PDA

View Full Version : Death penalty


rauha
August 30th, 2016, 05:34 AM
Hello VT, what is your opinion on the death penalty? I think it is good because it saves us spending money on prisoners.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 05:37 AM
If I am 100% honest I do have mixed feelings about the death penalty, I understand the money argument and there are some people that have done some horrific things and deserve to die.

I am however against the death penalty. Mainly because when you kill an innocent person, you can't unkill them. I also believe all murder is wrong, even the state murdering murders. I do not think killing a person to save money is fair either.

Vlerchan
August 30th, 2016, 05:44 AM
I'm against. You can't exonerate a dead person - and the numbers exonerated from death row on an annual basis is shocking.

I think it is good because it saves us spending money on prisoners.
Capital punishment is exorbitantly more expensive that life imprisonment.

rauha
August 30th, 2016, 05:47 AM
A bullet is cheaper than prision

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 05:51 AM
A bullet is cheaper than prision
True but I imagine there are more legal costs and stuff as they contest it.
Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. There are 714 inmates on California's death row.
Source (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty)

What do you think about the innocent put to death?

mattsmith48
August 30th, 2016, 01:33 PM
Im against it. When you kill someone because he killed someone your not better than he is or was. Its also a cruel and unusual punishment which is against the law in most countries, there is no way to know 100% that the person you kill is the real muderer. And it doesn't stop people from commiting crimes

Periphery
August 30th, 2016, 01:39 PM
A bullet is cheaper than prision

I'm not sure if you're aware but the death penalty isn't done by shooting someone in the face.

I'm against the death penalty, do you want to punish a criminal by making them suffer or will you kill them and not let them suffer at all?

jamie_n5
August 30th, 2016, 02:29 PM
I think in certain instances of a particular horrible crime that the death penalty has it's place. My ultimate thoughts are however that God will be the final judge and the person will get his due punishment from God.

Vermilion
August 30th, 2016, 02:59 PM
I'm mixed on the thing. Yes for some cases if it is fully proved so cctv footage of the case clearly showing a murder. Someone that preaches to go and kill people in a name of religion and that's any religion. However yes you can't undo death in wrong case. And are you doing to pull the trigger ? I know I could in the heat of things but couldn't live with killing people right or wrong. It's been banned in the UK for years yes it mite drop crime rates if it came back but it's unlikely.

Paraxiom
August 30th, 2016, 03:09 PM
I am not in favour for it, for the reason that killing someone is not the greatest punishment you could do on them, if punishment is meant to be something unpleasant.

If you want to do a punishment properly then assuming that death and whatever 'after' is unpleasant, is quite a guess. I don't see how death itself is unpleasant - pain is within consciousness, not at the termination of it.


A bullet is cheaper than prision

We could take a basic economic angle on this, but that perspective is very dangerous for the risk of people being punished for crimes they didn't do.

This also presumes that bullets are the way to kill (we've had enough of them on VT :rolleyes:); you could do anything with a wide variety of dying processes, from pure nitrogen asphyxiation to 'eyes-out' g-force application.

PlasmaHam
August 30th, 2016, 08:47 PM
I am however against the death penalty. Mainly because when you kill an innocent person, you can't unkill them. I also believe all murder is wrong, even the state murdering murders. I do not think killing a person to save money is fair either.
Something smells funny. You are against death row because of the possible consequences of killing someone innocent and later regretting it, yet you promote abortion, which always kills innocents, and most mothers grow to regret it. You seem to be saying that even murderers don't deserve death, yet innocent babies are free game. You promote abortion saying it would save a mother money, yet here you say that money should not be a factor in whether someone lives or dies.

Im against it. When you kill someone because he killed someone your not better than he is or was. Its also a cruel and unusual punishment which is against the law in most countries, there is no way to know 100% that the person you kill is the real muderer. And it doesn't stop people from commiting crimes
A doubt that killing a murderer, especially a death row murderer, through painless methods is a cruel and unusual punishment. It might be cruel, but the laws state cruel and unusual punishments are not allowed. Its not one or the other, it's both. Killing someone who killed others doesn't seem like an unusual punishment.

