Capital punishment.

[lreal]

1) Skimming doesn't help.

Saying things that have no real meaning don't either.

3) Justifications will always be opinion based in this thread hince it is not a very arguable controversial topic, because both sides will always think they are right, hince all my stuff is opinionated.

Um…no? The justifications are reasoned which protect a certain interest. The opinion comes into play when a person decides whether interest A or B is more important. There are good arguments for pro or anti capital punishment which are justifications. What you provided is exactly what you said, an opinion; not a justification.

4) Show me a non opinionated post, aside from what CC posted about the expenses it costs to put people down, then I'll answer those questions. Also backing this with religion is invalid. So I'll ask you to stay away from religious references.

Okay, here are just a few arguments that are decently reasoned (from the top of my mind, didn’t read the entire thread).
For CP:
1. Incapacitation: We like to preserve a safe and peaceful society. Capital punishment removes any violent seed that disrupt this safe society.
2. Retribution: A man who commits a crime not only infringes on the natural rights of the victim but also society in general. He must compensate the victim and society in some way for this disruption.
3. Deterrence: Capital punishment will deter others from committing the same crime. Again, safe and peaceful society.
(Despite what Cass has shown, in the UK murders actually rose in proportion to the population since the death penalty was abolished for murders in 1964 or so. Additionally, there are studies done in the US which support the conclusion that death penalty deters crime.)

Against CP:
1. Innocent Deaths: It is with absolute certainty that at least some innocents will die. This is a grave injustice that cannot be compensated in any way. The only solution is to abolish capital punishment. (pretty much the main argument)
2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Despite all the progress in going from the guillotine to electric to poisoning, there is no humane way to remedy the mental suffering a person goes through who knows the exact date/time that he is going to die. How would you feel knowing that you will die a week from today at 8am?
3. Cost: Cass has already pretty much stated this.

Again, these are all justifications which protect a certain interest, and whether or not you weigh an interest more important than another is where opinion comes in.


Compare all of these with what you are saying.
Some things you need to do are:
1. Define what is considered “bad.”
2. Why this somehow leads to the conclusion that the person lacks any humanity. (If you say that a bad action is any action that lacks humanity, you need to say how something lacks humanity).
3. Why this justifies killing the person (which is a bit ironic if you think about it).

5) Keeping this short and sweet, because this is just like a religion thread in which has no resolves.

This argument may have no resolve; however, you can’t just say whatever you want and justify it by saying everything is simply opinionated. That isn’t going to hold water in any discussion.

 

[Shu]

Alright I'll go ahead and say this, its now obvious you are trying to provoke an emotional response.. I smell troll, but I'm not calling you out. I also smell wiki.

1. Innocent Deaths: It is with absolute certainty that at least some innocents will die. This is a grave injustice that cannot be compensated in any way. The only solution is to abolish capital punishment. (pretty much the main argument)
2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Despite all the progress in going from the guillotine to electric to poisoning, there is no humane way to remedy the mental suffering a person goes through who knows the exact date/time that he is going to die. How would you feel knowing that you will die a week from today at 8am?

If you didn't skim in the first place, or thought to recall old posts in which you don't because obviously the troll in you is causing drama... I said if it is 100% proven this person has done these atrocious acts.. then off with their heads. Do I need a word behind this? if so let's go with..

Psychological unfit to live in this world. Hince.. Retribution, because of infliction of death(s)/rape/etc.. upon a victim. Animalistic acts that are deemed non humane and are not wasted on a second more of his or her breath. But guess what.. this is still an opinion. Also I see no real points in your posts thus far, only responses meant to provoke the previous posters. I don't even see what side you are arguing, so let us know rather than cramming a stick down our throats. CC made a damn good point about the cost. So I hold his point valid above yours. Arguments are fine and debating is encouraged but let's argue civilly .

 

[Ness]

Capital Punishment VERSION 2.

