Death Penalty [Archive] - Virtual Teen Forums

abc983055235235231a

January 12th, 2014, 10:06 PM

Are you guys serious with all this human rights crap. Murderers,child molesters, and racists dont deserve their "human rights." They sure didnt care about those rights when they were cimminting their crimes so they dont deservetheir"rights."

To use a very common, but still effective, response: but then in neglecting their rights, we become just like them.

Here's the thing about human rights, though. They actually apply to all human beings, regardless of what those human beings have done in their lives. That's why they are "human rights".

Moreover, nobody really thinks what you are asserting. Say that you get run over by a horse. Should we put the horse to death? Or say that you crash your car into a tree? Should we kill the tree? That'll teach that horse and that tree whose boss. Of course you wouldn't say those things.
Now, let's look at a human. If you had a knife in your hand, tripped, and stabbed a person (killing them), we wouldn't consider you to be deserving of punishment. Even though the other person is dead, we wouldn't say that it was you who was responsible for killing them. You tripped, and were simply subject to the law of gravity, which forced your body to stab the person. But modern neuroscience (as well as psychology for the past 200 years) shows that this is also true of things which we typically think of as conscious behaviours.
The reason that we don't punish the person who tripped and killed someone is because they were not acting consciously of their own willing. But we should ask what it actually means for me to consciously kill a person. Surely if I say "I'm going to go out and kill a person" and then go out and kill a person, that would be me consciously killing a person, right? Wrong. We can neuroscientifically predict behaviours/choices/etc before a person is consciously aware that they are going to engage in those behaviours / make those choices / etc. What that means is, even the things we conventionally think of as conscious choices, are not actually conscious choices. Just as my falling and stabbing a person was a consequence of gravity, decisions we make are just consequences of brain events which we have about as much control over as we have control over gravity.

There's not rational justification for punitive justice.

dontfiguremeout

January 12th, 2014, 10:54 PM

I'm actually for it. I honestly believe if someone really meant to kill one person, they can go killing others too. It's not about, you can't bring that victims life back, but it's about saving everyone else who can possibly be murdered. You have to think about that! I was watching a video, and I forgot the guys name, but he's a major serial killer, and he liked killing little girls. He enjoys it and he smiles in court! And he never once got the death penalty and he kept getting out of jail! Seriously, do you want this guy lurking around your neighborhood trying to kill you? I sure heck don't want that!
So I'm pretty sure that if someone in your family has been killed you want the death penalty. To me, if that happened, I would not ANY other family having to go through the same thing I'm going through. I know using the death penalty won't be bringing my loved one back, but it protects from their next victim. I would not want anyone else being murdered from this person.
And about all this rights crap, the rights are here to protect the people! It just does not make sense that they make the laws and the bill of rights to protect the people, but when someone murders someone, they are going to say, well he has rights too, he shouldn't be killed. That's BS to me! He killed someone! He took someone's life away! We have laws to keep people safe! Someone who takes other peoples rights to live does not fly by me and should not be let go! If they need to, send them to jail for life, but I rather use the death penalty because I know that's one less murder off the streets. One less person I have to fear of might being released from jail or breaking out to go murder other people and take their rights to live. This isn't eye for an eye thing, it's about keeping people safe! How about you think for a moment, if your family member has been murdered would you want the death penalty on the person? Or would you rather be well, it's an eye for an eye, he can go back on the streets and murder others because if he gets killed we are taking his rights away. Really think about it, because they'll say I won't murder again, but there's always that chance they'll go take someone else's life away!

abc983055235235231a

January 12th, 2014, 11:02 PM

fordgtguy

January 12th, 2014, 11:18 PM

Im with it and against it some people deserve to be killed like serial killers but people who murder only 1 or 2 people should rot in jail cause killing them takes them out of the misery

Captain Canada

January 13th, 2014, 12:11 AM

I'm siding with fordgtguy on this one and Blue Ranger too. No I dont think its right to take another persons life and all that human rights crap that I didnt really listen to but seriously, some people dont deserve to live. For example a murderer, he takes the life of another person for what? Revenge? Some sick pleasure? Just because? People like this dont deserve to see the light of day because they took someone elses life. However I do believe that there could always be something wrong with death penalties. Getting the wrong guy, police abusing and killing whoever for whatever minor reason, etc.

Im not a violent person but I believe the world would be better without some of these sick blood thirsty bastards roaming our streets. Unless the person has some sort of mental disorder or something that is causing them to take lives of others or sexually assault people, there is no excuse for it.

Of course we could always jail them but would they really learn their lesson? If we kill them no, they wont have a lesson to learn but it sure as hell would protect future assaults. This doesnt necessarily mean that all assaults will be turned down because people are fuckin violent but for any major homocide case or rape case, this would be a better solution than having the risk of them getting out of jail and doing the same thing again.

abc983055235235231a

January 13th, 2014, 12:22 AM

dontfiguremeout

January 13th, 2014, 12:36 AM

What difference does it make if they are mentally ill?
If the reason it makes a difference is because mentally ill people don't have a choice in their actions, then you should see my earlier post in this thread; no person has a choice in their actions.

Ummm no, people do have a choice in their actions. Now for mentally ill people they can be handled a different way, but you are saying that everyone who is a murderer has no choice in their actions. Like murdering someone is an accident. No, it's not! No one accidentally murders someone. When someone murders someone, they really mean it! It's not some accident.

Captain Canada

January 13th, 2014, 12:38 AM

What difference does it make if they are mentally ill?
If the reason it makes a difference is because mentally ill people don't have a choice in their actions, then you should see my earlier post in this thread; no person has a choice in their actions.

Yeah, they do actually. Red pill or blue pill? You can choose right? Yeah you can so saying hat no human has a choice in their actions is wrong. We all have the capability to think so saying that blaming a human for purposely bashing someones head in with a baseball bat (Random murder case this has nothing to do with anything...) is like blaming a tree for falling unto a house is incredibly stupid. The tree didnt choose to fall into the house, no, but the person had the choice of either walking away or continuing the plan to kill a person. The different between a TREE and a HUMAN is that the TREE CANT THINK and the HUMAN CAN!

And yes, I did say "Mental disorder" in the case that someone has no control of their actions.

Stronger

January 13th, 2014, 12:46 AM

I agree with Blue Ranger, making me for it, but the only flaw is besides the millions poured into a case, people will live on death row for many many years and by then they would have lived out a good portion of their life and won't really care what happens to them at that point.

But when you harm an innocent person in whatever way, may it be murder, sexual assault, etc, you don't deserve human rights, your a monster (best way I could word it).

abc983055235235231a

January 13th, 2014, 01:05 AM

Ummm no, people do have a choice in their actions. Now for mentally ill people they can be handled a different way, but you are saying that everyone who is a murderer has no choice in their actions. Like murdering someone is an accident. No, it's not! No one accidentally murders someone. When someone murders someone, they really mean it! It's not some accident.

Yeah, they do actually. Red pill or blue pill? You can choose right? Yeah you can so saying hat no human has a choice in their actions is wrong. We all have the capability to think so saying that blaming a human for purposely bashing someones head in with a baseball bat (Random murder case this has nothing to do with anything...) is like blaming a tree for falling unto a house is incredibly stupid. The tree didnt choose to fall into the house, no, but the person had the choice of either walking away or continuing the plan to kill a person. The different between a TREE and a HUMAN is that the TREE CANT THINK and the HUMAN CAN!

And yes, I did say "Mental disorder" in the case that someone has no control of their actions.

I hope neither of you will take offense because I chose to respond to both of your comments together, instead of addressing them separately.

For sure, humans think. Of course I won't deny that. But when we say that humans think, what do we mean? We aren't actually in control of our thought processes, nor are we in control of our decision-making processes, etc.
For everything that you or I or anyone else does is necessitated by factors beyond our control. This idea is central to the existence of modern psychology--the idea that human behaviours (etc) are rooted in biology, mental states, and social factors. The fact that human beings are thinking organisms has no effect on the biology of an individual, nor the mental state of that individual, nor the social factors affecting that individual.

What makes you think that a killer has the choice to not kill? You yourself are not a killer (presumably), so there must be something that makes them a killer, and you a non-killer. But that thing isn't some sort of decision on the part of the killer, neither is it one on your part. You don't wake up and choose to not be a killer, nor more than a killer chooses to be a killer. The killer is a killer because of their biology, their mentality, and social factors affecting them; and you are a non-killer because of your biology, your mentality, and social factors affecting you. So when we say that the killer had the choice to either kill someone, or walk away from their plan to kill a person, all we are saying is that a killer would choose to kill, and a non-killer would choose to walk away. But we already knew that; that's the difference between a killer and a non-killer. But that choice is not a conscious one we make; it is caused by things we cannot control--to the exact same extent that a person who is explicitly mentally ill has no control over certain actions.

The laws governing human thought are no different than the law of gravity, which is why I chose the tree example. And to view human consciousness in a different light is to be mistaken about what it is to be a conscious and thinking organism.

Vlerchan

January 13th, 2014, 12:18 PM

This again ..?

There's no rational argument for the continuance of Capital Punishment - or the Death Penalty. I've pressed this point numerous times here. The opposition will argue either a) murderers and rapists & other violent criminals deserve to have their lives terminated on the basis of the crimes that the jury finds them guilty[1] of - as if someone should have such a right as to extinguish somebodies very life in the first place; judge who may live and who may die - which is simply an appeal to emotion of the worst sorts or b) they'll get back out and murder again - read: scaremongering - which can easily be avoided through keeping them locked up. What they'll avoid is the simple reality that capital punishment is neither economical, fair, moral, necessary, logical, a reasonable deterrent to future crime, or pose any actual benefit to society as a whole; that won't be mentioned.

I also believe it's fundamentally wrong to base our legal system(s) around the ideas of revenge and spite and retribution as opposed to values such as fairness; it's wrong that we should grant the state the right to murder it's own citizens in order to fulfil some sense of revenge on the behalf of the families; it more-so wrong that we believe that this sense of revenge needs to be satisfied for the families in the first place - "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", and all. This passionate 'justice' gets everybody nowhere.

[1]on An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt - and doubt has always been an incredibly ambiguous term legal-wise. The opposite is not-guilty - i.e., there is not convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt. You'll find that the term innocent is never used in place of it. Why? Because you can never be entirely certain whether someone is truly innocent or not.

Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary. Between 1973 - 1999 there was on average 3.1 exonerations from Death Row per year and between 2000 - 2007 there was an average 5 exonerations per year - that's an awful lot of people almost murdered right there.

Romaana

January 13th, 2014, 12:32 PM

I cant believe how many of you are for it. Please tell me how many INNOCENT people were put to death by capital punishment later to find out they were innocent?regardless of innocence capital punishment just goes to show the sick and twisted anatomy of certain individuals. The fact that you think justice is served by taking someones life just proves some of you are way past insane. I pray to God you never live in a state or country which allows capital punishment cause karma has a funny way of coming back to you.

Harry_2013

January 13th, 2014, 01:42 PM

Against it, killing another human being is never justified; we should either a) lock them up forever, which is a worse punishment than murder (in my opinion), b) lock them up and try to change them. Let's also not forget that you could kill innocent people, which has happened quite a few times before which is awful!

As Abraham Lincoln said:
"The best way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend."

Sorry if this is too short, I am too tired right now to write a short essay on my feelings about this topic :P

Etcetera

January 13th, 2014, 03:16 PM

Against it simply because I think if someone did something that bad, don't give them an out, let them rot in jail for it. Suffering because of something you did is better than giving them an out by killing them. Then they don't really have to suffer, it's over. It just doesn't make sense to me. Also, if the worry is them getting out somehow, maybe actually do your job and ensure that they wont get out. What a novel idea.

jeremy96

January 13th, 2014, 03:39 PM

after watching 3 guys one hammer I believe in the death penalty because there are sick people out there who deserve it

Harry Smith

January 13th, 2014, 03:42 PM

Are you guys serious with all this human rights crap. Murderers,child molesters, and racists dont deserve their "human rights." They sure didnt care about those rights when they were cimminting their crimes so they dont deservetheir"rights."

You've obviously been to the republican school of humanity.

Your legally wrong, no-one deserves or earns human rights. It's something your born with. And I'm sorry-didn't you in a previous thread defend the KKK? Something many would argue is a racist position?

As I've said before the death Penalty actually goes against the US constitution

tovaris

January 13th, 2014, 04:59 PM

I execue someone goea gagaince findemenal human ideas and morals. NO here should be no dehy penaly.

thatcountrykid

January 13th, 2014, 06:03 PM

You've obviously been to the republican school of humanity.

Your legally wrong, no-one deserves or earns human rights. It's something your born with. And I'm sorry-didn't you in a previous thread defend the KKK? Something many would argue is a racist position?

As I've said before the death Penalty actually goes against the US constitution

Correct you are born with human rights but once you murder someone, or rape someone, or abuse a child you lose those rights.

And yes i did defend some members of the kkk but that is a seperate matter which i would gladly discuss in somewhere else.

Stronk Serb

January 13th, 2014, 06:27 PM

thatcountrykid

January 13th, 2014, 08:19 PM

Nobody can revoke your human rights.

These crminals did.

abc983055235235231a

January 13th, 2014, 08:35 PM

dontfiguremeout

January 13th, 2014, 09:25 PM

...if we are willing to strip people of human rights, why award them to people in the first place? They are given to people because they are human. I'm sorry, but killing someone doesn't take away the fact that you are a human being.

We have human rights to protect the people! If we didn't have them, then everyone will be killing everyone! Yeah, killing doesn't make you more or less than a human being, but you are taking peoples rights to live! That's not okay at all! You cannot keep giving someone the right to keep murdering and taking other peoples rights to live, because they are going to keep doing it! At that point, we need to realize this person is extremely dangerous and we can no longer have them if all they are going to do is keep taking people lives away! We have to do something, and the best way of doing it is take them off the streets and give them the death penalty. Honestly, if you guys say an eye for an eye and all that stuff, but putting them in jail to rot, isn't that taking someone's rights anyways? To be held captive? I don't care about they deserve to be punished and feel misery, I want to make sure that these creepy horrible people are off the streets completely so I can feel much safer to walk down the streets. This is about do you want to be safe knowing you have your own rights to live, or do you want them taken away because some maniac decided to murder you taking your right to live?

abc983055235235231a

January 13th, 2014, 09:41 PM

We have human rights to protect the people! If we didn't have them, then everyone will be killing everyone! Yeah, killing doesn't make you more or less than a human being, but you are taking peoples rights to live! That's not okay at all! You cannot keep giving someone the right to keep murdering and taking other peoples rights to live, because they are going to keep doing it! At that point, we need to realize this person is extremely dangerous and we can no longer have them if all they are going to do is keep taking people lives away! We have to do something, and the best way of doing it is take them off the streets and give them the death penalty. Honestly, if you guys say an eye for an eye and all that stuff, but putting them in jail to rot, isn't that taking someone's rights anyways? To be held captive? I don't care about they deserve to be punished and feel misery, I want to make sure that these creepy horrible people are off the streets completely so I can feel much safer to walk down the streets. This is about do you want to be safe knowing you have your own rights to live, or do you want them taken away because some maniac decided to murder you taking your right to live?

....if we didn't explicitly state that people had the right to live, etc, you would be going around killing people? Obviously not. Human rights aren't about protecting people; we would expect human rights to be respect regardless of whether or not they were spelled out. It's just an explicit account of what humans are entitled to, simply because they are humans.

We should bear in mind that the vast majority of murderers do not reoffend anyway, because murder is most often a crime of passion. So, in these cases, you don't even have to put people in jail, because they aren't going to kill anyone else anyway. The murders who reoffend are typically serial murderers, and those people suffer from mental issues, hence their compulsion to kill. So, if anything, they deserve sympathy, not punishment.

What is so bad about putting people in jail instead of killing them?

dontfiguremeout

January 13th, 2014, 10:15 PM

....if we didn't explicitly state that people had the right to live, etc, you would be going around killing people? Obviously not. Human rights aren't about protecting people; we would expect human rights to be respect regardless of whether or not they were spelled out. It's just an explicit account of what humans are entitled to, simply because they are humans.

We should bear in mind that the vast majority of murderers do not reoffend anyway, because murder is most often a crime of passion. So, in these cases, you don't even have to put people in jail, because they aren't going to kill anyone else anyway. The murders who reoffend are typically serial murderers, and those people suffer from mental issues, hence their compulsion to kill. So, if anything, they deserve sympathy, not punishment.

What is so bad about putting people in jail instead of killing them?

So what you are saying is that murder is okay because we are humans and we have no clue what we are doing? And for those serial killers we should feel bad for them because their only way out is killing people?! I'm sorry, that makes no sense at all! Yeah, it's sad that they end up using their life to kill others, but we need to make sure they are out of the streets! There comes a time when we need to say this person is way too dangerous to be out of the streets! This person needs to be put on the death penalty so there will be no more victims killed, no more families having to suffer from such a great lost. And humans have every mind set to really think about what they are doing! Yes, they know they are murdering. If they really didn't want to murder someone, they would sacrifice their own life to save someone else's because they know it's right! That's what should happen with your thinking of humans don't know what they are doing.
What I am hearing is you're saying murder is okay! It's part of our human ways! We should feel sympathy for those who kill multiple people! I guarantee murder is not okay! And anyone who murders shouldn't be here because they can end up killing more! That might not be the case for many who killed once and won't kill again, but I do not want to be risking that shot that we let go someone who murdered. If they murdered once, they can easily murder again! This is protecting the people! I doubt you will feel sympathy if someone murders anyone in your family. I'm pretty sure you will want the death penalty so that no other family has to go through what you are going through!

abc983055235235231a

January 13th, 2014, 10:54 PM

So what you are saying is that murder is okay because we are humans and we have no clue what we are doing? And for those serial killers we should feel bad for them because their only way out is killing people?! I'm sorry, that makes no sense at all! Yeah, it's sad that they end up using their life to kill others, but we need to make sure they are out of the streets! There comes a time when we need to say this person is way too dangerous to be out of the streets! This person needs to be put on the death penalty so there will be no more victims killed, no more families having to suffer from such a great lost. And humans have every mind set to really think about what they are doing! Yes, they know they are murdering. If they really didn't want to murder someone, they would sacrifice their own life to save someone else's because they know it's right! That's what should happen with your thinking of humans don't know what they are doing.
What I am hearing is you're saying murder is okay! It's part of our human ways! We should feel sympathy for those who kill multiple people! I guarantee murder is not okay! And anyone who murders shouldn't be here because they can end up killing more! That might not be the case for many who killed once and won't kill again, but I do not want to be risking that shot that we let go someone who murdered. If they murdered once, they can easily murder again! This is protecting the people! I doubt you will feel sympathy if someone murders anyone in your family. I'm pretty sure you will want the death penalty so that no other family has to go through what you are going through!

I'll ask again: Why can't we just put them in jail? Why do we need to kill them?

Stronk Serb

January 14th, 2014, 03:21 AM

These crminals did.

So if you kill someone you are no longer human? I don't get it.

AlexOnToast

January 14th, 2014, 03:33 AM

All I'm hearing as the argument For Execution is "If you kill somebody, you dont have rights anymore"....Not only is that false, but What actually gives anyone the right to make that judgement?

RavleIncarnate

January 14th, 2014, 04:46 AM

I'm for it. There are lots of criminals who basically did something wrong, but not everyone deserves it. Only a choice few do. But then, here where I live, there are those that do, and they don't mind as much as they would if we had it, because they know they will live the rest of their natural lives, even if it is in prison. Some of the street-wanderers do it because they have a better life in prison than on the street. The DP will change all that.

Vlerchan

January 14th, 2014, 12:07 PM

[...] and the best way of doing it is take them off the streets and give them the death penalty.Why?

The criminal-in-question is removed from society; he's no longer a threat. Where is the actual need to murder him coming from now?

Honestly, if you guys say an eye for an eye and all that stuff, but putting them in jail to rot, isn't that taking someone's rights anyways??Not to the extent that murdering him would be.

Though, in 'leaving him to rot' - I prefer the phrase 'attempting rehabilitation in a restrictive prison setting - you're: a) saving taxpayer's money b) not equating the justice system with the murderer/criminal-in-question; c) giving allowances for potential mistakes - it's possible to cancel a death sentence; reanimation is somewhat more difficult; d) allowing for potential rehabilitation and for the criminal-in-question to re-pay his debt to society - which are supposed to be two of the three main aims of the justice/prison system.

