Your Stance on death penalty?

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I was actually thinking more Socrates. I actually only know of a few modern philosophers. But classic Greek philosophy is all one needs to eviscerate any and all concepts of "justice."

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?

No. Though violence may at times be an appropriate response to violence, it never solves violence. They are the killer, I am not. Why should I sink down to their level?

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?

I get asked this alot. My answer is still no. Killing the murderer will not bring back my parent, child, or whoever I lost. And I do not wish for another daughter, mother, brother, father, or anyone else to loose a loved one. One family loosing a loved one is bad enough. Requiring another family to loose someone does not seem to be a worthy or admirable goal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I've never claimed it was. However, knowing you have a system that occasionally kills someone who is innocent has nothing to do with fairness. It's knowing you have a barbaric, blood-thirsy, and revenge-based form of "justice" that is indifferent to innocent lives being condemned. It has nothing to do with fairness, but the very basic concepts of right-and-wrong. And it is never right that an innocent life be put to death. It isn't even right to take that risk.

 

[Ingledsva]

*
I am in favor of the death penalty, - for murder, - attempted murder (too bad if you missed,) this also includes acts of terrorism, - torture, especially if it includes hacking off body parts, - and child molestation.

EDIT - Forgot to add, - I know people will bring up - those wrongly accused, that received the death penalty.

This is unfortunate, and we need to do better, however, in all things there is an accepted amount of death. For instance people die from taking Aspirin, every year, however, the good far outweighs the bad, so we accept those unfortunate deaths.

*

 

[Koldo]

I think intent isn't as important as people pretend that it is. Regardless, someone is dead. I don't think their families much care if their death was intentional or not, they have still lost a loved one. Now if something is an accident, done without having any idea of the potential consequences, that's one thing.

Intent is very important. Otherwise, we are going to have to kill a LOT of people across the board.

Drug dealers are peddling a poison, known to harm or kill users. There is no way they don't understand the potential consequences.

And those who buy the drugs are aware of that.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

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.

I can understand why the death penalty was effective and even necessary in the days of old where inadequate prison systems could mean certain individuals were still a danger to society.

I personally am too wary of innocent people being wrongfully convicted, and a lifetime in prison isn't easy, it's a good alternative, so I would have to say I am against the death penalty.

I am open to change my mind though if someone can provide decent literature which would show the death penalty is an effective deterrent and reduces crime.

The USA as a whole, and even individual states which have the death penalty, all have a higher murder rate than my country, the UK. I don't see the death penalty as making much of an impact.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

A killer that is responsible for many murders have no right to live. Because if they are freed, they would commit the same crime.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

A killer that is responsible for many murders have no right to live. Because if they are freed, they would commit the same crime.

I agree, they shouldn't be freed. That doesn't mean killing them either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Has this ever happened?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Two hypothetical situations:

1: Gangster A kills five members of a rival gang. He's caught, prosecuted, and executed by the state.

2: Gangster A kills five members of a rival gang. A surviving member of that gang, Gangster B, kills Gangster A in retaliation. Gangster B is caught, prosecuted, and executed by the state.

Are the actions of the state good in both cases? If so, why is the killing of Gangster A positive (and not just positive, but so overwhelmingly positive that we think the state should do it) in the first case but negative (and not just negative, but so overwhelmingly negative that the killer should be killed himself) in the second?

 

[Draka]

Has this ever happened?

Yep. Kidnappings with intent to kill. Kidnap from the state with a death penalty, take across border to state without death penalty, kill there. That way, even though the kidnap case belongs to the original state, the murder itself happened in the state with no death penalty. now, it is sometimes possible for the original state to petition the neighboring state for both cases given the entire crime itself started in that state, but it is certainly no guarantee.

A couple guys in Iowa, back when I was a kid, did it backwards, I guess thinking that Iowa would get both cases. They broke into this girl's house (girl I went to school with) tortured her family, took her (don't even want know what all they did to her), ran off to Missouri, and ended up killing her there. There was some question as to if Iowa would try them for the girl's murder or MO. As Iowa doesn't have the death penalty and MO does, this was quite the issue. They did end up getting the death penalty.

 

[viole]

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.

I am against the death penalty. Unconditionally. Even if it were effective. But probably that is caused by the fact that I come from a country that does not identify punishement with revenge, or other emotional noise, but with recuperation of a disfunctional being back into society.

The logical consequence is that I should also be against life sentences. And I am indeed also against life sentences. Or any kind of irreversible punishement, as a matter of fact. My Norweagian neighbors also do not have life sentences and I think Sweden should do the same.

