Death penalty: Are you for or against it?

[Curious George]

Well, here is where we are getting into the subjective territory. I value all life. But this is not the same as valuing all individuals, much less equally. I don't like killing mice, but if they get in my kitchen they're goners. Too bad a cow has to die, but I want my burgers. I generally don't value animals as individuals, but as species. Then there's my doggy Belle, mess with her and I'll respond quite irrationally. But I'll feel badly afterwards.

Humans are different, call me a pro life specieist if you want. I value humans as individuals, no matter how much I despise their personality or behavior.

So, no it is not possible for anyone to have no value at all. If they are not still a credible threat in some way, I want the tiny chance that they will improve to remain. What I don't want is to kill somebody to satisfy the emotional response that vengeance is. And I especially resent being stuck with a six figure bill to pay for it.

Tom

Not a credible threat?
Are you so sure that clinging to a "tiny chance that they will improve" is not an emotional and irrational response?

I have no drive for vengeance. It is a balancing equation. Others emotions certainly play a role in that equation. This includes people's emotional response to preserve human life. The economic cost is problematic. And that, in its current state (being cheaper to lock someone up and throw away the key), weighs towards not killing anyone. But, there are always more costs than meet the eye. We have cost of food and housing, but we also have costs of bills for people with nothing to lose that lash out which I imagine happen in higher disproportion than those with a carrot of freedom, we have spatial costs of housing which as the number of lifers increases turns to building costs for new facilities, which turns into social costs of needing to fill the facilities. We also have emotional costs, which I agree are emotional, but nonetheless present and need to be addressed (and it is not irrational to do so), we also have excessive litigation costs of people who spend their life in prison, the cost of negative behavior influencing other inmates, etc.

It is a complex system, and so too are the costs complex. While I acknowledge there are plenty of counterpoints to these "costs" and the cumulative affect of the potential death row inmates have only partial influence over these costs, they are nonetheless factors to consider in discussion of our penal system. If the answer was just to be found in punching a couple numbers, I agree the solution would be simple.

Thinking about complex systems often make people want to offer simple but unreasonable solutions such as kill them all, or ship them to an island. However, I also see in the idea of discarding death as a viable option just as emotional of a response. I don't think taking death off the table is rational because in some instances death may be the best choice.

 

[Jumi]

You just don't recognize the capacity for suffering non-human animals have, either out of ignorance or because you view them as "lower" for some bizarre reason. That's what it really comes down to.

Right, and there are cases where people practiced on animals and then moved on to people.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know why there is a debate going on and on about this. It is not like there is much to debate.

It all comes down to how you 'feel' about it. And yes, this applies to both sides.

 

[Curious George]

I don't know why there is a debate going on and on about this. It is not like there is much to debate.

It all comes down to how you 'feel' about it. And yes, this applies to both sides.

Hmm, I suppose all good debates could be summed up with as much.


Some of us enjoy thinking about the philosophical implications.

 

[Augustus]

So, no it is not possible for anyone to have no value at all. If they are not still a credible threat in some way, I want the tiny chance that they will improve to remain.

Do you support the death penalty for those who remain a credible threat?

For example an ideological terrorist could radicalise non-lifers in prison who eventually get out and harm society. Sympathisers might also take hostages to force the government to release them. Or maybe in the case of extremely violent prisoners who remain a constant threat to other prisoners and prison staff.

 

[viole]

Oh, don't get me started on the "Northern European mindset". I don't have very nice things to say about modern Scandinavians.

Catholics are allowed to support the death penalty. It doesn't hold the same moral weight as, say, abortion.

No? does the Catholic Church has a weigthing system when it comes to take lives (today)?

I am not aware of this. Can you give me some pointers so that I can research this further?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

It's just sending them on to meet their Maker. Besides, they would know the time of the meeting, so they should take that time to prepare for it.

The Bible doesn't say anything about opposing the death penalty. Even Jesus didn't speak against it. For pretty much the Church's entire existence, she has supported capital punishment. So you can't use the religion card with me on this.

Well, of course the Bible does not say anything against the death penalty. There you have the moral Giver in person commanding the annihilation of people, the cutting apart of pregnant women, the slaying of pets and the slashing of little kids against walls. I cannot comment on this. He is your moral role model, not mine.

And if it is true (it is) that the Catholic Church approved the death penalty (together with torture and burning people alive,) then we have a problem. The Catholic Church today condemns the death penalty, without any doubt.

So, either you believe in a system that contradicts itself or... in a system that accepts cultural relativism or... in a system that admits to have been wrong in the past.. or in a system that is lying today about its position.

Your call, really.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Erebus]

I'm for the death penalty in a way, though I look at it slightly differently to most. To my mind it should be an option open to prisoners facing a significant stay (I don't want to put a concrete number on how long, that's another discussion entirely). If somebody has been effectively removed from society by a life sentence, I don't see the point of keeping them in prison if they don't want to stay. Punishment shouldn't be the primary concern here, at least in my opinion.

I would prefer to keep it optional primarily because I don't trust the state enough to grant them that power.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what do you suggest as punishment?

Something that works with the four accepted justifications for sentencing:

- general deterrence
- specific deterrence
- inculcation
- rehabilitation

I don't know of any punishment that's perfect at all of these, but the death penalty fails at all four.

 

[McBell]

It doesn't deter others from committing violent crimes in society, at least in the U.S.

I agree.
However, it does effect WHERE they commit their violent crimes.

 

[dust1n]

One problem with many of today's more politically correct (and/or liberal) types is that they no longer take the responsibility for their or their families' safety and protection.

So why, am I, as a single person with no kids, being taxed more and also paying at all for every other Republican's kids?

 

[BSM1]

So why, am I, as a single person with no kids, being taxed more and also paying at all for every other Republican's kids?

Democrats tax policies. You notice the Republican candidates are calling for tax decreases for most payers.

 

[dust1n]

Democrats tax policies. You notice the Republican candidates are calling for tax decreases for most payers.

Which Republicans have ever suggested eliminating tax deductions for people who have kids, are who are married? Save for maybe Rand, there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One problem with many of today's more politically correct (and/or liberal) types is that they no longer take the responsibility for their or their families' safety and protection.

Tell me what getting the state to kill people you don't like has to do with self-reliance.

 

[Jainarayan]

Something that works with the four accepted justifications for sentencing:

- general deterrence
- specific deterrence
- inculcation
- rehabilitation

I don't know of any punishment that's perfect at all of these, but the death penalty fails at all four.

Those are fantasy and naivete of the highest order.

 

[Glaurung]

I thought the Pope Francisspoke out aginst the death penalty when in the USA in the last few days.

The Catholic Church does not teach that you must agree with the personal opinions of the pope where it doesn't address doctrine.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

In principle, the Church does not forbid the possibly the the death penalty, even if the actual circumstances where it's justified are rare. If it's the personal opinion of the pope that the death penalty is always wrong he's entitled to that, but such opinion is hardly binding on Catholics when the Church in her authoritative documents says otherwise.

 

[Jumi]

I agree with rehabilitation over punishment for lesser crimes. With those results have been fair to even good in some cases. Others are beyond rehabilitation. I would suggest that people like the school shooters are mostly beyond rehabilitation.

 

[Deidre]

I am for the death penalty in certain circumstances. Namely, I think that it should be an available choice for those facing life in prison. I also support it in instances where non existence is better than permanent incarceration.

better for who?

 

[Deidre]

I agree.
However, it does effect WHERE they commit their violent crimes.

lol yea, true.

 

[Curious George]

better for who?

All.