Death penalty should be abolished because they don't stop murders? I guess prisons should be abolished too because they don't stop crime. And hospitals should be abolished because they don't heal everyone.

Flapjack
August 30th, 2016, 08:51 PM
Something smells funny. You are against death row because of the possible consequences of killing someone innocent and later regretting it, yet you promote abortion, which always kills innocents, and most mothers grow to regret it. You seem to be saying that even murderers don't deserve death, yet innocent babies are free game. You promote abortion saying it would save a mother money, yet here you say that money should not be a factor in whether someone lives or dies.
Sighs I do not 'promote' abortion. I support a women's right to choose. I did not say women should get abortions to save money either.

Getting back on topic, I assume you support the death penalty? Why is this?

Death penalty should be abolished because they don't stop murders? I guess prisons should be abolished too because they don't stop crime. And hospitals should be abolished because they don't heal everyone.
Death penalties should not be abolished because they don't stop murders because they stop murders just as much as life imprisonment.
Something smells funny.
Are you implying I support the policies I do for a alterer motive?

mattsmith48
August 31st, 2016, 02:28 PM
A doubt that killing a murderer, especially a death row murderer, through painless methods is a cruel and unusual punishment. It might be cruel, but the laws state cruel and unusual punishments are not allowed. Its not one or the other, it's both. Killing someone who killed others doesn't seem like an unusual punishment.

This is from the Cruel and Unusual Punishment wikipedia page on what would be consider cruel and unusial punishment.

Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to it.

There are generally tests that can serve as a guide to what cruel and unusual punishment is according to various legal textbooks in accordance with the law. These are:

1. the frequency at which the punishment occurs in society,
2. overall acceptance in society,
3. severe (the punishment fits the crime), and
4. if the punishment is arbitrary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment


According to this tight someone to a chair and injecting that person drugs with the goal of killing that person sounds alot like cruel and unusual punishment.

ethan-s
August 31st, 2016, 08:46 PM
I'm all for it as long as we find and prove you worthy of the death penalty. For example, if you rape some one, and you are proved guilty of rape, you should die immediately, 1) because you raped someone and 2) because we as a society should not have two support a lowlife like you for 30 more years.

Also do yo u think the founding fathers would consider the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment? I doubt it.

PlasmaHam
August 31st, 2016, 09:12 PM
This is from the Cruel and Unusual Punishment wikipedia page on what would be consider cruel and unusial punishment.

Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to it.

There are generally tests that can serve as a guide to what cruel and unusual punishment is according to various legal textbooks in accordance with the law. These are:

1. the frequency at which the punishment occurs in society,
2. overall acceptance in society,
3. severe (the punishment fits the crime), and
4. if the punishment is arbitrary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment


According to this tight someone to a chair and injecting that person drugs with the goal of killing that person sounds alot like cruel and unusual punishment.

First of all, never depend on Wikipedia for sources. That is research rule #1. Any Joe Smoe can go in and add their own interpretation of a law, despite it being the legal interpretation or not.

Read this 2008 Supreme Court decision on whether lethal injection falls under "Cruel and Unusual punishment. The decision of the Supreme Court should hold more bearing than the opinions of some guy on Wikipedia.
Petitioners Ralph Baze and Thomas C. Bowling, convicted for murder and sentenced to death in Kentucky state court, filed suit asserting that the lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment’s constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual punishments.” The state trial court upheld it as constitutional. Later, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lethal injection protocol was substantially safe from "wanton" and "unnecessary infliction of pain," torture, or "lingering death." The Supreme Court affirmed the lethal injection protocol as constitutional.
and
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, concurring in the judgment.
Although I agree that petitioners have failed to establish that Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment, I write separately because I cannot subscribe to the plurality opinion’s formulation of the governing standard. As I understand it, that opinion would hold that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment if it poses a substantial risk of severe pain that could be significantly reduced by adopting readily
available alternative procedures.
...Because, in my view, a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain, I concur only in the judgment. Source 1 (http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001769)
Source 2 (http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/2008bazerees.pdf)

No one can support the death penalty being cruel and unusual from a legal standpoint. Nearly every case invoking the 8th Amendment concerning death penalty for murder has kept the death penalty. Remember, the punishment must be cruel and unusual. Getting your life taken away after you took away the life of someone or someones else is not unusual.
Sighs I do not 'promote' abortion. I support a women's right to choose. I did not say women should get abortions to save money either.
That makes absolutely no sense, and seems like an attempt to sidestep the question.


