion he who is capable of commiting a henious wrong against his fellow man cannot and will not be detered by the prospect of any punishment.

I agree with the Right Honorable Member Crimson Sith on this point. However, he who is capable of murder is unlikely to be detered by the death penalty either. Therefore, it is important that we prevent crime, not deal with the consiquences. We must rehabillitate the criminals that can be, and imprison those who cannot.

The Right Honorable Member Ariddia has suggested that the prospect of mistakenly putting to death an innocent man should deter us from ever adopting the death penalty. I must retort that the wide array of modern technologies and investigative procedures which allow us to determin with great accuracy the reasonable probability of a man's innocense or guilt would seem to make the possibility of a faulty conviction extremely slim.

No matter how slim, there is always a chance. Modern technologies are neither foolproof nor definative. On the contary, they can be used by clever criminals to colver their prints. Should these technologies improson a man wrongly, he may appeal at a higher court. However, a dead man may not appeal.

The death penalty as such should not be avoided for fear of the slim chance of a faulty conviction, nor should it be adopted as a means of detering men from commiting henious crimes. It should, if anything, be adopted as a fitting punishment for the most henious of crimes. It is my opinion that a man who commits an act of cold blooded murder, rape, or child molestation forfeits his right to life. Life long imprisonment is not, in my view, a harsh enough punishment for such an individual.

I must disagree with the Right Honorable Member Crimson Sith on this point. A life imprisomnent can be a terrible punisment. Why do many commit suicide in their cells? Of course, a life imprisoment should mean life imprisonment, and there should be no luxuries such as television, radio or free telephone to name but a few. However, a life behind bars is a just punisment.

There is only one punishment which in its severity is a just response to such brutal and inhumane acts, and that is death by execution.

However, is not murdering a murder an act of hypocracy by the judicary? Saying that all are equal under the law, but then saying not to kill and then killing themselves?

The death penalty is just a brutal crime as murder, and should never be implimented by a government that supports fair trials and rights to life, since the death penalty contravines the right to appeal and the right to live.

Momentarily interrupting the debate, I would like to relay the vote of the Right Honourable Member Eutrusca against this proposal. He will confirm it, no doubt, when his forum-ban ends.

I would like to relay also the vote of the Right Honourable Member FairyTInkArisen in favour of this proposal.

I cannot vote for the bill. The death penalty must be retained as a deterrance and the most harsh penalty imposed upon the most terrible crimes. I do not want the death penalty used a lot though, i am just not opposed to it.

I cannot vote for the bill. The death penalty must be retained as a deterrance and the most harsh penalty imposed upon the most terrible crimes. I do not want the death penalty used a lot though, i am just not opposed to it.

Point of order. It is not "retained", since it does not exist. This is the Parliament of NS General, not the Parliament of any nation in which the death penalty currently exists.

Regarding the Rt. Hon. Member's argument, it has been agreed even by proponents of the death penalty in this Parliament that it cannot be said to be an effective deterrent. And your second point downgrades justice to the realms of naked revenge. There is no effective, practical basis for it.

Whoops, I voted Nay without paying attention, thinking that this law proposed to introduce the death penalty. :embarassed:

Well, if any mod happens to read this, please move my vote to the Yea camp. Not that it really matters, since I'm not a MP, but still...

I cannot vote for the bill. The death penalty must be retained as a deterrance and the most harsh penalty imposed upon the most terrible crimes. I do not want the death penalty used a lot though, i am just not opposed to it.

Is there any proof, based on fact, that the death penalty would be any better deterrant than life inprisonment?

Surely, a better approach would to rehabillitate criminals and remove the real causes of crime? The death penalty is a punishment that only 'works' after the crime has happened. We should stop that crime happening instead.

Why should our citizens pay for some violent predator to live a life of leisure?

We should rehabilitate those who can be saved and "cleanse" those who cannot.

I am all for rehabilitation and not at all for allowing a violent predator to rest comfortably on our citizen's tax dollars and dream up a means of escape or committing further depravity.

Why should our citizens pay for some violent predator to live a life of leisure?

We should rehabilitate those who can be saved and "cleanse" those who cannot.

I am all for rehabilitation and not at all for allowing a violent predator to rest comfortably on our citizen's tax dollars and dream up a means of escape or committing further depravity.

People in jail do not necessairily cost more money to keep in jail, as the Rt. Hon. members of Parliament have already mentioned. The cost of the various trials, appeals and retrials does not just waste valuable court time, but is also extermely expensive. Furthermore, simply baseing one's vote in Parliament purely on how much it costs seems badly thought out.

www.pubpol.duke.edu/dpn/spring00/blum.html

www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

I'd like the Members of Parliament to consider these two links. Both of them represent different stastical calculations of the monetary price of the death penalty. To me, that's become the only relevant question, and here's why:

1. Opponents of the death penalty say that an innocent person may be executed. Fair enough, but it's no worse for someone to be put in prison without possibility of parole which what opponents claim should replace it. That means that they cannot leave prison unless they win an appeal. But given that executions are stayed during the appeal process, this provides no advantage in terms of the exongeration of the innocent. Both of them take away a life for the rest of it's existance. It's no better to languish in prison for the rest of your life than to die; actually, given prison suicide rates, it may be worse. The essential effect of both is to take away an individual's freedom to act, making them more or less morally equivalent.

2. Proponents of the death penalty claim revenge and "justice" as reasons why the most heinous crimes should be punished by death. However, no truly just legal system can be based on eye for an eye justice. Does it not sound heinous to have government-sanctioned rape squads that would rape rapists? Do you kill the entire family of a serial killer? Do the victims' families get to hold the trigger? Further, the justice system isn't about revenge; it's about public safety. It's unjustifiable to turn the government into an agent of revenge for certain individuals because it would be chaos if the government had to arbitrate between every fight along the lines of "She took my bubble gum, so I want her Snickers bar as my revenge!" It's not revenge government is concerned with, it's public safety.

Therefore, the two reasons that both sides put out as their main justifications are riddled with holes. We default to the only quantifiable measure; the cost to government. And the jury's still out on that one for me. I'm going to do more research, and then we'll see.

Furthermore, simply baseing one's vote in Parliament purely on how much it costs seems badly thought out.
On the contrary, it's actually the most principled and objective decision-making criteria that could come out of this whole mess of a debate.

Incorrect. Carrying out the death penalty is more expensive than a life sentence, due to the numerous procedures and appeals it implies.
Um.. no. Check your figures. 10 years in prison followed by a trip to the gas chamber versus 40+ years of three meals, plus additional guards, excersize equipment, laundry costs, surveillance equipment and more facilities and cell space since the prisons will do nothing but grow? Where the hell are you getting this idea?!

If the Right Honourable Member's only concern is monetary - which, to me, should never supersede justice - then the basis of his reasoning is flawed, as is therefore the conclusion he draws from it.
Please. Don't throw out my concerns in favor of your own. The money I earn [and thus, the money earned by various constituents] is in effect and extention of our lives. It's the only thing many of us have to show for the eight hours a day we spend at work, and it should be ours to spend and not the prison system's. Telling me that it doesn't mean shit because you don't like the death penalty is insulting and irrelevant. Money and justice have the same root value: life. Thus, they are congruent concepts, and they are not opposites like you seem to love to think they are. What you're doing here is throwing out an element of the equation that you do not like, and I won't stand for it.


If you legalise the death penalty, more of your money will go to the convicted person, as he fights to prove his innocence, than if you do not.
Nice try, but he pays the court fees, not me. He also pays for his lawyer unless he has a public defender, which isn't exactly something I approve of either. If you didn't do something, you should know why you didn't do it and where you were when it happened; you shouldn't need a guy fresh out of law school to tell this to the courts.

Your comparison is obviously flawed. Whatever system is implemented, it will involve no change in your day to day life.
Bullshit it's flawed. I don't make flawed analogies. I'll be happy to explain it to you more plainly if you like, but the bottom line is we're talking about my taxes here; we're talking about raising them so we can be all nice and warm and fuzzy to the nice men who murder people.

