The Death Penalty

[Nepenthe]

BULL CRAPPOLA haha. Executions can be performed for less than $1 per execution. The cost of a single bullet. Quick, painless, and humane.

Did you even read my post much less the article? You didn't even address anything in my post. That's an all too common trend I see.

eta: I see Storm has a faster trigger finger than I.

 

[Enoch07]

There's more to it than the cost of the execution itself, Enoch. Appeals, etc..

Yes but even prisoners serving life sentences will be appealing, except for ones plea bargaining. The cost of appeals applies to almost all convicts regardless of death penalty or not, or do you honestly think only death row inmates are appealing?

 

[monta]

Prison sounds like a vacation home where taxpayers pay for the vacation if you ask me. Murder all day long, get arrested kick back and have life served to on a silver platter, because you know the state does not have the guts do execute you. Yes that is going to deter someone.

Who has it deterred?

 

[Nepenthe]

Missed this.

I think the difference is mainly due to culture and economics, honestly.

Agreed, particularly economics. I still think it raises questions as to the vailidity of deterrence. I don't doubt gun control laws are a major factor between the two countries as well, but that raises another sticky conflict between guns and culture and that'd be another fun thread that I see being resolved quickly.

 

[Enoch07]

Who has it deterred?

The death penalty has deterred countless would be murderers. Because the ones who have actually been deterred never committed the crime, thus it is impossible to say how many that has been deterred.

 

[monta]

The death penalty has deterred countless would be murderers. Because the ones who have actually been deterred never committed the crime, thus it is impossible to say how many that has been deterred.

It is in fact impossible to say that even 1 has been dettered.

 

[Nepenthe]

The death penalty has deterred countless would be murderers. Because the ones who have actually been deterred never committed the crime, thus it is impossible to say how many that has been deterred.

 

[Storm]

monta, you've stated several times that you don't understand why people support the death penalty. So, I'll try to explain my feelings without getting all worked up.

Maybe it's an effective deterrent and maybe it isn't. I don't know, and tbh, I care very little. It strikes me that prison isn't much of a deterrent, either. At any rate, it serves at least one practical purpose: threat of the death penalty often spurs criminals to accept plea bargains of life without possibility of parole. This spares the state the expense of prosecution, and more importantly, spares the victims/ families the emotional roller coaster of a lengthy trial and the possibility (however slim) of a monster going free.

But it's not about that. It's about drawing a line in the sand. About taking a stand on things that we simply will. not. tolerate. That some things are simply unforgiveable. It's not so much about the darkness as how far we're willing to go to fight it.

I often wonder, though, how heavily my stance on this is influenced by other factors. I have no fear of death, and indeed, would prefer it to incarceration. Then there's the theological angle: I believe that the "souls" of such people are suffering, and that death will release them. I also have an admittedly rather primitive understanding of justice: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. UU spurs me to seek a better way, but when the ideal falls to ugly reality, my instincts are rather harsh. And finally, this is all very personal to me. As you may recall, I was horrifically abused as a child. I've made my own kind of peace with that, and I'm obviously not unbiased, but I truly believe that my abusers are beyond redemption, and the only way to stop them is death.

Put all that together, and perhaps I accept the idea of capital punishment a little too readily, but that's where I stand.

 

[Enoch07]

It is in fact impossible to say that even 1 has been dettered.

If they death penalty was enforced like it should be. You would see deterrence, I guarantee. But because it is not being enforced like it was intended to. It is impossible for anyone to say how many exactly have been deterred or not.

 

[Storm]

Agreed, particularly economics. I still think it raises questions as to the vailidity of deterrence.

OK.

I don't doubt gun control laws are a major factor between the two countries as well, but that raises another sticky conflict between guns and culture and that'd be another fun thread that I see being resolved quickly.

I'd participate in such a thread.

No response to post #257?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

On a personal bases...yes.... but only in self defense.

Though it is lawful for the government to execute convicted murderers.

I still wouldn't call this "right" or "okay" if it was necessary to protect youself or others in a dire situation, than yes I suppose it would be "appropriate" to kill but I myself could never feel comfortable sending someone to death. Whether by my own two hands, an injection, firing squad, hanging, decapitation, quatering, drowning, cucifixtion, or any thing else, I can never find the killing of another human being "okay."

 

[Enoch07]

I still wouldn't call this "right" or "okay" if it was necessary to protect youself or others in a dire situation, than yes I suppose it would be "appropriate" to kill but I myself could never feel comfortable sending someone to death. Whether by my own two hands, an injection, firing squad, hanging, decapitation, quatering, drowning, cucifixtion, or any thing else, I can never find the killing of another human being "okay."