Death penalties should not be abolished because they don't stop murders because they stop murders just as much as life imprisonment.
Can you actually prove that the threat of the Death penalty stops less potential murders than the threat of life imprisonment? You are giving me an unsupported notion that makes no logical sense.
Are you implying I support the policies I do for a alterer motive? No, I just think you are brainwashed by those that do.

Dalcourt
August 31st, 2016, 09:18 PM
People on death row cost more money than if they are in prison for life. So from a monetary point of view tax payers should be against death row.

From a personal point of view I would always be against death penalty cuz I feel no matter what someone has done, nothing in the world and beyond gives me the right to judge whether he or she should be killed for it or not. Nothing gives me the right to kill for whatever reason. I don't believe in concepts like revenge...or eye for an eye justice.
Imprison someone for life and I mean like literally all their lives till they die of old age is the only option for me for really horrible crimes.
PlasmaHam don't bother and try to get an answer for it ; classic case of double standards pro abortion and against death penalty and guns I asked about this dilemma millions of time but never got a satisfactory answer.

Vlerchan
September 1st, 2016, 05:18 PM
Can you actually prove that the threat of the Death penalty stops less potential murders than the threat of life imprisonment?
There's studies pointing to capital punishment having no discernible impact on the murder-rate. There studies pointing to it having a discernible impact.

The truth of the matter is that the level of scientific evidence is not conclusive and should not be informing policy decisions at this stage.

don't bother and try to get an answer for it ; classic case of double standards pro abortion and against death penalty and guns I asked about this dilemma millions of time but never got a satisfactory answer.
Woman should be allowed to control their own bodies and regulate what gets to use them.

We as a society have no right to roll the dice with prisoners lives.

In all cases it's net-welfare maximising to [1] allow for abortion, [2] ban capital punishment, [3] regulate guns.

Both arguments utilise distinct reasoning. Even in the case it's argued they don't - Each can be argued on the grounds of precedent-utilitarianism. I don't see the issue, frankly.

Arkansasguy
September 1st, 2016, 05:20 PM
Hello VT, what is your opinion on the death penalty? I think it is good because it saves us spending money on prisoners.

The death penalty should be used to express society's strongest condemnation of serious crimes, and to prevent the offender from perpetrating further bad acts.

Paraxiom
September 1st, 2016, 07:17 PM
Something smells funny. You are against death row because of the possible consequences of killing someone innocent and later regretting it, yet you promote abortion, which always kills innocents, and most mothers grow to regret it. You seem to be saying that even murderers don't deserve death, yet innocent babies are free game. You promote abortion saying it would save a mother money, yet here you say that money should not be a factor in whether someone lives or dies.

This double standard of Flapjack 's can only be perceived if you're going to land your position in the abortion debate onto this thread.

Seeing a double standard isn't a way to argue that both 'standards' are unjustified.



A doubt that killing a murderer, especially a death row murderer, through painless methods is a cruel and unusual punishment. It might be cruel, but the laws state cruel and unusual punishments are not allowed. Its not one or the other, it's both. Killing someone who killed others doesn't seem like an unusual punishment.

I'm open for you proposal to make the dying process itself very painful, but if you want a maximally painful punishment you'd need to make it a really painful death, if the amount of total pain expected to be experienced is to be greater than longer-term torture.

( ethan-s ) ( Arkansasguy )

I don't need to take a soft stance on punishments to see that death is the edge of life and pain as we know it.

If a person assigned a death sentence is an evangelical who sees death as the ultimate path to meet God, is their wish being fulfilled?



Death penalty should be abolished because they don't stop murders?