And if he is innocent?
And what if he's not. Please, stop trying to play the hypothetical game. Every system will have its flaws, and we're all too likely to lock up innocent folks anyway. As my good friend Deleuze already pointed out, life in prison without parole isn't much better anyway. And when we agree on something, by damn...

People in jail do not necessairily cost more money to keep in jail, as the Rt. Hon. members of Parliament have already mentioned. The cost of the various trials, appeals and retrials does not just waste valuable court time, but is also extermely expensive. Furthermore, simply baseing one's vote in Parliament purely on how much it costs seems badly thought out.

I was under the impression that people who get life in prison also try to appeal their case.

I am for the death penalty. Yes, there are innocent people who may get wrongly convicted, but that's the case even without a death penalty. Is it cruel? To me, cruel is a guy who's spent 40 years in prison, and then suddenly they find out oh he was innocent and let him out. Yay! You get a year at the end of your life that's free! That definitely makes up for having spent 12000 days and nights getting anal raped in the showers.

Either way, wrongly convicting people wastes their life, and should be avoided.

Some people are trying to make it like, death penalty is somehow very much worse than being put in prison for most of your whole life, and that the failings of courts to convict the guilty and only the guilty is something we should try to ignore by treating even guilty people like they might be innocent.

If you're going to go along that route, why not just let all prisoners go free? After all they might all be innocent, and it's barbaric to imprison a human being even if you don't plan on giving him the old lethal needle. If you're going to ban punishment on the grounds that the guilty may be innocent, you might as well ban all punishment for that same reason and be consistent.

I was under the impression that people who get life in prison also try to appeal their case.

However whilst in prison, with new evidence, it can be possible to have another appeal. Obviously, under the death penalty, this cannot happen.

However whilst in prison, with new evidence, it can be possible to have another appeal. Obviously, under the death penalty, this cannot happen.

I was refuting your claim that the death penalty costs more. A person who is sentenced to life in prison will also appeal. Thus, costing money and “wasting valuable court time,” as you so callously put it.

I am for the death penalty. Yes, there are innocent people who may get wrongly convicted, but that's the case even without a death penalty. Is it cruel? To me, cruel is a guy who's spent 40 years in prison, and then suddenly they find out oh he was innocent and let him out. Yay! You get a year at the end of your life that's free! That definitely makes up for having spent 12000 days and nights getting anal raped in the showers.

However, if you have the death penalty, you don't get that year. You go down in history forever a criminal, and die innocent, as a criminal. Under a jail sentence, you die an innocent man, and do not die as a criminal.

Either way, wrongly convicting people wastes their life, and should be avoided.

I agree

Some people are trying to make it like, death penalty is somehow very much worse than being put in prison for most of your whole life, and that the failings of courts to convict the guilty and only the guilty is something we should try to ignore by treating even guilty people like they might be innocent.

If we don't need treat the guilty like they might be innocent, why then do we need trials, courts and a legal system? After all, there's no need to assume that a suspect might be innocent.

If you're going to go along that route, why not just let all prisoners go free? After all they might all be innocent, and it's barbaric to imprison a human being even if you don't plan on giving him the old lethal needle. If you're going to ban punishment on the grounds that the guilty may be innocent, you might as well ban all punishment for that same reason and be consistent.

I don't call calling one murder a murder and another a legal execution consistent either. The point of the legal system is not to allow prisoners to go free, but to allow them to go free if they can subsiquently prove to be innocent.

However, the " they may be innocent" argument is not the only reason to be against the death penalty. The fact that killing another human being, rehabillitation and a 'right' to life play a part too.

I was refuting your claim that the death penalty costs more. A person who is sentenced to life in prison will also appeal. Thus, costing money and “wasting valuable court time,” as you so callously put it.

Executions have to go through many courts and systems, before being allowed to go through. However, should someone appeal against their sentence in jail is (usually) one appeal, not a tangled series of courts that usually happens.

However, if you have the death penalty, you don't get that year. You go down in history forever a criminal, and die innocent, as a criminal. Under a jail sentence, you die an innocent man, and do not die as a criminal.

What about if you die in prison? Oops.

Maybe there shouldn't be prisons, since people die in them and some people might be innocent.

If we don't need treat the guilty like they might be innocent, why then do we need trials, courts and a legal system? After all, there's no need to assume that a suspect might be innocent.

Trials are to determine who is guilty. Penalties are to determine the punishment for those who have been legally determined to be guilty. Once you're guilty it's time for punishment, and if you were wrongly convicted - too bad. Life in prison is not fun. I would pretty much rather die than serve 40 years, myself.

I don't call calling one murder a murder and another a legal execution consistent either. The point of the legal system is not to allow prisoners to go free, but to allow them to go free if they can subsiquently prove to be innocent.

The point of the legal system is to deal with those who break the law and become criminals. It is also to determine the criminals from the wrongly accused. If you can't do that in a trial, it's a failing of the trial system, not the punishment system.

However, the " they may be innocent" argument is not the only reason to be against the death penalty. The fact that killing another human being, rehabillitation and a 'right' to life play a part too.

Maybe a part for those moralists who presume to be unable to harm a fly. I however, have no problems killing flies, or advocating the death of legally convicted rapists and murderers.

However, the " they may be innocent" argument is not the only reason to be against the death penalty. The fact that killing another human being, rehabillitation and a 'right' to life play a part too.

I’ve never understood the whole “right to life” argument by the anti-death penalty crowd. When you are convicted of a crime, you forfeit your rights as a citizen.

I’ve never understood the whole “right to life” argument by the anti-death penalty crowd. When you are convicted of a crime, you forfeit your rights as a citizen.

And if you haven't done that crime? I hope you're never convicted of a crime you didn't do, and have your rights removed.

And rights are supposed to be universal. They apply to criminals too.

And if you haven't done that crime? I hope you're never convicted of a crime you didn't do, and have your rights removed.

Using that logic we should never sentence anybody to any punishment ever, for fear we might be convicting an innocent person.

And rights are supposed to be universal. They apply to criminals too.

I would call locking a person up against their will to be violating rights. In a free society, the punishment for crime is the removal of certain rights.

What about if you die in prison? Oops.

Maybe there shouldn't be prisons, since people die in them and some people might be innocent.

Those people didn't get any evidence to prove their innocence, and therefore probably are guilty. However, that's not necessairily a reason to kill people: "they might die in jail, so we'll just kill them instead." Quite a nice piece of logic.

Trials are to determine who is guilty. Penalties are to determine the punishment for those who have been legally determined to be guilty. Once you're guilty it's time for punishment, and if you were wrongly convicted - too bad. Life in prison is not fun. I would pretty much rather die than serve 40 years, myself.

If you're wrongly convicted - too bad? That is no different to the murderers who kill - that person's not done anything, but it doesn't matter, i'll kill him anyway. Life is not something to be thrown away so lightly.

The point of the legal system is to deal with those who break the law and become criminals. It is also to determine the criminals from the wrongly accused. If you can't do that in a trial, it's a failing of the trial system, not the punishment system.

I agree. But the punbisment system is intertwined with the legal system. The legal system is not perfect and the 'punismnent' system should be able to deal with this - mainly by allowing a retrial with new evidence.

Maybe a part for those moralists who presume to be unable to harm a fly. I however, have no problems killing flies, or advocating the death of legally convicted rapists and murderers.

Then is that all you see in a justice system? Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth style vengence? I personally feel that a legal system should amount to more than that. We should rehabillitate those who can be rehabillitated, and lock up the others. As you adequately put it - a life sentence is not particulary nice.

Using that logic we should never sentence anybody to any punishment ever, for fear we might be convicting an innocent person.

On the contrary, people should undergo the consiquences of their actions. However, the consiquences must not be so that there is no way to prove afterwards that they are innocent.

I would call locking a person up against their will to be violating rights. In a free society, the punishment for crime is the removal of certain rights.

Punishment should not be the priority but rehabillitation. I agree that rights will be taken away, but not the right to exist. That is not a right that should ever be taken away by anyone. The murderers should not kill, and the law should not stoop to their level.

