NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick. I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being. It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

Anyhow, interested in your thoughts...

I'm for capital punishment. If you kill someone, why, I think it's fair that you get shot in the face a few times with an elephant gun.

Against in all cases.

For mass murder and environmental crimes capital punishment is OK.

Against.Just read my sig."An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Said Gandhi.And he was very smart. *nods*

For mass murder and environmental crimes capital punishment is OK.

Environmental crimes?Like what?

Against. There are far more useful things to be done with those who forfeit their rights.

Against. There are far more useful things to be done with those who forfeit their rights.

:eek:

Environmental crimes?Like what?E.g. dumping waste into the sea.

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick. I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being. It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

Anyhow, interested in your thoughts...

The death penalty is only really effective if it can be carried out in a fair, timely and efficient manner. Unfortunately, you would have to give up a lot of civil rights to make that happen. Therefore, I am against it.

:eek:

For many people, death is not a deterrent. Not being allowed to die, however...

E.g. dumping waste into the sea.

You think people who do that deserve the death sentence?

Against, but in most cases it doesn't bother me all that much.

You think people who do that deserve the death sentence?

I hope not. I pissed into the Atlantic a couple of times.

Against. Doesn't make sense. Killing someone for a crime doesn't solve anything, it just kills another person.

"An eye for an eye makes us all blind." -- Ghandi!

Listen to the man in the diaper.

Against.Just read my sig."An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Said Gandhi.And he was very smart. *nods*

Yes indeed. I always hear that as one of the defences of the death penalty and it boggles my mind that the state would act just as badly as the criminal.

You think people who do that deserve the death sentence?Of course. It's a crime against the entire planet. Especially putting any plastic into the oceans.
But also poisoning rivers, forests, etc with toxic sewage.

Of course. It's a crime against the entire planet.

Well since cars is one of the biggest pollutants, should everyone who owns a car be executed?

What about volcanoes, should they be executed? :p

Against.

Capital punishment is too...terminal. If you discover a mistake after the fact, it's too late to take it back.

Well since cars is one of the biggest pollutants, should everyone who owns a car be executed?

What about volcanoes, should they be executed? :p

Kill the volcanoes!

Kill the volcanoes!

How does one go about that? Hanging?

How does one go about that? Hanging?

Nay.

They shall be drawn and quartered.

I am against the death penalty except for exceptional circumstances. I don't think any of us have the right to say someone deserves to die. It should only be used if it is dangerous to keep someone alive. A mass murderer or someone who attempts high treason is too dangerous as they can and probably will attack again.

We used to have this system in Britain with high treason being punishable by hanging, I don't think they even allow this anymore however. Something to do with human rights but I think it's crueller to lock someone up in isolation for the rest of their life with no contact with other people. These people should still be hung IMO for the sake of 1) safety of other people, they can't hurt anyone ever again & 2) It's the most humane thing to do to such people as living would be more painful to them.

Against. Doesn't make sense. Killing someone for a crime doesn't solve anything, it just kills another person.

It solves the problem of how to ensure that person doesn't kill again. It also solves the problem of how to impose a punishment that fits the crime.

"An eye for an eye makes us all blind." -- Ghandi!

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick. I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being. It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

Anyhow, interested in your thoughts...
Totally against capital punishment.

I am for capital punishment, and in fact, I think it is not employed often enough here in the United States.

~ Romandeos.

E.g. dumping waste into the sea.

Ah!But that's often done on a government level.Do you want government officials to receive capital punishment?

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick.

Order has to be maintained, not just established. And order and a country's state of development are not necessarily connected.

I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being.

You just stumbled into the truth: most of the states in the US have democratically decided that the death penalty is appropriate for specific crimes.

It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

The state's "own citizens" can easily avoid forfeiting their lives by not committing capital crimes. If they choose to commit a capital crime, if they choose to take the lives of their fellow citizens, then they choose to subject themselves to capital punishment.

What should blow your mind is the thought that mere imprisonment is sufficient punishment for intentionally and wrongfully taking the life of another. To say nothing of mass murder, or crimes against humanity. If you think a jail cell is sufficient for the likes of Hitler, then you have no moral sense.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Eventually you lose all your eyes.With so much killing around it becomes pointless.What does killing a criminal do?It brings you down to their level,it makes YOU as bad as the criminal themselves.

I'm all for capital punishment. If you did something to deserve it, well, that speaks for itself, and if not you should have had a better defense.

Against.
In fact, I'm thinking of putting together a militia that assassinates executioners. That'll put a stop to it.

Against.
In fact, I'm thinking of putting together a militia that assassinates executioners. That'll put a stop to it.

How very wise of you. :rolleyes:

Isn't capital punishment just a form of retroactive abortion? I say let their moms pull the switch.

It solves the problem of how to ensure that person doesn't kill again. It also solves the problem of how to impose a punishment that fits the crime.

Life in prison also ensures a person doesn't kill again. Once again, the "punishment that fits the crime" thing simply goes back to an eye for an eye. It doesn't work, because more death is not the answer.

Life in prison also ensures a person doesn't kill again. Once again, the "punishment that fits the crime" thing simply goes back to an eye for an eye. It doesn't work, because more death is not the answer.
Actually, death could be an effective solution, cheaper to.

I'm all for capital punishment. If you did something to deserve it, well, that speaks for itself, and if not you should have had a better defense.

Right,so now the quality of defence is coming into this.
Only the rich can afford good lawyers,often.
If a poor man is wrongly convicted of a crime,because he had a poor defense,it's his own fault for being poor,and he should die because he can't afford a better lawyer?
I fail to see your logic.

Actually, death could be an effective solution, cheaper to.

Again,you're bringing money into this-am I seeing a trend?Death is not an effective solution.It simply sets a bad example to the populace-if the Government can do it,why can't the citizens?The death penalty is wrong,outright.

Right,so now the quality of defence is coming into this.
Only the rich can afford good lawyers,often.
If a poor man is wrongly convicted of a crime,because he had a poor defense,it's his own fault for being poor,and he should die because he can't afford a better lawyer?
I fail to see your logic.
Yes, but I have noted you lack my firm belief in the meritocracy that is capitalism.

Again,you're bringing money into this-am I seeing a trend?Death is not an effective solution.It simply sets a bad example to the populace-if the Government can do it,why can't the citizens?The death penalty is wrong,outright.
The beauty is that if the people start killing, you can just execute them and sieze their property and assets.

I'm totally against it. It doesn't scare people from commiting murder and that should be the prime objective, to prevent it from happening. I also think it's inhumane and I'm glad that capital punishment isn't aloud here.

It doesn't scare people from commiting murder and that should be the prime objective, to prevent it from happening.
Well what would you suggest to scare them then? Community service?

Yes, but I have noted you lack my firm belief in the meritocracy that is capitalism.

Well I stronly disagree with your firm belief.Pretty strongly,actually,I'm quite the socialist.

Well I stronly disagree with your firm belief.Pretty strongly,actually,I'm quite the socialist.
I know that, hence my saying that I have noted your dislike of capitalism.

The beauty is that if the people start killing, you can just execute them and sieze their property and assets.

How is that beautiful,in any way?Especially if they have a family.You seize the property,they're out on the streets.Because of someone else's actions.I fail to see the "beauty" in that.

I know that, hence my saying that I have noted your dislike of capitalism.

Ah!Excellent.We're getting somewhere.

Well what would you suggest to scare them then? Community service?

No,but life in a small basic cell should be pretty deterring.

How is that beautiful,in any way?Especially if they have a family.You seize the property,they're out on the streets.Because of someone else's actions.I fail to see the "beauty" in that.
Thats the real deterent, though isn't it. They may not care about themselves, or even hope for death if they are that mad, but they may still care about their family.

Thats the real deterent, though isn't it. They may not care about themselves, or even hope for death if they are that mad, but they may still care about their family.

No it's not a real deterrent.What you may find is that some of these people are mindless psychopaths-but it's still wrong to kill them.
Bye y'all,dinner with family.

No,but life in a small basic cell should be pretty deterring.
Yes, I would rather execution to actual life imprisonment, but that would cost the state (and so the people) considerably more and the criminal could escape or be released, both problems.

No it's not a real deterrent.What you may find is that some of these people are mindless psychopaths-but it's still wrong to kill them.
Bye y'all,dinner with family.
If they are mindless psychopathic killers then they can never be allowed to rejoin society due to the risk, and they should no longer have any real value to anybody and as such should be removed from the system that they have so harmed and may again.

I don't see it as a deterrent. The only deterrent is the certainty of being caught after the fact, and most murderers don't care about that in any case.

I do, however, see it as a means of making sure they don't do it again.

You might say, "well, we can always lock them up forever". Fine. Then you pay for their incarceration.

I think that the appeals process is too long, too capricious, and should not be funded by the taxpayer. There should be only two appeals, and that's it.

In order to reduce the number of mistakes, the death penalty should only be applied in cases where there were either multiple witnesses, or some sort of hard evidence such as DNA, or both.

It's the law, for now. I don't see it as being very deterring, however.

It's the law, for now.
Only where you are, unfortunately.

I don't see it as a deterrent. The only deterrent is the certainty of being caught after the fact, and most murderers don't care about that in any case.

I do, however, see it as a means of making sure they don't do it again.

You might say, "well, we can always lock them up forever". Fine. Then you pay for their incarceration.

I think that the appeals process is too long, too capricious, and should not be funded by the taxpayer. There should be only two appeals, and that's it.

In order to reduce the number of mistakes, the death penalty should only be applied in cases where there were either multiple witnesses, or some sort of hard evidence such as DNA, or both.

I'm for labour camps. Not like those in Soviet or Nazi-Germany but camps were the conditions are totally humane and prisoners work for free. This would recude the cost's for taxpayers and it's good for the prisoners that they work instead of wasting their time beeing looked up.

Life in prison also ensures a person doesn't kill again.

Right. I forgot, there's no such thing as prison murders, and prisoners never communicate with their followers outside prison to order hits.

Once again, the "punishment that fits the crime" thing simply goes back to an eye for an eye. It doesn't work, because more death is not the answer.

Actually, more death is the answer when the question is, what do we do with those guilty of capital offenses?

Order has to be maintained, not just established. And order and a country's state of development are not necessarily connected.

You don't need the death penalty to maintain order. See: all countries without it and with lower crime (inc. homicide and other capital crimes) rates than US.

You just stumbled into the truth: most of the states in the US have democratically decided that the death penalty is appropriate for specific crimes.

That is partly what takes me by surprise; that a nation can have such freedoms but bring an end to a person's life.

The state's "own citizens" can easily avoid forfeiting their lives by not committing capital crimes. If they choose to commit a capital crime, if they choose to take the lives of their fellow citizens, then they choose to subject themselves to capital punishment.

What should blow your mind is the thought that mere imprisonment is sufficient punishment for intentionally and wrongfully taking the life of another. To say nothing of mass murder, or crimes against humanity. If you think a jail cell is sufficient for the likes of Hitler, then you have no moral sense.

It doesn't matter to me the crimes of the criminal, no matter how insane and depraved they may be (the likes of Hitler might be different). They don't have the right to kill, but if they do for whatever reason, I don't see how this gives the state the right to kill them (obviously the laws do but you know what I mean). I can't fathom how anybody can perform the pre-mediated murder of somebody else, and end there life. Going slightly OT, but we all only get one life and when it ends, it ends, so how can you think it is justifiable to cut it short and deny them the rest of their life. This extends not only to criminals but to the state.

That is partly what takes me by surprise; that a nation can have such freedoms but bring an end to a person's life.
So what, in the UK the majority are in favour of capital punishment, but they do not get it, the MPs will not push it through. So much for democracy.

It doesn't matter to me the crimes of the criminal, no matter how insane and depraved they may be (the likes of Hitler might be different). They don't have the right to kill, but if they do for whatever reason, I don't see how this gives the state the right to kill them (obviously the laws do but you know what I mean).
The state can and decides it will thats all the right they need.