Since this issue came up in regards to the Casey Anthony thread from last month...I thought that we should re-hash this issue. Also, there's a new user base around and I want to get a feel for people's opinions on this issue.

The question is fairly simple. Should governments have the power to execute criminals?

For me, the short answer is "no". I'll explain why when someone inevitably comes in here and says "OMG YAS".

Discuss.

 

[CassinoChips]

Threads merged, and not because Justin told me to.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

It's more expensive to execute a criminal than to have them serve a life sentence. Remarkably so.


QUOTE]


This is a common misconception actually. On a case by case setting of course it costs more to pay for the legal rituals of ensuring guilt, along with all of the endless paper work, coupled with the hearings for exicution.

HOWEVER, the death penalty WILL save money if enforced correctly on issues such as housing and electricity. I mean come on, we build entire prisons for life inmates that are constantly being fueled and energized. The value of energy (which is not endless) must be placed higher then the value of money, which can be made endlessly by some form or another. Then you have to consider the appeal process cost and the food being offered to them in prison. Not to even mention the man hours for people in charge of regulating and controlling these criminals.

You have to look at the biggest picture when debating the issue of cost, which includes usage of land, potential costs and what they add up to, and the most valuable thing... time. I have seen this debate like a dozen times and everyone says something different.


Now on to my opinion.... "OMG YAS" if you will. I am a very Liberal person as far as most things go, but this is not one of those things. So many people say that they are Pro choice for use of abortion and we should let the women decide as far as killing unborn children goes, however they turn their backs and say the death penalty is wrong. This is the contradiction I see with conservatives and Liberals...which is why I am neither.

I think that the death penalty sets an example, because people fear death and not living. Also I think living in the hell of a prison is less humain then being put to death, so in a way I find it even more human.

I also believe in comfort being brought to the victoms or murder. Crime IS connected so often in times when a mob leader might be put in prison and the mob does not dispatch just because their leader is not dead. Or a serial killer is put away before finishig his job, and he menaiclely figures out a way to finish it on the inside. Prison almost always does not teach people how to be better people, in my opinion it makes them worse people on the inside, like a moster breeding factory. I have an step uncle who proved this idea to my family fairly well... not in murder... to be clear.

I am sorry but I think this we should save time, save funds, save our focus and save the risk or being wrong when we "think" someone "redeems" themselves from "murder". I am for the death penalty in most aspects when it comes to guilt proven murder and in some cases careless actions in life that result in others dead. E.G I think that when a drunk driver or incompetant construction worker kills people its a case of failing society by the standards that we hold. We should also feel safe as citizens when others (wether evil or not) do not take other peoples lives into consideration and end up killing them.

I guess that is my stance and opinion. You may have a different one and you ARE entitled to it. However you can not prove either idea is better (no matter how much trolling or trying), because what it all comes down to is perspective and opinion. However I invite everyone to share their opinions.

 

[Squid]

I don't know much about this subject at all, it's not a topic I often talk about or think about but I guess I'll just state my opinion here for the sake of it.

I'm Pro Death Sentence so long as the criminal has been proven of their crimes and so long as the crimes are worthy of the sentence. So that means murderers, Rapists, Paedophiles etc.

I think the reason I am pro death sentence is because I just do not care about anyone who can do those things. I don't think it's an eye for an eye. I think getting rid of someone who does those horrible things to people is keeping our streets safe and is creating less crowdedness in our jails.

I guess my reasons aren't really great but eh, that's how I feel.

 

[One-Winged Moogle]

Completely against it. I think that humanity should be better than that. It's also too expensive, and if it wasn't too expensive, it would be taking the easy way out with the people that OUR society generate in one way or another.

Many of these people themselves are at one point victims of disturbing childhoods. Think about it: practically everyone starts out as an innocent, at least mostly healthy, baby. Their is no gene in a person that says "become a serial killer". Something happens along the way to cause people to become a rapist or a good working member of society. That something is the inperfection of society. In that sense, all of society is indirectly responsible for these crimes we want to kill people for.

