Convince me to oppose death penalty

[Jumi]

How about you give an example of who's human rights are violated so they can't write a book?

 

[HonestJoe]

While we're thinking hard we allow people who've killed to write their books and keep correspondence with their followers and when they're let go, at least in Europe, they often come back to enjoy the same.

They can write whatever they want just like anyone else. If they seek to have it published, there are legal challenges and restrictions available if the material is deemed inappropriate. Equally, there can be the cases where the writing of remorseful and reformed/reforming criminals can be very informative and writing it can be part of their rehabilitation itself. Correspondence should be (and I expect is) monitored for anything illegal or harmful. I’d have no objection to any measures around these things being tightened if it is shown to be necessary.

So my distaste for certain people feeling pleasure in killing implies that I must feel it too, to think they are worth dying?

Not “must” but potentially. You’ve not given any other justification beyond any other options being no better. Surely you agree there should be specific reasons and justification for taking another human life, whoever they are?

 

[Jumi]

They can write whatever they want just like anyone else. If they seek to have it published, there are legal challenges and restrictions available if the material is deemed inappropriate.

Looking at books written by serial killers, the limits of what is inappropriate don't seem that limiting for the spread of their message.

Equally, there can be the cases where the writing of remorseful and reformed/reforming criminals can be very informative and writing it can be part of their rehabilitation itself. Correspondence should be (and I expect is) monitored for anything illegal or harmful. I’d have no objection to any measures around these things being tightened if it is shown to be necessary.

Monitored for anything illegal, but how do you stop someone from spreading harmful ideas?

Not “must” but potentially.

Noted, though it will stay a mystery to me why you think so. Granted the topic is something that usually is discussed in emotional ways...

You’ve not given any other justification beyond any other options being no better.

The other options are sometimes better for the perpetrators, but not always.

Just a few off the top of my head:
They've voided other peoples lives. It's not self-defense, but I don't see much moral difference.

In my country even life imprisonment means they are often pardoned and repeat crimes. They sometimes receive less than life sentences and continue. There is a serial strangler constantly on the news now, who killed his mother and a 12 year old girl some decades ago. He just killed another woman while he was on trial for other crimes. Of course the US locks up people for long periods of time over lesser crimes so it may sound strange to you.

They can continue to spread their message. You think the rise of some radical thoughts today is a coincidence or that books written in jail had no impact on that?

They can continue to insult their victims and their families.

The alternative, lost ability to communite with outside world in continued imprisonment is more inhumane.

In some countries escape is not that easy in peace time, but it's a possibility and then the responsibility is on us.

Surely you agree there should be specific reasons and justification for taking another human life, whoever they are?

Of course. They should be people who've ruined others lives before and lack remorse.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Looking at books written by serial killers, the limits of what is inappropriate don't seem that limiting for the spread of their message.


Monitored for anything illegal, but how do you stop someone from spreading harmful ideas?


Noted, though it will stay a mystery to me why you think so. Granted the topic is something that usually is discussed in emotional ways...


The other options are sometimes better for the perpetrators, but not always.

Just a few off the top of my head:
They've voided other peoples lives. It's not self-defense, but I don't see much moral difference.

In my country even life imprisonment means they are often pardoned and repeat crimes. They sometimes receive less than life sentences and continue. There is a serial strangler constantly on the news now, who killed his mother and a 12 year old girl some decades ago. He just killed another woman while he was on trial for other crimes. Of course the US locks up people for long periods of time over lesser crimes so it may sound strange to you.

They can continue to spread their message. You think the rise of some radical thoughts today is a coincidence or that books written in jail had no impact on that?

They can continue to insult their victims and their families.

The alternative, lost ability to communite with outside world in continued imprisonment is more inhumane.

In some countries escape is not that easy in peace time, but it's a possibility and then the responsibility is on us.


Of course. They should be people who've ruined others lives before and lack remorse.

There is no way to measure remorse or the ruins of lives

 

[Jumi]

There is no way to measure remorse or the ruins of lives

You can count bodies if it's important to you to use some kind of measuring stick. I would add people who will never be able to enjoy things they used to. I'd suggest you look at what Hassan Zubier said about spending rest of his life in pain and in a wheelchair if you can.

 

[metis]

You're argument alludes to us never punishing anyone regardless of method because we cannot reach 100% certainty. I do not see why that should revolve around one method of punishment. Like my assertion with another, that suggests a subjective notion of which punishment is better.

If you had read my previous posts, I covered that, essentially saying that the problem with executions is that if we execute the wrong person, we can't dig him up and tell him "We're sorry". Wrongful convictions are plenty bad enough, but at least the person in prison if found innocent can still go out and live. Isn't that person important?

The question back at ya is why would you want to execute people whereas there are other options that can also protect society? If the main intent is to protect society, then today's prisons can handle that job.

 

[HonestJoe]

Looking at books written by serial killers, the limits of what is inappropriate don't seem that limiting for the spread of their message.

