Capital Punishment: For or Against?

rushfan4 wrote: a daily session on the Iron Maiden

I'll come back to this thread and read the posts some other time then respond to posts I agree or disagree with directly.
If I were to generalize my political standing I'd consider myself somewhere between a liberal and a libertarian. That said, I am all for the death penalty. I also think it should be handed out far more often than it is. One first degree murder is easily enough of a crime to warrant a death sentence. Then other violent crimes can add up to a death sentence.

Epignosis wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: But Rob there's a difference between how easy it is to abuse something. There is only one President, but there are many wardens who could potentially get away with something if we start leaving loopholes. There's a reason we don't do forced labor anymore, but we still have a President. Epignosis wrote: A Person wrote: I am against capital punishment, although a life sentence is as good as death anyway. Unless you are the one paying for it. Executing somebody costs more than life... Says whom? I could point out a dozen things wrong with that statement.  I'll stick with this: Executing somebody could cost more than a life sentence, if say the convicted felon was 98 years old.  You actually believe the cost of an execution exceeds the cost of housing and feeding someone who gets life in prison at age 21? Also, people who quote how much it costs to execute people for the sake of creating shock value are adding in imprisonment costs, investigations, and perhaps most expensively, the cost of appeals not the cost of an execution itself. Again Henry- you are arguing against the procedure, not against the idea.

He wasnt referring to the cost of the actual execution itself I suspect, but to the legal costs of executing someone.  People on death row, especially leading up to their death, will file a ridiculous amount of legal actions just to try to delay the execution and very often it works.  The legal system has to pay very close attention to all of these appeals because they certainly dont want to execute someone who shouldnt be, and we waste a lot of legal resources dealing with it.  I believe this is the cost he war referring to

To clarify my position at first: I am against capital punishment in whatever case there might be. Whatever someone has done nor what he might do in the future in my opinion does not justify taking his life. And I have to say that some arguments in favour of capital punishment shocked me, really..

"Life-long imprisonment costs to much!" - And because someone costs you money you may kill him?
"Life-long imprisonment is not better than death!" - Do they know what death is like? And, once more repeated, does the mentioned assumption justify killing somebody?
"They can not be integrated into society!" - So just get rid of them?
"They will commit crimes again!" - Do you know? And even if so, would you kill somebody just because he might commit a crime?
"Only the revenge is just!" - What is the use of revenge? Satisfaction that a life was taken away, some might say. But I cannot understand how it can satisfy people to have other people killed.
"He killed/raped/whatever a relative/friend of mine!" And you want to kill the relative and friend of others because of that? By the way, how can anyone valuate revenge over a life?

Punishment should be educational. People shall be taught not to commit crimes again. The dead clearly won't, but they will commit nothing, as they are not alive anymore. In order to save possible victims of crime I would educate the criminal to social behaviour rather than create another victim of crime by "just" taking his life..

Really, there is so much about this discussion I can not understand, least of all how people can valuate a human life or can take all its value away by saying "but he murdered". Maybe he did, maybe he will again. But just because of that I won't.

Negoba wrote: The death penalty as in now functions in the US is not effective.   There are two arguments for the death penalty.   1. Ridding society of member who are so dangerous as no other options are realistic (I personally believe such individuals exist, but I am pessimistic about society's ability to identify and / or discrimate them from other persons)   2. As a deterrent for perpetrators of serious crime.   Both are predicated on a relatively decisive and swift judicial system which we don't have. Until we do, I oppose the death penalty. When we do, I will re-evaluate my position.

I'd say there are more arguments for the death penalty, but I'd say your criticism of how the death penalty functions is quite accurate for the US.  I'd argue our judicial system as a whole is not cost effective or efficient (and never mind that the media latches on to and makes a superstar out of one criminal you will hear about for the next two years).

I'm absolutely against the death penalty. I do believe that those who transgress against society's codes should be punished - although rehabilitation should also be an aim - but all other arguments aside there have been too many miscarriages of justice for the death penalty to be an ethically sustainable option.

