NationStates Jolt Archive

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?


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

This would have to be decided by the government, in a democratic government outlines for the application of the sentence would have to be constructed (probably by some sort of representative board) and voted on (unfortunately in the UK we could not rely on the MPs to do their job). In a dictatorship the leader could decide. It would vary depending on the system of goverment.

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.

Again, unpleasent, but its not capital punishments fault that the US legal system is as ineffective as it is. These cases should have been handled differently, but weren't, you cannot apply the faults of one high profile system to all systems and blame capital punishment (which was not applied).

Would you also answer the question regarding execution with absolute certainty.

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?


My standard is a fairly pragmatic one - if it is a crime against the right to an unmolested life, to the rights to ones own body, then it can be considered 'punishable' by the same means.

I realise this opens a can of worms with those who will argue that 'life begins at conception', or with those who oppose 'assisted suicide' - but those are separate arguments, that already with or without such a generalised 'pragmatic' law.

Personally - I don't think self-defense should be considered - because it is a response to someone invading your personal right to your own body. Similarly, 'accidental' deaths should probably not be considered.


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."


A valid argument - but still, it is 'property' that the crime was committed against. I used to talk to a homeless guy in Leicester, for whom the gradual sad slide started with his wife cheating on him. Alcoholism, loosing his family, house and job all followed, and he ended up sleeping in a cardboard box outside McDonalds, when the cops didn't move him along.

Anything can be the 'catalyst', but the descent is not always part of the same mechanism.


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


I hold with the pragmatic idea. Who gets to decide? Well, most people on the forum probably live in nations that like to claim to be 'democratic', so a referendum isn't an un-valuable tool.


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

Best show ever killed before its' time. :(

well there is the option of casturation instead oif killing them.(only in the case of rape.)

If you kill them how can they kill again? lets look at the cost element.

1 bullet-1 dollar
life in prision for a 20 year old- thousands of dollars.

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?With 100% certainty, I would have considerably less objection. I would still not be in favor of it, but I don't think I'd get worked up about it. I just don't think the state should be killing people. But the majority of my objection is because it's incredibly unfair.

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.

Again, you are pointing to flaws in the system. That the system is flawed, is not being contested, we can take that as read.

A large part of it is because we allow unqualified juries - people who think that a 'DNA match' proves guilt, for example. Or that circumstantial evidence should be enough to find someone guilty 'beyond a shadow of doubt'.

But - again, what you are attacking is the judicial process -which is admittedly shot. You are not addressing the actual sentence itself, or what your personal feelings are about that sentence, all other factors being equal.

well there is the option of casturation instead oif killing them.(only in the case of rape.)

If you kill them how can they kill again? lets look at the cost element.

1 bullet-1 dollar
life in prision for a 20 year old- thousands of dollars.

Why throw away cash on a bullet. I suggested decapitation, followed by the selling (or other redistribution) of organs.

With 100% certainty, I would have considerably less objection. I would still not be in favor of it, but I don't think I'd get worked up about it. I just don't think the state should be killing people. But the majority of my objection is because it's incredibly unfair.

Why is killing a guilty person unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?

Again, you are pointing to flaws in the system. That the system is flawed, is not being contested, we can take that as read.

A large part of it is because we allow unqualified juries - people who think that a 'DNA match' proves guilt, for example. Or that circumstantial evidence should be enough to find someone guilty 'beyond a shadow of doubt'.

But - again, what you are attacking is the judicial process -which is admittedly shot. You are not addressing the actual sentence itself, or what your personal feelings are about that sentence, all other factors being equal.
I was taught two wrongs don't make a right. And that killing people is wrong.

I am against it

With 100% certainty, I would have considerably less objection. I would still not be in favor of it, but I don't think I'd get worked up about it. I just don't think the state should be killing people. But the majority of my objection is because it's incredibly unfair.

You would still not be in favour. You "just don't think the state should be killing people"...

You have to admit it looks like you are trying to find evidence to support your pre-made decision, rather than the other way around...?

Like I said - the system IS crap. I agree.

I would like to see a system where we could be more sure. Where our verdicts actually reflected the evidence. Where the death penalty was used only in cases where we were extremely confident of our decisions.

So - in my mind, we shouldn't use the death penalty for first offences, unless we had pretty miraculous evidence, and should employ it mainly once 'patterns' of violence could be established.

That is a concession to the system and it's flaws... but it has no bearing on whether or not I believe a death penalty is 'right'.

I was taught two wrongs don't make a right. And that killing people is wrong.

And I have re-evaluated what I was taught and concluded that very few things are always absolutely wrong, that sometimes the lesser of two evils has to be chosen and that even if two wrongs don't make a right, they do seem to make everyone feel better.

Why is killing a guilty person unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?The point I was making before is that being judged guilty doesn't always make you guilty of the crime. It's unfair to be executed for a crime you didn't commit and it's unfair to be executed for a crime someone of another race or with more money wouldn't be executed for. Just because the state says something is okay doesn't make it fair.
States used to judge it acceptable to deny women the right to vote and to enslave people. Hardly fair just because a government says it's acceptable.

I was taught two wrongs don't make a right. And that killing people is wrong.

And you can't make decisions for yourself?

I think 'murder' is wrong... I don't hold that ALL 'killing' is murder.

I also don't see this as an issue of making a right, by adding a wrong - I see it as removing one wrong (even if you believe we REPLACE that wrong with another).

A man who rapes a six-year-old deserves no protection from a civilised society, and any organisation or society that would argue he does deserve such protection, cannot legitimately call itself 'civilised'.

One of my biggest complaints with our system, is that the victim is put on trial, and that the system knocks itself out to protect the guilty. Priorities: seriously messed up.

Why throw away cash on a bullet. I suggested decapitation, followed by the selling (or other redistribution) of organs.

But what about the cost of the blade and the upkeep of the blade?

The point I was making before is that being judged guilty doesn't always make you guilty of the crime. It's unfair to be executed for a crime you didn't commit and it's unfair to be executed for a crime someone of another race or with more money wouldn't be executed for. Just because the state says something is okay doesn't make it fair.
States used to judge it acceptable to deny women the right to vote and to enslave people. Hardly fair just because a government says it's acceptable.

It's not fair. You say that so often. I wonder what your basis for comparison is.

Why is killing a guilty person unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?

Why is enslaving a person unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?

Why is denying a woman the right to vote unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?

Why is racial segregation unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?

A whole lot of very bad shit has happened that people at one point or another found "acceptable"

A man who rapes a six-year-old deserves no protection from a civilised society, and any organisation or society that would argue he does deserve such protection, cannot legitimately call itself 'civilised'.

On the contrary, any society that willingly, intentionally takes human life under the guise of state authority can not call itself civilized.

One of my biggest complaints with our system, is that the victim is put on trial, and that the system knocks itself out to protect the guilty. Priorities: seriously messed up.

Because the guilty, regardless of their guild, are still human.

The point I was making before is that being judged guilty doesn't always make you guilty of the crime. It's unfair to be executed for a crime you didn't commit and it's unfair to be executed for a crime someone of another race or with more money wouldn't be executed for. Just because the state says something is okay doesn't make it fair.
States used to judge it acceptable to deny women the right to vote and to enslave people. Hardly fair just because a government says it's acceptable.

Things are not fair and never will be.
What we must do is attempt to develop as impartial and effective a system as possible, true, but the lack of that system is not a problem with capital punishment.
As for the state, I have little faith in it, however I accept that it has power and resources that can be put to good use, and it should be forgiven its faults as long as it progresses.
The point remains that you have consistently attacked thel legal system, not capital punishment itself.

It's not fair. You say that so often. I wonder what your basis for comparison is.

those little buggers called human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights)

Why is enslaving a person unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?

Why is denying a woman the right to vote unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?

Why is racial segregation unfair if the state judges it to be acceptable?

A whole lot of very bad shit has happened that people at one point or another found "acceptable"

The difference is that a guilty person has done something to deserve it.

Things are not fair and never will be.
What we must do is attempt to develop as impartial and effective a system as possible, true, but the lack of that system is not a problem with capital punishment.

Yes, yes it is. Because an imperfect system means that occassionally the innocent will be convicted. However when they're put in jail, and later found to be innocent, they can be set free, and justly compensated.

Hard to do with a dead guy.

The difference is that a guilty person has done something to deserve it.

your emphasis is on the wrong word. Try again:

The difference is that a guilty person has done something

But what about the cost of the blade and the upkeep of the blade?

Its a reletively small one-off payment for the blade, and what upkeep, why do I care if its a little rusty when it takes of a persons head. Sharpening it can be taken care of onsite in dire circumstances.

your emphasis is on the wrong word. Try again:

No, no I was right the first time. A person and their life have no real value inherently, they have to earn value and if they are being killed by the state for a crime they commited they probably have not.

Yes, yes it is. Because an imperfect system means that occassionally the innocent will be convicted. However when they're put in jail, and later found to be innocent, they can be set free, and justly compensated.

Hard to do with a dead guy.

And the costs will keep mounting.

No, no I was right the first time. A person and their life have no real value inherently, they have to earn value and if they are being killed by the state for a crime they commited they probably have not.

and that's where you're wrong.

Oh but hell, let's just play your game. Let's say a billionare, someone who employs thousands of people and has done great benefit to society decides, one day, to go knife a homeless man.

Certainly his life has benefited society more than the homeless man, has this billionare earned the value of his life? Should he live?

The idea that human life has a value that is "earned" suggests that humans have inherently different values, something that is fundamentally contrary to the fundamental ideology of the country.

You know the whole "all men are created equal" bit?

And you can't make decisions for yourself?

I think 'murder' is wrong... I don't hold that ALL 'killing' is murder.

I also don't see this as an issue of making a right, by adding a wrong - I see it as removing one wrong (even if you believe we REPLACE that wrong with another).

A man who rapes a six-year-old deserves no protection from a civilised society, and any organisation or society that would argue he does deserve such protection, cannot legitimately call itself 'civilised'.

One of my biggest complaints with our system, is that the victim is put on trial, and that the system knocks itself out to protect the guilty. Priorities: seriously messed up.I do think for myself, and I find most of what I was taught meshes nicely with my value system. BTW, both of my parents are pro-death penalty. Though my mother is considerably less gung-ho after hearing about the mistakes and inequities in the system. I'm sure my parents don't always expect the conclusions I come to when appying what they taught me.

I believe killing is wrong, but that there are times when the other choices are worse. To me, the death penalty isn't one of these times. There are less extreme options available.

And I wonder if someday we might not find a way to "cure" the mental aberrations that cause people to act in some of these ways. No, I don't believe everyone who commits a crime is mentally ill. But a lot of them describe not being able to control themselves. Brain scans prove that their minds usually don't work the way normal brains do.
I'd really like to know if it's something that could be helped. Executing them could one day be seen in the same light as chaining the mentally ill to walls and charging people to gawk at them is viewed now.

And the costs will keep mounting.

oh it's cost you're worried about? well then surely you know that in the US it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than execute them, right?

On the contrary, any society that willingly, intentionally takes human life under the guise of state authority can not call itself civilized.


I disagree. A society that places the needs of a few persons who have already proved themselves enemy to that society, above the needs of the many, is failing it's citizens.

To deliberately place innocents (such as children) in harm's way, because the society doesn't wish to get it's hands dirty, is not civilised.


Because the guilty, regardless of their guild, are still human.

Maybe. I'm not so sure. If the 'human condition' is assessed in terms of being able to participate in a 'human' society, then the guilty have absolved themselves of humanity.

oh it's cost you're worried about? well then surely you know that in the US it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than execute them, right?

Under the current system. If the verdict was delivered, and the guilty was marched directly to the gas chamber... the costs would be considerably less.

im for the death penalty in cases of of murder and child rape. i say if somebody kills another or rapes a little girl or boy, then that b*stard deserves to die. i come from texas and as many in the states know, we do alot of executions. im glad there is are still some states that understand why the death penalty is a nessecary part of the system. besides do u know how much money it takes to keep a person for life in prison.

Under the current system. If the verdict was delivered, and the guilty was marched directly to the gas chamber... the costs would be considerably less.

Damn that pesky constitution, eh?

Things are not fair and never will be.
What we must do is attempt to develop as impartial and effective a system as possible, true, but the lack of that system is not a problem with capital punishment.
As for the state, I have little faith in it, however I accept that it has power and resources that can be put to good use, and it should be forgiven its faults as long as it progresses.
The point remains that you have consistently attacked thel legal system, not capital punishment itself.Just because the world is not fair is no reason to just accept injustice. And besides the fact that I disagree with the state taking human life, the inadequacies of our justice system is a major reason I disagree with the death penanlty.

and that's where you're wrong.

Oh but hell, let's just play your game. Let's say a billionare, someone who employs thousands of people and has done great benefit to society decides, one day, to go knife a homeless man.

Certainly his life has benefited society more than the homeless man, has this billionare earned the value of his life? Should he live?

The idea that human life has a value that is "earned" suggests that humans have inherently different values, something that is fundamentally contrary to the fundamental ideology of the country.

You know the whole "all men are created equal" bit?

Created equal. That doesn't mean they remain equal.

Curious that your assessment of 'value' circles around the financial... (Jesus would be an example of a story about a 'homeless guy' who gave great benefit to society...)

I disagree. A society that places the needs of a few persons who have already proved themselves enemy to that society, above the needs of the many, is failing it's citizens.

Pray tell how, in any way, are the "needs of the many" satisfied more by having the criminal die than they are having the criminal spend the rest of his life in jail?

How does society as a whole benefit by the criminal dying rather than the criminal being incarcerated for life, other than perhaps satisfying some primitive notion of bloodlust and vengence? And if we're considering satisfying bloodlust and vengence as a "benefit" I return to my uncivilized comment.

To deliberately place innocents (such as children) in harm's way, because the society doesn't wish to get it's hands dirty, is not civilised.

Again, what innocent is deliberately placed in harms way by having the individual spend his life in jail?