I can't fathom how anybody can perform the pre-mediated murder of somebody else, and end there life.
But they do, and they should be punished for the violation of the law.

Going slightly OT, but we all only get one life and when it ends, it ends, so how can you think it is justifiable to cut it short and deny them the rest of their life. This extends not only to criminals but to the state.
If you lock them up you are denying them the freedom to live that life with any degree of independence. Why not end it all together and save the taxpayer money.

So what, in the UK the majority are in favour of capital punishment, but they do not get it, the MPs will not push it through. So much for democracy.

There are cases in democratic countries when a government must act differently to popular opinion. Infact this is very common, after all it is representative government, not some Athens direct democracy thank God.

The state can and decides it will thats all the right they need.

And the US decided wrong in my opinion... Nothing much else to say.

But they do, and they should be punished for the violation of the law. If you lock them up you are denying them the freedom to live that life with any degree of independence. Why not end it all together and save the taxpayer money.

If you think it is better to kill them off instead of keep them in jails just to save money then you have a warped sense of morality and ethics, and it frankly scares me that you exist.

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick. I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being. It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

Anyhow, interested in your thoughts...

I'm strongly against, in all circumstances.

out of curiousity, why is it "sick" in a "developed" country but necessary in an undeveloped one? are undeveloped nations expected to do "sick" things, that we industrialised nations have evolved past? I'm not liking the implications of the double standard.

It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

that's what states do. it's what they always have done and always will do. a state has never existed, and likely cannot exist, without murdering those under its power. where consensus exists, force, law, and executive power are unncessary. governments require strife to exist, and cannot exist in strife without the use of force, which all but garentees that governments will *always* kill.

There are cases in democratic countries when a government must act differently to popular opinion. Infact this is very common, after all it is representative government, not some Athens direct democracy thank God.
I know that, its can be seen in many policies, and I'm not a massive fan of democracy as it is. My problem with this policy is that the MPs refuse because they seem to theink there will be blood on their hands (there will be, but its good blood).

And the US decided wrong in my opinion... Nothing much else to say.
But thats your opinion, and what you have said indicates that you think opinion is of little value.


If you think it is better to kill them off instead of keep them in jails just to save money then you have a warped sense of morality and ethics, and it frankly scares me that you exist.
That I am practical should not scare you, and if it does it is not my existence which should horrify you. Rather, it should scare you that people who share my belief are quite common and that there is enough diversity in the world that your beliefs will not always be those that are observed.

that's what states do. it's what they always have done and always will do. a state has never existed, and likely cannot exist, without murdering those under its power. where consensus exists, force, law, and executive power are unncessary. governments require strife to exist, and cannot exist in strife without the use of force, which all but garentees that governments will *always* kill.
And thank science that they do it. Without the government there is either another government or anarchy.

Actually, death could be an effective solution, cheaper to.

Except that the death penalty is not cheaper than life in prison. Quite the opposite.

Except that the death penalty is not cheaper than life in prison. Quite the opposite.
By what logic?

By what logic?

By facts. Look it up.

By facts. Look it up.
Why, when I can be lazy and demand a source for your information.

Except that the death penalty is not cheaper than life in prison. Quite the opposite.

Actually, that is an artifact of two things:

1. A nearly unlimited number of appeals (taking at least 10 to 20 years to exhaust in one court after another).

2. The cost of such appeals is carried almost entirely by the public, not the defendant.

Otherwise, it would be fairly cheap.

Why, when I can be lazy and demand a source for your information.

Can't get it on this computer. Google doesn't work for me. It's called the appeals process, though.

Still deciding.

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick. I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being. It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

Anyhow, interested in your thoughts...

I'm all for executing murderers. And traitors. The Captain pooby school of thought has followed the Bible on this-Murderers are to be executed, no iffs, butts about it. So are traitors, and I'd like to see repeat rapists, child molesters, and terrorists put to death aswell.

SSS.....

I don't think taking a criminal's life is qualitatively worse than taking a criminal's freedom. Assuming in both cases the punishment is legally warranted.

That so many people oppose the taking of a life, but are just fine with the removal of freedom (and right to the pursuit of happiness), is a bit disconcerting to me.

For, If its allowed in the Qur'an, than its ok with me.

Can't get it on this computer. Google doesn't work for me. It's called the appeals process, though.
Its only a problem because they are given unlimited numbers of appeals, which must be funded by the taxpayer. It would be easier for the state to sieze their assets on sentencing and use those to fund their imprisonment and appeal if necessary.

And thank science that they do it. Without the government there is either another government or anarchy.

or decentralised consensus-based decision making. tribal societies and those whose agricultural systems were based on individual improvement and not massive public works never evolved large, centralised power structures - and as a side effect never evolved class stratification, or anything resembling the kind of warfare and exploitation we see in the others. of course, these are all displaced by the centralised, hierarchical power structures...but just because they grow like agressive cancer and people manage to scrap by under their domination doesn't mean they're the ethically superior system - just the most efficient and agressive.

the alternative to hierachy and centralised executive power is egalitarianism and decision by consensus - it's a different sort of infrastructure and it's not usually militaristic enough to survive when forced to compete with the others, but it is NOT anarchy. more like panarchy.

Its only a problem because they are given unlimited numbers of appeals, which must be funded by the taxpayer. It would be easier for the state to sieze their assets on sentencing and use those to fund their imprisonment and appeal if necessary.

Which violates the Constitution. Also, not everyone can afford the cost of an appeal.

So what, in the UK the majority are in favour of capital punishment, but they do not get it, the MPs will not push it through. So much for democracy.
It's only a small majority, one that could tip either way if we were given a choice. Even then, EU law forbids it anyway. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/03/ndeath03.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/03/ixnewstop.html

The state can and decides it will thats all the right they need.
In the UK that pretty much correct, since we have no constitutional rights. Tomorrow Blair could pull out of the EU and European Convention of Human Rights, without even Parliament's consent, and introduce any kind of draconian legislation he likes.

But they do, and they should be punished for the violation of the law.
Punishment, but not vengeance. Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and all that.

If you lock them up you are denying them the freedom to live that life with any degree of independence. Why not end it all together and save the taxpayer money.
There's two things here. Does it actually save money, and is it worth any money saved? I say 'no' and 'no'. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385#sxn5

or decentralised consensus-based decision making. tribal societies and those whose agricultural systems were based on individual improvement and not massive public works never evolved large, centralised power structures - and as a side effect never evolved class stratification, or anything resembling the kind of warfare and exploitation we see in the others. of course, these are all displaced by the centralised, hierarchical power structures...but just because they grow like agressive cancer and people manage to scrap by under their domination doesn't mean they're the ethically superior system - just the most efficient and agressive.
I have never claimed that centralised government is ethically superior, only, as you said, successful and efficient. As for the 'decentralised consensus-based decision making', I would consider that to be a form of direct democracy, a system of governing the group. Smaller government, but still government.

I don't think taking a criminal's life is qualitatively worse than taking a criminal's freedom. Assuming in both cases the punishment is legally warranted.

That so many people oppose the taking of a life, but are just fine with the removal of freedom (and right to the pursuit of happiness), is a bit disconcerting to me.

Well, let's take an example.

Let's say you're wrongfully convicted of murdering a friend, and you get sentenced to life in prison. Let's say it takes 23 years to finally win an appeal (hey, you've got all the time in the world).

How are they going to give you back the 23 years?

I don't think taking a criminal's life is qualitatively worse than taking a criminal's freedom. Assuming in both cases the punishment is legally warranted.

That so many people oppose the taking of a life, but are just fine with the removal of freedom (and right to the pursuit of happiness), is a bit disconcerting to me.
And?;)

For, but only under very rigorous controls.

Namely, the death penalty should be reserved for cases where guilt can be scientifically, objectively established as a fact.

Also, if one innocent person is found to have been executed, a ten-year moratorium and commutation of all sentences should be mandatory.

It's only a small majority, one that could tip either way if we were given a choice. Even then, EU law forbids it anyway.
I know, thats not really a problem.

Punishment, but not vengeance. Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and all that.
Execution is not vengeance, if I wanted revenge I would suggest torturing the convicted. Besides killing a serial rapist is more an eye for a tooth.

There's two things here. Does it actually save money, and is it worth any money saved? I say 'no' and 'no'.
It does my way, and of course it is worth the money saved, these people are the worst criminals in the society, they are of little value.

Well, let's take an example.

Let's say you're wrongfully convicted of murdering a friend, and you get sentenced to life in prison. Let's say it takes 23 years to finally win an appeal (hey, you've got all the time in the world).

How are they going to give you back the 23 years?

They can't. It's just as irreversibly gone as life itself. In fact, I may well have died during that 23 years.

Well, let's take an example.

Let's say you're wrongfully convicted of murdering a friend, and you get sentenced to life in prison. Let's say it takes 23 years to finally win an appeal (hey, you've got all the time in the world).

How are they going to give you back the 23 years?

Let's say they execute you and later evidence exonerates you. How are they going to give you back your entire life?

I'd rather lose 23 years than my whole life.

There is a really good movie out that gives you a lot of different veiw points on Capital Punishment... Dead Man Walking... I believe that Capital Punishment is too easy.. But I also believe that Prison is too "nice" of a place to put them too... That's just me

I have never claimed that centralised government is ethically superior, only, as you said, successful and efficient. As for the 'decentralised consensus-based decision making', I would consider that to be a form of direct democracy, a system of governing the group. Smaller government, but still government.

government's root work means "to pilot, to steer" - which rather implies moving something that was *not* allready going in the direction you wish. consensus decision making is just that, consensus, so there is no, or very little need for police or military presense - a staple of every centralised government. I was defining government as an enforcing body, not just a decision making body. consensus groups can exist simultaneously in the same social spheres, and overlap - whereas you can't really have two sovereign governments in the same space. it's a fuzzy term...but I suppose it's really more of a semantic debate than any substantial disagreement. I firmly believe that tribal councils, town hall meetings, and religious synods are far superior to any of the centralised sorts of government - and they tend to exist in spite of the simultaneous claims of authority of larger, centralised bodies. new england town hall democracy existed nominally under the english crown - I suppose it's still nominally a local government, but there's such a world of difference between local government and federal/imperial/centralised government that the former barely deserves the term. most of what I was trying to say was that the alternative to large, centralised, coercive governments (those that have standing armies and/or police forces, and complex penal systems) is not necessarily anarchy. the local stuff musn't be sold short.

There is a really good movie out that gives you a lot of different veiw points on Capital Punishment... Dead Man Walking... I believe that Capital Punishment is too easy.. But I also believe that Prison is too "nice" of a place to put them too... That's just me

"too nice"? the goal of prison is either rehabilitation of the prisoner, or restraint to such a degree that s/he won't continue to harm others. making them suffer is just petty vengence.

There is a really good movie out that gives you a lot of different veiw points on Capital Punishment... Dead Man Walking... I believe that Capital Punishment is too easy.. But I also believe that Prison is too "nice" of a place to put them too... That's just me

Prisons are probably one of the worst places imaginable to be put in. It doesn't matter if you're given a TV, computer and a nice bed or if you just have a hole in the floor to piss in, the feeling of beeing inprisoned will break you emotionally.

government's root work means "to pilot, to steer" - which rather implies moving something that was *not* allready going in the direction you wish. consensus decision making is just that, consensus, so there is no, or very little need for police or military presense - a staple of every centralised government. I was defining government as an enforcing body, not just a decision making body. consensus groups can exist simultaneously in the same social spheres, and overlap - whereas you can't really have two sovereign governments in the same space. it's a fuzzy term...but I suppose it's really more of a semantic debate than any substantial disagreement. I firmly believe that tribal councils, town hall meetings, and religious synods are far superior to any of the centralised sorts of government - and they tend to exist in spite of the simultaneous claims of authority of larger, centralised bodies. new england town hall democracy existed nominally under the english crown - I suppose it's still nominally a local government, but there's such a world of difference between local government and federal/imperial/centralised government that the former barely deserves the term. most of what I was trying to say was that the alternative to large, centralised, coercive governments (those that have standing armies and/or police forces, and complex penal systems) is not necessarily anarchy. the local stuff musn't be sold short.

