The Death Penalty

[lilithu]

I believe that they need to be killed for a couple of reasons:
1) To prevent them from killing again

Life in prison prevents them from killing again.

2) To demonstrate to society that these types of actions are not acceptable

Killing someone does not demonstrate to society that killing is not acceptable.

3) Vengeance

Like I said, the state should not be in the business of vengeance.

4) I don't want to pay for their housing, feeding, clothing for the next 40 years.

Like I said, money should not be a consideration in whether someone lives or dies.

 

[The Seeker]

I believe that they need to be killed for a couple of reasons:
1) To prevent them from killing again
2) To demonstrate to society that these types of actions are not acceptable
3) Vengeance
4) I don't want to pay for their housing, feeding, clothing for the next 40 years.


Let the battle begin.

1) Life without parole accomplishes this
2) Capital punishment has not been found to deter crime
3) I don't believe that the gov't should be involved in business of revenge
4) I don't like it either, but I find money a poor reason to kill someone.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If the threat of death looming over our collective heads is from the government's desire to modify our behavior in society, I once read Karen Pryor's book Don't Shoot the Dog! some years ago on behavior modification based on the B.F. Skinner models and her experience as a dolphin trainer (sounds odd, but it's a fascinating read on what motivates humans to change behavior for the better and therefore I believe relevent to this debate): here.

 

[lilithu]

Really?
And you know this how?

By the fact that there are appeals? I'm not surprised that some would rather die. Are you seriously arguing that all would rather die? The point is someone's personal opinion that life in prison is more inhumane is not a compelling reason to opt for capital punishment.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You can remove them from the equation by sentencing them to life without parole. Why do we need to kill them?

People break out of prison. Some of those people are killers.

Why do we need to kill them? I want revenge. I want them to pay a price for killing someone. I don't want to pay for them for the next 60 years, while they consume resources.

I could probably come up with more, but this is a good starting point.

 

[Draka]

Life in prison prevents them from killing again.

Um, no it doesn't. It just prevents them from killing on the outside.

 

[Storm]

Life without parole does not prevent a prisoner from killing fellow inmates, or guards.

 

[Draka]

Life without parole does not prevent a prisoner from killing fellow inmates, or guards.

Yep :yes:. That's right. They obviously had no respect for life in the first place, that's how they landed in there. Now, all of a sudden, being locked up is going to change that mindset? I don't think so.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Life in prison prevents them from killing again.

Murders occur in prison at a pretty good clip. People escape from prison at a not infrequent rate. Some of those that escape are murderers.

Killing someone does not demonstrate to society that killing is not acceptable.

I'd say it demonstrates that murder is unnaceptable behaviour quite clearly.

Like I said, the state should not be in the business of vengeance.

The state may not choose to be, but as an individual, I'm all for it. The family and friends of the victim should (in my opinion) also have a say in that. If the family of the victim does not want to inflict the death penalty, that is fine. As a member of the society that has to harbour the killer, I want my vengeance. Again, I understand that many others will disagree with me, but it is an honest portrayal of my view.

Like I said, money should not be a consideration in whether someone lives or dies.

We disagree. Money IS a consideration for me. I place more value on a nickel than I do on the life of a serial killer. Not even a question, in my mind.

 

[lilithu]

They CAN be. They frequently aren't. THat's why we have consecutive life sentences and life without the possibility of parole.

Just because they sometimes aren't restored does not change the fact that they CAN BE, where as life CANNOT be restored.

Last night, you asked me how I square my feelings about the death penalty with the First Principle. I'm still not sure of the answer to that, but it's a hell of a lot easier than squaring the FIrst Principle with the condition of our prisons. How do you do that?

I am in favor of prison reform. It's irrelevant to this argument, however.

Lilithu, it doesn't work that way. We're discussing opinions here, and opinions are not subject to the burden of proof, facts are. I could just as easily claim that the burden is on you, but that's a cheap ploy.

I didn't say proof, did I? If you take a stance, it's generally accepted that you have points to support your argument. And I said that the burden is on you because we recognize the Right to Life. If we did not recognize such a right, then yes, the burden would be on me to argue for its existence. Since we do recognize the Right to Life, the burden is on you and anyone else to explain why it's justified to make exceptions in some cases.