They'll sure stop caught murderers and be a good deterrent against murder in general, but I'd go for jail / torture over death penalties anyway.

- - - - - - - -

First of all, never depend on Wikipedia for sources. That is research rule #1. Any Joe Smoe can go in and add their own interpretation of a law, despite it being the legal interpretation or not.

You can depend on the references most/all Wikipedia pages have; it's a good redirecter of sorts. Anyone can edit pages, but it's hardly the case that any edit is left that way.

Arkansasguy
September 1st, 2016, 08:47 PM
death is the edge of life and pain as we know it.

Yes. And?

If a person assigned a death sentence is an evangelical who sees death as the ultimate path to meet God, is their wish being fulfilled?

Yes. And?

Paraxiom
September 1st, 2016, 09:11 PM
Yes. And?


You want to punish someone by giving them a painful experience/situation and make it clear to them that this was done because they did some especially bad action. Yet, this certain punishment necessarily will free them from any pain that you know will happen to them, and it will free them from a situation where you are in control of what they will experience.

If you are intending to give this person the greatest pain you deem suitable for them, is the death penalty not falling short of this?

- - - - - - - -

Is fulfilling the desire of this person not lessening the pain they could experience in the punishment, by how some pleasure will also be experienced by this person in how they see their desire being / to be fulfilled?

Arkansasguy
September 1st, 2016, 10:45 PM
You want to punish someone by giving them a painful experience/situation and make it clear to them that this was done because they did some especially bad action. Yet, this certain punishment necessarily will free them from any pain that you know will happen to them, and it will free them from a situation where you are in control of what they will experience.

If you are intending to give this person the greatest pain you deem suitable for them, is the death penalty not falling short of this?

- - - - - - - -

Is fulfilling the desire of this person not lessening the pain they could experience in the punishment, by how some pleasure will also be experienced by this person in how they see their desire being / to be fulfilled?

Death is the gravest of all human evils. It literally renders a person incapable of experiencing any earthly good.

Legal punishments should not be based on subjective desires. And we should wish everyone salvation, so the latter point is a non-argument.

Paraxiom
September 1st, 2016, 11:00 PM
Death is the gravest of all human evils. It literally renders a person incapable of experiencing any earthly good.

It also renders a person incapable of experiencing any earthly pain, to keep with your view.

If punishment is to controllably present a painful experience to someone with explicit/implicit explanation that this is for a bad act that they did, then death isn't doing that.

All that death is doing is absolutely depriving someone of positive experience that we know of, and if this is how the best punishment works, then torture would be as simple as putting people into a coma.



Legal punishments should not be based on subjective desires. And we should wish everyone salvation, so the latter point is a non-argument.

We do desire to punish people based on perceived bad actions they have done though, which is subjective.

Some would argue that the best punishment would be for the person as a permanent experience or impression made on them, and that they should not deserve salvation from what they have done.

Anyway, why can the punished not be given some salvation when still alive? Do you mean this salvation in a transcendental way?

Arkansasguy
September 2nd, 2016, 01:04 AM
It also renders a person incapable of experiencing any earthly pain, to keep with your view.

If punishment is to controllably present a painful experience to someone with explicit/implicit explanation that this is for a bad act that they did, then death isn't doing that.

All that death is doing is absolutely depriving someone of positive experience that we know of, and if this is how the best punishment works, then torture would be as simple as putting people into a coma.

What is pain?

Some would argue that the best punishment would be for the person as a permanent experience or impression made on them, and that they should not deserve salvation from what they have done.

And such persons are wrong, as is consistently taught by pretty much everyone who believes in a notion of posthumous salvation.

Anyway, why can the punished not be given some salvation when still alive? Do you mean this salvation in a transcendental way?

Obviously I meant it in the same sense you did.

Stronk Serb
September 2nd, 2016, 03:07 AM
Turn them into slave-labor actually. They can work as construction or something. In the case of the US, that would be a great thing because then you could rennovate the freeways and railways without spending too much money on wages, only on mechanisation and mechanisation operators. Maybe even rent them to construction firms? I mean if they are innocent and can prove it without doubt, they can leave and get monetarilly compensated by the state, both for days worked and days imprisoned.

