Do you believe in the death penalty?

[savagewind]

You'd want death to be your punishment if you had the chance to change yourself in this life (if people let you instead of execute you)?

I don't know! I suspect there have been real people who choose death over life's troubles.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know! I suspect there have been real people who choose death over life's troubles.

I was reading about the death penalty and it says every state that has it gives the prisoner a choice between life in prison or death. We can choose to kill ourselves. From my experience, I rather die than be in prison. It's mental indoctrination. I rather it be my choice, though. If it were someone else's choice, I find that wrong. One because they don't know me, and two, I am a human being not something to be plucked off the universe.

 

[savagewind]

Wouldn't your conscience nag you to make amends, do good works, etc in your repentance? Gives you the opportunity to do more than speak about how you're sorry.

If I took away a life, there are no amends for the loss to that person's loved ones.

Also, I have said that I would only be for the death penalty for vicious murders. Not one murder. I think that the act of killing is in and of itself a deterrent because of what it can do to a person's conscience. My opinion is that the death penalty if for someone who murders according to their own validation and will do it again.

Because it is not humanly possible to know that a person is that way, I changed my vote to 'no'.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If I took away a life, there are no amends for the loss to that person's loved ones.

Also, I have said that I would only be for the death penalty for vicious murders. Not one murder. I think that the act of killing is in and of itself a deterrent because of what it can do to a person's conscience. My opinion is that the death penalty if for someone who murders according to their own validation and will do it again.

Because it is not humanly possible to know that a person is that way, I changed my vote to 'no'.

Everyone has done something they can never repay. But it doesn't mean there's nothing we can do. I'd rather go trying to make the world a better place than the last thing I'd done us just feel sorry.

I'm just presenting a reason not to commit suicide because you've done something wrong.

 

[savagewind]

Everyone has done something they can never repay. But it doesn't mean there's nothing we can do. I'd rather go trying to make the world a better place than the last thing I'd done us just feel sorry.

I'm just presenting a reason not to commit suicide because you've done something wrong.

I think it is a kindness on your part to deter suicide. I think the thread is about the justice or the injustice of the death penalty.

I have not been to prison. Maybe it isn't as bad as I imagine. If I committed a murder (which I wouldn't do) and a just penalty is prison or the death penalty, I might choose death. I like my freedom.

 

[Madhuri]

Personally, I am left with doubt over only one possibility and that's @Madhuri 's "mercy killing" - I just don't know how we could know whether death really is preferable to life in a cage (unless we give the convicted murderer the option). I feel we should probably err on the side of caution and I'm guessing most death-rowers would probably agree.

It's certainly not a simple situation with a simple solution. Whichever system is used, there will be problems and people who suffer unfairly. It seems to be a utilitarian ethical dilemma and so it's a matter of understanding which system has a higher 'good' balance and I suppose that's difficult to determine without having a lot of knowledge on the subject.

 

[Koldo]

This seems like pretty classic cherry picking to me. If they're not using a lay definition of revenge what definition are they using? A legal one?

You didn't get it.
The definition you have mentioned fails to grasp what the word 'revenge' means. Or to put it in another way, your definition doesn't represent accurately how the word is used in lay terms. That's what I was pointing. Using the dictionary can lead us to definitions so broad that we would have to consider the mere act of putting someone in jail ( because a crime was committed by this individual ) as a form of 'revenge'. The word 'revenge' entails an emotional involvement that is simply unnecessary in 'retributive justice'.

Restorative justice is not about what's to be done to the criminal, it's what's to be done for society. It's not about the person (the criminal.) Retribution justice is focused on a person, namely the criminal.

Retributive justice is about the criminal and the society.
But that's besides the point. What was being meant by 'impersonal' is that it is not the victim ( or a vigilante ) that gets to judge and pass the sentence, but rather the State.

I'm no judge, but probably in a more constructive way than 'you should kill the criminal's dog to show them killing dogs are wrong'.

You would be hard pressed to find someone that would support that.
I was showing that the issues you have pointed out also apply to restorative justice.

Restorative justice isn't about making the criminal pay, it's not focused on the criminal at all. It's focused on repairing the damage done to society and the victim, so monetary compensation for a determination of value lost, including work, is metted out regardless of if the criminal can pay for it. Sometimes it's through insurances, sometimes through state programs. Again, I'm not a judge or lawyer so I couldn't give you more details without further research.

Can you give me a real world example where the State pays the compensation ?

Neverminding that life sentences aren't really, alive > not alive. And 'without possibility of parole' is incredibly rare.