That's not to say that these criminals don't deserve some form of punishment...they do...but the death sentence isn't one of them. In addition, I am a believer of rehabilitation, because that is the course that I think an ideal society should take, and an ideal society is what should be pursued.

I present Norway, a country with a much lower crime rate than NA, and how they deal with their worse criminals; it's eye opening in how humane criminals can be treated in a justice system and it still functions, which is relevant to this debate I think. (An exert from the extras of "Sicko"; don't have to watch the film or like Michael Moore, he doesn't talk much here and the film isn't brought up). The beginning is more general, but it focuses almost exclusively on their prisons from middle to end.

It seems crazy, I know, particularly with the latest incident in Norway, but this is a country doing a lot better than NA in just about all aspects. Perhaps we should try to learn from them.

There is humanity in almost everyone, because we are human. You just have to be willing to take the high road and dig deep enough, to try to build a functioning member of society, for the overall good of society.

 

[CassinoChips]

This is a common misconception actually.

How is it a misconception when it's backed up by research, statistics, and facts? Capital murder trials cost eight times as much. The appeals process costs more. It costs more to house a death row inmate than a lifer. Capital punishment has no discernible deterrence effect. This is not opinion, it's fact. Capital punishment is cost-prohibitive, in addition to being morally questionable.

 

[Will Graham]

I am never in favour of the Death Penalty myself regardless off evidence, it seems hypocritical to me. Yes pretty much all of the 'Death Row' inmates are incredibly inhumane people, with no chance of rehabilitation. In my opinion though, inhumanity is not an appropriate response to inhumanity. Ending their lives does not benefit anyone, it will not erase their crimes, but allowing them to live in confinement at least permits the hope of atonement to exist. Or perhaps even closure for the families of their victims, if they wish to meet with the criminal.

As my pal CassinoChips said, mo trials needs mo money

I find people are also underestimating how obscenely difficult a 100% correct conviction is. There is a case (I will dig for links later) that's famous here in Ireland, involving a bombing in England. Anyways two Irish guys were arrested in connection with it(they had been holidaying in England at the time), tried and convicted. In court a scientist who was an expert in the field, claimed they had found trace chemicals on the suspect's hands. These chemicals they swore with 100% certainty, could only have gotten on their hands from making the bomb which had been detonated.

They served around 8 years of jail time, then new findings came to light. As it turns out there was a second way you could get those chemicals on your hands, from opening a pack of new playing cards. Say the kind of playing cards you might have bought to pass time on a holiday. They were wrongly convicted of what was effectively terrorism, how would that have turned out if England had the death penalty?

 

[Roland_Deschain]

How is it a misconception when it's backed up by research, statistics, and facts? Capital murder trials cost eight times as much. The appeals process costs more. It costs more to house a death row inmate than a lifer. Capital punishment has no discernible deterrence effect. This is not opinion, it's fact. Capital punishment is cost-prohibitive, in addition to being morally questionable.

Its a misonception because while the short terms research, statistics, and facts can not be measured agaisnt unexpected events and costs that can't be measured. For one imo, I feel that you cannot put a price on natural resources, and second I will issue some examples.

Potential medical supplies for the inmate or others he will hurt, along with further harm the killer could cause later.

The endless amount of construction and money put into making high restriction facilities that will "always" be consitently comsuming resources.

The mans life expectancy can not be figured in, because it is unknown, along with potential release and more strict imprisonment costs.

And the biggest factor might be reduced crime from the effect of criminals receiving more severe punishment, but who knows for sure on that one.

In my eyes it seems that the death penalty seems more costly only when considering short term funding in the big picture. And I know its not "the way it is", but there are more resourcful ways for the death penalty, and laws and costs can be reduced and altered in many different ways if it became the changing order of things.

