USA Death Penalty

[Bthoth]

And yet that hasn't been shown to deter others from doing it.

Is that what you expect, a deterrence?

Is that what creating laws and penalties are for?

 

[Secret Chief]

I know that he is a politician by virtue of his position. That is sufficient to raise such concerns.

You have a blanket dislike of politicians - you assume they are all closed-minded ideologues? Why can someone not have serious concerns over this matter without being summarily dismissed by you?

 

[Secret Chief]

Is that what you expect, a deterrence?

Is that what creating laws and penalties are for?

Such is indeed supposedly a deterrent (amongst other things). That's standard justification for such.

 

[Bthoth]

The legal system should serve to relinquish the human desire for revenge, not use that desire to indulge.

Wow, another tangent supposition.

Justice is not revenge. Cutting the person up and then letting them go to show what happens to murderers could be both a deterrent and vaccine for the indulgence to kill.

This is a religious channel, the bible, the torah, the mitzvah all express that a god wants judgment imposed.

Argue with god. I'm not that guy.

 

[Secret Chief]

Wow, another tangent supposition.

Justice is not revenge. Cutting the person up and then letting them go to show what happens to murderers could be both a deterrent and vaccine for the indulgence to kill.

This is a religious channel, the bible, the torah, the mitzvah all express that a god wants judgment imposed.

Argue with god. I'm not that guy.

You don't need deities to explain this. It's standard stuff, the supposed purposes of punishment by the state: retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation.
---->>>

"Punishment​

As society and the definition of crime changed over time, punishments were introduced. These were intended to ensure that people who made wrong choices and behaved in a way society deems to be wrong reconsidered their actions and followed the law in the future. There are three main categories relevant to the study of crime and punishment since c.1000:

Retribution	This was when the punishment given to someone was intended to get revenge for their crime. Examples include blood feud, mutilation and the death penalty.
Deterrence	This was when the punishment given to someone was intended to discourage them (and others) from committing further crime. Examples include public whipping, stocks and pillory,transportation and the death penalty.
Rehabilitation or reform	This was when the punishment given to someone was intended to help improve their character and give them the opportunity to contribute positively to society. Examples include prison and community service."

- Crimes, punishment and law enforcement - Crime and punishment in Britain overview - Edexcel - GCSE History Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

 

[Bthoth]

You don't need deities to explain this. It's standard stuff, the supposed purposes of punishment by the state: retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation.
---->>>

"Punishment​

As society and the definition of crime changed over time, punishments were introduced. These were intended to ensure that people who made wrong choices and behaved in a way society deems to be wrong reconsidered their actions and followed the law in the future. There are three main categories relevant to the study of crime and punishment since c.1000:

Retribution	This was when the punishment given to someone was intended to get revenge for their crime. Examples include blood feud, mutilation and the death penalty.
Deterrence	This was when the punishment given to someone was intended to discourage them (and others) from committing further crime. Examples include public whipping, stocks and pillory,transportation and the death penalty.
Rehabilitation or reform	This was when the punishment given to someone was intended to help improve their character and give them the opportunity to contribute positively to society. Examples include prison and community service."

- Crimes, punishment and law enforcement - Crime and punishment in Britain overview - Edexcel - GCSE History Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

Supposed............ Key word.

Justice is not about supposed or deterrent. Retribution and rehabilitation are on opposing sides of the spectrum.



Apparently you and I are on different sides of the table too.

 

[Secret Chief]

Supposed............ Key word.

Justice is not about supposed or deterrent. Retribution and rehabilitation are on opposing sides of the spectrum.



Apparently you and I are on different sides of the table too.

What I quoted is the basic stuff taught in UK high schools, the accepted three purposes of punishment. That's the side of the table I'm on.

 

[Shaul]

You have a blanket dislike of politicians - you assume they are all closed-minded ideologues? Why can someone not have serious concerns over this matter without being summarily dismissed by you?

I didn't use the word dislike. Nor did I say anything about assuming. Are you trying to put words in my mouth like a politician?

 

[Secret Chief]

I didn't use the word dislike. Nor did I say anything about assuming. Are you trying to put words in my mouth like a politician?

So explain to me then if I have misconstrued.

 

[Bthoth]

What I quoted is the basic stuff taught in UK high schools, the accepted three purposes of punishment. That's the side of the table I'm on.

UK, not USA. The words 'retribution' and 'deterrence' should be a swat in the behind by parents not society. You threw a curve at me, i swung, a strike. Good job!

I see penalty as deserved, known ill regard is worse than just a sin, it damages the family, the lives surrounding the incident, the pain and the long term damage to 'the common'.