And do you believe that a life sentence with parole is a proper sentence for murder ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Or to put it in another way, your definition doesn't represent accurately how the word is used in lay terms

Dictionaries are based on lay usage. Your personal usage may vary, but dictionary terms are lay terms.

The word 'revenge' entails an emotional involvement that is simply unnecessary in 'retributive justice'.

Emotional involvement isn't necessary for revenge, even though I highly doubt emotion isn't involved even by third parties. You don't need to be a victim to want to enact vengeance.
But I digress, based on common use/lay use, emotional investment isn't a requirement for the term 'revenge.'

And do you believe that a life sentence with parole is a proper sentence for murder ?

Yes, because killing to show killing is wrong is self-contradicting, and the practical effect of such measures means a number of undesirable effects, including execution from wrongful conviction, escalation of violence because life is preferable to non-life and does not work as a deterrent measure, nor works at all to make society a safer or better place. All of which is and should be considered in how we address the justice system.

 

[Koldo]

Dictionaries are based on lay usage. Your personal usage may vary, but dictionary terms are lay terms.

But they often fail at explaining the connotative meaning of the words.
Read my last post where I further elaborate on this point.

Emotional involvement isn't necessary for revenge, even though I highly doubt emotion isn't involved even by third parties. You don't need to be a victim to want to enact vengeance.
But I digress, based on common use/lay use, emotional investment isn't a requirement for the term 'revenge.'

I disagree completely. Based on common use, there is an emotional aspect to revenge.

Yes, because killing to show killing is wrong is self-contradicting, and the practical effect of such measures means a number of undesirable effects, including execution from wrongful conviction, escalation of violence because life is preferable to non-life and does not work as a deterrent measure, nor works at all to make society a safer or better place. All of which is and should be considered in how we address the justice system.

Most certainly the intent of death penalty can't be properly summarized as 'killing to show killing is wrong'. That is a straw man.
Putting that aside, it all comes down to what you value more. I am not willing to compromise ( or in other words, to accept anything less than a life sentence without parole ) on justice, at least on regards to specific cases such as murder, for some sort of utilitarian benefit.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most certainly the intent of death penalty can't be properly summarized as 'killing to show killing is wrong'.

I don't think many people see it that way.
It's more.....
"Punishment by execution discourages murder."

The point can be argued, but it's the more common view.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But they often fail at explaining the connotative meaning of the words.
Read my last post where I further elaborate on this point.



I disagree completely. Based on common use, there is an emotional aspect to revenge.



Most certainly the intent of death penalty can't be properly summarized as 'killing to show killing is wrong'. That is a straw man.
Putting that aside, it all comes down to what you value more. I am not willing to compromise ( or in other words, to accept anything less than a life sentence without parole ) on justice, at least on regards to specific cases such as murder, for some sort of utilitarian benefit.

If there's a connotation that vengeance requires emotion beyond the common usage defined by the dictionary, can you show it to me? Why should I accept that definition?

I don't believe it's a strawman at all. As the only arguments I've seen for Capitol punishment are either nonsensical 'It's just what's right(arbitrary moral judgement death deserves death)' or untrue 'it's less expensive/reduces crime.'

I'm a utilitarian consequentialist so we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Syl]

No, I strongly disagree with it. I don't think it's proven to be a very useful deterrent and I can't help but worry about false convictions.
I could list further reasons as to why I disagree with it but I'd rather keep my commentary brief.

 

[Koldo]

If there's a connotation that vengeance requires emotion beyond the common usage defined by the dictionary, can you show it to me? Why should I accept that definition?

I have no reason to accept yours either.
Let's do it like this: Can you show me a few popular cases that are widely regarded as 'revenge' and yet there is no emotional involvement ?
I am not proposing an argument from ignorance if you can't, but what I am asking is certainly fairly more feasible than doing the opposite.

I don't believe it's a strawman at all. As the only arguments I've seen for Capitol punishment are either nonsensical 'It's just what's right(arbitrary moral judgement death deserves death)' or untrue 'it's less expensive/reduces crime.'

I have never come across someone defending death penalty and saying that it is 'killing to show that killing is wrong.'. Can you find an example ?

I'm a utilitarian consequentialist so we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that.

And do you sincerely believe that is not an arbitrary position ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I have no reason to accept yours either.
Let's do it like this: Can you show me a few popular cases that are widely regarded as 'revenge' and yet there is no emotional involvement ?
I am not proposing an argument from ignorance if you can't, but what I am asking is certainly fairly more feasible than doing the opposite.