After much deliberation, I'm going to vote nay. A few reasons:

1. I believe that neither side has presented compelling a compelling, airtight moral argument as to why their side is preferable. Imprisoning an innocent person for life is just as bad as executing them. And, as Undelia and I have discussed, if this proposal fails, a resolution to only implement the death penalty in cases where DNA testing proves guilt makes the chances of an innocent person being executed very, very low. However, I also don't believe it's the government's place to institute one person's revenge against another.

2. Therefore, we need a tiebreaker. In comes the money factor. I did some research; it turns out if you consider equivalent statistics (what life without parole would cost if it was instituted in the case where the prisoner would otherwise be given the death penalty), the death penalty is significantly cheaper. Per case, the Death Penalty is roughly 1 Million Dollars cheaper. (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html) That's not a trivial amount of money. Think how many lives could be saved were that money put to better use. The insistence on the rights of a criminal are costing people who have committed no crime their lives from underfunded police and welfare services. So both the life and the money equation demand that the death penalty be legal.

3. Melkor and I finally agree on something.

Believing further that the risk of executing an innocent person outweighs all possible arguments in favour of the death penalty,
How about the risk of innocent death because of money that could have been used to save their lives which instead is being spent on giving convicted criminals food? This line alone is enough to reject the proposal as it stands, even if you're against the death penalty.

Those people didn't get any evidence to prove their innocence, and therefore probably are guilty. However, that's not necessairily a reason to kill people: "they might die in jail, so we'll just kill them instead." Quite a nice piece of logic.


No no, people who are convicted of a crime are guilty. They're not probably guilty. Legally, they're guilty. By putting them in prison you already accept that punishment is good to hand out, even if the system is not 100% foolproof (then again what system is)?

A reason to kill people? Well the blood is already on our hands, what difference does it make?

If you're wrongly convicted - too bad? That is no different to the murderers who kill - that person's not done anything, but it doesn't matter, i'll kill him anyway. Life is not something to be thrown away so lightly.

Who says it's thrown away lightly? I've never seen a jury laughing as he meted a death penalty out. Where you and I differ is you think it's OK to wrongly have someone spend a life in prison as long as they don't get the death penalty, and it doesn't matter if they die in prison or have their whole lives thrown away as long as they don't get the death penalty. To you, nothing is worse than the death penalty.

(Which in itself is a good reason for the deterrent argument, no?)


I agree. But the punbisment system is intertwined with the legal system. The legal system is not perfect and the 'punismnent' system should be able to deal with this - mainly by allowing a retrial with new evidence.

What if there is no new evidence? Just keep them around forever, because there MIGHT be new evidence that magically makes them innocent? Let's not punish anyone with prison either, for the same damn reason! You can't throw out the punishment because the legal system is not perfect.

The legal system will never be perfect. Waiting for perfection is a chimera. We can improve it, but removing the death penalty is like throwing out the concept of elections beause of voter fraud or apathy.

Then is that all you see in a justice system? Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth style vengence? I personally feel that a legal system should amount to more than that. We should rehabillitate those who can be rehabillitated, and lock up the others. As you adequately put it - a life sentence is not particulary nice.

No it's not nice - for the taxpayers especially.

Rehabilitation is a nice concept, and will work especially well once we've got mind control and brainwashing down to a science. We're not there yet, and misguided people assuming all criminals can be "rehabilitated" is a fool's errand that leads to such miscarriages of justice as in, say, a Clockwork Orange.

No no, people who are convicted of a crime are guilty. They're not probably guilty. Legally, they're guilty. By putting them in prison you already accept that punishment is good to hand out, even if the system is not 100% foolproof (then again what system is)?

Having something as a law does not necessairily make it right. I honestly don't accept that someone who is innocent should have to accept that they are guilty simply because they are convicted, with no opportunity of a retrial or appeal.

A reason to kill people? Well the blood is already on our hands, what difference does it make?

Using that logic, the government can kill who it likes, guilty or not, if it has a death penalty. After all - what difference can it make with the blood already on it's hand?

Who says it's thrown away lightly? I've never seen a jury laughing as he meted a death penalty out. Where you and I differ is you think it's OK to wrongly have someone spend a life in prison as long as they don't get the death penalty, and it doesn't matter if they die in prison or have their whole lives thrown away as long as they don't get the death penalty. To you, nothing is worse than the death penalty.

(Which in itself is a good reason for the deterrent argument, no?)

If you die in prison you die of old age, and have had a chance for new technology to find new evidence to help clear your name. If you die in the Chair or with an injection, that opportunity is missed.

I never said, either, that death is any more preferable to me than life in jail. However, the death penalty is morally wrong, unlike the life sentence, and not necessairily worse than the dearh penalty.

What if there is no new evidence? Just keep them around forever, because there MIGHT be new evidence that magically makes them innocent? Let's not punish anyone with prison either, for the same damn reason! You can't throw out the punishment because the legal system is not perfect.

We aren't throwing away the punishment. You have said that you would prefer death to jail - making jail a far better punishment and a better deterrant!

The legal system will never be perfect. Waiting for perfection is a chimera. We can improve it, but removing the death penalty is like throwing out the concept of elections beause of voter fraud or apathy.

That is simply not true. If you remove the death penalty, people are still punished in jail (with a chance to appeal). Justice still happens. Remove elections, and you throw way the entire system.

Perhaps a better analogy would be removing the entire legal system is like throwing out the concept of elections beause of voter fraud or apathy.

No it's not nice - for the taxpayers especially.

Aid to pooer countries isn't nice for the taxpayer. Running a health service isn't nice for the taxpayer. People's lives are worth more than money, in my opinion.

Rehabilitation is a nice concept, and will work especially well once we've got mind control and brainwashing down to a science. We're not there yet, and misguided people assuming all criminals can be "rehabilitated" is a fool's errand that leads to such miscarriages of justice as in, say, a Clockwork Orange.

Again, not true. How would it lead to miscarriages of justice? It is the death penalty that leads to miscarriages of justice, not rehab. It is when we start using rehabillitation that we can improve methods. We do have some ways to rehabilitate crime, but because of the legal system it can't happen very often.

Having something as a law does not necessairily make it right. I honestly don't accept that someone who is innocent should have to accept that they are guilty simply because they are convicted, with no opportunity of a retrial or appeal.

So you would agree with "Innocent until proven guilty, but even then still probably innocent until proven guilty a few more times?"


Using that logic, the government can kill who it likes, guilty or not, if it has a death penalty. After all - what difference can it make with the blood already on it's hand?

It could do that even without a death penalty, using that logic. So having a death penalty would really make no difference.


If you die in prison you die of old age, and have had a chance for new technology to find new evidence to help clear your name. If you die in the Chair or with an injection, that opportunity is missed.

Hmm, only deaths in prison are due to old age? Interesting theory.

I never said, either, that death is any more preferable to me than life in jail. However, the death penalty is morally wrong, unlike the life sentence, and not necessairily worse than the dearh penalty.

Why is incarcerating a man - stripping him of his very freedom, for life, being put in a cage together with violent, degenerate animals - somehow considered "not morally wrong" by you?

Regardless, your warped sense of morality is not what I would consider a good basis for law.

We aren't throwing away the punishment. You have said that you would prefer death to jail - making jail a far better punishment and a better deterrant!

That's only because unlike many people, including yourself, I am not fooled into thinking prison is... well, not "morally wrong." YOU have said you consider death worse, and if you represent any kind of majority - unfortunately in some circles you do - then the better deterrant is indeed, this most inhumane, cruel, barbaric death penalty.

That is simply not true. If you remove the death penalty, people are still punished in jail (with a chance to appeal). Justice still happens. Remove elections, and you throw way the entire system.

Justice? An interesting term for it. Obviously we'll get nowhere as long as we differ as to our concepts of what justice is.

I don't believe jail or prison is enough justice for someone who rapes and murders fifty children. You however, believe he could be rehabilitated, and if not, just let him enjoy himself in a world of animals where he will continue to rape and possibly murder (just not children). Some of those with him, his new victims in prison, will be innocent.