Maybe. I'm not so sure. If the 'human condition' is assessed in terms of being able to participate in a 'human' society, then the guilty have absolved themselves of humanity.

Well it's fortunate then that it isn't, is it? Unless all those autistic, retarded, or coma victim folks aren't really human.

I don't think that it can be condoned in any circumstances. I'm against it.

Created equal. That doesn't mean they remain equal.

Curious that your assessment of 'value' circles around the financial... (Jesus would be an example of a story about a 'homeless guy' who gave great benefit to society...)

So would Achillies if we really want to go down that road. Or to the more verifiable, Diogenes would make a good example.

But fine, pick any structure of value you'd like. Take one of extreme value, and one of extremely little value, and have the valued one off the far less valued one.

Is that murdered then less deserving of death due to a greater overall value?

Created equal. That doesn't mean they remain equal.

Curious that your assessment of 'value' circles around the financial... (Jesus would be an example of a story about a 'homeless guy' who gave great benefit to society...)A billionaire who employs thousands of people has undoubtably done more for society than a homeless man who panhandles for his living. I just don't believe that fact gives him more inherent worth.

Damn that pesky constitution, eh?

How so?

Also - the Constitution is actually capable of being altered, where it might be the will of the people to do so.

Pray tell how, in any way, are the "needs of the many" satisfied more by having the criminal die than they are having the criminal spend the rest of his life in jail?


Dad people do not re-offend. Do try to keep up.


How does society as a whole benefit by the criminal dying rather than the criminal being incarcerated for life, other than perhaps satisfying some primitive notion of bloodlust and vengence? And if we're considering satisfying bloodlust and vengence as a "benefit" I return to my uncivilized comment.


I've already said, I do not consider the 'punitive' elements of the death penalty to be a satisfactory cause.

I'm a little more pragmatic. People that kill and rape other people are deleterious elements, thus - they should be excised. Bloodthirstiness has nothing to do with it.

I just don't flinch away from the harsh realities through squeamishness.


Again, what innocent is deliberately placed in harms way by having the individual spend his life in jail?


All.

People escape from jail. Not everyone in jail is a criminal. Not all criminals are guilty of equally serious crimes.

By choosing to support such a deleterious element, you condone prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-guard violence, and enable the possibility of escape and re-offense.


Well it's fortunate then that it isn't, is it? Unless all those autistic, retarded, or coma victim folks aren't really human.

Autistic and retarded people are participating in human society... or, at least, not participating in attacking it. The coma victim is also a 'passive' liability at best.

None of them 'choose' to step outside of humanity.

I'm saddened that someone would debase the discussion by comparing an autistic child with child-rapists and mass murderers.

How so?

What makes the death penalty cost so much is that the supreme court has ruled that the death penalty requires an automatic, mandatory appeal, on top of all other appeals process.

In other words, the reason it takes so long and costs so much is the constitutionally required mandatory appeals process


Also - the Constitution is actually capable of being altered, where it might be the will of the people to do so.

Will of 3/4 of the state legislatures to be more appropriate, and true it can. However as of today it hasn't.

So would Achillies if we really want to go down that road. Or to the more verifiable, Diogenes would make a good example.

But fine, pick any structure of value you'd like. Take one of extreme value, and one of extremely little value, and have the valued one off the far less valued one.

Is that murdered then less deserving of death due to a greater overall value?

Achilles was no choirboy. Probably not a good choice for an example.

Is the person who was murdered 'less deserving of death' than their murderer? Of course. I'm surprised you need to ask.

I'm saddened that someone would debase the discussion by comparing an autistic child with child-rapists and mass murderers.

Me too.

Unfortunatly you are the one who made the comparison by suggesting that people who do not "participate in human society" are not human.

Quite a disgusting comparison that.

Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself

Is the person who was murdered 'less deserving of death' than their murderer? Of course. I'm surprised you need to ask.

This was your example, so try to keep up.

If someone who has done a great deal of social value, HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE TO DEFINE IT murders someone who has done significantly little in the way of social value, HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE TO DEFINE IT, is that murder less deserving of the death penalty than a murderer who has done little for social value?

After all it was your example about "earning social value" and all that, so if someone has already shown a great deal of social value before committing the murder, does that get him off?

What's the cut off?

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


...and you like that, do you?


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.


Not in prison they won't.


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.

You're either a troll or a kook. Which one is it?

A billionaire who employs thousands of people has undoubtably done more for society than a homeless man who panhandles for his living. I just don't believe that fact gives him more inherent worth.

I disagree with your value system. A billionaire drugdealer? A billionaire gunrunner? A billionaire extortionist and racketeer? A billionaire pimp?

Might also be worth pointing out that 'panhandling' is usally a state in someone's path, rather than a career choice that applies in perpetuity... the 'homeless guy' might have been a billionaire once, if that is what is important.

Personally, I don't think it is.

I disagree with your value system. A billionaire drugdealer? A billionaire gunrunner? A billionaire extortionist and racketeer? A billionaire pimp?

Might also be worth pointing out that 'panhandling' is usally a state in someone's path, rather than a career choice that applies in perpetuity... the 'homeless guy' might have been a billionaire once, if that is what is important.

Personally, I don't think it is.

*shrug* you were the one who decided to try and quantify a person's worth, make it seem like some are "more human" than others.

So go ahead, quantify it. How do you add it up? Who is better? the mother who stays home and cares for her children or the father who goes to work to pay for their food?

Is a single parent more noble if it's a man? what about a teenager?

What defines the value of a human? Go on, you made the claim, how does one quantify such a thing? Go ahead, tell me how.

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.

Good reason to remove an irreversible sentence, then. If you don't know if the prosecutors can be trusted with the power of life and death, then don't give it to them!

What makes the death penalty cost so much is that the supreme court has ruled that the death penalty requires an automatic, mandatory appeal, on top of all other appeals process.

In other words, the reason it takes so long and costs so much is the constitutionally required mandatory appeals process


Because, after all, it is the one constitutionally advocated appeal, on top of how ever many others, that is the rate determining step?



Will of 3/4 of the state legislatures to be more appropriate, and true it can. However as of today it hasn't.

You are quibbling the numbers? Did you check my spelling too? I wasn't claiming to be specific.

You are right. There has been no alteration to that particular clause to date. But then, the Constitution has historically been amended a number of times, right?

Because, after all, it is the one constitutionally advocated appeal, on top of how ever many others, that is the rate determining step?

Plus the various state appeals and so on and so forth. Either way, appeals can get expensive, and housing a prisoner tends to be cheap. When all is said and done, under the current system, it is cheaper to simply sentence someone to life than death.

*shrug* you were the one who decided to try and quantify a person's worth, make it seem like some are "more human" than others.

So go ahead, quantify it. How do you add it up? Who is better? the mother who stays home and cares for her children or the father who goes to work to pay for their food?

Is a single parent more noble if it's a man? what about a teenager?

What defines the value of a human? Go on, you made the claim, how does one quantify such a thing? Go ahead, tell me how.

Why don't you go find the point at which I first introduced this idea of 'value'?

Think, just maybe, you are assuming I said something someone else said?

Dad people do not re-offend. Do try to keep up.



I've already said, I do not consider the 'punitive' elements of the death penalty to be a satisfactory cause.

I'm a little more pragmatic. People that kill and rape other people are deleterious elements, thus - they should be excised. Bloodthirstiness has nothing to do with it.

I just don't flinch away from the harsh realities through squeamishness.



All.

People escape from jail. Not everyone in jail is a criminal. Not all criminals are guilty of equally serious crimes.

By choosing to support such a deleterious element, you condone prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-guard violence, and enable the possibility of escape and re-offense.



Autistic and retarded people are participating in human society... or, at least, not participating in attacking it. The coma victim is also a 'passive' liability at best.

None of them 'choose' to step outside of humanity.

I'm saddened that someone would debase the discussion by comparing an autistic child with child-rapists and mass murderers.Don't forget that until recently it was okay to execute the mentally retarded. And it still is okay to execute those who are seriously mentally ill.
I live very close to a medium security prison. I've never felt threatened by it. There are murderers and child molesters there, but escape is rare. I feel bringing that up as a reason for advocating the death penalty is using scare tactics. I also don't worry about terrorists, even though being killed by them is technically possible.

And choice is a matter of perspective. I'm not sure all killers have the ability to make a choice. Just my personal view, though not entirely unjustified according to the newest studies.

Why don't you go find the point at which I first introduced this idea of 'value'?

Think, just maybe, you are assuming I said something someone else said?

*looks*

*blinks*

*looks again*

doh. Fair enough, my apologies, that was actually someone else.

OK, so I'll direct that particular comment where it's due.

Plus the various state appeals and so on and so forth. Either way, appeals can get expensive, and housing a prisoner tends to be cheap. When all is said and done, under the current system, it is cheaper to simply sentence someone to life than death.

And I don't believe 'ease' should be the determining criteria. Neither should 'cost'.

I believe we should excise those who have opted out of our societies... I don't care if it is cheaper or easier. But, if we choose to follow that route, I see no real reason why we shouldn't (ideally) expedite the process a lot in cases where there is an unassailable case. I see no reason for someone who is 100% certainly guilty, to be allowed an appeal.

*looks*

*blinks*

*looks again*

doh. Fair enough, my apologies, that was actually someone else.

OK, so I'll direct that particular comment where it's due.

No problem. Just don't want to take flak for something someone else said. :)

I see no reason for someone who is 100% certainly guilty, to be allowed an appeal.

No such thing. Name one type of evidence I can tell you how it could be forged or coerced.

Doubtful, certainly, but there's never, ever such a thing as NO doubt what so ever.

I disagree with your value system. A billionaire drugdealer? A billionaire gunrunner? A billionaire extortionist and racketeer? A billionaire pimp?

Might also be worth pointing out that 'panhandling' is usally a state in someone's path, rather than a career choice that applies in perpetuity... the 'homeless guy' might have been a billionaire once, if that is what is important.

Personally, I don't think it is.I know you're not so dense as to think that's what I meant, since I'm quite familiar with you.
But let me spell it out for you- no matter what a person has or hasn't done for society, he doesn't have more inherent worth than any other human. He has no more right to be.

And I don't believe 'ease' should be the determining criteria. Neither should 'cost'.

I believe we should excise those who have opted out of our societies... I don't care if it is cheaper or easier. But, if we choose to follow that route, I see no real reason why we shouldn't (ideally) expedite the process a lot in cases where there is an unassailable case. I see no reason for someone who is 100% certainly guilty, to be allowed an appeal.I don't think there is any way to be sure 100% that someone is guilty. That's one of my main problems with the death penalty. Or have you not been paying attention?

Don't forget that until recently it was okay to execute the mentally retarded. And it still is okay to execute those who are seriously mentally ill.


You mean - where they were guilty of a crime, yes? Not just executing them for being retarded?


I live very close to a medium security prison. I've never felt threatened by it. There are murderers and child molesters there, but escape is rare. I feel bringing that up as a reason for advocating the death penalty is using scare tactics. I also don't worry about terrorists, even though being killed by them is technically possible.


I lived very close to a prison in the UK... literally, a few hundred yards. I was there for about 7 years, and there were a number of incidents in that time. (The prison, by the way, is HMP Leicester, and it is a gorgeous structure... http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/prisoninformation/locateaprison/prison.asp?id=502,15,2,15,502,0).

I didn't feel especially threatened - but I was wary when there was 'an incident'. Of course, at that point I was a six-foot-plus single male, and still young enough to think myself bulletproof. My perspective has changed with a family.

But, since I have lived in the US - inded, within the last year or so, the Associated Press detailed an event where a prisoner (a charming, and handsome fellow by all accounts, as well as being a murderer) in a Texas maximum security prison somehow managed to literally walk out, and was re-acquired five states away a few days later.

Is it scare tactics to say that people escape from prison? They do - even from topnotch establishments... and not all criminals are kept under such conditions.


And choice is a matter of perspective. I'm not sure all killers have the ability to make a choice. Just my personal view, though not entirely unjustified according to the newest studies.

All killers. Choice. Some people do choose to hurt or kill, as a choice. Those people definitely choose to step outside the confines of what is socially acceptable.

Maybe some don't... but I'm not going to sit on a pinless handgrenade just because it isn't about to 'choose' to explode.

I don't think there is any way to be sure 100% that someone is guilty. That's one of my main problems with the death penalty. Or have you not been paying attention?

I keep talking in terms of ideals, and you keep talking about the screwed-up judicial process. You are talking about my apples as though they were oranges.

I already suggested a '100%' scenario earlier... I could ask if you were not paying attention, couldn't I?

For the sake of argument, I said, how about we assume a killer who videos his spree, and enables his evidence to be recovered. Unrepentant killer, maybe even proud of his performance on film. Given the case - how do you feel about the sentence?

I know you're not so dense as to think that's what I meant, since I'm quite familiar with you.
But let me spell it out for you- no matter what a person has or hasn't done for society, he doesn't have more inherent worth than any other human. He has no more right to be.

And I disgaree.

On a level playing field, I agree with you absolutely... but we are talking about a world divided into two 'classes' of people.

Those that respect the fundamental rights of the individual to their own person.

Those that do not.

Our society relies on us staying within certain boundaries, and the 'second' group of people choose not to. Thus, the 'first' class of people really does have 'more right to be' in our society.

Did you know it costs more for the state to kill a man than to imprison him for life? That fact alone makes me against the death penalty, regardless of the ethical misgivings.

Did you know it costs more for the state to kill a man than to imprison him for life? That fact alone makes me against the death penalty, regardless of the ethical misgivings.

It has already been pointed out this is untrue.

The rigmaraole that surrounds the process in this country is expensive, but it is not part of the penalty itself. Most forms of domestically 'acceptable' humane execution are not prohibitively expensive, of themselves.

I keep talking in terms of ideals, and you keep talking about the screwed-up judicial process. You are talking about my apples as though they were oranges.