These crminals did.The criminals infringed on the rights of the victims. That's not the same as had them revoked - actually, it's entirely different; the two aren't even synonymous.

Some of the street-wanderers do it because they have a better life in prison than on the street.Is there actually any evidence for this? If so I'd love to see it.

And I realise that some individuals commit petty crimes because they believe that prison-life with alleviate some (economic) strains of their current situation though I'm looking for individuals who committed major crimes - murder & rape - as befitting the context of the discussion.

Fanta_Lover44

January 14th, 2014, 12:26 PM

I think that its totally wrong... Like the others said, no-one should have the power to take away life, taking someones life away is not a punishment...

Harry Smith

January 14th, 2014, 12:53 PM

Correct you are born with human rights but once you murder someone, or rape someone, or abuse a child you lose those rights.

And yes i did defend some members of the kkk but that is a seperate matter which i would gladly discuss in somewhere else.

I'm sorry but the US supreme court case Furman v Georgia disagrees with you completely.

You can sit on your computer and type out that someone loses their rights but your legally,morally and constitutionally wrong. Your simply wrong

britishboy

January 14th, 2014, 01:57 PM

I'm on the fence here.

SecretlyKnown

January 24th, 2014, 04:59 AM

I'm against the death penalty for moral reasons

Typhlosion

January 25th, 2014, 06:41 PM

Better than perpetual prison. Less costs to the state.
But in all seriousness, I do believe that the Death Penalty is acceptable. The moment where one violates anothers' that person willingly violates their own.

Of course, the penalty should not be acted upon every murderer in the world. But those who certainly pose a threat to society (e.g. serial killers, mass murderers and leaders in organized terrorism) must be considered. Leaders, for an example, still communicate within jail ordering out the bad-doings.

Promans

January 26th, 2014, 07:11 PM

Somebody should get the death penalty only if there is clear video evidence and lots of witnesses.

Better than perpetual prison. Less costs to the state.
But in all seriousness, I do believe that the Death Penalty is acceptable. The moment where one violates anothers' that person willingly violates their own.

Of course, the penalty should not be acted upon every murderer in the world. But those who certainly pose a threat to society (e.g. serial killers, mass murderers and leaders in organized terrorism) must be considered. Leaders, for an example, still communicate within jail ordering out the bad-doings.

Actually, Killing costs more than a life sentence. Funny how that works.

Baseball1999

January 26th, 2014, 08:18 PM

I don't believe in the death penalty at all. What happens if they made a mistake and you didn't murder someone. They find you guilty and you die. I believe spending your whole life in prison is worse because you have to think about what you have done your whole life. Their is NO reason anyone should be killed.

Croconaw

January 26th, 2014, 08:20 PM

Nobody deserves to be killed, no matter how much trouble they've caused...

killerrockyroad

January 26th, 2014, 10:59 PM

totally against

hockeyfan

January 27th, 2014, 06:07 PM

I'm against it. Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone kills someone that doesn't give someone permission to kill them.

Seth Green

February 6th, 2014, 01:22 AM

Call me cynical but, the only reason I'm against the death penalty is because I feel that the person being executed isn't really being punished, they are given the easy way out. I feel like they should have to sit in a cell for the rest of there life.

On a less sociopathic note, There are also people who don't actually diverse the death penalty, because it was self defense or something along those lines. Or perhaps they are truly sorry. And a lot of the time they are given it anyways.

Harry Smith

March 1st, 2014, 10:24 AM

, you have no respect for your fellow humanity.

And putting a person in an electric chair and sending 40,000 volts of electricity through their body does that how?

The death Penalty kills innocent people, costs more money than life in imprisonment and does't help reduce crime rates. But sure it makes us feel good

Harry Smith

March 1st, 2014, 10:33 AM

You didn't read my whole post. If you truly believe life and freedom are sacred then you have to punish those among us who would steal life and freedom. We can't go mob rule and just lynch people so we have to use courts and law to do it.

I did read all of it. You 'punish' people by placing them in jail...

Vlerchan

March 1st, 2014, 10:40 AM

You didn't read my whole post. If you truly believe life and freedom are sacred then you have to punish those among us who would steal life and freedom.

I'm failing to see how jail-time doesn't achieve this - and achieve it without the negatives inherent to capital punishment that I outlined in my first post.

We can't go mob rule and just lynch people so we have to use courts and law to do it.

You must realise that the use of courts is but one step above mob-rule: whilst fairer and tending to be more just there's still plenty of room for a wrong verdict.

You mean criminal training camps.
This is why I'm against jailing individuals for petty and non-violent crimes - individuals who will be eventually released. This criticism does not apply when considering life-sentences.

Vlerchan

March 1st, 2014, 11:09 AM

Because jails are criminal training camps.

Again:

This is why I'm against jailing individuals for petty and non-violent crimes - individuals who will be eventually released. This criticism does not apply when considering life-sentences.

If you're going to punish people for crimes you should probably punish them instead of giving them "time outs"

I'm yet to be presented with a reason why removing convicted-criminals out of society and not murdering them is in anyway more effective than removing convicted-criminals out of society and murdering them. They both achieve the same results but the former without the negative drawbacks of the latter as I outlined in my first post.

You'll also do well to take note of the fact that I used convicted-criminals as opposed to murderers. Being in jail for murder doesn't mean that one is a definite murderer but rather that the courts believe them to be murderers. Because that's how the system works. Another strength of jail-time as opposed to capital punishment is that you can retract the sentence if you've gotten it wrong. Since the turn of the 20th century there has been on average of 5 exonerations from death-row per year (- and I'm sure this figure would be higher if you included exonerations from non-death-row prison-blocks.) Who knows how many may have slipped through the net however?

[...] with weights and phones and all that.

This seems more like an argument based around prison reform than the existence of capital punishment.

One step above mob rule? What's two steps above? Summary execution? You have to have laws and you have to have something we all agree on to enforce the laws.

You're misinterpreting what I said: I'm for courts but I recognize that there can be mistakes. I seek a system where these mistakes can be at least partially rectified.

Wrong verdicts happen but you get better at getting it right. To you what is the perfect solution?

Instituting a system where it's possible to rectify the mistakes of the legal-system - which naturally isn't possible with the death-penalty.

Harry Smith

March 1st, 2014, 11:32 AM

Wrong verdicts happen but you get better at getting it right. To you what is the perfect solution?

You'd think that wouldn't you-yet more and more people get locked up and placed on Death row for crimes they didn't commit

britishboy

March 1st, 2014, 11:37 AM

I can understand both sides of the debate. I can name several criminals who should be put to death however the taking of somebodys life if they're innocent is unforgivable so for that reason I am against the death penalty. I am a massive supported if life sentences however.

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 02:25 AM

I find a lot of irony in both sides of this camp.

To those of you who think the death penalty is fine, and that innocents being killed as a result is acceptable: how would you feel if someone close to you was executed for a crime they didn't commit? Is that still acceptable to you? Or do you simply assume that nothing like that would ever happen?

To those of you who think the death penalty is awful, and that no one ever should be killed, no matter the crime: how do you justify killing in self-defense, if killing as a reactive measure is so atrocious? Is that not contradictory? Or do you believe it's better that someone die, rather than become a murderer themselves?

Everyone seems to be forgetting that everything has a context. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The truth of the matter is, some criminals need to be killed, and some don't. To ignore this in the name of "moral righteousness" is pure folly. Thinking, seeing, or feeling things in absolutes is limiting. Knowing how utterly flawed criminal justice systems are around the world, I cannot say I'm comfortable with any of them engaging in capital punishment. However, were some place willing to get its shit together and determine guilt with 100% accuracy, I would certainly not find PROPER use of the death penalty unacceptable. Certainly, not all murderers deserve death. You won't find me arguing for that position. But neither will you hear me say that there isn't a single person who would have benefited society more in death than in life.

Killing someone who has killed in no way, shape, or form "makes you just the same as they". To say something so ludicrous is to ignore the dimension of intention altogether, which is VITAL to modern criminological studies.

Danagal

March 2nd, 2014, 05:10 AM

I support the death penalty

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 05:18 AM

I support the death penalty

Was this before or after all the innocent people were killed?

Vlerchan

March 2nd, 2014, 06:34 AM

how do you justify killing in self-defense, if killing as a reactive measure is so atrocious? Is that not contradictory? Or do you believe it's better that someone die, rather than become a murderer themselves?
The difference between state-mandated execution and self-defence killings are that in a self-defence killing you can be a) absolutely sure that the (wo)man coming at you with a knife/gun/other is the definite culprit of a crime and b) it's an act out of necessity as opposed to act out of revenge or spite. I support jail-time over capital-punishment because it's a demonstrably better and more rational solution to dealing with crime more-so than I believe murder in any shape, way or form is immoral.

some criminals need to be killed, and some don't[1]. To ignore this in the name of "moral righteousness" is pure folly[2].
[1]: Where does this necessity come from?

[2]: I ignore it in the name of demonstrably better alternatives.

However, were some place willing to get its shit together and determine guilt with 100% accuracy [...]
It's impossible to determine guilt with 100% accuracy.

Danagal

March 2nd, 2014, 07:01 AM

Vlerchan

March 2nd, 2014, 07:15 AM

To rid society of people who harm others
This is as possible with jail-time and imprisonment - read: the removal of individuals from society and incarceration inside a secure location - as it is with capital punishment - though without the drawbacks inherent to capital-punishment.

It's not as absolute or definite - sure - but then there's no actual need or reason for it to be.

Danagal

March 2nd, 2014, 07:28 AM

This is as possible with jail-time and imprisonment - read: the removal of individuals from society and incarceration inside a secure location - as it is with capital punishment - though without the drawbacks inherent to capital-punishment.

It's not as absolute or definite - sure - but then there's no actual need or reason for it to be.

Its very possible

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 07:32 AM

Its very possible

What's very possible?

Danagal

March 2nd, 2014, 07:42 AM

What's very possible?

?????????

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 07:43 AM

Its very possible

You said this in response to Vlerchans posts

?????????

And I was asking what you meant because you didn't make any sense, what's your point. What is possible?

Danagal

March 2nd, 2014, 08:04 AM

I didn't post that for you Got it

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 08:13 AM

I didn't post that for you Got it

If you didn't want me to respond to it you shouldn't of posted it on a public forum

Vlerchan

March 2nd, 2014, 08:20 AM

I didn't post that for you .