Aid to pooer countries isn't nice for the taxpayer. Running a health service isn't nice for the taxpayer. People's lives are worth more than money, in my opinion.

:rolleyes: Can we stay on topic? Health services and foreign aid are a different subject, and we could certainly talk about that and inevitably disagree, but it has nothing to do with the death penalty. Now, if you really don't care about the people and the taxes they pay, that's fine, but are you really going to use that lack of care to justify everything on your agenda? "Screw you, taxpayers?"

Again, not true. How would it lead to miscarriages of justice? It is the death penalty that leads to miscarriages of justice, not rehab. It is when we start using rehabillitation that we can improve methods. We do have some ways to rehabilitate crime, but because of the legal system it can't happen very often.

Again, this is where we differ. You think "rehabilitation" not only works, but is somehow just. As if the only problem with crime is that criminals do it multiple times - but everyone is allowed to be a criminal as long as they get "rehabilitated" and promise, promise promise never to kill any more children. That to me is such a gross miscarriage of justice I can't even explain it to you, since it's sort of like someone going "But what was wrong with Hitler, really?" If you don't get it, you never will and there is no point to further discussion.

I voted nay. I find the flowery speech included within the new amendment to be highly fallible and ridiculous. Liberty and property can be taken away, and these are the same infallible rights as life. This matter should be left in the hands of local districts so that the people themselves, not a far away government, decides what's best for them. The way the death penalty works it takes many, many years for someone to be finally executed, and innocent people die in life-imprisonment, but few would argue to outlaw life imprisonment. I find the various horrors of life incarceration, such as rape by other cellmates, to be far more ghastly, humiliating and dehumanizing than lethal injection. Again, I vote against the proposal not because I want the death penalty to be completely protected but so that the individual people can decide for themselves how the law will operate.

In response to the point raised by the Right Honourable Member Crimson Sith, I feel it necessary to point out that "extremely slim" would not, in my view, be sufficient, even if it were accurate. Furthermore, practice has proved that innocent men have been sentenced to death. Therefore I must maintain my point.

By that logic, we should not sentence any convict to any sort of punishment, for fear that he should later be found innocent of the crime. For truly, is it worse to die for a crime one did not commit, or to waste away in a jail cell for ten, twenty, even thirty years, awaiting new evidence to prove one's innocence? Though I do not feel I am in a position to answer this question myself, I would fathom a guess that many men would prefer death over lifelong confinement.

As the Right Honourable Member Leonstein has pointed out, such a stance turns justice into revenge, and negates the very notion of justice. To put a person to death does not protect the community any more efficiently than locking him up, nor is it an adequate deterrent. Therefore the only "justification" for carrying out an execution is revenge. I put it that no judicial system should be founded on the concept of revenge.

No, I think not. Again, by this argument, any form of punishment, be it a fine, incarceration, or the death penalty, can be considered an "act of revenge" against the convict. This, to me at least, is an irrational argument which paints the criminal into the role of some kind of victim. It is perhaps the bizarre result of the fact that you would form this parliament's entire perception of the judicial system around the concept of the highly hypothetical wrongly convicted defendant. As I have already stated, the death penalty is a fitting punishment for a henious crime, not, as you would like to present it, an "act of revenge". I am not interested in revenge, but in justice. Is there justice in a convicted child molester, rapist, or murderer living out his life at the cost of the upstanding, hardworking citizens of our society? Again, I think not.

2. Therefore, we need a tiebreaker. In comes the money factor. I did some research; it turns out if you consider equivalent statistics (what life without parole would cost if it was instituted in the case where the prisoner would otherwise be given the death penalty), the death penalty is significantly cheaper. Per case, the Death Penalty is roughly 1 Million Dollars cheaper. (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html) That's not a trivial amount of money. Think how many lives could be saved were that money put to better use. The insistence on the rights of a criminal are costing people who have committed no crime their lives from underfunded police and welfare services. So both the life and the money equation demand that the death penalty be legal.

How about the risk of innocent death because of money that could have been used to save their lives which instead is being spent on giving convicted criminals food? This line alone is enough to reject the proposal as it stands, even if you're against the death penalty.

i'm not sure if this has already been posted (i hate joining these threads late...) but thats not what this website says (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)


the cost of the actual sentence itself is only part of the cost.
and isn't anyone else sickened that a matter of life or death is boiled down to simply which method is cheaper? :(

anyways, if you're going to argue costs:

Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.

The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases

The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).

The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.

The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.

Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences

North Carolina spends more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case

Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post.

Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases
That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)



plus, according to this website

Previous research provides no clear indication whether the death penalty acts as a method of crime prevention


and from a moral/philisophical point of view, nobody has the right to decide who should live or die. nobody has that authority to take life away from a person. a fundamental right to life is one of the most basic and important rights there are, and the death penalty directly contravines this.

I voted nay. I find the flowery speech included within the new amendment to be highly fallible and ridiculous. Liberty and property can be taken away, and these are the same infallible rights as life. This matter should be left in the hands of local districts so that the people themselves, not a far away government, decides what's best for them. The way the death penalty works it takes many, many years for someone to be finally executed, and innocent people die in life-imprisonment, but few would argue to outlaw life imprisonment. I find the various horrors of life incarceration, such as rape by other cellmates, to be far more ghastly, humiliating and dehumanizing than lethal injection. Again, I vote against the proposal not because I want the death penalty to be completely protected but so that the individual people can decide for themselves how the law will operate.

I would like to remind Zethistania that he is no longer a member of this parliament.

i'm not sure if this has already been posted (i hate joining these threads late...) but thats not what this website says (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)


the cost of the actual sentence itself is only part of the cost.
and isn't anyone else sickened that a matter of life or death is boiled down to simply which method is cheaper? :(

anyways, if you're going to argue costs:
Those costs refer only to the trial costs, not to the prison costs. Deleuze has provided more justifiable figures. Sorry PM, but on this one the cost of life imprisonmet is higher than the cost of a death penalty. It is just that some people only calculate the legally necessary court costs, rather than what actually happens. Almost no one accepts a life sentence without making multiple appeals against the conviction, and then applications for parole, and then re application s for parole etc. etc. On the cost side the Death penalty is definitely cheaper.



and from a moral/philisophical point of view, nobody has the right to decide who should live or die. nobody has that authority to take life away from a person. a fundamental right to life is one of the most basic and important rights there are, and the death penalty directly contravines this.
Unfortunately you are wrong. From a moral/philosophical point of view anyone could have this right to decide, and in fact we all do. We have the right to decide for ourselves if we should live or die. If a crime carries a death penalty, we have the right to decide if we wish to risk this penalty. No -one is made to commit serial murders or to rape children, or to blow up schools. These are choices made by the individual. In making these choices, they have exercised their right to choose to die in a nation with a death penalty for these actions.

If you argue that the state has no right to set such a penalty, you would have to justify the right of the state to set any penalty for criminal activity. If it can impose a 10 cent fine for something, then by extension it can also impose a death penalty. There is no fundamental difference between the two. as punishment.

People will argue that the 10 cents can be repaid if the conviction is overturned, but life can not be restored. This is simply a matter of how much faith you have in the justice system. If you do not have faith in it though, then it can not justifiably impose even a nominal fine as that represents the forced loss of goods to the convicted person. So you implicitly have to trust the system, or dispense with any formal system whatsoever. (Lynch mobs anyone?)

So the system reflects the choice of the convicted person when they acted contrary to the law. The system has to be trusted if it is to exist. The death penalty is a less cruel and unusual punishment than any extended prison term (20 years plus) The death penalty places less financial burden on the law abiding members of the society. The conclusion is that preventing the nation from having a Death penalty is unjustifiable on anything other than pure personal emotional grounds.

We will vote nay.