I already suggested a '100%' scenario earlier... I could ask if you were not paying attention, couldn't I?

For the sake of argument, I said, how about we assume a killer who videos his spree, and enables his evidence to be recovered. Unrepentant killer, maybe even proud of his performance on film. Given the case - how do you feel about the sentence?As I've said before, I'm still against it. But I don't think it would bother me as much if it were applied in a fair and equitable manner and we could be 100% sure only the guilty would recieve it. I still wouldn't agree with it, but it would trouble me a lot less.
Since I already answered this question, I must occasionally pay attention. Just occasionally, though.

I can't say I grieved much about the death of Ted Bundy, and I won't about Saddam either. But the idea that we should kill anyone for any reason other than self-defense or the defense of another repels me.
And I still believe the death penalty is simply revenge rather than a protection for society.

And I disgaree.

On a level playing field, I agree with you absolutely... but we are talking about a world divided into two 'classes' of people.

Those that respect the fundamental rights of the individual to their own person.

Those that do not.

Our society relies on us staying within certain boundaries, and the 'second' group of people choose not to. Thus, the 'first' class of people really does have 'more right to be' in our society.

If killing someone is a violation of the killed person's individual rights then clearly it is in all instances then isn't it?

As I've said before, I'm still against it. But I don't think it would bother me as much if it were applied in a fair and equitable manner and we could be 100% sure only the guilty would recieve it. I still wouldn't agree with it, but it would trouble me a lot less.
Since I already answered this question, I must occasionally pay attention. Just occasionally, though.


I too would be happier if I were sure that the death penalty (or any penalty) were applied only where it was deserved.

Everything I know about the US legal system tells me this probably isn't so... at any level. This troubles me at every level, including the 'capital punishment' level.

I think this system is about beyond salvation, and should be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up - the same as the taxation system, and probably - just about every government department and agency.

But, that doesn't change how I feel about whether or not a death penalty is 'good' - just about how happy I am in my conviction that it is being handled appropriately.


I can't say I grieved much about the death of Ted Bundy, and I won't about Saddam either. But the idea that we should kill anyone for any reason other than self-defense or the defense of another repels me.
And I still believe the death penalty is simply revenge rather than a protection for society.

Executing those who have been found gulity of crimes such as rape. murder or child abuse, is 'self-defense' or 'defense of another'.

You might think it revenge - but, as an advocate of capital punishment, I can tell you I have no interest in 'an eye for an eye'. I'm all about humane excision of the proven risk.

You don't keep a dog with rabies in your house, do you?

If killing someone is a violation of the killed person's individual rights then clearly it is in all instances then isn't it?

Is it theft when the police recover my stolen property from the guy who swiped it?

Executing those who have been found gulity of crimes such as rape. murder or child abuse, is 'self-defense' or 'defense of another'.

Nonsense, who is being defended?

Is it theft when the police recover my stolen property from the guy who swiped it?

However while I can take your mp3 player from the thief and give it back to you, I can not take the life of your murder and bring you back to life.

So the analogy is totally false. Moreover, there has been no transfer of title. You can take your property from the thief since it was never his. However you can't take HIS property from him. That's the point.

Against, all cases. Stupid, archaic justice.

Nonsense, who is being defended?

Me?

My family?

You?


Someone who has already been convicted of a violent crime has a sixty percent chance of being rearrested within three years of release. Reoffense is high. It is much less high when you execute the offender after the first offense.

I too would be happier if I were sure that the death penalty (or any penalty) were applied only where it was deserved.

Everything I know about the US legal system tells me this probably isn't so... at any level. This troubles me at every level, including the 'capital punishment' level.

I think this system is about beyond salvation, and should be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up - the same as the taxation system, and probably - just about every government department and agency.

But, that doesn't change how I feel about whether or not a death penalty is 'good' - just about how happy I am in my conviction that it is being handled appropriately.



Executing those who have been found gulity of crimes such as rape. murder or child abuse, is 'self-defense' or 'defense of another'.

You might think it revenge - but, as an advocate of capital punishment, I can tell you I have no interest in 'an eye for an eye'. I'm all about humane excision of the proven risk.

You don't keep a dog with rabies in your house, do you?The fact that it is handled so poorly is my major objection to it. Unlike the inequities in the tax system, this can cost someone innocent their life. Very hard to undo.
It's not self-defense if it's done after the fact. It's like shooting someone in the back for raping you yesterday. That's revenge.
Life without parole keeps them away from us. It's a far more remote possibilty for a muderer to escape and kill someone than to execute the wrong person. Lack of perfection is a compelling reason to discontinue using the death penanlty.
As for the rabid dog, in my perfect world he would only be killed to prevent him from dying a long painful death. I'm just weird that way.

Me?

My family?

You?


Nonsense. Self defense is a legal term. It applies only when there is a reasonable belief that ones life is in direct, immediate danger.

the fact that someone might, some day, in the future, possibly kill SOMEONE, maybe, is not by any legal definition self defense.

Not in the slightest.

However while I can take your mp3 player from the thief and give it back to you, I can not take the life of your murder and bring you back to life.

So the analogy is totally false. Moreover, there has been no transfer of title. You can take your property from the thief since it was never his. However you can't take HIS property from him. That's the point.

I can't take his property... but the state can.

The parallel I was drawing is - what might be construed as 'punishment' by the criminal (the government executing him, or taking back all the money he got in the bank heist), can also be considered simply taking what he had no claim to, in the first place.

I can't take his property... but the state can.

Not without just compensation. How do you propose to compensate one for his life?

The parallel I was drawing is - what might be construed as 'punishment' by the criminal (the government executing him, or taking back all the money he got in the bank heist), can also be considered simply taking what he had no claim to, in the first place.

One has no claim to his own life? Rather surprising stance to take, that would seem to be in gross violation of several parts of the constitution.

Me?

My family?

You?


Someone who has already been convicted of a violent crime has a sixty percent chance of being rearrested within three years of release. Reoffense is high. It is much less high when you execute the offender after the first offense.First, you're talking all violent crime, not just murder.
So how many of this 60% were murderers? How many were rearrested for violent crimes?
Many convicts find getting a job very hard since thay have a criminal record. Did they shoplift or was this another violent crime? So perhaps it'd make more sense to execute all criminals. Afterall, that'd solve the recidivism problem. And be cheaper, we wouldn't need to pay for all that prison space. And just automatically shooting anyone arrested would certainly save money.

The fact that it is handled so poorly is my major objection to it. Unlike the inequities in the tax system, this can cost someone innocent their life. Very hard to undo.
It's not self-defense if it's done after the fact. It's like shooting someone in the back for raping you yesterday. That's revenge.


You seem locked into this 'punitive' mentality. I'm not talking about executing a rapist in 'defense' of the victims her already has had - but in defense of those who will harm when he reoffends.


Life without parole keeps them away from us. It's a far more remote possibilty for a muderer to escape and kill someone than to execute the wrong person. Lack of perfection is a compelling reason to discontinue using the death penanlty.


But, lack of perfection of the system doesn't address the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the sentence. One could be very wary about calling for such a sentence, and still believe it to be 'right'.

You say "It's a far more remote possibilty for a muderer to escape and kill someone than to execute the wrong person"... but that raises two points. One - can you actually back that up? Two - given that I've already presented evidence that shows 60% of violent criminals are rearrested within 3 years of release (and 'life' sentences are not always for life) - does your number cruching account for both escapes AND 'post-release' recidivism?



As for the rabid dog, in my perfect world he would only be killed to prevent him from dying a long painful death. I'm just weird that way.

Fair enough.

When someone is found guilty of rape, murder or child abuse we should give them a terminal and painful disease.

Then we can 'help' them with a humane execution.

I'm all about humane excision of the proven risk.


This always gets me.

Find me a humane way of killing somebody, please.

Not without just compensation. How do you propose to compensate one for his life?


So - when a murder weapon is picked up by the CSI, they offer remuneration to the suspected murderer?

When a fine is levied by the court, they have to pay the protagonist fined?

I don't propose to compensate the murderer or rapist for his life. I think he disavowed any right to claim it as 'his' when he chose to abrogate the rights of his victim.


One has no claim to his own life? Rather surprising stance to take, that would seem to be in gross violation of several parts of the constitution.

Whereas murder is what? Smiled upon?

Whereas murder is what? Smiled upon?

What is this pure idiocy that suggests that because I don't condone execution i somehow believe that murderer's get a free pass? Seriously, I think you're a reasonably intelligent guy so I have to assume you're intentionally being obtuse.

But if I must spell it out for you, fine.

"murder is a crime which is punished by an appropriate time in prison"

I don't propose to compensate the murderer or rapist for his life. I think he disavowed any right to claim it as 'his' when he chose to abrogate the rights of his victim.

I have a right to my property, should we execute those who abrogate the rights of those who steal from me? If I'm driving I often have the right of way, should we execute the jaywalkers?

You seem locked into this 'punitive' mentality. I'm not talking about executing a rapist in 'defense' of the victims her already has had - but in defense of those who will harm when he reoffends.



But, lack of perfection of the system doesn't address the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the sentence. One could be very wary about calling for such a sentence, and still believe it to be 'right'.

You say "It's a far more remote possibilty for a muderer to escape and kill someone than to execute the wrong person"... but that raises two points. One - can you actually back that up? Two - given that I've already presented evidence that shows 60% of violent criminals are rearrested within 3 years of release (and 'life' sentences are not always for life) - does your number cruching account for both escapes AND 'post-release' recidivism?




Fair enough.

When someone is found guilty of rape, murder or child abuse we should give them a terminal and painful disease.

Then we can 'help' them with a humane execution.While I might wish a painful terminal disease on someone, it's not the same as giving it to them.

I have certainly seen reputable information that one in twenty-seven convicts executed was innocent. I doubt the one in twenty-seven convicted murderers escape and commit another murder.

And as I said, how many in your stats were actually murderers? How many went on to commit other murders?
I don't believe in sentencing people for crimes they may commit one day.

Sorry if this rambles a bit, I'm slowly losing my ability to think straight. Would my posts get better or worse if I take a pain pill?

I think we should cut off the hands and disable the genetalia of any police type doing police brutality.

Death penalty isn't deterrant enough-- and that's it's supposed highest purpose.

Just finished reading Les Miserables.

When those 'criminals' went to prison, aka the galleys, it was the worst possible thing that could happen to you.

Now, I'm not suggesting we turn into 19th century France, and all of the deplorable social conditions that went along with it, but if we could instill that same sort of fear into the potential-criminal then that's what we need to do.

Make crime not worth it.

The death penalty does not do this.

It fails. And worse, it kills someone, whether innocent or guilty.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

I don't believe in sentencing people for crimes they may commit one day.

Think Minority Report. That's scary shit.

First, you're talking all violent crime, not just murder.
So how many of this 60% were murderers? How many were rearrested for violent crimes?
Many convicts find getting a job very hard since thay have a criminal record. Did they shoplift or was this another violent crime? So perhaps it'd make more sense to execute all criminals. Afterall, that'd solve the recidivism problem. And be cheaper, we wouldn't need to pay for all that prison space. And just automatically shooting anyone arrested would certainly save money.

1) Murder is a violent crime. Since it is not mentioned separately, I suspect murder is included in the violent crime statistics.

2) Don't blame me for being non-specific... the statistics are not compiled by me, but by the Department of Justice.

3) Trawling around further on the Dpeartment of Justice site throws up the results of one of the studies suggesting that "an estimated 22.7% of all prisoners were rearrested for a violent offense within 3 years of their release" and that, overall "an estimated 62.5% were arrested for a felony or seruious misdemeanour within 3 years".

If we assume that it is most likely that once-violent offenders are more likely to make up the bulk of the violent reoffences, we should weight our assessment accordingly. If we honestly believe that all criminals are just as likely to commit acts of violence within 3 years, it still remains that more than a fifth of all violent offenders can be considered liable to recidivism within 3 years. Thus - a murderer has an average 20% chance of seriously harming someone within the first three years of release. The study doesn't suggest this rate will lower after 3 years.

4) Criminals are not the only people finding it hard to get jobs. I find it curious that you suggest it somehow makes it okay for them to commit crimes just because they had the hardship of being proved to be a harmful element previously...

This always gets me.

Find me a humane way of killing somebody, please.

Morphine overdose?

Hell, they'd even feel good....

1) Murder is a violent crime. Since it is not mentioned separately, I suspect murder is included in the violent crime statistics.



4) Criminals are not the only people finding it hard to get jobs. I find it curious that you suggest it somehow makes it okay for them to commit crimes just because they had the hardship of being proved to be a harmful element previously...You read things a little oddly. I never suggested difficulty getting a job was a good reason for commiting a crime. The way I assumed it would be read was that since someone might find it hard to get a job they might to decide to resort to a not necessarily violent crime to get by. That the way the statistics read, people shoplifting might be included in the statistics. This is apparently true.
Deliberate obtuseness does not become you.

Morphine overdose?

Hell, they'd even feel good....If I could be sure of the dose and liked the timing, it'd probably be my prefered way to go. Though a stroke in my sleep wouldn't have that nasty anticipation bit.

That the way the statistics read, people shoplifting might be included in the statistics. This is apparently true.
Deliberate obtuseness does not become you.

Nor you.

Shoplifting isn't deemed a violent crime. Grave specifically stated that 22.7% were re-arrested for violent crimes. The total 62.5% was for felonies or serious misdemeanors. Shoplifting a box of graham crackers to feed yourself wouldn't be deemed a serious misdemeanor.

I think we should cut off the hands and disable the genetalia of any police type doing police brutality.

How relevant.

and that's where you're wrong.

Oh but hell, let's just play your game. Let's say a billionare, someone who employs thousands of people and has done great benefit to society decides, one day, to go knife a homeless man.

Certainly his life has benefited society more than the homeless man, has this billionare earned the value of his life? Should he live?

