"The Death 'Penalty'" - Just or Unjust?

[BoxandJamaica]

In your opinion, is the death penalty just or unjust? In what situations would you consider it be an acceptable method of dealing with criminals; in what situations would you not?

I personally believe that in most cases, it's not the best way to cope with criminals, however, I'm okay with using it for the more radical cases such as with serial killers, rapists, etc.

If someone kills one person in a spur-of-the-moment attack, though, I would typically think that it's an irrational consequence to take their life while preaching to them that it's a terrible thing to kill someone. Just seems kind of illogical.

What do you guys think? Be sure to explain your theory.

[bung]

I'm against the death penalty in every case. Not for moral reasons, though. Only because it costs more of my tax-paying dollars to put someone to death than for them to be kept in prison for life.

[BoxandJamaica]

I'm against the death penalty in every case. Not for moral reasons, though. Only because it costs more of my tax-paying dollars to put someone to death than for them to be kept in prison for life.

That's another way to look at it. I've never put much thought into the tax thing. I figure taxes are inevitable and I can't escape from them. Well, I could, but if your thoughts on the matter came true I might end up in jail with a rapist... Haha.

[EchoPark]

I'm against the death penalty in every case. Not for moral reasons, though. Only because it costs more of my tax-paying dollars to put someone to death than for them to be kept in prison for life.


I dont know where you get your facts from but the cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for 30 years is way more costly to you as a taxpayer than putting them to death.

[bung]

That's another way to look at it. I've never put much thought into the tax thing. I figure taxes are inevitable and I can't escape from them. Well, I could, but if your thoughts on the matter came true I might end up in jail with a rapist... Haha.

Is it even possible for a female to rape another female? :-|

[bung]

I dont know where you get your facts from but the cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for 30 years is way more costly to you as a taxpayer than putting them to death.

Do you know how many appeals are gone through before a person actually gets put to death? It's a well-known fact that putting a person to death is vastly more costly them keeping them in prison for life.

Edit: Do a quick Google search and you'll see. So I don't know where you got your facts from.

[Broken Parachute]

I dont know where you get your facts from but the cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for 30 years is way more costly to you as a taxpayer than putting them to death.No it's not. Maybe you should research your facts better. It costs more to put someone to death than it does to house a prisoner for 30 years.

I have proof of this info on my PC. I'll post it tomorrow when my internet is back up.

[anamericangod]

I dont know where you get your facts from but the cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for 30 years is way more costly to you as a taxpayer than putting them to death.

False.

No it's not. Maybe you should research your facts better. It costs more to put someone to death than it does to house a prisoner for 30 years.

I have proof of this info on my PC. I'll post it tomorrow when my internet is back up.

Correct.

[Broken Parachute]

False.
Correct.Do you have the link I'm talking about by any chance?

It's a really good read...it's got a whole list of costs per state. It was posted a few times before I think.

[TK]

I'm against it in all cases with the exception of mass murderers or serial killers.

[EchoPark]

No it's not. Maybe you should research your facts better. It costs more to put someone to death than it does to house a prisoner for 30 years.

I have proof of this info on my PC. I'll post it tomorrow when my internet is back up.


Yes I'd be interested in seeing this information when you can post it.

[BoxandJamaica]

Is it even possible for a female to rape another female? :-|

You should check out a newspaper. Grown men rape little boys... So I'm sure it's possible. And who said anything about the rapist being a female?

[anamericangod]

Do you have the link I'm talking about by any chance?

It's a really good read...it's got a whole list of costs per state. It was posted a few times before I think.

I don't know of that one specifically, but I don't think I've ever seen any study saying that the Death Penalty was cheaper than life imprisonment. There's just tons of info out there. Here are just a few points for the California system:

# The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.)

# With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each execution.

# It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.

# The Attorney General devotes about 15% of his budget, or $11 million annually to death penalty cases.

[anamericangod]

Also, California is a particularly interesting case, since they go through the entire process and put these people on Death Row, and now they no longer execute them. Such a waste of money.

# “With a dysfunctional death penalty law, the reality is that most California death sentences are actually sentences of lifetime incarceration. The defendant will die in prison before he or she is ever executed. The same result can be achieved at a savings of well over one hundred million dollars by sentencing the defendant to lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole.”

[bung]

You should check out a newspaper. Grown men rape little boys... So I'm sure it's possible. And who said anything about the rapist being a female?

Well.. you're a female. So you wouldn't be housed with the male inmates...

[anamericangod]

Yes I'd be interested in seeing this information when you can post it.

Go here.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

[sayyes]

We need a lot of reform in the courts, but I am not against the death penalty if evidence is unquestionable. In this case I don't think appeals should be accepted.

[BoxandJamaica]

Well.. you're a female. So you wouldn't be housed with the male inmates...

Didn't really think about that at the time, haha (not thinking too clearly today). But you never know when the Joker will escape from his cell...

[BoxandJamaica]

I don't know of that one specifically, but I don't think I've ever seen any study saying that the Death Penalty was cheaper than life imprisonment. There's just tons of info out there. Here are just a few points for the California system:

# The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.)

# With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each execution.

# It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.

# The Attorney General devotes about 15% of his budget, or $11 million annually to death penalty cases.

Though I will probably never remember those statistics ever again in my life, that's some pretty interesting data.

[bung]

We need a lot of reform in the courts, but I am not against the death penalty if evidence is unquestionable. In this case I don't think appeals should be accepted.

Kind of like the people that are put to death today because the evidence is "unquestionable." Then 20 years later someone finds DNA evidence acquitting the person of the crime, and the courts are all like, "Oh shit... oops. Sorry."

[BoxandJamaica]

Kind of like the people that are put to death today because the evidence is "unquestionable." Then 20 years later someone finds DNA evidence acquitting the person of the crime, and the courts are all like, "Oh shit... oops. Sorry."

Yep. There's really no way to define full-blown proof in any case whatsoever. No matter how concrete you believe it is.

[sayyes]

Kind of like the people that are put to death today because the evidence is "unquestionable." Then 20 years later someone finds DNA evidence acquitting the person of the crime, and the courts are all like, "Oh shit... oops. Sorry."
Well my post was in the context of today's standards not 1988's. However, if we have the tech to get it 100 percent right 20 years from now I will retract my post.
If we have the science to prove crimes from the past wrong why wouldn't that be sufficient right now to prove someone guilty.

[bung]

If we have the science to prove crimes from the past wrong why wouldn't that be sufficient right now to prove someone guilty.

Ideally, yes. However, with guilty being defined as "proof beyond reasonable doubt," things start getting a little, well.. let's just say people have varying ideas of what constitutes "reasonable." Even today with DNA evidence, the courts are nowhere near perfect.

[x togepi x]

Well my post was in the context of today's standards not 1988's. However, if we have the tech to get it 100 percent right 20 years from now I will retract my post.
If we have the science to prove crimes from the past wrong why wouldn't that be sufficient right now to prove someone guilty.

no because it's all about time frame. when you're trying to prove someone is guilty here and now, you have a less amount of time because you're trying to get a conviction to punish the person so that you 1) respect their due process rights and 2) put them in jail so they can't potentially commit the crime again. this can lead to errors as lack of time can cause people to rush and end up glossing over important details. Also, generally emotions tend to be running higher right after the crime happened than 20 years later, which means a bigger chance of a mistake.

on the other hand, people working after a conviction has been handed down have a lot more time to go over every little detail of the case, which means they have a better chance to not miss little clues that could prove someone's innocence. also, being further away from the crime gives them the ability to be a little bit more objective than someone who was originally working on the case.

[11:11]

I believe its ok if its used to save other lives, like in the case of killing a mass murder or the like.

[chaosB4storm]

I believe the death penalty is correct when used on murderers. Although it is more costly, it does ensure retribution. In that I am just saying that I believe murderers "deserve" to die, and the death penalty is justice in my opinion. There are certian things that are more costly than others, but sometimes it's better to spend a little bit more on something more desirable.

Also, although there are cases where an innocent individual recieves the death penalty, it would put an end to people getting out of jail and murdering again. Isn't it a question of which one kills less innocent people? I do not know for sure, but I think capital punishment would save more innocent people than it killed.

[Mitch]

I believe its ok if its used to save other lives, like in the case of killing a mass murder or the like.

This doesn't even make sense. Execution would save lives that life in prison would not?

[billyboatkid]

If they are gonna lock some guy up for 316 years and take up space why not just end it... Or at least give them the choice to live it out or end it.

I'm pretty sure there would be some inmates to jump on that bandwagon right away.

[Broken Parachute]

If they are gonna lock some guy up for 316 years and take up space why not just end it... Or at least give them the choice to live it out or end it.

I'm pretty sure there would be some inmates to jump on that bandwagon right away.Exactly. Prisoners are in prison for a reason. Letting them choose death is easy. The only way they will truly be punished is if they rot in prison. They aren't "taking up space." What do you think prisons are built for? They shouldn't have a choice. The day you choose to break the law on a severe scale such as murder or rape is the day you choose to give up your right to choose. You break the rules and you have to deal with the consequences.

[bung]

I believe the death penalty is correct when used on murderers. Although it is more costly, it does ensure retribution. In that I am just saying that I believe murderers "deserve" to die, and the death penalty is justice in my opinion. There are certian things that are more costly than others, but sometimes it's better to spend a little bit more on something more desirable.

I find it astonishing that people in this day and age still believe that "an eye for an eye" is an appropriate philosophy for punishment. The death penalty doesn't deter crime, and criminals will assuredly meet justice in the end, anyway, so what's the point in having it?

Also, although there are cases where an innocent individual recieves the death penalty, it would put an end to people getting out of jail and murdering again.

Wouldn't life in prison without the possibility of parole accomplish the same thing?

[billyboatkid]

Exactly. Prisoners are in prison for a reason. Letting them choose death is easy. The only way they will truly be punished is if they rot in prison. They aren't "taking up space." What do you think prisons are built for? They shouldn't have a choice. The day you choose to break the law on a severe scale such as murder or rape is the day you choose to give up your right to choose. You break the rules and you have to deal with the consequences.

I don't see how that is the "easy way out." Choosing to die would actually be very hard. Prisons are built for a reason, but when there are to many inmates where do the rest go. This has been a problem very recently to. Space and having to build more takes up a lot more money. But some one have over a hundred year sentence.. it only is logical. Well to me anyways. It's not about an easy way out or choice. Those people who kill someone or rape a child or anything like that should be taken out back and shot anyways.

May the punishment fit the crime.

EDIT: Sorry if that is a bit shitty, I just re-read it. I just got home and am still pretty buzzed from earlier.

[Broken Parachute]

It's logical for you to kill someone because prisons are overcrowded? Nobody deserves to have their life taken, criminal or not.

[saysmydoctor]

I like Texas only for this reason.

[lew_1987]

I'm against it in all cases with the exception of mass murderers or serial killers.

This.

[open mind]

i'm against the death penalty, no ifs, ands, or buts,....killing someone because they killed someone else (or even a large number of someone elses) is borderline retarded and the height of hypocrisy.

[TK]

i'm against the death penalty, no ifs, ands, or buts,....killing someone because they killed someone else (or even a large number of someone elses) is borderline retarded and the height of hypocrisy.

I will be vary cautious in saying this, and do not intend to start a fight or debate, but the Bible's punishment for killing someone was death, and since you believe in the Bible and God, surely it can not be too retarded if the God of the Bible, your God, found it just. That being said, I was in no way of taking a shot at your religion.

Out of curiosity, you do not think Osama Bin Laden should get the death penalty if he is caught?

[TK]

Nice to see someone hacked his account.

[anamericangod]

Interesting...

[TK]

How do people even hack accounts?

[anamericangod]

How do people even hack accounts?

They guess the password.

[TK]

Huh, someone must have had an easy one then.

[anamericangod]

blink182

password

[TK]

nobody has hacked my account............i'm just totally sick of dipshit atheists trying to tell my what my faith is about, fuck you if you believe you know better then me what my faith is about.
yeah i should strive to be a better person, and i explained why i feel that way for............i dunno.........2-300 posts.........but as soon as i reasoned and finally got through to someone someone incapable of looking at earlier pages would come along and proclaim that i was ignorant, small minded, pathetic, and inherently unreasonable and illogical............and then 5 more people with the same inability to read earlier posts would show up and declare me a fool on the grounds i had already eviscerated....so when it comes to ap, i've decided that anyone who wants to talk about my religion can suck my cock dry.

I'm still calling hacked account.
And on the off chance that it isn't, I liked you, but you just strengthen the ideal that all Christians are hypocritical idiots.

[TK]

hahaha, I'm done with this thread for today.

[TeachBirds2Fly]

You should check out a newspaper. Grown men rape little boys... So I'm sure it's possible. And who said anything about the rapist being a female?


I think I read somewhere that 63% of rapists where female. With strap-ons.

[anamericangod]

Well now, why don't you tell us how you really feel.

[chaosB4storm]

I find it astonishing that people in this day and age still believe that "an eye for an eye" is an appropriate philosophy for punishment. The death penalty doesn't deter crime, and criminals will assuredly meet justice in the end, anyway, so what's the point in having it?



Wouldn't life in prison without the possibility of parole accomplish the same thing?

Please explain to me how you can say "the death penalty doesn't deter crime". Also, I would like to know why "an eye for an eye" is such an astonishingly ridiculous belief.

And I do not understand the bolded part.

Yes, it would accomplish the same thing, just without the retribution, and are we talking "life" as in until the criminal dies? How expensive does that get? Is it more expensive than capital punishment? Just wondering.

[chaosB4storm]

I always find it funny when someone says that the death penalty is hypocritical. Here's an example that will show why:

Let's say, for the sake of proving a point, that I have someone locked in my basement right now, and I will not let him leave. I feed him, and give him some entertainment once in a while so he doesn't go crazy, but aside from that, I'm just a freak that enjoys imprisoning people. Then, finally, I get caught by the police. They see I was imprisoning someone and they take me to jail. My sentence is some-odd years in prison. Is anyone here against imprisoning me on the basis that it's hypocritical? Would our judicial system be "borderline retarded" for putting me in jail?

[chaosB4storm]

oh i'm definatly a hypocrite and an idiot..................but find me a group of people that isn't filled with idiots and hypocrites, and i'll eat your shit, and drink your piss............while letting your dad fuck my ass (we all know he's a ***)

oh my god lol

[anamericangod]

I always find it funny when someone says that the death penalty is hypocritical. Here's an example that will show why:

Let's say, for the sake of proving a point, that I have someone locked in my basement right now, and I will not let him leave. I feed him, and give him some entertainment once in a while so he doesn't go crazy, but aside from that, I'm just a freak that enjoys imprisoning people. Then, finally, I get caught by the police. They see I was imprisoning someone and they take me to jail. My sentence is some-odd years in prison. Is anyone here against imprisoning me on the basis that it's hypocritical? Would our judicial system be "borderline retarded" for putting me in jail?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[Machu505]

I always find it funny when someone says that the death penalty is hypocritical. Here's an example that will show why:

Let's say, for the sake of proving a point, that I have someone locked in my basement right now, and I will not let him leave. I feed him, and give him some entertainment once in a while so he doesn't go crazy, but aside from that, I'm just a freak that enjoys imprisoning people. Then, finally, I get caught by the police. They see I was imprisoning someone and they take me to jail. My sentence is some-odd years in prison. Is anyone here against imprisoning me on the basis that it's hypocritical? Would our judicial system be "borderline retarded" for putting me in jail?

