NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's something about the whole death penalty argument that I don't see get emphasized much.

A main argument used against the death penalty goes like this:

1) The Justice System isn't perfect, thus
2) Innocent persons may get convicted and sentenced to die, thus
3) Supporting the death penalty means you support the killing of innocents (state sanctioned murder)

But the problem is this argument can be applied to any punishmentt, like imprisonment, i.e:

1) The Justice System isn't perfect, thus
2) Innocent persons may get convicted and sentenced to life in prison, thus
3) Supporting imprisonment means you support the removal of liberty of innocents (state sanctioned kidnapping)

So then a rebuttal against this is typically: well, you can set an innocent person free and thus undo their imprisonment, but you can't bring an innocent person back to life.

But I find the notion that one can just cheekily "undo" imprisonment, no harm no foul, naive and kinda insulting. A person's life and liberty BOTH are finite, and valuable, and it is never acceptable to me to remove EITHER ONE from an innocent person.

Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that it's OK to imprison people wrongly simply because they won't die. Plenty of people die in prison, from drugs, violence, suicide. For those people, if they are innocent, your prison sentence WAS a death sentence. For others, they might survive, but the trauma is permanent. It is not reversible. "Oops, you got ass-raped for 20 years. My bad!"

I guess my point is this: people who oppose the death penalty viz a viz these arguments, but support imprisonment, are simply saying this: life is more important than liberty. Security is more important than safety.

Do you agree? Do you value your life more than your freedom? Is it acceptable to you if you got imprisoned for 50 years on accident? My view is the real problem with convicting innocent persons is exactly that - convicting an innocent person. Trying to make every punishment be "okay" or "reversible" for innocent persons is the wrong tactic - we should be avoiding convicting innocent people!

There are many people who walk free today, having been in prison because of miscarriages of justice. I'm pretty certain most of them would say that they are pleased that we don't have the death penalty in this country.

Do you agree? Do you value your life more than your freedom? Is it acceptable to you if you got imprisoned for 50 years on accident? My view is the real problem with convicting innocent persons is exactly that - convicting an innocent person. Trying to make every punishment be "okay" or "reversible" for innocent persons is the wrong tactic - we should be avoiding convicting innocent people!

That is a subject over which many books could be written

On the rest though, I fully agree with you. Since you cant turn back time though, the best the state can do is grant some kind of restitution to the victims. That, and our prison system needs serious reform.

I don't support the death penalty because there is no point to it. I understand deterance. I think life without parole is a good enough deterant. I understand vengance, I don't think the state has a legitimate claim to vengance. Only the wronged party does. So what purpose does the death penalty serve?

Here's something about the whole death penalty argument that I don't see get emphasized much.

A main argument used against the death penalty goes like this:

1) The Justice System isn't perfect, thus
2) Innocent persons may get convicted and sentenced to die, thus
3) Supporting the death penalty means you support the killing of innocents (state sanctioned murder)

But the problem is this argument can be applied to any punishmentt, like imprisonment, i.e:

1) The Justice System isn't perfect, thus
2) Innocent persons may get convicted and sentenced to life in prison, thus
3) Supporting imprisonment means you support the removal of liberty of innocents (state sanctioned kidnapping)

So then a rebuttal against this is typically: well, you can set an innocent person free and thus undo their imprisonment, but you can't bring an innocent person back to life.

But I find the notion that one can just cheekily "undo" imprisonment, no harm no foul, naive and kinda insulting. A person's life and liberty BOTH are finite, and valuable, and it is never acceptable to me to remove EITHER ONE from an innocent person.

Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that it's OK to imprison people wrongly simply because they won't die. Plenty of people die in prison, from drugs, violence, suicide. For those people, if they are innocent, your prison sentence WAS a death sentence. For others, they might survive, but the trauma is permanent. It is not reversible. "Oops, you got ass-raped for 20 years. My bad!"

I guess my point is this: people who oppose the death penalty viz a viz these arguments, but support imprisonment, are simply saying this: life is more important than liberty. Security is more important than safety.

Do you agree? Do you value your life more than your freedom? Is it acceptable to you if you got imprisoned for 50 years on accident? My view is the real problem with convicting innocent persons is exactly that - convicting an innocent person. Trying to make every punishment be "okay" or "reversible" for innocent persons is the wrong tactic - we should be avoiding convicting innocent people!

I come from one of those crazy countries where we don't execute prisoners, people don't get raped in prison and a "life sentence" is 16 years.
If I were convicted despite being innocent I'd rather do 16 years in a humane prison than to be executed.

I come from one of those crazy countries where we don't execute prisoners, people don't get raped in prison and a "life sentence" is 16 years.

Which country?


If I were convicted despite being innocent I'd rather do 16 years in a humane prison than to be executed.

Yeah - and if you were convicted for raping and murdering a child you too would rather do 16 years in a comfy prison than be executed. To me that shows that the death penalty would indeed deter you, at least,.

I'm probably in theory against it but I honestly don't care too much if some vicious serial killer croaks. It would probably be better though to keep them alive, and analyze them psychologically to try and understand what drives us to that.

Yeah - and if you were convicted for raping and murdering a child you too would rather do 16 years in a comfy prison than be executed. To me that shows that the death penalty would indeed deter you, at least,.

Do you honestly believe that someone who is crazy in the head enough to want to do such things in the first place is going to be thinking logically about the consequences? You're giving sick, twisted people far too much credit.

Harsh penalties don't stop crime; effective law enforcement does. You can have the harshest penalty in the world, but if you're not catching them, it does you no good.

Do you honestly believe that someone who is crazy in the head enough to want to do such things in the first place is going to be thinking logically about the consequences? You're giving sick, twisted people far too much credit.

I don't agree that people who commit capital crimes are all "crazy" (legally they are not a vast majority of the time) and thus I don't think they are incapable of thinking rationally about consequences. Especially when self-preservation comes into it.

Harsh penalties don't stop crime;

They do for me. There are some crimes that I would commit, if the penalties were lower or non-extant, which otherwise I won't. I can't be alone in this - there are very likely violent criminals, or potential violent criminals, who think exactly the same way.

effective law enforcement does.

Hmm, yes it does, but I think deterrance does as well. But whether or not the death penalty deters is actually irrelevant to the point of the thread. (Not that one can seriously start a thread on the death penalty and NOT have that come up. But it's not a focus in my argument.)

Which country?



Yeah - and if you were convicted for raping and murdering a child you too would rather do 16 years in a comfy prison than be executed. To me that shows that the death penalty would indeed deter you, at least,.

Iceland.

And as for deterrant, prison is meant to rehabilitate, not punish. And it works for the most part. Just look at the crime rate in any nordic country and compare it to the crime rate in the USA, we're hundreds of %'s behind you guys on that one. (I'm assuming you're from the USA and not Saudi Arabia).

I come from one of those crazy countries where we don't execute prisoners, people don't get raped in prison and a "life sentence" is 16 years.
If I were convicted despite being innocent I'd rather do 16 years in a humane prison than to be executed.

Firstly, the notion that "life" means 16 years is close to oxymoronic, and defies the point of punishment. Secondly, the majority of criminals consistently re-offend throughout their lives; in the case of rapists and murderers, wherein the risk entailed in any recedivism is potentiallly life threatening, why should one not conduct executions?

Iceland.

And as for deterrant, prison is meant to rehabilitate, not punish. And it works for the most part. Just look at the crime rate in any nordic country and compare it to the crime rate in the USA, we're hundreds of %'s behind you guys on that one. (I'm assuming you're from the USA and not Saudi Arabia).

That's true, but just because there is a correlation doesn't mean there is a causation. Nordic countries also have much lower population densities than the US, and they also have lower average temperatures... how do these correlations fit in? Perhaps lower temperatures "chill" people out and make them less likely to commit violent crimes. Perhaps it's genetic, as one poster (Ny Nordland) would have us believe - that the Scandinavian, "white" blood are just less violent than a country with so many "nonwhites." Perhaps it has to do with cultural nationalism versus multiculturalism. I think it is too simplistic to simply point out the difference in crime rate and say it must be because of your lax prisons.

Firstly, the notion that "life" means 16 years is close to oxymoronic, and defies the point of punishment. Secondly, the majority of criminals consistently re-offend throughout their lives; in the case of rapists and murderers, wherein the risk entailed in any recedivism is potentiallly life threatening, why should one not conduct executions?

that just proves that prison doesn't work, not that the death penalty is necessary.

that just proves that prison doesn't work, not that the death penalty is necessary.

Hence, suggest other punishments?

Personally, I find forced labour quite appealing as an idea. Punishment that serves the public interest, and does so whilst saving money otherwise expended upon private contractors.

That's true, but just because there is a correlation doesn't mean there is a causation. Nordic countries also have much lower population densities than the US, and they also have lower average temperatures... how do these correlations fit in? Perhaps lower temperatures "chill" people out and make them less likely to commit violent crimes. Perhaps it's genetic, as one poster (Ny Nordland) would have us believe - that the Scandinavian, "white" blood are just less violent than a country with so many "nonwhites." Perhaps it has to do with cultural nationalism versus multiculturalism. I think it is too simplistic to simply point out the difference in crime rate and say it must be because of your lax prisons.

