Convince me to oppose death penalty

[Bob the Unbeliever]

One of the killers I've been watching enjoy his life indeed put out some music albums and wrote several racial books during his jailtime.

And who's fault would that be? It's actually a Red Herring with respect to the death penalty.

So you're arguing that surveillance cameras shouldn't qualify as evidence.

Correct. Any "video" can be modified with easy to obtain software, to be other than what it was.

Corruption, again-- I'm simply unwilling to trust a system that is willing to kill it's citizens.

Well us Europeans often think your police is trigger happy in the extreme. In my country cops shot a terrorist in the leg who was trying to kill or take an elderly woman hostage during his attack.

I'm not that familiar with many US cases, only ones I hear about on here or my own news, forgive me. Were they holding hostages or did it seem like they were and were there people dead already?

No. In several cases? It was a kid, playing with a toy gun, in the toy department-- who was shot dead by cops..... it's sickening.

Taking decades off of someone's life is also irreversible.

yes. But it's not 100% like death is, is it?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That is a different problem from death penalty and I think it has to do with how police are trained and what kind of guidelines they are trained to follow. For example in my country policeman is 4 year college degree...

Oh, I totally agree, and I'm sorry I went down that rabbit trail. Mea Culpa.

It's just that I lament senseless Death By Cop that is so rampant in the USA these days...

 

[Jumi]

Oh, I totally agree, and I'm sorry I went down that rabbit trail. Mea Culpa.

No problem. I just think it's better to separate the two.

It's just that I lament senseless Death By Cop that is so rampant in the USA these days...

I agree with you there. I've seen many cases where the situation was handled in what was unreasonable and the method of diffusing situations doesn't seem textbook there. In many ways the tactics employed seem to be against basic human psychology, leading to violence.

 

[Jumi]

And who's fault would that be? It's actually a Red Herring with respect to the death penalty.

Not completely in my opinion. There have been plenty of idolized serial killers, terrorists and more, who have been influencing people from out of prison as long as they've lived. For example Charles Manson and Anders Breivik come to mind.

Correct. Any "video" can be modified with easy to obtain software, to be other than what it was.

Corruption, again-- I'm simply unwilling to trust a system that is willing to kill it's citizens.

Yes we can edit videos, but is it possible to create believable videos that fool experts and not just some conspiracy people?

No. In several cases? It was a kid, playing with a toy gun, in the toy department-- who was shot dead by cops..... it's sickening.

I agree, again I think this is foremost a problem with training.

yes. But it's not 100% like death is, is it?

I'd say it depends on who the punishment is for. Take away all instruments from a concert musician for a few decades, nature from a mountain climber and it will be a crueler punishment than to someone who has no interests.

 

[BSM1]

But you're making the assumption that all whom have been found guilty of murder are the actual ones whom committed it, and yet the dna evidence has shown that this simply is not the case.

Secondly, people can change over time, and many do.

Thirdly, why execute people if there are other ways of making sure they don't commit crimes again?

Death is certainly a guarantee that they won't commit any crime again.

 

[dfnj]

I'm not Christian so take this as you will: I don't see it as making a difference and in fact that kind of reasoning is why I was reluctant to ever consider myself one.
Isn't that rather cruel in itself? I don't agree with them needing to suffer.

No, it's not cruel. Most people believe eye for an eye. There are plenty of other punishments that are way more crueler than life in prison. It's just that getting old while being alive is full of suffering. Reflecting on a meaningless life is suffering. Most Christians believe in punishment. I don't like the death penalty because I think it's the easy way out for the person convicted.

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from. Are you against criminal punishment altogether?

I don't like the death penalty because of so many people are found innocent by evidence after they've been convicted.

I certainly do not trust God to give us justice. I think finding justice will only come from our system of secular law enforcement.

 

[dfnj]

Death is certainly a guarantee that they won't commit any crime again.

So is life in prison.

 

[BSM1]

I see that reading comprehension is not your strongest suit. So let me spell it out for you. I called the argument I use to oppose the death penalty 'simple', not the mechanics of the application of the argument.

Well, we can all rest easy since you cleared that up.

 

[BSM1]

So is life in prison.

Absolutely not! They can still kill in prison, and God forbid they should escape or get paroled.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Not completely in my opinion. There have been plenty of idolized serial killers, terrorists and more, who have been influencing people from out of prison as long as they've lived. For example Charles Manson and Anders Breivik come to mind.

In reality? I have no problem with that at all-- every mind is Unique. Every point of view belongs to the person who owns it.