What the fuck are you talking about.

[chaosB4storm]

I am saying that if it's hypocritical to kill someone because he killed someone, is it not also hypocritical to imprison someone because he imprisoned someone?

I'm surprised you didn't understand that from what I said.

[Machu505]

I am saying that if it's hypocritical to kill someone because he killed someone, is it not also hypocritical to imprison someone because he imprisoned someone?

I'm surprised you didn't understand that from what I said.

Because imprisonment is a universal punishment completely different from death. If you kill someone for killing someone, what should stop me from killing you? It's just one more death. I'd rather one person die as opposed to two.

[BoxandJamaica]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Hahaha, me neither. I don't believe they provide you with Halo 3 or popcorn in jail.

[BoxandJamaica]

I am saying that if it's hypocritical to kill someone because he killed someone, is it not also hypocritical to imprison someone because he imprisoned someone?

I'm surprised you didn't understand that from what I said.

How many people do you know that hold people hostage in their basements? That's a pretty uncommon predicament.

[chaosB4storm]

Because imprisonment is a universal punishment completely different from death. If you kill someone for killing someone, what should stop me from killing you? It's just one more death. I'd rather one person die as opposed to two.


So since imprisonment is universal, it's not hypocritical? So when you're arguing against the death penalty do you say: I am against the death penalty for many reasons, one being the fact that it is NOT a universal punishment?

Nothing ever stops you from killing me, and the death penalty does not in any way promote innocent people killing other innocent people.

I would rather the murderer dies.

[chaosB4storm]

Hahaha, me neither. I don't believe they provide you with Halo 3 or popcorn in jail.

lol actually i remember seeing gamecubes being put into prison cells on the news a few years back. lol they only wish it was Halo 3.

[Machu505]

So since imprisonment is universal, it's not hypocritical? So when you're arguing against the death penalty do you say: I am against the death penalty for many reasons, one being the fact that it is NOT a universal punishment?

Nothing ever stops you from killing me, and the death penalty does not in any way promote innocent people killing other innocent people.

I would rather the murderer dies.

If you are against the death penalty why are you arguing with me?

[chaosB4storm]

How many people do you know that hold people hostage in their basements? That's a pretty uncommon predicament.

lol you have no idea how many people I know holding people hostage in their basements.

It doesn't matter how uncommon it is. Is it wrong or not?

[chaosB4storm]

If you are against the death penalty why are you arguing with me?

No, I'm arguing that the fact it is hypocritical shouldn't stop society from using it.

Well, not exactly, I do not consider it hypocritical because we are executing people on the basis that they killed someone. The murderer has executed an innocent individual.

All I'm saying is that IF you think capital punishment is hypocritical, you must also think imprisonment is.

[bung]

Please explain to me how you can say "the death penalty doesn't deter crime". Also, I would like to know why "an eye for an eye" is such an astonishingly ridiculous belief.

And I do not understand the bolded part.

Yes, it would accomplish the same thing, just without the retribution, and are we talking "life" as in until the criminal dies? How expensive does that get? Is it more expensive than capital punishment? Just wondering.

Because crimes that may merit the death penalty happen at exactly the same frequency in states with or without the death penalty.

Yes, it's more expensive. I think the statistic is somewhere like $2 million + more for each person executed.

Let's see here.. why is an eye for an eye a ridiculous belief? Besides the fact that it's blatantly hypocritical, it teaches a person nothing. Think about it. You have a kid and he gets angry at you and throws something to hurt you. So you throw something back at him. What does he learn? He learns that violence is a perfectly acceptable action to get one's point across. A person doesn't learn why something they did is wrong from an "eye for an eye." They simply become even more angry at the person providing the punishment. Go look at what countries have the death penalty outlawed and which still permit it. Compare the United States to the countries on each list, and it gets very interesting.

The part you bolded means simply that everyone that is in prison for life will eventually die there, which is retribution, but apparently not from your perspective.

[anamericangod]

lol actually i remember seeing gamecubes being put into prison cells on the news a few years back. lol they only wish it was Halo 3.

I don't believe this.

No, I'm arguing that the fact it is hypocritical shouldn't stop society from using it.

Well, not exactly, I do not consider it hypocritical because we are executing people on the basis that they killed someone. The murderer has executed an innocent individual.

All I'm saying is that IF you think capital punishment is hypocritical, you must also think imprisonment is.

Your logic is faulty.

[BoxandJamaica]

I don't believe this.



Your logic is faulty.

I don't either. I think people would purposely attempt to get in jail if that were the case; free video games and you wouldn't even have to pay for the bills!

[bung]

I don't either. I think people would purposely attempt to get in jail if that were the case; free video games and you wouldn't even have to pay for the bills!

There actually have been cases of some people committing minor crimes to get into minimum security prisons, repeating the cycle many times once they've been released because they don't mind getting free meals and reading all day.. seriously.

[BoxandJamaica]

There actually have been cases of some people committing minor crimes to get into minimum security prisons, repeating the cycle many times once they've been released because they don't mind getting free meals and reading all day.. seriously.

Hahaha.

[chaosB4storm]

Because crimes that may merit the death penalty happen at exactly the same frequency in states with or without the death penalty.

Yes, it's more expensive. I think the statistic is somewhere like $2 million + more for each person executed.

Let's see here.. why is an eye for an eye a ridiculous belief? Besides the fact that it's blatantly hypocritical, it teaches a person nothing. Think about it. You have a kid and he gets angry at you and throws something to hurt you. So you throw something back at him. What does he learn? He learns that violence is a perfectly acceptable action to get one's point across. A person doesn't learn why something they did is wrong from an "eye for an eye." They simply become even more angry at the person providing the punishment. Go look at what countries have the death penalty outlawed and which still permit it. Compare the United States to the countries on each list, and it gets very interesting.

The part you bolded means simply that everyone that is in prison for life will eventually die there, which is retribution, but apparently not from your perspective.

Please quit calling capital punishment hypocritical lol. It's just an absolutely ridiculous argument against the death penalty. Imprisonment (depending one the crime-I showed this at an earlier post) is equally hypocritical.

When I say capital punishment is the correct form of punishment, I mean I would rather execute a murderer than teach him what he did wrong. It is about cleaning up the country, and making it a better one. You are being too optimistic toward the human race. We must strive for a safe environment. It is also about retribution.

And in my experience, "an eye for an eye" has taught many lessons, and very effectively. I was physically punished as a child, and I learned a lot. Of course, it doesn't matter whether it teaches a lesson in the case we're arguing because the person will be dead. Your childhood story has no correlation with the topic.

[chaosB4storm]

I don't believe this.



Your logic is faulty.

Nice input. Care to explain why my logic is faulty?

For one, it is "faulty logic" to believe the death penalty is hypocritical. It kills guilty people. The guilty person killed an innocent one. Two very different things.

And for two, even if you convinced me that the death penalty is hypocritical, then imprisonment would be also.

[chaosB4storm]

And for the record, Canadian prisoners have access to computers with internet, have the ability to obtain university degrees, and conjugal visits.

lol it's funny how gamecubes are so hard to believe.

[bung]

Please quit calling capital punishment hypocritical lol. It's just an absolutely ridiculous argument against the death penalty. Imprisonment (depending one the crime-I showed this at an earlier post) is equally hypocritical.

Ha! Your earlier post didn't prove shit. There's a difference when criminals need to be set off from society to keep us safe, whereas initiating the death penalty does nothing to keep us safe.

I mean I would rather execute a murderer than teach him what he did wrong.

Wow. That's all. Do you not believe people can change and learn from mistakes?

And in my experience, "an eye for an eye" has taught many lessons, and very effectively. I was physically punished as a child, and I learned a lot.

Is this some sort of sick way to advocate child abuse? Are you fucking stupid? Have you read absolutely anything about the devastating effects physically abusing a child can have? Go read about ten books on behavioral psychology and punishment, then come back to me with an opinion that isn't archaic.

Of course, it doesn't matter whether it teaches a lesson in the case we're arguing because the person will be dead. Your childhood story has no correlation with the topic.

You're not looking at the big picture. Of course the person will be dead, but it's the message it sends out to the rest of society that matters. It's saying, "Look, you're a bad person, you'll never change, so we're going to kill you because of it." It implies that any person who has ever been involved with any sort of crime may as well give in to their criminal tendencies because it's futile to attempt to change. You're exactly the type of person that has caused our prison system in America to become so messed up. The focus shouldn't be on retribution, it should be on reform. Until you understand that, America will continue to have the highest crime rates of any developed country.

[FayeQC]

Unjust - even without taking into account things like taxes,morals, etc etc; what if the judgment was wrong - even if there's a 0.0005% chance of majorly incorrect evidence I don't want to wager a life over it.
Your right to live is your first and utmost one.

[TeachBirds2Fly]

Unjust - even without taking into account things like taxes,morals, etc etc; what if the judgment was wrong - even if there's a 0.0005% chance of majorly incorrect evidence I don't want to wager a life over it.
Your right to live is your first and utmost one.


Yeah I agree, I just think the state should not take life. also interesting to know that the USA (I know it is impossible but for the argument) could not join the EU because they have the death penalety. Also I think if the state was to have a death sentence it should least resemble murder, i.e. Electric chair where your eyes might explode, hanging where your head can come off even lethal injection when it goes wrong... why cant they have death by painless, safe and least dramatic like death by hypoxia (oxgen taken out of the air) but you just sort of fade away, you do not gasp and suffecate as it is not lack of oxegen that makes you do that, it's lack of air.

[FayeQC]

Yeah I agree, I just think the state should not take life. also interesting to know that the USA (I know it is impossible but for the argument) could not join the EU because they have the death penalty. Also I think if the state was to have a death sentence it should least resemble murder, i.e. Electric chair where your eyes might explode, hanging where your head can come off even lethal injection when it goes wrong... why cant they have death by painless, safe and least dramatic like death by hypoxia (oxygen taken out of the air) but you just sort of fade away, you do not gasp and suffocate as it is not lack of oxygen that makes you do that, it's lack of air.

I don't think they have the electric chair anymore - not sure though
and killing someone is killing someone - whatever method you use cannot justify it.

But an interesting fact: In the US after a lethal injection has been administered - by law they still have to carry out an autopsy - that's one reason for the high tax costs of the death penalty and I can't see the logic to it :shrug:

[chaosB4storm]

Ha! Your earlier post didn't prove shit. There's a difference when criminals need to be set off from society to keep us safe, whereas initiating the death penalty does nothing to keep us safe.



Wow. That's all. Do you not believe people can change and learn from mistakes?



Is this some sort of sick way to advocate child abuse? Are you fucking stupid? Have you read absolutely anything about the devastating effects physically abusing a child can have? Go read about ten books on behavioral psychology and punishment, then come back to me with an opinion that isn't archaic.



You're not looking at the big picture. Of course the person will be dead, but it's the message it sends out to the rest of society that matters. It's saying, "Look, you're a bad person, you'll never change, so we're going to kill you because of it." It implies that any person who has ever been involved with any sort of crime may as well give in to their criminal tendencies because it's futile to attempt to change. You're exactly the type of person that has caused our prison system in America to become so messed up. The focus shouldn't be on retribution, it should be on reform. Until you understand that, America will continue to have the highest crime rates of any developed country.

The death penalty does a lot to keep us safe. Doesn't it set people off from society also? It is just ridiculous to claim the death penalty does nothing to keep us safe. It suggests that we would be equally safe if we didn't punish criminals at all lol.

I believe some people can learn from their mistakes, and other's can't. I also believe that there are a lot of intelligent murderers that don't give a shit. Everyone went to school. School should teach people murder is wrong, and if that wasn't enough, they can die. I don't want to spend my tax dollars on educating criminals. That is not my priority.

Let's leave physically punishing children out of this. It is off topic, and I am not advocating child abuse.

And I am looking at the big picture. The death penalty does not imply "look, you're a bad person, you'll never change, so we're going to kill you because of it". More like "You killed someone, execution is a proper punishment, you are a danger to society, you do not deserve free education for your crimes". And it implies that murder is an intolerable act, NOT that criminals might as well give in to their crimes.

I am canadian, and we haven't had the death penalty in my time being alive.

As for the USA, I believe your high crime rates are a result of a combination of your level of freedom and poverty.

[anamericangod]

The death penalty does a lot to keep us safe. Doesn't it set people off from society also? It is just ridiculous to claim the death penalty does nothing to keep us safe. It suggests that we would be equally safe if we didn't punish criminals at all lol.

I believe some people can learn from their mistakes, and other's can't. I also believe that there are a lot of intelligent murderers that don't give a shit. Everyone went to school. School should teach people murder is wrong, and if that wasn't enough, they can die. I don't want to spend my tax dollars on educating criminals. That is not my priority.

Let's leave physically punishing children out of this. It is off topic, and I am not advocating child abuse.

And I am looking at the big picture. The death penalty does not imply "look, you're a bad person, you'll never change, so we're going to kill you because of it". More like "You killed someone, execution is a proper punishment, you are a danger to society, you do not deserve free education for your crimes". And it implies that murder is an intolerable act, NOT that criminals might as well give in to their crimes.

I am canadian, and we haven't had the death penalty in my time being alive.

As for the USA, I believe your high crime rates are a result of a combination of your level of freedom and poverty.

How does the death penalty keep us safe?

[chaosB4storm]

How does the death penalty keep us safe?

The death penalty keeps us safe by not allowing murderers to murder again, and also it makes people fear the punishment of killing someone and make them less likely, (after contemplating the possible repercussions), to choose murder.

[Mercy Medical]

The death penalty keeps us safe by not allowing murderers to murder again, and also it makes people fear the punishment of killing someone and make them less likely, (after contemplating the possible repercussions), to choose murder.
If someone is planning on murdering another individual...I really don't think they're that afraid of death.

And I don't think anyone who plans on murdering someone really thinks about the punishment that is to come.

[chaosB4storm]

If someone is planning on murdering another individual...I really don't think they're that afraid of death.

And I don't think anyone who plans on murdering someone really thinks about the punishment that is to come.

Well, everyone's different. I know for a fact that some murderers think about the repercussions. There absolutely must be criminals that do. Sure, there may be some that don't.

And there's still the fact that after they are executed, they cannot repeat a murder.

[Mercy Medical]

Well, everyone's different. I know for a fact that some murderers think about the repercussions. There absolutely must be criminals that do. Sure, there may be some that don't.

And there's still the fact that after they are executed, they cannot repeat a murderO rly? No shit. lol

I'm pretty sure that the ones who are up for the death penalty really don't give a shit if they live or die and really didn't care about the consequences after. The repeat offenders are the types that have no fear, that do not care about anything and therefore, the death penalty really doesn't matter. The ones that think about it and care what's going to happen, that's probably going to be a one time deal.