I don't think it has anything to do with outdated theories on races. But you're right: There are many other factors which come into play, such as gun ownership, poverty etc. And perhaps even culture to some extent.
But despite all these things, I highly doubt that introducing death-penalty or 50 years of butt-rape would improve things or lower the crime rate over here.

I have no statistics or proof on this, but I would think that when a criminal is faced with things such as execution or 50 years in jail, he or she would become more brutal and do almost anything to get away, like killing witnesses or shooting at police.

Personally, I find forced labour quite appealing as an idea. Punishment that serves the public interest, and does so whilst saving money otherwise expended upon private contractors.

I agree whole-heartedly. Though whip-driven chain-gangs aren't something I'd support if you are heading that direction.

I know I voted for supported neither, for other reasons, but I do support imprisonment, but not the death penalty, for other reasons. I feel that the death penalty is the easy way out and I'd gladly take that rather than life in prison without parole.

I mean, hell...Why waste your time in jail when you can be dead and not have to deal with it?

To clarify & before I vote in the poll:

When you say "Life sentence" or just "Imprisonment" like in the poll,are you talking about "Life without the possibility of parole", i.e. a de facto life sentence?


I come from one of those crazy countries where we don't execute prisoners, people don't get raped in prison and a "life sentence" is 16 years.
If I were convicted despite being innocent I'd rather do 16 years in a humane prison than to be executed.Indeed.

Firstly, the notion that "life" means 16 years is close to oxymoronic, and defies the point of punishment. Secondly, the majority of criminals consistently re-offend throughout their lives; in the case of rapists and murderers, wherein the risk entailed in any recedivism is potentiallly life threatening, why should one not conduct executions?

The thing is, it is not considered punishment, it is rehabilitation/"correction".
Yes, many people offend again but we must be doing something right, because our crime rate is among the lowest in the world.

Executions are cruel, inhumane and have not proved to be any deterrant to criminals. That's why one should not conduct executions.

I don't think it has anything to do with outdated theories on races. But you're right: There are many other factors which come into play, such as gun ownership, poverty etc. And perhaps even culture to some extent.


I don't think its culture "to an extent". Next to population, the fact that the US political and judicial system has to incorporate and make concessions for the thousands of cultures and hundreds of nationalities, likely has the greatest impact on our crime rates. Of course, it impacts everything else that happens here too.

And before someone thinks I'm pulling a Nordland here, allow me to say I wouldn't have it any other way.

I don't have time for an argument, but want to give one point... (A search will soon bring up arguments by me on this topic, I'm sure. With Ollieland, most recently.)

So what purpose does the death penalty serve?

It prevents the convicted from re-offending, guaranteed.

Hence, suggest other punishments?Instead of trying to stop crime by punishing people after they've committed crimes, how about removing the social conditions that cause crime in the first place?

I don't think its culture "to an extent". Next to population, the fact that the US political and judicial system has to incorporate and make concessions for the thousands of cultures and hundreds of nationalities, likely has the greatest impact on our crime rates. Of course, it impacts everything else that happens here too.

And before someone thinks I'm pulling a Nordland here, allow me to say I wouldn't have it any other way.

Are you saying that immigrants cause crime and that they are the reason why the USA has more crime than almost anyone else? You don't think the judicial system, poverty or the fact that guns are readily available to just about anyone has anything to do with it?

I don't know this Nordland person, so I don't get the reference. I take it he or she is some sort of a nationalist?

Um... Calling Greater Trostia! Anyone home?
To clarify & before I vote in the poll:

When you say "Life sentence" or just "Imprisonment" like in the poll,are you talking about "Life without the possibility of parole", i.e. a de facto life sentence?
Could I have an answer, please? :(

Um... Calling Greater Trostia! Anyone home?

Could I have an answer, please? :(

I would say both.

I don't know this Nordland person, so I don't get the reference. I take it he or she is some sort of a nationalist?

Firstly good for you

secondly thats probably the biggest understatement you will probably make

Ah, so Nordland is an American Republican then? :)

I joke. I'm guessing some sort of ultra-nazi.

iirc Norwegian but i might be wrong

Edit: timewarp

Instead of trying to stop crime by punishing people after they've committed crimes, how about removing the social conditions that cause crime in the first place?Noooo, silly, that would be so... cumbersome and rational. Sheesh.

Firstly good for you

secondly thats probably the biggest understatement you will probably make

Ah, so Nordland is an American Republican then? :)

I joke. I'm guessing this person is some sort of ultra-nazi.

I would say both.
Buh? I only gave you one option! ;p

Okay, let me put it clearer:

You seem to be talking about "life sentences" in your posts and (merely) about "Imprisonment" in your poll.

Are both those terms intended to mean "life without the possibility of parole"?

Because esp. in regard to the poll that would be some mighty sloppy phrasing, seeing how I, for example, am definitely against a life sentence without the possibility of parole but I am not wholesale against all forms of imprisonment.

So, what are you talking about, esp. in the poll?

And if it's not in fact life without parole you're talking about, then do you really think putting the death penalty and mere imprisonment into a poll together like you did is not pure hyperbole and practically unanswerable for anyone who is not, in fact, completely opposed to imprisonment of any kind?

Because I seriously doubt you will find enough people who are completely opposed to imprisonment of any kind to justify that poll.

Instead of trying to stop crime by punishing people after they've committed crimes, how about removing the social conditions that cause crime in the first place?

The social condition that causes crime is "being human"; humans are a bunch of cunts who'll do anything if they think they can get away with it.

*Has just gone outside and noticed that all of the new wheelie bins for recycling stuff have mysteriously vanished since he last looked*

If someone really is going to be imprisoned for life, notjust 16 years with parole after 8 for good behaviour, then why not use the death penalty. You could allow x number of years for appeals and new evidence before the sentance is carried out. By having them in jail for life there is a HUGE drain on the state in terms of the cost to keep them in prison.

Also I have a religious background and believe that there are certain crimes which require the death penalty, murder included. Also as I am religious I believe in an afterlife so if a person is sentanced in error and it is carried through it is not the end.

iirc Norwegian but i might be wrong

Edit: timewarp

Norwegian nazis are silly.

http://ruthlessreviews.com/pics4/bm/bm3.jpg

Buh? I only gave you one option! :p

Okay, let me put it clearer:

You seem to be talking about "life sentences" in your posts and (merely) about "Imprisonment" in your poll.

Are both those terms intended to mean "life without the possibility of parole"?

No, I am talking about imprisonment, which includes life sentences, which includes those with and without the possibility of parole. I used the example of life sentence only to show that imprisonment is not un-doable, just as I used the death-in-prison example to show that even if you don't value liberty as much as life, imprisonment can and does lead to the deaths of innocents. A very permanent thing.


And if it's not in fact life without parole you're talking about, then do you really think putting the death penalty and mere imprisonment into a poll together like you did is not pure hyperbole and practically unanswerable for anyone who is not, in fact, completely opposed to imprisonment of any kind?

Because I seriously doubt you will find enough people who are completely opposed to imprisonment of any kind to justify that poll.

Well, think of it like this. Anti-death penalty advocates routinely assume that if we support the death penalty for the guilty (of serious enough crimes), we also support killing innocent people.

All I am doing is something similar to them - if you support imprisonment for the guilty, you also support kidnapping innocent people.

If someone really is going to be imprisoned for life, notjust 16 years with parole after 8 for good behaviour, then why not use the death penalty. You could allow x number of years for appeals and new evidence before the sentance is carried out. By having them in jail for life there is a HUGE drain on the state in terms of the cost to keep them in prison.

Also I have a religious background and believe that there are certain crimes which require the death penalty, murder included. Also as I am religious I believe in an afterlife so if a person is sentanced in error and it is carried through it is not the end.

I read somewhere that in the USA, executing prisoners is more expensive than keeping them in prison for life.

Your religious background is the reason why you believe it's ok to execute people? :confused: Please explain.

Your religious background is the reason why you believe it's ok to execute people? :confused: Please explain.

The bible teaches that the penalty for muder is death, other things as well, I believe incest was included here. People would argue that Christ did away with all of this when he came however he taught an even stricter law. i.e. Though shalt not kill became not evn being having anger towards another.

The bible teaches that the penalty for muder is death, other things as well, I believe incest was included here. People would argue that Christ did away with all of this when he came however he taught an even stricter law. i.e. Though shalt not kill became not evn being having anger towards another.

Ah, I see. I always thought there was to be no killing whatsoever. But then again, I'm not from a religious background and don't know many who are.
But it would explain why wars, death penalty and such are backed by fundamentalists in the USA.

The social condition that causes crime is "being human"; humans are a bunch of cunts who'll do anything if they think they can get away with it.Perhaps, but if this is true then why don't we see equal rates of crime across all human societies?