I'm confused too.

What did you mean in your last response to me?

Danagal

March 2nd, 2014, 08:22 AM

Oh! I get it! Your moms didn't teach you to but out other people's conversation.

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 08:28 AM

Oh! I get it! Your moms didn't teach you to but out other people's conversation.

*Butt

It wasn't your conversation-it you want to have a private conversation with someone then you do that via the PM/VM system-if you post something on a thread then you can only expect people to respond to it.

ninja789

March 2nd, 2014, 11:38 AM

against
don't think anyone should have that power

Miserabilia

March 2nd, 2014, 11:44 AM

against
don't think anyone should have that power

I aggree. :yes:

Lisa R

March 2nd, 2014, 11:45 AM

I support the death penalty.
A eye for an eye.

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 11:52 AM

I support the death penalty.
A eye for an eye.

Then why don't we castrate rapists, or cut off thieves hands? Also if you want an eye for an eye what happens to the prison officer who kills them? Surely the criminals family have a right to then kill him

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 02:24 PM

The difference between state-mandated execution and self-defence killings are that in a self-defence killing you can be a) absolutely sure that the (wo)man coming at you with a knife/gun/other is the definite culprit of a crime and b) it's an act out of necessity as opposed to act out of revenge or spite. I support jail-time over capital-punishment because it's a demonstrably better and more rational solution to dealing with crime more-so than I believe murder in any shape, way or form is immoral.

[1]: Where does this necessity come from?

[2]: I ignore it in the name of demonstrably better alternatives.

It's impossible to determine guilt with 100% accuracy.

It is certainly possible to determine guilt with 100% accuracy, even if it's also true that guilt is frequently not measured that accurately in our current system. Do not confuse the current system with "the best possible system that can exist". We are hardly there.

Suppose there is a situation in which a person walks into a gas station, shoots everyone in there, and walks out with the $300 in the register. He is wearing no disguise. His face is caught on camera. A man whose appearance matches the gunman's appearance is discovered living 5 miles away. A gun is registered in his name, and the bullets extracted from the scene have bore grooves fitting in with his barrel's exactly. DNA samples are found from hair follicles at the crime scene that match his. Is it not 100% certain, then, that he committed the act? Or are you banking on alternate reality theory to suggest that the possibility of a brief dimension-hop leaves room for reasonable doubt?

Now, you ask: where does the necessity to kill come from? Quite simply, it's a protective measure. People like you simply do not appreciate life enough to understand, but I will make the attempt to explain, anyway.

There are situations in which, yes, an individual kills by accident. This is something that does not to be protected against because, by nature, accidents are not intended. Then there are situations in which the killing is intentional and unprovoked. For whatever reason, this individual saw fit to end another person's life. This person believed that they were above this other person's life, that their life didn't matter, and that it was acceptable to give them the most excruciating and horrifying experience in the name of furthering selfish goals.

This is unacceptable.

By simply locking this person away with other people who have committed crimes, you are saying, "we are outraged by what we did, but we refuse to kill you." You are essentially saying to this person, "you can do whatever you want, and we will not kill you." You probably have conveniently (or ignorantly) overlooked the number of murders that occur in prisons. There is a myth perpetrated that people who murder almost never murder again. Criminal justice scholars will frequently cite "lack of recorded homicide data in prisons" as a reason true homicide rates are difficult to determine. By sentencing them to prison, you have not actually done anything productive. You've simply given them a different population to brutalize. Often, these are people who have committed far less serious crimes, such as assault, theft, or drug offenses. By sentencing people who intentionally murder to prison, you are inadvertently sentencing some people who have only beaten or stolen from others to death.

This is unacceptable.

In cases where an individual values other humans' lives less than their own, one must be very keenly aware: there is no rehabilitation. There are sociopaths who will do whatever they like, up to and including killing others, and will never be dissuaded from this thought process. Re-entry into society for these individuals is impossible. Peaceful co-existence with other living beings is extremely unlikely.

Let us propose, then, that we take an alternative approach (one that you may still find objectionable): we keep such individuals in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives, their only human contact occurring in times of absolute necessity so that the chance of them ending another innocent life is reduced to nearly zero. They are essentially kept in a steel box, monitored constantly, and given only what is needed to keep them alive and healthy. Their existence for the rest of their lives is simply those four walls.

What is the point?

At this stage, the offender is virtually dead. They serve no purpose. They can do nothing of value. In order to keep them at the absolute minimum risk of killing anyone else, you have already, in essence, made them dead. Why keep up the charade? Because it's "cheaper" to keep them alive? Here's an interesting fact: this only became true when activists who shared your opinions demanded legislation that imposed incredible costs on courts when considering the death penalty, so that 1) it would ideally be used "only when absolutely necessary", and 2) so that, in case the verdict was wrong, we could find out before we accidentally executed an innocent person. If it were not for those changes, death would be only as costly as the bullets expended to end the perpetrator's life.

So let us go back to the case in which it was 100% certain that the individual had killed. The only way we can successfully remove this individual from society without risk of him killing again is to put him in a steel box, making sure to feed, clothe, and care for him until he expires. We can waste years of time and resources ensuring that this person lives a completely pointless life. Why? What reason can you possibly provide that would justify keeping such a liability?

I was almost killed once, strangled in the woods by some kid much older than me when I was younger. I survived only because my little brother kicked him in the balls, hard, and we ran home as fast as we could. I had done nothing to deserve death. The kid apparently just thought it was fun. And that horrifies me. The experience, itself, was traumatic. Unless you, yourself, have ever been close to death, you simply have no credibility to weigh in on whether or not a murderer should die.

Sometimes, yes, accidents happen. For those times, prison is acceptable. Being that the offense wasn't intentional, it's likely to assume that the person convicted will not commit any further offenses while incarcerated. But for times when it's intentional, make no mistake: a person who willingly kills an innocent person cannot be expected to peacefully coexist with others. The safest option for EVERYONE else is to kill that person. That is the only guaranteed way to prevent them from ever destroying another person again. Even in the scenario of complete isolation, there is always the chance that the inmate somehow works out a way to kill during one of the rare times of human interaction. History has shown that humans are ever innovative when it comes to killing each other.

Personally, I find the fact that anyone would value a guilty life over an innocent life to be disgusting. If someone has already demonstrated that they intend to be a danger to everyone else, death is the most logical recourse, and also the only GUARANTEED recourse.

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 02:30 PM

Personally, I find the fact that anyone would value a guilty life over an innocent life to be disgusting.

And that's your own opinion, as tragic as your personal case was a court does not care about it one bit. We have to have complete legal equality for everyone

As I've said before compassion doesn't work well with pro-death arguments, it's like a butcher being a vegetarian. 'I hate killers, but I love killing eh?'

Do you accept that innocent people die as a result of the death penalty?

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 02:37 PM

And that's your own opinion, as tragic as your personal case was a court does not care about it one bit. We have to have complete legal equality for everyone

As I've said before compassion doesn't work well with pro-death arguments, it's like a butcher being a vegetarian. 'I hate killers, but I love killing eh?'

Do you accept that innocent people die as a result of the death penalty?

It's quite clear from your post that you didn't read any of mine. Or, if you did, you promptly forgot everything that was said. Yes, innocent people have died as a result of the shitty court system. Please give my post another read before you ask questions that were already answered.

My argument did not center around compassion at all. You simply saw something in what I said that could be attacked, pulled it out of context, and ignored the rest. My argument for the death penalty wasn't so much out of compassion, but out of fact. Murderers in prison still commit murders. In the local prison, about 52% of all people incarcerated for murder end up committing another murder while in prison. Clearly, locking them up isn't protecting anyone.

Considering complete legal equality for all: how is it "equal" that we allow murderers to kill innocents, but refuse to allow innocents to kill murderers?

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 03:02 PM

Considering complete legal equality for all: how is it "equal" that we allow murderers to kill innocents, but refuse to allow innocents to kill murderers?

Should we rape rapists, steal from the thieves and burn arsonists then?

You want to talk about facts-12 people who were innocent have been executed since 1976 despite later being innocent. That's only from one source.

The death Penalty does fuck all apart from encourage bloodthirsty reactionary bollocks-it doesn't lower the crime rate, it defines the constitution and it kills people who were innocent.

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 03:07 PM

Should we rape rapists, steal from the thieves and burn arsonists then?

Technically, you would burn something that the arsonist owns of roughly similar value, as burning arsonists is actually murder. However, it stands to reason that, if a thief steals something, it would make sense to put them in the same situation that they put the victim in to steal something of theirs that is similar to what they stole. The point of punishment is to teach offenders not to offend, right? What better way than by giving them the same experience that they gave to those they victimized? Sometimes, when empathy is compromised, it can be rekindled by reminding a violator in the most direct way just what exactly it is that they have done to the person they've harmed.

You may actually be on to something ground-breaking there, Mr. Smith.

Harry Smith

March 2nd, 2014, 03:10 PM

Technically, you would burn something that the arsonist owns of roughly similar value, as burning arsonists is actually murder. However, it stands to reason that, if a thief steals something, it would make sense to put them in the same situation that they put the victim in to steal something of theirs that is similar to what they stole. The point of punishment is to teach offenders not to offend, right? What better way than by giving them the same experience that they gave to those they victimized? Sometimes, when empathy is compromised, it can be rekindled by reminding a violator in the most direct way just what exactly it is that they have done to the person they've harmed.

You may actually be on to something ground-breaking there, Mr. Smith.

bloodthirsty reactionary bollocks

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 03:21 PM

bloodthirsty reactionary bollocks

No. Just science. Emotionless, accurate science.

Camazotz

March 2nd, 2014, 03:29 PM

No. Just science. Emotionless, accurate science.

Do you understand what science is? Do you understand what morality is?

Because the two are completely unrelated. I have no idea how you can try to mix the two without sounding like some sort of sociopath. There's absolutely nothing scientific about ethics.

Vlerchan

March 2nd, 2014, 03:36 PM

It is certainly possible to determine guilt with 100% accuracy, even if it's also true that guilt is frequently not measured that accurately in our current system. Do not confuse the current system with "the best possible system that can exist". We are hardly there.

There is no way to eliminate all room for error. The best possible system will still leave room for error. Even super-computers bug from time-to-time.