Epignosis wrote: Negoba wrote: The death penalty as in now functions in the US is not effective.   There are two arguments for the death penalty.   1. Ridding society of member who are so dangerous as no other options are realistic (I personally believe such individuals exist, but I am pessimistic about society's ability to identify and / or discrimate them from other persons)   2. As a deterrent for perpetrators of serious crime.   Both are predicated on a relatively decisive and swift judicial system which we don't have. Until we do, I oppose the death penalty. When we do, I will re-evaluate my position. I'd say there are more arguments for the death penalty, but I'd say your criticism of how the death penalty functions is quite accurate for the US.  I'd argue our judicial system as a whole is not cost effective or efficient (and never mind that the media latches on to and makes a superstar out of one criminal you will hear about for the next two years).

Epignosis wrote: That's why I love liberal ideology on this subject...those poor, poor criminals!  Please, don't ridicule the right to live that way.. Society is required to use their resources to rehabilitate them! No, this is THEIR thing to do. A criminal should have to take the consequences for his deeds and not be coddled. But society at least could let them live.  But I feel like a bit of fun this morning, so "Life-long imprisonment costs to much!" - And because someone costs you money you may kill him? Why should the innocent pay to feed, clothe, and house someone who would readily murder them to take those things? Because I would not want the innocent to be guilty. "Life-long imprisonment is not better than death!" - Do they know what death is like? And, once more repeated, does the mentioned assumption justify killing somebody? I am not sure why you worded the statement this way.  Anyway, to answer the latter question, it again depends on ones ideology.  Lots of people believe in euthanasia, you know. "They can not be integrated into society!" - So just get rid of them? Yes.  Society shouldn't have to put up with murderous, raping a****les. Why not? When they integrate, why not let them be part of society again? "They will commit crimes again!" - Do you know? And even if so, would you kill somebody just because he might commit a crime? That's for a judge to determine.  And would I kill somebody because he might commit a crime?  Damn skippy I would.  Let a fellow come into my home late a night with a weapon.  I don't know whether he will commit a crime or not.  But I won't wait to find out. In this situation it is nearly sure somebody will. This comparison lacks even comparability. There is a difference between someone who stand before you ready to kill you and someone who might by a weapon one day to do so. My argument was against the "prevention by death", yours pictured the situation of self-defence, two completely different things. When you consider capital punishment an idea to prevent "might happen"-crimes, we would have to punish people because of fortune-telling. You don't know the future, this being the reason that you cannot punish future crime. "Only the revenge is just!" - What is the use of revenge? Satisfaction that a life was taken away, some might say. But I cannot understand how it can satisfy people to have other people killed. Then what, pray tell, is the point of punishing criminals at all?  Just let them go, because judicial revenge is bad! If one considers the ideal of justice the "education" of the criminal individual and not a revenge by society it indeed makes more sense. "He killed/raped/whatever a relative/friend of mine!" And you want to kill the relative and friend of others because of that? By the way, how can anyone valuate revenge over a life? It's quite simple really (and I would hate to presume an intelligent person like you fails to understand a very clear moral and historical difference between "killing" and "murder" thank you for the flowers, I might not lack intelligence but a dictionary at times.. at least now I suppose that it is similar to the difference between the German terms "Mord" and "Totschlag")- once a person is convicted of murdering someone else, his own life is forfeit.  He has lost the right to liberty (he will go to prison), the pursuit of happiness (the penal system severely limits what a man can do), and life (because he failed to recognize the right of others to life now tell me why this could be a reason that someone loses his right of living. Your argument leads to "what someone does to others, I am allowed to do to him".. correct me if I'm wrong on this..). So in summary, I despise a system of government that coddles rapists and murders; There might be a line between coddling and respecting one's right of living. Just letting people live definetly is not coddling. unless there is mitigating circumstances that a judge can assimilate into his judgment, these scumbags should be removed from society rather swiftly. Agree on this point. But not on the method. We need to do everything we can as a society to show people that rape and murder are wrong- not tolerated. Please do so, this really can not be tolerated. And because of that you might sentence someone to death to provoke a "Damn, when I kill, they kill me"-conclusion? Should not "When I commit crime, I'll be imprisoned, maybe for the rest of my life" be good enough? The last someone thinks about before commiting crime that might be punished with death is the possible punishment (rather how not to be punished at all). Also, prison is 1) clearly no coddling or luxuary for criminals paid by taxes 2) clearly not a form of saying "Man, I tolerate what you did!"