Perhaps, but if this is true then why don't we see equal rates of crime across all human societies?

Maybe in some societies they think they're less likely to get away with it.

Are you saying that immigrants cause crime and that they are the reason why the USA has more crime than almost anyone else?


No, not immigrants! Well yes actually, but not in the modern sense. From the very start of it's history, the US has never really had a singular tangible culture. The lack of such a unified culture has made it hard to rally the people to any cause, or make laws that universally apply. Though, It has also made us- I like to think- highly adaptable and difficult to oppress.

It's hard to explain to someone that does not live here, exactly how diverse the United states is. When I lived in St. Louis, walking across the street was like walking across a border.

And the US doesn't "have more crime than almost anyone else", our crime-rates are dropping and have been for awhile. The only reason we have the reputation is that we are always compared to countries with much smaller populations than ours. Compare us to anyone else near our population and we come across as saints.

Per capita, the UK actually has a slightly higher crime-rate than us in some areas.

You don't think the judicial system, poverty or the fact that guns are readily available to just about anyone has anything to do with it?

Explain a bit more. Think our sentencing is bad? I agree, already have earlier up.

Oh sure, but try what you do in your country on a population of 300 million. Our politicians refuse to admit the failure of some measures. We are working on it.

You may have noticed everyone seems to ignore this part. They're not being rude, or afraid they'll lose- this is just something over which many a thread has been ruined and many a war has been fought. If you want to pursue it, open a new thread about it. But don't say I didn't warn you.

I don't know this Nordland person, so I don't get the reference. I take it he or she is some sort of a nationalist?

Ny Nordland. He's famous for his beliefs about muslim immigration destroying the cultural purity of the country they settled in. I don't want to be compared to him.

Every time I've see this discussed nobody ever touches on the real issue of the penalty: the primary purpose of the death penalty is not deterrence, it's justice. Do rapists and murderers deserve to live after what they've done? Europeans will say yes (I've lived there half my life and never met a genuine dissenter among them), but it is beyond me how they value criminals' rights so much. Example: British police suffered backlash after debating whether to release photos of escaped convicted murderers recently, because it was stated that it would violate the rights of those felons. Criminals do not have rights; they forfeit them by committing the acts that criminalize them. Granted there are many criminals who commit acts which ought not to be crimes, drug users and moonshiners among others, but the majority of criminals commit acts which are simply wrong. The people to whom the death penalty is applied do not deserve life after the crimes they committed; they have to die. Granted, the death penalty does have some deterrent effect but it is not the central purpose of the punishment. The central purpose is justice, and many people seem to have forgotten that.

Every time I've see this discussed nobody ever touches on the real issue of the penalty: the primary purpose of the death penalty is not deterrence, it's justice. [snip]
The people to whom the death penalty is applied do not deserve life after the crimes they committed; they have to die.

Firstly, it is almost trivially true that any action by a justice system is intended to promote justice. So whether you're talking capital punishment, life imprisonment or a slap on the wrist, the implicit goal is always justice (however much we may fail in achieving it).
The main problem with the "they no longer deserve to live" argument is that it is nearly always presented as an arbitrary statement without justification of its underlying assumption: That life is a priviledge (granted by whom?), rather than something that just is.

It might be more defensible to say it is a priviledge to live in a particular society, in which case exile might be the answer. But that's another matter.

.
But it would explain why wars, death penalty and such are backed by fundamentalists in the USA.

Now I've seen everything. There are certainly fundamentalists here but they oppose everything we try to get done and they certainly don't have any official power. Thank God. The United States does not brook fundamentalism; it is detrimental to progress and improvement. Fundamentalism is the belief that any human existence in general becomes worse as it progresses, thus the only way to be good is to go back to the state everything was in right at the beginning. The problem is that the conditions which facilitated that kind of world have long since disappeared. Fundamentalists as we over here think of them want the entire world to behave like 13th-century Arabia... technology-free, monarchically ruled and enslaved by a blind religion that brooks no internal criticism... fundamentalism is incompatible with everything America ever signified. Do not EVER call us fundamentalists... the existence of our entire country relies on progressing beyond the economic fundamentalism of Europe, the religious fundamentalism of Arabia and the political fundamentalism that used to dominate Asia... we are the conglomeration of centuries of progress by people who rejected fundamentalism, and knew there was something more.

Every time I've see this discussed nobody ever touches on the real issue of the penalty: the primary purpose of the death penalty is not deterrence, it's justice. Do rapists and murderers deserve to live after what they've done? Europeans will say yes (I've lived there half my life and never met a genuine dissenter among them), but it is beyond me how they value criminals' rights so much. Example: British police suffered backlash after debating whether to release photos of escaped convicted murderers recently, because it was stated that it would violate the rights of those felons. Criminals do not have rights; they forfeit them by committing the acts that criminalize them. Granted there are many criminals who commit acts which ought not to be crimes, drug users and moonshiners among others, but the majority of criminals commit acts which are simply wrong. The people to whom the death penalty is applied do not deserve life after the crimes they committed; they have to die. Granted, the death penalty does have some deterrent effect but it is not the central purpose of the punishment. The central purpose is justice, and many people seem to have forgotten that.

I agree that the death penalty is an issue of justice, it also helps as a deterant too. I also agree that there are certain crimes that the death penalty is an appropriate sentance though this list would not be very long. My initial list would be Murder, Rape and Incest, though castration (whether chemical or physical) could be considered for the second two.

Firstly, it is almost trivially true that any action by a justice system is intended to promote justice. So whether you're talking capital punishment, life imprisonment or a slap on the wrist, the implicit goal is always justice (however much we may fail in achieving it).
The main problem with the "they no longer deserve to live" argument is that it is nearly always presented as an arbitrary statement without justification of its underlying assumption: That life is a priviledge (granted by whom?), rather than something that just is.

It might be more defensible to say it is a priviledge to live in a particular society, in which case exile might be the answer. But that's another matter.

Life is not a privilege, and I would never dream of considering it one. It is a right which such people waive by depriving others of it.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

So if I have a right to live, so does everyone else, until they surrender it by depriving someone else of that right.

Every time I've see this discussed nobody ever touches on the real issue of the penalty: the primary purpose of the death penalty is not deterrence, it's justice. Do rapists and murderers deserve to live after what they've done? Europeans will say yes (I've lived there half my life and never met a genuine dissenter among them), but it is beyond me how they value criminals' rights so much. Example: British police suffered backlash after debating whether to release photos of escaped convicted murderers recently, because it was stated that it would violate the rights of those felons. Criminals do not have rights; they forfeit them by committing the acts that criminalize them. Granted there are many criminals who commit acts which ought not to be crimes, drug users and moonshiners among others, but the majority of criminals commit acts which are simply wrong. The people to whom the death penalty is applied do not deserve life after the crimes they committed; they have to die. Granted, the death penalty does have some deterrent effect but it is not the central purpose of the punishment. The central purpose is justice, and many people seem to have forgotten that.

Personally, I've always been uneasy with the notion that the state "punishes" or administers "justice", I don't think that's really within the state's remit. For me, the criminal justice system exists to keep society safe, and that's as far as it goes. Rehabilitation for some and the others are just kept from causing any more harm, so far as that's possible.
I don't care about the rights of the incurably criminal, I do care about the rights of people who've just made mistakes or been forced into desperate acts by circumstances beyond their control. The blanket term "criminal" is possibly misleading - not everybody who commits crime is a "criminal" in the rather strong sense you're implying.
As for the death penalty... killing people is really bad, m'okay? Plus the only difference between locking someone up for life and killing them is the expense to the state of locking them up, and for some reason I'm slightly uneasy about killing people simply in order to economise.

It's not just to economize. When someone takes a life, they have given up their right to theirs. Now in most places simply killing someone for killing someone else, without the sanction of the state, would be considered murder. I might disagree but that intervention on the part of the state is what prevents it from happening wantonly. Besides, imprisonment is in many cases, particularly with the overcrowding of the prison system, far more torturous than death.

I don't support it, but not just because of the reason used in the OP and poll (the criminal might not be guilty), I just don't think the state should have the right to kill its own citizens.

I made a thread and poll along the same lines a few months ago: Capital Punishment: For or Against (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512411)

Maybe in some societies they think they're less likely to get away with it.Perhaps; there is a correlation between stringent law enforcement and lowered crime rates, however, not all countries with low crime rates have stringent law enforcement.

Do rapists and murderers deserve to live after what they've done? Until 100% of people convicted of capital crimes are guilty of them, such questions are irrelevant.

Until 100% of people convicted of capital crimes are guilty of them, such questions are irrelevant.

Very rarely, if ever, are people convicted of capital crimes under our system innocent; our appeals system means that most people who are guilty get out of it anyway.

I don't support it, but not just because of the reason used in the OP and poll (the criminal might not be guilty), I just don't think the state should have the right to kill its own citizens.


But they have to die. It's not right for them to go on living at all when their victims cannot. If the state can't kill them, who will?