Suppose there is a situation in which a person walks into a gas station, shoots everyone in there, and walks out with the $300 in the register. He is wearing no disguise. His face is caught on camera. A man whose appearance matches the gunman's appearance is discovered living 5 miles away. A gun is registered in his name, and the bullets extracted from the scene have bore grooves fitting in with his barrel's exactly. DNA samples are found from hair follicles at the crime scene that match his. Is it not 100% certain, then, that he committed the act? Or are you banking on alternate reality theory to suggest that the possibility of a brief dimension-hop leaves room for reasonable doubt?
What is the chance that he was framed as part of some elaborate set-up?

If your answer finds itself to be >0% then you're not 100% certain.

Now, you ask: where does the necessity to kill come from? Quite simply, it's a protective measure[1]. People like you simply do not appreciate life enough to understand[2], but I will make the attempt to explain, anyway.

[1]: I understand that my argument hinges on unlikely possibilities too but the difference is that I'm arguing a hold to the unrectifiable whilst you the opposite. I think that's important to make clear here.

[2]: I'm against ending human-life unnecessarily so therefore must not appreciate it. Do I want to know where you pulled this logic out of?

[...]

By simply locking this person away with other people who have committed crimes, you are saying, "we are outraged by what we did, but we refuse to kill you." You are essentially saying to this person, "you can do whatever you want, and we will not kill you.[1]" You probably have conveniently (or ignorantly) overlooked the number of murders that occur in prisons. There is a myth perpetrated that people who murder almost never murder again. Criminal justice scholars will frequently cite "lack of recorded homicide data in prisons" as a reason true homicide rates are difficult to determine. By sentencing them to prison, you have not actually done anything productive. You've simply given them a different population to brutalize. Often, these are people who have committed far less serious crimes, such as assault, theft, or drug offenses. By sentencing people who intentionally murder to prison, you are inadvertently sentencing some people who have only beaten or stolen from others to death[2].
[1]: ... because we've found a better way to punish you.

[2]: Yes. I agree. We should segregate criminals based on felonies-commited. Well said.

[...] 100% certain [...]
I don't have the time to argue under the conditions of your unrealistic assumptions.

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 04:03 PM

Do you understand what science is? Do you understand what morality is?

Because the two are completely unrelated. I have no idea how you can try to mix the two without sounding like some sort of sociopath. There's absolutely nothing scientific about ethics.

Behavioral patterns are unquestionably science. And the portion you attempted to nit-pick at was dealing precisely with behavioral patterns. Not morality. Please pay better attention.

There is no way to eliminate all room for error. The best possible system will still leave room for error. Even super-computers bug from time-to-time.

Actually, there are two very obvious ways to eliminate all room for error: quality of evidence and quality of procedure. Quality of evidence is the most easily rectified. Constant public surveillance ensures that, should attention be drawn to an alleged misdeed, there will be sufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the claim. Quality of procedure is slightly more difficult, since in nearly every court system in the world, the emphasis is on competition between prosecution and defense, rather than several unbiased parties looking to find the truth. Habits and perceptions need to be changed for that to improve, and humans are nothing if not stubbornly resistant to change.

What is the chance that he was framed as part of some elaborate set-up?

If your answer finds itself to be >0% then you're not 100% certain.

Unless the individual in question had a twin brother, the chance of an elaborate set up is, in fact, 0%.

[1]: I understand that my argument hinges on unlikely possibilities too but the difference is that I'm arguing a hold to the unrectifiable whilst you the opposite. I think that's important to make clear here.

[2]: I'm against ending human-life unnecessarily so therefore must not appreciate it. Do I want to know where you pulled this logic out of?

[1]: Your argument does nothing of the sort. It is simply a different kind of irreversible option that, out of emotional investment, you deem more acceptable than its alternative.

[2]: Correction: you are against the intentional ending of human life, ignorant of the unintended ending of human life that may come as a result of your choices. Put simply, you would rather risk further innocent lives by keeping a dangerous sociopath alive than sully your conscience with his blood. It's hypocritical.

[1]: ... because we've found a better way to punish you.

[2]: Yes. I agree. We should segregate criminals based on felonies-commited. Well said.

I don't have the time to argue under the conditions of your unrealistic assumptions.

[1]: "Better" is debatable. In fact, this thread is debating it right now. In the perspective of the incarcerated, though, incarceration is almost always preferable to death. Thus, they consider your punishment less harsh because they get to continue living.

[2]: At last, common ground!

My "assumptions" are no less realistic than yours. I am simply trying to keep the greater good in mind. It's just logical: if a person happens to be so dangerous and hold so little disregard for life that they will never reform, their death is the safest and most logical course of action. It makes no sense to risk innocent life to keep such a toxic individual alive. They will require caretakers. There is always a chance that they will find a vulnerability and exploit it, leading to the death of a prison or medical professional. And to what end is all this risk and effort done? Just so you can say, "At least I didn't stoop to their level"?

March 2nd, 2014, 04:17 PM

I am against
I think it is not human to kill another human ... no matter what he did

Vlerchan

March 2nd, 2014, 04:33 PM

Actually, there are two very obvious ways to eliminate all room for error: quality of evidence and quality of procedure. Quality of evidence is the most easily rectified. Constant public surveillance ensures that, should attention be drawn to an alleged misdeed, there will be sufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the claim. Quality of procedure is slightly more difficult, since in nearly every court system in the world, the emphasis is on competition between prosecution and defense, rather than several unbiased parties looking to find the truth. Habits and perceptions need to be changed for that to improve, and humans are nothing if not stubbornly resistant to change.

The above will only lessen the room for error. It will not eliminate the room for error.

Unless the individual in question had a twin brother, the chance of an elaborate set up is, in fact, 0%.
I'm failing to see how. Please explain.

[1]: Your argument does nothing of the sort. It is simply a different kind of irreversible option that, out of emotional investment, you deem more acceptable than its alternative.
I think your misunderstanding the meaning of the word: 'rectifiable'.

It's possible to release an individual from prison if new evidence comes to light. It's not possible to reanimate an individual if new evidence comes to light. The former is rectifiable. The latter is unrectifiable

[2]: Correction: you are against the intentional ending of human life, ignorant of the unintended ending of human life that may come as a result of your choices. Put simply, you would rather risk further innocent lives by keeping a dangerous sociopath alive than sully your conscience with his blood.
No.

I'd rather not commit unrectifiable actions unless I'm absolutely sure that such an action is entirely necessary. The chance that one might murder - an idea that stems from the chance that he might have murdered in the past - does not seem like absolute certainty or absolute necessity to me.

EDIT: Thinking about this further I can't help but equate it to euthenizing individuals who display sociopathic tendencies or can be demonstrably shown to lack empathy - for the public's safety (of course). You'd object to that?

[1]: "Better" is debatable. In fact, this thread is debating it right now. In the perspective of the incarcerated, though, incarceration is almost always preferable to death. Thus, they consider your punishment less harsh because they get to continue living.
I consider incarceration better because it can a) be taken-back, b) is more cost-effecient, and c) doesn't equate the mentality of our justice-system with that of the criminal.

My "assumptions" are no less realistic than yours.
No.

My assumptions are unlikely. They are not unrealistic. You're mixing the two words up.

It's just logical: if a person happens to be so dangerous and hold so little disregard for life that they will never reform, their death is the safest and most logical course of action. It makes no sense to risk innocent life to keep such a toxic individual alive. They will require caretakers. There is always a chance that they will find a vulnerability and exploit it, leading to the death of a prison or medical professional. And to what end? Just so you can say, "At least I didn't stoop to their level"?
I've already explained the end: you can never be entirely certain that a convicted-individual is actually guilty. It would be simply imprudent to presume that the court system has the verdict entirely-right and executed based on that.

Camazotz

March 2nd, 2014, 05:44 PM

Behavioral patterns are unquestionably science. And the portion you attempted to nit-pick at was dealing precisely with behavioral patterns. Not morality. Please pay better attention.

We're talking about revenge killing, which is a moral/ethical issue. You're trying to make an argument that killing another person or punishing them in some way is "scientific."

On a side note, I would advise against being rude to other members on the forum, especially in a "debate" section. People tend to not take you or your ideas seriously after a while (it's happened a thousand times before). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're new here, but comments like "please pay better attention" is a good way to have the community dislike you.

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 05:51 PM

The above will only lessen the room for error. It will not eliminate the room for error.

Statistically speaking, there is a certain point when a possibility is so unlikely that its likelihood of happening is essentially 0%. What I suggested would easily bring the room for error down to such an insignificant probability. The only problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that humans hate change.

I'm failing to see how. Please explain.

See above. The probability of someone not having a twin sibling while also matching the exact physical description of a perpetrator who used their firearm to commit the crime is so small that it is essentially 0%. In other words, what are the odds that someone who looks exactly like you stole your gun, shot up a bunch of people, and left your DNA evidence behind before you had a chance to even report it stolen?

I think your misunderstanding the meaning of the word: 'rectifiable'.

It's possible to release an individual from prison if new evidence comes to light. It's not possible to reanimate an individual if new evidence comes to light. The former is rectifiable. The latter is unrectifiable

I know what rectifiable means. You're blatantly ignoring the assumption I made for the sake of that argument: that it was 100% proven, for a single particular case, that the person in question was the perpetrator.

No.

I'd rather not commit unrectifiable actions unless I'm absolutely sure that such an action is entirely necessary. The chance that one might murder - an idea that stems from the chance that he might have murdered in the past - does not seem like absolute certainty or absolute necessity to me.

First of all, the chance of repeat murder offenses is shown through statistics to be a very real and not at all rare occurrence. Second, you are again ignoring the assumption for the sake of argument that it was a fact that someone killed in an intentional and unprovoked manner. You consistently treat the guilty party as if they were actually innocent. Which is concerning. Third, you prove my point entirely: you are ignorant of the very real consequence of keeping truly dangerous persons alive, and would rather keep them alive than risk the chance that they might not have killed again. You are literally saying, "I choose to ignore what has been shown to me, and instead assume that extremely dangerous people who have killed once will never kill again, and should instead be cared for by other people who have never offended in such a manner (and will be exposed to significant risk of harm as a result)."

I consider incarceration better because it can a) be taken-back, b) is more cost-effecient, and c) doesn't equate the mentality of our justice-system with that of the criminal.