I have nothing against localised ruling, its just that any system that small will be engulfed by a larger system, a system that small cannot function on its own in this age. The reason that a centralised government needs a police force is to ensure that its law is followed, yes to enforce its policies. However the reason is not because complex governments are naturally more oppressive for the sake of dominating people, rather because if so many are controlled by your system that there will be greater divisions and more people who disagree with the governemnts decision. Besides small government will still have crime, that must still be dealt with. It just has fewer criminals in terms of raw numbers.

Execution is not vengeance, if I wanted revenge I would suggest torturing the convicted. Besides killing a serial rapist is more an eye for a tooth.
The phrase was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the world will soon be blind." I'm sure you can put that into the context of vengeance.

It does my way, and of course it is worth the money saved, these people are the worst criminals in the society, they are of little value.
Since when did value to society become a part of this argument, and when did your definition of value to society decide if someone lived or died? Last I looked, we were debating guilt, not value, as a reason to execute.

I don't see it as a deterrent. The only deterrent is the certainty of being caught after the fact, and most murderers don't care about that in any case.

I do, however, see it as a means of making sure they don't do it again.

You might say, "well, we can always lock them up forever". Fine. Then you pay for their incarceration.

I think that the appeals process is too long, too capricious, and should not be funded by the taxpayer. There should be only two appeals, and that's it.

In order to reduce the number of mistakes, the death penalty should only be applied in cases where there were either multiple witnesses, or some sort of hard evidence such as DNA, or both.

Most adamantly agreed...especially regarding DNA and witnesses.

I am for the death penalty, but I do have problems with it's use currently. It is vitally important that only the guilty are excecuted.

I'm for labour camps. Not like those in Soviet or Nazi-Germany but camps were the conditions are totally humane and prisoners work for free. This would recude the cost's for taxpayers and it's good for the prisoners that they work instead of wasting their time beeing looked up.

They wouldn't be "free"...you have to pay for construction, maintenance, staff, etc.

But the labor would be free.

I would be for such an idea, but such camps would have to be very closely monitored to ensure that incidents of abuse are isolated and infrequent, if they occur at all.

Actually, that is an artifact of two things:

1. A nearly unlimited number of appeals (taking at least 10 to 20 years to exhaust in one court after another).

2. The cost of such appeals is carried almost entirely by the public, not the defendant.

Otherwise, it would be fairly cheap.

Indeed...the cost is not derived from the penalty as applied, but from the legal system.

Appeals should be limited...but cases where DNA or multiple witnesses cannot be established should NOT even be considered for capital punishment.

For, but only under very rigorous controls.

Namely, the death penalty should be reserved for cases where guilt can be scientifically, objectively established as a fact.

Also, if one innocent person is found to have been executed, a ten-year moratorium and commutation of all sentences should be mandatory.

Ten years seems a little much...nationwide? Or just that particular state/county/etc.?

Prisons are probably one of the worst places imaginable to be put in. It doesn't matter if you're given a TV, computer and a nice bed or if you just have a hole in the floor to piss in, the feeling of beeing inprisoned will break you emotionally.

While I don't necessarily disagree, you are assuming quite a bit about a whole lot of people.

If you lock them up you are denying them the freedom to live that life with any degree of independence. Why not end it all together and save the taxpayer money.

Agreed.

I personally find it far larger affront to a persons rights to imprison them than to kill them, especially when that act is committed by the state.

I feel that corporal punishment needs to make a comeback. Pain is a basic defense mechanism, and it's one that's been largely ignored in recent history.

I bet you anything a guy who sends two others to the hospital in an intoxicated state before wrapping his bumper around a tree thinks long and hard about getting himself in that situation again if the punishment is 10 lashes.

...coupled with executions for extreme crimes and HEAVY fiscal penalties for white-collar crimes, with a sliding scale for financial penalties for non-violent offenders. Reform some drug laws saves you more prison space. Hell, throw in some of those labor camps for the repeat offenders. It may be possible to eliminate our current methods of incarceration as a penalty altogether.

Hell, the justice system might turn a profit! :p

Since when did value to society become a part of this argument, and when did your definition of value to society decide if someone lived or died? Last I looked, we were debating guilt, not value, as a reason to execute.

Not at all, I have never mentioned guilt. As for my definition, that is the entire point of extending the thread beyond saying 'I'm for capital punishment' and stopping there, I defend my system of beliefs and you defend yours. This is all hypothetical, of course, and so to answer your question, my definition of value to society has never decided whether or not someone lived or died. But no we were debating the merits of capital punishment, not whether or not those subject to it are guilty.

Let's say they execute you and later evidence exonerates you. How are they going to give you back your entire life?

I'd rather lose 23 years than my whole life.

I'd sooner be executed than do that amount of time, especially if innocent.

I am for the death penalty but I'd rather have a Jack Bauer type who could just kill whoever deserves it straight away. I dont even necessarily think we should automatically execute murderers or whatever. Some murders are perfectly justified, while often times even a person commiting some minor felony really deserves to die.

The problem is that once someone has done a sufficiently bad thing I dont really see them as a person anymore. If someone spat in my face in the street I dont think it would be unreasonable to kill them, or if someone stole my wallet or god forbid broke into my house. I value human life higher than anything but once a person does something bad to me they nolonger qualify.

For real legal executions they would need DNA proof and whatnot. Dubya had at least 70 innocent people executed before becoming president - I forget the exact article but it was something like 150 werent proved beyond reasonable doubt, and 70 were definitely innocent. People need to removed from the process as much as possible.

Dubya had at least 70 innocent people executed before becoming president - I forget the exact article but it was something like 150 werent proved beyond reasonable doubt, and 70 were definitely innocent. People need to removed from the process as much as possible.


I'm sure that would be big news if it were true. Link please.

Not at all, I have never mentioned guilt. As for my definition, that is the entire point of extending the thread beyond saying 'I'm for capital punishment' and stopping there, I defend my system of beliefs and you defend yours.
And you defended it by saying that those executed have little value to society, and what I said was that was not a reason for execution. There are many people who could be classified as not having value to society by any other subjective definition. Would you execute them too?

This is all hypothetical, of course, and so to answer your question, my definition of value to society has never decided whether or not someone lived or died. But no we were debating the merits of capital punishment, not whether or not those subject to it are guilty.
Of course, perhaps we were on different wavelengths for a bit there.

I have nothing against localised ruling, its just that any system that small will be engulfed by a larger system, a system that small cannot function on its own in this age. The reason that a centralised government needs a police force is to ensure that its law is followed, yes to enforce its policies. However the reason is not because complex governments are naturally more oppressive for the sake of dominating people, rather because if so many are controlled by your system that there will be greater divisions and more people who disagree with the governemnts decision. Besides small government will still have crime, that must still be dealt with. It just has fewer criminals in terms of raw numbers.

a very, very well sourced biography of Tecumseh I'm reading mentioned that children almost never were told to do things, they lept to do them out of pride - a sigh and a "oh I wish I had a better son" was usually more effective than corperal punishment was in white society at keeping children in line. smaller societies allow less room for isolation, anonymity, and crime. considering most of them had little to no private property, I'm inclined to say that they actually did have lower instances of crime - simply because there was less oppurtunity - and because individualism was much less pronounced within close kinship groups, abberent behaviors like violence and crime were less common. maybe I'm wrong there, but I honestly think there was a significantly lesser percentage of criminals in smaller, more close-knit communities than in urban societies.

I do agree that such societies are often over run by others...but I remain somewhat optimistic that centralised governments and hierarchical societies are so exploitive and fundamentally flawed that they'll eventually collapse in favour of the smaller ones. not likely, but who knows.

In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

*shrug* again, not likely...but ideal worlds usually aren't.

If someone spat in my face in the street I dont think it would be unreasonable to kill them,
People are going to consider your opinions as worthless. I have taken the liberty of pointing out the statement that caused this in advance, so you won't have to ask.

And you defended it by saying that those executed have little value to society, and what I said was that was not a reason for execution. There are many people who could be classified as not having value to society by any other subjective definition. Would you execute them too?
Well, possibly, it depends on whether they can be put to work doing something useful to society or the state (funding themselves obviously).

Of course, perhaps we were on different wavelengths for a bit there.
Perhaps.

I do agree that such societies are often over run by others...but I remain somewhat optimistic that centralised governments and hierarchical societies are so exploitive and fundamentally flawed that they'll eventually collapse in favour of the smaller ones. not likely, but who knows.

Even if the national governments did collapse and smaller ones form, the most powerful, successful ones would probably begin expanding and consuming other smaller groups, eventually forming a new, large government again.

Well, possibly, it depends on whether they can be put to work doing something useful to society or the state (funding themselves obviously).
Sure they can. In the UK we have lots of prisoners, but a shortage of prisons. Let prisoners build prisons, I think. Then there is community service, that kind of thing, although it's by no means appropriate on its own for severe crimes, and could instead be used alongside a restorative justice and/or jail time for hardened criminals.

I'm in favor of a sort of modified capital punishment arrangement. Upon a guilty verdict, the defendant would be tied to a chair and given to the victim's family to do with as they wished. And if the victim had no family, friends, or associates? Acquittal. I mean, if no one cares enough about a guy to get even with his killer, then where's the crime?

Sure they can. In the UK we have lots of prisoners, but a shortage of prisons. Let prisoners build prisons, I think. Then there is community service, that kind of thing, although it's by no means appropriate on its own for severe crimes, and could instead be used alongside a restorative justice and/or jail time for hardened criminals.
Then there is still the cost of the materials for constructing the prisons. Although I like the idea of compulsory work (preferably in poor conditions). The problem with this soft approach is that although the prisoner helps society in a small way (and hopefully makes the state a profit) it is a very small threat. Only jailtime only for hardened criminals will not deter the hardened collection of criminals or the small time ones. If a jail term is to be nearly as effective as death, then prisons must be much less pleasant (which would also probably be cheaper). Horrible enough that even the worst criminals are afraid of them.

I'm in favor of a sort of modified capital punishment arrangement. Upon a guilty verdict, the defendant would be tied to a chair and given to the victim's family to do with as they wished. And if the victim had no family, friends, or associates? Acquittal. I mean, if no one cares enough about a guy to get even with his killer, then where's the crime?
The crime is that he/she violated the laws of the state and should be punished/reformed for it. Besides, the families may be merciful, and we wouldn't want that.

I'm against capital punishment.

I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being.
This is the same America that kills people by the thousands worldwide to serve its business interests, and kills a million babies a year just so they don't have to pay out welfare cheques.

BTW, in 1865 America wasn't exactly a front-runner in abolishing slavery.

Then there is still the cost of the materials for constructing the prisons. Although I like the idea of compulsory work (preferably in poor conditions). The problem with this soft approach is that although the prisoner helps society in a small way (and hopefully makes the state a profit) it is a very small threat. Only jailtime only for hardened criminals will not deter the hardened collection of criminals or the small time ones. If a jail term is to be nearly as effective as death, then prisons must be much less pleasant (which would also probably be cheaper). Horrible enough that even the worst criminals are afraid of them.
Deterrent? I don't think so (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html).

Even if the national governments did collapse and smaller ones form, the most powerful, successful ones would probably begin expanding and consuming other smaller groups, eventually forming a new, large government again.

I know. sucks. :headbang: I'd daydream about engineering a religion that would prevent that, but if they can turn pacifist ascetic early christianity into justification for imperialism, they can twist anything around. *sigh*

I'm against capital punishment.


This is the same America that kills people by the thousands worldwide to serve its business interests, and kills a million babies a year just so they don't have to pay out welfare cheques.

BTW, in 1865 America wasn't exactly a front-runner in abolishing slavery.