Who is it up to, then? If I agreed with you would it be up to me?

No, of course not. I'm not sure who actually has the right to decide what is more humane, but I am certain that it's not up to personal opinion.

Lilithu, last night my strong feelings got the better of me. In all sympathy, I encourage you to take a step back, too, because the quality of your posts is degenerating.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice. Here's mine: stick to the issue at hand.

 

[McBell]

Life in prison prevents them from killing again.

1) Life without parole accomplishes this

SARCASM
because everyone knows that no one gets murdered in prison...
SARCASM

Killing someone does not demonstrate to society that killing is not acceptable.

2) Capital punishment has not been found to deter crime

Then please explain why so many killers take their victims across state lines or find victims in states that do not have the death penalty?
Seems you two are grossly uninformed/misinformed.

Like I said, the state should not be in the business of vengeance.

3) I don't believe that the gov't should be involved in business of revenge

Then there goes the whole "Justice" system...

Like I said, money should not be a consideration in whether someone lives or dies.

4) I don't like it either, but I find money a poor reason to kill someone.

As do I.
However I try not to boil the whole death penalty debate down to money.
Interestingly enough, if someone is found guilty and sentenced to death, they should be put to death.
To not do so undermines the whole legal system.

 

[Scott1]

We disagree. Money IS a consideration for me. I place more value on a nickel than I do on the life of a serial killer. Not even a question, in my mind.

Really?

Is it the "serial killer" thing.... or is it all murderers that you feel this way about... and does this "value" judgement apply to any other crimes.

Thanks for answering buddy!
S

 

[Aqualung]

At which time the question is asked..."Why should that one person's "right to life" be honored when they didn't honor all these people's "right to life"?

Because if it isn't, then life merely becomes a priveledge doled out to the most obedient. People who kill others should be punished in other ways. Their priveledge to live in society should be taken away. Their priveledge to have a family orrelationships with others, their priveledge to drive and watch TV. But their right to life is the most fundamental right of human existence, and the State should NEVER have the power to deny one of its citizens of the most fundamental right. Once the life has been taken, the state's one job is to make sure that that person never takes another's life again.

Also, I want prison to be a lot harder than it is now. No televisions, no games, maybe some books, cold meals, etc.

[qutoe]The victims of their crimes do not have those gaurantees.[/quote]
Will they suddenly have these guaruntees if the killer dies? No, but they will also be stripped of one extra guaruntee - the guaruntee that the "right" to life is truly a right.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1) Life without parole accomplishes this

No, it doesn't.

2) Capital punishment has not been found to deter crime

This is the single biggest fallacy in the entire position of those that oppose the death penalty. I told Doppleganger at lunch the other day, one of my favorite stories.
Robert Conrad (the actor that played James West in the TV show Wild, Wild West) was a guest on the Tonight Show about 20 years ago (Johnny Carson was still the host).
During the conversation with one of the other guests, the other person made the claim that the Death Penalty had been proven not to be a deterrent. Conrad's reply was both a classic, and to the point:
"Gary Gilmore hasn't killed anybody lately".

Side note for the younger members of RF (from Wikipedia):
Gary Mark Gilmore (December 4, 1940 – January 17, 1977) was an American criminal who gained international notoriety, following two murders in Utah, for demanding that his death sentence be fulfilled (which Utah authorities had no intention of doing). He became the first person executed in the United States after the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 after Gregg v. Georgia lifted the four-year moratorium instated by Furman v. Georgia.

In summation, the Death Penalty is the ultimate deterrent. Now, if you are making the claim that it doesn't deter others, I will leave that open to debate. I have seen studies published, however, that reach the conclusion that it does, in fact, deter others from committing murder. Whether it does or not, though, is just a bonus.

3) I don't believe that the gov't should be involved in business of revenge

I do.

4) I don't like it either, but I find money a poor reason to kill someone.

If we were talking about a common criminal, I would agree. In this instance, though, we are talking about the those criminals that have demonstrated that they place no value on human life. Personally, I would spend the money that it would take to keep a serial killer on death row for a year, and put those resources into the health care of disenfranchised children.