 

[CassinoChips]

Its a misonception because while the short terms research, statistics, and facts can not be measured agaisnt unexpected events and costs that can't be measured. For one imo, I feel that you cannot put a price on natural resources, and second I will issue some examples.

The average time an inmate spends on death row is 15 years. That's not short term.

Potential medical supplies for the inmate or others he will hurt, along with further harm the killer could cause later.

Those costs don't approach the cost of a capital case.

The endless amount of construction and money put into making high restriction facilities that will "always" be consitently comsuming resources.

As above, but also, the facilities are constructed regardless. They will be used one way or the other.

The mans life expectancy can not be figured in, because it is unknown, along with potential release and more strict imprisonment costs.

No idea what you're meaning here.

And the biggest factor might be reduced crime from the effect of criminals receiving more severe punishment, but who knows for sure on that one.

Deterrence is ineffective. Also proven by statistics.

In my eyes it seems that the death penalty seems more costly only when considering short term funding in the big picture. And I know its not "the way it is", but there are more resourcful ways for the death penalty, and laws and costs can be reduced and altered in many different ways if it became the changing order of things.

The death penalty doesn't seem more costly. It is more costly. Short term, long term, any term. That is what the numbers, which don't have opinions, show.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

The average time an inmate spends on death row is 15 years. That's not short term.

Its is short term compared with the extensive use of a building containing hundreds of inmates that all require food and must be fed electricity during the exsistance of it. Just think how much less resources we would use without many of these places.


Those costs don't approach the cost of a capital case.

Its just one of the many things that adds up.

As above, but also, the facilities are constructed regardless. They will be used one way or the other.

You don't really know that, they have facilities made strictly for life sentance inmates and death row inmates. Prisoners can be consolidated and less facitlities can be used, either way we could at least use the exsisting ones for a more benefiial purposes.


No idea what you're meaning here.

It means its hard to make a statistic based off factors that cannot be solid or consistent.


Deterrence is ineffective. Also proven by statistics.

I call BS IMO on that. If I was a criminal, I would fear killing out of the sake of my own life, MUCH more then fear being put in prison. This is perspective, and its kind of hard to have a statistic for something thats not enforced let alone for something that people cannot possibly know... wouldnt you say?




The death penalty doesn't seem more costly. It is more costly. Short term, long term, any term. That is what the numbers, which don't have opinions, show.

Sounds to me like a Liberal selling point. The numbers are one sided regarding what is considered the "norm". and natural resources run out, and human life is worth more then cash. I am afraid I do not see eye to eye with you on this one, unless you can give me a detailed graph that includes every thing I mentioned... ranging from building contract costs, to medical supplies costs, based on a overall grandeur budget and not a case by case one, then I am afraid it can not really be determined.

Agree to disagree I guess, but like I said of course the procedure of capitol punishments going to be costly when its not used. HOWEVER, if the systems changed I garuntee you they will find a way to make it cheaper, so this is not even a big issue in the sceme of things, I have no doubt that we can reduce costs if given the propor motivation to do so.

 

[Donald Trump]

Its is short term compared with the extensive use of a building containing hundreds of inmates that all require food and must be fed electricity during the exsistance of it. Just think how much less resources we would use without many of these places.

Fed electricity? Are they bringing back the electric chair?
There aren't too many people do death row, certainly not the amount that would make feeding and clothing them etc would be in any way expensive.

You don't really know that, they have facilities made strictly for life sentance inmates and death row inmates. Prisoners can be consolidated and less facitlities can be used, either way we could at least use the exsisting ones for a more benefiial purposes.

A more beneficial purpose? They only have one purpose, and that is to house criminals. And just to pre-empt any argument about overcrowding, it's not the maximum security prisons that are overcrowded. It's the ones people go to when they break the three strikes law when they steal some gum. Even with the death penalty prisoners are on Death Row for an average of 15 years, it's not as if frying them has had any significant effect on overcrowding.