[chaosB4storm]

Executing a person is an absolutely guaranteed method of ensuring they do not commit another crime. A life sentence is not.

[chaosB4storm]

O rly? No shit. lol

I'm pretty sure that the ones who are up for the death penalty really don't give a shit if they live or die and really didn't care about the consequences after. The repeat offenders are the types that have no fear, that do not care about anything and therefore, the death penalty really doesn't matter. The ones that think about it and care what's going to happen, that's probably going to be a one time deal.

Are these the people you want to spend your tax dollars on giving free education? Nice.

[Mercy Medical]

Are these the people you want to spend your tax dollars on giving free education? Nice.
I really don't care at this point in my life, but that was not the purpose of my post as you obviously missed what relevance my post had to what you posted.

The fact of the matter is, your logic is flawed.

[chaosB4storm]

I really don't care at this point in my life, but that was not the purpose of my post as you obviously missed what relevance my post had to what you posted.

The fact of the matter is, your logic is flawed.

lol no, my logic isn't flawed, and your argument has become laughable (I actually did laugh at the point you told me my logic was flawed lol).

You don't want to educate criminals or punish them lol hahahahahaha

Please point out the flaw in:

I would rather kill someone if the penalty was a life sentence, instead of a death penalty. This means that in the instance that I am caught, I do not get executed.

Point out the flaw in this one too:

Execution ensures the criminal won't repeat a murder, and a life sentence is not.

[chaosB4storm]

Your logic is that these murderers don't give a shit about their life or anyone elses. This, to me means, it is illogical to believe that keeping them alive can make your country a better place.

[Mercy Medical]

Dude, you try way too hard to sound smart and you come off looking like an idiot and an ass. You completely missed why I posted what I posted.

I do not care one way or the other in regards to the death penalty at this point in my life. I have no stance on the matter. But you said that some murders think about the repercussions of their crimes. While that is most likely true, the fact of the matter is that the individuals who would be up for the death penalty are not those types as they most likely committed a heinous crime or multiple murders. They are not the likely ones to be thinking about the repercussions of their actions and therefore the thought of the death penalty would not detour them from committing said crimes. The point you were trying to make is that the death penalty makes people think twice, but those that would be up for the death penalty wouldn't be thinking twice anyway. So it doesn't really matter if it makes them think twice or not, they'd still do it. The individuals that would be thinking twice would be the ones to commit maybe one murder and be done with it. While it may make them think twice about their actions it doesn't matter anyway because they would never be up for the death penalty in the first place.

The fact of the matter is, you responded to my response to you with something that had no relevance to my argument whatsoever.

[theliftedlorax8]

Please point out the flaw in:

I would rather kill someone if the penalty was a life sentence, instead of a death penalty. This means that in the instance that I am caught, I do not get executed.

What you're assuming is that people about to commit murder undergo a logical thought process. What makes you think that's true? Also, I think life imprisonment is a pretty big deterrent; while you might still be technically alive, it's not much of a life to live.

Point out the flaw in this one too:

Execution ensures the criminal won't repeat a murder, and a life sentence is not.

It's true - killing someone means that they won't commit another crime. But I don't think the end justifies the means; if the point is that killing people is wrong, than how can the state sanction killing people?

[chaosB4storm]

Dude, you try way too hard to sound smart and you come off looking like an idiot and an ass. You completely missed why I posted what I posted.

I do not care one way or the other in regards to the death penalty at this point in my life. I have no stance on the matter. But you said that some murders think about the repercussions of their crimes. While that is most likely true, the fact of the matter is that the individuals who would be up for the death penalty are not those types as they most likely committed a heinous crime or multiple murders. They are not the likely ones to be thinking about the repercussions of their actions and therefore the thought of the death penalty would not detour them from committing said crimes. The point you were trying to make is that the death penalty makes people think twice, but those that would be up for the death penalty wouldn't be thinking twice anyway. So it doesn't really matter if it makes them think twice or not, they'd still do it. The individuals that would be thinking twice would be the ones to commit maybe one murder and be done with it. While it may make them think twice about their actions it doesn't matter anyway because they would never be up for the death penalty in the first place.

The fact of the matter is, you responded to my response to you with something that had no relevance to my argument whatsoever.

Lol stick to namecalling. That is your strength. You call me an idiot, and then basically agree with my point in a roundabout way.

I believe the death penalty should be used on first-time murderers in a lot of cases (the ones you claim would think twice about their actions). And so you admittedly believe it would have a deterrent effect on them.

[chaosB4storm]

What you're assuming is that people about to commit murder undergo a logical thought process. What makes you think that's true? Also, I think life imprisonment is a pretty big deterrent; while you might still be technically alive, it's not much of a life to live.



It's true - killing someone means that they won't commit another crime. But I don't think the end justifies the means; if the point is that killing people is wrong, than how can the state sanction killing people?

I think it's true because there are murderers that have the ability to undergo a logical thought process. Fortunatley, the fact that it makes people think twice about their action is not the ONLY reason I believe the death penalty is correct. So even if zero criminals thought about their actions, I would still be for capital punishment.

Yes, "life" (as in until the person dies, not a 25 year sentence), sentences are a great deterrent. I just like the idea of capital punishment because it is the correct form of punishing certain individuals.

And the state can sanction "execution" because it is not "murder". Killing people is only wrong when they are innocent, or undeserving of death under the law.

Thats like saying, if stealing is wrong, how can the state sanction fining people?
or
if kidnapping is wrong, how can the state sanction imprisonment?

[Mercy Medical]

Lol stick to namecalling. That is your strength. You call me an idiot, and then basically agree with my point in a roundabout way.

I believe the death penalty should be used on first-time murderers in a lot of cases (the ones you claim would think twice about their actions). And so you admittedly believe it would have a deterrent effect on them.
You are an idiot because you don't know how to fucking speak or respond to an argument and instead chose to make a completely irrelevant point.

You apparently do not know how to read either.

I don't agree or disagree with you. I have absolutely zero stance on this subject. You never stated in your initially point that it should be used for first time criminals. I was merely making the point that as the current situation is now, it would not function properly under those circumstances.

And while I do not have a solid stance on the death penalty subject, I do feel as though it's pretty wrong to send someone to death because they fucked up once. Everyone screws up at some point in their life, regardless of how large and/or small that fuck up is. I believe that people deserve a second chance and that people should be forgiven for their mistakes.

[chaosB4storm]

You are an idiot because you don't know how to fucking speak or respond to an argument and instead chose to make a completely irrelevant point.

You apparently do not know how to read either.

I don't agree or disagree with you. I have absolutely zero stance on this subject. You never stated in your initially point that it should be used for first time criminals. I was merely making the point that as the current situation is now, it would not function properly under those circumstances.

And while I do not have a solid stance on the death penalty subject, I do feel as though it's pretty wrong to send someone to death because they fucked up once. Everyone screws up at some point in their life, regardless of how large and/or small that fuck up is. I believe that people deserve a second chance.

lol good to see you kept with the name calling.

Maybe you shouldn't have assumed what my version of perfect capital punishment. I am not American. My situation right now is that there isn't a death penalty at all. I am unaware of what it takes in certain states to be eligible for the death penalty.I think it was your mistake, and not mine. And you cannot say for certain that:

Every person in the country that would ponder murdering someone more than once in his life does not care whether he lives or dies.

You do not know that.

[chaosB4storm]

Dude, you try way too hard to sound smart

Really? I think I usually do a pretty good job of keeping my argument as simple as possible.

[theliftedlorax8]

And the state can sanction "execution" because it is not "murder". Killing people is only wrong when they are innocent, or undeserving of death under the law.

Fines and imprisonment are part of the social contract we have made with our government - live your life with the understanding that if you make certain decisions, there will be consequences.

You can change the vocabulary around all you want, but I think killing people is wrong all of the time, no matter what you call it.

[Mercy Medical]

Maybe you shouldn't have assumed what my version of perfect capital punishment. I am not American. My situation right now is that there isn't a death penalty at all. I am unaware of what it takes in certain states to be eligible for the death penalty.I think it was your mistake, and not mine. How is it wrong of me to assume that your opinion on it is in regards to the current situation? How am I supposed to sit and automatically know that you mean that all murders should get the death penalty when that is not the current case and , in my opinion, is completely asinine and inhumane. Wouldn't it be also wrong of you to assume that I would automatically know what you meant even though you didn't even state a solid point on the matter?

And I'm not even going to respond to your second point because it's just going to continually go in circles.

[chaosB4storm]

Fines and imprisonment are part of the social contract we have made with our government - live your life with the understanding that if you make certain decisions, there will be consequences.

You can change the vocabulary around all you want, but I think killing people is wrong all of the time, no matter what you call it.

You can think killing is always wrong, and that's fine. I just disagree.

And it has nothing to do with changing vocabulary. Executing someone, by order of the government, because this person has murdered an innocent individual, is much different than a civillian murdering an innocent person.

[Mercy Medical]

Really? I think I usually do a pretty good job of keeping my argument as simple as possible.
Yea, but the fact of the matter is that most of your points are completely nonsensical and you are completely incapable of having an intelligent conversation because you don't understand reading comprehension.

[chaosB4storm]

How is it wrong of me to assume that your opinion on it is in regards to the current situation? How am I supposed to sit and automatically know that you mean that all murders should get the death penalty when that is not the current case and , in my opinion, is completely asinine and inhumane. Wouldn't it be also wrong of you to assume that I would automatically know what you meant even though you didn't even state a solid point on the matter?

And I'm not even going to respond to your second point because it's just going to continually go in circles.

In your country it is the current case. Not in mine. Not in many others.

You shouldn't have assumed anything. I believe I said it would cause "criminals" to think twice. This is an argument that you agree with in certain cases. No assumption is needed. You actually do not disagree with my original point, you just assumed I was talking about YOUR country.

I didn't assume you knew what I meant. I just don't know how the death penalty works in your country. The only assumption I made is that you were disagreeing with me saying that "the death penalty will cause criminals to think twice" because that is basically all I said.

[Mercy Medical]

In your country it is the current case. Not in mine. Not in many others.

You shouldn't have assumed anything. I believe I said it would cause "criminals" to think twice. This is an argument that you agree with in certain cases. No assumption is needed. You actually do not disagree with my original point, you just assumed I was talking about YOUR country.

I didn't assume you knew what I meant. I just don't know how the death penalty works in your country. The only assumption I made is that you were disagreeing with me saying that "the death penalty will cause criminals to think twice" because that is basically all I said.
:wallbash:

[anamericangod]

You have no clue about anything you are saying. Seriously, stop posting.

[chaosB4storm]

Yea, but the fact of the matter is that most of your points are completely nonsensical and you are completely incapable of having an intelligent conversation because you don't understand reading comprehension.

lol you really enjoy arguing with nonsensical people that are completely incapable of having intelligent conversation because they don't understand reading comprehension, don't you? lol

If I am THAT unintelligent, are you really doing yourself any justice by arguing with me? Thats like me logging off the computer and arguing with my 4 year old brother about the economy lol.

[Mercy Medical]

You have no clue about anything you are saying. Seriously, stop posting.:appl:

lol you really enjoy arguing with nonsensical people that are completely incapable of having intelligent conversation because they don't understand reading comprehension, don't you? lol

If I am THAT unintelligent, are you really doing yourself any justice by arguing with me? Thats like me logging off the computer and arguing with my 4 year old brother about the economy lol.Well I feel like I'm arguing with your 4 year old brother about the death penalty...I would hope that by the age of 18 someone would be capable of such simple things.

[chaosB4storm]

You have no clue about anything you are saying. Seriously, stop posting.

aww, you're so smart.

[anamericangod]

lol you really enjoy arguing with nonsensical people that are completely incapable of having intelligent conversation because they don't understand reading comprehension, don't you? lol

If I am THAT unintelligent, are you really doing yourself any justice by arguing with me? Thats like me logging off the computer and arguing with my 4 year old brother about the economy lol.

Your 4 year old brother would probably be able to form a better argument than you.

[anamericangod]

aww, you're so smart.

I know, thanks.

[chaosB4storm]

Your 4 year old brother would probably be able to form a better argument than you.

and funny, too? :)

[chaosB4storm]

:appl:

Well I feel like I'm arguing with your 4 year old brother about the death penalty...I would hope that by the age of 18 someone would be capable of such simple things.


haha it's funny because you don't even have a stance on the issue.

[Mercy Medical]

haha it's funny because you don't even have a stance on the issue.
Why is that even funny? Is it so bad for me to not have a stance on an issue? Why should I stand on one side or the other when I don't even know how I feel?

[anamericangod]

and funny, too? :)

I get that a lot, too. Seriously though, stop posting.

[quarterhorse101]

i wrote a paper about this in english last year
we talked about how death penalty kind of coincides with abortion in the way that it decides to end a life
and how we have the power and if we should or not, it was really interesting to dive into the topic

[bung]

It is just ridiculous to claim the death penalty does nothing to keep us safe. It suggests that we would be equally safe if we didn't punish criminals at all lol.

The death penalty does no more to keep us safe than life in prison does. That was the point. Learn to infer. In no way does it suggest we would be equally safe if we didn't punish criminals at all, either. I cannot fathom how you came to such an asinine conclusion.


I don't want to spend my tax dollars on educating criminals. That is not my priority.


Yet you would rather spend more of your tax dollars to execute a criminal. Interesting. More of your tax dollars to allocate towards something that doesn't deter crime, does nothing to rehabilitate, and is generally recognized as an inhuman practice throughout the majority of the developed nations in the world. Interesting, indeed. Wait, no, not interesting--absolutely ignorant, moronic, and barbaric.

BTW, every time you say "lol" it takes a little more credibility away from your argument. But, then again, I suppose anything multiplied by zero is still zero.

[bung]

i wrote a paper about this in english last year
we talked about how death penalty kind of coincides with abortion in the way that it decides to end a life
and how we have the power and if we should or not, it was really interesting to dive into the topic

The death penalty and abortion are two completely different subjects. They don't kind of coincide at all.

[Broken Parachute]

Yes I'd be interested in seeing this information when you can post it.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108#FromDPIC

[chaosB4storm]

The death penalty does no more to keep us safe than life in prison does. That was the point. Learn to infer. In no way does it suggest we would be equally safe if we didn't punish criminals at all, either. I cannot fathom how you came to such an asinine conclusion.



Yet you would rather spend more of your tax dollars to execute a criminal. Interesting. More of your tax dollars to allocate towards something that doesn't deter crime, does nothing to rehabilitate, and is generally recognized as an inhuman practice throughout the majority of the developed nations in the world. Interesting, indeed. Wait, no, not interesting--absolutely ignorant, moronic, and barbaric.

BTW, every time you say "lol" it takes a little more credibility away from your argument. But, then again, I suppose anything multiplied by zero is still zero.

OK, so the death penalty has an equal deterrent effect as imprisonment. So I can make the claim that imprisonment does not have a deterrent effect, if you can claim the death penalty does not. If they have an equal deterrent effect, there is still the fact that it ensures retribution and eliminates a criminal repeating murder. It is not a point for your side.