Seriously, we invent a time machine. If it you truly value you human life, but at the same time we need to take care of criminals. Time travel isnt impossible, and it'll save many lives. As long as we stay out of the 80s.....

Very rarely, if ever, are people convicted of capital crimes under our system innocent; our appeals system means that most people who are guilty get out of it anyway.But not all of them.

Life is not a privilege, and I would never dream of considering it one. It is a right which such people waive by depriving others of it.

It's either a right, or it isn't. If a right can be rescinded by another party, it's a priviledge, not a right. It's like saying someone is entitled to a fair trial unless they themselves have conducted an unfair trial. Rights speak to principles, which are desirable in their own right.

It's either a right, or it isn't. If a right can be rescinded by another party, it's a priviledge, not a right. It's like saying someone is entitled to a fair trial unless they themselves have conducted an unfair trial. Rights speak to principles, which are desirable in their own right.

You're missing the point; the state isn't rescinding the felon's right to life by executing him, it's disposing of him because he has surrendered his own right to life by committing the murder/rape/etc. He has given up all of his own liberties by violating one of someone else's most important, self-evident rights. People have a right to a fair trial unless they decide they do not want one, because they deserve a chance to prove their innocence. That is not a right which someone can obstruct for someone else; i.e. you cannot prevent someone from having a trial, so you cannot lose that right unless you voluntarily give it up. The issue of executing murderers is that they have destroyed someone else's right to life and compromised their own by doing so.

You're missing the point; the state isn't rescinding the felon's right to life by executing him, it's disposing of him because he has surrendered his own right to life by committing the murder/rape/etc.

But don't you see, that statement is unjustified. Who says they have "surrendered" anything? It's an arbitrary claim.

He has given up all of his own liberties by violating one of someone else's most important, self-evident rights.

Who says he's given up anything? The fact a criminal has deprived someone else of their rights means only that he has deprived someone of their rights, ie. a natural good. The fact this is unacceptable and demands justice is not in doubt. What is in doubt is why this means s/he no longer has the right to life.

People have a right to a fair trial unless they decide they do not want one, because they deserve a chance to prove their innocence.

That's right, because a fair trial is a good thing (TM), in and of itself. It does not make sense to deprive anyone of that right, for any reason.

That is not a right which someone can obstruct for someone else; i.e. you cannot prevent someone from having a trial, so you cannot lose that right unless you voluntarily give it up.

Well, if you were a corrupt judge you could certainly obstruct the fairness of a trial quite easily. But I would hope that all concerned would still wish for the judge to have a fair trial.

I don't believe I'm missing the point at all. I'm pretty sure I know where you're coming from. The question is, do you understand the objection?

But don't you see, that statement is unjustified. Who says they have "surrendered" anything? It's an arbitrary claim.

Who says he's given up anything? The fact a criminal has deprived someone else of their rights means only that he has deprived someone of their rights, ie. a natural good. The fact this is unacceptable and demands justice is not in doubt. What is in doubt is why this means s/he no longer has the right to life.


They killed someone. When you violate someone else's rights, your portion of those rights are voided because you have denied them to someone else. Thus a thief no longer has the right to property because he has violated someone else's property rights. By the same token, a murderer does not have the right to live because he has killed someone. This is not to say that all incidents in which someone is killed are bad. I support CCW because it removes from the population people who violate the rights of others, and I support the death penalty because it eliminates from the population people who violate the rights of others. The only uses of physical force that are not immoral are self-defense or defense of someone else, and retaliation.

They killed someone. When you violate someone else's rights, your portion of those rights are voided because you have denied them to someone else. Thus a thief no longer has the right to property because he has violated someone else's property rights.

A thief no longer has the right to property?

It sounds as though your ideal of justice is derivative of an "eye for an eye" type ethic; with the focus on the specific right that has been violated, rather than the particular damages suffered.

Is that a fair assessment?

I don't think it has anything to do with outdated theories on races. But you're right: There are many other factors which come into play, such as gun ownership, poverty etc. And perhaps even culture to some extent.
But despite all these things, I highly doubt that introducing death-penalty or 50 years of butt-rape would improve things or lower the crime rate over here.


Maybe it wouldn't. But again, maybe what is right for your country is not the same as what is right for ours.


I have no statistics or proof on this, but I would think that when a criminal is faced with things such as execution or 50 years in jail, he or she would become more brutal and do almost anything to get away, like killing witnesses or shooting at police.

Could be; the desperation factor. Thing is, someone who is going to commit a crime warranting execution is *already* brutal and desperate.

I have problems with death in general, so I consider the death penalty to be a completely and utterly inhumane relic that does not achieve any kind of justice.

People shouldn't be killed when we can achieve justice in other ways that are far more fitting for the crime; by definition, death is an irreversible state (if you can come back, you're not truly dead) so not only does it amount to an effectively eternal punishment for that crime, but there's always the risk that you will make a mistake and inadvertently kill an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit.

I mean, it is a given that the person given a life sentence may be successfully rehabilitated, or have their sentence reversed, or if all else fails they will live out their entire lives in prison with no hope of release and no future, and that is more than enough punishment for any human being.

What about the very tiny minority of people who would commit crimes regardless of social conditions?

Well, that's why you wouldn't totally dismantle the system; even if crime were cut by 99.9%, you'd still need a justice system to take care of that remaining 0.01%.

Instead of trying to stop crime by punishing people after they've committed crimes, how about removing the social conditions that cause crime in the first place?

What about the very tiny minority of people who would commit crimes regardless of social conditions?

Exactly. But some people (not necessarily anyone here, but some people) believe that if there were no poverty, crime would magically disappear from the face of the planet forever.

A cursory look at Enron or Worldcom shows that crime has nothing to do with poverty; it's a problem that exists at all levels of society.

Not that eliminating poverty would be a bad thing, far from it. I'd rather have our crimes be fraud, embezzlement and insider trading than murder, assault and rape any day.

Well, that's why you wouldn't totally dismantle the system; even if crime were cut by 99.9%, you'd still need a justice system to take care of that remaining 0.01%.

Exactly. But some people (not necessarily anyone here, but some people) believe that if there were no poverty, crime would magically disappear from the face of the planet forever.

A cursory look at Enron or Worldcom shows that crime has nothing to do with poverty; it's a problem that exists at all levels of society.

A cursory look is not sufficient. The majority of crimes are not Enron or Worldcom, whitecollar embezzlement. Inner city gangs are an excellent example of poverty's correlation to crime. I wouldn't say one is literally caused by the other, but to say that they have NOTHING to do with one another is ignoring the facts.

A cursory look is not sufficient. The majority of crimes are not Enron or Worldcom, whitecollar embezzlement. Inner city gangs are an excellent example of poverty's correlation to crime. I wouldn't say one is literally caused by the other, but to say that they have NOTHING to do with one another is ignoring the facts.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I said we should eliminate poverty, to take care of crimes related to it.

But they have to die. It's not right for them to go on living at all when their victims cannot. If the state can't kill them, who will?

Uh, cancer or something when they turn 70? Was your post sarcastic? Who are you to say they can't go on living because of their crimes? You don't have that right. Obviously they didn't have the right to murder in the first place, but committing the crime doesn't suddenly alienate them of human rights IMO.

Uh, cancer or something when they turn 70? Was your post sarcastic? Who are you to say they can't go on living because of their crimes? You don't have that right. Obviously they didn't have the right to murder in the first place, but committing the crime doesn't suddenly alienate them of human rights IMO.

The purpose of laws is not justice or punishment. It's to protect the rights of those who obey it. Punishment is a way to prevent the crimes that take away rights. Anti-drug laws are supposed to protect people from too-often violent dealers and the drugs themselves.

Murderers proved that they are dangerous. Murderers should be executed. Why? Because:
a. They proved they are dangerous. they proved that they are willing to kill.
b. Dead man commits no crimes.
c. No jail or prison is escape proof.

The death penalty is supposed to protect your rights to life and security, unless you violate someone else's right to life. How? There's only one real way and that is to kill. Self-defence isn't murder. It's merely protecting your life.

So then a rebuttal against this is typically: well, you can set an innocent person free and thus go some way to rectify their situation, but you can't bring an innocent person back to life.
I've bolded the part where I've changed it to make up the actual argument I make.

It's an interesting topic, and it is my primary reason to be against the death penalty. My reasoning is indeed that the killing of an innocent is unacceptable, while the wrongful imprisonment is an acceptable price to pay for a functioning justice system, albeit of course something we should strive to avoid.

Why is this? It's because it's truly irreversible and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully executed. If an innocent is wrongfully imprisoned, however, he may be released and compensated financially. Now, this does not in any way "undo" the imprisonment, but it does go some way to repair the situation. And the person who has been imprisoned is let out alive.