I call BS IMO on that. If I was a criminal, I would fear killing out of the sake of my own life, MUCH more then fear being put in prison. This is perspective, and its kind of hard to have a statistic for something thats not enforced let alone for something that people cannot possibly know... wouldnt you say?

The death penalty is enforced.
And the threat of being pumped full of nasty drugs isn't much of a deterrent when you are considering killing someone. It's not as if it's something people do on a whim. If it's an impulsive action, in which case people don't think of the possible punishment for their actions until after they've murdered someone.

Sounds to me like a Liberal selling point. The numbers are one sided regarding what is considered the "norm". and natural resources run out, and human life is worth more then cash. I am afraid I do not see eye to eye with you on this one, unless you can give me a detailed graph that includes every thing I mentioned... ranging from building contract costs, to medical supplies costs, based on a overall grandeur budget and not a case by case one, then I am afraid it can not really be determined.

It seems more like a selling point to someone from the right, as they're generally more concerned about money than lives.
You seem to think that if America doesn't execute it's quota of prisoners each year then they will have to start building millions of prisons throught America. Maybe they could franchise them, that would be cool.
I think your argument is severely flawed. There won't be any savings on supplying the prisons with power, because the prisons already exist, they are already supplied with power. I also think your whole natural resources argument is a bit weak. I don't think killing paedos is the most effective way of saving natural resources. I think limiting the amount of petrol used would be a better start. Maybe when we're down to our last few drops of oil we can push all the nasty convicts (not australians, though I am not against them being included in this) into a big furnace and burn them for fuel.

Agree to disagree I guess, but like I said of course the procedure of capitol punishments going to be costly when its not used. HOWEVER, if the systems changed I garuntee you they will find a way to make it cheaper, so this is not even a big issue in the sceme of things, I have no doubt that we can reduce costs if given the propor motivation to do so.

I don't exactly know what you mean. Are you saying that the procedure of capital punishment is expensive when capital punishment is not used? Because that does not make sense at all.
And what changes are you talking about? It sounds like you are basing your opinion on the advent of some change that there is no evidence that will occur and based upon changes about which no one knows anything because they don't exist nor have they even begun to exist.

I'm not really sure that the cost should really enter into the decision to kill someone or not, though obviously it will and it does because people are more interested in spending their money on a nice new hat than paying taxes so the government can lock up the nasty baddies.
And I haven't yet even mentioned that the death penalty is often racially motivated, with black people being considerably more likely to get executed than white people.
Although by saying that I have mentioned actually mentioned it. hmmm.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Fed electricity? Are they bringing back the electric chair?
There aren't too many people do death row, certainly not the amount that would make feeding and clothing them etc would be in any way expensive.

I mean being fed electricity just to keep the places running.


A more beneficial purpose? They only have one purpose, and that is to house criminals. And just to pre-empt any argument about overcrowding, it's not the maximum security prisons that are overcrowded. It's the ones people go to when they break the three strikes law when they steal some gum. Even with the death penalty prisoners are on Death Row for an average of 15 years, it's not as if frying them has had any significant effect on overcrowding.

We could rennovate the exsisting buildings and use them for whatever we wanted.


The death penalty is enforced.
And the threat of being pumped full of nasty drugs isn't much of a deterrent when you are considering killing someone. It's not as if it's something people do on a whim. If it's an impulsive action, in which case people don't think of the possible punishment for their actions until after they've murdered someone.

Its not inforced everywhere, and it is not enforced very strictly. Its the concept of setting an example and setting it more firmly and expecting the results to change over time due to the risks alone. Not all crimes are crimes of passion.


It seems more like a selling point to someone from the right, as they're generally more concerned about money than lives.
You seem to think that if America doesn't execute it's quota of prisoners each year then they will have to start building millions of prisons throught America. Maybe they could franchise them, that would be cool.
I think your argument is severely flawed. There won't be any savings on supplying the prisons with power, because the prisons already exist, they are already supplied with power. I also think your whole natural resources argument is a bit weak. I don't think killing paedos is the most effective way of saving natural resources. I think limiting the amount of petrol used would be a better start. Maybe when we're down to our last few drops of oil we can push all the nasty convicts (not australians, though I am not against them being included in this) into a big furnace and burn them for fuel.