I would rather spend that money on spaying and neutering stray cats and dogs than spend it to keep a serial killer alive.

But then, I have no compunction about putting these people to death.

 

[lilithu]

SARCASM
because everyone knows that no one gets murdered in prison...
SARCASM

SARCASM
It's amazing how concerned yall are now for the possibility that violent offenders in prison might be murdered.
SARCASM

Then please explain why so many killers take their victims across state lines or find victims in states that do not have the death penalty?
Seems you two are grossly uninformed/misinformed.

Your own point proves our point. The killer still kills.

Then there goes the whole "Justice" system...

So in your mind, justice depends on vengeance?

 

[McBell]

Just because they sometimes aren't restored does not change the fact that they CAN BE, where as life CANNOT be restored.

Then they should have thought of that BEFORE they took a life.

I am in favor of prison reform. It's irrelevant to this argument, however.

Yes it is.
Especially given the lack of success with it.

I didn't say proof, did I? If you take a stance, it's generally accepted that you have points to support your argument. And I said that the burden is on you because we recognize the Right to Life. If we did not recognize such a right, then yes, the burden would be on me to argue for its existence. Since we do recognize the Right to Life, the burden is on you and anyone else to explain why it's justified to make exceptions in some cases.

Then why is the stance that they do not agree with the whole "right to life" not good enough for them if merely claiming the stance "right to life" is good enough for you?

No, of course not. I'm not sure who actually has the right to decide what is more humane, but I am certain that it's not up to personal opinion.

Is it not YOUR PERSONAL OPINION that they have the "right to life"?

 

[Draka]

As I have said more than once, one can give up a "right". Any right. In the case of murder it is not the state or the government that is "taking" this right away from the guilty party. They willingly forfeited said "right" when they took it from another. They don't give any value to that right, so obviously they denouce it and give it up via their actions.

You know, it's real nice to know that some people have such reverence and honor for the lives of such people as Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. Especially when such people don't give two freakin hoots about your life or the lives of your families. :sarcastic

 

[Storm]

Just because they sometimes aren't restored does not change the fact that they CAN BE, where as life CANNOT be restored.

No, but it does illustrate the point that sometimes rights SHOULDN'T be restored.

I am in favor of prison reform. It's irrelevant to this argument, however.

Is it? Part of my stance is that a quick death is more humane than life in our prisons. Seems pretty relevant to me.

I didn't say proof, did I? If you take a stance, it's generally accepted that you have points to support your argument. And I said that the burden is on you because we recognize the Right to Life. If we did not recognize such a right, then yes, the burden would be on me to argue for its existence. Since we do recognize the Right to Life, the burden is on you and anyone else to explain why it's justified to make exceptions in some cases.

Sorry, but it sounds like you're trying to weasel out of your need to support your argument, too. Your position is not a given.

That said, every right has exceptions. Ideals are wonderful goals, but they rarely reflect reality. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, or spread defaming lies about someone.

And I'm sorry to do this, but iirc, you support abortion rights. The right to life is not absolute.

No, of course not. I'm not sure who actually has the right to decide what is more humane, but I am certain that it's not up to personal opinion.

It's up to society. I'm part of society; I get a say. Cope.

Thank you for the unsolicited advice. Here's mine: stick to the issue at hand.

You know, a little civility goes a long way.

 

[Draka]

SARCASM
It's amazing how concerned yall are now for the possibility that violent offenders in prison might be murdered.
SARCASM

Oh, I was unaware that guards can't be murdered by the violent prisoners they come in constant contact with. Well, then...that just makes it all the better to keep violent murders around innocent men...they must all be kill-proof. I didn't realize a badge did that.

 

[McBell]

SARCASM
It's amazing how concerned yall are now for the possibility that violent offenders in prison might be murdered.
SARCASM

Nice try.
However the fact is that being in prison does not prevent them from killing.
Interesting how you missed that point and tried a strawman.

Your own point proves our point. The killer still kills.

And you missed the point that they went to a state that does not have the death penalty.
Thus showing that it does in fact deter killing.
At least in the state with the death penalty.

So in your mind, justice depends on vengeance?

Justice is merely legalized vengeance.
Justice is the word used when you feel good about the vengeance being enacted.