As I said, I’d have no objection to greater restrictions if they were shown to be necessary.

Monitored for anything illegal, but how do you stop someone from spreading harmful ideas?

That’s a much wider issue around free speech and people convicted of murder are probably the least of our worries on that basis. You risk a dangerous president if you’re suggesting executing people to prevent them from spreading harmful ideas though.

They've voided other peoples lives. It's not self-defense, but I don't see much moral difference.

It’s a huge moral difference if they’re not posing an imminent threat to anyone.

In my country even life imprisonment means they are often pardoned and repeat crimes. They sometimes receive less than life sentences and continue. There is a serial strangler constantly on the news now, who killed his mother and a 12 year old girl some decades ago. He just killed another woman while he was on trial for other crimes. Of course the US locks up people for long periods of time over lesser crimes so it may sound strange to you.

It appears he was only previously convicted of manslaughter, never murder. Are you saying he should still have been executed? Wouldn’t pardons and giving of lesser sentences remain an issue even if a death penalty was a sentencing option? It could even increase the instances given the natural resistance to ordering an execution.

They can continue to spread their message. You think the rise of some radical thoughts today is a coincidence or that books written in jail had no impact on that?

No, I don’t think books written in jail have any significant impact of any rise (or change) in “radical thoughts”.

They can continue to insult their victims and their families.

Not directly; any such contact will certainly be banned. I also happen to know that not all families of murder victims would want the killers executed.

 

[Jumi]

As I said, I’d have no objection to greater restrictions if they were shown to be necessary.

Longer time periods will show. At least the extremists thank our societies for their success in spreading, while at the same time calling us weak.

That’s a much wider issue around free speech and people convicted of murder are probably the least of our worries on that basis. You risk a dangerous president if you’re suggesting executing people to prevent them from spreading harmful ideas though.

Not just the ideas. It's merely a natural consequence of the current systems in place.

It’s a huge moral difference if they’re not posing an imminent threat to anyone.

If they're outside of general pop in jail then they are not an imminent threat to anyone except guards. And of course to themselves.

It appears he was only previously convicted of manslaughter, never murder. Are you saying he should still have been executed?

I'd call it murder. Among deeds he acted out sexual power fantasies over kids and his own mother, killing them in the process. They were merciful to him because he has mental issues. He was recently out stalking a 17 year old, sending messages to her and trying to break in to her apartment. While the proceedings were on, he killed this 46 woman which came as no surprise to anyone watching the case.

Wouldn’t pardons and giving of lesser sentences remain an issue even if a death penalty was a sentencing option? It could even increase the instances given the natural resistance to ordering an execution.

I think lesser crimes should be pardoned, but not murder, rape, certain economic crimes...

No, I don’t think books written in jail have any significant impact of any rise (or change) in “radical thoughts”.

I'm of different opinion. Of course they require fertile soil for it, but they are planting in it.

Not directly; any such contact will certainly be banned. I also happen to know that not all families of murder victims would want the killers executed.

Your country is lucky if that is certain. Here in Northern Europe we have to watch news about a terrorist insulting people he put in wheelchair permanently, smile and laugh when they hear about their deeds.

 

[suncowiam]

If you had read my previous posts, I covered that, essentially saying that the problem with executions is that if we execute the wrong person, we can't dig him up and tell him "We're sorry". Wrongful convictions are plenty bad enough, but at least the person in prison if found innocent can still go out and live. Isn't that person important?

The question back at ya is why would you want to execute people whereas there are other options that can also protect society? If the main intent is to protect society, then today's prisons can handle that job.

That is a subjective notion to suggest imprisonment is better. It just pulls to the emotional string to suggest though. The only solution of stopping false convictions is to never force a punishment, otherwise a punishment is still given to an innocent. Allowing specific punishments to innocents is just aribitrary.

The other end of this is criminals that do not rehabilitate. They are then given the chance to murder again due to time. Possibly they escape or then released...

Prisons are not the elegant solution. There is no best solution. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm fine with either solution. The goal is to stop the crimes. And as I also mentioned earlier, there are crimes that are irrefutably proven. They are not based on circumstancial evidence. For example, if DNA can prove a man's innocence, then it can prove a man's guilt. Videos, pictures... Basically science. Some can be given imprisonment, then others can be given death.

Lets absolutely stress that the main goal is to stop the crimes. Let's stress that victims are more important than criminals. Let's stress that society is more important than criminals. Criminals were given that choice to be part of a functional society in the first place. Once they break that rule, they become second class.

 

[HonestJoe]

Not just the ideas. It's merely a natural consequence of the current systems in place.

You’re evading the point. You seem to be suggesting that people shouldn’t be executed for murder as such but if they could spread harmful ideas.

I'd call it murder.

Maybe so but that’s irrelevant to the point of this thread, which is about sentencing. It’s one this to call for the death penalty for people convicted of murder, it’s entirely different to call for the death penalty for anyone you think should be convicted of murder.