1. Again, by this argument, any form of punishment, be it a fine, incarceration, or the death penalty, can be considered an "act of revenge" against the convict.
2. This, to me at least, is an irrational argument which paints the criminal into the role of some kind of victim.
3. As I have already stated, the death penalty is a fitting punishment for a henious crime, not, as you would like to present it, an "act of revenge".
4. I am not interested in revenge, but in justice. Is there justice in a convicted child molester, rapist, or murderer living out his life at the cost of the upstanding, hardworking citizens of our society? Again, I think not.
1. That is true, and that is all there is to it as far as the victim and the accused are concerned.
2. Once the deed is done (the alleged crime), we are at a stage where all that can be done is hurting the accused/convicted. The crime cannot be undone anymore. Prevention is the only just form of criminal justice.
3. No, in my opinion, it is an act of revenge. A punishment is revenge by a hurt party, almost by definition. And just for me personally, the death penalty would be less of a deterrent than life in prison.
4. Is there justice in destroying a life that may very well be rehabilitated? This child molester may be helped, he may be cured and live the rest of his life as a happy and productive member of society. The only way even prison can be justified is by arguing that a criminal must be kept away from society as long as he/she poses a danger, and not a second longer.

Leonstein: I suppose the main point of contention between us is rehabilitation. You seem to believe that the criminal can be rehabilitated, that he can be made a normal, functioning member of society. I, at the risk of sounding crude, feel that rehabilitation is a load of crap. I am, however, openminded. I would be highly interested in studying any real world sources you may have access to which would confirm the viability of the rehabilitation of convicted criminals.

-snip-
It is remarkably difficult to find English sites actually not bashing rehabilitation in one way or other. Must be something to do with anglo-saxon culture... ;)
http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Articles/article92.htm
Here is just one quick thing pulled out of google. It merely illustrates that there are statistics and opinions in favour of rehabilitation.

But in my opinion real world data really doesn't matter that much. It's a question of philosophy, something that people have to think about in their own heads. Numbers aren't going to tell you anything about the possibilities - assuming that rehabilitation doesn't work is to believe in some sort of genetic, material factor that makes a person a criminal, something I find ridiculous.
If current rehab programs aren't working properly, then that only means the programs are not the right ones.

Yes, well, I agree, it is more a matter of philosophy than numbers. In truth, either of us would be hard pressed to convince the other toward his point of view, and I doubt either of us will change his stance on the issue any time in the near future. Still, I will study the source you have provided, as well as any others I may find, as I am interested in learning more about the rehabilitationist stance.

..Still, I will study the source you have provided, as well as any others I may find, as I am interested in learning more about the rehabilitationist stance.
Very good. It always helps to do much research, over a long time to really clean one's mind up to the point where one has a clearly formulated construct of how one sees the world.
================
A point on the side: Who else thinks that the current MPs are in a situation that Rawls would've been proud of.
We are a select council of people ( ;) ) who get to decide the laws, the structure of a society. Wouldn't it be great if we could imagine that we'd die as soon as our term ends, and we'd be born in this society - without knowing as what and where?
Wouldn't that approach guarantee a truly just and fair society?
Wouldn't it be good if we took that approach when looking at proposals?

Hello. My name is Xaosis Redux. Most of you do not know me. I don't talk much, but since I have been offered a seat here in this august body, I'll say a few words.

The problem with the death penalty is that it gives the state the power over human life, albeit under a specific set of circumstances. As a libertarian minded individual, I tend to be weary of this, but unfortunatly it is the only acceptable argument against the death penalty I have ever heard, whereas arguments in favor tend to make more sense to me.

A criminal, i.e., someone who willfully trangresses societies laws at the expense of another person, must be held accountable. I don't think anyone is here to claim otherwise. When a life is taken in a deliberate manner, the reasoning goes that one forfits his or her own life in the act.

I prefer a more calculating approach: how does abolishing the death penalty deter someone from killing a second time, or even a first? Now, you could say that life in prison without parole would do just fine, but that's no safeguard either. In prison, a murderer can kill another convict or a guard. The way I look at it is, if there is the slightest chance a confirmed killer can strike again, society has to take that into account.

You cannot argue that someone has rights when such person doesn't appear to respect the concepts of rights in other people. Don't get me wrong, I do believe even dyed in the wool killers have rights, but in the crime of murder, the murderer is effectively saying, "I don't believe the victim of my crime has a right to live." How, then, can society say that the murderer has a right to live even after his killing when he (or she) plainly doesn't believe that lives shouldn't be taken?

There's the contradiction, as I see it, in death penalty opposition arguments. While I don't approve of the electric chair (I think it IS barbaric and outdated), it doesn't mean I'm against the death penalty at all.

I would also like to add that I've heard people argue with me in favor of abortions and then turn around and argue against a hardened criminal being executed. I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of this, but I have noticed that the left has a weird habit of supporting abortion rights, which involve unborns who have committed no crime, but fighting tooth nail and tail to keep a serial killer from being executed. Before you snarl and snap, I am pro-choice and rabidly in favor a woman's right to choose, but I think it's stupid to have such contradictions in your philosophy. If your against the death penalty, you should also be against abortions.

1. A criminal, i.e., someone who willfully trangresses societies laws at the expense of another person, must be held accountable. 2. When a life is taken in a deliberate manner, the reasoning goes that one forfits his or her own life in the act.
3. Don't get me wrong, I do believe even dyed in the wool killers have rights, but in the crime of murder, the murderer is effectively saying, "I don't believe the victim of my crime has a right to live."
4. I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of this, but I have noticed that the left has a weird habit of supporting abortion rights, which involve unborns who have committed no crime, but fighting tooth nail and tail to keep a serial killer from being executed.
1. Actually, I believe all we can do in this case is keep him/her away from society as long as he/she poses a danger to it. That coincides with "being held accountable", incidentally, but is not the same thing.
2. What reasoning is that? I don't agree.
3. So what rights does a killer have, if he/she doesn't have the right to continue living and better himself/herself?
4. Well, I am one of those. Short answer is: I don't think an unborn is "life". I celebrate my birthday as the beginning of my existence, not the day of my conception. Before that (and it could be argued even afterwards for some time) all I am is a part of my mother's life, over which she must have the right to decide.

I would also like to add that I've heard people argue with me in favor of abortions and then turn around and argue against a hardened criminal being executed. I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of this, but I have noticed that the left has a weird habit of supporting abortion rights, which involve unborns who have committed no crime, but fighting tooth nail and tail to keep a serial killer from being executed. Before you snarl and snap, I am pro-choice and rabidly in favor a woman's right to choose, but I think it's stupid to have such contradictions in your philosophy. If your against the death penalty, you should also be against abortions.

This is a debate on the death penalty, not abortion. However, there is no contradiction in that philosphy since the abortion debate is a debate on if a foetus is living or not.

Unfortunately you are wrong. From a moral/philosophical point of view anyone could have this right to decide, and in fact we all do. We have the right to decide for ourselves if we should live or die.
no time to offer a full rebuttle (supposed to be working), but sufficed to say the ability to act is not a right to authority.
the ability of a thug on the streets to kill someone does not give him that right. nor does the ability of the state to kill its people give it the authority or the right to do so; even more so in that for the state to decide it must make a concious decision, devoid of emotion, anger or wanting for vengeance (by which so many individual murders may be fuelled)

no time to offer a full rebuttle (supposed to be working), but sufficed to say the ability to act is not a right to authority.
the ability of a thug on the streets to kill someone does not give him that right. nor does the ability of the state to kill its people give it the authority or the right to do so; even more so in that for the state to decide it must make a concious decision, devoid of emotion, anger or wanting for vengeance (by which so many individual murders may be fuelled)

Being killed by a thug on the street is not a defined outcome of a free choice made by the victim. Being executed under a death penalty is a predefined outcome of a personal choice. They are philosophically and ethically very different.

It is not a matter of authority. It is a matter of who decides. In the case of the thug, the thug decides. In the case of the death penalty, the criminal, the person that will die, decides.

The state is not the active agent so far as a death penalty is concerned any more than the ground is an active agent when someone jumps off a tall building. There is a law, that states if you do this then that happens. If the law states that if you rape a five year old you will die, then if you rape a five year old, the agent in your death is yourself, not the state.

What can not be done is to execute anyone who commited the crime prior to a death sentance being decided upon for that offence. That would be like diving off a 10M platform, only to have the pool suddenly made into concrete.