Sure the prisons already exsist, but if we don't need to use as many of them then they won't be consuming right? Of course we will not save billions of dollars, but its an inverstment all the same.


I don't exactly know what you mean. Are you saying that the procedure of capital punishment is expensive when capital punishment is not used? Because that does not make sense at all.
And what changes are you talking about? It sounds like you are basing your opinion on the advent of some change that there is no evidence that will occur and based upon changes about which no one knows anything because they don't exist nor have they even begun to exist.

I am saying that trials and hearings for carrying out the death penalty is expensive because we do not really use it that often. If the process was changed and made more common then I think this hearings would not be so costly.

I'm not really sure that the cost should really enter into the decision to kill someone or not, though obviously it will and it does because people are more interested in spending their money on a nice new hat than paying taxes so the government can lock up the nasty baddies.
And I haven't yet even mentioned that the death penalty is often racially motivated, with black people being considerably more likely to get executed than white people.
Although by saying that I have mentioned actually mentioned it. hmmm.


I agree, the costs should not be a prior concern, but just and additional one. Even if everything stayed the same price my opinion on the death penatly would not necisarrily sway. However when I hear the word costs I consider double offendors, prison violence, time, resources, all before crafted currancy.

 

[Donald Trump]

We could rennovate the exsisting buildings and use them for whatever we wanted.

I don't think so.
Alcatraz is empty and always has been, except when it was taken over by Native Americans.
And there's not much you can do, or would want to do with a prison except lock up baddies in it.
Not many people will want to be in a place that has been home to some rather nasty individuals. Or perhaps they could do rather macabre tours, 'this is the room in which John Wayne Gracy played chess, this is the hall where Jeffrey Dahmer was shanked, and this is the shower where numerous rapes took place' etc etc.
I don't think prisons can be used for anything else. And if they were to be, they'd have to be renovated which is expensive. They could be knocked down and something else could be built there, but that would be more expensive. And prisons aren't exactly built on prime real estate. Nor is there any shortage of land in America either.

Its not inforced everywhere, and it is not enforced very strictly.

So you want it to be enforced on a regular basis. Is one a day good for you? Would people be executed on Saturdays and Sundays. Imagine the cost of all those last meals if prisoners were executed more often.
But enough with the frivolity, what you are saying is that more prisoners should be executed to decrease the prison population?
To be honest I don't think that's a very good reason.

Sure the prisons already exsist, but if we don't need to use as many of them then they won't be consuming right? Of course we will not save billions of dollars, but its an inverstment all the same.

How many prisoners are you planning on killing exactly?
There's also quite a supply large amount of them. Unless you plan to stage multiple executions at one time, you're not going to make a dent in the number of criminals. Although multiple executions would be quite exciting, I think it would make for a great channel on cable.

I am saying that trials and hearings for carrying out the death penalty is expensive because we do not really use it that often. If the process was changed and made more common then I think this hearings would not be so costly.

Actually I think you're completely wrong in this case. Surely more death penalties can only increase the legal costs which are oh so expensive. More death penalties = more appeals and if you had more appeals you'd have to make new courts to hear all the new appeals and you'd have to pay lawyers and judges and all the other people involved in the appeal process. And because you'd have so many more appeals you'd have to hire more lawyers to work for the state and they'd have so many appeals to keep track of that they'd make a mistake and a killer would be back on the street and he'd kill again and then get the death penalty and then he'd appeal again and so on ad infinitum.
Basically more death penalties = higher costs.

I agree, the costs should not be a prior concern, but just and additional one. Even if everything stayed the same price my opinion on the death penatly would not necisarrily sway. However when I hear the word costs I consider double offendors, prison violence, time, resources, all before crafted currancy.

