Your Stance on death penalty?

[Cephus]

This is clearly where we disagree. I believe everyone matters.

Why? The overwhelming majority of people make no appreciable difference on the human species. Most people are born, live and die and are entirely forgotten about in the sands of time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The issue is, though, is it forfeited forever? I mean, he forfeited his legal rights until the his sentence (not death sentence) is finished. He forfeited his life not to the authorities but to cause/effect..whatever he did affects him likewise more or less. When an authority takes a role to end that person's life, it isn't natural consequence of one's actions. The judge is literally defining a person's right to live.

I didn't see if you agreed or disagreed with the OP. I'm sure our culture (some of us) would not completely alienate him from our values rather than give him a chance to amend his deeds and live the society (and inner) consequences as stated by law (and life itself).

No, there is no intrinsic value in life. Life has the value assigned by the human race. The default is that every breath of life is precious. But when you take certain actions, you act against the very culture that assigns that value to your life. When you murder, in cold blood, without remorse, you forfeit the value culture has placed on your life.

 

[Revoltingest]

A lifetime of violence and deprivation behind bars from which you may never get out of is not better than a quick and painless death.

I've seen many interviews with prisoners who were exonerated & released. They said how tough it was, but none have expressed the desire to be killed instead. You say a quick & painless death is better. Is that because you believe it's more humane treatment of them? Or is it better for some other reason?

 

[Cephus]

I've seen many interviews with prisoners who were exonerated & released. They said how tough it was, but none have expressed the desire to be killed instead. You say a quick & painless death is better. Is that because you believe it's more humane treatment of them? Or is it better for some other reason?

Sure, they're out. I'll bet you could go into prison and interview people who have been there and have no reason to think they'll ever get out and get different results.

 

[Nakosis]

Against it. I just don't feel justified in taking a life of someone who doesn't pose an immanent threat.

 

[columbus]

Why? The overwhelming majority of people make no appreciable difference on the human species. Most people are born, live and die and are entirely forgotten about in the sands of time.

You mean they don't make a difference to you. That isn't the point.

Tom

 

[Cephus]

You can easily prove the negatives of an eye for an eye standards of ethical conduct. It create a cycle of conduct, simple as that. If you continue violence you will expect violence in retaliation. This is the reason feuds exist

But this isn't a cycle of conduct. Criminals don't go on to reoffend because they're trying to get back at the state. They are punished because they violated the standards of conduct established by society. Their choice to go back to that conduct has nothing to do with being punished, it has to do with their own wishes and desires. The whole point of any criminal or civil penalty is threefold: to protect the public, to punish the criminal and to rehabilitate the criminal so they don't re-offend when they are released. All three of those points must be true for imprisonment to be appropriate. If the individual is not dangerous to the public, they have no business being in prison, they should be handled civilly. All penalties are punishing, so that's pretty automatic. If they are never getting out, then there is no reason for them to be in prison in the first place. We ought to put all LWOP criminals to death and clear their cells. They aren't getting out, why keep them around?

 

[Cephus]

You mean they don't make a difference to you. That isn't the point.

The point is, you made a claim, I asked you to justify the claim. You have not done so.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm all for killing people that deserve it. However, I firmly believe that no gevernment should have the power to kill their citizens.

 

[Deidre]

You can easily prove the negatives of an eye for an eye standards of ethical conduct. It create a cycle of conduct, simple as that. If you continue violence you will expect violence in retaliation. This is the reason feuds exist

I happen to agree with you. I'm asking for those who believe in the DP, or believe that life doesn't have intrinsic value, how can someone defend their position that would be convincing to me?

 

[Sha'irullah]

But this isn't a cycle of conduct. Criminals don't go on to reoffend because they're trying to get back at the state. They are punished because they violated the standards of conduct established by society. Their choice to go back to that conduct has nothing to do with being punished, it has to do with their own wishes and desires. The whole point of any criminal or civil penalty is threefold: to protect the public, to punish the criminal and to rehabilitate the criminal so they don't re-offend when they are released. All three of those points must be true for imprisonment to be appropriate. If the individual is not dangerous to the public, they have no business being in prison, they should be handled civilly. All penalties are punishing, so that's pretty automatic. If they are never getting out, then there is no reason for them to be in prison in the first place. We ought to put all LWOP criminals to death and clear their cells. They aren't getting out, why keep them around?

Criminals treat people like **** and the government treats them like **** and to this day America has a profoundly high prison return rate.
Your argument falls before it begins.