On the other hand, I have nothing against applying euthanasia to a prisoner who requests it. But I have no problem with applying euthanasia to anyone who requests it, prisoner or not.

But I am confused. Do you approve the death penalty because of your religious views or because it is, allegedely, effective?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep. Kidnappings with intent to kill. Kidnap from the state with a death penalty, take across border to state without death penalty, kill there. That way, even though the kidnap case belongs to the original state, the murder itself happened in the state with no death penalty. now, it is sometimes possible for the original state to petition the neighboring state for both cases given the entire crime itself started in that state, but it is certainly no guarantee.

A couple guys in Iowa, back when I was a kid, did it backwards, I guess thinking that Iowa would get both cases. They broke into this girl's house (girl I went to school with) tortured her family, took her (don't even want know what all they did to her), ran off to Missouri, and ended up killing her there. There was some question as to if Iowa would try them for the girl's murder or MO. As Iowa doesn't have the death penalty and MO does, this was quite the issue. They did end up getting the death penalty.

This seems bizarre to me, since all this concern about sentencing makes it seem like the perpetrators planned to get caught.

... or maybe the state-hopping happened for other reasons and the death penalty stuff is just attempts at rationalizing the behaviour.

 

[viole]

*
I am in favor of the death penalty, - for murder, - attempted murder (too bad if you missed,) this also includes acts of terrorism, - torture, especially if it includes hacking off body parts, - and child molestation.

EDIT - Forgot to add, - I know people will bring up - those wrongly accused, that received the death penalty.

This is unfortunate, and we need to do better, however, in all things there is an accepted amount of death. For instance people die from taking Aspirin, every year, however, the good far outweighs the bad, so we accept those unfortunate deaths.

*

My suggestion is to create the conditions so that you do not need a lot of Aspirin to start with.

Harder, but possible. And far more effective than curing the symptoms. As Aspirin does, usually.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Draka]

This seems bizarre to me, since all this concern about sentencing makes it seem like the perpetrators planned to get caught.

... or maybe the state-hopping happened for other reasons and the death penalty stuff is just attempts at rationalizing the behaviour.

With the Kathy Allen case they screwed up while running and dumped her body in northern MO. Now, whether she was actually killed in MO or in Iowa and they waited to get rid of her body I'm not sure. They were later found in Texas I believe.

Given some things like this are premeditated, thinking ahead and figured there is at least a chance of getting caught, one may think like that though. Wait until they get out of a certain place to commit a death penalty worthy crime. It isn't far fetched you know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

With the Kathy Allen case they screwed up while running and dumped her body in northern MO. Now, whether she was actually killed in MO or in Iowa and they waited to get rid of her body I'm not sure. They were later found in Texas I believe.

Given some things like this are premeditated, thinking ahead and figured there is at least a chance of getting caught, one may think like that though. Wait until they get out of a certain place to commit a death penalty worthy crime. It isn't far fetched you know.

But think about the relevance here: is it a matter of this apparently-small handful of criminals doing a cost-benefit analysis in their heads and saying "this murder is worth it to me if I only face life imprisonment but not worth it to me if I face the death penalty"?

... Or is it a matter of these criminals thinking "how can I minimize my personal risk from committing this murder I'm going to commit no matter what?"

You can't tell which is going on just from these people's behaviour. It's basic microeconomics: even if I would pay up to $50 for a thing, if the store near me sells it for $20, I would still drive across town to buy it for $10.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm iffy about it only for the possibility that someone who is actually innocent is convicted and executed. If the person is guilty of first-degree or felony murder, and there is no doubt about their guilt, I have no objection to the death penalty. Is it a deterrent? Of course not; it's not supposed to be. That's a bogus argument. No one thinks they're going to get caught, so why would they stop and think "ooh, I might get caught and be executed, so I won't rob and kill anyone today". It's punishment. You kill, you die. Simple.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

This ^^^

 

[SkepticThinker]

When we can prove guilt 100% and there is no longer even the hope of a chance of mistake, we can kill people for their crimes in good conscience. Not before.

This too ^^^

 

[Ingledsva]

My suggestion is to create the conditions so that you do not need a lot of Aspirin to start with.

Harder, but possible. And far more effective than curing the symptoms. As Aspirin does, usually.

Ciao

- viole

The point was, that ALL medicine has an acceptable damage and death quotient.

We the people agree to this.

The death penalty is no different. There will be innocent people convicted, and thus executed. The amount of such is low, and obviously needs to be even lower, by improved forensics.

*

 

[Sand Dancer]

I am against it. I don't think Jesus would advocate for it.