The idea that human life has a value that is "earned" suggests that humans have inherently different values, something that is fundamentally contrary to the fundamental ideology of the country.

You know the whole "all men are created equal" bit?

I reckon said billlionaire should have better taste, and that there was little need for killing the man, but it would probably be better for society for him to live (unless the state siezed his assets as I mentioned earlier).

Also, your country, not mine. And I will not begin to point out how far wrong that one went.

oh it's cost you're worried about? well then surely you know that in the US it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than execute them, right?
That is due to their numerous appeals, which I would in my system, give only one of (maybe two if I was feeling generous).

Good reason to remove an irreversible sentence, then. If you don't know if the prosecutors can be trusted with the power of life and death, then don't give it to them!

Fine, we take their powers of life and death, because they cannot be trusted. Wait... that doesn't solve the problem, I suppose they cannot be trusted to imprison anyone at all. And better still, everyone who they have all ready put away is released. Yay. (I was being sarcastic, so you know)

...and you like that, do you?
It has certain advantages and speeds up the process of government. Plus, in this case at least, they are defending a choice that I agree with.



Not in prison they won't.
Unless they take it upon themselves to harm the other prisoners, which happens plenty. Or they are released, which also happens.



You're either a troll or a kook. Which one is it?
Well, I'm not really a troll as such, given that what I have said is an accurate portrayel of my beliefs and that I am defending them just as you are you are (except without resorting to pointless insults), although these beliefs do cause some contravercy so do any which go against those of the masses (on this forum), which is odd since normally someone more 'liberal' would theoretically be more in favour of independence and free-though. I do not think I'm really a 'kook' either, rather I just do not subscribe to your beliefs. I suppose my mistake there is choosing to post on a forum on which most people have much more leftist views than me, which is bound to cause people like you to attack me rather than defend your own belief system.

Pretty strongly against.

I still support the Death Penalty. I believe it's a great deterence in the most horrendous crimes.

Believe that if you like, but most murders are committed on the spur of the moment, therefore the deterrent argument is flawed from the outset.
Also, I really can't imagine that a person is likely to commit a serious crime unless they are fairly confident they'll get away with it. That applies whether the maximum sentence is 20 years inside or 20ft on the end of a rope.

Believe that if you like, but most murders are committed on the spur of the moment, therefore the deterrent argument is flawed from the outset.
Also, I really can't imagine that a person is likely to commit a serious crime unless they are fairly confident they'll get away with it. That applies whether the maximum sentence is 20 years inside or 20ft on the end of a rope.

That it is not planned does not bring the victim back, besides, someone prone to unexpectedly killing those around them is as dangerous as one who plans it, their actions are harder to predict.

That it is not planned does not bring the victim back, besides, someone prone to unexpectedly killing those around them is as dangerous as one who plans it, their actions are harder to predict.

I refer you to the phrase 'the deterrent argument'.

By that logic, NO punishment is acceptable - because prison isn't going to be dinner and a movie either.
Then you're using a 'special' brand of logic here, since you obviously can't see the difference between the taking of a life and the incarceration of a person.

In short, the point is that if the State kills you unjustly, it cannot be rectified; You cannot be brought back to life and no amount of compensation will do you any good. If you are wrongfully imprisoned, you may be released. You will not get the time served back, but you are alive and an economic compensation may go some way to, well, compensate for the time lost.

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.
Yet this debate does not focus solely on the merits of the punishment itself. In this debate of whether you're for or against capital punishment you cannot escape the close link between the workings of the legal system and the punishment itself.

IF the legal system is flawed, THEN capital punishment should not be used - regardless of the merits of capital punishment, BECAUSE the consequence of error is unacceptable. And that is the simple reason why I'm against the death penalty. There, I've answered the OP yet again.

The fact that you continue to prevaricate proves that it was more 'evasion' than 'irrelevence'.
Rather that you wish to debate something else than the OP. That's OK; you just have to say so or start a different thread to debate it.
I asked what your opinion would be if the judicial sytem WERE capable of ascertaining absolute certainty of guilt, and still you evade.
Only because the scenario you presented is an unreal hypothetical that will never happen. As such, I see my response as perfectly valid.

However, to answer your question of whether or not I believe that the death penalty could be acceptable more directly, in that hypothetical scenario where the justice system was infallible: I don't know, I'm undecided since there are multiple other factors to consider, for example if it really is needed. Hypothetically, one could create a prison system where it was impossible to escape - why would you need to kill the convicted person then?

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.
*Sigh*

In the ideal situation, where the justice system and the investigation is infallible and cannot be manipulated, and there is 100% certainty of his guilt, and the murderer cannot be rehabilitated and with 100% certainty will kill again and the prison system is inadequate to hold him and so on and so forth - Maybe.

Satisfied?

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.
But without a working system it is irrelevant if I like or dislike that particular kind of punishment - the risks connected to the death penalty are too high when we're dealing with an imperfect system.

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?
I work against it as much as I can, and speak out against it whenever and whereever I can. And I work to improve the system.

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 fail to see your point.

I worry about the innocent life here, not the guilty one, and I will not allow the state to kill an innocent. How, pray tell, is that hypocritical? I would rather claim that your position is the hypocritical one, as you are willing to sacrifice an innocent life in the (failed) pursuit of punishing a person who has taken an innocent life.

I personally have severely mixed feelings on the death penalty. I can see a lot of merit in both sides. But in the end I'm going to say against. And I can't really defend that without crossing my own views, because I do see merit in the "for" side of it. It's just a gut feeling on whats right, and whats not.

I refer you to the phrase 'the deterrent argument'.

Removing these potencially dangerous elements is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of society.

Saying that the death penalty will or will not deter these criminals is only relevent on the assumption that they will not reoffend in jail or when released.

I personally have severely mixed feelings on the death penalty. I can see a lot of merit in both sides. But in the end I'm going to say against. And I can't really defend that without crossing my own views, because I do see merit in the "for" side of it. It's just a gut feeling on whats right, and whats not.

Your gut hasn't let you down in this case, Pedro.

*applauds*

Removing these potencially dangerous elements is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of society.


What has that to do with the concept of deterrence?


Saying that the death penalty will or will not deter these criminals is only relevent on the assumption that they will not reoffend in jail or when released.

I really can't see any logic in that statement. A deterrent is supposed to discourage you from committing the crime in the first place. Re-offending is a separate issue.
Apart from anything else, I'm not the one who brought the issue of deterrence into the discussion.

as much as some people truly deserve to die for their crimes...I still don't agree with the death penalty, the risk of killing the wrongfully convicted are to high.........

You read things a little oddly. I never suggested difficulty getting a job was a good reason for commiting a crime. The way I assumed it would be read was that since someone might find it hard to get a job they might to decide to resort to a not necessarily violent crime to get by. That the way the statistics read, people shoplifting might be included in the statistics. This is apparently true.
Deliberate obtuseness does not become you.

No, really... your words: "Many convicts find getting a job very hard since thay have a criminal record. Did they shoplift or was this another violent crime?"

Yes, convicts may find it hard to get a job...and? So? What is this supposed to say? You seem to contrast the idea that they might 'just' shoplift, with the possibility of violent reoffense... which I take to be effectively 'excusing' shoplifting.

I agree that shoplifting is a lesser crime than murder... I will probably always consider property crimes lesser than personal crimes. But, it is still a crime. I don't hold the previously-convicted to a lesser requirement for legality.

For.

If I could be sure of the dose and liked the timing, it'd probably be my prefered way to go. Though a stroke in my sleep wouldn't have that nasty anticipation bit.

If I was able to pick the manner of my passing, the morphine overdose would almost certainly be the method I would choose. Being 'sure of the dose' is almost irrelevent, when you consider that we are talking overdosing... just multiply the 'probably lethal' dose by a safety margin... say... multiply it by ten, and it seems pretty likely that you aren't going to be feeling any pain.

A stroke in the sleep sounds like too much risk to me - you can still feel pain when you are asleep.

Believe that if you like, but most murders are committed on the spur of the moment, therefore the deterrent argument is flawed from the outset.
Also, I really can't imagine that a person is likely to commit a serious crime unless they are fairly confident they'll get away with it. That applies whether the maximum sentence is 20 years inside or 20ft on the end of a rope.

Actually, those who make a pattern of killing often deliberately give clues as to their identities, locations, future crimes, etc. This was true in the time of Jack the Ripper, and is possibly even more true now, in the US, where serial killers attain a form of celebrity.

Then you're using a 'special' brand of logic here, since you obviously can't see the difference between the taking of a life and the incarceration of a person.


Let me refer to your own words:

"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, it must follow that:

"As long as there is a possibility that an innocent may be imprisoned, that specific type of punishment should not be utilised".

Otherwise, you are arguing a disconnected 'logic'... and inconsistent application of effect following cause.


In short, the point is that if the State kills you unjustly, it cannot be rectified; You cannot be brought back to life and no amount of compensation will do you any good. If you are wrongfully imprisoned, you may be released. You will not get the time served back, but you are alive and an economic compensation may go some way to, well, compensate for the time lost.


On the other hand, if the state kills you unjustly, I think you are unlikely to care... right?

Contrarywise, if you are gangraped by violent offenders for 20 years, and then decalred 'innocent'... I'm not sure a quick "We are sorry, here, have a million dollars" is going to ease your troubled soul.

It seems to me that imprisonment would be more barbaric a 'punishment' for the unjustly convicted, than humane execution.


Yet this debate does not focus solely on the merits of the punishment itself. In this debate of whether you're for or against capital punishment you cannot escape the close link between the workings of the legal system and the punishment itself.


Yes - you can. Because the basic question... the subject of the poll, the title of the thread... was about the death penalty, and whether you are 'for' or 'against' it.


IF the legal system is flawed, THEN capital punishment should not be used - regardless of the merits of capital punishment, BECAUSE the consequence of error is unacceptable. And that is the simple reason why I'm against the death penalty. There, I've answered the OP yet again.


And, again - if this is the argument you are going to use, then imprsonment also shouldn't be used - regardless of the merits of imprisonment, BECAUSE the consequence of the error is unacceptable.

You plead special exception.


Rather that you wish to debate something else than the OP. That's OK; you just have to say so or start a different thread to debate it.


Perhaps you missed the title? The poll?

I realise the thread has expanded on the topic, but the basic focus is on the punishment. If you want to discuss the relative merits of our legal systems... one might argue it is your hijacking that should start it's own thread.


Only because the scenario you presented is an unreal hypothetical that will never happen. As such, I see my response as perfectly valid.


Unreal? Will never happen?

What are you, LAPD Special Psychic branch?


However, to answer your question of whether or not I believe that the death penalty could be acceptable more directly, in that hypothetical scenario where the justice system was infallible: I don't know, I'm undecided since there are multiple other factors to consider, for example if it really is needed. Hypothetically, one could create a prison system where it was impossible to escape - why would you need to kill the convicted person then?

*Sigh*


So - a killer that videos his kills is unrealistic... but a 'breakout proof' prison is an acceptable hypothesis?

You say 'undecided', but then make arguments only for being 'against'. That doesn't sound undecided... that sounds like you don't want to admit to your partiality.


In the ideal situation, where the justice system and the investigation is infallible and cannot be manipulated, and there is 100% certainty of his guilt, and the murderer cannot be rehabilitated and with 100% certainty will kill again and the prison system is inadequate to hold him and so on and so forth - Maybe.

Satisfied?


Again, I think this is either dishonesty or evasion. I don't think it is really possible to be 'on the fence'... I think one must lean one way or the other. And, I would argue that you have given ample evidence of which way you lean - but won't come out and say it.



But without a working system it is irrelevant if I like or dislike that particular kind of punishment - the risks connected to the death penalty are too high when we're dealing with an imperfect system.


The risks connected to ANY penalty must, then, be too high. But - again - this is a problem with our syste4m, not with the punishment.


I work against it as much as I can, and speak out against it whenever and whereever I can. And I work to improve the system.


Again - allow me to refer you to your own words:

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

This is obviously not true, since you do live with exactly such a system of justice. You are clogging bandwidth with almost dictionary definition 'hyperbole'.


I fail to see your point.

I worry about the innocent life here, not the guilty one, and I will not allow the state to kill an innocent. How, pray tell, is that hypocritical? I would rather claim that your position is the hypocritical one, as you are willing to sacrifice an innocent life in the (failed) pursuit of punishing a person who has taken an innocent life.

But, a minute ago you said you were unable to decide on the guilty, either.

The violent criminal kills, rapes, harms the innocent. The system (when working ideally) harms the guilty.

You cannot retroactively prevent the guilty from harming the innocent, but you could prevent him (or her) from doing so any more.

The innocent have already been harmed, and you are unwilling to sanction an absolute prevention of reoffense. This seems hypocritical to me.

But, a minute ago you said you were unable to decide on the guilty, either.

The violent criminal kills, rapes, harms the innocent. The system (when working ideally) harms the guilty.

You cannot retroactively prevent the guilty from harming the innocent, but you could prevent him (or her) from doing so any more.

The innocent have already been harmed, and you are unwilling to sanction an absolute prevention of reoffense. This seems hypocritical to me.

The problem lies in this:

Many of those on death row, who have been on death row, and whom have been executed have been proven innocent with new techniques. Innocent people have been put to death for "justice". The problem here lies in the fact that the death penalty is not reversable. At least, with life imprisonment, you can turn someone free if found innocent. However, if put to death, that cannot be reversed.

I would far rather have 1000 guilty walk free than 1 innocent put to death. "Just in case" does not cut it, for with that logic there is nothing protecting any of us from the imperfections of the system.

Against. Although some people no doubt deserve it, I don't trust the government with that much power.

The problem lies in this:

Many of those on death row, who have been on death row, and whom have been executed have been proven innocent with new techniques. Innocent people have been put to death for "justice". The problem here lies in the fact that the death penalty is not reversable. At least, with life imprisonment, you can turn someone free if found innocent. However, if put to death, that cannot be reversed.