Yup. Britain was easily the first over thirty years prior, completely throughout their empire. Then there were a couple of other countries whom I can't remember exactly who abolished it also, then finally the US, followed by several South American countries. That's how slavery got abolished as I remember it.

If you think a jail cell is sufficient for the likes of Hitler, then you have no moral sense.
Since you consider resting on a road side, blown to many pieces, to be sufficient for the average resident of Iraq, Iran, and wherever else you think the US should invade, you are in no position to deliver morality lectures to anyone.

Yup. Britain was easily the first over thirty years prior, completely throughout their empire. Then there were a couple of other countries whom I can't remember exactly who abolished it also, then finally the US, followed by several South American countries. That's how slavery got abolished as I remember it.
Yes, but surprisingly few Americans seem aware that their nation was neither the first to abolish slavery, or give equal rights (actually), or to establish democracy or do many other things.

If you think a jail cell is sufficient for the likes of Hitler, then you have no moral sense.

Spending the rest of his life staring at the wall? Unable to pursue any of his pleasures? Forced to cope with soul-crushing boredom? Sounds like a fitting end to the likes of him. Far more of one than a swift, painless death.

I'm sure that would be big news if it were true. Link please.

I read it in the Daily Mirror I believe, they had a big article on each person he had executed and a breakdown of the cases against them. This was when he was originally elected though, or even during the election, so late 2000. I doubt if the deaths of 70 black people would be big news in America.

Spending the rest of his life staring at the wall? Unable to pursue any of his pleasures? Forced to cope with soul-crushing boredom? Sounds like a fitting end to the likes of him. Far more of one than a swift, painless death.

Yes, but if you wanted revenge (which is normally an argument against executions) you could torture him. Killing Hitler prevents him from being rescued or writing another book (two was enough) and he will almost certainly live a better life than just staring at the wall in prison. Killing him does however rob us of secrets that would be useful (and the location of Nazi gold).

Yes, but if you wanted revenge (which is normally an argument against executions) you could torture him. Killing Hitler prevents him from being rescued or writing another book (two was enough) and he will almost certainly live a better life than just staring at the wall in prison. Killing him does however rob us of secrets that be useful (and the location of Nazi gold).

It isn't revenge. It's punishment. Let his own brain destroy itself. There is nothing you can do to a man than cannot be topped by what his own mind can do to himself. Also, Hitler would likely be moved into solitary for his own protection. Many people would have wanted to kill him.

Spending the rest of his life staring at the wall? Unable to pursue any of his pleasures? Forced to cope with soul-crushing boredom? Sounds like a fitting end to the likes of him. Far more of one than a swift, painless death.

What does it matter? He shot himself before we could do anything (although some like to insist that Hitler escaped).

Since you consider resting on a road side, blown to many pieces, to be sufficient for the average resident of Iraq, Iran, and wherever else you think the US should invade, you are in no position to deliver morality lectures to anyone.

That argument, besides having no support in any statement I have made to date, is too silly to merit a response. :rolleyes:

What does it matter? He shot himself before we could do anything (although some like to insist that Hitler escaped).

It doesn't matter. I was just responding to New Mitanni.

It isn't revenge. It's punishment. Let his own brain destroy itself. There is nothing you can do to a man than cannot be topped by what his own mind can do to himself. Also, Hitler would likely be moved into solitary for his own protection. Many people would have wanted to kill him.
So you want him to suffer? For him to go insane? For his mind to destroy itself?

That is revenge. Punishment is all about revenge, whereas reforming the criminal so that they can be relied upon not to damage society any further, and of course death is the ultimate reform, it reduces the chances of reoffense to nothing. True he would probably be isolated for his own protection (except that nobody would really care if he was killed), in which case he could still carry on living.

So you want him to suffer? For him to go insane? For his mind to destroy itself?
I find it to be preferable to death. I don't particularly care one way or the other.

[/quote]That is revenge. Punishment is all about revenge[/QUOTE]
Punishment is not about revenge. If it was, only people who were effected by the act would be able to carry out the punishment.

I find it to be preferable to death. I don't particularly care one way or the other.
Which really undermines your argument in a way. You say that execution is cruel, but you do not care about that. You simply think that all life is sacred or something similar.

Punishment is not about revenge. If it was, only people who were effected by the act would be able to carry out the punishment.
Not true, society is taking revenge on those who harmed it and violated its laws.

Which really undermines your argument in a way. You say that execution is cruel, but you do not care about that. You simply think that all life is sacred or something similar.
I never said that execution was cruel. I said it was final.


Not true, society is taking revenge on those who harmed it and violated its laws.
I'll give you that point for the time being.

I never said that execution was cruel. I said it was final.

It is, it ends the problem of a criminal who would otherwise be costing the taxpayers money, wasting space and could go on to reoffend (and is a nice change to the unending bureaucratic exercises so present in modern day government).

It is, it ends the problem of a criminal who would otherwise be costing the taxpayers money, wasting space and could go on to reoffend (and is a nice change to the unending bureaucratic exercises so present in modern day government).

And when they're innocent?

And when they're innocent?

It ends the problem of a criminal who would otherwise be costing the taxpayers money, wasting spaceand is a nice change to the unending bureaucratic exercises so present in modern day government.

Against. Doesn't make sense. Killing someone for a crime doesn't solve anything, it just kills another person.
But there is a 100% chance that that person will never kill again. Where as in Jail they could still kill other prisoners, guards, etc.

Life in prison also ensures a person doesn't kill again. Except if they kill people in the prison. Which happens. But I guess that's okay, after all they're both Criminals right? Some people are just too dangerous to be allowed to exist.

Eventually you lose all your eyes.With so much killing around it becomes pointless.What does killing a criminal do?It brings you down to their level,it makes YOU as bad as the criminal themselves. Actually the last man standing will keep one eye, since there is no one left to take his other eye.

But there is a 100% chance that that person will never kill again. Where as in Jail they could still kill other prisoners, guards, etc.
Or get released.

Or get released.
And kill again.

It ends the problem of a criminal who would otherwise be costing the taxpayers money, wasting spaceand is a nice change to the unending bureaucratic exercises so present in modern day government.

Look up the definition of the word innocent. Hint: It doesn't include the word criminal.

And kill again.
Precisely!! :sniper:

And when they're innocent?

And thats the main problem of execution, humanity is not perfect thus we screw up and make mistakes and innocent people die. I would approve of execution but only on say a 2 or 3 strike basis for certain crimes, after all if they're convicted of multiple offences then the chance that they're innocent is far smaller.

Look up the definition of the word innocent. Hint: It doesn't include the word criminal.

I wondered if you would point that out, and so I reply...

From the time the individual was convicted to the time he/she was executed he/she was a criminal. That person was only declared innocent post-execution (and in doing so the government avoids having to apologise to the person (and should ignore the family)).

I wondered if you would point that out, and so I reply...

From the time the individual was convicted to the time he/she was executed he/she was a criminal. That person was only declared innocent post-execution (and in doing so the government avoids having to apologise to the person (and should ignore the family)).

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.
They were proven guilty. Thats the point.

For the Death Penalty.

I am against capital punishment. This is actually not where I used to stand on the issue, but I kind of migrated there. Giving the state the power to take life is too risky in my opinion, and I dont think its authority should ever extend far enough to kill you through lawful means. That said, I dont think prison is well run either, but I have yet to see a decent alternative.

I'm FOR the Death Penalty...However, I only wish that the appeals process was expedited and to serve the execution as soon as the appeals process is exhausted. I would also be for finding a less expensive method than the current process. Do you think that they gave their victims that much consideration on the method of their choice? Do you think they considered the victims rights? I think not. I believe the rights of the victims should be greater than the rights of the convicted.

It is, it ends the problem of a criminal who would otherwise be costing the taxpayers money, wasting space and could go on to reoffend (and is a nice change to the unending bureaucratic exercises so present in modern day government).

It actually costs less for a person to serve a life of imprisonment than it does for them to go through the whole legal system of execution.

It actually costs less for a person to serve a life of imprisonment than it does for them to go through the whole legal system of execution.

Only if you have to go through the US system of red tape and appeals. Just find them guilty, let them appeal once (maybe twice) by siezing their assets and using them to pay and then decapitate them.

Only in VERY EXTREME cases like killing the last hope of a species. ie poaching

the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery

What interesting history books they must have in US schools.

Edit/Add:
More to the point, I'm against capital punishment. There is no humane method, and it is simply wrong to use an inhumane method.
That's before we start to consider the other problems - miscarriages of justice; long spells on death row; difficulty of getting the jury to convict, etc

What interesting history books they must have in US schools.

Actually, I think that might have been sarcasm. Especially the part about slavery. It is a tad embarrassing that Czarist Russia abolished slavery (serfdom) before the US.

Actually, I think that might have been sarcasm.

I'm not sure it was given the context.

Only if you have to go through the US system of red tape and appeals. Just find them guilty, let them appeal once (maybe twice) by siezing their assets and using them to pay and then decapitate them.

A decapitated head lives for approximately ten seconds. Not very humane, is it? As for having only one appeal, there isn't much time for new evidence to be realized nor for there to be any change in the opinions of the case, so that makes it much more likely to kill an innocent man.

But, if we're going in that direction, why stop? We could save more money by giving them no appeals at all! And wait! If there's no appeals, why not save time and kill them the same day they're convicted? Robespierre would be pleased!

A decapitated head lives for approximately ten seconds.
Nope, less than five.

Nope, less than five.

Oh, my mistake. It seemse my knowledge of such strange things is getting rusty, or at least doubling while descreasing.

Oh, my mistake. It seemse my knowledge of such strange things is getting rusty, or at least doubling while descreasing.

I could be wrong here. I'm pretty sure it's less than five, since it takes five seconds for the brain to suffocate and die if the carotids are cut or stopped somehow.

A decapitated head lives for approximately ten seconds. Not very humane, is it?

On that note:sedating them first would eliminate that problem.

A decapitated head lives for approximately ten seconds. Not very humane, is it? As for having only one appeal, there isn't much time for new evidence to be realized nor for there to be any change in the opinions of the case, so that makes it much more likely to kill an innocent man.

But, if we're going in that direction, why stop? We could save more money by giving them no appeals at all! And wait! If there's no appeals, why not save time and kill them the same day they're convicted? Robespierre would be pleased!

Well, I'm tempted to agree with the kill them the day they are convicted part, actually, or at least the day their appeal fails (if it does). Why prolong their lives. As for the decapitation, I chose it because its cheaper than a gas, a lethal infection or a bullet (not much, but every fraction of a penny must be used efficiently) and it does not damage any organs, which can be extracted and given to those waiting on the NHS for organ transplants.

For the most part, against, but in some specific cases for, so I voted "against".

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick. I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being. It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

Anyhow, interested in your thoughts...

In cases of rape, murder, and abuse of children (I mean like the people that starve their children, or stub cigarettes out on them... not the frazzled mom who spanks her kid), there absolutely should be a death penalty.

It is, I believe, the only responsible and civilised approach.

It is, also, the only way to guarantee prevention of re-offense.

For, but with conditions and only under certain circumstances.

The following should be executed without fail.

Serial murderers
Serial rapists
Child molesters

The problem with capital punishment is that it is never consistently applied. Serial killers get life and some scared teenager robbing the 7-11 who accidently kills someone gets death. A parent who tortures a his/her child gets a three year sentence to be served on weekends (after all, he/she is the sole support of the family) and someone who kills a child molester gets death. How do you justify that?

against, killing someone doesnt justify anything, just adds more grief....what is "other" or is that just undecided? other like "only on rapists" or "can only be executed my starving angry beavers"? hey, lets put a nice roll playing idea into motion, your convicted of a crime that could carry a death sentence, you are a healthy lets say 22 year old, would you rather spend the rest of your life in prision (somewhere over 30 years) or be killed in somewhere under 10 (pending....)? its alot more pain to be locked away as a menace to society than it is to be killed......

also, sometimes the executed person is later found to be innocent, its happened past the late 70s too....

against, killing someone doesnt justify anything, just adds more grief....what is "other" or is that just undecided? other like "only on rapists" or "can only be executed my starving angry beavers"? hey, lets put a nice roll playing idea into motion, your convicted of a crime that could carry a death sentence, you are a healthy lets say 22 year old, would you rather spend the rest of your life in prision (somewhere over 30 years) or be killed in somewhere under 10 (pending....)? its alot more pain to be locked away as a menace to society than it is to be killed......