But I find the notion that one can just cheekily "undo" imprisonment, no harm no foul, naive and kinda insulting. A person's life and liberty BOTH are finite, and valuable, and it is never acceptable to me to remove EITHER ONE from an innocent person.
But if you have to make a choice between the two, you choose to keep the possibility to remove both/either one instead of only one of them, so I can't help but feel that your reasoning here is a bit flawed.

Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that it's OK to imprison people wrongly simply because they won't die. Plenty of people die in prison, from drugs, violence, suicide. For those people, if they are innocent, your prison sentence WAS a death sentence. For others, they might survive, but the trauma is permanent. It is not reversible. "Oops, you got ass-raped for 20 years. My bad!"
First of all, the point is that the people who die from drugs, violence etc. are unfortunate cases, and cases which we (should) try to avoid. Death is an unforseen consequence, and not an intended one either. The difference being, of course, that when you get the death sentence the death is intended and unavoidable.

Secondly, and I repeat myself here, wrongful imprisonment is not reversible but it is to some degree repairable. And as it's (usually) not as harmful to your health and well-being to be imprisoned, so we go for the option that has the least possible negative impact if it's handed out incorrectly.

Thirdly, "ass-rapes" are arbitrary, and aren't (nor should it be) a government sanctioned form of punishment. Besides, if a prison got adequate funding the chances of sexual assault would be lessened. (Look to Europe, where there is aless of a problem than in the US) Indeed, given enough eresources the danger of a prisoner breaking out could be almost negligible. In that case, the death penalty would not be necessary to protect society... But that's only if that same society was willing to spend the required resources to secure it's safety. That doesn't seem to be happening in any country today...

I guess my point is this: people who oppose the death penalty viz a viz these arguments, but support imprisonment, are simply saying this: life is more important than liberty. Security is more important than safety.
I don't quite follow you here. Your liberty is taken away with either choice of punishment, but can only be restored to you if you've been imprisoned.

Are you arguing against punishment as a whole here?

Do you agree? Do you value your life more than your freedom? Is it acceptable to you if you got imprisoned for 50 years on accident? My view is the real problem with convicting innocent persons is exactly that - convicting an innocent person. Trying to make every punishment be "okay" or "reversible" for innocent persons is the wrong tactic - we should be avoiding convicting innocent people!
I agree, the primary concern is and should be to avoid convicting innocent people. But the simple fact remains that the criminal justice system is inherently flawed because it relies on a human element, and humans make mistakes. It will happen, and the human element cannot (and should not) be taken out of the system.

Now, given this, what we can do is two things: Continue working to minimize the numbers of mistakes made - though without making the entire system inefficient, of course - but realizing that mistakes can and will happen, we should also minimize the consequences of any mistakes.

Of course, if it was undisputable that the death penalty works as a deterrent and is more effective than prison, one could make an argument based on the deterring effect of the capital punishment Vs. acceptable numbers of mistakes. But as of today it's still unproven and debatable, so I can't see the argument going anywhere. I frankly see no need for the special type of punishment that the death penalty is (with all of it's inherrent extra risks), when imprisonment is adequate.

So that's a bit about my views :)

It's not just to economize. When someone takes a life, they have given up their right to theirs.

So when an executioner takes a life, what then?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

So when an executioner takes a life, what then?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Actually, it would leave two people without binocular vision. Now, six billion eyes for six billion eyes? Then you've got an arguement.

The quote always bothered me, it's not really an arguement against the death penlty, is it?

I'm not saying we don't have the right to put someone to death, but killing an offender of the law is wrong. Commiting an idividual to death is completely giving up on them. Its saying that that person can never be rehabilitated or do any good thing ever again, thus warranting destruction. I just can't bear to think of giving up on anyone. Schizophrenic serial killers who think they are little girls need drugs and therapy, not death.

No disassemble number 5!

I don't support the death penalty because frankly, I don't see the point.

1) I don't think you can teach people that killing is wrong by killing people.
2) It doesn't serve as a deterrant. With the exception of Japan, all countries that still have capital punishment have a far higher crime rate than those countries who don't.
So aparently, the death penalty is merely a form of taking revenge on individuals. I don't want to live in a country that uses revenge as a principle of justice.

I'm not saying we don't have the right to put someone to death, but killing an offender of the law is wrong. Commiting an idividual to death is completely giving up on them. Its saying that that person can never be rehabilitated or do any good thing ever again, thus warranting destruction. I just can't bear to think of giving up on anyone. Schizophrenic serial killers who think they are little girls need drugs and therapy, not death.

No disassemble number 5!
Really?

Oh.

Um... Why?

Really?

Oh.

Um... Why?

good point.

um...I guess I just find it morally repulsive to not try to help people that have problems.

good point.

um...I guess I just find it morally repulsive to not try to help people that have problems.

Oh, OK.

I don't support the death penalty because there is no point to it. I understand deterance. I think life without parole is a good enough deterant. I understand vengance, I don't think the state has a legitimate claim to vengance. Only the wronged party does. So what purpose does the death penalty serve?

I suppose the death penalty pretty much because of this: Why should the taxpayers pay to keep a prisoner in a kind of half life where they're just barely existing, when they could simply kill them off? We're certainly not rehabilitating most prisoners. The return rate for jail is insane.

I suppose the death penalty pretty much because of this: Why should the taxpayers pay to keep a prisoner in a kind of half life where they're just barely existing, when they could simply kill them off? We're certainly not rehabilitating most prisoners. The return rate for jail is insane.

That sounds so demented. They cost money so kill them off. Its true that most serious offenders will never rehabilitate, but does that mean we shouldn't try? "Give modern pschiatry a chance" is what my old pappy used to say. No wait, I'm lying.

That sounds so demented. They cost money so kill them off. Its true that most serious offenders will never rehabilitate, but does that mean we shouldn't try? "Give modern pschiatry a chance" is what my old pappy used to say. No wait, I'm lying.

But why bother? You're going to fail, and it's going to be expensive to do so. What's the point in deliberately wasting finite resources? Also, the only way you'll know you've failed is when they re-offend, so in wasting your resources and failing to rehabilitate them you'll have made some probably-innocent poor sod's life worse.

2) It doesn't serve as a deterrant. With the exception of Japan, all democratic countries that still have capital punishment have a far higher crime rate than those countries who don't.

Fixed.

But why bother? You're going to fail, and it's going to be expensive to do so. What's the point in deliberately wasting finite resources? Also, the only way you'll know you've failed is when they re-offend, so in wasting your resources and failing to rehabilitate them you'll have made some probably-innocent poor sod's life worse.

But what about the people that do durn their lives around? Even if that is one person in a thousand I would welcome spending our resources to do that. And if we don't even try, what does that say about us? Maybe its pragmatic to sentence violent repeat offenders to death becuase of their extrememly low chance to become better but we're not talking about some enviromental resource, we're talking about human lives.

Fixed.

Right, I forgot about Singapore... my mistake.

But what about the people that do durn their lives around? Even if that is one person in a thousand I would welcome spending our resources to do that. And if we don't even try, what does that say about us? Maybe its pragmatic to sentence violent repeat offenders to death becuase of their extrememly low chance to become better but we're not talking about some enviromental resource, we're talking about human lives.

Human lives are a resource. (How do you think the government views its citizens; as a blizzard of beautiful, unique snowflakes? Or as its primary source of income?)

And what about all the future victims of your failed rehabilitees? How many people will they go on to rape, murder or pillage from? If we're going on lives here, aren't theirs worth (at least) as much as the criminals'?

If execution will save resources and future misery, then I say execute. Considering that most people don't mess up their first chance I see no reason why those that do should be given a second chance to mess up and cause more suffering than they have already.

What about the very tiny minority of people who would commit crimes regardless of social conditions?Are you certain that these people are born sociopathic? I'm thinking that things such as a poor family life contribute to this type of behavior, and of course, the family is simply one type of social condition.

The purpose of laws is not justice or punishment. It's to protect the rights of those who obey it. I disagree. The purpose of law is to maximize justice. As I said in this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518853

Murderers proved that they are dangerous. Murderers should be executed. Why? Because:
a. They proved they are dangerous. they proved that they are willing to kill.The state proves it's dangerous in the same way. Does this mean the state should be abolished?

b. Dead man commits no crimes.So should all criminals be executed?

c. No jail or prison is escape proof.No justice system is error proof.

The death penalty is supposed to protect your rights to life and security, unless you violate someone else's right to life. How? There's only one real way and that is to kill. Self-defence isn't murder. It's merely protecting your life.And what is the death penalty if not a legalized form of first-degree murder?

I would set fire to every oil well on earth if it meant saving the life of one habitual child molester with AIDS.

a legalized form of first-degree murder?

Oxymoronic, no?

I would set fire to every oil well on earth if it meant saving the life of one habitual child molester with AIDS.

So...We discount his statements as insane from here on out, right?

You realize you'd kill a ridiculous amount more people, and probably that same child molester as well, with those actions?

Oxymoronic, no?I'm not certain. I did specify that it was a legalized form of an illegal thing. At the very least it's good for hyperbole. :p

Human lives are a resource. (How do you think the government views its citizens; as a blizzard of beautiful, unique snowflakes? Or as its primary source of income?)

