The Death Penalty

[Enoch07]

the death penalty has never been shown to deter criminals, so it's just as unethical as murder.

You keep using this illogical statement as an excuse. The statement is an incorrect assumption because the death penalty is not enforced to its fullest extent in the states where the death penalty is legal. So you cannot judge the effectiveness of a law that is not being carried out properly. When they actually execute every single person on death row and then murder rates do not decrease you will have a logical argument. Until then it is just mindless fluff.

 

[MSizer]

I know this wasnt' addressed to me, but I'll answer anyway.

I think victims of such injuries should be given the same treatment as the criminally insane. Treat them with as much compassion as possible, but prevent them from harming society at the same time. It's not their fault, and that needs to be taken into consideration, but they need to be controlled, too.

OK, that's cool, and I agree with you. But, I think we need to take it further still. For example, let's say that we understand that this man's sexual proclivities are a product of his brain, so he's not responsible (but admittedly needs to be controlled somehow). Does that mean that my "normal" sexual proclivities (well, mostly normal haha) are not the product of my brain? No, I don't think so. That's where I'm stuck right now in my understanding - I'm trying to figure out what justifies punishment, and what justifies an exception. I haven't figured it out yet.

 

[MSizer]

You keep using this illogical statement as an excuse. The statement is an incorrect assumption because the death penalty is not enforced to its fullest extent in the states where the death penalty is legal. So you cannot judge the effectiveness of a law that is not being carried out properly. When they actually execute every single person on death row and then murder rates do not decrease you will have a logical argument. Until then it is just mindless fluff.

Co-relation doesn't imply causation, but facts are facts my friend.

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

 

[Enoch07]

Co-relation doesn't imply causation, but facts are facts my friend.

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

Facts from a biased source, that also does not weigh in the fact that the death penalty is not carried out properly. Your argument has no weight, it is flawed because it ignores factors. Until all death row inmates are executed you cannot judge the deterrence of the death penalty.

 

[Storm]

MSizer, are you a determinist? It's a bit tangential, but might help me understand your position.

 

[MSizer]

Facts from a biased source, that also does not weigh in the fact that the death penalty is not carried out properly. Your argument has no weight, it is flawed because it ignores factors. Until all death row inmates are executed you cannot judge the deterrence of the death penalty.

You keep focusing on your fallacious opinion that we have reason to believe that enforcing the death penalty strictly would have a positive effect, but we couldn't know that until we tried it. So, by that logic you seem to be suggesting that it's ok to risk enforcing immoral activities in order to figure out whether they're beneficial or not. Would you force people to swallow liquid drano to find out whether it's fatally poisonous and try to justify it by saying that once we know for sure we'll be better informed?

 

[Aquitaine]

Originally Posted by MSizer
the death penalty has never been shown to deter criminals, so it's just as unethical as murder.

Well, the law and Police have never been shown to deter criminals either, shall we get rid of these too?

But no, seriously the reason I'm quoting you is 'cause I have to disagree with your stance on how the state executing a convicted (and by that I mean 100% guilty) Murderer or Rapist, why is it as unethical?

I'm sorry, but we do not have the luxury to hold all Human life in such high regard, we don't need these people, they have (without reason) decided to kill or rape someone - they are the bad guys in this world, they are the enemies of the upstanding, peacefull Citizens.

You don't love your enemies, MSizer, you either get them to co-operate or kill them. IMO as soon as an individual commits a serious offence (like murder, rape, child molestation, watching Fox News etc) then they sign away their Human Rights, and should be treated in accordance to their lack of rights, i.e. hanged or banged (as in shot lol).



But why do people care so much for these convicted serious offenders? Of course the only concern people should have is whether or not we've convicted the right person, but on a principle level, if the guy was guilty, then why care?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Co-relation doesn't imply causation, but facts are facts my friend.

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

Worthless facts. Coincidences. Because in any given year, most death penalty states don't execute anybody anyway.

And the state most likely to execute people... texas... has lower death rates than michigan... a state with no death penalty statute.

Fact is, if there are more than 200 people on death row in any given state... and that state executes 2 people, it's impossible to say that the death penalty in that state had an effect one way or another... because less than 1% of the people who should be executed actually are. They might as well have been stabbed by a fellow inmate serving a 5 year sentence

There's probably a better chance of being murdered by a fellow inmate than there is of being put to death anywhere in this country.

 

[Storm]

Well, the law and Police have never been shown to deter criminals either, shall we get rid of these too?

But no, seriously the reason I'm quoting you is 'cause I have to disagree with your stance on how the state executing a convicted (and by that I mean 100% guilty) Murderer or Rapist, why is it as unethical?

I'm sorry, but we do not have the luxury to hold all Human life in such high regard, we don't need these people, they have (without reason) decided to kill or rape someone - they are the bad guys in this world, they are the enemies of the upstanding, peacefull Citizens.