We do not prosecute ropes for hanging people, we do not hold the water responsible for drowning someone, so we can not hold the state responsible for applying a death penalty. We hold the person responsible for any deliberate action that kills them (suicide) rather than the impersonal cause of their death.

A check on the voting reveals

Yea: Ariddia, Bitchkitten, British Socialism, DHomme, JWatkins, Knootoss, Leonstein, Maineiacs, New Burmesia, Pure Metal, Skinny87, Spaam

Nay: Alien Born, Crimson Sith, Deleuze, Melkor Unchained, Mole Patrol, Objectivist Patriots, Santa Barbara, Undelia, Vittos Ordination, Wegason, Xaosis Redux, Zethistania

It is our understanding that those in red are not MPs. Would Ariddia please confirm this. Or if they claim to be MPs then they represent which parties?

The current list of MPs we have is

Cult of TInk Party
FairyTInkArisen
Skinny87

Democratic Socialist Party
Argesia
Deleuze
Leonstein
Spaam
Knootoss

Mole and Other Burrowing Rodents' Alliance
Moleland

NS Classic Liberals
Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Santa Barbara
Wegason
Uginin

NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans
Undelia
Crimson Sith

Party of Whatever Works
Bitchkitten
Marmite Toast
Eutrusca

Reason Party (formerly: "Up yours!" Party)
Melkor Unchained
Xaosis Redux
Objectivist Patriots

Revolutionary Trostkyist Party
DHomme

United Democratic Communist Party
Ariddia
Pure Metal
New Burmesia


So as it stands now (subject to confirmation)
Yea: 10 (including Tink)
Nay: 11 (including Eutrusca)

EDIT: Correcting from Ariddia's info.

It is our understanding that those in red are not MPs. Would Ariddia please confirm this. Or if they claim to be MPs then they represent which parties? (I think I saw something about Deleuze, but I am not sure on this)


Deleuze has been chosen as a Member of Parliament by the Democratic Socialist Party (replacing Cool Dynasty 42).


So as it stands now (subject to confirmation)
Yea: 10 (including Tink)
Nay: 10 (including Eutrusca)

Rectified to take into account Deleuze's vote:
Yea: 10 (including TInk)
Nay: 11 (including Eutrusca)

Which means that the following have not yet voted:
Argesia (DSP)
Moleland (MOBRA)
Uginin (NSCL)
Marmite Toast (PWW)


Regarding the debate, once a crime has been committed, if no deterrent is truly effective, then the role of justice is certainly not revenge, but rather the protection of the community, and that does not necessitate the death penalty.

Moreover, if we are view it as a philosophical debate whether the death penalty is more humane or less so than life emprisonment, then the one firm element to stand on is that life emprisonment allows for the overturning of a faulty decision, whereas the death penalty does not. Yes, we should trust in the process of justice, but that does not mean measures should not be ensured for the overturning of errors - since errors are inevitable.

Of course, we all have different ways of viewing this. I, for instance, believe that monetary concerns should have no role to play in deciding whether a person should live or die.

Regarding the debate, once a crime has been committed, if no deterrent is truly effective, then the role of justice is certainly not revenge, but rather the protection of the community, and that does not necessitate the death penalty.
It requires either the death penalty or the exclusion of the criminal from society for the remainder of the criminal's life in some cases. And it is only these cases that are under discussion.

Moreover, if we are view it as a philosophical debate whether the death penalty is more humane or less so than life emprisonment, then the one firm element to stand on is that life emprisonment allows for the overturning of a faulty decision, whereas the death penalty does not. Yes, we should trust in the process of justice, but that does not mean measures should not be ensured for the overturning of errors - since errors are inevitable.
If you consider that a measure can not be taken because it is irreversible, then you can not imprison people, as that too is irreversible. Yes they can be released, but they can not be given back the time they lost. If you imprison someone for life, wrongly, this is a far more severe miscarriage than executing a person wrongly, from a psychological point of view. A dead person is just that, dead. A wrongly imprisoned person, who is unable to prove the error, suffers every moment of thet imprisonment. It is no consolation to his friends and relatives that he is alive (for he and his read he or she and his or her OK) it is of no benefit to him without his being free. It is just additional mental torture. Even if new evidence does come to light 20 years later, they have still lost their life. Yes they are alive, but their life, what they could have done, achieved, has been destroyed.
The next point is that your argument is that we must treat the majority this cruelly because in one case in a thousand an error may have occurred. That is not a reasonable argument for psychologically torturing people.

Of course, we all have different ways of viewing this. I, for instance, believe that monetary concerns should have no role to play in deciding whether a person should live or die.
Tell that to the starving in the third world.

can all those who favour the death penalty please explain to me the difference between them, in favour of killing people whos actions they disagree with, and a man who kills another man because they disagree with, say, the way they voted (or, simply put, are in favour of killing someone because they did an action they disagree with)? you feel justified that you can kill that man, because of something he did, and he feels justified for killing because of something his victim did. how then can you claim to be morally superior, and therefore in a position to judge his actions, if you are willing to stoop to the same level as them? killing killers because they kill is hypocrisy.

sure, you can use your "ultimate price" arguement, but if you were a killer with a gun hold up in a building weighing up your choices, with no death penalty they consist of "go peacefully, stay alive, even if i am locked up for ever, on my own, in a cell", or "go out in a blaze of glory", whereas with a death penalty its a case of "go out in a blaze of glory" or "go out in a stupid orange jumpsuit strapped to a chair". with no death penalty, theirs a chance of a peaceful solution, whereas without their is not.

can all those who favour the death penalty please explain to me the difference between them, in favour of killing people whos actions they disagree with, and a man who kills another man because they disagree with, say, the way they voted (or, simply put, are in favour of killing someone because they did an action they disagree with)? you feel justified that you can kill that man, because of something he did, and he feels justified for killing because of something his victim did. how then can you claim to be morally superior, and therefore in a position to judge his actions, if you are willing to stoop to the same level as them? killing killers because they kill is hypocrisy.
If we are not in position to judge the actions of a killer, how can we try him in a court of law? How are we able to give this killer any sentence at all, if we cannot judge him?

sure, you can use your "ultimate price" arguement, but if you were a killer with a gun hold up in a building weighing up your choices, with no death penalty they consist of "go peacefully, stay alive, even if i am locked up for ever, on my own, in a cell", or "go out in a blaze of glory", whereas with a death penalty its a case of "go out in a blaze of glory" or "go out in a stupid orange jumpsuit strapped to a chair". with no death penalty, theirs a chance of a peaceful solution, whereas without their is not.
I'm against mandatory death sentences. The court has to have a certain discretion, and a guilty plea is a good mitigating circumstance... I'm oversimplifying it, of course.

If we are not in position to judge the actions of a killer, how can we try him in a court of law? How are we able to give this killer any sentence at all, if we cannot judge him?


I'm against mandatory death sentences. The court has to have a certain discretion, and a guilty plea is a good mitigating circumstance... I'm oversimplifying it, of course.

we can judge him only if we are not willing to become like him, to kill.

also, its essentially a choice between freeing 10 guilty men, but saving an innocent man, or killing 10 guilty men and a innocent one. not easy, but hey.

edit: even so, the guy will still probably be seeing it in back and white, so hes unlikely to sit down and have good long think aout the legal to's ad fro's that might save him.

also, in cases such as the nazis, when we executed them, we created martyrs to nazism. rather counterproductive, when we could have at least TRIED to make them see what they did was wrong and repent, therby not becoming martyrs.

we can judge him only if we are not willing to become like him, to kill.
The killer will be put to death according to the law, and the law has nothing to do with moral superiority. The State has no morals or conscience.

BTW, we have a death penalty moratorium in Russia, and our worst criminals serve life sentences in truly horrible maximum-security prisons. I've seen a TV documentary about one of those places, 'Black Dolphin' -- and I assure you that its mode of operation is nothing less than 'shooting by instalments'. The convicts are reduced to automatons screaming their prison numbers, numbers of Criminal Code articles under which they were sentenced, and possible dates of release in response to each and every word of a prison guard.

