The Death Penalty

[Poisonshady313]

Arrgh.

Okay. Let's try again. Replace "if you play with matches, your house will burn down" with "if you walk through this part of town, you'll get mugged."

Does a person walking through that part of town demand that you (or someone else) mug him or her?

The problem with this one is, walking through this part of town isn't inherently wrong. It is not a reasonable reaction to mug someone while walking. To punish a person who has done no wrong is unjust.

Shedding someone's blood is inherently wrong... and deserves a punishment... an undesirable reaction.

 

[Nessa Nenharma]

I have a problem with the death penalty because most of the time it isn't the state or the government that was wronged to begin with. I don't see how you can justify strapping someone down while you inject them to die, yet they have a problem with suicide or even assisted suicide. They make these people spends years or decades of their lives living in tiny cells while they await a fate that isn't for our judicial system to decide.

You want a "jury of your peers" let the victims decide their punishment and see how long they have to wait

:bb:

Nessa

 

[Poisonshady313]

I have a problem with the death penalty because most of the time it isn't the state or the government that was wronged to begin with.

Then forget the penalty phase... You sound like you have an issue with a case being called "The State of Texas vs. Roach"

I don't know why, but someone somewhere made a whole bunch of crimes be considered offenses against the state... like Murder for example.

Maybe we should change the system so that the only criminals who are arrested are those whose victims have family members to offer a prosecution on behalf of the victim.

How does that sound?

Or maybe we decriminalize murder... after all, if the victim can't speak for him or herself, it's nobody else's business.

How's that?

 

[Nessa Nenharma]

I believe I said "MOST".

So please jump down off your high horse

:bb:

Nessa

 

[Poisonshady313]

I believe I said "MOST".

So please jump down off your high horse

:bb:

Nessa

I'm not on a high horse... you registered a complaint, I'm trying to offer an alternative that makes sense in light of your complaint.

Maybe we should make criminal cases just like civil cases, where you can only prosecute if you have standing. I suppose the only time the State could ever prosecute such a case is if a State employee were murdered...

 

[Nessa Nenharma]

I see you still have forgotten I wrote most. I realize that some people who are murdered don't have relatives, hence the most. I also realize that a lot of people are falsely on death row for "crimes against the state". While still others are sent free. My point was that not ALL crimes are against the state or government. My main point was that I don't see how you can justify killing someone in the name of something that wasn't even wronged. I said nothing of life in prison for what they consider crimes against the state. I didn't say anything about the fact that the judicial system shouldn't prosecute them, all I said is that you shouldn't justify your killing in the name of another.

:bb:

Nessa

 

[Willamena]

Whats your thoughts on it?

Sucks.

Or "socks", as the case may be.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I see you still have forgotten I wrote most. I realize that some people who are murdered don't have relatives, hence the most. I also realize that a lot of people are falsely on death row for "crimes against the state". While still others are sent free. My point was that not ALL crimes are against the state or government. My main point was that I don't see how you can justify killing someone in the name of something that wasn't even wronged. I said nothing of life in prison for what they consider crimes against the state. I didn't say anything about the fact that the judicial system shouldn't prosecute them, all I said is that you shouldn't justify your killing in the name of another.

:bb:

Nessa

So then, it's ok to imprison someone in the name of something that wasn't even wronged... but not to kill them. Have I got it right yet?

 

[PureX]

An atomic bomb ended world war 2. (well, 2 atomic bombs).

When violence escalates to all out war, it eventually ends when one side or the other runs out of a desire or the ability to fight. This in no way justifies the escalation of violence that I can see. By the way, the atomic bomb didn't end the escalation, it only ended the Pacific war. It BEGAN the escalation of the cold war when other nations realized that they were going to have to have these huge bombs, too, to protect themselves from us.

A killer wouldn't kill if he didn't think he'd get away with it. (Unless it was truly a crime of passion, in which case you might see a person turn himself in).

Most murders are not thought out ahead of time, so that the murderers considered the consequences. Most murders are committed as a visceral response to some imagined threat, or offense, on the part of the intended victim, or as part of a drug/alcohol/emotional/delusional mental state in which murder appears reasonable at that moment. This is why it has been shown that capital punishment is not a significant deterrent to capital crimes. Moreover, we have created a culture in which murder has long been presented as an acceptable way for human beings to resolve their problems, and in which hand guns are readily available to unstable and irresponsible members of society. So it's no surprise, then, that many of these members use them with deadly effect on us and each other.

The authority of the state to put people to death isn't taken seriously because everyone figures they'll get off, plead for a lighter sentence, make parole, whatever it is.

Most murderers are not considering the consequences of their actions at all. AFTERWARDS, they will do so, and then try to hide or get off, but the killing itself is usually not calculated. So this argument doesn't stand. I know it seems logical to you, but you are not the kind of person who is likely to murder someone (unless you use drugs or alcohol regularly).

Killers kill because of various reasons... someone cheated on them... someone stole from them... someone disrespected them, etc...