To do some events knowingly, and with malice, maximum justice. Is that the deterrent that you're looking for? How do you teach levels of crime equates to higher penalty. IN my eyes, a person representing others, that commits a crime is responsible for the action imposed to exist and the rolling debts to us all. Good and bad are about what damage-growth is caused by the action 'imposed to exist'. That choice! But I'm a bit weird about personal responsibility.

 

[Shaul]

So explain to me then if I have misconstrued.

Mr. Türk is a lawyer who is a U.N. High Commissioner. His position is a highly political one in which he can only present a limited and biased perspective. That perspective is only allowed to be anti-death penalty. It is that simple.

 

[InChrist]

You didn't answer my question, plus it's obvious that you are so willing to blow Jesus' teaching off. I quoted what Jesus said, and now you have tried to find excuses to ignore it, thus one has to question whether your screen name is even remotely accurate.

It's easy to believe things about Jesus, but it is much more difficult to believe in Jesus and come in the "narrow gate" as he said. There simply is no moral reason to execute someone if there are alternatives.

I’m sorry , but I don’t remember where you quoted Jesus speaking against the death penalty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m sorry , but I don’t remember where you quoted Jesus speaking against the death penalty.

You mean besides the anecdote where he came across an execution about to take place and told everyone to stop?

 

[InChrist]

You mean besides the anecdote where he came across an execution about to take place and told everyone to stop?

Okay, although He didn’t tell everyone to stop. He didn’t say the penalty was not allowed. He said whoever was without sin should throw the stones to kill the woman caught in adultery. Since no one threw a stone, then obviously all those men were guilty of sin, possibly even adultery as she.

That is a much different situation that an adult deliberately premeditating and murdering someone or an adult trafficking and/or raping children.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is that what you expect, a deterrence?

Is that what creating laws and penalties are for?

That is sorts of backwards with where I'm coming from. Laws tend to regulate, prohibit and encourage certain behaviors.
Punishment must be based in sound reason, good evidence and with the intention of improving society and reducing crime. This is where we get inti rehabilitative models of incarceration it tends to involve helping people more than punishing them.
As for the death penalty, if it doesn't deter murder (it's mostly accidental, anyways) then why have it? What good does it serve? How do we balance it against sentencing someone who is innocent?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay, although He didn’t tell everyone to stop. He didn’t say the penalty was not allowed. He said whoever was without sin should throw the stones to kill the woman caught in adultery. Since no one threw a stone, then obviously all those men were guilty of sin, possibly even adultery as she.

That is a much different situation that an adult deliberately premeditating and murdering someone or an adult trafficking and/or raping children.

Are you without sin to make that judgement?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yep, justice will prevail.

Justice is perhaps one of the greatest cultural foundations of US.

The number of people a country kills is not a measure of justice.
It is a measure of its barbarity.

 

[Secret Chief]

Mr. Türk is a lawyer who is a U.N. High Commissioner. His position is a highly political one in which he can only present a limited and biased perspective. That perspective is only allowed to be anti-death penalty. It is that simple.

Ok, thanks for the clarification of your opinion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why is it so damn hard to kill a person efficiently and painlessly? We put our pets down all the time without any problems. One injection, and that's that.

Do we have some secret desire to inflict pain on these people? Are our prison officials so incompetent that they can't administer a simple injection? Is the human body so miraculously resilient that it can defy a massive dose of fentanyl? I'm not understanding the problem.

As far as the practice of executing criminals, obviously we need to be very careful not to get it wrong, and we need to recognize that just having killed someone does not automatically justify execution. However, there are human beings on this planet that are so screwed up that they will torture and murder other humans beings UNTIL THEY ARE STOPPED. And they have shown us by their behavior that this is so (mass murderers, serial murderers, kidnap, rape, and torture murderers, as an example). I do not believe that we as a society should have to live with this constant and ongoing threat indefinitely. Especially when we cannot be certain that these people won't ever get loose and kill again, while we can be reasonably sure that IF they get loose, they WILL kill again. It seems to me that common sense and common decency dictates that we eliminate them from among us.

There's no denying the effectiveness of decapitation or a bullet to the head but it's notably graphic.

Cheap, effective, and arguably painless when done right.

My own personal concern about executions is what most people fear is that of people who are innocent of the crime, so what I feel is those decisions should be left up to the evidence and the victims , not the government or the executioners who make the final decision.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The number of people a country kills is not a measure of justice.
It is a measure of its barbarity.

It's actually a measure of security and safety over future victims by ensuring that a killer will never kill again.

A measure of maintaining humanity against subhuman monsters.