Yes, I would rather spend more of my tax dollars to execute a criminal (it happens to be my priority). I don't see how that's interesting. Do you also think it's interesting that I wouldn't buy a car that I don't like for 500 dollars, but I would buy a car that I DO like for 1000 dollars?

It is very hard to prove that it doesn't have a deterent effect however. I think I read somewhere that only .08% of murderers in states containing the death penalty are actually executed (don't quote me on that, but I know it's a small number). The point is that it is very difficult to determine the deterrent effect. I admit the death penalty obviously has no rehabilitation purposes, but I disagree with rehabilitation in this case. Execution shows compassion to the victim and the victim's family, demonstrates perfect retribution, and shows that murder is intolerable. Rehabilitation is not perfectly effective, execution is.

The fact that a lot of the developed world finds capital punishment to be inhumane does not enhance your argument, as I do not believe it is inhumane and am opposed to all developed countries that have the view that it is inhumane. One being my own. A majority vote does not make your argument correct. Just like if we used the entire world to vote on the death penalty we would find that most people support my opinion. Once again, that would not make my opinion correct. Or if we let the deveolped world vote on whether your libertarian views are correct, we would find the vast majority were opposed to your political views (although I happen to agree with your libertarian view). This would not make your political stance incorrect.

And if "lol" takes away from my argument from your point of view, you are not really listening to what I am saying. I have a lot of concrete points for my side of the argument, and any open-minded individual should be able to see that, even if they disagree. That's alright though, no one should go into a debate with expectations of changing your opposition's opinion. It is about persuading those who have not already made up their mind. It really doesn't matter that you believe my argument is "zero" (which I actually do not believe in the first place).

Let me tell you what takes away from your argument: the fact that you attack me instead of my points. Whether I am ignorant, moronic, and barbaric, as you stated, is irrelevent to whether the death penalty is just or not. My abilities/inabilities do not have any relevence to the issue.

[chaosB4storm]

It's sad that the only person in this thread that does not resort to namecalling and insulting during the debate apparently has no idea what he's talking about.

[nikaidoh]

I think its funny how people who are pro-life in terms of abortion but also support the death penalty. i don't think that it's right that the decision between life and death is put in the hands of complete strangers. and i think that the death penalty is too quick and easy of a way out, especially considering all the extra benefits they get before they die. I also think that it includes them being absolved of their sins by the religious authority of their choice.

[chaosB4storm]

I think its funny how people who are pro-life in terms of abortion but also support the death penalty. i don't think that it's right that the decision between life and death is put in the hands of complete strangers. and i think that the death penalty is too quick and easy of a way out, especially considering all the extra benefits they get before they die. I also think that it includes them being absolved of their sins by the religious authority of their choice.

Although I do not fit into that category, I believe they are very different issues, and that people that fit into this category do not neccessarily possess contradictory views.

[nikaidoh]

Although I do not fit into that category, I believe they are very different issues, and that people that fit into this category do not neccessarily possess contradictory views.

I probably should've said SOME people instead of just the generalized people.

[Justin_stacy]

I think its funny how people who are pro-life in terms of abortion but also support the death penalty.

You really can't comprehend how they see a difference?

[bung]

OK, so the death penalty has an equal deterrent effect as imprisonment. So I can make the claim that imprisonment does not have a deterrent effect, if you can claim the death penalty does not. If they have an equal deterrent effect, there is still the fact that it ensures retribution and eliminates a criminal repeating murder. It is not a point for your side.

Ugh! Your premises never lead to the claims you make! It's constant and very irritating. I'm am not arguing that the death penalty does not deter crime in it's own right. I'm arguing that states without the death penalty have the exact same rate of crimes that would warrant the death penalty as in states that allow it. Therefore, establishing the death penalty in a state that doesn't currently permit it would have absolutely no effect on the crime rate. Thus, it would be in vain to establish the death penalty, as the ultimate goal of punishment is to prevent the act that required said punishment from ever occurring again. The death penalty does not, in any way, do this. Executing a person would not bring anymore justice into the world since it has been proved that its effect on crime is nonexistent. Life in prison will eliminate a criminal repeating a murder again as well, as any crime that could ever warrant the death penalty would surely be life in prison with no possibility of parole in a place where the death penalty has been banned. Your position that retribution equals "you killed someone so now we're going to kill you," is, frankly, a little disturbing. From my perspective, I see a life contained in a prison, where the prisoner will eventually die, never knowing freedom again, to be a considerably sufficient amount of retribution. It almost sounds like you just have an absolute fervent hate for someone who simply makes a very poor decision, and killing them will somehow make you rest easier and feel more safe and secure. To me, that's not just sadistic, but also a terribly sad mindset.


Yes, I would rather spend more of my tax dollars to execute a criminal (it happens to be my priority). I don't see how that's interesting. Do you also think it's interesting that I wouldn't buy a car that I don't like for 500 dollars, but I would buy a car that I DO like for 1000 dollars?

That's such a poor analogy. You're comparing buying a car to paying taxes to execute a human being. The two have and use very different considerations in coming to their respective decisions. Sorry, but you can't compare the life of a human being to a material object.


It is very hard to prove that it doesn't have a deterent effect however. I think I read somewhere that only .08% of murderers in states containing the death penalty are actually executed (don't quote me on that, but I know it's a small number). The point is that it is very difficult to determine the deterrent effect. I admit the death penalty obviously has no rehabilitation purposes, but I disagree with rehabilitation in this case. Execution shows compassion to the victim and the victim's family, demonstrates perfect retribution, and shows that murder is intolerable. Rehabilitation is not perfectly effective, execution is.

No, it's not hard to prove. It has been proven by slew of sociologists. Go read up on some studies. And what's this about it shows compassion to the victim and the victim's family? You can't make a point in an argument by appealing to someone's emotions--in every case one decision will show compassion to one party while the other is party slapped in the face. It's not about making someone feel better or causing someone heartache. It's only about what is just, and you cannot appeal to a person's emotions in a debate. I think in my earlier paragraph I already explained why I don't believe execution to be "perfect retribution."


The fact that a lot of the developed world finds capital punishment to be inhumane does not enhance your argument, as I do not believe it is inhumane and am opposed to all developed countries that have the view that it is inhumane. One being my own. A majority vote does not make your argument correct. Just like if we used the entire world to vote on the death penalty we would find that most people support my opinion. Once again, that would not make my opinion correct. Or if we let the deveolped world vote on whether your libertarian views are correct, we would find the vast majority were opposed to your political views (although I happen to agree with your libertarian view). This would not make your political stance incorrect.

I realize that the majority of the developed world agreeing with me does not make my position correct, but I decided to say it because I draw a lot of parallels (most notably the inhuman nature of both practices) between this and when the rest of the developed world had outlawed slavery and the United States still had yet to make the ban.


And if "lol" takes away from my argument from your point of view, you are not really listening to what I am saying. I have a lot of concrete points for my side of the argument, and any open-minded individual should be able to see that, even if they disagree. That's alright though, no one should go into a debate with expectations of changing your opposition's opinion. It is about persuading those who have not already made up their mind. It really doesn't matter that you believe my argument is "zero" (which I actually do not believe in the first place).

Of course it doesn't take away from your argument directly, but it's really annoying and comes off as very immature and amateurish. A lot like if two people go to debate on some televised show and one person shows up wearing a suit and tie, while the other is dressed in street clothes.


Let me tell you what takes away from your argument: the fact that you attack me instead of my points. Whether I am ignorant, moronic, and barbaric, as you stated, is irrelevent to whether the death penalty is just or not. My abilities/inabilities do not have any relevence to the issue.

I did not attack you instead of your points. You know that's false. I attacked your points and then chose to use some adjectives on how I think your position should be described. However, I never attacked your person with an insult, but was referring to your stance on the issue itself as ignorant, moronic, and barbaric.

[chaosB4storm]

You confuse justice here with safety. Executing a person does bring more justice in my opinion because I believe it is more just to execute him than imprisoning him. He deserves it more in my opinion. You can, however, argue that it does not bring more safety into the world if it does not deter crime more than imprisonment (I remain unsure on that statistic, but you seem to be sure of it). To ilustrate this point, I have an example (that you will probably mistakenly reply to with "this is a false analogy"): Say a child at school keeps punching other children in the face. Say the teacher has 2 options: 1)send the kid to disneyland OR 2) make him stand in the corner
Both of these will have an equal deterrent effect on crime (or whatever you want to call it in this case), so by your logic both choices show an equal amount of justice. They show an equal amount of safety (as the crime will not happen again), but there is much more justice to be found in option 2.
And your perspective is incorrect. The punishment you suggest to murderers is not enough retribution. If a person locked someone in a room for their entire life, until they died, feeding them (much like a prison), then your punishment would show perfect retribution. In the case of murder, your ideal punishment comes short. Retribution implies repayment; recompense. Either admit that you are against perfect retribution, or side with the death penalty.

Actually it is a simple, logical analogy that flawlessy shows how it is very easy to see that someone may want to spend more money on something he likes. And your "human being to a material object" comparison is a weak attempt at appealing to everyone's emotion. You could have shown more sincerity/open-mindedness if you at least admitted that the analogy works.

I do not need to know whether or not the death penalty is a better crim e deterrent than imprisonment. I am for it either way. And I am not appealing to emotion. When someone commits murder, the victim, the victim's friends, and the victim's family have been "wronged". Maybe compassion is the wrong word. They do deserve, however, to be shown justice. The punishment should fit the crime ENTIRELY, not almost.

Are you honestly comparing slavery with capital punishment? That's ridiculous, and an explanation is not required to show you why.

Fortunately, I am not here to make friends, or sound mature. I am only here to educate open-minded individuals, and honestly, I think the fact that I do not insult anyone in the process means a lot.

There come's a point when your adjectives are no longer furthering your argument, and they are only meant to insult me. You undeniably reached that point. If you are brilliant enough to see that you did not directly attack my person, you should have found the anaolgy I used earlier to work perfectly. When you tell me that my anaolgy does not work, it proves that you are not here to educate open-minded people, you are closemindedly here to win the argument, even if it means claiming my points are illogical when you know they aren't.

[theliftedlorax8]

Let me say this first - I appreciate that you're using vocabulary like "I believe" and "In my opinion." It shows that you understand that not everyone shares these beliefs and opinions. I think you need to take it one step further, and understand that the fact that you, an individual, have a belief does not necessarily make it an appropriate law for society at large.

To ilustrate this point, I have an example (that you will probably mistakenly reply to with "this is a false analogy"): Say a child at school keeps punching other children in the face. Say the teacher has 2 options: 1)send the kid to disneyland OR 2) make him stand in the corner.

Um. Hate to break it to you, but this is a false analogy. You're effectively saying that life imprisonment is the same thing as sending a child to Disneyland. Which is, you know, completely untrue.

And your perspective is incorrect. The punishment you suggest to murderers is not enough retribution. If a person locked someone in a room for their entire life, until they died, feeding them (much like a prison), then your punishment would show perfect retribution. In the case of murder, your ideal punishment comes short. Retribution implies repayment; recompense. Either admit that you are against perfect retribution, or side with the death penalty.

There's a reason we don't live by Hammurabi's Code anymore - an eye for an eye isn't actually a good basis for a judicial system. Extend it further to other crimes - do you think a rapist should be raped in punishment? Do you think a spousal abuser should be made to suffer the abuse they doled out? You can't look at the world in black and white - things are much more complex than that.

When someone commits murder, the victim, the victim's friends, and the victim's family have been "wronged". Maybe compassion is the wrong word. They do deserve, however, to be shown justice. The punishment should fit the crime ENTIRELY, not almost.

This is a legitimate opinion, but as an argument, it's pretty weak. You're assuming that everyone else shares your definition of justice, and I think the fact that so many people here disagree with your opinion should inform you otherwise.

Are you honestly comparing slavery with capital punishment? That's ridiculous, and an explanation is not required to show you why.

Actually, the comparison is fairly strong. Both slavery and the death penalty are pretty egregious human rights violations.

[BuriedAlive]

No it's not. Maybe you should research your facts better. It costs more to put someone to death than it does to house a prisoner for 30 years.

I have proof of this info on my PC. I'll post it tomorrow when my internet is back up.

So how much does death my hanging cost?


I also think child rapist deserve the death penalty. I'd also put a cap on appeals.

[bung]

Reply to chaos' post

Thank you for replying where I had definitely lost all patience and desire to respond to him again :-)

[nikaidoh]

You really can't comprehend how they see a difference?


i guess i can't. i see a life as a life. I just thought that it was ironic, I didn't consider it as it being unjust. I could also say that when a soldier kills another man in war, he's considered a hero. But when a man ends a life because he's mentally insane, he gets the death penalty. I assume that you're against abortion, and I'm not going to say anything about that because it's a different topic or thread, so I'm going to end it at that.

[Broken Parachute]

So how much does death my hanging cost?


I also think child rapist deserve the death penalty. I'd also put a cap on appeals.Only 3 people have been hanged since 1976.

New Hampshire and Washington are the only two states that allow death row inmates to be hanged...and the only way it can be done is if Lethal Injection is deemed to be unconstitutional/ineffective OR the prisoner chooses it. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to choose hanging over Lethal Injection.

[chaosB4storm]

Let me say this first - I appreciate that you're using vocabulary like "I believe" and "In my opinion." It shows that you understand that not everyone shares these beliefs and opinions. I think you need to take it one step further, and understand that the fact that you, an individual, have a belief does not necessarily make it an appropriate law for society at large.



Um. Hate to break it to you, but this is a false analogy. You're effectively saying that life imprisonment is the same thing as sending a child to Disneyland. Which is, you know, completely untrue.



There's a reason we don't live by Hammurabi's Code anymore - an eye for an eye isn't actually a good basis for a judicial system. Extend it further to other crimes - do you think a rapist should be raped in punishment? Do you think a spousal abuser should be made to suffer the abuse they doled out? You can't look at the world in black and white - things are much more complex than that.



This is a legitimate opinion, but as an argument, it's pretty weak. You're assuming that everyone else shares your definition of justice, and I think the fact that so many people here disagree with your opinion should inform you otherwise.



Actually, the comparison is fairly strong. Both slavery and the death penalty are pretty egregious human rights violations.

The analogy is not false. It demonstrates that someone cannot say two things are of equal justice because they bring equal safety into the world, or are equal deterrents (which is what he said). It is irrelevent whether you prefer the death penalty or imprisonment. The analogy was not meant to show that imprisonment is like disneyland, only that he misused the word "justice".

Should a rapist be raped for his crimes? No. Although he is deserving of it, it would take hiring professional rapists or something that I have not really ever considered before (which I just feel is too impractical for a government to even consider). The rapist does deserve it though. Another reason why we don't have to rape a rapist is that we can come up with an equivalent, more practical way of punishing him that equals the same amount of retribution. Crimes like first degree murder or mass murder have no equivalent because it is the ultimate crime. Execution is the only reasonable option
You cannot just say that "an eye for an eye" isn't a good basis for punishment. There has to be more to your argument than that. And don't use the "at this day and age" argument either. People have been saying "at this day and age" long before you were born, and they always will.