There is nothing moral in such life sentences...

also, its essentially a choice between freeing 10 guilty men, but saving an innocent man, or killing 10 guilty men and a innocent one. not easy, but hey.
Perfect the system and do not let innocents to be convicted... it's hard, I know.

...
edit: even so, the guy will still probably be seeing it in back and white, so hes unlikely to sit down and have good long think aout the legal to's ad fro's that might save him.

That's true. Still, criminals surrender to police in retentionis countries too.

also, in cases such as the nazis, when we executed them, we created martyrs to nazism. rather counterproductive, when we could have at least TRIED to make them see what they did was wrong and repent, therby not becoming martyrs.
Martyrs? Erm... I've not heard about people worshipping Sauckel or Seuss-Inquart or the commandant of Auschwitz.

I'm against mandatory death sentences. The court has to have a certain discretion, and a guilty plea is a good mitigating circumstance... I'm oversimplifying it, of course.I'm glad you are simplifying as i can no way support someone avoiding the death penalty by pleading guilty. I feel that it should be the discretion of the prosecution to pursue it or remove it in exchange for as guilty plea and the discretion of the jury to hand out the death penalty should the prosecution pursue it.

can all those who favour the death penalty please explain to me the difference between them, in favour of killing people whos actions they disagree with, and a man who kills another man because they disagree with, say, the way they voted (or, simply put, are in favour of killing someone because they did an action they disagree with)? you feel justified that you can kill that man, because of something he did, and he feels justified for killing because of something his victim did. how then can you claim to be morally superior, and therefore in a position to judge his actions, if you are willing to stoop to the same level as them? killing killers because they kill is hypocrisy.
I view the death penalty as suicide by the state, rather than by hanging or by poison. The stste is not killing because the other did something. This implies agency of the state (a nonsensical position). The person did something and as a result he died. If he does it deliberately then it is suicide.

sure, you can use your "ultimate price" arguement, but if you were a killer with a gun hold up in a building weighing up your choices, with no death penalty they consist of "go peacefully, stay alive, even if i am locked up for ever, on my own, in a cell", or "go out in a blaze of glory", whereas with a death penalty its a case of "go out in a blaze of glory" or "go out in a stupid orange jumpsuit strapped to a chair". with no death penalty, theirs a chance of a peaceful solution, whereas without their is not.
This assumes that all crimes carry a death penalty. Obviously they do not. Holding up a bank for money, will carry a prison term (normally about 10 years) killing someone carries a death penalty. Now if there is no death penalty then killint someone will carry a prison term of about 20 years, halve this for good behaviour and there you are, atr the same penalty for the shootout as there is for the robbery to start with. Now which is the greater deterrent to pulling the trigger? The same 10 years that you are going to get anyway or death.

I'm glad you are simplifying as i can no way support someone avoiding the death penalty by pleading guilty. I feel that it should be the discretion of the prosecution to pursue it or remove it in exchange for as guilty plea and the discretion of the jury to hand out the death penalty should the prosecution pursue it.
Well, I think that the court has to decide that on a case-by-case basis.

If a member of a criminal gang confesses and agrees to testify against his associates, it's fine for the prosecution to take the death penalty off the table for him.

If someone murders a child, and confesses to the police immediately after his arrest - the prosecution is free to pursue anything it deems appropriate...

I, for instance, believe that monetary concerns should have no role to play in deciding whether a person should live or die.

Why?

The killer will be put to death according to the law, and the law has nothing to do with moral superiority. The State has no morals or conscience.

BTW, we have a death penalty moratorium in Russia, and our worst criminals serve life sentences in truly horrible maximum-security prisons. I've seen a TV documentary about one of those places, 'Black Dolphin' -- and I assure you that its mode of operation is nothing less than 'shooting by instalments'. The convicts are reduced to automatons screaming their prison numbers, numbers of Criminal Code articles under which they were sentenced, and possible dates of release in response to each and every word of a prison guard.

There is nothing moral in such life sentences...


Perfect the system and do not let innocents to be convicted... it's hard, I know.

the laws are attempted to be based on morality. we dont just pick laws out of a hat, they look at an act, and see if they agree or disagree with it, based on whether they think it is morally right,at least in certain cases.

and i didnt say lets keep them alive and torture them, because that is worse than killing them. i meant just lock them up, not destroy their mind, im not a complete shit.

and it is impossible to have a perfect system. the only good system is a sound system, so i hear.

That's true. Still, criminals surrender to police in retentionis countries too.


Martyrs? Erm... I've not heard about people worshipping Sauckel or Seuss-Inquart or the commandant of Auschwitz.

perhaps they do surrender, but they are more likely to hold out and kill a bit more than when they have assurance of not beig killed.

and i meant for those genius neo-nazi types, they become martyrs, thats why the bunker hitler killed himself in isnt open yet, for fear it bcomes such a place. and ive never heard of those guys save the auschwitz commandant, and as im an a level history student and all i have done for the past 6 years and for the next one is nazi germany (not out of choice you understand), they cant have been that "big" (i expect. correct me if im wrong, obviously), and neo nazis arent the kind for reading up on history, are they?

I view the death penalty as suicide by the state, rather than by hanging or by poison. The stste is not killing because the other did something. This implies agency of the state (a nonsensical position). The person did something and as a result he died. If he does it deliberately then it is suicide.


This assumes that all crimes carry a death penalty. Obviously they do not. Holding up a bank for money, will carry a prison term (normally about 10 years) killing someone carries a death penalty. Now if there is no death penalty then killint someone will carry a prison term of about 20 years, halve this for good behaviour and there you are, atr the same penalty for the shootout as there is for the robbery to start with. Now which is the greater deterrent to pulling the trigger? The same 10 years that you are going to get anyway or death.

the only way the state can have the death penalty is if the people that comprise it are in favour of it. anyway, its not the abstarct notion of a state that kills, its the fellow with the syringe who does or the hangman or whatever. that person is therefore killing someone for killing, a nonsensical punishment.

and i wasnt assuming all crimes carry death penalty. my point was that in the situation i described it would affect the outcome negatively, resulting in more dead. and you could say that the person having the prison sentence could do the good behaviour thing and get 5 years, so it is a different sentence.

the only way the state can have the death penalty is if the people that comprise it are in favour of it. anyway, its not the abstarct notion of a state that kills, its the fellow with the syringe who does or the hangman or whatever. that person is therefore killing someone for killing, a nonsensical punishment.
We have to presume that you are opposed to all forms of punishment then. If not jailers become kidnappers. fines are robbery etc. Sorry the thinking is incoherent. The fellow with the syringe is saving the person from a life of torment, or saving the lives of those he would kill if released. He is also only acting on the will of the person being killed. It is no more than euthanasia. (Which i also support)

and i wasnt assuming all crimes carry death penalty. my point was that in the situation i described it would affect the outcome negatively, resulting in more dead. and you could say that the person having the prison sentence could do the good behaviour thing and get 5 years, so it is a different sentence.
In that case your descriptin was far from clear. What I understood is this:

Armed robber robs bank. Police arrive and demand he surrenders. Robber makes decision.
Death penalty -> he will die any way so shootout.
No Death penalty -> he surrenders.

This only applies if he will be given a death penalty for robbing a bank (he will not unless he killed someone in the robbery, which you did not specify)

My reply was

No death penalty -> Surrender -> Certain prison term
........................-> Shootout -> May be prison term, may be die, may be escape
The decision then is whether the robber is a gambler or not. Now criminals are always gamblers, in that they gamble that they will not get caught. So the question is just one of odds.

For me, no desath penalty increases the chance of the killing starting.

What the death penalty does increase is the chance of the killing continuing after it started, but it reduces dramatically the likelyhood of a criminal killing to start with.