You don't love your enemies, MSizer, you either get them to co-operate or kill them. IMO as soon as an individual commits a serious offence (like murder, rape, child molestation, watching Fox News etc) then they sign away their Human Rights, and should be treated in accordance to their lack of rights, i.e. hanged or banged (as in shot lol).



But why do people care so much for these convicted serious offenders? Of course the only concern people should have is whether or not we've convicted the right person, but on a principle level, if the guy was guilty, then why care?

This is my problem, as well.

Also, MSizer, are you a determinist? (Repeating because I think you may've missed it due to posting at the same time. )

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But no, seriously the reason I'm quoting you is 'cause I have to disagree with your stance on how the state executing a convicted (and by that I mean 100% guilty) Murderer or Rapist, why is it as unethical?

How exactly do we determine the 100% guilty ones from the ones that will later be proven innocent?

 

[Storm]

How exactly do we determine the 100% guilty ones from the ones that will later be proven innocent?

For purposes of the question, can you assume that it's been determined?

Maybe they were caught in the act, whatever.

 

[Enoch07]

You keep focusing on your fallacious opinion that we have reason to believe that enforcing the death penalty strictly would have a positive effect, but we couldn't know that until we tried it. So, by that logic you seem to be suggesting that it's ok to risk enforcing immoral activities in order to figure out whether they're beneficial or not. Would you force people to swallow liquid drano to find out whether it's fatally poisonous and try to justify it by saying that once we know for sure we'll be better informed?

How is the law conducting immoral activities by executing murderers that are on death row? It is legal to execute convicted murderers in most states. So there is nothing immoral about it. My opinion is not fallacious because it is untested, lets test it and find out shall we. But atleast my opinion is weighted with facts, and not ignoring some facts, which means my opinion has less chance of being incorrect.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

For purposes of the question, can you assume that it's been determined?

Maybe they were caught in the act, whatever.

But this is the crux of the issue for me. If a system cannot be shown to be 100% accurate in determining guilt, then having a death penalty should not even be a consideration.

 

[Storm]

Saying that legality automatically equals morality is not a good argument, Enoch.

 

[Storm]

But this is the crux of the issue for me. If a system cannot be shown to be 100% accurate in determining guilt, then having a death penalty should not even be a consideration.

Fair enough, but the question deals with those who are guilty. I don't understand the position that the life of a child raping murderer is sacred. I truly don't.

I do understand your reticence to support capital punishment based on such uncertainty (if you'll review the thread, I actually share it), but I'd appreciate a hypothetical answer at least.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You keep focusing on your fallacious opinion that we have reason to believe that enforcing the death penalty strictly would have a positive effect, but we couldn't know that until we tried it. So, by that logic you seem to be suggesting that it's ok to risk enforcing immoral activities in order to figure out whether they're beneficial or not. Would you force people to swallow liquid drano to find out whether it's fatally poisonous and try to justify it by saying that once we know for sure we'll be better informed?

By that analogy, the death penalty absolutely is a deterrent, because that murderer is most assuredly deterred from murdering.

As far as other people are concerned, your analogy is meaningless.

A person who commits murder is far less likely to be executed than a person who drinks drano is likely to be fatally poisoned.


Therefore, more people are likely to think "bad things will happen to me if I drink drano".

Less people are likely to think "If I stab my mother in law 37 times in the head and neck, I'll be put to death"

Why?

Because people who drink drano are surely going to suffer severely, if they don't die.

People who commit murder have a better chance at getting away with it than being put to death for it.

 

[MSizer]

Saying that legality automatically equals morality is not a good argument, Enoch.

Thanks Storm. Slavery used to be legal.

 

[Aquitaine]

But this is the crux of the issue for me. If a system cannot be shown to be 100% accurate in determining guilt, then having a death penalty should not even be a consideration.

The same could be said for life sentences, the innocent could die in his cell long before they realise he's innocent.

I share your veiw that the most important issue is convicting the right person, but that's the same with everything - making sure the post gets delivered to the right person, or the missile hits the right target etc.

What we need is further improvements to the courts to make sure we're as accurate as possible.

But as I said, on a principle level, if he was guilty, then why would it be immoral to execute him?

 

[Enoch07]

Saying that legality automatically equals morality is not a good argument, Enoch.

How is the law conducting immoral activities by executing murderers that are on death row? It is legal to execute convicted murderers in most states. So there is nothing immoral about it. My opinion is not fallacious because it is untested, lets test it and find out shall we. But atleast my opinion is weighted with facts, and not ignoring some facts, which means my opinion has less chance of being incorrect.

Sorry I am failing to see how you think I said legality equals morality. The law is neither moral or immoral for executing murderers. It is simply the law, unbiased and indifferent but performing its function nonetheless. That is if the death penalty was actually enforced like it was intended to be.

 

[Storm]

Sorry I am failing to see how you think I said legality equals morality. The law is neither moral or immoral for executing murderers. It is simply the law, unbiased and indifferent but performing its function nonetheless. That is if the death penalty was actually enforced like it was intended to be.

OK, just a miscommunication, then.