I think everyone believes in human rights violations to some degree. This makes slavery equally comparable to imprisonment. Both take away human rights. Imprisonment removes a person's liberty. If anyone actually believes the argument you are putting forth, they should be against imprisonment also. Maybe thirty years from now, when you still think criminals should be locked up for their crimes, some ignorant person will say to you "Having the belief that people should be imprisoned is so inhumane. Are you for slavery, too?"

You deserve a thank-you however, for your lack of sarcasm and insults. Greatly appreciated.

[theliftedlorax8]

Another reason why we don't have to rape a rapist is that we can come up with an equivalent, more practical way of punishing him that equals the same amount of retribution. Crimes like first degree murder or mass murder have no equivalent because it is the ultimate crime. Execution is the only reasonable option.
You cannot just say that "an eye for an eye" isn't a good basis for punishment. There has to be more to your argument than that. And don't use the "at this day and age" argument either. People have been saying "at this day and age" long before you were born, and they always will.

Putting aside the validity of your analogy (which is false, because the point of an analogy is to say A is to B as C is to D, but your A and B have a different relationship than your C and D), let's talk about your statement that first degree murder or mass murder are the ultimate crime.

You say that the reason we don't have to rape a rapist is that we can come up with an equivalent, more practical way of punishing him or her - I wholeheartedly agree. What makes murder different? Raping someone is as irrevocable as killing them. You can't undo the damage, even if you can walk away with your life.

Life imprisonment, to me, is an equivalent, more practical way of punishing someone who commits murder. Maybe you disagree (actually, I know that you disagree), and maybe this is too idealistic, but to me, it's about setting the right example. I am uncomfortable with the statement that execution makes; to me, executing someone says "It's wrong to kill someone unless the government says it's okay." I'd much rather put someone in prison for life and say "It's wrong to kill someone, and you have to deal with that fact for the rest of your life."

As for the question of slavery and imprisonment, I can turn your argument right back around on you. Maybe thirty years from now, when you still think criminals should be put to death for their crimes, some person will say to you "Having the belief that people should be executed is so inhumane. Are you for slavery, too?" What's your point?

[chaosB4storm]

Putting aside the validity of your analogy (which is false, because the point of an analogy is to say A is to B as C is to D, but your A and B have a different relationship than your C and D), let's talk about your statement that first degree murder or mass murder are the ultimate crime.

You say that the reason we don't have to rape a rapist is that we can come up with an equivalent, more practical way of punishing him or her - I wholeheartedly agree. What makes murder different? Raping someone is as irrevocable as killing them. You can't undo the damage, even if you can walk away with your life.

Life imprisonment, to me, is an equivalent, more practical way of punishing someone who commits murder. Maybe you disagree (actually, I know that you disagree), and maybe this is too idealistic, but to me, it's about setting the right example. I am uncomfortable with the statement that execution makes; to me, executing someone says "It's wrong to kill someone unless the government says it's okay." I'd much rather put someone in prison for life and say "It's wrong to kill someone, and you have to deal with that fact for the rest of your life."

As for the question of slavery and imprisonment, I can turn your argument right back around on you. Maybe thirty years from now, when you still think criminals should be put to death for their crimes, some person will say to you "Having the belief that people should be imprisoned is so inhumane. Are you for the death penalty, too?" What's your point?

We HAVE an perfect equivalent, as a punishment, to murder. I am not opposed to rapists being raped either. I am not opposed to spousal abusers to be abused either. They DESERVE it, as I said. We are discussing justice here, not the practicality of the punishment.

Sorry, you cannot turn the argument back on me. I was stating that I am against using that particualr argument on people, and that you were, in a roundabout way (when you used your eye for an eye argument), using the "at this day and age" argument.

That being said, this is hardly about capital punishment anymore. There is not enough substance to it anymore, as we have resorted a little bit too much to discussing our individual debating skills, and professionalism. Everyone has stated his/her best points, and there is a lot to look at for anyone with an open mind.

[BuriedAlive]

Only 3 people have been hanged since 1976.

New Hampshire and Washington are the only two states that allow death row inmates to be hanged...and the only way it can be done is if Lethal Injection is deemed to be unconstitutional/ineffective OR the prisoner chooses it. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to choose hanging over Lethal Injection.

I never understood how something could be deemed "unconstitutional", especially since hanging was around when the constitution was written. The hell with lethal injection. Honestly, I don't see how we can be "humane" and "understanding" with someone who killed another person purposefully. It's absolutely ridiculous. Were they "humane" and "understanding" when they killed whoever? I'm going to have to go with a no there. So why don't they deserve something of the same? We continuously try to interpret the constitution and play with the words to make it seem right in whatever case.

Also, why the hell do they have a choice? They don't deserve such. Especially in this day and age of forensic science. I'm sure we will still get one wrong here and there, but nothing's perfect. They are a detriment to society. Locked up or not.

Furthermore, I never understood how capital punishment was in direct conflict with a criminal's right to live. If you commit a crime, under whatever circumstances, you should lose your rights (especially after your convicted.)

Also, no matter how we kill someone, they will always say it's "too painful". I say we do a surprise injection while they are sleeping. The hell with that last meal crap.

[Mercy Medical]

Execution shows compassion to the victim and the victim's family, demonstrates perfect retribution, and shows that murder is intolerable. Rehabilitation is not perfectly effective, execution is.But what if the victim's family is opposes to such a thing and believes in forgiveness and believes that life in prison is a far superior punishment then death? You can't take into account what the victim's family do and do not want as it varies from family to family. That point is completely irrelevant.

And execution maybe perfectly effective to the individual who is being executed, but I guarantee it would not be perfectly effective as a deterrent to others who may commit the same type of crime.

The fact of the matter is, criminals will be criminals and there is no way to tell at this point how effective of a deterrent for future crimes the death penalty would be. In all honesty, we shouldn't be focusing on a solution to the issue after the crime has been committed, we should be focusing on things to prevent the crimes from ever happening. One thing I do not believe is crime prevention solely by striking fear into the individual. That is pointless to me.

[Broken Parachute]

I never understood how something could be deemed "unconstitutional", especially since hanging was around when the constitution was written. The hell with lethal injection. Honestly, I don't see how we can be "humane" and "understanding" with someone who killed another person purposefully. It's absolutely ridiculous. Were they "humane" and "understanding" when they killed whoever? I'm going to have to go with a no there. So why don't they deserve something of the same? We continuously try to interpret the constitution and play with the words to make it seem right in whatever case.

Also, why the hell do they have a choice? They don't deserve such. Especially in this day and age of forensic science. I'm sure we will still get one wrong here and there, but nothing's perfect. They are a detriment to society. Locked up or not.

Furthermore, I never understood how capital punishment was in direct conflict with a criminal's right to live. If you commit a crime, under whatever circumstances, you should lose your rights (especially after your convicted.)

Also, no matter how we kill someone, they will always say it's "too painful". I say we do a surprise injection while they are sleeping. The hell with that last meal crap.I see what you're saying, but I believe in a 'being the better person' strategy. I'm not a fan of 'an eye for an eye.'

[bung]

We HAVE an perfect equivalent, as a punishment, to murder. I am not opposed to rapists being raped either. I am not opposed to spousal abusers to be abused either. They DESERVE it, as I said. We are discussing justice here, not the practicality of the punishment.


Not opposed to rapists being raped? Not opposed to torturers being tortured? You sure are doing your best to make sure the human rights struggle loses about a few hundred years of progress.

And to address your analogy directly which I never did:


Say a child at school keeps punching other children in the face. Say the teacher has 2 options: 1)send the kid to disneyland OR 2) make him stand in the corner
Both of these will have an equal deterrent effect on crime

Both will have an equal deterrent effect on crime?! Are you utterly insane? If the punishment for punching someone in the face is being sent to Disneyland, I can assure you the amount of kids getting punched in the face at school will skyrocket, whereas if the punishment is making a person stand in the corner (an odd choice for punishment, I might add) we can assume there would be far fewer of such incidents. Now, how exactly do you think they have an equal deterrent on crime?

[Nevuk]

I'm actually a huge fan of eye for an eye... outside of the government. The reason being, the government killing someone is not eye for an eye, as they did not kill a part of the government, they killed someone else. The circumstances surrounding it are impossible to clearly address, and you give the government the right to decided what is an "acceptable" level of violence to kill for. Shouldn't be up to federal prosecutors or judges to decided that.

[chaosB4storm]

Executing a person would not bring anymore justice into the world since it has been proved that its effect on crime is nonexistent.

Pick apart my analogy as much as you want; this statement will always be incorrect.

The effect a punishment has on crime does not equal the amount of justice the punishment serves. You meant to say safety (and you may have been right had you said that).

[chaosB4storm]

Not opposed to rapists being raped? Not opposed to torturers being tortured? You sure are doing your best to make sure the human rights struggle loses about a few hundred years of progress.

And to address your analogy directly which I never did:



Both will have an equal deterrent effect on crime?! Are you utterly insane? If the punishment for punching someone in the face is being sent to Disneyland, I can assure you the amount of kids getting punched in the face at school will skyrocket, whereas if the punishment is making a person stand in the corner (an odd choice for punishment, I might add) we can assume there would be far fewer of such incidents. Now, how exactly do you think they have an equal deterrent on crime?

Those who are against human rights violations will find it impossible to punish a criminal. A lot of people need to realise that all change isn't good change. I'm sure there are a lot of things I liked about the world more a few hundred years ago than I do today.

I'm laughing at myself now that you have shown me the flaw in my analogy. However, if sending a kid to Disneyland will have the same deterrent on crime as sending him to the corner (which, as you pointed out, is indeed an odd punishment), it does not make the two options equally just. That is the point I was trying to make. Leaving out the word "if" really does make my analogy utterly insane.

And I'm not bashing you for it, but I found it really funny that you called me insane after telling me that you don't attack me, only my points. I'm not saying I didn't deserve it, I'm just saying I found it funny.

[Justin_stacy]

i I just thought that it was ironic.

Anymore ironic then being pro-'chioce' and anti-death penalty?

[chaosB4storm]

I'm actually a huge fan of eye for an eye... outside of the government. The reason being, the government killing someone is not eye for an eye, as they did not kill a part of the government, they killed someone else. The circumstances surrounding it are impossible to clearly address, and you give the government the right to decided what is an "acceptable" level of violence to kill for. Shouldn't be up to federal prosecutors or judges to decided that.

That's interesting (sincerely).

But, when a person is murdered, it is considered a crime against society. The government is supposed to be the representative of society. That justifies the government using an eye for an eye to me.

[Nevuk]

That's interesting (sincerely).

But, when a person is murdered, it is considered a crime against society. The government is supposed to be the representative of society. That justifies the government using an eye for an eye to me.
If you shoot someone falling off a building to their deaths, its murder. That is the standard the government uses.

[BuriedAlive]

I see what you're saying, but I believe in a 'being the better person' strategy. I'm not a fan of 'an eye for an eye.'

No no. I'm not an eye for an eye fellow either per se. I don't think they have to be killed in the same manner they killed their victim in, but I really think that they lost their right to live. I just don't care for someone who doesn't have the right of mind to stay within the parameters of the law.

[bung]

Pick apart my analogy as much as you want; this statement will always be incorrect.

The effect a punishment has on crime does not equal the amount of justice the punishment serves. You meant to say safety (and you may have been right had you said that).

Ah, we're using two different definitions for justice.

"bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds." That's the definition I think you're using for justice.

"rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason" That's the definition as I meant it to be read with. So, if a drunk driver is punished however they happen to be punished, but, for instance, by taking an additional class it lowers a person's chance of driving intoxicated again by 80%, then I feel requiring said class as part of the "punishment" (I put that in quotes only because it's more of a reform measure) would bring more justice into the world.


Those who are against human rights violations will find it impossible to punish a criminal. A lot of people need to realise that all change isn't good change. I'm sure there are a lot of things I liked about the world more a few hundred years ago than I do today.

I don't think having high standards for human rights makes it impossible to punish someone, not at all. And I agree that there are probably some things I would have liked better about the world a few hundred years ago, too.

However, my point is that it's always wrong to torture someone, regardless of anything they may have done. Human rights don't exist with an "except" attached after them. There is no, "Torturing someone is wrong, except if they've done so and so." Even if torturing someone could potentially bring about information that could save a billion people. Torturing one single person to save a billion would still be wrong. Would many people feel it's okay to torture the person to save a billion? Sure. But that doesn't make the torturing itself right. It only becomes (essentially) necessary then to commit a wrong for substantial gain, as the end justifying the means is a common logical fallacy. So, to a person who feels killing a person is wrong, they will say, "Even if you believe the death penalty will bring a particular person to justice [I'm using it with the definition you used], it is irrelevant as killing a human being remains wrong. And since bringing that person to justice, which is simply to incite vengeance on them, is not necessary to the safety of any other human beings, capital punishment is wrong." Essentially, they see the human right to live as more valuable than society's want for 'complete' or 'total' justice.

A few posts above you told me to admit I'm against perfect retribution. Perfect is retribution is impossible, so I'll use 'total' retribution, instead, or meaning at least the closest one can come. I am not against total retribution. Life in prison, to me, is total retribution for murder. It is enough. Executing the person would be, from my perspective, not only too much, but wrong.

[nikaidoh]

Anymore ironic then being pro-'chioce' and anti-death penalty?



I think life in general is ironic. so yeah

[John JD Dorian]

there are a few issues at hand here.

from a fiscal point of view, ideally executions should be a lot cheaper than lifelong incarcerations. but there are so many automatic appeals that get filed in death cases that the huuuge wait and funds needed for trials/appeals mean that it is much more expensive to execute people.

and after this long appeals process, what usually happens is that we're killing someone 15-20 years (at least) later for a crime they did all these years back then, despite the fact that they may be totally rehabilitated, they might even have been model citizens in prison, getting college degrees, etc.

my opinion is that it is totally fucked up for us to kill anyone, anytime. i'm a religious man, and i think that the most our society can do is protect itself by locking up dangerous criminals for their lives. but to take one's life? we cannot play god like that, it is just totally ridiculous.

the torah talks about death penalties in many cases, even for such sins that are seemingly light (like desecrating the sabbath). it is important to note, though, that these were rules for jewish courts under times of jewish rule, and there were an amazing amount of details that had to be exactly fulfilled in order for a court to carry out a death sentence. 2 witnesses (who couldn't be sinners themselves) had to see the act, warn the perpetrator that the act was forbidden and that the punishment was death, and then the perpetrator had to, within a few seconds, acknowledge these facts and do it anyway. thus, the only time a court would even consider executing Joe would be in this case: joe goes up to mike in the street, pulls a gun on him. jeff and jon run up and say, 'hey joe, don't kill mike! it's against the law, and the punishment is death!' and joe would have to say, 'fuck that, i'm doing it anyway, i don't care if they kill me.' even after that, if the court could find any doubt in the case, or any redeeming qualities to the accused person whatsoever, they would not follow through with the execution. thus, in jewish law, the death penalty was almost never carried out. the talmud refers to a court who executed even one person every 70 years as "bloody".

the point of all that was that any of these christian rights who think they understand the bible and support the death penalty are full of shit. i've studied the bible the right way my entire life, and i can tell anyone with certainty, god would never favor the death penalty in today's society.