I would not mind if you felt "like a bit of fun" at least one more time, this might get interesting..

@Vibrationbaby: Please tell me you intended to write homicidal..
And I at least agree on the point that law sometimes is not strict enough, but it sould not be against human rights.

Just by the way, I am heavily allergic to the argument that a feature, be it being murderer takes the status of being human away, and I hope not that you start to use it..


Edited by Luke. J - November 28 2009 at 14:26

I'm against it 100%

Luke. J wrote: I would not mind if you felt "like a bit of fun" at least one more time, this might get interesting..

Sorry.  The Evolution-Creation thread took it all out of me. 

As much as I despise colored argumentation on forums, I'll try to be brief and respond.  This time I'll be green.

Luke. J wrote: Epignosis wrote: That's why I love liberal ideology on this subject...those poor, poor criminals!  Please, don't ridicule the right to live that way..Begging the question- Do convicted murderers have a right to life or is that right forfeit? I say no. Society is required to use their resources to rehabilitate them! No, this is THEIR thing to do. A criminal should have to take the consequences for his deeds and not be coddled. But society at least could let them live.  Live at whose expense?  Someone has to clothe and feed criminals.  I am a law-abiding citizen, yet I still have to pay my own room and board and other expenses...why should a convicted felon be funded by law-abiding taxpayers?  But I feel like a bit of fun this morning, so "Life-long imprisonment costs to much!" - And because someone costs you money you may kill him? Why should the innocent pay to feed, clothe, and house someone who would readily murder them to take those things? Because I would not want the innocent to be guilty. I do not understand what you mean by this.  What would the innocent be guilty of by not feeding, clothing, and housing convicted murderers? "Life-long imprisonment is not better than death!" - Do they know what death is like? And, once more repeated, does the mentioned assumption justify killing somebody? I am not sure why you worded the statement this way.  Anyway, to answer the latter question, it again depends on ones ideology.  Lots of people believe in euthanasia, you know. "They can not be integrated into society!" - So just get rid of them? Yes.  Society shouldn't have to put up with murderous, raping a****les. Why not? When they integrate, why not let them be part of society again? Again, I'm not understanding you.  Integrating means being a part of society again.  A convicted murderer has proven himself to be a danger to society, and I don't believe people should live in fear of a repeat offense.  As I've said, a judge may regard mitigating circumstances and allow for parole, in which case I say, "Fine."  But some cons do not belong in society at all- nor should their expenses be paid for by the very society they wronged. "They will commit crimes again!" - Do you know? And even if so, would you kill somebody just because he might commit a crime? That's for a judge to determine.  And would I kill somebody because he might commit a crime?  Damn skippy I would.  Let a fellow come into my home late a night with a weapon.  I don't know whether he will commit a crime or not.  But I won't wait to find out. In this situation it is nearly sure somebody will. This comparison lacks even comparability. There is a difference between someone who stand before you ready to kill you and someone who might by a weapon one day to do so. My argument was against the "prevention by death", yours pictured the situation of self-defence, two completely different things. When you consider capital punishment an idea to prevent "might happen"-crimes, we would have to punish people because of fortune-telling. You don't know the future, this being the reason that you cannot punish future crime. Wait, wait, wait...you're telling me that if I prevent someone from murdering my family (presumably by killing them, because that is what I'd try to do), it's self-defense and okay, but if that someone has already murdered my family, and has been arrested, that person should be permitted to live (again, at the taxpayers' expense)?  I do not consider these scenarios separate at all- they are linked ideologically.  I would never punish someone for what they "may do-" capital punishment must be delivered on the basis of what has already been done, but ensuring they never murder again is something of an additional solace. Our judicial system already determines punishments somewhat based on what a convicted person might do.   Parole boards and judges determine if someones gets out of prison early...they would not grant parole if they thought the convict would get into trouble again. "Only the revenge is just!" - What is the use of revenge? Satisfaction that a life was taken away, some might say. But I cannot understand how it can satisfy people to have other people killed. Then what, pray tell, is the point of punishing criminals at all?  