I would far rather have 1000 guilty walk free than 1 innocent put to death. "Just in case" does not cut it, for with that logic there is nothing protecting any of us from the imperfections of the system.

And, I find that illogical and impossible to reconcile with the idea of participating in a civilised society.

One innocent death is bad, I'll not argue. But, you admit you would allow a thousand people who are not innocent, to continue to pursue their predatory natures on other innocents, rather than risk making a mistake.

To my mind - that puts the blood of every victim of those thousand, on your hands. It makes you an accomplice to their crimes, because you know of their crimes, and refuse to take action.

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

And, I find that illogical and impossible to reconcile with the idea of participating in a civilised society.

One innocent death is bad, I'll not argue. But, you admit you would allow a thousand people who are not innocent, to continue to pursue their predatory natures on other innocents, rather than risk making a mistake.

To my mind - that puts the blood of every victim of those thousand, on your hands. It makes you an accomplice to their crimes, because you know of their crimes, and refuse to take action.

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

Not what I meant. What I meant was not setting free one thousand men, but simply that 1000 men guilty of crime, but found innocent, is far better to me than 1 man innocent of a crime, but found guilty.

If an innocent man is put to death for a crime he did not commit, there is nothing stopping the same to happen to any one of us. This has happened, and likely will happen in the future. At the very least, life imprisonment can be undone. Death, cannot.

And let me ask you this:

If an innocent man is put to death, and you are the juror, is not his blood upon your hands? You are the reason for an innocent death, are you, and every juror and the judge, not the reason for the innocent death? How does one reconcile this?

And, I find that illogical and impossible to reconcile with the idea of participating in a civilised society.
There is a problem with this. Partly why modern societies formed is that individuals desired to exchange goods as they saw some benefit in doing so. As a precondition to this, force must be abandoned as the primary way of dealing with one another. Here is where my main argument comes in.

In order to do away with force, the right to defend oneself is delegated (but not surrendered) to a certain person or group of persons, who are given the power to resolve disputes. At all times though the right they are exercising is not theirs to dispose of as they please (even though this has been how governments have acted in the past) - they must act within the interest of the party involved. And here is where the death penalty creeps in. In order for this form of punishment to be allowed, it must be agreed upon by, at the very least, a majority of the society's members. Social contract theory and its notion of conceptual agreement ( a real "no" is a "yes") will not do here; the right at stake is that to life, to which all others are subordinate.

How then is the power to put someone to death justified? Just because some previous majority approved of it, does not mean a present one will. Given that governments have little interest in surrendering the powers they are delegated, can they even be trusted with such power? Their track record is not favourable...

I am against capital punishment.

However, I accept that many of the arguments for capital punishment are valid in a certain context. If one is arguing against capital punishment, for instance, simply because of the risk of taking an innocent life, it is difficult to not also argue against imprisonment of any kind. There is always going to be the risk that, in the protection of a free and just society, an innocent life is sacrificed accidentally. A murder takes place. The law imprisons the wrong man. Whether you support capital punishment or not seems irrelevant; an innocent life is lost, in this example, regardless of the punishment.

Note, though, before I proceed, that an innocent life lost in imprisonment, rather than death, may be saved, as has already been discussed. This is an obvious mark against the use of the death penalty.

But this is one, very narrow, side of the argument. Innocent life may be lost with the death penalty, but also, unfortunately, with any form of punishment. Where the death penalty truly falters, thus deviating from legitimate forms of law enforcement, is in its ignorance of rehabilitation. Let's say, for instance, that a murder takes place and the law nabs the right guy. He's guilty as sin and deserves to be punished absolutely. This punishment must serve as a deterent for other criminals and also as a device for security. In other words, the punishment must be severe. Murder is not to be accepted and that message must be delivered loud and clear--both to the individual responsible and the society from which he came. But punishment must serve a third purpose if crime is to be controlled and society to maintain its freedom and justice. This third purpose is rehabilitation. "Rehab" allows society to turn the corner on tragedy, moving forward, and more importantly functions to save life when life has been lost. With a murder comes death. The only logical response to proceed and better society is to embrace life. How does it make sense to murder in response to murder? How do we, a free and just society, maintain our moral high ground if we sink to the level of the criminal? The argument for capital punishment dissolves here. Taking life in response to taking life does not lead to a better world.

I am, accordingly, against capital punishment.

Not what I meant. What I meant was not setting free one thousand men, but simply that 1000 men guilty of crime, but found innocent, is far better to me than 1 man innocent of a crime, but found guilty.


Again - I find this unconscionable.

If you find 1000 guilty men innocent, then 1000 guilty men are released onto the streets. Those thousand guilty men can then continue whatever it was they were guilty of. The bodies pile up on your conscience.

If you find one innocent man guilty, then only one person is unjustly imprisoned or executed. At worst, you are 'responsible' for one act of harm.


If an innocent man is put to death for a crime he did not commit, there is nothing stopping the same to happen to any one of us. This has happened, and likely will happen in the future.


And?

I know this - it is something I must accept when I favour a death penalty in a legal system as corrupt as ours.

Hell, I don't want to die - much less for a crime I'll not commit. But, I am pragmatic enough to see that my death might not be a big deal in the big picture, if it is part of the cost of removing some of the REAL evil from my society.

It's the same reason we go to war, and the same risk.


At the very least, life imprisonment can be undone. Death, cannot.


No, life imprisonment can't be undone. Think about what 'life imprisonment' means.


And let me ask you this:

If an innocent man is put to death, and you are the juror, is not his blood upon your hands? You are the reason for an innocent death, are you, and every juror and the judge, not the reason for the innocent death? How does one reconcile this?

I have no problem reconciling it.

If I am a juror that accidentally executes an innocent man, then the death of one innocent man could be laid at my feet.

If I am part of a system that allows one repeat offender to walk free, then every following crime he commits, is laid at my feet.

Obviously - I think it is in my best interest, if I am a juror, to make the right decision, based on the evidence... to try to ensure that the guilty are contained, and the innocent released.

(Also, it is worth noting that the Judge would determine the sentence...)

There is a problem with this. Partly why modern societies formed is that individuals desired to exchange goods as they saw some benefit in doing so.


Societies formed primarily because we are gregarious creatures, and there is protection in big groups. Any other characteristic of group living is entirely secondary to this.

As a precondition to this, force must be abandoned as the primary way of dealing with one another. Here is where my main argument comes in.

In order to do away with force, the right to defend oneself is delegated (but not surrendered) to a certain person or group of persons, who are given the power to resolve disputes.


I disagree. I'd say that the right to defend oneself is collectivised. We extend the borders of what 'self-defense' means, due to our communal living arrangement. Thus - we collectively defend ourselves against external harm (what we now call our armies), and against internal harm (what we now call our police). Both are just aspects of our communalisation of the self-defense principle.


At all times though the right they are exercising is not theirs to dispose of as they please (even though this has been how governments have acted in the past) - they must act within the interest of the party involved.


They must act within the interest of the community, of the collective. That is where their remit is based.


And here is where the death penalty creeps in. In order for this form of punishment...


If you consider it a 'punishment'. Personally, I find the argument of 'death penalty as punishment' to be unconvincing. Far more important, from my point of view, is 'death penalty' as 'treatment'.


...to be allowed, it must be agreed upon by, at the very least, a majority of the society's members. Social contract theory and its notion of conceptual agreement ( a real "no" is a "yes") will not do here; the right at stake is that to life, to which all others are subordinate.


Not at all - all that is required is that the RIGHT to make the decision is agreed to be delegated. If 99% of the citizens of a perfect democracy opposed 'capital punishment', but also said that the decision was that of the government to make...

As to the 'right to life'... the only reason we can claim a 'right to life' is because of those self-same societal models, and the communalisation of the self-defense motif. A man alone before a tiger has a hard time pleading his 'right to life' argument.... the same man in the company of his peers has a much stronger argument.


How then is the power to put someone to death justified? Just because some previous majority approved of it, does not mean a present one will. Given that governments have little interest in surrendering the powers they are delegated, can they even be trusted with such power? Their track record is not favourable...

But, on the other hand, given how little interest most people seem to take in so much of their society... can the proles really be trusted to decide what is best for their society?

Societies formed primarily because we are gregarious creatures, and there is protection in big groups. Any other characteristic of group living is entirely secondary to this.
Correct, I don't disagree with this. This still doesn't mandate the abolition of force though as a means of dealing with one another though.

I disagree. I'd say that the right to defend oneself is collectivised. We extend the borders of what 'self-defense' means, due to our communal living arrangement. Thus - we collectively defend ourselves against external harm (what we now call our armies), and against internal harm (what we now call our police). Both are just aspects of our communalisation of the self-defense principle.
The right to defend oneself stems from the right to life (which is nothing more than the fact that a rational individual will not allow another to take their life from them, unless it occurs on a mutually agreed upon basis) - in order for someone to practise it on your behalf it must be delegated. There is no way around this.

They must act within the interest of the community, of the collective. That is where their remit is based.
What is a community? A collection of individuals. A "community" has no rights - any rights that exist within it are those of its constituent members. It must therefore act on behalf of those whose rights have been delegated to it (the right to self-defence).

Not at all - all that is required is that the RIGHT to make the decision is agreed to be delegated. If 99% of the citizens of a perfect democracy opposed 'capital punishment', but also said that the decision was that of the government to make...
But that was their right they delegated, not that of their offspring...

As to the 'right to life'... the only reason we can claim a 'right to life' is because of those self-same societal models, and the communalisation of the self-defense motif. A man alone before a tiger has a hard time pleading his 'right to life' argument.... the same man in the company of his peers has a much stronger argument.
Precisely because a tiger has not abandoned the use of force as its governing principle; this does not stop a man from killing it to defend himself. Man has, as a matter of social convention and mutual agreement. He can only maintain the same principle before his peers if they too agree with him.

But, on the other hand, given how little interest most people seem to take in so much of their society... can the proles really be trusted to decide what is best for their society?
You mean, can individuals decide what is best for themselves? It would be awfully pessimistic of you to say that they are too stupid to - in fact, I'd consider it an argument for de-communalisation. Nature will usually take care of such individuals, at any rate...

Out of curiosity, are you some form of right-wing collectivist?

For.

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 a pro-death, pro-oppression, bigoted individual who feels that some people are better then other people. I guess that makes me for capital punishment.

I'm a pro-death, pro-oppression, bigoted individual who feels that some people are better then other people. I guess that makes me for capital punishment.
Sounds like me, except I don't think the State is necessary. :)

Correct, I don't disagree with this. This still doesn't mandate the abolition of force though as a means of dealing with one another though.


On the contrary, creatures that make a habit of killing each other make poor pack mates. We are evolved to survive well in social groups. One characteristic of this is we automatically defer to our alphas.

That doesn't mean we don't use force... just that we use it collectively, at the direction of figures we consider ourselves subordinate to.


The right to defend oneself stems from the right to life (which is nothing more than the fact that a rational individual will not allow another to take their life from them, unless it occurs on a mutually agreed upon basis) - in order for someone to practise it on your behalf it must be delegated. There is no way around this.


But, it isn't an external mechanism being enforced that causes the 'law' to become the 'practise'. It is the rationalisation of what is inherent in the human condition that makes the 'practise' become the 'law'.


What is a community? A collection of individuals. A "community" has no rights - any rights that exist within it are those of its constituent members. It must therefore act on behalf of those whose rights have been delegated to it (the right to self-defence).


I'm not sure I agree... if you created an entirely anarchic society, but the population still remained 'social', I'm inclined to suspect they would still unite to resist external aggression, or to deal with internal aggression. The 'rights' of the community are not a feature OF the community, so much as a collection of features of the individuals...

I'm not sure if I'm even responding to what the comment means...


But that was their right they delegated, not that of their offspring...


Perhaps - but we can't entirely renegotiate our entire 'societal contract' everytime a new child is born, or a new adult comes of age.

So - our 'societal contract' is 'renegotiated' on an epochal basis... when the zeitgeist directs it to happen.


Precisely because a tiger has not abandoned the use of force as its governing principle; this does not stop a man from killing it to defend himself. Man has, as a matter of social convention and mutual agreement. He can only maintain the same principle before his peers if they too agree with him.


Not arguing this. Our 'right to life' is an aspect of our society - not of the individual. There is no 'individual' right to life.


You mean, can individuals decide what is best for themselves? It would be awfully pessimistic of you to say that they are too stupid to - in fact, I'd consider it an argument for de-communalisation. Nature will usually take care of such individuals, at any rate...

Not pessimistic...realistic. And, I wouldn't use the phrase 'too stupid'... since I suspect it is more likely to be a matter of too ignorant/too apathetic/too lazy/too easily led.

Sounds like me, except I don't think the State is necessary. :)
The State was made an obsolete institution ever since a bunch of Dutch financiers got together to share the risks of financing a marine enterprise in search of shiny goodies.

Out of curiosity, are you some form of right-wing collectivist?

No. At least, I don't think so.

Fairly centrist (non-Partisan in American political terms, and fairly centrist in European terms), socially permissive would probably best describe my political leanings, in general.

On the contrary, creatures that make a habit of killing each other make poor pack mates. We are evolved to survive well in social groups. One characteristic of this is we automatically defer to our alphas.
True, that is another possible justification for the abolition of the force principle.

That doesn't mean we don't use force... just that we use it collectively, at the direction of figures we consider ourselves subordinate to.
Under systems such as traditional monarchy, in which the leading figure gradually acquired the power to rule (and replaced the delegated power to act on behalf of his/her subjects with this), yes. Under systems such as democracy... ? We are supposedly are our own rulers (nevermind the fact that this is nonsense).

But, it isn't an external mechanism being enforced that causes the 'law' to become the 'practise'. It is the rationalisation of what is inherent in the human condition that makes the 'practise' become the 'law'.
This depends on the rationalisation of the formation of social structures you use - I am partial to the endogenous one posited by Bertrand de Jouvenel. As a matter of tradition legal systems have pretty much been imposed on outsiders, yes - their original conception is however a matter of individuals acknowledging a leader to which they entrust their protection.