And what about all the future victims of your failed rehabilitees? How many people will they go on to rape, murder or pillage from? If we're going on lives here, aren't theirs worth (at least) as much as the criminals'?

If execution will save resources and future misery, then I say execute. Considering that most people don't mess up their first chance I see no reason why those that do should be given a second chance to mess up and cause more suffering than they have already.

But what about the ones that do turn their lives around and become beneficial to society?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/mandela.gif

Do you know how many criminals who never offend again? Actual numbers?

And why not just life imprisonment? I notice you argue that because of the "taxpayer" they should be killed off - what about the debatable argument that it's actually more expensive to execute someone than to keep them locked up? And why are you unwilling to invest in the security of the society?

a society has the right to defend itself...

Here's something about the whole death penalty argument that I don't see get emphasized much.

A main argument used against the death penalty goes like this:

1) The Justice System isn't perfect, thus
2) Innocent persons may get convicted and sentenced to die, thus
3) Supporting the death penalty means you support the killing of innocents (state sanctioned murder)

But the problem is this argument can be applied to any punishmentt, like imprisonment, i.e:

1) The Justice System isn't perfect, thus
2) Innocent persons may get convicted and sentenced to life in prison, thus
3) Supporting imprisonment means you support the removal of liberty of innocents (state sanctioned kidnapping)

So then a rebuttal against this is typically: well, you can set an innocent person free and thus undo their imprisonment, but you can't bring an innocent person back to life.

But I find the notion that one can just cheekily "undo" imprisonment, no harm no foul, naive and kinda insulting. A person's life and liberty BOTH are finite, and valuable, and it is never acceptable to me to remove EITHER ONE from an innocent person.

Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that it's OK to imprison people wrongly simply because they won't die. Plenty of people die in prison, from drugs, violence, suicide. For those people, if they are innocent, your prison sentence WAS a death sentence. For others, they might survive, but the trauma is permanent. It is not reversible. "Oops, you got ass-raped for 20 years. My bad!"

I guess my point is this: people who oppose the death penalty viz a viz these arguments, but support imprisonment, are simply saying this: life is more important than liberty. Security is more important than safety.

Do you agree? Do you value your life more than your freedom? Is it acceptable to you if you got imprisoned for 50 years on accident? My view is the real problem with convicting innocent persons is exactly that - convicting an innocent person. Trying to make every punishment be "okay" or "reversible" for innocent persons is the wrong tactic - we should be avoiding convicting innocent people!

Problem is you get the argument wrong. It's not that time in prison can be undone. It's that time in prison can at least be COMPENSATED for.

If I spend 10 years in jail on a false charge, I can, and should, be compensated heavily. I will never get those years back, but I can get something.

What compensation do you give a dead man?

Secondly you misunderstand the argument in full. A justice system must exist. It must for civilized society to function. We must have a justice system, and we ust have protections. Thus we must have a justice system that protects the innocent to the fullest extent possible. Innocents will be jailed. This is an unfortunate necessity of a justice system.

Innocents being killed however is not a necessity. Ergo it should not be allowed to occur. We should only accept the evils when the evil is the best possible option. A justice system that has rigorous protections of the innocent that still, occassionally, has innocents wrongly imprisoned is the best possible option.

innocent people executed is not the best possible option.

I believe there is a qualitative difference between putting someone to death, and putting them in prison for extended periods of time, and that is why I oppose the death penalty, but support imprisonment for convicted criminals.

I suppose the death penalty pretty much because of this: Why should the taxpayers pay to keep a prisoner in a kind of half life where they're just barely existing, when they could simply kill them off? We're certainly not rehabilitating most prisoners. The return rate for jail is insane.

because they are human beings.

I suppose the death penalty pretty much because of this: Why should the taxpayers pay to keep a prisoner in a kind of half life where they're just barely existing, when they could simply kill them off? We're certainly not rehabilitating most prisoners. The return rate for jail is insane.

Because it's far, far cheaper to keep them in prison than it is to kill them.

a society has the right to defend itself...
Yes, and? Your point?

Problem is you get the argument wrong. It's not that time in prison can be undone. It's that time in prison can at least be COMPENSATED for.

If I spend 10 years in jail on a false charge, I can, and should, be compensated heavily. I will never get those years back, but I can get something.

What compensation do you give a dead man?

Secondly you misunderstand the argument in full. A justice system must exist. It must for civilized society to function. We must have a justice system, and we ust have protections. Thus we must have a justice system that protects the innocent to the fullest extent possible. Innocents will be jailed. This is an unfortunate necessity of a justice system.

Innocents being killed however is not a necessity. Ergo it should not be allowed to occur. We should only accept the evils when the evil is the best possible option. A justice system that has rigorous protections of the innocent that still, occassionally, has innocents wrongly imprisoned is the best possible option.

innocent people executed is not the best possible option.

Well said, I agree with this :)

because they are human beings.

and their status as murderers, who take lives, makes their lives more valuable than those of their victims?

and their status as murderers, who take lives, makes their lives more valuable than those of their victims?

So you're saying that someone who is murdered has an utterly valueless life? Because that's the only way your sentence works.

But what about the ones that do turn their lives around and become beneficial to society?
[SNIP Nelson Mandela pic]

Do you know how many criminals who never offend again? Actual numbers?

What about them? How many of them are there, actually? Worth the price of all the others?
I can't find numbers just now, but I think, from memory, I've typically seen re-offence rates of prisoners in excess of 50%. So one would expect that the "prisoners* who never offend again" is less than 50%.

And why not just life imprisonment? I notice you argue that because of the "taxpayer" they should be killed off - what about the debatable argument that it's actually more expensive to execute someone than to keep them locked up? And why are you unwilling to invest in the security of the society?

What's the point? You can execute them now (or, more likely, after a couple of years Just In Case), or you can lock them up, throw away the key, and leave them to rot for however long whilst paying for their upkeep.
And the "more expensive to execute" is usually about the US, yes, where they keep the poor sods hanging around on death row forever? Frankly, if I were sentenced to death in the US I'd ask them to get a move on and not piss around too much, thank you. It actually seems kinder to me to execute them and get it over with than lock them up indefinitely :s
"Invest in the security of the society"? I'm not sure I understand that. Just because you make a greenhouse out of glass instead of finely polished diamond doesn't mean you're unwilling to invest in a greenhouse. Spending excessive amounts of money on something does not necessarily make it better.

And actually, my argument is to prevent re-offending. You could probably do that almost as well with life inprisonment, but I can't see why you'd want to, considering what I've written there. Yeah, you'll screw it up occasionally and get the wrong person, and it's unfortunate. But (from society's point of view) so long as, when you realise the mistake, you go and find the person who actually did do it, it doesn't really matter much.

Also, I do agree with Philosophy's statement earlier that if the chance of being caught for a crime is vanishingly small it doesn't matter what the punishment is; people will not be deterred from committing that crime. Of course I don't expect them to be deterred anyway, but we can allow ourselves the occasional bout of hopeless optimism, I'm sure.

What about them? How many of them are there, actually? Worth the price of all the others?
I can't find numbers just now, but I think, from memory, I've typically seen re-offence rates of prisoners in excess of 50%. So one would expect that the "prisoners* who never offend again" is less than 50%.
Of all prisoners, the number is indeed just above 50%. However:

Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994

Reports on the rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration of former inmates who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994. The former inmates represent two-thirds of all prisoners released in the United States that year.

Highlights include the following:

* Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
* Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
The people who would be executed under the laws of today, is not the people who usually reoffends. 2.5% of rapists and 1.2% of murderers? That's low numbers. So within 3 years at least, which is as far as this study (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm) goes, 97.5% of rapists do not rape again. But still you would advocate the execution of every last one of them, because of the 2.5%?

What's the point? You can execute them now (or, more likely, after a couple of years Just In Case), or you can lock them up, throw away the key, and leave them to rot for however long whilst paying for their upkeep.
And the "more expensive to execute" is usually about the US, yes, where they keep the poor sods hanging around on death row forever? Frankly, if I were sentenced to death in the US I'd ask them to get a move on and not piss around too much, thank you. It actually seems kinder to me to execute them and get it over with than lock them up indefinitely :s
I guess they don't want to die? Just a hunch...

"Invest in the security of the society"? I'm not sure I understand that. Just because you make a greenhouse out of glass instead of finely polished diamond doesn't mean you're unwilling to invest in a greenhouse. Spending excessive amounts of money on something does not necessarily make it better.
No, but in this case it would.

And actually, my argument is to prevent re-offending. You could probably do that almost as well with life inprisonment, but I can't see why you'd want to, considering what I've written there. Yeah, you'll screw it up occasionally and get the wrong person, and it's unfortunate. But (from society's point of view) so long as, when you realise the mistake, you go and find the person who actually did do it, it doesn't really matter much.
I think it does, but I've explained why before...