The reasons are irrelevant. What is relevant is that they believe killing is a reasonable response to these real or imagined problems with other people, in the moment that they kill. And they feel this way because they've seen killing used by the 'good guys' to solve such problems in hundreds and thousands of movies and TV shows, and because they are given this message even by state sanctioned capital punishment.

How many millions of people are stolen from, cheated from, and disrespected that DON'T commit first degree murder with at least 1 of several aggravating factors?

They aren't part of this issue, because they aren't part of the problem.

Teach the lesson that they can't get away with it... they'll be less likely to do it.

This is a proven fallacy.

 

[Gentoo]

If they actually did that, they were just stupid (edit: I do get the sneaking suspicion, though, that you haven't presented all the relevant details. Texas isn't usually the sort of place where they go easy on criminals).

Actually, it's true: link.

 

[McBell]

This is a proven fallacy.

By whom?
Pakistan shows otherwise.

 

[McBell]

The STATE does have the right to kill.
Please be so kind as to see the Fifth Amendment.
Hence we have capital punishment.

Once again, the Fifth Amendment does NOT say that the State has the right to kill. What it says is that people have a right to due process of the law. Please read up on the history of the Bill of Rights and what it's intent was. There's a reason why it's called the Bill of RIGHTS.

Even the wiki states it up front:
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.

I am not saying that the Fifth Amendment GIVES/grants the right to kill.
The Fifth Amendment recognizes that the right to kill exists.

The Fifth Amendment limits the right to kill to after due process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not saying that the Fifth Amendment GIVES/grants the right to kill.
The Fifth Amendment recognizes that the right to kill exists.

In the case of the Federal government, by the 10th Amendment, if it isn't explicitly granted a power in the Constitution, it doesn't have it.

Where does the Federal government's right to kill come from? Anyone?

 

[PureX]

By whom?
Pakistan shows otherwise.

A single exception does not disprove a general rule. Also, violence and crime are not the same things. We could eliminate all crime in the U.S. today by declaring all behavior legal. But this would do nothing to eliminate the violence. In fact, it would likely increase. Countries like Pakistan legalize brutal violence, and then claim a low "crime rate". But that's because their violence has been legalized, not because it's not there.

 

[Storm]

A single exception does not disprove a general rule. Also, violence and crime are not the same things. We could eliminate all crime in the U.S. today by declaring all behavior legal. But this would do nothing to eliminate the violence. In fact, it would likely increase. Countries like Pakistan legalize brutal violence, and then claim a low "crime rate". But that's because their violence has been legalized, not because it's not there.

Forgive my ignorance, PureX, but I know nothing about foreign legal systems. Can you give an example of legalized violence is Pakistan? Is it, for instance, legal to rob someone?

 

[McBell]

A single exception does not disprove a general rule. Also, violence and crime are not the same things. We could eliminate all crime in the U.S. today by declaring all behavior legal. But this would do nothing to eliminate the violence. In fact, it would likely increase. Countries like Pakistan legalize brutal violence, and then claim a low "crime rate". But that's because their violence has been legalized, not because it's not there.

Interesting.
You still have not provided an answer to the question:

This is a proven fallacy.

By whom?

please present who it is/was who showed that:

Teach the lesson that they can't get away with it... they'll be less likely to do it.

is a "proven fallacy"

 

[PureX]

Forgive my ignorance, PureX, but I know nothing about foreign legal systems. Can you give an example of legalized violence is Pakistan? Is it, for instance, legal to rob someone?

No, but it's legal to beat, imprison, maim, and sometimes even kill your wife.

Using the supposed lack of 'criminality' in countries with brutal and violent criminal justice systems does nothing to dispel the correlation between a violent government and violence among their people. The violence remains, they simply call more of it legal than we do.

 

[PureX]

Interesting.
You still have provided an answer to the questionlease present who it is/was who showed that:is a "proven fallacy"

That capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to capital crime is a long established fact. Many studies have been done. I am sure there are many web sites that you could easily find and read if you actually were interested in doing so, but I really don't think you're interested in doing so, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time looking them up and posting them for you, so that you can ignore them.

The fact is that most violent crimes are not premeditated, so the "consequences" of committing the crime don't come into play until after the crime has been committed. Thus, they can't possibly be a deterrent.

 

[McBell]

That capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to capital crime is a long established fact. Many studies have been done. I am sure there are many web sites that you could easily find and read if you actually were interested in doing so, but I really don't think you're interested in doing so, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time looking them up and posting them for you, so that you can ignore them.

The fact is that most violent crimes are not premeditated, so the "consequences" of committing the crime don't come into play until after the crime has been committed. Thus, they can't possibly be a deterrent.

Still no source?
If it is such a well known fact, why can't you present a source?
Especially given that I have linked TWO sources that state the exact opposite.

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

Deterrence

 

[PureX]

Still no source?
If it is such a well known fact, why can't you present a source?

Because you aren't interested.