[John JD Dorian]

also keep in mind that it's pretty common to find out 25 years down the road that we made a mistake in issuing a conviction. if the guy has been in jail the whole time, it sucks, but we can say, hey, you're free, forgive us.

not as easy to tell that to a casket.

[John JD Dorian]

I dont know where you get your facts from but the cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for 30 years is way more costly to you as a taxpayer than putting them to death.

you are so off on this, buddy, it ain't even funny.

[John JD Dorian]

Please explain to me how you can say "the death penalty doesn't deter crime". Also, I would like to know why "an eye for an eye" is such an astonishingly ridiculous belief.

And I do not understand the bolded part.

Yes, it would accomplish the same thing, just without the retribution, and are we talking "life" as in until the criminal dies? How expensive does that get? Is it more expensive than capital punishment? Just wondering.

the death penalty does not deter violent crime. it's pretty logical.

someone committing a murder does not go through the thought process of 'i probably will get caught, but it's cool, cuz i'll only rot in jail forever and ever, so i'll do it anyway!'

[Mercy Medical]

Execution shows compassion to the victim and the victim's family, demonstrates perfect retribution, and shows that murder is intolerable. Rehabilitation is not perfectly effective, execution is.Also, if you take this idea into consideration wouldn't it be unfair in the sense that by executing the murderer you would essentially be punishing the criminal's family indirectly due to the fact that you are removing their family member from the world entirely? I mean, essentially the family of the victim are indirectly (in the sense that they were not the individuals who were actually involved in the crime) involved in the crime itself and thus are receiving justice through the whole eye for an eye principle. But the criminals family is also indirectly involved and are essentially receiving punishment for a crime they did not commit.

[chaosB4storm]

Also, if you take this idea into consideration wouldn't it be unfair in the sense that by executing the murderer you would essentially be punishing the criminal's family indirectly due to the fact that you are removing their family member from the world entirely? I mean, essentially the family of the victim are indirectly (in the sense that they were not the individuals who were actually involved in the crime) involved in the crime itself and thus are receiving justice through the whole eye for an eye principle. But the criminals family is also indirectly involved and are essentially receiving punishment for a crime they did not commit.

The criminal's family, in your opinion, recieves a punishment no matter how we choose to punish the criminal. It is unavoidable. Some of the arguments that people use against me here really make them seem like they are against punishment in general, and just have yet to make the nextr step in their beliefs.

[chaosB4storm]

the death penalty does not deter violent crime. it's pretty logical.

someone committing a murder does not go through the thought process of 'i probably will get caught, but it's cool, cuz i'll only rot in jail forever and ever, so i'll do it anyway!'

We have already established (or "assumed" in my case, because I do not know the statistics) that imprisonment and capital punishment have the same deterrent effects.

And who are you to speak out for all murderers?

[chaosB4storm]

Ah, we're using two different definitions for justice.

"bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds." That's the definition I think you're using for justice.

"rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason" That's the definition as I meant it to be read with. So, if a drunk driver is punished however they happen to be punished, but, for instance, by taking an additional class it lowers a person's chance of driving intoxicated again by 80%, then I feel requiring said class as part of the "punishment" (I put that in quotes only because it's more of a reform measure) would bring more justice into the world.




I don't think having high standards for human rights makes it impossible to punish someone, not at all. And I agree that there are probably some things I would have liked better about the world a few hundred years ago, too.

However, my point is that it's always wrong to torture someone, regardless of anything they may have done. Human rights don't exist with an "except" attached after them. There is no, "Torturing someone is wrong, except if they've done so and so." Even if torturing someone could potentially bring about information that could save a billion people. Torturing one single person to save a billion would still be wrong. Would many people feel it's okay to torture the person to save a billion? Sure. But that doesn't make the torturing itself right. It only becomes (essentially) necessary then to commit a wrong for substantial gain, as the end justifying the means is a common logical fallacy. So, to a person who feels killing a person is wrong, they will say, "Even if you believe the death penalty will bring a particular person to justice [I'm using it with the definition you used], it is irrelevant as killing a human being remains wrong. And since bringing that person to justice, which is simply to incite vengeance on them, is not necessary to the safety of any other human beings, capital punishment is wrong." Essentially, they see the human right to live as more valuable than society's want for 'complete' or 'total' justice.

A few posts above you told me to admit I'm against perfect retribution. Perfect is retribution is impossible, so I'll use 'total' retribution, instead, or meaning at least the closest one can come. I am not against total retribution. Life in prison, to me, is total retribution for murder. It is enough. Executing the person would be, from my perspective, not only too much, but wrong.

I have a question: do you believe that someone should be punished for their misdeeds? Or do you think that if it is possible to have the same deterrent on crime without punishing the person, than that is the better option?

And don't we all have the freedom of liberty also? Why is there a "taking away someone's freedom of liberty is wrong, except if they've done so and so"?

[chaosB4storm]

If you shoot someone falling off a building to their deaths, its murder. That is the standard the government uses.

I am unsure how this is relevant.

I am just saying that since murder is a crime against society, and the government represents society, that it fits into my definition of "an eye for an eye".

[Mercy Medical]

The criminal's family, in your opinion, recieves a punishment no matter how we choose to punish the criminal. It is unavoidable. Some of the arguments that people use against me here really make them seem like they are against punishment in general, and just have yet to make the nextr step in their beliefs.They receive a punishment in regards that the person is locked away in prison, but I really wouldn't consider that a severe punishment in the case that they can at least go and visit that person in jail. It's far worse of a punishment to kill the individual and them not be able to ever see them again.

And I don't see where you're coming from with that second statement? I guarantee you that no one in this thread thinks there should be no punishment for crimes. What kind of moron would think that it would be okay to murder someone and get away with it? Just because they do not believe or agree with capital punishment to the extent that you think it should be set in place does not mean they do not agree with some kind of punishment.

You seem to see things in only black and white and take things in general to an extreme.

We have already established (or "assumed" in my case, because I do not know the statistics) that imprisonment and capital punishment have the same deterrent effects.

And who are you to speak out for all murderers?Who are you to speak out for all victims and assume that they want the person who committed the crime to pay with their life?

[hero_dujour]

I think it would be much more torturous to be locked up in a tiny cell with out contact with other humans for the rest of your miserable life. I see the death penalty as the easy way out, because I know if I was a criminal, I'd rather die then spend the rest of my life in prison.

[chaosB4storm]

I think it would be much more torturous to be locked up in a tiny cell with out contact with other humans for the rest of your miserable life. I see the death penalty as the easy way out, because I know if I was a criminal, I'd rather die then spend the rest of my life in prison.

Not the first time I've heard that, but still very interesting.

[Mercy Medical]

In regards to the death penalty being the best deterrence for crime, I suggest you check out this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=167) website and look over some of the sections.

This (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout) article is especially interesting as it compares the murder rates of states with the death penalty and those without and shows that the murder rates are continuously higher in states with the death penalty.

[Mercy Medical]

A study of the deterrence value of the death penalty focused on whether the death penalty deterred the murder of police officers. The researchers surveyed a thirteen year period of police homicides. The study concluded " we find no consistent evidence that capital punishment influenced police killings during the 1976-1989 period. . . . [P]olice do not appear to have been afforded an added measure of protection against homicide by capital punishment." (W. Bailey and R. Peterson, Murder, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence: A Review of the Evidence and an Examination of Police Killings, 50 Journal of Social Issues 53, 71 1994)

A survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association showed that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect. (M. Radelet and R. Akers, Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts, 1995)

In comparing the rate of death by handguns in eight industrialized countries, the United States stands out with a rate of death by handguns that is much higher than the rate of other countries. The United States is also the only country of the eight to retain use of the death penalty. In most foreign countries, gun control laws are more restrictive and gun owners are assigned more responsibility. (Washington Post, 4/4/98)

I'm sorry, but facts do not lie and you can claim that you believe the death penalty is the best deterrent as much as you want, but to ignore the facts would just be idiotic.

[chaosB4storm]

They receive a punishment in regards that the person is locked away in prison, but I really wouldn't consider that a severe punishment in the case that they can at least go and visit that person in jail. It's far worse of a punishment to kill the individual and them not be able to ever see them again.

And I don't see where you're coming from with that second statement? I guarantee you that no one in this thread thinks there should be no punishment for crimes. What kind of moron would think that it would be okay to murder someone and get away with it? Just because they do not believe or agree with capital punishment to the extent that you think it should be set in place does not mean they do not agree with some kind of punishment.

You seem to see things in only black and white and take things in general to an extreme.

Who are you to speak out for all victims and assume that they want the person who committed the crime to pay with their life?

You wouldn't consider it "severe". I was just making it clear that the criminal's innocent family is punished (in your opinion) either way. You can go ahead and make a judgement call on the severity; the criminal's family will be punished either way.

I am beginning to think that there are a lot of people that are not neccessarily for punishment; they only believe in deterring the crime, and if the crime can be deterred without punishment, I think there may be a lot of people that disagree with punishment. You can call them morons if you want, I also disagree with them.

Someone that supports me would say that I think logically, you can call it "black and white" if you want.

It is not about what the victims want, or what society wants. Murder is a crime against society. Society deserves the criminal to be punished regardless of their beliefs.

[chaosB4storm]

I'm sorry, but facts do not lie and you can claim that you believe the death penalty is the best deterrent as much as you want, but to ignore the facts would just be idiotic.

Is this directed at me? I claimed not to know whether or not capital punishment is a better crime deterrent than imprisonment. I just said that bung seemed sure on the statistic, and I wasn't.

[theliftedlorax8]

It is not about what the victims want, or what society wants. Murder is a crime against society. Society deserves the criminal to be punished regardless of their beliefs.

This is where bung's point about two different definitions for justice is really important. What someone deserves and what is just are not always the same thing.

Also, just for the record, I think of murder as a crime against the victim(s), not against society as a whole.

[Mercy Medical]

You wouldn't consider it "severe". I was just making it clear that the criminal's innocent family is punished (in your opinion) either way. You can go ahead and make a judgement call on the severity; the criminal's family will be punished either way.

I am beginning to think that there are a lot of people that are not neccessarily for punishment; they only believe in deterring the crime, and if the crime can be deterred without punishment, I think there may be a lot of people that disagree with punishment. You can call them morons if you want, I also disagree with them.

Someone that supports me would say that I think logically, you can call it "black and white" if you want.

It is not about what the victims want, or what society wants. Murder is a crime against society. Society deserves the criminal to be punished regardless of their beliefs.
I don't think anyone here would want for crime to just be deterred over a criminal actually being punished. That is not a feasible situation what so ever. Using the example you discussed early that if sending a child to Disneyland was a deterrent for them punching another child in the face...that is not possible what so ever as it does not teach right from wrong. It essentially rewards that individual for their crime.

I believe in right in wrong and I would hope that most individuals understand the difference from right and wrong and that other people would have enough respect for their common man to prevent them from committing a crime against another individual. But that is a completely non-feasible ideal. It's not possible. I suppose at my core I believe that those traits need to be instilled into someone at an early age. I think that it's a lot more difficult for an older person who doesn't have that concept set in place initially to learn it. Somewhere along the lines of "you can't teach an old dog new tricks."

I believe in punishment as I feel as though at the heart of punishment it should teach the difference between right and wrong. Does it always do that? No, but we need some sort of standard regardless. Every person is different and there's no standard punishment that will work for every individual, but all we can do as our society is our best.

I feel as though imprisonment is our best option as a society considering the statistics given for the death penalty showing that it isn't a viable deterrent for crime. The only situations I do believe in the death penalty is worst case scenarios such as people like the Oklahoma City Bomber and such. I mean, once you take a certain number of lives it shows a complete and total lack of humanity, in my opinion. But for the most part I believe that the death penalty does not statistically demonstrate that it is more effective then imprisonment and I also believe it to be a relatively inhumane punishment.

[Mercy Medical]

Is this directed at me? I claimed not to know whether or not capital punishment is a better crime deterrent than imprisonment. I just said that bung seemed sure on the statistic, and I wasn't.
It was to anyone who doesn't know about the statistics, you being one of them since you think the death penalty is a more effective deterrent then imprisonment and these statistics demonstrate and show that it is not.

I didn't even know the statistics of the situation until I came across that website.

[chaosB4storm]

And for the record, the first two facts merely show that inconclusive, and that there appears to be no deterrent effect. As i said earlier, since such a low percentage of murderers actually recieve capital punishment in states with the death penalty, the deterrent effect would be astronomically low anyway, and nearly impossible to decipher. Another reason it is hard to fully understand the deterrent effect is that the states that have capital punishment also have a lot of other differences in law and society that may also effect crime. We are comparing apples to oranges.

That brings me to your third quote. I forget what logical fallacy it uses, but I'm sure it is one. It is similar to saying "I sleep in pajamas, and all of my other friends don't. I wwoke up late for school today, and my friends made it on time. Pajamas must be the reason I didn't wake up on time.

The point is that foriegn countries have many differences with the USA.

I am not arguing that the death penalty deters crime more, only that it is very difficult to prove whether or not it does.

[chaosB4storm]

This is where bung's point about two different definitions for justice is really important. What someone deserves and what is just are not always the same thing.

Also, just for the record, I think of murder as a crime against the victim(s), not against society as a whole.

I am not sure what country your from, but in Canada, murder IS a crime against society. There is no room for argument. It is legally a crime against society.

[chaosB4storm]

It was to anyone who doesn't know about the statistics, you being one of them since you think the death penalty is a more effective deterrent then imprisonment and these statistics demonstrate and show that it is not.

I didn't even know the statistics of the situation until I came across that website.

I do not recall claiming that. I did claim that I am for the death penalty. I also claimed not to know the difference in deterrent effects. I also claimed that even if they have equal deterrent effects, I am still for capital punishment.

[Mercy Medical]

And for the record, the first two facts merely show that inconclusive, and that there appears to be no deterrent effect. As i said earlier, since such a low percentage of murderers actually recieve capital punishment in states with the death penalty, the deterrent effect would be astronomically low anyway, and nearly impossible to decipher. Another reason it is hard to fully understand the deterrent effect is that the states that have capital punishment also have a lot of other differences in law and society that may also effect crime. We are comparing apples to oranges.

That brings me to your third quote. I forget what logical fallacy it uses, but I'm sure it is one. It is similar to saying "I sleep in pajamas, and all of my other friends don't. I wwoke up late for school today, and my friends made it on time. Pajamas must be the reason I didn't wake up on time.

The point is that foriegn countries have many differences with the USA.

I am not arguing that the death penalty deters crime more, only that it is very difficult to prove whether or not it does.
Your entire argument is based on your belief that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent for crime.

Statistics and individuals who actually spend their lives researching this would say otherwise.

[chaosB4storm]

Your entire argument is based on your belief that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent for crime.

Statistics and individuals who actually spend their lives researching this would say otherwise.