Also, I do agree with Philosophy's statement earlier that if the chance of being caught for a crime is vanishingly small it doesn't matter what the punishment is; people will not be deterred from committing that crime. Of course I don't expect them to be deterred anyway, but we can allow ourselves the occasional bout of hopeless optimism, I'm sure.
This I agree with - it's important to catch the guilty.

Human lives are a resource. (How do you think the government views its citizens; as a blizzard of beautiful, unique snowflakes? Or as its primary source of income?)

I'm sorry, I don't beleive that. Putting finite value on a human life is not a healthy way to think about people or a community.
Was shakespear worth 1,000 average human lives? Was he worth more than you?

If execution will save resources and future misery, then I say execute. Considering that most people don't mess up their first chance I see no reason why those that do should be given a second chance to mess up and cause more suffering than they have already.

Maybe letting those people live will create resources and future happyness.

Of all prisoners, the number is indeed just above 50%. However:
The people who would be executed under the laws of today, is not the people who usually reoffends. 2.5% of rapists and 1.2% of murderers? That's low numbers. So within 3 years at least, which is as far as this study (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm) goes, 97.5% of rapists do not rape again. But still you would advocate the execution of every last one of them, because of the 2.5%?

That's interesting... (Incidentally, I'm from the UK; I wasn't looking for US statistics. But they are interesting.) However...

* Released prisoners with the lowest rearrest
rates were those in prison for homicide (40.7%),
rape (46.0%), other sexual assault (41.4%), and
driving under the influence (51.5%).

Does paint a slightly different picture. (Of course, that's re-arrest, not re-conviction, and I don't want to say the two are equivalent*, but your very low numbers are for murderers and rapists who have been re-arrested for the crime they originally committed). Also, three years is not very long. (One reason that their re-arrest rates for these crimes is low is, possibly, because people guilty of those crimes spend so long in prison that they're too old to get up to much by the time they get out. Excepting DUI, probably. But I'm unfamiliar with US sentencing so that's just a suggestion.)

Until quite recently (my argument with Ollieland on this subject, actually) I'd've said that that was quite a good argument for executing thieves. But, thinking about it, the nature of the crime means that it would be much better for the victim if the criminal were simply forced to repay the victim several times over (and for their... Supervision whilst doing so, of course). That would make the crime very expensive to commit, which (assuming it's likely you're caught) would deter any criminal of reasonable intelligence from doing so in the first place.
Violent thieves I'm undecided on, however. Is the risk of re-offence worth them paying for what they stole? And if you forced them to pay for their crime and then executed them you'd make it worse (for the criminal) to beat someone up and steal their wallet than murder them but leave the cash behind. Decisions, decisions.

*You could likely argue that those who've been previously convicted are more likely to be arrested for various reasons. Not least they're easier to find, having already been through The System.

I'm sorry, I don't beleive that. Putting finite value on a human life is not a healthy way to think about people or a community.
Was shakespear worth 1,000 average human lives? Was he worth more than you?
Was Shakespeare worth 1,000 average human lives? Considering that his works have probably impacted (positively) more lives than those of 1,000 average humans, I'd say probably yes.
Was he worth more than I am? Almost certainly. You'll have to wait 400 years to be sure, of course, but I doubt I'm going to be crowned the Greatest Ever Writer of the English Language any time soon, and whilst those skills I do possess are useful, they're not terribly remarkable overall. In 400 years I'll be surprised if I'm remembered by so much as a dusty archival database machine in a long-forgotten basement.
Not that I'm a massive fan of Shakespeare, but you can't deny the man's import...

Maybe letting those people live will create resources and future happyness.

Safe to say I find it less likely than the opposite outcome ;)

So you're saying that someone who is murdered has an utterly valueless life? Because that's the only way your sentence works.

No, I'm saying that murderers have an utterly valueless life, and innocent victims' lives, by definition, are worth more than those of murderers. If you think what it would appear you think from your response, you missed the question mark.

Right, I forgot about Singapore... my mistake.

I was actually thinking of lots of totalitarian countries (North Korea, Saudi Arabia) that have near-zero crime rates.

because they are human beings.

Not always. I wouldn't consider John Wayne Gacy a "human being."

and their status as murderers, who take lives, makes their lives more valuable than those of their victims?

so the state, which takes their lives, is no better than the murderer?

The murderer murdered because he did not consider the value of the life he took. That is why he is a murderer.

We punish the murderer because he held no value for the life he took. Their status as murderers does not make their lives more valuable than their victims. The status of the government means it should value the life of the murderer more than the murderer valued the life of his victim.

Personally I prefer to hold my government to a higher standard than I do a murderer, not the same one.

Was Shakespeare worth 1,000 average human lives? Considering that his works have probably impacted (positively) more lives than those of 1,000 average humans, I'd say probably yes.
Was he worth more than I am? Almost certainly. You'll have to wait 400 years to be sure, of course, but I doubt I'm going to be crowned the Greatest Ever Writer of the English Language any time soon, and whilst those skills I do possess are useful, they're not terribly remarkable overall. In 400 years I'll be surprised if I'm remembered by so much as a dusty archival database machine in a long-forgotten basement.
Not that I'm a massive fan of Shakespeare, but you can't deny the man's import...



Safe to say I find it less likely than the opposite outcome ;)

I suppose, by that logic, you would advocate euthinizing old people or exterminating the mentally handicapped. You make me sick. Like an old jar of mayonaise that I ate yesterday and threw up cuz I couldn't taste it in my BLT sandwich cuz the bacon was so fresh and cheap in Kroger, it was buy one get one free and I don't pass up deals like that, but the pre-sliced chicken was $4 for 10 oz. and I decided to buy the frozen breats that were $7 for 35 oz. but now I have to slice the chickem myself and its kind of a pain and I dunno if it was worth the extra chicken because last year I cut myself with a sharp knife and I had to go to the hospital but they did'nt stich up my finger, the doctor glued my skin back together with this wicked surgical glue stuff and she told me this really funny story about her halloween costume while she was glueing me to take my mind off the pain and I gfave my friend a really nice birthday gift for driving me to the hospital but he gave me a pretty nice birthday gift too so now I feel like I still need to make it up to him, but I only see him on the weekends now and we don't really hang out anymore, but I am gonna see him friday cuz we're part of this group thats gonna go see 300 which is a totally badass movie about the battle of thermopoly but you know about that I'm sure.

Death penalty in all murder cases.Execution should happen within a week of the death sentence,:mp5: no spending 20 years on death row eating up tax money.

Life in prison and death are the same thing. You're locked up for the rest of your life. The only difference is that with the death penalty, deaths are supposed to be more painless, the imprisonment is shorter, and your last meal is whatever you want. Of course you are going to execute innocent people. Innocent people are sent to prison. Many of those innocent are raped and murdered. So, in both, there is a chance that an innocent person is going to die in prison. Does that mean we should stop using prisons?

The main purpose of the death penalty is to remove a danger. I would say that murderers and many drug addicts are animals but why give animals a bad rap? My dog's an animal and she's very nice. Many animals demonstrate more self control than psychotic murderers. We execute dogs all the time for things as trivial as being unwanted. Many of those dogs could have become bomb sniffers. Think of how many lives could be saved by those dogs. And we just spit on them for being unwanted.

Here's what I suggest:

a. For people dying slowly and painfully for an uncurable disease, give them some final wishes before ending the misery. They're probably going to be suicidal, with the uncontrollable pain and all, so we have to make it quick. We're supposed to make the world better and less crowded for the next generation. We're not doing the sickies a favor by giving them an arguably worse death. Make it painless. People love painless.

b. Replace gas chambers and lethal injection beds with chairs. Then replace the gas and syringes with guns and bullets. Quicker, cheaper, and more reliable. I don't want to be gassed or injected with anything. That takes too long and suffocating might be painful.

c. Find the most useful and hardworking. Give them most of the food. They're making the world a better place. They deserve more food than sickies and killies and rapies. Doing so will encourage hard work and usefulness and discourage laziness and uselessness.

d. For the love of god, if someone has lost ALL senses, including touch, please kill them.

e. Stop making excuses for why serial killers should not be killed. Please.

The poll is made of fail...I support capital punishment, but NOT imprisonment.

I say increase fines across the board and bring back corporal punishment.

Hell of a lot cheaper, for one thing, and likely more effective in most instances as well. I'd bet 20 lashes convinces a drunk driver not to do it again a hell of a lot better than 20 days in jail does.

that have near-zero crime rates.

Do we have good statistics?

I suppose, by that logic, you would advocate euthinizing old people or exterminating the mentally handicapped.
I leave that up to them. They're not deliberately and maliciously doing anything; they just are. I don't, however, see any reason to force them to live if they don't want to.