It is more cost-efficient, but only only because of activists who have worked so hard to put costly road-blocks hindering the death penalty. Were those things not in place, executions would cost only as much as the bullets required to see them done. Also, in what ways does the death penalty equate the mentality of our justice system with that of a criminal?

No.

My assumptions are unlikely. They are not unrealistic. You're mixing the two words up.

Your assumptions are entirely unrealistic, let alone unlikely. You assume that there is no possible way that anyone can be proven guilty with 100% certainty. On that basis, you then assert that no one should ever be given a death penalty because there is always a reasonable chance that they are still innocent.

I am not saying that every guilty person can be proven 100% guilty all the time. Rather, I'm saying that at least some individuals can be proven 100% guilty at least some of the time. You're saying that, even in situations where an entire crowd witnesses a stabbing in broad daylight, there is a reasonable chance that the perpetrator is actually innocent. Mine is an enormously more conservative supposition than what you're stating.

I've already explained the end: you can never be entirely certain that a convicted-individual is actually guilty. It would be simply imprudent to presume that the court system has the verdict entirely-right and executed based on that.

You probably didn't read my original post thoroughly, either: I do not presume that the current system is capable of gauging guilt 100%. That's why I said in the original post, "were some place willing to get its shit together and determine guilt with 100% accuracy".

I have no problem with killing certain dangerous offenders. I do have a problem with innocents being harmed. That's why I've consistently stated "with 100% accuracy" (or, as it probably should have been stated, "statistically 100% accuracy"), so as to avoid the "bloodthirsty/vengeful/etc" ad hominem attacks that were nevertheless slung at me, anyway. If some nation were to finally take crime seriously and maximize both quality of evidence and quality of process, I'd be just fine with the sociopaths being weeded out of our society permanently.

My challenge to you all was to answer the question on the assumption that it was possible to guarantee guilt with 100% accuracy. Yet the instant you feel uncomfortable, you immediately shift back to your security blanket of "how things are today" so that you don't have to answer questions of "if things were reformed". And that speaks volumes.

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 06:04 PM

We're talking about revenge killing, which is a moral/ethical issue. You're trying to make an argument that killing another person or punishing them in some way is "scientific."

On a side note, I would advise against being rude to other members on the forum, especially in a "debate" section. People tend to not take you or your ideas seriously after a while (it's happened a thousand times before). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're new here, but comments like "please pay better attention" is a good way to have the community dislike you.

It's only revenge killing if the killing is done with the purpose of seeking revenge. And my argument was not that killing people was scientific at all. I thought it was very obvious that the argument I was trying to make was that my rationale behind allowing a death penalty was "just science".

I will keep it in mind that asking people to read my posts more carefully is considered rude here.

Vlerchan

March 2nd, 2014, 06:39 PM

Statistically speaking, there is a certain point when a possibility is so unlikely that its likelihood of happening is essentially 0%. What I suggested would easily bring the room for error down to such an insignificant probability. The only problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that humans hate change.
Essentially 0% =/= 0%. There's no figure so insignificant when dealing with life & death.

See above. The probability of someone not having a twin sibling while also matching the exact physical description of a perpetrator who used their firearm to commit the crime is so small that it is essentially 0%[b][1]. In other words, what are the odds that someone who looks exactly like you stole your gun, shot up a bunch of people, and left your DNA evidence behind before you had a chance to even report it stolen?[2]
[1]: See above.

[2]: >0%

I know what rectifiable means. You're blatantly ignoring the assumption I made for the sake of that argument: that it was 100% proven, for a single particular case, that the person in question was the perpetrator.
I don't see the point in arguing under the circumstances of your unrealistic assumptions. It's akin to opening a debate with: "If God ..."

First of all, the chance of repeat murder offenses is shown through statistics to be a very real and not at all rare occurrence[1]. Second, you are again ignoring the assumption[2] for the sake of argument that it was a fact that someone killed in an intentional and unprovoked manner. You consistently treat the guilty party as if they were actually innocent[3]. Which is concerning. Third, you prove my point entirely: you are ignorant of the very real consequence of keeping truly dangerous persons alive, and would rather keep them alive than risk the chance that they might not have killed again[4].
[1]: Can you provide these statistics for me? Thanks.

[2]: See above.

[3]: No. I treat the guilty-party as if their guilt isn't entirely certain. That's different to innocent. I'm happy to work under the pretense that they're guilty as long as actions commited against them are rectifiable.

[4]: I edited-in my objection to this. You must have missed it. Here: "I can't help but equate it to euthenizing individuals who display sociopathic tendencies or can be demonstrably shown to lack empathy - for the public's safety (of course). You'd object to that?"

It is more cost-efficient, but only only because of activists who have worked so hard to put costly road-blocks hindering the death penalty. Were those things not in place[1], executions would cost only as much as the bullets required to see them done. Also, in what ways does the death penalty equate the mentality of our justice system with that of a criminal?[2]
[1]: There's been an average of 5 exonerations per year from death-row in the US. I dread to think what might be the case had they not been in existences. Though I agree that costs would drop as cases reach higher levels of certainty.

[2]: It can be difficult to take the moral high-ground against someone when you'll callouselly do the same onto them.

Your assumptions are entirely unrealistic[1] let alone unlikely. You assume that there is no possible way that anyone can be proven guilty with 100% certainty[2]. On that basis, you then assert that no one should ever be given a death penalty because there is always a reasonable chance that they are still innocent[3].
[1]: Unrealistic implies impossible. I thought we'd already established that this wasn't the case.

[2]: I see no reason why I shouldn't.

[3]: I never once used the word: 'reasonable'. I've admitted that in some cases chances are slim - but never zero.

You probably didn't read my original post thoroughly, either: I do not presume that the current system is capable of gauging guilt 100%. That's why I said in the original post, "were some place willing to get its shit together and determine guilt with 100% accuracy".
... which isn't possible, ever.

I have no problem with killing certain dangerous offenders. I do have a problem with innocents being harmed. That's why I've consistently stated "with 100% accuracy"[1] (or, as it probably should have been stated, "statistically 100% accuracy"[2]), so as to avoid the "bloodthirsty/vengeful/etc" ad hominem attacks that were nevertheless slung at me, anyway. If some nation were to finally take crime seriously and maximize both quality of evidence and quality of process, I'd be just fine with the sociopaths being weeded out of our society permanently.[3]

[1]: ... which isn't possible.

[2]: ... which isn't 100%

[3]: I presume you mean violent sociopaths here. It's entirely possible for a sociopath to function in society. They make great corporate-bosses and CEOs, statistically speaking.

My challenge to you all was to answer the question on the assumption that it was possible to guarantee guilt with 100% accuracy[1]. Yet the instant you feel uncomfortable, you immediately shift back to your security blanket of "how things are today"[2] so that you don't have to answer questions of "if things were reformed"[3]. And that speaks volumes.
[1]: ... which I've constantly maintained is impossible.

[2]: No. I'm arguing that best-case scenario there's still always a degree of doubt.

[3]: I simply find the base-assumption of your entire argument unrealistic.

jayce_xt

March 2nd, 2014, 08:51 PM

Essentially 0% =/= 0%. There's no figure so insignificant when dealing with life & death.

[1]: See above.

[2]: >0%

This is an opinion, and not a fact. When numbers are so low as to approach a certain proportion near zero based on mean and standard deviation, it can be mathematically accepted as zero. Which, in the example I provided, is the case. That you choose to disregard this, anyway, is not a failing on my part.

I don't see the point in arguing under the circumstances of your unrealistic assumptions. It's akin to opening a debate with: "If God ..."

Because I'm arguing under the circumstances of your unrealistic assumptions, as opposed to simply saying, "I don't see the point." Furthermore, I've demonstrated that they are unrealistic. You, on the other hand, are simply refusing to answer, indicating an inability to refute any of my points beyond a "moral high ground" assertion.

[1]: Can you provide these statistics for me? Thanks.

[2]: See above.

[3]:[/b] No. I treat the guilty-party as if their guilt isn't entirely certain. That's different to innocent. I'm happy to work under the pretense that they're guilty as long as actions commited against them are rectifiable.

[4]: I edited-in my objection to this. You must have missed it. Here: "I can't help but equate it to euthenizing individuals who display sociopathic tendencies or can be demonstrably shown to lack empathy - for the public's safety (of course). You'd object to that?"

[1]: Certainly. It's a bit old, but as it turns out, criminology research in the US focuses much more on packing people into prisons than on what actually goes on inside them: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/shsplj.pdf

[2]: Again, you've really done nothing to prove that your assumption is realistic. By all means, though, please provide some evidence to back it up.

[3]: Understandable. A slip-up, on my part.

[4]: That has nothing to do with executing individuals who have demonstrated clearly dangerous tendencies. Though, if there were a way to catch killers before they killed, sure. Why not? If they were the kind of murderers that could not be rehabilitated, but would instead continue to disregard human life, I'd not object to their life being ended pre-emptively. Any innocent life that can be saved is worth trying for. Keep in mind that the determining factor of a crime, after all, is intention.

[1]: There's been an average of 5 exonerations per year from death-row in the US. I dread to think what might be the case had they not been in existences. Though I agree that costs would drop as cases reach higher levels of certainty.

[2]: It can be difficult to take the moral high-ground against someone when you'll callouselly do the same onto them.

[1]: I'm not disputing that, in the current system, these measures aren't needed. It just seemed inaccurate to say something so broad as "executions are more expensive than life imprisonments" without any form of context. After all, without those barriers, there would be no question: a lifetime of health care, food, and other provisions would be almost infinitely more costly to society than the electric bill of a single capital sitting.

[2]: Why is this moral high ground so important? What purpose does it serve?

[1]: Unrealistic implies impossible. I thought we'd already established that this wasn't the case.

You've done nothing to establish this. You may feel free to do so, however, and I welcome any quantitative evidence you bring to the table.

[2]: I see no reason why I shouldn't.

For the same reason I explain myself thoroughly: assertions without evidence are just... well... nothing, really. Which isn't at all helpful to anyone.

... which isn't possible, ever.

Actually, it is. In fact, the probability that there is at least one violent murderer who can be proven 100% guilty is infinitely more likely than the probability that no violent murderer can be proven 100% guilty. Simple numbers. I can show you the formula, too, if you'd like.