Flapjack
September 2nd, 2016, 06:02 AM
Turn them into slave-labor actually. They can work as construction or something. In the case of the US, that would be a great thing because then you could rennovate the freeways and railways without spending too much money on wages, only on mechanisation and mechanisation operators. Maybe even rent them to construction firms? I mean if they are innocent and can prove it without doubt, they can leave and get monetarilly compensated by the state, both for days worked and days imprisoned.
That might be okay be lesser criminals but I don't want mass murderers working on the railways.

Stronk Serb
September 2nd, 2016, 08:33 AM
That might be okay be lesser criminals but I don't want mass murderers working on the railways.

Unguarded? No, he would have a high-power rifle pointed at him. Any attempt at escaping should be punished by death. Maybe implant them with tracking chips?

Flapjack
September 2nd, 2016, 08:36 AM
Unguarded? No, he would have a high-power rifle pointed at him. Any attempt at escaping should be punished by death.


There is no shortage of lesser, less dangerous criminals.
You want a man aiming a gun at all of the workers? Why not spend the money paying the gunmen on bloody workers.
Death is not a fair punishment for escaping.
There will be a higher risk of escape out working than in prision.
High powered rifles should not be out in public. With lesser criminals a taser and mace would be appropriate.

Stronk Serb
September 2nd, 2016, 04:55 PM
There is no shortage of lesser, less dangerous criminals.
You want a man aiming a gun at all of the workers? Why not spend the money paying the gunmen on bloody workers.
Death is not a fair punishment for escaping.
There will be a higher risk of escape out working than in prision.
High powered rifles should not be out in public. With lesser criminals a taser and mace would be appropriate.


I meant the guys who would otherwise be on death row. Lesser criminals could work to get off their sentences a bit earlier. Also put in their resume that they worked and behaved well during work. Could help them find a job after their sentence is out. Implant them with tracking chips or put stun collars. Any tampering with a collar would tase you and escaping meant that you would get tazed and collected afterwards.

Flapjack
September 2nd, 2016, 04:59 PM
I meant the guys who would otherwise be on death row. Lesser criminals could work to get off their sentences a bit earlier. Also put in their resume that they worked and behaved well during work. Could help them find a job after their sentence is out. Implant them with tracking chips or put stun collars. Any tampering with a collar would tase you and escaping meant that you would get tazed and collected afterwards.
Shock collars on humans?! Dude that is barbaric! The guys that would otherwise be on death row are still dangerous and should be held humanly in high security prisons.

Are you not afraid the use of tracking chips will lead to a slippery slope?

Paraxiom
September 2nd, 2016, 06:47 PM
What is pain?

A raw physical and/or mental perceptual form in experience, which has a strong trend to be felt as unpleasant.

If you disagree, you can say how you see it.



And such persons are wrong, as is consistently taught by pretty much everyone who believes in a notion of posthumous salvation.

As you see it, alright; nevertheless I point holds in that I don't see the death penalty at all as the best punishment doable, by what a punishment should be.

If you see posthumous salvation as a possible thing beyond death, then why sentence someone to death for a great crime? You're giving them a fast track to the possibility of getting salvation, and losing the control you have over them with the rest of their physical duration, if you kill them now.



Obviously I meant it in the same sense you did.

I was seeing in what sense you saw it, as I don't have as such a clear one myself that we'd be agreeing on beyond scope of my point in this thread.


Turn them into slave-labor actually. They can work as construction or something. In the case of the US, that would be a great thing because then you could rennovate the freeways and railways without spending too much money on wages, only on mechanisation and mechanisation operators. Maybe even rent them to construction firms? I mean if they are innocent and can prove it without doubt, they can leave and get monetarilly compensated by the state, both for days worked and days imprisoned.

Unguarded? No, he would have a high-power rifle pointed at him. Any attempt at escaping should be punished by death. Maybe implant them with tracking chips?

What about threat of torture instead of threat of death?