Just let them go, because judicial revenge is bad! If one considers the ideal of justice the "education" of the criminal individual and not a revenge by society it indeed makes more sense. Suppose a man murders my family while I am not home.  The man is arrested, tried, and found guilty.  Are you seriously suggesting that I, as a taxpayer, am supposed to finance this man's education?  For what?  So he can "better himself" and have even periodic moments of happiness while my family rots in the ground and I left to grieve? I don't mind the idea of "education" as you put it for those who have not committed a crime that demands severe retribution (like rape or murder)...people who steal, sell drugs, or vandalize property have not (in general) committed acts that require extreme penalties...but come on- you calling it "educating" makes a criminal sound ignorant of his lifestyle or choices, and I think that's awful. "He killed/raped/whatever a relative/friend of mine!" And you want to kill the relative and friend of others because of that? By the way, how can anyone valuate revenge over a life? It's quite simple really (and I would hate to presume an intelligent person like you fails to understand a very clear moral and historical difference between "killing" and "murder" thank you for the flowers, I might not lack intelligence but a dictionary at times.. at least now I suppose that it is similar to the difference between the German terms "Mord" and "Totschlag") Not quite...think of it this way- a soldier might be in a war and mortally wounds a soldier from the opposing side.  That is not murder, but it is certainly killing.  Likewise, my self-defense in the above scenario (in which I mortally wound the intruder) is killing, but not murder.  I would argue that capital punishment is not murder, even though it is killing.  In a nutshell, murder is wrong, while killing isn't always wrong. - once a person is convicted of murdering someone else, his own life is forfeit.  He has lost the right to liberty (he will go to prison), the pursuit of happiness (the penal system severely limits what a man can do), and life (because he failed to recognize the right of others to life now tell me why this could be a reason that someone loses his right of living. Your argument leads to "what someone does to others, I am allowed to do to him".. correct me if I'm wrong on this..). No quite...if a man murders my family, that does not give me permission to murder his family.    But this man must pay for his own actions, and allowing him to live means he can still enjoy things my murdered family cannot.  He ought to die (again, unless mitigating circumstances are found). Civil court allows for the recompense of a wronged party.  I could live with no death penalty theoretically, if the murderer were to become my slave, as it were.  He would have to spend the rest of his life working and earning a wage (in prison, of course), which would be paid directly to me, less his own living expenses (so as not to be a financial burden on society). There's a thought.  So in summary, I despise a system of government that coddles rapists and murders; There might be a line between coddling and respecting one's right of living. Just letting people live definetly is not coddling. Where do you draw the line?  Suppose a man kills 12 people, and gets life in prison...the convict then starts a riot in which he kills 12 more-  How long before you say, "Okay, you no longer deserve to live?" unless there is mitigating circumstances that a judge can assimilate into his judgment, these scumbags should be removed from society rather swiftly. Agree on this point. But not on the method. We need to do everything we can as a society to show people that rape and murder are wrong- not tolerated. Please do so, this really can not be tolerated. And because of that you might sentence someone to death to provoke a "Damn, when I kill, they kill me"-conclusion?  Again, this argument isn't sound because of the distinction between killing and murdering... ...but let's suppose it were.  Consider a man who has built a prison in his basement.  He kidnaps people and puts them in his prison and keeps them there. If that man were found out and arrested and convicted, should he say, "Damn, when I imprison people, they imprison me?" Should not "When I commit crime, I'll be imprisoned, maybe for the rest of my life" be good enough? As I've made it clear, murderers should not be living on taxpayer money when the people they have wronged are dead. The last someone thinks about before commiting crime that might be punished with death is the possible punishment (rather how not to be punished at all). Also, prison is 1) clearly no coddling or luxuary for criminals paid by taxes Depends on where you are.  You apparently have not seen some of the facilities I have. 2) clearly not a form of saying "Man, I tolerate what you did!" Again, it depends.

Okay, so I failed at being brief.