Figure 1: Let G be the probability of 100% guilt. Let n equal the population. Then, the probability that there is not even one person who can be found 100% guilty can be written as:

(1-G)^n

Conversely, the probability that at least one person exists who is 100% guilty can be written as:

1 - [(1-G)^n]

Since all probabilities are 0 < X < 1, as n grows larger, (1-G)^n approaches 0, and 1 - [(1-G)^n] approaches 1. By mathematical law, my assumption is infinitely more likely (and thus, infinitely more realistic) than yours.

[1]: ... which isn't possible.

[2]: ... which isn't 100%

[3]: I presume you mean violent sociopaths here. It's entirely possible for a sociopath to function in society. They make great corporate-bosses and CEOs, statistically speaking.

[1]: See figure 1.

[2]: See the very top of this post.

[3]: Correction: sociopaths make the most common CEOs and corporate leaders, not necessarily great ones. The inherent problems with that will be discussed elsewhere, though I'm sure Iceland has plenty to say about it.

[1]: ... which I've constantly maintained is impossible.

[2]: No. I'm arguing that best-case scenario there's still always a degree of doubt.

[3]: I simply find the base-assumption of your entire argument unrealistic.

[1]: Yes, you have, and without any proof to back it up. Meanwhile, I've already explained at least one instance in which it is certainly possible to do such a thing.

[2]: There is a degree of doubt, as. But how significant is it? Is it 10%? 1%? Even 0.1%? No matter what you do, there is always going to be some imaginable possibility. Dragons could have possessed her and turned her world topsy-turvy. So on and so forth. The point is, at some point, the degree of doubt is scientifically negligible. It's a bit silly to go on about this uncertainty principle, really, considering that, in the grand scheme of things, you can't even be certain that you exist. Ultimately, probabilities must be weighed against each other when making vital decisions. And by refusing one set of possibilities, you inherently skew the others before you've ever had a chance to act.

[3]: See figure 1.

Lovelife090994

March 3rd, 2014, 10:28 AM

I see where people get mad over the death penalty over innocents getting wrongly accused but that has been happening for hundreds of years! Especially, think that no justice system is perfect. In America you are innocent until proven guilty and the death sentence is usually only for those who have committed some of the worst crimes. The death sentence is nothing new. Even centuries ago they had it for people who committed murder and for prison escapees. Prison seems to work but also it doesn't. Taxpayers pay for the prisons and American prisons offer a limited but fair life to criminals with tv, weight rooms, food, shelter, clothing, upkeep that must be paid for. Usually, only those who have murdered someone like a child or a mother get sentenced to death, but there are some other cases. I support he death sentence when it makes sense because if a person has made it clear that give no value to life, why let them live when they won't change?

Harry Smith

March 3rd, 2014, 10:32 AM

they won't change?

You don't know that, please either redtract it or edit it out. I've met someone who has served time in prision for murder and they have changed, Without a doubt.

Your also missing the complete point about innocent prisoners-it's terrible to imprison someone who is innocent-but you can release them. Can you do that if you execute an innocent prisoner. Also seems pretty ironic that a Christian is in favour of the death penalty. What was the 7th commandment?

Lovelife090994

March 3rd, 2014, 10:42 AM

You don't know that, please either redtract it or edit it out. I've met someone who has served time in prision for murder and they have changed, Without a doubt.

Your also missing the complete point about innocent prisoners-it's terrible to imprison someone who is innocent-but you can release them. Can you do that if you execute an innocent prisoner. Also seems pretty ironic that a Christian is in favour of the death penalty. What was the 7th commandment?

You did not seem to read my full post nor quote it. I addressed this. And religion has nothing to do with this so do not patronize me or my beliefs when I never mentioned yours. Not every Christian supports or rebels the death penalty. The 6th commandment is thou shalt not kill "murder", the 7th is thou shalt not steal. This one can apply to court of law, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"

Harry Smith

March 3rd, 2014, 11:44 AM

You did not seem to read my full post nor quote it. I addressed this. And religion has nothing to do with this so do not patronize me or my beliefs when I never mentioned yours. Not every Christian supports or rebels the death penalty. The 6th commandment is thou shalt not kill "murder", the 7th is thou shalt not steal. This one can apply to court of law, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"

I'm not patronizing you-I'm just showing that your being extremely selective of your religion-something your perfectly entitled to do. The king James Bible quite clearly states 'kill' not murder as you claim. As most death penalty nutters do you've ignored the point about innocent prisoners because it disagrees with your argument right?

Would you be happy for the government to kill you? Yes or No?

I also find it bad that you don't think that people in prision can change? Have you ever visited a prison? Do you have an actual experience or are you just an armchair executioner

Lovelife090994

March 3rd, 2014, 02:01 PM

I'm not patronizing you-I'm just showing that your being extremely selective of your religion-something your perfectly entitled to do. The king James Bible quite clearly states 'kill' not murder as you claim. As most death penalty nutters do you've ignored the point about innocent prisoners because it disagrees with your argument right?

Would you be happy for the government to kill you? Yes or No?

I also find it bad that you don't think that people in prision can change? Have you ever visited a prison? Do you have an actual experience or are you just an armchair executioner

If you would go back a bit you will see where I addressed the innocent. Don't call me a nutter you insulting person.

Miserabilia

March 3rd, 2014, 03:20 PM

If you would go back a bit you will see where I addressed the innocent. Don't call me a nutter you insulting person.
Oh, let's have a look at what you addressed.

I see where people get mad over the death penalty over innocents getting wrongly accused but that has been happening for hundreds of years! Especially, think that no justice system is perfect. In America you are innocent until proven guilty and the death sentence is usually only for those who have committed some of the worst crimes. The death sentence is nothing new. Even centuries ago they had it for people who committed murder and for prison escapees. Prison seems to work but also it doesn't. Taxpayers pay for the prisons and American prisons offer a limited but fair life to criminals with tv, weight rooms, food, shelter, clothing, upkeep that must be paid for. Usually, only those who have murdered someone like a child or a mother get sentenced to death, but there are some other cases. I support he death sentence when it makes sense because if a person has made it clear that give no value to life, why let them live when they won't change?

So your argument is;

- Innocents have always been wrongly accused
- No justice system is perfect
- Death sentence is nothing new
- Prison is expensive
- You should kill murderers because they killed someone

This just seems to be the same things as were mentined before by you and others over and over again?
This does not adress the innocent thing at all.
So I'll ask you again;

What happens when an innocent person is just executed?
What's your argument against it?

Lovelife090994

March 3rd, 2014, 03:33 PM

Oh, let's have a look at what you addressed.

So your argument is;

- Innocents have always been wrongly accused
- No justice system is perfect
- Death sentence is nothing new
- Prison is expensive
- You should kill murderers because they killed someone

This just seems to be the same things as were mentined before by you and others over and over again?
This does not adress the innocent thing at all.
So I'll ask you again;

What happens when an innocent person is just executed?
What's your argument against it?

If an innocent person is wrongly executed then that is an error to the state, province, or country. I can't speak for an entire country or entity underneath that, but I can say that many places that have the death penalty i.e. Texas usually sentences murderers to death. If you are wrongly about wrongly tried innocents then this is nothing new. Be it to jail, exile, or death, to rule out all three to protect the innocents would leave the guilty to run amuck which isn't helping either.

Miserabilia

March 3rd, 2014, 03:36 PM

If an innocent person is wrongly executed then that is an error to the state, province, or country. I can't speak for an entire country or entity underneath that, but I can say that many places that have the death penalty i.e. Texas usually sentences murderers to death. If you are wrongly about wrongly tried innocents then this is nothing new. Be it to jail, exile, or death, to rule out all three to protect the innocents would leave the guilty to run amuck which isn't helping either.

If an innocent person is wrongly executed then that is an error to the state, province, or country.
Right, so that sate, province, or country, shouldn't perform the death penalty.

If you are wrongly about wrongly tried innocents then this is nothing new.
What? English please? :confused:

Be it to jail, exile, or death, to rule out all three to protect the innocents would leave the guilty to run amuck which isn't helping either.
Or,... you can just send them to jail without murdering them?

Vlerchan

March 3rd, 2014, 04:36 PM

There is a degree of doubt, as. But how significant is it? [...] No matter what you do, there is always going to be some imaginable possibility.
This is the point of been repeatedly making this entire time. Have you decided to accept it?

This is an opinion, and not a fact[1]. When numbers are so low as to approach a certain proportion near zero based on mean and standard deviation, it can be mathematically accepted as zero[2]. Which, in the example I provided, is the case. That you choose to disregard this, anyway, is not a failing on my part.[3]
[1]: No. >0% =/= 0%. That is a fact.

[2]:This still doesn't actually make the given figure equal to zero. The figure may be roughly zero. The figure may be almost zero. The figure may be around zero or about zero. But the figure is still not zero. Accepting the figure as zero does not make the figure zero.

[3]: No. I understand full well: in most cases it is neater and simpler to make figures roughly zero equal to zero.

Because I'm arguing under the circumstances of your unrealistic assumptions[1], as opposed to simply saying, "I don't see the point." Furthermore, I've demonstrated that they are unrealistic. You, on the other hand, are simply refusing to answer, indicating an inability to refute any of my points beyond a "moral high ground" assertion[2]:.
[1]: No. What I'm assuming is unlikely as opposed to unrealistic. Which you accepted here:

There is a degree of doubt, as. But how significant is it? [...] No matter what you do, there is always going to be some imaginable possibility.

[2]: Please point me to where I attempted to take the moral high-ground in this argument. Thanks. (Note: earlier I was simply pointing out why I preferred imprisonment; I never made any attempt to push that view).

Certainly. It's a bit old, but as it turns out, criminology research in the US focuses much more on packing people into prisons than on what actually goes on inside them: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/shsplj.pdf
Thanks. I'm using a phone which can't access PDFs so I'll take a look at these figures when I get the chance.

Again, you've really done nothing to prove that your assumption is realistic. By all means, though, please provide some evidence to back it up.
What's the assumption I'm making here? I just want to make sure that you're reading me correctly. Last time I checked to sounded something like this:

There is a degree of doubt, as. But how significant is it? [...] No matter what you do, there is always going to be some imaginable possibility.