So - you argue that there is a better punitive result obtained from imprisoning the young rapist - because he gets to rot in jail for more years?

Personally, I'm not much bothered about 'punishing' anyone... but, if you kill a rapist, he never rapes again. An executed murderer is not going to kill more people. It is prevention - removing the already PROVED dangerous elements.

There is no justification in a 'civilised' society, for allowing those who will kill, rape, or harm children, to be placed in a position to re-offend. And the only way to be sure they can't re-offend, is to 'end' them.

If only we lived in a world where we can "skip to my lou" where we could all hold hands singing, "it's a small world afterall" If only we lived in a world where there was no death, no crime, All Peace, now this would be nice, however, I live in the real world where it's by our nature to kill anything we fear (why do you think we kill the roaches) Mankind goes to war (which according to History has been practically happening since the very beginning of time) World Peace is a wonderful thought but I really don't foresee it happening until the day the last of mankind has been killed off, and only then will you have your world peace.

So - you argue that there is a better punitive result obtained from imprisoning the young rapist - because he gets to rot in jail for more years?

Personally, I'm not much bothered about 'punishing' anyone... but, if you kill a rapist, he never rapes again. An executed murderer is not going to kill more people. It is prevention - removing the already PROVED dangerous elements.

There is no justification in a 'civilised' society, for allowing those who will kill, rape, or harm children, to be placed in a position to re-offend. And the only way to be sure they can't re-offend, is to 'end' them.

here, here

Good Post.

<snipitty snip>
What the bloody 'ell does that depressing rant have to do wth capital punishment? The possibility or not of universal peace on Earth is quite irrelevent.

against in all cases.

We shold have a real justice system where criminals really do go to prison forever. And lifers shoul dbe separated from te rest of the population. LIfers have such a very different attitude and it really hurts the people who are there for a couple of years.

I vote we lock the lifers up together in a national prison and everybody else goes to state.

That I am practical should not scare you, and if it does it is not my existence which should horrify you. Rather, it should scare you that people who share my belief are quite common and that there is enough diversity in the world that your beliefs will not always be those that are observed.

It doesn't scare me that you are 'practical'; I'm fairly positive towards decision theory and weighing up possibilities by assuming monetary value to things which may not have them. It scares me that you think a price can be put on a human life, and if this amount is exceeded then it is better off to execute them. Love to see the expression on your face if you were on trial, found guilty and sentenced to death so the state can save some money.

against in all cases.

We shold have a real justice system where criminals really do go to prison forever. And lifers shoul dbe separated from te rest of the population. LIfers have such a very different attitude and it really hurts the people who are there for a couple of years.

I vote we lock the lifers up together in a national prison and everybody else goes to state.

Why support proven deleterious elements? Why should society be forced to maintain the situation and safety of predators on their own species?

I see no reason to support a child rapist... to feed them, house them, protect them from the elements... and there is no way to be absolutely sure they will never offend again... only last year a multiple murderer managed to literally walk out of a Texas prison.

So - there is no justification for supporting them, and no way to ensure they can NEVER reoffend... the only logical, and civilised approach, is humane euthanasia.

Against whenever the criminal can be otherwise restrained in a reasonably deterring fashion.

Needless bloodshed is needless bloodshed.

Against whenever the criminal can be otherwise restrained in a reasonably deterring fashion.

Needless bloodshed is needless bloodshed.

No one said anything about 'needless' bloodshed. No one mentioned shedding of blood (I am all for humane execution)... and it is very much needed.

Prison is optimism... hoping that the offender will not be able to re-offend. The only way to be sure, is to remove any possibility... and the only way to do that, is to remove life.

What interesting history books they must have in US schools.

I am so embarrassed that I typed that. I actually listened recently to a radio program about abolitionism in England and the colonies. Indeed America was not the front-runner. In my defence I made the post at three or four AM. However I still stand by my point that, despite current and past faults, the US (of which I'm not a citizen) is a great nation, and thus why capital punishment strikes me as odd.

there is no such thing as punishment. Let's get that strange idea out of our heads first. It's a meaningless label for a system of institutionalised state revenge, and revenge is not what criminal justice should be about. imo the sentencing of criminals should be concerned only with the following things:

rehabilitation (making offender unwilling or unable to reoffend)
seperation (removal of offender from society until they are rehabilitated, or permenantly if they are deemed impossible to rehabiliate)
deterrent (encouraging others not to offend)
compensation (the "making right" of the crime that was committed)

Capital punishment obviously can't rehabilitate the criminal, so it obviously straight away should only be reserved for those unable to be rehabilitated - that is that they must be permenantly removed from society through death. And when I say rehabilitation I'm including options such as medication, castration, and even lobotomy or other surgical options which may become available in the future. All these options must be seriously considered before capital punishment becomes an option. Only the most mentally ill antisocial individuals would be impossible to rehabilitate, but if it is impossible, then there is no other option but to execute them/put them down. Otherwise they will only continue to be a drain on the society, despite there being no hope of them ever being a part of it again.

The other two are deterrent and compensation. My own opinion is that the death penalty is not an effective detterent, as those that rape or commit murder and so on are already pretty messed up and what they know about potential punishment isn't going to effect their actions. We're not dealing with rational functional human beings here. Televising executions, and bringing back methods such as hanging, beheading, burning, crushing or crucifixion might help a little though.

The last thing is compensation, which I think the death penalty definately can provide, as a form of emotional catharsis/closure for the victim/victim's loved ones. Even if it might be possible to rehabilitate the criminal, the injured party should still be able to petition the court/the state for an execution on the grounds of compensation. This is still certainly revenge, but it is personal/individual revenge, not state sponsored revenge, and is therefore imo perfectly acceptable. The state merely provides the framework for the killing to take place properly and with no risk of injury on the part of the individual(s) seeking vengence, as might have been the case in times gone by.

so basically execution is permissable, but only in two cases:
a) when an individual cannot be rehabiliated
b) as revenge for the injured party

What the bloody 'ell does that depressing rant have to do wth capital punishment? The possibility or not of universal peace on Earth is quite irrelevent.

I simply ranted all that because I got tired not only in this post but others about how nothing justifies murder, anti-gun, anti-war, anti-anything no so good. So, I figured what the hell let me rant. By the way, I'm not the only who has ever ranted whether it's legitimate or not so oh well. get over it.

I live in the real world where it's by our nature to kill anything we fear (why do you think we kill the roaches).

It is also our instinct to rape.

And I think killing cockroaches also has something to do with pest control and hygiene.

It is also our instinct to rape.

And I think killing cockroaches also has something to do with pest control and hygiene.

exactly, it's a fear of filth. So we do what is natural...kill what we fear. :D

No one said anything about 'needless' bloodshed. No one mentioned shedding of blood (I am all for humane execution)... and it is very much needed.

Prison is optimism... hoping that the offender will not be able to re-offend. The only way to be sure, is to remove any possibility... and the only way to do that, is to remove life.

Similarly, the only way to be sure they won't offend in the first place is to abort them, or prevent their conception.

against, killing someone doesnt justify anything, just adds more grief....what is "other" or is that just undecided? other like "only on rapists" or "can only be executed my starving angry beavers"? hey, lets put a nice roll playing idea into motion, your convicted of a crime that could carry a death sentence, you are a healthy lets say 22 year old, would you rather spend the rest of your life in prision (somewhere over 30 years) or be killed in somewhere under 10 (pending....)? its alot more pain to be locked away as a menace to society than it is to be killed......

Don't know about that. I've often day-dreamed about being found guilty of murder and put on death row (even though my country has no capital punishment) and pleading with the judge or whoever that I didn't want to be killed because I wanted to write, draw, paint and express and contribute.

exactly, it's a fear of filth. So we do what is natural...kill what we fear. :D

It is a rational fear of filth that we eliminate to keep our living conditions sanitary.

Similarly, the only way to be sure they won't offend in the first place is to abort them, or prevent their conception.

good point. Widespread genetic testing should enable us to find genetic markers for criminals (if such things exist), and then simply castrate/neuter those that carry them. Much simpler than taking it to court decades later when the potential criminal offends.

good point. Widespread genetic testing should enable us to find genetic markers for criminals (if such things exist), and them simply castrate/neuter those that carry them. Much simpler than taking it to court decades later when the potential criminal offends.

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000001EFO.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000001EFO.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/srsly-40515.jpg

there is no such thing as punishment.

Yeah, actually there is. (http://m-w.com/dictionary/punishment)

Yeah, actually there is. (http://m-w.com/dictionary/punishment)

hmm... (http://m-w.com/dictionary/hobbit)

Similarly, the only way to be sure they won't offend in the first place is to abort them, or prevent their conception.

An argument I would be willing to enter into... but it isn't this argument.

After all - most people will probably NOT turn out to be rapists, murderers and child abusers... so why abort everyone?

If you can work out a way to abort all those that WILL be the deleterious elements, I'd be more than a little inclined to agree.

But, that doubt is the problem. That doubt doesn't exist when someone has ALREADY shown that they ARE a murderer, rapist or abuser.

An argument I would be willing to enter into... but it isn't this argument.

After all - most people will probably NOT turn out to be rapists, murderers and child abusers... so why abort everyone?

If you can work out a way to abort all those that WILL be the deleterious elements, I'd be more than a little inclined to agree.

But, that doubt is the problem. That doubt doesn't exist when someone has ALREADY shown that they ARE a murderer, rapist or abuser.

Which is why it costs more to house someone on death row, their case is repealed repeatedly, as I understand it.

As for the deletrious elements, being such does not remove their potential usefulness to society. A murder(I assume you aren't including rapists and child abusers as deletrious elements) can dig a hole or perform any number of other tasks just as well as an innocent man.

hmm... (http://m-w.com/dictionary/hobbit)

Yes, there IS a "fictitious peaceful and genial race of small humanlike creatures that dwell underground." It's an idea, just like the idea of punishment, just like any other idea that humans have thought to make a word for.

Try as you might, you can't "un-make" the concept of punishment just because you happen to disagree with it.

I am for capital punishment. The problem with the system is that the person on death row is kept there for so long that they may die of old age first.

Just put them against the wall, and:sniper:, problem solved.

I am for capital punishment. The problem with the system is that the person on death row is kept there for so long that they may die of old age first.

Just put them against the wall, and:sniper:, problem solved.

I like it. I do not happen to be so forward as a friend of mine (judge w/a holster @ conviction), but I think one should have a limited time for appeals after initial conviction, and thus a set execution date at the conviction (assuming they are not aquitted in appeal). This should be within two years.

For all of the questions of how humane it is or is not, they clearly did something to deserve such a punishment, and I don't want to have to pay for the food and shelter of such a creature (cheapest would be to just drop them in a hole and forget about them, something which I personally would have no issues with, though I could understand why others may).

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/srsly-40515.jpg

O RLY? (http://houseorly.ytmnd.com/)

Which is why it costs more to house someone on death row, their case is repealed repeatedly, as I understand it.


Something of a strawman - I mentioned nothing about appeals or imprisonment on a Death Row. You are discussing flaws in our current legal system, which has nothing to do with whether or not the sentence is right.

Hear the case, make the judgement, walk them instantly to the place of humane execution, excise the problem, drop it in a box, torch it.

Problem: solved.
Elapsed time: less than an hour.
Cost: minimal.


As for the deletrious elements, being such does not remove their potential usefulness to society. A murder(I assume you aren't including rapists and child abusers as deletrious elements) can dig a hole or perform any number of other tasks just as well as an innocent man.