We have to presume that you are opposed to all forms of punishment then. If not jailers become kidnappers. fines are robbery etc. Sorry the thinking is incoherent. The fellow with the syringe is saving the person from a life of torment, or saving the lives of those he would kill if released. He is also only acting on the will of the person being killed. It is no more than euthanasia. (Which i also support)


In that case your descriptin was far from clear. What I understood is this:

Armed robber robs bank. Police arrive and demand he surrenders. Robber makes decision.
Death penalty -> he will die any way so shootout.
No Death penalty -> he surrenders.

This only applies if he will be given a death penalty for robbing a bank (he will not unless he killed someone in the robbery, which you did not specify)

My reply was

No death penalty -> Surrender -> Certain prison term
........................-> Shootout -> May be prison term, may be die, may be escape
The decision then is whether the robber is a gambler or not. Now criminals are always gamblers, in that they gamble that they will not get caught. So the question is just one of odds.

For me, no desath penalty increases the chance of the killing starting.

What the death penalty does increase is the chance of the killing continuing after it started, but it reduces dramatically the likelyhood of a criminal killing to start with.

you are claiming that by killing people you are doing them a favour somehow? right then, lets go to a prison and say "hands up who wants death?" . granted the ones on suicide wach might raise their hands, but they are going insane, and need help, not hanging. it is not a form of euthanasia to kill criminals you crazy sod.

i can kind of take your point about being unable to punisment but it is a different case to kidnapp a kidnapper. with the killing, you could just imprison them, and no one gets killed. it is possible to grant people protection by doing something less than what they have done in that case. killing them is too extreme a method of reducing the damage they can do to people. with the kidknapper, i suppose a better idea would be to find an uninhabited island and send non murderous, but pretty bad (eg paedophiles, kidnappers etc) criminals their to be subsistence farmers, with pre built homes etc, possibly. its not quite imprisonment, as they are free to do what they want, but they are separated form people they wish to harm, so we are doing less than them nd solving the problem. granted, their are probably holes in this idea, but they dont involve people being murdered.

but with thieves, id pretty much just say property is theft anyway. im anti private property anyway...

you are claiming that by killing people you are doing them a favour somehow? right then, lets go to a prison and say "hands up who wants death?" . granted the ones on suicide wach might raise their hands, but they are going insane, and need help, not hanging. it is not a form of euthanasia to kill criminals you crazy sod.

i can kind of take your point about being unable to punisment but it is a different case to kidnapp a kidnapper. with the killing, you could just imprison them, and no one gets killed. it is possible to grant people protection by doing something less than what they have done in that case. killing them is too extreme a method of reducing the damage they can do to people. with the kidknapper, i suppose a better idea would be to find an uninhabited island and send non murderous, but pretty bad (eg paedophiles, kidnappers etc) criminals their to be subsistence farmers, with pre built homes etc, possibly. its not quite imprisonment, as they are free to do what they want, but they are separated form people they wish to harm, so we are doing less than them nd solving the problem. granted, their are probably holes in this idea, but they dont involve people being murdered.
So someone comes along and kills abunch of people. What do we do about it? Give them some land and a home. However the por honest dupe who does not break the law gets what? A mortgage and the 9 to 5 grind. I don't think that is too just or appropriate.

but with thieves, id pretty much just say property is theft anyway. im anti private property anyway...
Welll if you are not interested in retaining your property, my son needs a new computer. Would you mind mailing yours to him. (if you agree TG me and I'll let you know where to send it.)

Welll if you are not interested in retaining your property, my son needs a new computer. Would you mind mailing yours to him. (if you agree TG me and I'll let you know where to send it.)
You, sir, are an opportunist!
;)

perhaps they do surrender, but they are more likely to hold out and kill a bit more than when they have assurance of not beig killed.
Well, even if a criminal thinks that he will die anyway, he also can shoot himself. It happens quite often.

and i meant for those genius neo-nazi types, they become martyrs, thats why the bunker hitler killed himself in isnt open yet, for fear it bcomes such a place. and ive never heard of those guys save the auschwitz commandant, and as im an a level history student and all i have done for the past 6 years and for the next one is nazi germany (not out of choice you understand), they cant have been that "big" (i expect. correct me if im wrong, obviously), and neo nazis arent the kind for reading up on history, are they?
Hitler - yes, he's an icon for Nazis, but he wasn't hanged.

Sauckel headed the forced labour system of Germany, and Seuss-Inquart was a ruler of Austria. They were hanged, among others, in Nuremberg - and they aren't martyrs, they are completely forgotten.

We presume that if this stays as it is then the law is not passed.

We presume that if this stays as it is then the law is not passed.
Which means...?
:confused:

Which means...?
:confused:

That there is no legal prohibition on the Death penalty. (Deating will still be constitutional ;) )

-snip-
Ahem, does that mean that we murder people then? What is the status quo on which we are stuck?
Is the death penalty used or not?

We presume that if this stays as it is then the law is not passed.

If it stays as it is, then the law is indeed not passed, because it will have failed to gather 13 votes in favour. Which means that there can be a subsequent proposal for the legalisation of the death penalty.

Now here is a fine problem. Do we allow things that there is no law prohibitinbg, or do we aonly do things that are expressley approved. I prefer, being a Classic Liberal, the permissive side and suggest that we allow things. (Oh and bump for the last few hours of voting. )

I prefer, being a Classic Liberal, the permissive side and suggest that we allow things....
And I say, we only allow things that have been approved.
Sounds like another Debate-Topic. And an important one too...I suggest we get it up and running as quick as possible in order to avoid more confusion in subsequent debates.

Now here is a fine problem. Do we allow things that there is no law prohibitinbg, or do we aonly do things that are expressley approved. I prefer, being a Classic Liberal, the permissive side and suggest that we allow things. (Oh and bump for the last few hours of voting. )
I tend to agree with Alien Born on this one. Why should something that's not outlawed be presumed illegal?

Further, the "country" would be a disaster if we do it the other way. Because then we'd have to vote on proposals like "Legalize Sally owning a bicycle" or "Legalize farming" or "Legalize the ability to eat." You get the idea.

Oh, and there are some resolutions/laws I'd like to propose. Can someone clue me in on how to do that?

The notion that everything be ILLEGAL until approved by our parliament is just preposterous.

Laws restrict freedom, they do not permit it.

Oh, and there are some resolutions/laws I'd like to propose. Can someone clue me in on how to do that?

Create a proposal thread, in which you outline the proposal. If this gets support for debate, then you create a debate thread like this. It is all in the parliamentary procedure a copy of which is here (http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal-about36.html)

Create a proposal thread, in which you outline the proposal. If this gets support for debate, then you create a debate thread like this. It is all in the parliamentary procedure a copy of which is here (http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal-about36.html)
Thanks. I suspect this one will be rather contentious. It's about income tax :D

And I say, we only allow things that have been approved.
Sounds like another Debate-Topic. And an important one too...I suggest we get it up and running as quick as possible in order to avoid more confusion in subsequent debates.

In that case make a proposal. This parliament needs the MPs to contribute if it is to work. In this case it is by making proposals and debating them. It can not and should not always be Ariddia and myself.

In that case make a proposal. This parliament needs the MPs to contribute if it is to work. In this case it is by making proposals and debating them. It can not and should not always be Ariddia and myself.
It's done. I screwed up the posting by accident - check the thread with viewable poll results.

Oh, and...

This proposal has officially been defeated, by 10 'yea' votes to 12 'nay', with no abstentions, and 3 Members of Parliament not having voted.

I would like to thank all those who took an interest in the debate, all those who voted, and in particular of course all those who voted in favour. I believe the passing of this proposal would have been a sign of great progress, and a symbol of just Parliamentary action, but the duly elected representatives of the voters have decided otherwise.

Now... Onto the next one. ;)

Just a thought...what would have happened had there been a tie?

Just a thought...what would have happened had there been a tie?

If there is no majority than the proposal is defeated.

A proposal needs an absolute majority - i.e., 13 votes. Which is why it's a problem when some MPs don't vote. With 22 MPs having voted, this proposal has had the highest turnout so far, but it's still a problem. It means you can end up with a situation where, say, 12 people have voted for and 10 against, but the proposal is still defeated because some haven't voted and there's no way of knowing which way their vote would have gone.