NO, that is not my entire argument. It is actually not even included in my argument.

I think the death penalty demonstrates perfect retribution though. That is part of mmy argument.

[Mercy Medical]

NO, that is not my entire argument. It is actually not even included in my argument.

I think the death penalty demonstrates perfect retribution though. That is part of mmy argument.
Retribution is a word with significant emotional connotations, however. You can rely on a punishment with an emotional-basis.

It's right there next to essentially getting revenge or vengeance for the death of a loved one. We can't have our society based on revenge...that's absurd.

[chaosB4storm]

I feel as though imprisonment is our best option as a society considering the statistics given for the death penalty showing that it isn't a viable deterrent for crime. The only situations I do believe in the death penalty is worst case scenarios such as people like the Oklahoma City Bomber and such. I mean, once you take a certain number of lives it shows a complete and total lack of humanity, in my opinion. But for the most part I believe that the death penalty does not statistically demonstrate that it is more effective then imprisonment and I also believe it to be a relatively inhumane punishment.

The point that I am trying to get across is that the death penalty does not have to be a greater crime deterent for someone to still be for it.

And as for your "relatively inhumane" argument, if we are going to discuss humans, and what it is to be human, humans have been killing each other since day one all the way to the present date. I believe it is less human to be against "an eye for an eye".

[theliftedlorax8]

I am not sure what country your from, but in Canada, murder IS a crime against society. There is no room for argument. It is legally a crime against society.

Well. The Canadian Criminal Code (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_229//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_229) says that:

Murder (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII::bo-ga:l_IX//fr?page=6&isPrinting=false#codese:229)
229. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII::bo-ga:l_IX//fr?page=6&isPrinting=false#codese:229) Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 212.


I don't think that says anything about it being a crime against society. But I'm also not a Canadian lawyer, so...

[chaosB4storm]

Well. The Canadian Criminal Code (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_229//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_229) says that:

Murder (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII::bo-ga:l_IX//fr?page=6&isPrinting=false#codese:229)
229. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII::bo-ga:l_IX//fr?page=6&isPrinting=false#codese:229) Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 212.


I don't think that says anything about it being a crime against society. But I'm also not a Canadian lawyer, so...


This is funny. I have studied Canadian law a little bit, but I am not a lawyer either.

However, murder case is known as "R vs. (murderer)". R stands for Regina (Queen). Since Canada is still technically a dominion of Britain, the Queen represents our society. Believe me, it is common knowledge to any grade 11 student in Canada that murder is a crime against society.

[chaosB4storm]

Retribution is a word with significant emotional connotations, however. You can rely on a punishment with an emotional-basis.

It's right there next to essentially getting revenge or vengeance for the death of a loved one. We can't have our society based on revenge...that's absurd.

Wrong.

[Mercy Medical]

The point that I am trying to get across is that the death penalty does not have to be a greater crime deterent for someone to still be for it.

And as for your "relatively inhumane" argument, if we are going to discuss humans, and what it is to be human, humans have been killing each other since day one all the way to the present date. I believe it is less human to be against "an eye for an eye".
But just because that is the way it has been does not that mean it is the way it should always be? If that were the case we would have never done away with slavery or gave women and African American's rights.

You can't depend on the way it was given the case that society has changed significantly since then. Inhumane is typically a word that is used to describe an emotional stance, a lack of compassion or pity for other individuals. I do not mean it in the most literal of senses, I mean it as it is most used today.

And eye for an eye is an absolutely immature and childish way of thinking. If society functioned based on that principle parents would be teaching their children that if their brother hits them, they are allowed to hit them back. What does that teach anyone as a society? It teaches that violence is the answer. It takes a much bigger and stronger individual to be punched in the face and take it and forgive the individual for doing so. In my personal opinion, if society functioned using the "eye for an eye" mentality we'd be significantly worse off. If the scenario occurred that was discussed previously where criminals received a punishment that was exactly equal to their crime (rapists being raped, murders being killed, abusers being abused) it would perpetuate violence. It would teach society that the punishment for violence is violence. What kind of society is that? Should we be cutting off the hands of thieves as well?

[Mercy Medical]

Wrong.
In your opinion that may be wrong because you have a completely different believe system them I (obviously), but it is not out of the line for most individuals today to share that same belief. It is opinion, not fact and therefore there can be no wrong or right in the situation.

And I just caught my typo as I meant that you can't rely on a punishment with an emotional basis.

[chaosB4storm]

In your opinion that may be wrong because you have a completely different believe system them I (obviously), but it is not out of the line for most individuals today to share that same belief. It is opinion, not fact and therefore there can be no wrong or right in the situation.

Oh, it is most definitely wrong. Most people that believe in retribution do not do so for emotional reasons. That is a fact.

Most people that believe in retribution do so because they simply believe that a person deserves a punishment equally to their crime. It is not about emotions, it is about deserving.

[Mercy Medical]

Oh, it is most definitely wrong. Most people that believe in retribution do not do so for emotional reasons. That is a fact.

Most people that believe in retribution do so because they simply believe that a person deserves a punishment equally to their crime. It is not about emotions, it is about deserving.
If this is a fact, show me the proof. Show me some evidence, show me some statistics.

After doing some googling, it seems as though you should be using the term "retributive justice" and not necessarily retribution. I feel as though retribution itself has significant emotionally connotations to it.

[chaosB4storm]

But just because that is the way it has been does not that mean it is the way it should always be? If that were the case we would have never done away with slavery or gave women and African American's rights.

You can't depend on the way it was given the case that society has changed significantly since then. Inhumane is typically a word that is used to describe an emotional stance, a lack of compassion or pity for other individuals. I do not mean it in the most literal of senses, I mean it as it is most used today.

And eye for an eye is an absolutely immature and childish way of thinking. If society functioned based on that principle parents would be teaching their children that if their brother hits them, they are allowed to hit them back. What does that teach anyone as a society? It teaches that violence is the answer. It takes a much bigger and stronger individual to be punched in the face and take it and forgive the individual for doing so. In my personal opinion, if society functioned using the "eye for an eye" mentality we'd be significantly worse off. If the scenario occurred that was discussed previously where criminals received a punishment that was exactly equal to their crime (rapists being raped, murders being killed, abusers being abused) it would perpetuate violence. It would teach society that the punishment for violence is violence. What kind of society is that? Should we be cutting off the hands of thieves as well?

So you are using "inhumane" from an emotional stance? Didn't you just say (and I agree) that it does not make sense to justify your stance with an emotional standpoint?

"An eye for an eye" teaches a lot to a society. The idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is the immature idea that has been installed into the majority of our generation's people, and most of us have been brainwashed into mindlessly believeing that it's true.

[paper halo]

Oh, it is most definitely wrong. Most people that believe in retribution do not do so for emotional reasons. That is a fact.

Most people that believe in retribution do so because they simply believe that a person deserves a punishment equally to their crime. It is not about emotions, it is about deserving.

Stop making things up and claiming them to be fact. it hardly supports your argument.

You appear to be building arguments upon your own perceptions, assumptions, and opinions.

[chaosB4storm]

Stop making things up and claiming them to be fact. it hardly supports your argument.

You appear to be building arguments upon your own perceptions, assumptions, and opinions.

What did I ever make up and claim to be fact? You are ridiculous.

[Mercy Medical]

So you are using "inhumane" from an emotional stance? Didn't you just say (and I agree) that it does not make sense to justify your stance with an emotional standpoint?

"An eye for an eye" teaches a lot to a society. The idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is the immature idea that has been installed into the majority of our generation's people, and most of us have been brainwashed into mindlessly believeing that it's true.
I as an individual believe that the death penalty is inhumane. I do not believe our government should dish out punishments based on emotional stances. This is my own personal belief. Even if the government functioned based on my belief that the death penalty should only be used in worst case scenarios, I would still find it inhumane to put someone to death regardless of the number of people they may have killed. I do not believe in vengeance. I do not believe in revenge. I do not believe in an eye for an eye. I feel that it takes a weak individual to believe in those concepts.

And the fact of the matter is, I believe that violence is for the most part unnecessary. I do not believe in it and I do not condone it. Like I said, I believe it takes a much stronger person to "turn the other cheek" then it does for one to take "an eye for an eye." And that is my own personal stance.

Just because we have had a violent past as a people, does not mean I feel that it's right to have a violent future.

[chaosB4storm]

Are you also under the misconception that people believe in retribution for emotional reasons, paper halo?

[Mercy Medical]

Are you also under the misconception that people believe in retribution for emotional reasons, paper halo?
It's not a misconception. I wasn't using it as a gross generalization or saying that everyone believes it to be that way. There are some that do, just as though there are some that believe in retribution as per your beliefs. I am fully aware that not everyone is the same.

[paper halo]

"An eye for an eye" teaches a lot to a society. The idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is the immature idea that has been installed into the majority of our generation's people, and most of us have been brainwashed into mindlessly believeing that it's true.

You genuinely believe this to be true? Violence simply breeds more violence. Capital punishment solves nothing that life imprisonment would not solve. It will not bring back a victim, nor will it ease the suffering of secondary victims (which it will also create), despite your frankly archaic views on vengeance.

I wonder, have you perhaps heard of the brutalization hypothesis?

[paper halo]

What did I ever make up and claim to be fact? You are ridiculous.

Following the line 'most people' with the assertion of 'that is a fact'.

Funny, I'm sure I saw you up on a high horse earlier in this debate about not resorting to ad hominem arguments. Yet here you are calling me ridiculous for pointing out an obvious flaw in your asserions.

[chaosB4storm]

You genuinely believe this to be true? Violence simply breeds more violence. Capital punishment solves nothing that life imprisonment would not solve. It will not bring back a victim, nor will it ease the suffering of secondary victims (which it will also create), despite your frankly archaic views on vengeance.

I wonder, have you perhaps heard of the brutalization hypothesis?

Capital punishment is however, the just option in many cases. That is main reason why it should be impplemented.

I have heard of the brutalization hypothesis, and I most definitely do not believe in it. It would make capital punishment the only example of a legal action to have this sort of effect.

"Hmm....murderers are executed in my country. I should become a murderer!"

You could also use common sense.


Would there be a significant decrease in kidnapping if we got rid of imprisonment?

[paper halo]

Are you also under the misconception that people believe in retribution for emotional reasons, paper halo?

Plenty of people do believe in retribution for emotional reasons. You appear to be under the misconception that everyone shares your views.

[chaosB4storm]

Following the line 'most people' with the assertion of 'that is a fact'.

Funny, I'm sure I saw you up on a high horse earlier in this debate about not resorting to ad hominem arguments. Yet here you are calling me ridiculous for pointing out an obvious flaw in your asserions.

Most people in this world are not white. That is a fact.

Did I make up that one too?

[chaosB4storm]

Plenty of people do believe in retribution for emotional reasons. You appear to be under the misconception that everyone shares your views.

No, but I happen to be arguing my views, and not anyone elses.

[Mercy Medical]

Most people in this world are not white. That is a fact.

Did I make up that one too?
That statement is not based on opinions or viewpoints, however, so it does not support your case.

[Mercy Medical]

No, but I happen to be arguing my views, and not anyone elses.
And while your viewpoint may be that most people view retribution in the same light as you, that does not make it fact. That still makes it your opinion and your viewpoint on the matter.

[chaosB4storm]

That statement is not based on opinions or viewpoints, however, so it does not support your case.

You really missed the point there.

[chaosB4storm]

And while your viewpoint may be that most people view retribution in the same light as you, that does not make it fact. That still makes it your opinion and your viewpoint on the matter.

Alright. I do not know someone that supports retribution for emotional reasons. I know many people that support it for mine. I know that retribution was not originally invoked to satisfy people's emotions. I know that anyone who believes in it for emotional reasons is not one to argue it, as we all know that emotion does not have an effect on an argument. I know that it should have been easy to assume that I am not someone that believes in it for emotional reasons, and so saying to me that my point was from an emotional standpoint was ridiculous.

[Mercy Medical]

You really missed the point there.
No, I did not miss the point. I understand what point you are trying to make. I feel it is wrong to make an assumption about the general public's viewpoint on a topic and claim that as fact.

It may be fact that most of the world is white, but that is based on solid evidence. That is based on a physical feature, not an opinion.

[chaosB4storm]

I also know that this is no longer a debate over capital punishment, and that I am finished with it for now.

Nice avatar by the way, paper halo.

[Mercy Medical]

Alright. I do not know someone that supports retribution for emotional reasons. I know many people that support it for mine. I know that retribution was not originally invoked to satisfy people's emotions. I know that anyone who believes in it for emotional reasons is not one to argue it, as we all know that emotion does not have an effect on an argument. I know that it should have been easy to assume that I am not someone that believes in it for emotional reasons, and so saying to me that my point was from an emotional standpoint was ridiculous.
The point that I was making initially is that you should be using different words as (from my own assumption) when most post see the word retribution today, it has significant emotional connotations. Retributive justice, on the other hand (in my opinion), would have been a much better choice of phrase for the point you are trying to make.

That's all I was saying. It's difficult to understand the point someone is trying to make when certain words mean different things to different people. The term retribution to me, when I read it regardless of who is saying it, has an emotional standpoint. Retributive justice, on the other hand, means something completely different.

[chaosB4storm]

No, I did not miss the point. I understand what point you are trying to make. I feel it is wrong to make an assumption about the general public's viewpoint on a topic and claim that as fact.

It may be fact that most of the world is white, but that is based on solid evidence. That is based on a physical feature, not an opinion.

Retribution is an idea created solely for the purpose of justice. Emotions are not involved, and it takes a very ignorant person to believe that they are.

*not white

[paper halo]

Capital punishment is however, the just option in many cases. That is main reason why it should be impplemented.

Justice comes down to perception and opinion, something we can argue all day about. Do some reading about the different theories of retributive justice to see what I mean (not in an offensive way, it's seriously quite interesting).

I would think that maximising the benefit to society would be a more worthy goal than retributive justice.

I have heard of the brutalization hypothesis, and I most definitely do not believe in it. It would make capital punishment the only example of a legal action to have this sort of effect.

"Hmm....murderers are executed in my country. I should become a murderer!"

The highlighted text is not valid and you know it.

As for the rest, can you really offer proof of that? No other crime has an equal punishment in the same way. And no, imprisonment is not equal to kidnapping. Even if you could offer proof, it is still a fact that the taking of a human life is far different to any other crime.

You could also use common sense.


Would there be a significant decrease in kidnapping if we got rid of imprisonment?

This is flawed logic. Mainly because to compare murder to kidnapping in the way that you have is absurd.

[Mercy Medical]

Retribution is an idea created solely for the purpose of justice. Emotions are not involved, and it takes a very ignorant person to believe that they are.

*not white
Apparently you have now completely missed what I was trying to say.

[chaosB4storm]

You will have a very hard time finding a definition of retribution that has emotional connotations.

[paper halo]

Most people in this world are not white. That is a fact.

Did I make up that one too?

That is verifiable.

Your assertion was not.

[chaosB4storm]

Okay, I know all you're saying is that there may be more people that believe in retribution for emotional reasons than for just reasons.