People on death row can't exactly be double offenders. And by prison violence do you mean executions? Or do you mean one prisoner killing another, that would save a lot of money, so that's probably a positive from your perspective. I don't know exactly what you mean by time in this case, and I think we've already been over resources.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Hal I am not talking about killing people to reduce population, I am talking about a nation wide use of the death penatly, altered to reduce the long chain of hearings and time spent before the death penatly is carried out. There are a lot of people in prison for life for more then just murder, I find it logical to stop this number from building and place our attentions more towards correction before events transpire, rather then putting so much emphasis on after they happen. I just think we could reduce the number for the future. I think would could reduce the staristics and have less to worry about.

Its our fault alone that the death penalty is so costly, we have made it this way... we sure as hell could unmake it if we wanted to by glorfying the waiting process less and making it more bland and less of a radical event, as opposed to appeal and appeal and hearing and hearing.

No one is talking about killing to reduce population, this has just drifted from the original discussion of costs When I say double offendors I am talking about those who get out of prison early and commit crimes again.

Our opinions are just different is all. I say lets just feed them all to the poisonous snakes.....we could call it "Death by serpent." ^^ Sure we could do it on saturday or sunday hehe, for all I care.

 

[asm]

No, for many reasons.

1) Deterrence

There are roughly three kinds of murderers and <insert heinous crime you feel should be punishable by death>:

1)The people who act upon impulse
2)The people who act calculatedly for whatever gain, thinking they will not get caught
3)The people who are deviant and cannot stop themselves
4)The people who do not care anymore (norwegian massacre dude for example)

None of the above will be deterred by any penalty. Acting on impulse is not a logical approach, thinking you will not get caught will make the punishment indifferent since you see yourself not being punished, and when voices and pixies tell you to kill you're pretty much out of any rational universe.

Absolutely no one is deterred by the death penalty. People who feel they are deterred by punishment, will commit such things in any case.

2)Judicial rule

People often argue "what if it was your mother that got raped and killed" and think it's an effective argument. Perhaps to some extent it is, but similarly you could ask "what if your father was convicted of rape and murder with shoddy evidence and got the death penalty for it". Truth is, there are documented cases of death penalties administered, with conflicting evidence surfacing after the irreversible has been done. Unless you're going to find a way to prove infallibly that every death penalty ruled crime is 100% certain, you are effectively supporting the state ***murdering*** innocent people as a byproduct of "justice". Unless you are willing to accept as "collateral damage", that you too might be eligible for death penalty without actually committing a crime that gave you the death penalty, you're a hypocrite. May I remind you folks that it's absurd that it seems most people who choose to vote in elections in hopes of a smaller less intervening government, and in general distrust the government and it's policies, often also argue the state should be allowed to murder people.

Similarly, arguing that killing people should be less costly is also effectively arguing that you want to reduce costs with making killing people more error-prone. Appealing the death penalty is often depicted as wasting time and money. That's ridiculous, but it might be agreeable if the justice system was infallible. It isn't. Would you like for a possibly innocent person to have less rights to defend his life? How much per case, does anyone saying this feel, is enough to make errors? One hundred thousand dollars per one innocent person killed? A million?

3)Atonement

Perhaps not the most appealing point for everyone, but by killing someone you also effectively strip them of their possiblity to ...well, be sorry. I'm not christian, but I find it hm, amusing that while there are western societies that enforce the death penalty that are kind of built on christian values directly or indirectly, wish to reserve repent and atonement for the people that perhaps do not really even need to repent or atone. The death penalty seems to focus on revenge and revenge alone. Chances are I'm not going to get murdered in the near future, but the least I'd hope in case that happens is that someone's sorry, and perhaps in time, understands the deed and the consequences.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

No, for many reasons.