 

[Cephus]

Criminals treat people like **** and the government treats them like **** and to this day America has a profoundly high prison return rate.
Your argument falls before it begins.

Then you didn't pay any attention to the argument. I pointed out the high recidivism rate, but it isn't because they're mad at the state. Violence by the state didn't make them re-offend. Recidivism has many causes, their treatment in prison isn't one of them.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Then you didn't pay any attention to the argument. I pointed out the high recidivism rate, but it isn't because they're mad at the state. Violence by the state didn't make them re-offend. Recidivism has many causes, their treatment in prison isn't one of them.

Having had over half of my family in prison I am seeing holes in your argument even after reading your post. Think on it.

 

[Cephus]

Having had over half of my family in prison I am seeing holes in your argument even after reading your post. Think on it.

You know people who committed crimes and went back to prison because they were unhappy with their treatment in prison? Seriously? That's some seriously dumb people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

it has everything to do with justice

You don't want to go down that road with someone who studies philosophy. Just, don't. It's a messy, slippery, rough, rocky, nasty, harsh, and never ending road to travel. You'll end up "losing" more often than not because the very question of "what is justice" is a very loaded question that is given answers that never holds up upon closer examination.

No it isn't. The expense comes in the legal wrangling, not in the execution. The majority of that wrangling has nothing to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the criminal, but just in them not wanting to die. If we stop them from appealing, except from a perspective if actual innocence, we eliminate the largest portion of the cost.

The appeals, and everything else, exist as a means to try and prevent innocents from being put to death. These processes do not work well enough.

You can do nothing in either case, you can never return what has been taken away. We have to accept this in *ANY* case. Personally, I'd rather just be killed than spend the rest of my life in prison hoping to be let out. Granted, I'd never commit a crime in the first place.

You can't give back years wasted locked up, but you can restore freedom. You cannot restore life or freedom once someone has been killed.

 

[Thana]

Are you in favor of death penalty or not, and why?

From my religious point of view and from humane perspective i believe death penalty is needed. Its effective.
People will think twice about committing murder or dealing in hard drugs.

4% of death row inmates are innocent.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Death penalty deters crime.
It costs up to 10 times more to give someone the death penalty than life in prison.

Honestly, The only argument for the Death Penalty is that people just want to kill 'bad' people.

I'm against it, Logically and morally. There's no use for it whatsoever.

 

[Cephus]

You don't want to go down that road with someone who studies philosophy. Just, don't. It's a messy, slippery, rough, rocky, nasty, harsh, and never ending road to travel. You'll end up "losing" more often than not because the very question of "what is justice" is a very loaded question that is given answers that never holds up upon closer examination.

Probably not because I have very little respect for a lot of modern philosophy, which is just a bunch of navel noodling and blind faith, just like religion.

The appeals, and everything else, exist as a means to try and prevent innocents from being put to death. These processes do not work well enough.

They may be intended that way but in practice, they rarely work that way. Once a person is convicted of a crime, not once, but twice as is the case in all capital crime cases, there is significant reason to think they are actually guilty of the crime. As such, they ought to be providing evidence to show that they are factually innocent of the crime, not that they just don't like the sentence. The sentence is irrelevant to the guilt of the individual.

You can't give back years wasted locked up, but you can restore freedom. You cannot restore life or freedom once someone has been killed.

No, all you can do is learn from it and compensate their family for their loss. Nobody ever said life was fair, stop pretending it is.

 

[McBell]

The death penalty has never been proven to be an effective deterrent, and the risk of putting an innocent person to death is too high.

Except for when people committing crimes go to neighboring states without the death penalty to commit them...

 

[BSM1]

The risk of putting the innocent to death is still too high. The very fact that many innocent people have been wrongly put on death row, many of them killed, for committing no crime at all, should be more than enough to abolish it. Imprisoning the innocent is bad enough, but they can be let out. You cannot resurrect the dead.

I'll concede this point, but what if you have a murderer caught red-handed on camera, with a handful of creditable witnesses, still holding the weapon in his hand when arrested, and confesses to the crime in court, would the death penalty fit your criteria then? Now suppose the victim was your child, parent, spouse, etc., and the felon swears he'll kill more of your family if he gets a chance--death penalty ok here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everyone dies. You're not going to avoid it, what matter is it how much sooner it's made if it's your own fault?

If when someone dies doesn't matter, why kill them? If there's no compelling reason to give the government a power, it shouldn't be given, IMO.