I think that Manson (for example) served as a constant reminder of How Low Can One Man Go?-- a useful point of view.

Certainly as useful as many of those "performance art" pieces that are often so vilified by the self-important.

Yes we can edit videos, but is it possible to create believable videos that fool experts and not just some conspiracy people?

Absolutely. Just takes time and patience. And if the System is Corrupt? That automatically creates pressure to create the tools (if they don't already exist) to Corrupt the video "evidence", in order to further a Political Gain.

I agree, again I think this is foremost a problem with training.

Absolutely agree-- the US cops are too often trained in the "We vs Them" warlike mentality.

I think we need to return to "Andy Of Mayberry" where the police are seen as public servants first...

I'd say it depends on who the punishment is for. Take away all instruments from a concert musician for a few decades, nature from a mountain climber and it will be a crueler punishment than to someone who has no interests.

Well, yes-- punishment isn't supposed to be Apple Pie and Ice Cream. Kinda the point, really.

 

[suncowiam]

But you're making the assumption that all whom have been found guilty of murder are the actual ones whom committed it, and yet the dna evidence has shown that this simply is not the case.

Secondly, people can change over time, and many do.

Thirdly, why execute people if there are other ways of making sure they don't commit crimes again?

I grant you in some circumstances, innocent people are falsely condemned. I agree with that assertion. No one should disagree with that. Innocent people should never be punished. But, there are plenty of cases where the evidence is not circumstantial and are based from enough science and evidence to 100% declare a guilty verdict. I assert that criminals from this process should be punished.

People can change for the better, sure. Or people can become worst. Or they can stay the same. I have no idea. Neither do you or anyone else.

Bluntly, I do not care of what could be or the hypothetical. What I do know, is that in the case of a murderer proven guilty without a doubt, that someone lost their freedom to make choices. I hold no more sympathy to the murderer. They gave up their freedom at that point. IMO, we have to make examples of murderers. Some lines should absolutely never be crossed. Murder is one of those lines. I will never feel sympathy for a murderer. The choice again for people is to never be murderers. That is the choice given to them to begin with.

 

[suncowiam]

False. I can and do objectively make such a claim.

Death is Final-- there is no going back from Death. You cannot rewind, or "load save file" here.

All the information contained in the dead person's brain is lost.

That is a Unique Set of Knowledge. How can we humans have the Hubris, of removing it?

But there's more: Since it is demonstratively Impossible to remove Corruption from the System?

No conviction can be 100% certain. Ever. That is an Impossible Task. The Law itself recognizes this Fact: "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".

Except Death is far beyond even that--- it's 100%.

So, yeah-- there IS an Objective difference between Locking Up For Life, and Death.

One is open-ended, and reversible. The knowledge contained within the criminal's head remains accessible.

The other is Finis. Done. End. Nothing More--Ever.

The two are not remotely similar. ..

Yeah... That's not being objective. You're just throwing opinions out with a 100% label.

Sure death is final. So?

Sure, memories are lost in a person's brain. So? What knowledge is so important that we need to keep society rolling.

No conviction can be 100%, yet we condemn them to other punishments including life in prison. We're just substituting one form of punishment for another. I will grant you that innocent people should never be condemned, but they are still punished regardless of the practice.

You are demonstrating just a preference of punishment over another. Some individuals might actual choose death over imprisonment. Even if the ratio of preference favors one form, if it never reaches 0% or 100% concerning preference, then it is subjective by definition.

You are not proving objectivity.

 

[Jumi]

In reality? I have no problem with that at all-- every mind is Unique. Every point of view belongs to the person who owns it.

I think that Manson (for example) served as a constant reminder of How Low Can One Man Go?-- a useful point of view.

Also as an example of what to do to get famous and have people go over and do interviews, make books and spread their views for the rest of their lives. He's still a cult star.

Absolutely. Just takes time and patience. And if the System is Corrupt? That automatically creates pressure to create the tools (if they don't already exist) to Corrupt the video "evidence", in order to further a Political Gain.

Corrupt systems have other ways to get rid of their enemies than having death penalty in place. Remember Otto Warmbier? He wasn't sentenced to death, but he was killed anyway.

Absolutely agree-- the US cops are too often trained in the "We vs Them" warlike mentality.

Turning some casual remark into a confrontation is a failure in my book, yet youtube seems to be full of those.

Well, yes-- punishment isn't supposed to be Apple Pie and Ice Cream. Kinda the point, really.