You make me sick. Like an old jar of mayonaise that I ate yesterday and threw up cuz I couldn't taste it in my BLT sandwich cuz the bacon was so fresh and cheap in Kroger, it was buy one get one free and I don't pass up deals like that, but the pre-sliced chicken was $4 for 10 oz. and I decided to buy the frozen breats that were $7 for 35 oz. but now I have to slice the chickem myself and its kind of a pain and I dunno if it was worth the extra chicken because last year I cut myself with a sharp knife and I had to go to the hospital but they did'nt stich up my finger, the doctor glued my skin back together with this wicked surgical glue stuff and she told me this really funny story about her halloween costume while she was glueing me to take my mind off the pain and I gfave my friend a really nice birthday gift for driving me to the hospital but he gave me a pretty nice birthday gift too so now I feel like I still need to make it up to him, but I only see him on the weekends now and we don't really hang out anymore, but I am gonna see him friday cuz we're part of this group thats gonna go see 300 which is a totally badass movie about the battle of thermopoly but you know about that I'm sure.

Hehehe :D

Murder is wrong!!!

Whether the individual or the state.

If you accept state sponsored murder in a democracy then you should be prepared to share the punishment when a mistake is made.

We can not learn from dead people
We can not recompense dead people
There is no chance of correcting a mistaken sentence where the death penalty has been carried out

If you beleive in God surely only s/he can decide when someone dies

Death penalty in all murder cases.Execution should happen within a week of the death sentence,:mp5: no spending 20 years on death row eating up tax money.

Which would mean there's no time for a proper appeals process, which means it's very likely that innocent people will be killed.

Though I don't really need to properly respond to a post with a gun smiley in it.

Ignoring the actual meaning of the word "murder"...
If you beleive in God surely only s/he can decide when someone dies
Surely any half-way decent omnipotent god is quite capable of making sure that nobody it wants alive is killed..?

And I don't believe in any gods, so it doesn't matter anyway.

US courts have got a convenient colour-coding system for determining whether the death penalty should be applied.:rolleyes:

Killing with Prejudice: Race and the Death Penalty in the USA (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510521999)

:(

If someone takes another persons life, the murderer forfeits the right to live or even be free. Thanks to the new use of DNA, more innocents are going back to normal life from behind bars. I think that the death penalty is a good way to keep people in check and to have a bit of accountability for their heinous actions against another person.

I still defend toe death penalty. Pffft, most fundamental of rights. Death is the only right you can't and shouldn't take away. A person can always die. We don't have enough resources to grant everyone immortality.

Old people can't help being old. "Handicapped" (haven't they come up with a mroe politically-correct word?) people can't help being paralyzed or mentally challenged or blind or deaf etc. Murderers can avoid killing people on purpose. If they can't, maybe it's best for everyone that they not be a dangerous threat. Of course racial minorities are going to be arrested more. Look what they went through. That much discrimination would screw anyone up. I'm not suggesting we kill Mexicans or blacks or whatever. They can't help being Mexican or black or whatever. That doesn't make them homocidal.

I still defend toe death penalty. Pffft, most fundamental of rights. Death is the only right you can't and shouldn't take away. A person can always die. We don't have enough resources to grant everyone immortality.

Old people can't help being old. "Handicapped" (haven't they come up with a mroe politically-correct word?) people can't help being paralyzed or mentally challenged or blind or deaf etc. Murderers can avoid killing people on purpose. If they can't, maybe it's best for everyone that they not be a dangerous threat. Of course racial minorities are going to be arrested more. Look what they went through. That much discrimination would screw anyone up. I'm not suggesting we kill Mexicans or blacks or whatever. They can't help being Mexican or black or whatever. That doesn't make them homocidal.


Not only was this borderline incoherent but misses the very fundamental notion that it's not that minorities are arrested more, it's that a minority is more likely to receive the death penalty upon conviction than a white person convicted of the exact same crime.

I still defend toe death penalty. ........................


No toe has a right greater then the rights of the whole body.

Ignoring the actual meaning of the word "murder"...

Surely any half-way decent omnipotent god is quite capable of making sure that nobody it wants alive is killed..?

And I don't believe in any gods, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Not sure I don't beleive in gods either but for some strange reason many people in the USA who beleive in God also beleive in state sanctioned killing where as as far as I can gather most people beleiving in god in UK do not beleive in state sanctioned killing.

I am against the death penalty for religious reasons.

Ezekiel 33:11
"Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.'"

This was God talked to Ezekiel, and telling him to talk to the House of Israel about death.

1) The Justice System isn't perfect, thus
2) Innocent persons may get convicted and sentenced to life in prison, thus
3) Supporting imprisonment means you support the removal of liberty of innocents (state sanctioned kidnapping)

So then a rebuttal against this is typically: well, you can set an innocent person free and thus undo their imprisonment, but you can't bring an innocent person back to life.

But I find the notion that one can just cheekily "undo" imprisonment, no harm no foul, naive and kinda insulting. A person's life and liberty BOTH are finite, and valuable, and it is never acceptable to me to remove EITHER ONE from an innocent person.

I absolutely agree with what I have bolded. However, the point is that you can at least stop removing a person's liberty unjustly. You can't return their life to them after you have taken it.


Furthermore, there is NO guarantee that it's OK to imprison people wrongly simply because they won't die. Plenty of people die in prison, from drugs, violence, suicide. For those people, if they are innocent, your prison sentence WAS a death sentence. For others, they might survive, but the trauma is permanent. It is not reversible. "Oops, you got ass-raped for 20 years. My bad!"

Absolutely true, as well. You cannot undo the past. However, I think you are underestimating how much it is worth to be able to at least go free in the end.

I was lucky to once get to know a really wonderful woman who had survived Auschwitz. She spent over a year of her life enduring horrors that go beyond what most of us can even imagine. Nothing will ever, ever undo what she went through, and nobody can ever give her back her life the way it was before that experience.

But she has had every year since then to live her life. She had children, and grand children, after she was freed from the camp. She went to college, learned to paint, made friends, built a career, built a life.

The injustice of what she experienced cannot be undone. But she was fortunate enough to survive and to be able to live beyond that injustice. Those who died in the camp never had any of those years.


I guess my point is this: people who oppose the death penalty viz a viz these arguments, but support imprisonment, are simply saying this: life is more important than liberty. Security is more important than safety.

No, we're not. We're saying that death is more permanent than imprisonment. One who is imprisoned can be freed. One who is executed can never be returned to life.

We cannot undo either injustice, but we can at least end one of them. We can stop the imprisoned person from being imprisoned any longer; we can't stop the dead person from being dead.


Do you agree? Do you value your life more than your freedom? Is it acceptable to you if you got imprisoned for 50 years on accident? My view is the real problem with convicting innocent persons is exactly that - convicting an innocent person.

Of course that's the fundamental problem. Of course nobody wants to be sent to prison unjustly. But if it were a choice between being imprisoned unjustly and executed unjustly, at least there is still a chance at freedom with the imprisonment. You may never get those lost months or years back, but you can still have all the remaining years that would have been denied you if you were executed.


Trying to make every punishment be "okay" or "reversible" for innocent persons is the wrong tactic - we should be avoiding convicting innocent people!
Every human justice system is fallible. The only way to have a 100% success rate when it comes to avoiding convicting innocents is to never convict anybody of anything.

I'd rather an extreme murderer actually suffer than be granted the peace of death.

Life in prison and death are the same thing. You're locked up for the rest of your life. If there's no chance of parole, yes. Most life sentences have the chance of parole.

So, in both, there is a chance that an innocent person is going to die in prison. Does that mean we should stop using prisons?Possibly.

e. Stop making excuses for why serial killers should not be killed. Please.The default position for those of us who believe in human rights is that everyone should not be killed. You need to demonstrate why they should be; it isn't the other way around.
I suppose you could simply not agree with human rights, but that would open up a whole other can of worms.

Which would mean there's no time for a proper appeals process, which means it's very likely that innocent people will be killed.

Though I don't really need to properly respond to a post with a gun smiley in it.

Thanks to DNA, that innocence should be seen quicker and therefore cuts down on the amount of people who are not supposed to be on death row.

That's interesting... (Incidentally, I'm from the UK; I wasn't looking for US statistics. But they are interesting.) However...


Does paint a slightly different picture. (Of course, that's re-arrest, not re-conviction, and I don't want to say the two are equivalent*, but your very low numbers are for murderers and rapists who have been re-arrested for the crime they originally committed). Also, three years is not very long.
I know, I didn't post the re-arrest rates because they really don't tell us anything about re-offending. Suspected for reoffending, maybe, but no more.

I'd like to see the numbers over a longer period of time though. If you stumble over them (I don't mind if they're british numbers) you're welcome to post them :)
Not always. I wouldn't consider John Wayne Gacy a "human being."
Why not? The scary part, to me, is that humans are capable of doing what he did. That's what we have to be aware of, and why I wouldn't dehuminize him that easily.
*Snip*
Very eloquently put, as usual. I agree with what I interpret to be the gist of your post :)
Thanks to DNA, that innocence should be seen quicker and therefore cuts down on the amount of people who are not supposed to be on death row.
Thanks to judges and juries, as well as humans in general (scientists, cops, witnesses), the amount of people will never be zero.