1) Deterrence

There are roughly three kinds of murderers and <insert heinous crime you feel should be punishable by death>:

1)The people who act upon impulse
2)The people who act calculatedly for whatever gain, thinking they will not get caught
3)The people who are deviant and cannot stop themselves
4)The people who do not care anymore (norwegian massacre dude for example)

None of the above will be deterred by any penalty. Acting on impulse is not a logical approach, thinking you will not get caught will make the punishment indifferent since you see yourself not being punished, and when voices and pixies tell you to kill you're pretty much out of any rational universe.

Absolutely no one is deterred by the death penalty. People who feel they are deterred by punishment, will commit such things in any case.

This is the only one I have anything to really say against. I mean you are talking about only straight up murderers and nothing else. I am one of those people who thinks the death penalty sohuld go down for rape, child molestation, and almost every degree of murder. I think if a bunch of thugs stick up a shop and end up killing someone then they might as well recieve it too.

Honestly Detterence is effective IMO by other crimes that lead up to potential murders, such as burglary, drunk driving, and sex crimes. Detterence can only be effective when captitol punishment is more common rather then a tasking hellish process of expenses.

As for atonement, I could give two shits less I guess, so our opinions just vary. As for the judicial system I agree, although it could all be the more motivation to not put yourself in risky situations.

 

[Tmoo]

It doesn't matter to me if murderers won't be deterred by punishment. If they're going to do it regardless of consequence, then they are a clear threat to everyone around them. Once they've committed the act, there is no going back. Death penalty or exile (prison), whichever keeps them away from society and prevents them from being able to kill other citizens, are the two options. For certain individuals, who have no remorse and are completely self-absorbed, there is no chance of them being allowed to return to society.

The goal of capital punishment isn't to prevent these types of crimes (the law is there to do that), it's to ensure these types of people don't have a chance to commit them again, as they've clearly shown they had no problem doing it before they were caught. It isn't for the good of the criminal, it's for the good of the society. Whether it works is debatable but that's the reasoning behind it. There are of course cases of innocent people being imprisoned, perhaps on death row, but no system is without its faults (not saying it doesn't need improvement). At least in the US, prisons are already over capacity and conditions for inmates are terrible with all the crowding.

If you want to better prevent murder and other heinous crimes, there are many socio-economic factors to consider; but even if all of them are fixed and just about everyone is happy, there will still be the psychotics and sadists who take pleasure in inflicting pain onto others, and enjoy taking their lives away. What would you do with them?

 

[Roland_Deschain]

It doesn't matter to me if murderers won't be deterred by punishment. If they're going to do it regardless of consequence, then they are a clear threat to everyone around them. Once they've committed the act, there is no going back. Death penalty or exile (prison), whichever keeps them away from society and prevents them from being able to kill other citizens, are the two options. For certain individuals, who have no remorse and are completely self-absorbed, there is no chance of them being allowed to return to society.

The goal of capital punishment isn't to prevent these types of crimes (the law is there to do that), it's to ensure these types of people don't have a chance to commit them again, as they've clearly shown they had no problem doing it before they were caught. It isn't for the good of the criminal, it's for the good of the society. Whether it works is debatable but that's the reasoning behind it. There are of course cases of innocent people being imprisoned, perhaps on death row, but no system is without its faults (not saying it doesn't need improvement). At least in the US, prisons are already over capacity and conditions for inmates are terrible with all the crowding.

If you want to better prevent murder and other heinous crimes, there are many socio-economic factors to consider; but even if all of them are fixed and just about everyone is happy, there will still be the psychotics and sadists who take pleasure in inflicting pain onto others, and enjoy taking their lives away. What would you do with them?

This.

I could not agree with this anymore, I think it might be one of the best posts I have seen in this thread and I fully agree. I would like to also say, to hell with their moral redemption or atonements, or changing ways. I would rather take away the risk, and have them disappear. I mean among the two options I would just assume they vanish with an instant death then linger in our systems on our tax money.