Why woudn't I be including rapists and child abusers? Both take steps that are far beyond the proscribed circles of trust and - unlike stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family - there is no necessity or justification for breaking and infants' arms, or gang-raping someone.

Such people have revoked the contract of society, and no longer deserve it's protection.

And - yes, the criminal can dig a hole as well as an innocent - but why take that job away from an innocent man?

I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Now I am anti. I sat down one day and realised that I have no right to determine if another person should live.

I have no formal training. My visceral desire to see a guilty person die for their crimes comes from a deeply emotional response, one that should not enter into considerations of justice or retribution.

Punishment:

Chained into a bathtub with luke warm water and surrounded by 30 computer screens playing this off sync: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4744038158713508071&q=cat+dance&hl=en for life.

It doesn't scare me that you are 'practical'; I'm fairly positive towards decision theory and weighing up possibilities by assuming monetary value to things which may not have them. It scares me that you think a price can be put on a human life, and if this amount is exceeded then it is better off to execute them. Love to see the expression on your face if you were on trial, found guilty and sentenced to death so the state can save some money.

Pretty much everything has a price, and its not so much that I think a human life has a monetary value, as it is that I think a life is inherently worth nothing (a person must make their life worth something). As for me being executed by the state, I could probably welcome it (on the assumption that my crime had been serious enough to warrent execution) as a lengthly jail sentence is not, to me, preferable. I just don't like confinement.

Still against it, due to the possibility of errors. Since no system is perfect, I don't see my mind ever changing on this topic.

The killing of an innocent by the justice system is unacceptable to me.

Still against it, due to the possibility of errors. Since no system is perfect, I don't see my mind ever changing on this topic.

The killing of an innocent by the justice system is unacceptable to me.Indeed. The only reason against death penalty is the possible flaws in the justice system. But for folks whose grave guilt is beyond any doubt (like publicly known mass murders, genocidal freaks like Saddam) death is the appropriate payback and the insurance for the rest of humanity that they won't do it again.

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick. I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being. It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

Anyhow, interested in your thoughts...

Consider who we execute in this country: murderers, people who commit deliberate and premeditated murder. That's about it. We also execute traitors, but usually treason gets punished by lengthy jail time, unless that treason leads to the death of their fellow countrymen.

You have to also consider the mindset of such people. The vast majority of them are people that have arived at the point of concience where it is acceptable to murder - the most henious crime a person can commit, (and is defined by me for the purposes of this thread as: the purely selfish and deliberate killing of an innocent) - other people in order to achive their objectives. Can you reform such a person? Can you reform a person that has no qualms about killing innocent people in order to advance their own desires? Perhaps some of them feel driven to such a course of action by circumstance, and leaniency in sentencing may be warrented in those cases. But most have simply arived at a point of selfishness that the lives of other people mean nothing to them, and there is no way of getting through to such people. They have seared their conciences with a hot iron. They have decended below humanity. They are crazed animals that kill their own kind, and such animals must be put down, because there is nothing else that can be done with them.

Consider this also, by exacting the highest penalty for murder, that is life its self, we reinforce the value of the lives of their victems. When we alow convicted murderers to live out their lives in prison it devalues the worth of the lives of those whos lives they have taken. A society must value the lives of the innocent dead, over the living guilty who have murdered them. By executing the murderer we reinforce the value of life, not deminish it.

I'm for it

murder = the purely selfish and deliberate killing of an innocentDoes that include slaughtering an animal to eat it?

Does that include slaughtering an animal to eat it?

Animals are not people. Animal life is is not equivelent with human life.

I am not infavor of needless cruelty to animals, nor am I in favor of the wasteful killing of animals, but if a person kills an animal for food I have no objections.

Depending on the case.

Crime(s). Enough murders: kill 'em. Genocide: kill 'em. Mass murder: kill 'em. Things like that. But stealing something else than lives shouldn't be punished with death.
Means. The only way should be facing the firing squad. Or perhaps some quick, painless poison. But things that can take long and be very painful, like hanging, shouldn't be done.
Certainity. They should allways be absolutely certain of the one who commited the crime. No propable criminals.

For mass murder and environmental crimes capital punishment is OK.

Heh, that made me laugh, because suddenly the following scene popped into my mind:

A man murders his wife and is put to death -- not for shooting his wife, but for throwing the gun in the river!

However I still stand by my point that, despite current and past faults, the US (of which I'm not a citizen) is a great nation, and thus why capital punishment strikes me as odd.

That is true.
However, turning your point on its head, I'd say that despite its current and past virtues, the US is a nation where human life is sometimes still regarded as pretty cheap.
Not that the US stands out in this respect - there are plenty of other countries that have it worse. First two examples that come to mind: Uganda and South Africa.

I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Now I am anti. I sat down one day and realised that I have no right to determine if another person should live.


Which makes you one step above the individual that fails to sit down and consider... or that considers and still tortures a child, or kills or rapes someone.

Such actions invalidate such a person's commitment to our societal 'contract'. It isn't about vengeance, it is about removing a proven evil.

Still against it, due to the possibility of errors. Since no system is perfect, I don't see my mind ever changing on this topic.


That doesn't actually address the sentence - only how relible you think our justice system is at obtaining correct results. It is either irrelevent, or evasive.

If we had some way to be 100% sure person A raped and murdered persons B through F, how would you feel about the death penalty as a sentence?


The killing of an innocent by the justice system is unacceptable to me.

But by an individual is okay?

Certainity. They should allways be absolutely certain of the one who commited the crime. No propable criminals.

So, never then. Gotcha.

This is precisely the problem. Our justice system - no justice system - is 100% accurate. As long as there is a possibility of error, I cannot condone the death penalty. A single person being executed for a crime or crimes they did not commit makes the practice itself completely unacceptable. And, if we have the death penalty at all, there is no way to avoid the circumstance in which this happens.

I am totally for Capital Punishment in cases where another human life is taken or rape.

That doesn't actually address the sentence - only how relible you think our justice system is at obtaining correct results. It is either irrelevent, or evasive.

It is neither. The death penalty can only be acceptable in a system which is correct 100% of the time. If the justice system is less reliable than this (as any would be), the death penalty cannot be acceptable.

If and only if you could prove, with 100% certainty, that a person was a cold-blooded murderer/child rapist/what-have-you and that said person would be a danger to society if left alive, the death penalty would be an acceptable sentence. In fact, one might say it would be the duty of the government to remove that person, as doing so would be protecting its citizens. Good luck with that 100% certainty thing, though.

I'm for it, but only as a humane alternative.

REASONING: The world has too many people. We really don't need criminals walking around all over the place in addition to everyone else, and prisons take up a lot of money that could be better served elsewhere. Killing them, however, is a bit of a waste; it should only be done if governments have qualms about using them for other purposes.

Having no such qualms, I would suggest using them as slave labour, drugging them up on some sort of hashish-like stimulant and dropping them onto enemy forces as soldiers (to weaken and scare them before the real troops come in), using them as food, or many other useful things. Sadly, most of these are considered inhumane for some reason, usually with the rationale that I would not like it if these things were done to me (which is true). However, I also wouldn't commit a crime in the first place.

In conclusion, the death penalty is a good way of ridding society of undesireable elements, but is also a bit of a waste as those undesireable elements could be used for other purposes.

We should also kill perjurers, rapists, muggers, gangs that beat up on one person, people who kick someone when they are down, mutilators, child abusers, child neglectors, flag burners, and people that are cruel to animals.

We should also kill perjurers, rapists, muggers, gangs that beat up on one person, people who kick someone when they are down, mutilators, child abusers, child neglectors, flag burners, and people that are cruel to animals.All meat eaters are cruel to animals. Wanna include them?

All meat eaters are cruel to animals. Wanna include them?

No. C'mon now. How is it cruel to eat meat? It is cruel to eat your prey alive in a slow and painful manner. It is not cruel to eat a steak that was prepared in a non-cruel manner (and by law cattle are killed humanely). What are you a PETA member?

It is neither. The death penalty can only be acceptable in a system which is correct 100% of the time. If the justice system is less reliable than this (as any would be), the death penalty cannot be acceptable.


Not at all - the thread is about whether you are 'for or against' capital punishment... not whether or not the current legal process is capable of providing a realistic estimation of doubt.

One can be 'for' the death penalty, whilst simultaneously believing the US legal system to be largely useless.

Thus, to avoid answering the question.. is either irrelevence, or evasion.


If and only if you could prove, with 100% certainty, that a person was a cold-blooded murderer/child rapist/what-have-you and that said person would be a danger to society if left alive, the death penalty would be an acceptable sentence. In fact, one might say it would be the duty of the government to remove that person, as doing so would be protecting its citizens. Good luck with that 100% certainty thing, though.

Exactly - I would argue it as the duty of a caring government.

I think our legal system is often unable to meet the burden of proof that should be required, but - I think where it is managed, there is nothing 'wrong' with executing the perpetual offender.

The difference between me, and many others... is that I am willing to accept that there is 'collateral' damage, and I'm kind of okay with that if it is wroking towards the right goals. (That doesn't mean I like the system as it is - I'd like to see a massive overhaul of the entire procedure).

No. C'mon now. How is it cruel to eat meat? It is cruel to eat your prey alive in a slow and painful manner. It is not cruel to eat a steak that was prepared in a non-cruel manner (and by law cattle are killed humanely). What are you a PETA member?

I once saw a frog eat a worm very slowly, one bite at a time. So I squished him for you.

All meat eaters are cruel to animals. Wanna include them?

I eat meat. I lived on a farm, and we raised, cared for, and slaughtered our own livestock (humanely), before butchering it ourselves.

At no point were we 'cruel' to the animals. And, by the time I ate them, they were far beyond caring.

That doesn't actually address the sentence - only how relible you think our justice system is at obtaining correct results. It is either irrelevent, or evasive.
I find it troublesome that you don't see the connection between the justice system and the sentence - the punishment is a part of the justice system, and thus my statement is neither irrelevant nor evasive. As long as there is a possibility that an innocent may be executed, that spesific type of punishment should not be utilized.

If we had some way to be 100% sure person A raped and murdered persons B through F, how would you feel about the death penalty as a sentence?
You see, the thing is that we don't have a way to be 100% sure all the time - there are humans involved and humans make mistakes whether it's during the investigation or it's during the trial. People have been framed in the past, cops have planted or neglected evidence, juries have been manipulated, judges have ruled based on their emotions rather than the facts at hand - shit happens. It's an imperfect system, and as such I will wait to answer your hypothetical question until the day when it becomes flawless and perfect.

But by an individual is okay?
Let's review exactly what I said:
The killing of an innocent by the justice system is unacceptable to me.

I cannot live with a system of justice that accepts that innocent lives may be killed by that very same system.

What individuals may or may not do is largely irrelevant to the discussion.

This is precisely the problem. Our justice system - no justice system - is 100% accurate. As long as there is a possibility of error, I cannot condone the death penalty. A single person being executed for a crime or crimes they did not commit makes the practice itself completely unacceptable. And, if we have the death penalty at all, there is no way to avoid the circumstance in which this happens.

This is an inconsistency. Our justice system - no justice system - is 100% accurate. As long as there is a possibility of error, I cannot condone imprisonment. A single person being imprisoned for a crime or crimes they did not commit makes the practice itself completely unacceptable. And, if we have imprisonment at all, there is no way to avoid the circumstance in which this happens.

And before you wax poetic about how being imprisoned isn't so bad because you have appeals - please! Spare me! Prisoners die all the time, at the hands of other prisoners, or even of natural causes, and if one of those prisoners was innocent and only there because of our less-than-100% perfect justice system, then it's the same damn thing as the death penalty, from your perspective: an innocent dying at the hands of imperfect justice.

Even if there's no death, are you really gonna minimize the possibility of losing 20, 30, 50 years of an innocent person's life? Say that, unlike the death penalty, that IS acceptable? That the rape and assault and abuse and utter lack of liberty involved is OK? I hope not. Yet you must unless you truly do oppose the punishment of imprisonment.