I think lesser crimes should be pardoned, but not murder, rape, certain economic crimes...

That’s not the point. It will continue to happen and could well happen more often if the possibility of execution is added in to the mix. Your proposal could actually make the overall situation worse.

I'm of different opinion. Of course they require fertile soil for it, but they are planting in it.

Is that opinion based on any facts? How many books have been published from behind bars, both in the past and more recently, to bring you to this conclusion? I simply don’t see there being enough people in this situation to have such an impact over and above all of the people who aren’t in prison promoting the same ideas.

Your country is lucky if that is certain. Here in Northern Europe we have to watch news about a terrorist insulting people he put in wheelchair permanently, smile and laugh when they hear about their deeds.

I’m in the UK. I’ve no idea what you’re referring to here but I guarantee it’s more complex and nuanced than you’re giving it credit for and I guarantee it wouldn’t be solved by killing more people.

 

[metis]

The goal is to stop the crimes.

I'm not going to comment on your other statements as I've made my reasons for opposing the death penalty clear and why I take that position, but I do want to comment on the above.

Studies have shown that capital punishment simply does not deter homicides, but what does do as such are taking actions that increase the chances of criminals getting caught. Therefore, instead of using capital punishment and very lengthy sentences, which are very expensive, we are far better off spending more money to get more police walking the beat, along with a much more efficient judicial system to have less people out on bail awaiting trial.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm not going to comment on your other statements as I've made my reasons for opposing the death penalty clear and why I take that position, but I do want to comment on the above.

Studies have shown that capital punishment simply does not deter homicides, but what does do as such are taking actions that increase the chances of criminals getting caught. Therefore, instead of using capital punishment and very lengthy sentences, which are very expensive, we are far better off spending more money to get more police walking the beat, along with a much more efficient judicial system to have less people out on bail awaiting trial.

And I want to stress again that yours is a personal opinion concerning punishment. Which is fine but it stops there as notion of subjectivity.

I'll take your word concerning processes. I only care about stopping the crimes and if preventing it is the answer then so be it. I have no urges to punish people. Although, I don't think there will ever be a process to prevent all crimes unless we can look into the future. So eventually, we will be back to punishment.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

You can count bodies if it's important to you to use some kind of measuring stick. I would add people who will never be able to enjoy things they used to. I'd suggest you look at what Hassan Zubier said about spending rest of his life in pain and in a wheelchair if you can.

That's not how the court system works

 

[Shushersbedamned]

is lucky if that is certain. Here in Northern Europe we have to watch news about a terrorist insulting people he put in wheelchair permanently, smile and laugh when they hear about their deeds.

You shouldn't attend trials if you're that sensitive.

 

[Jumi]

That's not how the court system works

Never said they did. The face palm is all you.

You shouldn't attend trials if you're that sensitive.

You sure think a lot of the victims.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Never said they did. The face palm is all you.


You sure think a lot of the victims.

You suggest the dentist gives a shot of something to the convicts cheeks so as to prevent him from smiling properly?

 

[Jumi]

You’re evading the point. You seem to be suggesting that people shouldn’t be executed for murder as such but if they could spread harmful ideas.

As long as they don't kill, they would be fine if I'm to judge.

Maybe so but that’s irrelevant to the point of this thread, which is about sentencing. It’s one this to call for the death penalty for people convicted of murder, it’s entirely different to call for the death penalty for anyone you think should be convicted of murder.

Well the point of the thread, at least in my mind, was to have people try to convince to oppose the death penalty.

That’s not the point. It will continue to happen and could well happen more often if the possibility of execution is added in to the mix. Your proposal could actually make the overall situation worse.

Based on what?

Is that opinion based on any facts? How many books have been published from behind bars, both in the past and more recently, to bring you to this conclusion? I simply don’t see there being enough people in this situation to have such an impact over and above all of the people who aren’t in prison promoting the same ideas.

Hitler wrote in prison.

I’m in the UK. I’ve no idea what you’re referring to here but I guarantee it’s more complex and nuanced than you’re giving it credit for and I guarantee it wouldn’t be solved by killing more people.

As it happens, the said victim and hero of the terror attack is a citizen of your country, Hassan Zubier.
The perp's been laughing at his victims all proceedings.

 

[Jumi]

You suggest the dentist gives a shot of something to the convicts cheeks so as to prevent him from smiling properly?

If you're trying to convince me, think harder

 

[Shushersbedamned]

If you're trying to convince me, think harder

I'm not trying to convince you - it is of no interest to me - I'm pointing out as many have before me that your theories lack all practicality. They do not fit to the reality of man.

 

[Jumi]

I'm not trying to convince you - it is of no interest to me - I'm pointing out as many have before me that your theories lack all practicality.

Based on the creative comments you've made in this thread I doubt you have an idea of my theories, as you put it.

They do not fit to the reality of man.

Proof?