I'm not sure I agree... if you created an entirely anarchic society, but the population still remained 'social', I'm inclined to suspect they would still unite to resist external aggression, or to deal with internal aggression. The 'rights' of the community are not a feature OF the community, so much as a collection of features of the individuals...
Which would amount to nothing more than a collection of individuals exercising their right to defend themselves, wouldn't it? So no, we do not disagree.

I'm not sure if I'm even responding to what the comment means...
I think you confused what I meant a little, but you got the gist of it.

Perhaps - but we can't entirely renegotiate our entire 'societal contract' everytime a new child is born, or a new adult comes of age.
That is wherein my problem with the death penalty lies.

So - our 'societal contract' is 'renegotiated' on an epochal basis... when the zeitgeist directs it to happen.
Elaborate what you mean by zeitgeist.

Not arguing this. Our 'right to life' is an aspect of our society - not of the individual. There is no 'individual' right to life.
It's an agreement made on the basis of entering a society. If it is not the right of the individual, what is it the right of?

The State was made an obsolete institution ever since a bunch of Dutch financiers got together to share the risks of financing a marine enterprise in search of shiny goodies.
I was mostly joking.

I'm for it in principle. Some people do need to be removed - for example those who insist upon performing their poetry in public. I'm not sure I trust the government with it however. After all, even on the days the government is feeling benign it is still always incompetent.

I'm for it in principle. Some people do need to be removed - for example those who insist upon performing their poetry in public. I'm not sure I trust the government with it however. After all, even on the days the government is feeling benign it is still always incompetent.
Well if it must be done, best it be done in private by the aggrieved party. Problems with this? Acts done in the shadows have a tendency to leak out, and also I have little faith in justice being taken into one's own hands...

I was mostly joking.
RLY?! :eek:

RLY?! :eek:

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/1830/yarly2ly.jpg

Well, I am a nihilist, so as I said "mostly" ...and anti-State too.

For treason and mass murder.

For treason
Why?

Why?To prevent people from resisting my slow take over of the world.

To prevent people from resisting my slow take over of the world.
Unless they hang you for treason before you manage to take over, eh? ;)

Unless they hang you for treason before you manage to take over, eh? ;)Unlikely, as I already control all the courts in the western world and have the loyaltly of the armies of the U.S., China, U.K., and Russia.

Unlikely, as I already control all the courts in the western world and have the loyaltly of the armies of the U.S., China, U.K., and Russia.
You're some type of Jewish financier? A Rothschild maybe?

Rights, rights, rights... Geez! Listen, people, whenever I hear "rights", I feel like vomiting in disgust. News flash--Whatever the government gives can also be taken away. Once this is done, you have no reason to complain about them, because government is God, and it giveth and taketh away. Congratulations.

Wanna mow down all the Jews in the neighborhood? As long as the government says it's ok, it's fine, because they give the right. It's been done before, and it'll happen again. This is your standard. Your morality.

At least, for all you atheists out there. Not for me. I base all my morality (including the "yes" vote for the death penalty) off the Bible, which doesn't change, and for all those who believe otherwise, it's at least been unchanged for practically 500 years, depending on which translation you use.

This gives me a more solid foundation, rather than dealing with abstracts like people's government-given rights, which are about as set in stone as the exact time of your death in a Nazi concentration camp.

You're some type of Jewish financier? A Rothschild maybe?No born a Lutheran, raised a Catholic, and became a Knight Templar.

So now you all know and you all must have your minds blanked.;)

No born a Lutheran, raised a Catholic, and became a Knight Templar.
Almost all in opposite progression to me. Was born Catholic, raised Lutheran and became Satanist.

So now you all know and you all must have your minds blanked.;)
I know nothing. :)

Mattorn;12149182']Rights, rights, rights... Geez! Listen, people, whenever I hear "rights", I feel like vomiting in disgust. News flash--Whatever the government gives can also be taken away. Once this is done, you have no reason to complain about them, because government is God, and it giveth and taketh away. Congratulations.
All arguments I advanced to GnI apply to what you said too, although given that you base your conception of politics on the Bible I feel that it is futile to even try...

Under systems such as traditional monarchy, in which the leading figure gradually acquired the power to rule (and replaced the delegated power to act on behalf of his/her subjects with this), yes. Under systems such as democracy... ? We are supposedly are our own rulers (nevermind the fact that this is nonsense).


As you say, it is nonsense. The average voter (or elligible, since not all elligibles vote) even in a democracy obeys the alpha... no matter that they delude themselves into belieiving they had some input in selecting the alpha they obey.

But then - we know that. Even democracies require a top dog, and we 'elect' that top dog, but we are still perpetually aware that we are collectively 'bitches', because of it.


This depends on the rationalisation of the formation of social structures you use - I am partial to the endogenous one posited by Bertrand de Jouvenel. As a matter of tradition legal systems have pretty much been imposed on outsiders, yes - their original conception is however a matter of individuals acknowledging a leader to which they entrust their protection.


Or even not 'a leader', but a communal direction... mission statement, whatever the generational buzzword might be.


That is wherein my problem with the death penalty lies.


The fact that government is not superfluid? That society is a continually changing organism?

But, aren't there somethings that are likely to be 'true', no matter what the current weather forecast says?


Elaborate what you mean by zeitgeist.


'The spirit of the age'. Call it the 'will of the people', or the 'gestalt'. Call it the'winds of change'.... all these ideas refer to the same thing - that our cultures are malleable structures, but that they change in apochal manner... a building of pressure that may wax and wane, culminating in a sudden change of direction.


It's an agreement made on the basis of entering a society. If it is not the right of the individual, what is it the right of?

Of the society, and how that society considers the individual. The 'right to life' is not something the individual 'has'... not a quality OF the person. The 'right to life' is something the society bestows upon an individual, within the confines of that society, or the sphere of influence that that society maintains.

Almost all in opposite progression to me. Was born Catholic, raised Lutheran and became Satanist.Weird… Yet, as a Knight Templar I must hunt you down for worshipping a false belief.

OOC: In reality I do not care what religion you are as I am allowed to drink.

All arguments I advanced to GnI apply to what you said too, although given that you base your conception of politics on the Bible I feel that it is futile to even try...
Have you a single argument that is not based on your abstract feelings of what is right and wrong?

As you say, it is nonsense. The average voter (or elligible, since not all elligibles vote) even in a democracy obeys the alpha... no matter that they delude themselves into belieiving they had some input in selecting the alpha they obey.

But then - we know that. Even democracies require a top dog, and we 'elect' that top dog, but we are still perpetually aware that we are collectively 'bitches', because of it.



Or even not 'a leader', but a communal direction... mission statement, whatever the generational buzzword might be.



The fact that government is not superfluid? That society is a continually changing organism?

But, aren't there somethings that are likely to be 'true', no matter what the current weather forecast says?



'The spirit of the age'. Call it the 'will of the people', or the 'gestalt'. Call it the'winds of change'.... all these ideas refer to the same thing - that our cultures are malleable structures, but that they change in apochal manner... a building of pressure that may wax and wane, culminating in a sudden change of direction.



Of the society, and how that society considers the individual. The 'right to life' is not something the individual 'has'... not a quality OF the person. The 'right to life' is something the society bestows upon an individual, within the confines of that society, or the sphere of influence that that society maintains.Two thumbs up as that was one of the best thought out things I have heard here.

Mattorn;12149210']Have you a single argument that is not based on your abstract feelings of what is right and wrong?

Do any of us?

As you say, it is nonsense. The average voter (or elligible, since not all elligibles vote) even in a democracy obeys the alpha... no matter that they delude themselves into belieiving they had some input in selecting the alpha they obey.

But then - we know that. Even democracies require a top dog, and we 'elect' that top dog, but we are still perpetually aware that we are collectively 'bitches', because of it.
Indeed. I haven't a problem with hierarchies really ; merely voluntariness. If they are voluntarily acknowledged and followed, I take no issue with them.

Or even not 'a leader', but a communal direction... mission statement, whatever the generational buzzword might be.

In a community based on individual rights and the non-aggression axiom its only direction is to defend said rights. And this is the only form of community I'd support.

The fact that government is not superfluid? That society is a continually changing organism?
More or less. Let me put it this way, I would not support a government that did not base itself on the principle of individual rights. Such a government would only be able to exercise rights given to it. If it decided to allow the death penalty, it would only be with its current citizenry's approval - and anyone who did not like this could secede from it (and lose all benefits derived from its protection).

But, aren't there somethings that are likely to be 'true', no matter what the current weather forecast says?
Human desires are not one of these.

Of the society, and how that society considers the individual. The 'right to life' is not something the individual 'has'... not a quality OF the person. The 'right to life' is something the society bestows upon an individual, within the confines of that society, or the sphere of influence that that society maintains.
Rights are socially-created, so yes, and can only be given to (or alternatively, recognised as the property of) individuals. What rights precisely will arise will depend on the mode of social organisation and its moral basis (if any).

Two thumbs up as that was one of the best thought out things I have heard here.

My thanks, friend.

I have to tip my hat to Europa Maxima, of course... and not for the first time... for pushing me to improve my game. :)

Do any of us?
If the Bible says so, you do.

Indeed - it's not hierarchies as such that I have a problem with, merely that we ought to give the elite political power on top of everything else.


Is this worded right?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are using the word 'elite'... this seems to fly in the face of your previous arguments.


In a community based on individual rights its only direction is to defend said rights. And this is the only form of community I'd support.


I don't necessarily hold that model to be realistic, true, or even possible. Certainly not something tht one should aim for. A community that solely focuses on the defense of the rights of the individual may sound utopian at first listen... but one should immediately run into obstacles such as 'well, who routes the ambulances"....


More or less. Let me put it this way, I would not support a government that did not base itself on the principle of individual rights. Such a government would only be able to exercise rights given to it. If it decided to allow the death penalty, it would only be with its current citizenry's approval - and anyone who did not like this could secede from it.


You can secede... many nations have coastline or big cliffs.

Seriously, though - what do we mean by 'secede' here? Individuals 'seceding'? On a whim? Secession shouldn't be a transitory state, and I'm not convinced that the laws of a nation should necessarily be negotiable depending on the feelings of enclaves within that nation.


Human behaviour is not one of these.


Maybe not. But maybe "The counter-societal elements of a society must be excised from that society" is?


Rights are socially-created, so yes, and can only be given to (or alternatively, recognised as the property of) individuals. What rights precisely will arise will depend on the mode of social organisation and its moral basis (if any).

I disagree with the idea that a society 'recognises' the 'rights' that are the 'property' of an individual.

Going back to my tiger, the 'right to life' is not something inherent in the man... he cannot 'use' it to defend himself against the tiger... indeed, his 'right to life' is meaningless, without his society.

Similarly, when in another society, our man again finds his arguments of a 'right to life' falling on deaf ears - until his own society steps in to argue his 'right' for him.

Thus, the 'rights' of the individual are artifacts granted TO that individual, by his society. Further, they exist ONLY as protected by the words or swords of that society, and as executed BY that society upon deleterious elements within, or without, that society.

If the Bible says so, you do.

But, what one person may read one way, another may read another way.

So - even from the scripture, our morality would be 'abstracted', in a very literal sense.

Is this worded right?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are using the word 'elite'... this seems to fly in the face of your previous arguments.
I re-worded it. My point is that I have no problems with voluntarily acknowledged elites; voluntariness being the key word.

I don't necessarily hold that model to be realistic, true, or even possible. Certainly not something tht one should aim for. A community that solely focuses on the defense of the rights of the individual may sound utopian at first listen... but one should immediately run into obstacles such as 'well, who routes the ambulances"....
We'll agree to disagree on this.

You can secede... many nations have coastline or big cliffs.

Seriously, though - what do we mean by 'secede' here? Individuals 'seceding'? On a whim? Secession shouldn't be a transitory state, and I'm not convinced that the laws of a nation should necessarily be negotiable depending on the feelings of enclaves within that nation.
I would argue that it would depend on the reason for the secession. If you're seceding to avoid punishment for a crime, and are left with no agency to protect you, you will be at the mercy of the agency the rules of which you broke (a minarchist agency still has the power to exercise the right to self-defence against external forces, as well as internal). So this would be foolish. The other alternative is that you are not satisfied with the terms upon which the agency protects you, in which case you and others may disengage together and assign yourself a new protector. That would be a justified secession. A society of the sort I outlined would not hinder a secession, as this would invalidate its basis: the non-aggression axiom.

Maybe not. But maybe "The counter-societal elements of a society must be excised from that society" is?
Assuming your basis of social organisation is not the protection of the involved individuals, but rather the "societal good". In an individual rights-based society, the right to self-defence would remove negative influences (anyone who initiates force, which subsumes all criminal activities). In one based on the "common good" the reasons for which one may be removed are far more clouded.

Thus, the 'rights' of the individual are artifacts granted TO that individual, by his society. Further, they exist ONLY as protected by the words or swords of that society, and as executed BY that society upon deleterious elements within, or without, that society.
This depends on how the society is formed to begin with. If it is formed by mutual agreement of individuals, they choose to recognise them in each other (or bestow them upon one another, same thing). If it is formed from an individual (or group) conquering another, then yes, they are bestowed.

why not go back to Medieval times when executions were like the circus coming to town..."come on little billy we're going to be late for the hanging and quartering again" :D or Better yet lets bring back the Gladiatorial games and have the condemned fight for our entertainment and better still we could charge people to watch these bouts to the death thus the state, local, regional government, whichever gains some revenue while ridding itself of some bad apples in the process

Mattorn;12149210']Have you a single argument that is not based on your abstract feelings of what is right and wrong?Better than basing your morals on a fairy tale and sticking to them because of some stick and carrot game.