Maybe I was giving the world a little too much credit when I said that most of them believed in it for just reasons. I will admit there may be more ignorant people out there than I once thought.

Fortunately, since emotions did not play a role in my argument over capital punishment (as you originally stated it did) this has no effect on my point of view.

[Mercy Medical]

You will have a very hard time finding a definition of retribution that has emotional connotations.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Wgt&q=define%3A+retribution&btnG=Search

Once again, I simply stated that when I read the word "retribution" it evokes emotional connotations. I do not read arguments and interpret them in the way I assume you meant it to be, I read and interpret arguments in my manner.

[chaosB4storm]

When I claimed that most people believe in retribution for just reasons, I was trying to educate you on the other side of the argument. The other intelligent side of the argument does not have emotions playing a role (as any intelligent argument does not). So for further reference, when you're arguing with someone over capital punishment, you should probably not tell them that they are using their emotions to defend retribution, because they are probably not.

[chaosB4storm]

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Wgt&q=define%3A+retribution&btnG=Search

Once again, I simply stated that when I read the word "retribution" it evokes emotional connotations. I do not read arguments and interpret them in the way I assume you meant it to be, I read and interpret arguments in my manner.

So, you admittedly ignored what I meant, and put words into my mouth? That doesn't sound fair to me.

[Mercy Medical]

So, you admittedly ignored what I meant, and put words into my mouth? That doesn't sound fair to me.
HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT AS I AM NOT YOU.

I did not ignore what you meant because I am not you. You completely turned what I said around and used it against me. Jesus Christ...and you were the one who excused me of slander.

I am not getting into the whole "assumption" debacle with you once again as you damn near made me head explode last time.

[chaosB4storm]

I didn't mean to make your head explode, but I think it is obvious that you assumed that my argument was from the weakest standpoint possible for the point of furthering your own.

I also, do not want your head to explode, however, and so I will leave it at that.

[Mercy Medical]

I didn't mean to make your head explode, but I think it is obvious that you assumed that my argument was from the weakest standpoint possible for the point of furthering your own.

I also, do not want your head to explode, however, and so I will leave it at that.
I was not assuming to make your argument weak. I was assuming because I read the assumption and processed it in my own head. I have no idea how you process information so it would be stupid of me to make an attempt at doing so.

I read and interpret things that other people say in my manner, not in the manner of the individual making the points, unless they say otherwise. I feel as though it would be stupid of me to make assumptions of other people without their explanation so instead I do not make assumptions, but read those points in my mindset.

[bung]

I have a question: do you believe that someone should be punished for their misdeeds? Or do you think that if it is possible to have the same deterrent on crime without punishing the person, than that is the better option?

And don't we all have the freedom of liberty also? Why is there a "taking away someone's freedom of liberty is wrong, except if they've done so and so"?

The first question you pose is pretty much an impossibility. I sincerely doubt any crime could ever exist where not punishing the person could ever have the same deterrent effect on crime as punishing them. It's the punishment itself that leads to the deterring of crime, so having no punishment could, theoretically, never deter crime. Deterring crime is a direct result of the punishment, so I don't see any way to separate the two. However, in some bizarre place where not punishing a person could have the same deterring effect on crime as punishment would have, it would still be necessary to punish the person if only so they could learn, "This is wrong. You need to learn it's wrong. And to reinforce that it's wrong you must now face the consequences." Or more logically, it would be necessary to find a punishment that was sufficient, and not overbearing, that did deter crime.

The second question you pose is because, in that case, it would be wrong not to put one in prison as it would jeopardize the safety and rights of the rest of society. People are all entitled to freedom and liberty, granted they don't infringe on the right of others to enjoy the same. Since that person would be infringing on the rights of others, his own rights would be lost. In this case it becomes necessary to limit the person's freedom and liberty to sustain those rights for the rest of society.

[chaosB4storm]

I was not assuming to make your argument weak. I was assuming because I read the assumption and processed it in my own head. I have no idea how you process information so it would be stupid of me to make an attempt at doing so.

I read and interpret things that other people say in my manner, not in the manner of the individual making the points, unless they say otherwise. I feel as though it would be stupid of me to make assumptions of other people without their explanation so instead I do not make assumptions, but read those points in my mindset.

I like Brand New.:wave:

[chaosB4storm]

The first question you pose is pretty much an impossibility. I sincerely doubt any crime could ever exist where not punishing the person could ever have the same deterrent effect on crime as punishing them. It's the punishment itself that leads to the deterring of crime, so having no punishment could, theoretically, never deter crime. Deterring crime is a direct result of the punishment, so I don't see any way to separate the two. However, in some bizarre place where not punishing a person could have the same deterring effect on crime as punishment would have, it would still be necessary to punish the person if only so they could learn, "This is wrong. You need to learn it's wrong. And to reinforce that it's wrong you must now face the consequences."

The second question you pose is because, in that case, it would be wrong not to put one in prison as it would jeopardize the safety and rights of the rest of society. People are all entitled to freedom and liberty, granted they don't infringe on the right of others to enjoy the same. Since that person would be infringing on the rights of others, his own rights would be lost. In this case it becomes necessary to limit the person's freedom and liberty to sustain those rights for the rest of society.

Alright. My first question was meant to say that in the case where we are advanced enough to always teach the criminal, in lessons, to not ever do it again.

And I agree that its always a question of how to limit someone's freedoms. You can't just simply say "it violates human rights so it's wrong".

[Yoakinawa]

I'm against the death penalty in every case. Not for moral reasons, though. Only because it costs more of my tax-paying dollars to put someone to death than for them to be kept in prison for life.

I disagree. In the state of Texas, the average cost of the lethal injection PER inmate is only $86.08. It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. What do YOU think is taking more of your tax dollars? Prisoners are now getting religious services as well as free counseling and education... which costs money. It is FAR more expensive to house a prisoner than to give them the dealth penalty.

I think your opinion on whether or not someone deserves the death penalty would change if you have had a family member or friend visciously murdered or raped.

[bung]

I disagree. In the state of Texas, the average cost of the lethal injection PER inmate is only $86.08. It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. What do YOU think is taking more of your tax dollars? Prisoners are now getting religious services as well as free counseling and education... which costs money. It is FAR more expensive to house a prisoner than to give them the dealth penalty.

I think your opinion on whether or not someone deserves the death penalty would change if you have had a family member or friend visciously murdered or raped.

1. Wrong. Look at any study. Every execution goes through a long series of appeals before the inmate finally gets executed. The court fees themselves become incredible.

And I'm for prisoner's getting education. I don't think anybody should be denied the right of knowledge.

2. No, actually it wouldn't. It would be about impossible for me to be anything less than completely furious with whoever did that, but still I wouldn't believe that they should be killed because of it.

[chaosB4storm]

1. Wrong. Look at any study. Every execution goes through a long series of appeals before the inmate finally gets executed. The court fees themselves become incredible.

I have a question. Say the alternative to the death penalty is lifetime imprisonment, like until the person dies. Wouldn't the person use all the appeals he has available in that case as well? Why do death penalty appeals cost more than lifetime imprisonment appeals?

[bung]

I have a question. Say the alternative to the death penalty is lifetime imprisonment, like until the person dies. Wouldn't the person use all the appeals he has available in that case as well? Why do death penalty appeals cost more than lifetime imprisonment appeals?

I would assume it's because lifetime in prison offers far fewer appeals than a death penalty case does.


"In recent years, a number of states have attempted to compare the
costs imposed by a death penalty trial to a murder trial where the death
penalty is not sought, with quite consistent results. A performance audit
report prepared for the State of Kansas in 2003 compared the average cost of
cases in which a death sentence was imposed ($1.2 million) with the average
cost of murder cases in which the death penalty was not sought ($.7 million)
and concluded that seeking the death penalty adds 70% to the cost of a
murder case. A report by the Comptroller of the Treasury for the State of
Tennessee concluded that seeking the death penalty in murder trials adds an
average of 48% to the cost of the trial. A study of Indiana death penalty
trials concluded that the cost of a death penalty trial and direct appeal alone
is more than five times the cost of a life without parole trial and direct
appeal. Including the relative costs of incarceration, the study concluded that
obtaining the death penalty increases the cost by 38%. Michael Ebert of
the George Mason University School of Public Policy evaluated these
studies, and concluded that “the Indiana analysis may well be the new ‘gold
standard’ in this unique area of capital vs. non-capital cost assessments. The
American Bar Association (ABA) examined the Indiana study and has
commented very favorably on its techniques.”

-CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/dp/official/FINAL%20REPORT%20DEATH%20PENALTY.pd f)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN CALIFORNIA

JUNE 30, 2008

(Page 77)

[chaosB4storm]

"A performance audit report prepared for the State of Kansas in 2003 compared the average cost of
cases in which a death sentence was imposed ($1.2 million) with the average cost of murder cases in which the death penalty was not sought ($.7 million) and concluded that seeking the death penalty adds 70% to the cost of a murder case."

There's something missing from this. In the cases where the death penalty wasn't sought, there wasn't neccessarily an entire lifetime of imprisonment as an alternative. There would be smaller sentences that would bring the number down to 0.7 million. There would even be cases of insanity that would involve no punishment and would be very cheap.

It would be best to have a comparison of lifetime imprisonment to capital punishment cost, not murder case with death penalty versus murder cases without death penalty.

[bung]

"A performance audit report prepared for the State of Kansas in 2003 compared the average cost of
cases in which a death sentence was imposed ($1.2 million) with the average cost of murder cases in which the death penalty was not sought ($.7 million) and concluded that seeking the death penalty adds 70% to the cost of a murder case."

There's something missing from this. In the cases where the death penalty wasn't sought, there wasn't neccessarily an entire lifetime of imprisonment as an alternative. There would be smaller sentences that would bring the number down to 0.7 million. There would even be cases of insanity that would involve no punishment and would be very cheap.



Unless you're talking 3rd degree murder (which actually doesn't even exist in most states), then the alternative is always life in prison. The smaller sentences you speak of would be treated as either manslaughter or homicides.

Insanity pleas are only offered in like less than 1% of murder cases, and then they're effective in only something like one-third of the attempts. They wouldn't be very relevant.

[Yoakinawa]

I have a question. Say the alternative to the death penalty is lifetime imprisonment, like until the person dies. Wouldn't the person use all the appeals he has available in that case as well? Why do death penalty appeals cost more than lifetime imprisonment appeals?


AGREED!!!

[chaosB4storm]

Unless you're talking 3rd degree murder (which actually doesn't even exist in most states), then the alternative is always life in prison. The smaller sentences you speak of would be treated as either manslaughter or homicides.

Insanity pleas are only offered in like less than 1% of murder cases, and then they're effective in only something like one-third of the attempts. They wouldn't be very relevant.

So you're saying that in the US, nearly every murder case results in the murderer being imprisoned until he dies?

[bung]

So you're saying that in the US, nearly every murder case results in the murderer being imprisoned until he dies?

I don't know what the ratio of death by lethal injection is to life in prison. I would assume as much, however, that most murder cases where the defendant is found guilty would end with life in prison since the death penalty is surely reserved for only the most terrible murders, and there are likely to be far more less severe murders than very severe ones. I do know that life in prison without the possibility of parole is the minimum punishment for first-degree murder in over half the states, though.

I really varies state by state, however. Like, in Minnesota, second degree murder can only be punished with up to 40 years in jail, whereas many other states allow it up to life in prison, but MN also does not have the death penalty.

[Broken Parachute]

I disagree. In the state of Texas, the average cost of the lethal injection PER inmate is only $86.08. It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. What do YOU think is taking more of your tax dollars? Prisoners are now getting religious services as well as free counseling and education... which costs money. It is FAR more expensive to house a prisoner than to give them the dealth penalty.I would like to see proof of these facts please because I'm pretty sure you've been proven wrong numerous times in this thread.

[Yoakinawa]

I would like to see proof of these facts please because I'm pretty sure you've been proven wrong numerous times in this thread.

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/cost/cost2002.htm

I estimated the average amount it costs to house a prisoner for a year based on this... it's 22,000 ish and if the prisoner has life in prison... say 60 years... its about 1,300,000.

[Broken Parachute]

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/cost/cost2002.htm

I estimated the average amount it costs to house a prisoner for a year based on this... it's 22,000 ish and if the prisoner has life in prison... say 60 years... its about 1,300,000.$1.3 million in 60 years in a North Carolina prison? You do realize that's ridiculous cheap compared to the $2.16 million more North Carolina spends on EACH execution case, right? Since 1976, North Carolina has spent an average of $1 billion more on non-death penalty cases than on death penalty cases.

[theguy77]

i think we need it because of all the loopholes that allow life sentences to end way early, and because an institution of corrections for seirous crimes doesnt actually correct the criminals it only hardens them, especially if they have mental issues. however i would refuse to kill another person myself for any reason apart from self defense.

[open mind]

very few countries have capital punishment these days, and the company the u.s. keeps (china, iran, saudi arabia, pakistan, and iraq) in being one of them isn't all that great.

[ActionActionFan]

The government should take all of the person's property to pay for their trials, food, lawyer and everything else they need. After that if they are deserving of it they should get the death penalty.

[open mind]

The government should take all of the person's property to pay for their trials, food, lawyer and everything else they need. After that if they are deserving of it they should get the death penalty.

that would work if people in this country weren't considered innocent until proven guilty.

[ActionActionFan]

that would work if people in this country weren't considered innocent until proven guilty.

There are ways to get around that for example take their assets after they sre found guilty orginially and if later they are found innocent give them back their money. You could also get the assets once the person is executed.

[Nevuk]

I support the death penalty for bankers.

[benjammun]

Unjust under any circumstance. The arguments have been made repeatedly, both here and elsewhere, a distinction made almost intuitively by most people, and one I think correct nonetheless.

[open mind]

There are ways to get around that for example take their assets after they sre found guilty orginially and if later they are found innocent give them back their money. You could also get the assets once the person is executed.

i'll ignore the fact that i'm staunchly against the death penalty and just concentrate on this idea of confiscating all of a person's assets.
having first hand experience of just how inefficient our correctional system is (on average it takes a couple weeks to get a simple bail hearing done) it'd be a nightmare of red tape, wasted time, and frustration to get your stuff back.....and the state/feds wouldn't want to store your stuff on the off chance that your later proven innocent so they'd sell it at auction......if your place of residence is sold you've got no place to go when you get released so that's a pain.....and how would the government cover the value of possessions of sentimental value?.....my point is this whole idea would be way more trouble then it's worth.
also since when is it a good idea to let the state totally deny people of thier rightful inheritence?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

So you are using "inhumane" from an emotional stance? Didn't you just say (and I agree) that it does not make sense to justify your stance with an emotional standpoint?

"An eye for an eye" teaches a lot to a society. The idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is the immature idea that has been installed into the majority of our generation's people, and most of us have been brainwashed into mindlessly believeing that it's true.

what?

what has violence solved in our world?

Remember "the war to end all wars"? That worked

Our generation has been brainwashed into thinking that violence is an ok solution and desensitized to the weight of killing someone. It makes me sick the way people talk about the death penalty and war as if it is a game of Call of Duty.