But what if they're innocent and can't play music for the rest of their lives.

The system popular in European Union is rehabilitation instead of punishment so sometimes it's ice cream, fun and games...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yeah... That's not being objective. You're just throwing opinions out with a 100% label.

Sure death is final. So?

Sure, memories are lost in a person's brain. So? What knowledge is so important that we need to keep society rolling.

No conviction can be 100%, yet we condemn them to other punishments including life in prison. We're just substituting one form of punishment for another. I will grant you that innocent people should never be condemned, but they are still punished regardless of the practice.

You are demonstrating just a preference of punishment over another. Some individuals might actual choose death over imprisonment. Even if the ratio of preference favors one form, if it never reaches 0% or 100% concerning preference, then it is subjective by definition.

You are not proving objectivity.

Your argument is like comparing the number one (or even the number 100 or 1000) with infinity.

A finite sentence, even to the end of their life, is just that-- a finite event.

Whereas death is infinite (well, may as well be-- yes I know the Earth will eventually be swallowed up by the sun one day, but...)

I simply do not see that the two are even close in comparison.

Re: Individuals choosing death? I think that would/should always be acceptable-- I do firmly believe in every individual's right to self-terminate, if they so choose.

I do not think this right should be removed, regardless-- the single exception if you can make a valid case that the individual in question is not of sound mind (and the definition of "sound mind" is left up as an exercise for the student, or perhaps for a different thread altogether).

Furthermore? I think it would be Humane, to always provide a safe, effective and entirely painless method of self-termination for anyone in prison for any reason, should someone wish to avail themselves of it.

To force someone to continue to exist, when they have determined they would rather not, is not only immoral, but is Evil with an E.

But that's just my opinion, of course...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The system popular in European Union is rehabilitation instead of punishment so sometimes it's ice cream, fun and games...

I, personally, would love to see this system implemented across the Globe.

Of course--you would necessarily need to include provision for folk who simply cannot be fixed. Those you would warehouse somehow, keeping them safely away from others.

I suppose in hopes that one day, there will be a cure for these Incurable Tyrants and Kings (to borrow from Pink Floyd's Final Cut).

Being a Humanist, I do think this is a Worthy Goal, is it not? Can we not rise above the Beast Mode, where Eye For An Eye is the Law of the Land?

Are we not better than that? *sigh*... looking at what passes for "justice" in the USA? Apparently not...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Corrupt systems have other ways to get rid of their enemies than having death penalty in place. Remember Otto Warmbier? He wasn't sentenced to death, but he was killed anyway.

Absolutely agree-- but why let it be easy for the State to Kill it's Citizens?

I'd much rather they had to work their collective a888es off instead, every time they feel the need to murder one of their citizens.

And yes-- in this case it would be legal murder, instead of Official State-Sponsored Killing. Makes no difference to the victim, of course, but I think it Matters, at least symbolically.

Besides, if they have to go to great lengths to kill someone? Once in awhile, we citizens could discover their activities and at least try to shame them some.... and maybe even get lucky, as the Power That Be toss some poor fall guy under the bus...

.... I know, I know... politicians, by definition, do not seem to possess any such thing as "shame"... but I can dream, can't I?

(as for the schlob tossed under the bus to be the scapegoat? Did he not know what he was getting into, when he signed up to be a Government Flunky? <extreme sarcasm here> )

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Absolutely not! They can still kill in prison, and God forbid they should escape or get paroled.

Indeed. Moreover, if someone manages to discover Mistakes Were Made, they can let the poor guy out, for whatever is left of his existence...

 

[HonestJoe]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

So you're saying you "hate" these kind of murderers and would take some kind of "pleasure" in seeing them executed?

 

[metis]

Death is certainly a guarantee that they won't commit any crime again.

Unless the real crime would actually be executing the wrong person, as we've seen numerous times being avoided because of dna tests. Matter of fact, Michigan was the first state to outlaw capital punishment because the wrong person was executed.

 

[metis]

But, there are plenty of cases where the evidence is not circumstantial and are based from enough science and evidence to 100% declare a guilty verdict. I assert that criminals from this process should be punished...

What I do know, is that in the case of a murderer proven guilty without a doubt, that someone lost their freedom to make choices. I hold no more sympathy to the murderer.

But that's not how it works in reality since every single person on death row in the U.S. was convicted "beyond a shadow of doubt" because if there was any doubt whatsoever then the jury could not find the defendant guilty per judges' directions. And yet quite a few have been released after dna, one just a few weeks ago.