I believe that it might be necessary in developing countries to establish order (I don't mean by killing off lots of trouble-makers), but in a developed country it is sick. I am amazed that the United States, a front-runner in values like democracy and the abolition of slavery still thinks it has the right to take the life of a human being. It really blows my mind that the state actually takes the life of its own citizens.

Anyhow, interested in your thoughts...

I voted other. See, I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if it weren't for the cost. In the US, it actually costs less to house someone for the rest of their lives than it is to put them to death. Now, I realize that the costs are mostly for things like automatic appeals and such, and I realize that these things are needed to help prevent the death of a wrongly convicted person.

Therefore, I think (for now, at least) we should stop putting people to death. Think of the economy! :)

I voted other. See, I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if it weren't for the cost. In the US, it actually costs less to house someone for the rest of their lives than it is to put them to death. Now, I realize that the costs are mostly for things like automatic appeals and such, and I realize that these things are needed to help prevent the death of a wrongly convicted person.

Therefore, I think (for now, at least) we should stop putting people to death. Think of the economy! :)

I agree with you on the costs. I really wish they would go back to either the hangings or firing squads and expedite the appeals processto months instead of years. Looks like the Iraqi's are on the right track. I'm Ultimately for the Death Penalty. I'm also for the victims rights than the rights of the convicted. I find it to be sad how so many are coming to the defence of these horrendous criminals compared to the victims, how sad, indeed.

I'm absolutely against the death penalty. Killing people who kill people to show them killing people is wrong. Pretty nonsensicle.
Besides, according to The Innocence Project, approximately one in twenty-seven people executed was innocent.

I'm absolutely against the death penalty. Killing people who kill people to show them killing people is wrong. Pretty nonsensicle.
Besides, according to The Innocence Project, approximately one in twenty-seven people executed was innocent.

You are killing them not to show that killing is wrong, only that it is a tool reserved for the state, not them and by killing them you prevent them from breaking societies laws again. As for the statistic, twenty six criminals for the cost of one innocent person could well be a better ratio than the number of people harmed if these people are released.

For mass murder and environmental crimes capital punishment is OK.
environmental crimes ? and who decides that?

...flag burners...

o.O

You must like that pretty coloured rag.

You are killing them not to show that killing is wrong, only that it is a tool reserved for the state, not them and by killing them you prevent them from breaking societies laws again. As for the statistic, twenty six criminals for the cost of one innocent person could well be a better ratio than the number of people harmed if these people are released.

So.. being killed by the government is better than being killed by some nutter with a knife?

I thought the government was there to stop this sort of thing, not perpetrate it. Of course that was many years ago when I was a little more naive than I am now.

You are killing them not to show that killing is wrong, only that it is a tool reserved for the state, not them and by killing them you prevent them from breaking societies laws again. As for the statistic, twenty six criminals for the cost of one innocent person could well be a better ratio than the number of people harmed if these people are released.Sorry, most murderers don't kill anywhere near twenty-six people. Mostly one or two. And as far as I'm concerned, one in five-hundred is too many innocent executed.

And life in prison will keep them from killing more innocents, with the added benefit of being able to free them if they're found to be innocent later.

environmental crimes ? and who decides that?

Probably Peta. :D

Probably Peta. :DYou'd better hope not. My grandparents are PETA members and they're scary.

I agree with you on the costs. I really wish they would go back to either the hangings or firing squads and expedite the appeals processto months instead of years. Looks like the Iraqi's are on the right track. I'm Ultimately for the Death Penalty. I'm also for the victims rights than the rights of the convicted. I find it to be sad how so many are coming to the defence of these horrendous criminals compared to the victims, how sad, indeed.

And I guess it's just a shrug and "how sad" for those who are wrongfully executed, eh? You seem to neglect mentioning their rights...

So.. being killed by the government is better than being killed by some nutter with a knife?

I reckon the government would think so, and anyone who argues goes the same way.

Sorry, most murderers don't kill anywhere near twenty-six people. Mostly one or two. And as far as I'm concerned, one in five-hundred is too many innocent executed.

No, but twenty-six murderers will have killed one (twenty-six minimum really, then again some of the criminals might be rapists or child molesters), and may go on to harm more.

And life in prison will keep them from killing more innocents, with the added benefit of being able to free them if they're found to be innocent later.

Yes, but then theres that awkward silence ... followed by legal action. Killing them after their (only) failed appeal would just give things a nice sense of completion, and save some paperwork and money.

And I guess it's just a shrug and "how sad" for those who are wrongfully executed, eh? You seem to neglect mentioning their rights...

I'm no sure I'd actually say 'How sad.', but yeah. Their rights can be removed in an instant, thats just how it is.

Yes, but then theres that awkward silence ... followed by legal action. Killing them after their (only) failed appeal would just give things a nice sense of completion, and save some paperwork and money.So risking killing someone innocent of the crime to save paperwork or money is okay with you?

Most of those freed by The Innocence Project had already exhausted all their appeals. The courts won't shell out for DNA testing after someone is convicted, even if could prove their innocence. As a matter of fact, they frequently won't before a conviction. Tough luck for you if you're family doesn't have the money for DNA testing.
Oklahoma has one investigator for capital crimes. Fortunately I know him and he's a dedicated man, but not all are. And many of the public defenders are total incompetents. One slept through nearly the whole trial. Others have such a heavy caseload they have no time to spend with the defendants. A fifteen minute first time meeting with the defendant the day before the trial is common.

Texas has no public defenders office. They just hand it off to whoever they can get, regardless of whether he has trial experience or not.

Minorities and the indigent are far more likely to recieve the death penalty. Are their crimes more heinous because of their race or poverty?

So risking killing someone innocent of the crime to save paperwork or money is okay with you?

Yes.

Is letting a person seriously dangerous to others to go free because the statistical possibility that they are not guilty exists acceptable to you?

Most of those freed by The Innocence Project had already exhausted all their appeals. The courts won't shell out for DNA testing after someone is convicted, even if could prove their innocence. As a matter of fact, they frequently won't before a conviction. Tough luck for you if you're family doesn't have the money for DNA testing.
Oklahoma has one investigator for capital crimes. Fortunately I know him and he's a dedicated man, but not all are. And many of the public defenders are total incompetents. One slept through nearly the whole trial. Others have such a heavy caseload they have no time to spend with the defendants. A fifteen minute first time meeting with the defendant the day before the trial is common.

Texas has no public defenders office. They just hand it off to whoever they can get, regardless of whether he has trial experience or not.

This is a fault in the US legal system, not capital punishment itself, besides if these peopl are only getting one appeal, it will reduce workload and allow defence to spend more time and money on the case if they are so inclined.

Minorities and the indigent are far more likely to recieve the death penalty. Are their crimes more heinous because of their race or poverty?

That is the same racism that will be present whether they are being killed or being sentenced for a lesser crime. A problem with people, not the system.

Is letting a person seriously dangerous to others to go free because the statistical possibility that they are not guilty exists acceptable to you?






Absolutely. Better that ten guilty go free than to execute one innocent.
And we're talking about imprisoning them, not just letting them go. Unlike you, I consider human lives more important than money or cutting down paperwork.

Absolutely. Better that ten guilty go free than to execute one innocent.

You have a very poor grasp of numbers don't you. Ten guilty hardened criminals go free to do manner of harm, while one innocent person leads an unimportant life that has little bearing on anything. My way (at least in this hypothetical situation) is the lesser of two evils.

And we're talking about imprisoning them, not just letting them go. Unlike you, I consider human lives more important than money or cutting down paperwork.

I don't hold such an absolutist view, I think that a human life can be worth money or paper work, but how much is dependent on the value of that life. Whereas you seem to think that a single death incorrectly caused directly is worse than many potencial indirect deaths.

You'd better hope not. My grandparents are PETA members and they're scary.

Typically people who equate animals with humans are to be avoided whenver possible. And if they're Peta, don't ever give them your pets.

You are killing them not to show that killing is wrong, only that it is a tool reserved for the state, not them and by killing them you prevent them from breaking societies laws again. As for the statistic, twenty six criminals for the cost of one innocent person could well be a better ratio than the number of people harmed if these people are released.

Released to serve their lives in prison?

EDIT

Oh yes, and very few murderers are serial killers, since most murderers know the victim and serial killings most often don't know the victims.

Released to serve their lives in prison?

Released because a 'life sentence' is good for much less than life, even without parole.

And I guess it's just a shrug and "how sad" for those who are wrongfully executed, eh? You seem to neglect mentioning their rights...

The fact is that I live in the real world where humans including our justice department makes mistakes. It's a shame for an innocent to be wrongly sentenced to death. This an imperfect world we live in. I still support the Death Penalty. I believe it's a great deterence in the most horrendous crimes. This is my opinion which I'm very much allowed to have as you do to oppose. I also am pro-life with the exceptions of rape and if the mother's life is endangered.

Some say the Death Penalty is immoral, well I say having an unjustified abortion is immoral. I say unjustified, meaning, to go out and fuck get pregnant then to decide you don't want the responsibility, to me that is far more immoral than Capital Punishment.

Which makes you one step above the individual that fails to sit down and consider... or that considers and still tortures a child, or kills or rapes someone.

I should hope I'm several steps above a child killer.

Such actions invalidate such a person's commitment to our societal 'contract'. It isn't about vengeance, it is about removing a proven evil.

But then the question becomes, "What actions invalidate that contract?" In this thread, people disagree. Some feel that only the taking of a human life is grounds for capital punishment, some believe that only the taking of several lives, some only for killing with exceptional circumstances (such as particularly brutal or horrific crimes), some believe that the taking of a life is not necessary to invalidate someone's right to life. My own father has made comments suggesting that car thieves should be hung.

Where you draw the line may not be where those in power draw the line. The power to end a human life is a dangerous tool, one I do not believe has any place in considerations of justice.

Typically people who equate animals with humans are to be avoided whenver possible. And if they're Peta, don't ever give them your pets.My Grandmother expressed a desire to place her pets on a vegan diet. I threatened to call the Humane Society if she did. She gave in after I explained to her what would happen to a cat on a vegan diet.

Oh yes, and very few murderers are serial killers, since most murderers know the victim and serial killings most often don't know the victims.

I think you are failing to understand the meaning of my remark. If there are twenty-six killers then it stands to reason that there should have been twenty-six victims, maybe more (given that if you are a 'killer' you should have killed someone already). Those twenty-six and potencial others outweigh the one innocent person executed by the state.

My Grandmother expressed a desire to place her pets on a vegan diet. I threatened to call the Humane Society if she did. She gave in after I explained to her what would happen to a cat on a vegan diet.


:eek: Poor kitties.

You have a very poor grasp of numbers don't you. Ten guilty hardened criminals go free to do manner of harm, while one innocent person leads an unimportant life that has little bearing on anything. My way (at least in this hypothetical situation) is the lesser of two evils.



I don't hold such an absolutist view, I think that a human life can be worth money or paper work, but how much is dependent on the value of that life. Whereas you seem to think that a single death incorrectly caused directly is worse than many potencial indirect deaths.The vast majority of killers never kill again. Not being able to read peoples minds or predict the future, I don't think we should be able to kill others. Even in prison, people can have a positive influence on others lives. I'm for giving them that chance. And the chance to be freed if they are later found innocent. Until we are infallible the death penalty shouldn't even be considered.

I find it troublesome that you don't see the connection between the justice system and the sentence - the punishment is a part of the justice system, and thus my statement is neither irrelevant nor evasive. As long as there is a possibility that an innocent may be executed, that spesific type of punishment should not be utilized.


By that logic, NO punishment is acceptable - because prison isn't going to be dinner and a movie either.

The two things are separate - one is a debate about the relative merits of the death penalty as a sentence, and the other is a discussion about whether or not our legal system is currently able to provide what YOU consider an acceptable system to judge guilt.