Well just don't become a professional executor then. Killing someone in self defense or defense of ones family is permissible though. I think you would feel worse for letting your family get murdered by doing nothing, then killing the attacker of your family.

 

[MSizer]

I really think we're not seeing the point here. The death penalty has never been shown to deter criminals, and there is ample evidence to show that criminals will do their thing regardless to what the consequences may be. I think the real fact of the matter is that penalization is necessary for maintaining social order, and that it has nothing to do with right or wrong at all. What we need to focus on is understanding why criminals do the things they do. I beleive that Socrates was right - nobody does anything wrong on purpose. The fact is that we're all slaves to our minds, and some of us have minds that think it's ok to do things most of us think are not ok. If the world is going to be a better place, we need to spend more money on figuring out these anomolies (criminals) and "curing" (for lack of a better term) them rather than just locking them up or killing them. For now unfortunately those two options are our only ones, but death is permanent, so I draw the line there myself (I don't agree with it on the grounds that a cure could be around the corner at any time).

 

[Storm]

I really think we're not seeing the point here. The death penalty has never been shown to deter criminals, and there is ample evidence to show that criminals will do their thing regardless to what the consequences may be. I think the real fact of the matter is that penalization is necessary for maintaining social order, and that it has nothing to do with right or wrong at all. What we need to focus on is understanding why criminals do the things they do. I beleive that Socrates was right - nobody does anything wrong on purpose. The fact is that we're all slaves to our minds, and some of us have minds that think it's ok to do things most of us think are not ok. If the world is going to be a better place, we need to spend more money on figuring out these anomolies (criminals) and "curing" (for lack of a better term) them rather than just locking them up or killing them. For now unfortunately those two options are our only ones, but death is permanent, so I draw the line there myself (I don't agree with it on the grounds that a cure could be around the corner at any time).

Do you sincerely believe that someone who rapes and murders children can be rehabilitated?

 

[Nepenthe]

OK.


I'd participate in such a thread.

No response to post #257?

Sheesh... I'm trying to maintain the illusion I'm getting work done here Storm...

I agree that victimless crimes should not result in prison time.

:yes:

Death penalty advocates will then say faster trials and focusing efforts on correcting the conviction stage would alleviate the costs in the long run, while I'd argue that this would increase the likelihood of innocent people being convicted.

No, I agree with this.

I agree that trials should be streamlined and the convoluted appeals process isn't efficient; my fear is that streamlining it' would be at the cost of increased injustices against innocent people. But that alone doesn't justify my opposition to the death penalty; like most arguments for and against my opposition boils down to opposing the state having inordinate control over its citizens lives.

No again. While a murderer's life isn't worth it, making sure the person in question actually is a murderer is.

I agree for the most part, though I do think a murderer's life is worth defending.

Morally, it's just as bad for an innocent to spend a year in prison as to be executed, in my book.

I'm not sure about this part(?). Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Enoch07]

I really think we're not seeing the point here. The death penalty has never been shown to deter criminals

This statement is not valid. You are saying that it has not deterred anyone, when in fact it is not being used properly. So of course it is not going to deter anyone. Even the states that do enforce death penalty do not enforce it properly.

 

[MSizer]

Do you sincerely believe that someone who rapes and murders children can be rehabilitated?

Yes, I do, and I'd much rather save the victim from having to go through the crime by recognizing someone with those tendencies and intervening BEFORE some poor little girl finds out first hand.

http://www.crimetimes.org/03a/w03ap5.htm

There are many cases like the one above. Furthermore, the threat of penalty only encourages such a person to hide his problem, whereas the chance for help would draw them many of them out of the woodwork. We know that many of them feel remorse.

 

[Storm]

Sheesh... I'm trying to maintain the illusion I'm getting work done here Storm...

:sorry1:

I agree that trials should be streamlined and the convoluted appeals process isn't efficient; my fear is that streamlining it' would be at the cost of increased injustices against innocent people.

I'm hardly an expert. What are the problems you see with the appeals process?

But that alone doesn't justify my opposition to the death penalty; like most arguments for and against my opposition boils down to opposing the state having inordinate control over its citizens lives.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

I agree for the most part, though I do think a murderer's life is worth defending.

Excluding self defense, crimes of passion, insanity, etc.... why? I honestly don't get it.

I'm not sure about this part(?). Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

I see no moral distinction between conviction of innocents due to penalty. Yes, an incarcerated innocent can be freed, but they'll still live with all the consequences of incarceration.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've been a supporter of the death penalty... I just wish that we could reform it so that there would be a shorter appeals procedure. It's not about deterrence - it's about justice.

Living in Texas, if someone murdered a person in my family, I would get to watch them die, being killed by the state.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I beleive that Socrates was right - nobody does anything wrong on purpose.

Guess we've learned nothing since then.