I have a question. Note I know nothing about law except when it comes to defamation and libel. Anyway, the UN Declaration of Human Rights says "everyone has the right to life", and the US is a member of the UN so would have to adhere to this, wouldn't they? I'm sure there must be some exception or loop-hole or whatever; what is it?

Let me refer to your own words:

"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, it must follow that:

"As long as there is a possibility that an innocent may be imprisoned, that specific type of punishment should not be utilised".

Otherwise, you are arguing a disconnected 'logic'... and inconsistent application of effect following cause.
I don't see how you can claim that - you can't see that wrongful imprisonment, albeit undesirable, can be acceptable, but the wrongful killing will not be? Do you really not see the difference between killing and incarceration?

The system is flawed, and we have to minimize the negative impact the flawed system might have. therefor there are some types of punishment we should not use. You really don't see the logic behind drawing the line of unacceptable consequence following an incorrect verdict somewhere, and the logic in drawing it between life and death?

On the other hand, if the state kills you unjustly, I think you are unlikely to care... right?
After you've been killed?

Contrarywise, if you are gangraped by violent offenders for 20 years, and then decalred 'innocent'... I'm not sure a quick "We are sorry, here, have a million dollars" is going to ease your troubled soul.
The gangrapes are not part of the punishment, they are arbitrary happenings due to a flaw in the prison system that could be remedied (to a large extent) with enough resources - especially considering how of the estimated 8,210 allegations of sexual violence in 2004 (3.15 allegations of sexual violence per 1,000 inmates (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/svrca04pr.htm)) almost 42 percent involved staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct, and 11 percent were staff sexual harassment of inmates.
(The number of sexual assaults in prison is significantly lower in Europe then in the US, by the way.)

And regardless, you would at least be alive. Which to me is better than being dead.

It seems to me that imprisonment would be more barbaric a 'punishment' for the unjustly convicted, than humane execution.
Ah, I see. The main problem here seems to be a difference in philosophies. You seem to feel it would be better to be killed than incarcerated...

Yes - you can. Because the basic question... the subject of the poll, the title of the thread... was about the death penalty, and whether you are 'for' or 'against' it.
I'm for the death penalty, but I'm against ever using it.
Where did that statement get us? Would that make me for or against capital punishment?

And again, I accept the fact that you can't see that the answer to the question isn't a simple for or against. I understand that you fail to link the punishment to the workings of the justice system and that the punishment is a part of the same system.

My stance on the question is contingent on other factors. The OP asked for my thoughts on the matter, and I gave them. As long as the system does not satisfactorily safeguard against wrongful convictions, I will not accept the use of capital punishment under that legal system.


And, again - if this is the argument you are going to use, then imprsonment also shouldn't be used - regardless of the merits of imprisonment, BECAUSE the consequence of the error is unacceptable.

You plead special exception.
When the consequence of error is wrongful imprisonment it is acceptable to me, because the wrongful imprisoned can be released.

Perhaps you missed the title? The poll?

I realise the thread has expanded on the topic, but the basic focus is on the punishment. If you want to discuss the relative merits of our legal systems... one might argue it is your hijacking that should start it's own thread.
See above. You try to avoid a full debate on capital punishment.

Unreal? Will never happen?

What are you, LAPD Special Psychic branch?
Then please explain to me how we can be 100% certain 100% of the time? I'm sure a lot - if not every single nation in the world - would be interested in knowing how you could achieve that goal.

So - a killer that videos his kills is unrealistic... but a 'breakout proof' prison is an acceptable hypothesis?
No.

But you seemed to like to deal in hypotheticals, so...

You say 'undecided', but then make arguments only for being 'against'. That doesn't sound undecided... that sounds like you don't want to admit to your partiality.
I make arguements only for being 'against' because I cannot get around that problem - that the wrongful killing by the justice system is unacceptable. As such, the rest of the arguements are moot.

Again, I think this is either dishonesty or evasion. I don't think it is really possible to be 'on the fence'... I think one must lean one way or the other. And, I would argue that you have given ample evidence of which way you lean - but won't come out and say it.
To each his own, I guess.

The risks connected to ANY penalty must, then, be too high. But - again - this is a problem with our syste4m, not with the punishment.
No. The risk connected to fines and imprisonment are acceptable. The risks connected to corporal punishments like dismemberment (see Sharia) and the death penalty are not.

And again - it's too closely linked.

Again - allow me to refer you to your own words:

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

This is obviously not true, since you do live with exactly such a system of justice. You are clogging bandwidth with almost dictionary definition 'hyperbole'.
Would "I will not sit idly by when there exists a system..." sound better to you? I do what I can to change the system. Why nitpick on this?

But, a minute ago you said you were unable to decide on the guilty, either.

The violent criminal kills, rapes, harms the innocent. The system (when working ideally) harms the guilty.

You cannot retroactively prevent the guilty from harming the innocent, but you could prevent him (or her) from doing so any more.

The innocent have already been harmed, and you are unwilling to sanction an absolute prevention of reoffense. This seems hypocritical to me.
Because I'm unwilling to sanction an absolute prevention from harming people again - after the innocent has been harmed - that might kill innocent people in the process? You have a strange sense of hypocracy.

If the system were working ideally, it might be another matter. Since it doesn't... Well, I can only hope my point is starting to sink in.

As of now Against is significantly ahead. But with various timezones, it will take a couple more hours before the US wakes up, signs on and votes.

I have an intuition that that will even out the results a little, though the final tally will be quite interesing.

Capital Punishment is a deterent, and is cheap, I don't see what the problem with it is. Yes, you are taking a life, but in order to get sentenced to death, you have to have commited a crime where you more than likely took another person's life or screwed one up. Once again, there is nothing wrong with the old saying "An eye for an eye."

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 my point of view, the risk of executing an innocent person is far too great to justify capital punishment for anything but the most serious of crimes. What I mean by the most serious of crimes is war crimes and crimes against humanity. Then, by all means, should he or she be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an impartial jury, let 'em hang.

To paraphrase Dissonant Cognition, the only place for a dictator is swinging under a tree with a noose around his neck.

As of now Against is significantly ahead. But with various timezones, it will take a couple more hours before the US wakes up, signs on and votes.

I have an intuition that that will even out the results a little, though the final tally will be quite interesing.

Since the poll has been up since the 27th of december, I think your intuition might be a little off. :)

As of now Against is significantly ahead. But with various timezones, it will take a couple more hours before the US wakes up, signs on and votes.

I have an intuition that that will even out the results a little, though the final tally will be quite interesing.

This poll has been up for a few days...

As of now Against is significantly ahead. But with various timezones, it will take a couple more hours before the US wakes up, signs on and votes.

I have an intuition that that will even out the results a little, though the final tally will be quite interesing.

It actually is expected since considering how many on NSG are far left and out of touch with reality but hell this is only my opinion and therefore will be denied and discredited right away.

I am FOR Capital Punishment, as I said earlier, my only problem is that they stay on Death Row way too long. They need to expedite the appeals to less than 30 days and change the methods of execution to death by hanging or fire squad, I also will add that they should televise it as pay per view and use the funds as to pay for the execution.

It actually is expected since considering how many on NSG are far left and out of touch with reality but hell this is only my opinion and therefore will be denied and discredited right away.


http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gifhttp://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gifhttp://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

It actually is expected since considering how many on NSG are far left and out of touch with reality but hell this is only my opinion and therefore will be denied and discredited right away.

You confuse me, since you at the same time discredit yourself and prove your own point.

:confused:

You confuse me, since you at the same time discredit yourself and prove your own point.

:confused:

What you have to bear in mind when dealing with King Bodacious is that he doesn't operate through logic. He recently tried to claim that Noah's Ark had been found in Turkey, then posted a link to a hoax website in support of this claim. From this, we can draw certain conclusions about how much sense we can expect him to make.

Actually, those who make a pattern of killing often deliberately give clues as to their identities, locations, future crimes, etc. This was true in the time of Jack the Ripper, and is possibly even more true now, in the US, where serial killers attain a form of celebrity.

I'd suggest that's an ego thing, and doesn't indicate a desire to be caught. And if they're that crazy, I say that's even more reason to dismiss the deterrent argument.

Also, the reason serial killer cases make the news is because they are unusual. Most murders get no national news coverage at all.

I really can't see any logic in that statement. A deterrent is supposed to discourage you from committing the crime in the first place. Re-offending is a separate issue.


The issue is capital punishment, and whether it should be used. If you can stop people committing crimes do so. If not prevent them from reoffending to the greatest extent deemed necessary based on their case.

Strongly For.Needs to be mandatory punishment in all murder cases.Traitors also need to be shot,perhaps we should set up a camp in the wilderness somewhere were they are all taken care of.:sniper:

It actually is expected since considering how many on NSG are far left and out of touch with reality but hell this is only my opinion and therefore will be denied and discredited right away.

I am FOR Capital Punishment, as I said earlier, my only problem is that they stay on Death Row way too long. They need to expedite the appeals to less than 30 days and change the methods of execution to death by hanging or fire squad, I also will add that they should televise it as pay per view and use the funds as to pay for the execution.

:D

I think in a developed country, the use of capital punishment is even more reinforcing. In a developing country, which is undoubtedly corrupt, it can be seen as a tool of injustice, rather than justice because the leaders could execute anyone in their way. In a developed country, where it is reserved for the most serious crimes, it is a great tool of justice, and definitely feeds into the social contract.

I think in a developed country, the use of capital punishment is even more reinforcing. In a developing country, which is undoubtedly corrupt, it can be seen as a tool of injustice, rather than justice because the leaders could execute anyone in their way. In a developed country, where it is reserved for the most serious crimes, it is a great tool of justice, and definitely feeds into the social contract.

Yet very very few developed countries use capital punishment. It's rather more prevalent in the developing coutries.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png/800px-Death_Penalty_World_Map.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png)

Yet very very few developed countries use capital punishment. It's rather more prevalent in the developing coutries.

Why did you feel the need to give a source, everyone knows its true, because developed countries are likely to have a much stronger liberal middle class. That doesn't say anything about whether its right or wrong.

Why did you feel the need to give a source, everyone knows its true, because developed countries are likely to have a much stronger liberal middle class. That doesn't say anything about whether its right or wrong.
Firstly, because NS is the home of the source-nazis.

Secondly, because I interpreted Layartebs post to imply that many developed countries had capital punishment because it "is a great tool of justice". I just wanted to show that this wasn't the case - if that was what he/she meant.

Boy, that's the first time I've seen someone complain about too much sourcing by the way. Well done :)

Firstly, because NS is the home of the source-nazis.

Secondly, because I interpreted Layartebs post to imply that many developed countries had capital punishment because it "is a great tool of justice". I just wanted to show that this wasn't the case - if that was what he/she meant.

Boy, that's the first time I've seen someone complain about too much sourcing by the way. Well done :)

I think he meant in his opinion that was the way things should be, rather than how things are. Sourcing is only really necessary if the informations factuality could come into question, not if everyone should know it. Thats just my view though.

I think he meant in his opinion that was the way things should be, rather than how things are. Sourcing is only really necessary if the informations factuality could come into question, not if everyone should know it. Thats just my view though.

Maybe I read him wrong then. Ah, no matter. It's not really a big deal to me anyway. :)

The issue is capital punishment, and whether it should be used.

And the deterrent issue was the aspect of it which my posts addressed.
Obviously there are other issues, but other people had already discussed them at great length.

Utterly and completely against.

Anything that removes one more person from the planet I'm for.

And the deterrent issue was the aspect of it which my posts addressed.
Obviously there are other issues, but other people had already discussed them at great length.

Very well, capital punishment as a deterrent. Go.

Repost in hope of an answer...

I have a question. Note I know nothing about law except when it comes to defamation and libel. Anyway, the UN Declaration of Human Rights says "everyone has the right to life", and the US is a member of the UN so would have to adhere to this, wouldn't they? I'm sure there must be some exception or loop-hole or whatever; what is it?

I'm highly against it. Treating a criminal with same cruelty he/she has done doesn't make either system better nor civilized. Partly, I think, that capital punishment is only used by system to sthrenghten its power by keeping people in fear and showing that it always catches the "real" criminal; what if the punished would later prowed innocent, it is quite little happiness to have your name cleared from a crime that you never commited when you are already being killed. I choose rehabilitation and jail sentences to be better option.

Repost in hope of an answer...

I have a question. Note I know nothing about law except when it comes to defamation and libel. Anyway, the UN Declaration of Human Rights says "everyone has the right to life", and the US is a member of the UN so would have to adhere to this, wouldn't they? I'm sure there must be some exception or loop-hole or whatever; what is it?

The UDHR is only a statement of principle - no country signed it and it is not legally binding.

Very well, capital punishment as a deterrent. Go.

What does that mean?

Anyway, to recap:
- It was suggested that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.
- I gave reasons why I don't think it is.
- Nobody disagreed with my reasoning.

What more do you want?

The UDHR is only a statement of principle - no country signed it and it is not legally binding.

Oh, alrighty. Cheers.

It actually is expected since considering how many on NSG are far left and out of touch with reality but hell this is only my opinion and therefore will be denied and discredited right away.
Oh please, we on the extreme right are also proudly anti-reality. :)

J/k.

I'd suggest that's an ego thing, and doesn't indicate a desire to be caught.


The science of criminal psychology certainly suggests that ego is a factor... but it seems likely that the 'ego' factor mainly contributes to the killing in the first place - for some - rather than to wishing to be found after.

Example: the justification that it is okay to kill 'lesser' humans. The film "Natural Born Killers" explores this, along with the idea that killers might try to kill purely for fame.

As to whether the evidence is tipped to give greater acclaim or to 'tempt fate' with regards to being caught... fame could be achieved by drawing attention to crimes, without ever revealing personal details about the killer. When a killer leaves deliberate clues, he (or she) is indicating a conscious, or unconscious, desire to be held accountable for what they do.

And if they're that crazy, I say that's even more reason to dismiss the deterrent argument.