Flapjack Do not worry as I am currently only advocating for properly doing punishment, for the sake of being consistent with the idea that punishment should be unpleasant in intensity and/or duration. This can change of course, but I'm trying it out. I'm against the death penalty overall anyway.

Drewboyy
September 2nd, 2016, 08:35 PM
Well you could throw someone in a maximum security prison with other rapists, mother killers, and psychos with a slim chance that they can even have freedom again or you can tell someone when and how they will die. They are both equal punishments so it should be up to the judge really.

Killing prisoners and keeping them in jail is actually a waste. Instead, we should make the well behaved ones do supervised community service (picking up trash, painting fences, etc.) and if they try to do something not allowed- not one ounce of freedom for the whole group (that would make everyone pissed off at that the one who got everyone in trouble and they would beat the guy which would further make acting up while working scarier). This not only encourages good behavior in prison, but helps them not become insane, helps the community, and can help then atone for their sins.

I don't know about you, but if I was thrown in jail for decades and I heard that if I behave I could go outside without fear of getting shanked, I'd jump on that.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 02:25 AM
Well you could throw someone in a maximum security prison with other rapists, mother killers, and psychos with a slim chance that they can even have freedom again or you can tell someone when and how they will die. They are both equal punishments so it should be up to the judge really.

Except if the person was innocent, with one of them options they can be released... with the other they are dead.

Paraxiom
September 4th, 2016, 02:44 PM
Well you could throw someone in a maximum security prison with other rapists, mother killers, and psychos with a slim chance that they can even have freedom again or you can tell someone when and how they will die. They are both equal punishments so it should be up to the judge really.

Killing prisoners and keeping them in jail is actually a waste. Instead, we should make the well behaved ones do supervised community service (picking up trash, painting fences, etc.) and if they try to do something not allowed- not one ounce of freedom for the whole group (that would make everyone pissed off at that the one who got everyone in trouble and they would beat the guy which would further make acting up while working scarier). This not only encourages good behavior in prison, but helps them not become insane, helps the community, and can help then atone for their sins.

Given proper security behind this operation, it could work. I'm open to jail punishments nevertheless for those who have done especially malevolent acts, for which community service may just not work.

However, I don't get how punishments would be 'up to the judge', because that sounds like leaving the legal punishments system operated on varying moral positions of individual people. If we're to have a unified legal system, then its application shouldn't be affected significantly by the viewpoints of individuals high up in it.

Canadian Dream
September 4th, 2016, 08:37 PM
Let's put it this way the US is the only G7 country to execute people. It's cruel, pointless, and unbelievably expensive. You're basically taking human life, and putting it in numbers and saying "oh we can save money by killing all these people" like oh my that just sounds wrong to my ears (and is incorrect as well). If you want to save money here's another solution: rehabilitation. It'll cost you guys SO much less than keeping people in prison for years and years, and it has a better rate of success in terms of reintergration into society than emprisonment does. Doesn't it put a more positive side as a solution? You help people get back into society and rebuild their lives and have them get rid of all the mental problems that caused them to do what they did instead of leaving them no chance. The concept is just more morally right in my mind and I don't even understand why the death penalty is still used at all. I guess we all hate each other too much to give each other a hand when we're in distress.

ethan-s
September 5th, 2016, 02:42 PM
How would an evangelical even get death in the first place unless they converted in prison? If they did convert in prison hopefully they see what they did and that they are deserving death (assuming they were not wrongly convicted)

ThisBougieLife
September 5th, 2016, 03:01 PM
Despite the fact that the death penalty has existed in many cultures throughout history (and continues to exist in many), and thus it seems almost a natural human desire to have those who greatly violate the laws and mores of a society be killed for it, I do not believe that the death penalty is needed. It is true that there is some desire of my own to see especially heinous criminals pay for their crimes with their lives (people who murder children come to mind), in practice I can't support it. I don't enjoy the idea of the state having the power to put people to death, nor can I support it when there are innocent people who are inevitably going to be put to death. In some ways you could say I support it in theory (only for very select heinous crimes) but not in practice.