The fact that you continue to prevaricate proves that it was more 'evasion' than 'irrelevence'.

I asked what your opinion would be if the judicial sytem WERE capable of ascertaining absolute certainty of guilt, and still you evade.


You see, the thing is that we don't have a way to be 100% sure all the time - there are humans involved and humans make mistakes whether it's during the investigation or it's during the trial. People have been framed in the past, cops have planted or neglected evidence, juries have been manipulated, judges have ruled based on their emotions rather than the facts at hand - shit happens. It's an imperfect system, and as such I will wait to answer your hypothetical question until the day when it becomes flawless and perfect.


Here is the evasion in action - we are talking about an ideal situation - hell, maybe we have a murderer who has catalogued his kills on video, and is dumb enough to leave that tape somewhere it can be discovered when he is under investigation.

The point is - the specifics are irrelevent (much like your arguments about whether or not our current model is capable of providing a sure enough response) - since the question is about whether or not you favour the sentence... not whether our system is competent to ensure it is properly applied.


Let's review exactly what I said:
The killing of an innocent by the justice system is unacceptable to me.

I cannot live with a system of justice that accepts that innocent lives may be killed by that very same system.

What individuals may or may not do is largely irrelevant to the discussion.

You can't live under that system? Which country do you live in?

If it is the US, I wonder how you reconcile your position on the issue, with your position in the nation?

And, let's face it, you hardly have room to talk about whether something I say is 'relevent'. The whole point of the death penalty is that it is 'unacceptable' to many people, to allow an individual to take the lif of another. You seem to be more worried about how we should treat people who have already done that, as a collective. I find that hypocritical.

I'm absolutely against the death penalty. Killing people who kill people to show them killing people is wrong. Pretty nonsensicle.
Besides, according to The Innocence Project, approximately one in twenty-seven people executed was innocent.

You are only looking at it as a punitive action.

For me, the simple fact that a murderer who is executed never kills again... is enough.

And life in prison will keep them from killing more innocents, with the added benefit of being able to free them if they're found to be innocent later.

Of course. In fantasyland, where people never escape from prison, and all the inmates are real nice to each other...

The vast majority of killers never kill again.
Then the law has achieved something in its current form of enforcement, but eliminating those who have a tendency can still help the figures. Besides, not every killer will be executed, those who show convincing signs of remorse or only kill once will be among those who just recieve a lengthly sentence, just like in the current USA system.

Not being able to read peoples minds or predict the future, I don't think we should be able to kill others.
Thats not very considerate, people are good at very few things, but we are good at killing and dying and have developed an impressive ability to do so as a species. Of course if we could predict the future there would be no point in any of it.

Even in prison, people can have a positive influence on others lives. I'm for giving them that chance. And the chance to be freed if they are later found innocent.
I think they could be useful for society (as could all prisoners), but my reasons for keeping them alive would probably recieve a similar level of objection from those with your beliefs.

Until we are infallible the death penalty shouldn't even be considered.
We will never be infallible (which is probably what you wanted me to say) which is why we cannot ignore decisions until we are. It should be about balancing figures, be they financial, social, political or something else all together, rather than making an emotionally motivated choice.

So risking killing someone innocent of the crime to save paperwork or money is okay with you?

Most of those freed by The Innocence Project had already exhausted all their appeals. The courts won't shell out for DNA testing after someone is convicted, even if could prove their innocence. As a matter of fact, they frequently won't before a conviction. Tough luck for you if you're family doesn't have the money for DNA testing.
Oklahoma has one investigator for capital crimes. Fortunately I know him and he's a dedicated man, but not all are. And many of the public defenders are total incompetents. One slept through nearly the whole trial. Others have such a heavy caseload they have no time to spend with the defendants. A fifteen minute first time meeting with the defendant the day before the trial is common.

Texas has no public defenders office. They just hand it off to whoever they can get, regardless of whether he has trial experience or not.


All of which is about the ability of the justice system to provide justic. Very few people would argue that the justice system even vaguely resembles 'good', let alone 'perfect'. Fortunately - the topic of this thread is the sentence, not the trial.


Minorities and the indigent are far more likely to recieve the death penalty. Are their crimes more heinous because of their race or poverty?

No - again, our system sucks. Those who are famous ebnough have their trials inspected in great detail. Those who are rich enough can often throw enough money at the situation to mitigate it, divert it, or make it go away altogether.

Our system should give justice to all, and it doesn't. That is a problem with the system.

However - it has no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is a fitting sentence for a given crime.

Again, I extend the same ideal, to you this time: If there were a way to be 100% sure of guilt, would you object to the death penalty?

Absolutely. Better that ten guilty go free than to execute one innocent.
And we're talking about imprisoning them, not just letting them go. Unlike you, I consider human lives more important than money or cutting down paperwork.

I'd see it the other way. Better that one innocent die and remove ten certain deleterious elements. I'd call that acceptable risk.

I'd see it the other way. Better that one innocent die and remove ten certain deleterious elements. I'd call that acceptable risk.

Like I said, some people cannot balance figures.

For.

However - it has no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is a fitting sentence for a given crime.



And my question is how do we decide what constitutes an appropriate crime? There are people in this thread who don't agree that the taking of a human life is necessary, merely that the crime be sufficiently heinous to their own subjective standards of "bad" or "evil" or "constituting a negative impact on society".

Oh yes, and very few murderers are serial killers, since most murderers know the victim and serial killings most often don't know the victims.

'Serial killer' is not the only option.

A quick websearch threw me the US Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs "Bureau of Justice Statistics" website.

Overall, violent crime does seem to have a lower recidivism rate than petty crimes, but that still implies rearrest for recidivism of 60% of violent offenders within 3 years.

Not lifetime recidivism... not crimes that went undetected. Actual rearrests in 60% of cases, within 3 years. Think about that.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm

And my question is how do we decide what constitutes an appropriate crime? There are people in this thread who don't agree that the taking of a human life is necessary, merely that the crime be sufficiently heinous to their own subjective standards of "bad" or "evil" or "constituting a negative impact on society".

It would not be invariably applied to a certain crime in a blanket style, it will be a possibility for the most extreme of crimes. These will just have to be decided by general concensus, in which case it would probably be more readily used for more crimes than many on this forum would like.

All of which is about the ability of the justice system to provide justic. Very few people would argue that the justice system even vaguely resembles 'good', let alone 'perfect'. Fortunately - the topic of this thread is the sentence, not the trial.



No - again, our system sucks. Those who are famous ebnough have their trials inspected in great detail. Those who are rich enough can often throw enough money at the situation to mitigate it, divert it, or make it go away altogether.

Our system should give justice to all, and it doesn't. That is a problem with the system.

However - it has no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is a fitting sentence for a given crime.

Again, I extend the same ideal, to you this time: If there were a way to be 100% sure of guilt, would you object to the death penalty?Yes, our system sucks. Which is one of the reasons I have an objection to the death penalty. And the fact that's it's more than just a little falible is why we have no business executing people. If it was even 99% acurate, I'd have considerably less objection. It has a bearing as long as innocent people are being executed.

I should hope I'm several steps above a child killer.


I was only really imagining two steps - below a certain line, and above it.


But then the question becomes, "What actions invalidate that contract?" In this thread, people disagree. Some feel that only the taking of a human life is grounds for capital punishment, some believe that only the taking of several lives, some only for killing with exceptional circumstances (such as particularly brutal or horrific crimes), some believe that the taking of a life is not necessary to invalidate someone's right to life. My own father has made comments suggesting that car thieves should be hung.

Where you draw the line may not be where those in power draw the line. The power to end a human life is a dangerous tool, one I do not believe has any place in considerations of justice.

Attempting to be objective about it - crimes that impinge NOT on property, but on personal 'right to an unmolested life' issues.

As such - rape and murder should definitely be considered death penalty crimes, as should (actual) abuse of children. Again - the mommy who spanks her kid is one end of that spectrum, and probably not the people we are talking about executing.

Property, however valuable, is just property - I don't see justification for property crimes being death penalty crimes.

As you say - a death penalty is a dangerous tool, but like any tool, it is only dangerous when used inappropriately. You don't think it has a place in considerations of justice, I'd disagree - I don't think you can claim to have justice, if you do not do all you can to remove the deleterious elements from a society.

By the way - maximum respect on the "Firefly" quote. :)

Yes, our system sucks. Which is one of the reasons I have an objection to the death penalty. And the fact that's it's more than just a little falible is why we have no business executing people. If it was even 99% acurate, I'd have considerably less objection. It has a bearing as long as innocent people are being executed.

There you make the assumption that any system involving capital punishment anywhere would follow the US's, and that their system would carry the same flaws (some may, but it is not a real argument against capital punishment so much as the system that uses it).

Yes, our system sucks. Which is one of the reasons I have an objection to the death penalty. And the fact that's it's more than just a little falible is why we have no business executing people. If it was even 99% acurate, I'd have considerably less objection. It has a bearing as long as innocent people are being executed.

But, like the other person I posed the question to, you have (also) evaded providing a response.

What is your position on a death penalty if we assume 100% certainty?

There you make the assumption that any system involving capital punishment anywhere would follow the US's, and that their system would carry the same flaws (some may, but it is not a real argument against capital punishment so much as the system that uses it).

Exactly - the issue at hand was death penalties, not the ability of any given justice system to adequately assure accurate responses.

I was only really imagining two steps - below a certain line, and above it.

Oh, good. For a second there...



Attempting to be objective about it - crimes that impinge NOT on property, but on personal 'right to an unmolested life' issues.

As such - rape and murder should definitely be considered death penalty crimes, as should (actual) abuse of children. Again - the mommy who spanks her kid is one end of that spectrum, and probably not the people we are talking about executing.

And yet, there are people on this forum who disagree. How do we determine who is right? What makes your standard more logical to follow than the person who determines that it should only be used in the case of premeditated murder?

Property, however valuable, is just property - I don't see justification for property crimes being death penalty crimes.

My father's belief comes from seeing a friend of his lose his job, his house, then his wife because thieves knocked off his car one night. His attitude is, "it impacts so badly on someone, it can destroy their life, therefore, people who steal cars should be hung."

As you say - a death penalty is a dangerous tool, but like any tool, it is only dangerous when used inappropriately. You don't think it has a place in considerations of justice, I'd disagree - I don't think you can claim to have justice, if you do not do all you can to remove the deleterious elements from a society.

But how do you determine those deletrious elements? Who gets to decide?

By the way - maximum respect on the "Firefly" quote. :)

You have just gone up a few pegs in my estimation of your level of refinement and culture.:D

What is your position on a death penalty if we assume 100% certainty?

I'll give you mine: no death penalty, period.

From a Justice Department memo:

The criminal justice
system is not infallible, and this report documents
cases in which the search for truth took a tortuous
path. With the exception of one young man of
limited mental capacity, who pleaded guilty, the
individuals whose stories are told in the report were
convicted after jury trials and were sentenced to
long prison terms. They successfully challenged their
convictions, using DNA tests on existing evidence.
They had served, on average, 7 years in prison.


There have also been cases of DNA evidence being falsified, and you can bet not in the defendants favor. Take the case of Joyce Gilchrist in Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation is reviewing all the cases in which Ms. Gilchrist may have testified, from the early 1980s through the mid-1990s. But case files from 1980, 1981 and 1990 are missing. Kym Koch, a spokeswoman for the bureau, said she expects the review will ultimately involve about 500 to 600 cases.

From a story in The Dallas Morning News, involving a chemist in the Oklahoma City Police Department.
But Oklahoma isn't the only place with this problem. The same trouble has surfaced in LA and Orlando, Fl.

But misconduct by someone working for the prosecution (which apparently Gilchrist was) is not the only reason someone may be falsely convicted. Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate, but juries don't appear to be aware of this.

The number of falsely convicted later freed on DNA evidence is now well into the triple digits.

As long as there are so many bugs in the system, I don't see how anyone can be in favor of executing the convicted.