I didn't use the deterrent argument.

Well - maybe in an 'ultimate' sense... that is: "If you execute someone, they are permenantly 'deterred' from reoffending".


Also, the reason serial killer cases make the news is because they are unusual. Most murders get no national news coverage at all.

I'm not sure this is true... or relevent. People don't necessarily have to be famous 'everywhere'... just well known where they are. So - national coverage is pretty much irrelevent for most cases.

Also - in the case of 'crimes of passion', reoffense may be rare - usually one (or more) killing in the 'heat of the moment'. But, not all killing is 'in the heat of the moment'. Those who kill with premeditation are far more likely to reoffend the same way.

What we call 'serial killers' are unusual... byt maybe not in the way you mean. What we call 'serial killers' are the people who commit these crimes... that we can establish a pattern for, or that establish a pattern for themselves.

In all probablity, these 'serial killers' are the tip of an iceberg - flamboyent examples of a much bigger element... of killers that choose to employ no patterns or modus operandi.

The science of criminal psychology certainly suggests that ego is a factor... but it seems likely that the 'ego' factor mainly contributes to the killing in the first place - for some - rather than to wishing to be found after.


That might well be true - I'm not a psychologist so I can't pretend to know different. However, my main point is that only a relatively small proportion of murders are committed by serial killers.
You doubt my claim that 'most murders get no national news coverage at all'.
Well, speaking as someone who works in courtrooms for a living, I'm telling you that it's true. I've lost count of the number of murder cases I've seen, yet only two of them made the national press.


I didn't use the deterrent argument.

No, but others have, and I was responding to them.

Also - in the case of 'crimes of passion', reoffense may be rare - usually one (or more) killing in the 'heat of the moment'. But, not all killing is 'in the heat of the moment'. Those who kill with premeditation are far more likely to reoffend the same way.


Premeditated murders do happen but they are the exception, not the rule. We hear all about them because they make for good TV drama. In real life, the police often arrive to find the killer still standing over the corpse, wondering what the hell just happened.
Which of us hasn't completely lost their temper on at least one or two occasions in their lifetime? Which of us can honestly say that if they'd had a sharp object handy at such a time, they're sure they wouldn't have used it? Well, that's how a lot of murders happen. It's also why I'm very reluctant to point the finger at someone and say they've killed someone so they don't deserve to live.

Anyway, to recap:
- It was suggested that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.
- I gave reasons why I don't think it is.
- Nobody disagreed with my reasoning.

Sorry, but I cannot seem to locate your reasons aside from the one about most murders being spur of the moment affairs. Is that the only one?
Fair enough, I would agree that most murders are spur of the moment and that the death penalty would not be a good deterrent, but in a situation like that what would? I have also never said that every criminal would recieve the death penalty have I? Hopefully it would be reserved primarily for pre-meditated murders and repeat offenders. However, it must be pointed out that a person who does it once through loss of temper may be put in a simiarly straining situation and snap again. Also, there are limits to how tolerant you can be of someone short tempered. I have some sympathy, but even so a very lengthly imprisonment is hardly better to me (and more expensive but that does not bother me so much in this case). A person loses their temper and another loses their life, death may be applicable if the provocation is small.

I will give you the point that death is not a good deterrent with spur of the moment crimes (the odd person might think about it enough to decide against it), but at the same what is?


What more do you want?
Capital punishment
And lots of Gold, preferably Nazi Gold.

against. clearly, the notion of the death penalty isn't stopping people from comitting murder.

Against in all cases.

Yes.

Sorry, but I cannot seem to locate your reasons aside from the one about most murders being spur of the moment affairs.


Yonder:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12144644&postcount=344
Okay, only a couple of reasons. The thing is I can see the arguments in favour of the death penalty so, although anti- it, I'm not strongly anti- it.
I only jumped into the discussion because I thought King Bodacious had made a really poor point. To tell the truth, the fact that I don't like the guy may have encouraged me.

Anyway, the reason why my argument didn't seem to address yours is that my argument wasn't with you. Therefore, at risk of being rude, I'm going to ignore most of your last post.

Naturally, some people are more inclined to snap under pressure than others, and are therefore likely re-offenders. But 20 years (or maybe 5-10 for manslaughter) inside would give them plenty of time to work on their anger management skills.

I'm against the death penalty because you can never be one hundred percent sure that someone is guilty, and I am not willing to have the death of an innocent human being on my conscience. Even if 99% of juries are right in death penalty cases, that still leaves a good few innocents put to death.

yes - saddam needed it

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

World seems blind enough already. Still, capital punishment is OK in very few cases, such as mass rapists or murderers, especially those who show remorse. I'm more for corporal punishment really.

World seems blind enough already. Still, capital punishment is OK in very few cases, such as mass rapists or murderers, especially those who show remorse. I'm more for corporal punishment really.
Surely you mean ones that don't show remorse.

Against. Many a time have the Police found evidence which supports a convict's case but hes already been executed. Quite frankly its most likely America's way of keeping its population down.

Surely you mean ones that don't show remorse.

"I'm not sorry for what I did. I'd do it again in a heartbeat! WHERE ARE THE WOMEN?!"
"No remorse? OK, you shall be sent to prison."

"I'm truly sorry, I regret my actions and will never do it again. I will spend my remaining days working to rectify my actions *sniffle*"
"Ah good, you regret your actions. To the Chair with you! Rest in peace."

Against. Many a time have the Police found evidence which supports a convict's case but hes already been executed. Quite frankly its most likely America's way of keeping its population down.

Yeah as we surpass 300 million in population. Sounds like population control to me... :rolleyes:

Yeah as we surpass 300 million in population. Sounds like population control to me... :rolleyes:

You're right about this... Executing 53 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/) people in 2006 doesn't exactly sound like population control.

I voted against, but then I thought of Saddam Hussein, then Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Melosovitch, Castro, and Kim Jong Il.

Now I'm not so sure. :headbang:

Morphine overdose?

Hell, they'd even feel good....

I said humane, not painless.

Answer: there isn't one. "Humane" execution is just high-minded bullshit to make people feel that they aren't really killing someone. Basically it's an excuse.

That is due to their numerous appeals, which I would in my system, give only one of (maybe two if I was feeling generous).


I would surely hate to be anywhere near the grips of your "system".


Fine, we take their powers of life and death, because they cannot be trusted. Wait... that doesn't solve the problem, I suppose they cannot be trusted to imprison anyone at all. And better still, everyone who they have all ready put away is released. Yay. (I was being sarcastic, so you know)


Yes, and it doesn't look good on you. On top of suggesting that we forgoe justice in the name of economics you are really beginning to tarnish yourself.


It has certain advantages and speeds up the process of government. Plus, in this case at least, they are defending a choice that I agree with.


Forget justice. We must have economy and expediency. That is the very essence of fascism. I would tread very carefully if I were you.



Unless they take it upon themselves to harm the other prisoners, which happens plenty. Or they are released, which also happens.


..and yet, you can still be released from that hell hole if it is found you are innocent. Please try bringing someone back from the dead. If you can, there are people in the medical (and religious) community who would LOVE to meet you.


Well, I'm not really a troll as such, given that what I have said is an accurate portrayel of my beliefs and that I am defending them just as you are you are (except without resorting to pointless insults), although these beliefs do cause some contravercy so do any which go against those of the masses (on this forum), which is odd since normally someone more 'liberal' would theoretically be more in favour of independence and free-though. I do not think I'm really a 'kook' either, rather I just do not subscribe to your beliefs. I suppose my mistake there is choosing to post on a forum on which most people have much more leftist views than me, which is bound to cause people like you to attack me rather than defend your own belief system.

Here's another choice quote from you, on whether it's better to be killed by the government than some nutter with a knife. I posed the question because that's effectively what you are saying by you being apparently OK with innocent people being killed on death row:

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

..yes, because we should be glad to die at the hands of the government. And if I argue I should go the same way, hm? Some freedom.

See now, some nutter with a knife is a danger, but I stand a lot less of a chance of running into one than I do of running into the various arms of government. I can also at least attempt to defend myself against a nutter, whereas the government has lots of guns, tanks and bombs.

The government is supposed to protect against nutters, not be the nutter.

Also, this forum has annoying "leftist" views because it doesn't agree with you? You are attacking the forum rather than defending your own belief system. Are you a "leftist" for doing this? And what makes me a "leftist", apart from disliking killing people?

I voted against, but then I thought of Saddam Hussein, then Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Melosovitch, Castro, and Kim Jong Il.

So, if you're willing to kill Hussein, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Melosovitch, Castro and Kim Jong Il, how are you any better than they are?

They each killed people they considered evil, their personal enemies and lawbreakers. If your sole means of killing them is because they are evil, an enemy or a lawbreaker, then you're a hypocrite.

I said humane, not painless.

Answer: there isn't one. "Humane" execution is just high-minded bullshit to make people feel that they aren't really killing someone. Basically it's an excuse.

In that case, let's bring back the guillotine!

So, if you're willing to kill Hussein, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Melosovitch, Castro and Kim Jong Il, how are you any better than they are?

They each killed people they considered evil, their personal enemies and lawbreakers. If your sole means of killing them is because they are evil, an enemy or a lawbreaker, then you're a hypocrite.

He's not a hypocrite if he actually is morally superior to them. The whole "all humans are equal in all phases and aspects" is a load of crap, IMO.

If someone were against capital punishment does that mean they want to warehouse that person for life? Where would you build these "warehouses". It seems that most people don't want a molester or a prison next door. Be prepaired to pay higher tax to warehouse these people also.

Capital punishment is fine in principal, but there's always the chance that innocent people will be killed.

Capital punishment is fine in principal, but there's always the chance that innocent people will be killed.
Is it though? Consider the right being abridged - the right to life. One may argue you lost this right once you aggressed another human, but have you really? It would depend on the mode of self-defence the victim employed. Conceivably, a victim could kill their aggressor in self-defence (to protect their right-to-life). If the legal agency is delegated the right to self-defence, does it then have the right to kill the aggressor? Hard to answer, but one could say it does.

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

While that may be your argument, lets take a look at hitler. He commited SUICIDE. Meaning he would rather die than be a prisoner. At least that is what I get from the inference. So my belief is that nobody should get the death penalty. Let them rot in prison for all their life. Maybe even those "torture chamber" type cells that there was only 1 foot deep, and the width of a typical swinging prison door. Imagine having to stand there for hours and hours...and if they had you do that for the rest of your life...wouldn't you rather want to be dead too?

Then again what I described isn't a typical prison cell. But still...and if prisoners have no rights, why do they get books? why do they get religion? why do they not get physical torture?

You wouldn't want me to be a warden, or dictator. Prisoners would get most horrible treatment...and no one will get the easy way out by capital punishment...

Who cares about human rights, when you're imprisoned, you have NO rights. you have only the mercy of your capturers...

Who cares about human rights, when you're imprisoned, you have NO rights. you have only the mercy of your capturers...
Yes, because they magically become animals, or objects to play with... :rolleyes:

Objects to play with, yes. Magically no. From my viewpoint anyways, prison = no rights. Only mercy from their capturers, and just hope they're not me or someone like me; hope they have more mercy and give you 'some' rights.

Lets see, life in jail, no parole or bail, or death? Yep, I'll pick death. But then again, in my world, there would be no death penalty. Let the mental torture begin!

Objects to play with, yes. Magically no. From my viewpoint anyways, prison = no rights. Only mercy from their capturers, and just hope they're not me or someone like me; hope they have more mercy and give you 'some' rights.
Just pray that someone like you doesn't become your captor one day then. ;)

You mean pray, not prey =P

As far as being captured goes. I don't have any foresight to me being captured, or any reason...wait...I can think of one or two things, but then again middle schoolers can be such twats. They wouldn't think of it. I told two of em "I could think of better uses for the Iron in yalls blood" and they didn't get it. Ignorant little shits =) They couldn't comprehend that. I say, the kids are getting dumber these days. Even though I'm just 17, I was way smarter than these middle schoolers and am smarter than many of my fellow high schoolers. One problem though, I tend to be lazy when it comes to schoolwork. If it were me, it'd just be tests, no homework, and notes would be printed and handed out to students; clearly explaining each and every step one by one, why it works, and sufficient examples to cover what was explained.

Anyways, sorry about the little off-topic rant there. I don't see real potential reason why I may be captured in the future. Even though some may say it can statistically happen, you know what I say? "90% of all statistics are wrong" >.> =P And ya, I'm not in much danger. I'd probably get hit by lightning first or something like that.

I am open for murderers only. Bottom line is, the person killed cannot continue thier life, so why should the murder get a second chance?

*This goes for intentional murder cases only*

How about lets not kill anybody?
Sure, taxes, land...whatever. Worried about land? Then just either expand the prisons up, or down, or both.
C'mon, don't you think it would be horrible to live in jail for the rest of your life without hope of getting out? Wouldn't you rather want to die if that were the case?

You mean pray, not prey =P

As far as being captured goes. I don't have any foresight to me being captured, or any reason...wait...I can think of one or two things, but then again middle schoolers can be such twats. They wouldn't think of it. I told two of em "I could think of better uses for the Iron in yalls blood" and they didn't get it. Ignorant little shits =) They couldn't comprehend that. I say, the kids are getting dumber these days. Even though I'm just 17, I was way smarter than these middle schoolers and am smarter than many of my fellow high schoolers. One problem though, I tend to be lazy when it comes to schoolwork. If it were me, it'd just be tests, no homework, and notes would be printed and handed out to students; clearly explaining each and every step one by one, why it works, and sufficient examples to cover what was explained.

Anyways, sorry about the little off-topic rant there. I don't see real potential reason why I may be captured in the future. Even though some may say it can statistically happen, you know what I say? "90% of all statistics are wrong" >.> =P And ya, I'm not in much danger. I'd probably get hit by lightning first or something like that.

You are probably better off not committing crime.

Crime? Who said anything about crime? It's not like I'm creating a secret society of organized crime...