I have never come across someone defending death penalty and saying that it is 'killing to show that killing is wrong.'. Can you find an example ?



And do you sincerely believe that is not an arbitrary position ?

Cases as in examples or cases as in court cases? Because I'm not going to invest the time in the latter but I will say that most people accept popular fiction where vigilantes punish criminals without personal emotion and it is called 'vengence.' Even typified in literary circles as revenge fantasies, same with popular Westerns.
But while this is all moot, I think we're straying from the topic because, like I said, I don't believe people saying they should order execution are not emotional or not making it personal.

I haven't met anyone who says it in seriousness either because that's a tongue-in-cheek phrase which highlights the hypocrisy. I have encountered plenty of people who believe death merits death. I even believe that to be one of the central themes of the largest religion in the world.

Yes, I sincerely believe it's not an arbitrary position. I'm not an absolutionist and don't believe in absolute objective judgements, but I do believe utilitarian consequentialism is less arbitrary than what I believe capitol punishment truly supports: a thinly veiled appeal to emotion, without consideration to how it impacts society at large.

 

[Koldo]

Cases as in examples or cases as in court cases? Because I'm not going to invest the time in the latter but I will say that most people accept popular fiction where vigilantes punish criminals without personal emotion and it is called 'vengence.' Even typified in literary circles as revenge fantasies, same with popular Westerns.
But while this is all moot, I think we're straying from the topic because, like I said, I don't believe people saying they should order execution are not emotional or not making it personal.

Can you clarify this sentence ?
I don't understand what you meant here.

I haven't met anyone who says it in seriousness either because that's a tongue-in-cheek phrase which highlights the hypocrisy. I have encountered plenty of people who believe death merits death. I even believe that to be one of the central themes of the largest religion in the world.

But there is no inherent hypocrisy, unless I am not understanding some specific case you are talking about.
The killing of human beings per se is not the issue to many people. The problem is the circumstance surrounding this event.

Yes, I sincerely believe it's not an arbitrary position. I'm not an absolutionist and don't believe in absolute objective judgements, but I do believe utilitarian consequentialism is less arbitrary than what I believe capitol punishment truly supports: a thinly veiled appeal to emotion, without consideration to how it impacts society at large.

If you believe that it is less arbitrary than something, then don't you believe that it is, at least, somewhat arbitrary ?
Nevertheless, whatever justification you can find for it is arbitrary, because in the end it all comes down to what you value, and that influences how you want your society to be.

 

[idav]

Do you?

"An eye for an eye makes the world go blind" - Gandhi
I think its kind a of interesting to see states that do and don't have death penalty.
States With and Without the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

 

[Spiderman]

I'm pleased with the results of this thread and the general consensus of RF on many topics

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think many people see it that way.
It's more.....
"Punishment by execution discourages murder."

The point can be argued, but it's the more common view.

They're both part of it. The deterrence doesn't get borne out in the data, but it's part of the intent.

... but as I touched on earlier in the thread, inculcation is also a part of criminal justice: it's a way for society to express its shared values.

And when a society has the death penalty, it's implicitly saying "it's sometimes okay to kill people who pose no threat to you. Sometimes, you can just kill people... methodologically, deliberately, and with plenty of forethought."

 

[Revoltingest]

And when a society has the death penalty, it's implicitly saying "it's sometimes okay to kill people who pose no threat to you. Sometimes, you can just kill people... methodologically, deliberately, and with plenty of forethought."

I'm OK with that as punishment.
But from a practical viewpoint, there's too much error
in judgments to impose an irreversible sentence.

 

[Fire_Monkey]

Do you?

I do. Some people simply do not deserve to continue to live in our world. Through their own heinous and evil acts they have lost their privelages. They have violated the Social Contract in egregious and wanton fashion. Thumbing their noses at our accepted laws and morals.
So, say I, should we too thumb our noses at their human rights.
The only problem with the death penalty is that it is not used often enough. At least not in my country. Texas and Florida come the closest to using it in its optimally frequent manner, but they even are a bit slow.
No convicted convict should spend more than, say, a couple of months on Death Row. Do you know that Sirhan Sirhan is still on Death Row? The guy who killed RFK? LOL. Absurd. That was over 50 years ago!

Some of the libs say the DP should not be used since it is not a deterrent. To that I say....."pffftth!" (The sound of me raising my left butt cheek and farting). LOL. Use the DP more often as I say, and do it in public or Televised, and I bet you it will become a deterrent!

FM