[4]: That has nothing to do with executing individuals who have demonstrated clearly dangerous tendencies[1]. Though, if there were a way to catch killers before they killed, sure. Why not?[2] If they were the kind of murderers that could not be rehabilitated[3], but would instead continue to disregard human life, I'd not object to their life being ended pre-emptively. Any innocent life that can be saved is worth trying for. Keep in mind that the determining factor of a crime, after all, is intention.

[1]: I personally don't see executing people that a court believes have demonstrated dangerous tendencies as much further away from executing those that are statistically likely to have dangerous tendencies. Do you?

[2]: Because the level of uncertainty is >0%

[3]: Could you provide evidence showing that some people can't be rehabilitated and then methods as to how these people are identified? Thanks.

Why is this moral high ground so important? What purpose does it serve?

I'd like to think that the institute that we have charged with enforcing public perceptions of morality would act in a manner in-line with that themselves.

Otherwise I find them to be an illegitimate source for such a function.

You've done nothing to establish this. You may feel free to do so, however, and I welcome any quantitative evidence you bring to the table.
I find it to be self-evident. There's an infinite number of things that simply cannot be accounted for. You agreed with this view here:

There is a degree of doubt, as. But how significant is it? [...] No matter what you do, there is always going to be some imaginable possibility.

Since all probabilities are 0 < X < 1, as n grows larger, (1-G)^n approaches 0, and 1 - [(1-G)^n] approaches 1. By mathematical law, my assumption is infinitely more likely (and thus, infinitely more realistic) than yours.
Just want to make sure I understand what is happening here. I noticed that you used the word 'approaches' as opposed to is equal to. Is this because the figure never equals to zero or am I misreading?

Yes, you have, and without any proof to back it up. Meanwhile, I've already explained at least one instance in which it is certainly possible to do such a thing.
Please repeat such instance. I'll poke holes in it if you need me to.

There is a degree of doubt, as. But how significant is it? Is it 10%? 1%? Even 0.1%? No matter what you do, there is always going to be some imaginable possibility.[/b][1][/b] Dragons could have possessed her and turned her world topsy-turvy. So on and so forth. The point is, at some point, the degree of doubt is scientifically negligible[2]. It's a bit silly to go on about this uncertainty principle, really, considering that, in the grand scheme of things, you can't even be certain that you exist. Ultimately, probabilities must be weighed against each other when making vital decisions. And by refusing one set of possibilities, you inherently skew the others before you've ever had a chance to act[3].

[1]: Which has been my point the entire time. I'm glad to see that we've come to some form of agreement here.

[2]: When discussing the life & death of an individual I don't take any stretch of possibility to be considered negligible.

[3]: This argument.sounds reasonable. Though, before I respond, can I presume that you've abandoned such unrealistic notions as 100% certainty?

jayce_xt

March 3rd, 2014, 06:20 PM

This is the point of been repeatedly making this entire time. Have you decided to accept it?

You're once again ignoring what I've been saying. See below.

[1]: No. >0% =/= 0%. That is a fact.

[2]:This still doesn't actually make the given figure equal to zero. The figure may be roughly zero. The figure may be almost zero. The figure may be around zero or about zero. But the figure is still not zero. Accepting the figure as zero does not make the figure zero.

[3]: No. I understand full well: in most cases it is neater and simpler to make figures roughly zero equal to zero.

For the purposes of statistical relevance, yes. It does. The argument that you are trying to posit deals with quantum levels of probability, which are quite literally insignificant compared to anything that is not sufficiently close to 0%. The fact that nothing is technically 0% is purely theoretical in nature and has literally no application in real world problems. Ask your statistics instructor, and they will tell you the same exact thing. Numbers are all relative to one another, and you're intentionally trying to ignore that relativity to the degree that it becomes harmful and illogical. You're fallaciously insisting that numbers of minuscule size have the same weight as numbers orders of magnitude larger than them to prove a point. That is flat out wrong.

[1]: No. What I'm assuming is unlikely as opposed to unrealistic. Which you accepted here:

No. It is unrealistic. I proved this already. Please read Figure 1 of the previous post more carefully. And that was not an acceptance of your assumption. That was a demonstration of how desperately you're grasping at straws that aren't even there.

[2]: Please point me to where I attempted to take the moral high-ground in this argument. Thanks. (Note: earlier I was simply pointing out why I preferred imprisonment; I never made any attempt to push that view).

The only unrefuted assertion you've made so far as to why life imprisonment is superior is that, in not executing the prisoner, you are taking the moral high ground. I was asking why that was important, considering that, statistically, executions are safer for innocents, given that someone is actually guilty and dangerous. Again, you misunderstood what I was saying.

What's the assumption I'm making here? I just want to make sure that you're reading me correctly Last time I checked to sounded something like this:

The assertion you're making is that your assumption (that not a single person can ever be proven 100% guilty) is reasonable, whereas my assumption (that at least one person can be proven 100% guilty) is not. I just proved through mathematical induction that my assumption is actually infinitely more likely to occur than your assumption, thus making it more likely, and thus, more reasonable (yes, that logically follows). Thus, your assertion (that my assumption is unreasonable, whereas yours isn't) is utterly incorrect.

The example you quoted from me was, once again, an attempt to demonstrate to you and everyone else exactly to what stretches of the imagination you are basing your belief on. The numbers were arbitrary, and merely there to show that, even if the chance of someone being innocent were (1 x 10^-999,999,999), you would still find that a reasonable enough chance to keep them alive, rather than eliminate their risk to the public permanently (and I assure you, the risk such a person presents to the public is a great deal more likely than [1 x 10^-999,999,999]).

[1]: I personally don't see executing people that a court believes have demonstrated dangerous tendencies as much further away from executing those that are statistically likely to have dangerous tendencies. Do you?

[2]: Because the level of certainty is >0%

[3]: Could you provide evidence showing that some people can't be rehabilitated and then methods as to how these people are identified? Thanks.

[1]: That's an opinion, not a fact. And it all depends on the numbers.

[2]: I think you meant to write, "Because the level of doubt is >0%". Also, irrelevant when talking about numbers sufficiently close to 0.

[3]: Google Scholar is being uncharitable today. Without an actual case study, I can only provide a few short essays written by professionals:

http://www.livinghealthy360.com/index.php/can-psychopaths-be-rehabilitated-32535/
http://www.wisegeek.org/how-is-sociopathy-treated.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/take-all-prisoners/200912/your-conscience-the-sociopaths-weapon-choice

I'd like to think that the institute that we have charged with enforcing public perceptions of morality would act in a manner in-line with that themselves.

Otherwise I find them to be an illegitimate source for such a function.

Then as long as the institution is not acting in the same manner as the perpetrators--stealing for the purpose of personal enrichment, for example, or killing for no other reason than anger--there is no question of the institution's morality. Both of our envisioned utopias would fit this definition.

I find it to be self-evident. here's an infinite number of things that simply cannot be accounted for. You agreed with this view here:

I did nothing of the sort. Again, I'm trying to provide context so that you understand how ludicrous what your saying sounds. It does not matter how many things cannot be accounted for, so long as the things contributing to 99.99% of a problem can. You're trying to say that all those things which account for 0.01% outweigh those which account for 99.99%, which is wrong on its face.

Just want to make sure I understand what is happening here. I noticed that you used the word 'approaches' as opposed to is equal to. Is this because the figure never equals to zero or am I misreading?

This is correct, though the purpose of Figure 1 in my previous post has much more to do with comparing the relational probabilities of your assertion and my assertion, rather than explaining why "virtually 0%" in real world terms is the same as "actually 0%".

Please repeat such instance. I'll poke holes in it if you need me to.

"The probability of someone not having a twin sibling while also matching the exact physical description of a perpetrator who used their firearm to commit the crime is so small that it is essentially 0%."

And you cannot poke any holes in this, considering all the other mathematical evidence I've provided thus far. Unless your aim is to simply be asinine and insist that a probability so close to 0% is more significant than its complement.

[1]: Which has been my point the entire time. I'm glad to see that we've come to some form of agreement here.

[2]: When discussing the life & death of an individual I don't take any stretch of possibility to be considered negligible.

[3]: This argument.sounds reasonable. Though, before I respond, can I presume that you've abandoned such unrealistic notions as 100% certainty?

[1]: There has been no agreement. I understood what you were trying to say from the very beginning. It's simply wrong--mathematically, logically, and philosophically--and I've been spending all this time trying to explain that to you. Clearly, a mistake on my part.

[2]: Then the problem here is that you are simply irrational. There is clearly nothing more to be said here if you are willing to override any and all other probabilities based on probabilities that are orders of magnitude smaller than the ones you are trying to oppose. If there is only a 10% chance that someone can be reformed and a 90% that they will kill someone else again, it is madness to risk a 90% chance that an innocent will die just because you want the 10% to occur. This is an exaggerated example, but it's the only other one I could think of to explain this concept to you in a way that you will understand.

[3]: See my second response, near the top. If you have trouble understanding it, ask an instructor assist you. I believe I have done all I can for you, if at this point, you still believe the notion of virtual 100% certainty is unrealistic.

Troye

March 3rd, 2014, 07:26 PM

Personally im for the death penalty, not really going to ramble on about why, but I think that some people are genuinely evil enough to have to be put to death.

Vlerchan

March 4th, 2014, 05:13 PM

There's a lot of DoubleSpeak occurring here.

The fact that nothing is technically 0%.
I'm going to take this as your acceptance that nothing can be proved to 100% certainty and only ever effectively, essentially, virtually, (etc.) 100% certainty instead.

You're fallaciously insisting that numbers of minuscule size have the same weight as numbers orders of magnitude larger than them to prove a point. That is flat out wrong.
Please point me to were I've weighed up the relevant figures against each other and insisted such. I've yet to be presented with the probability of a prisoner murdering a medical-officer, prison-officer, other 'innocent' as you defined them earlier, in jail so it's been rather difficult for me to do. The PDF I was linked to only displayed rates for homicide committed against other inmates.

No. It is unrealistic. I proved this already. Please read Figure 1 of the previous post more carefully.
Figure 1 supports my claim that guilt cannot be proved to 100% certainty and only ever effectively, essentially, virtually, (etc.) 100% certainty instead.

It's (again) also not unrealistic. Unrealistic would imply an impossibility which which would imply rates of doubt >0% (in absolute terms).

I was asking why that was important, considering that, statistically, executions are safer for innocents, given that someone is actually guilty and dangerous.
The PDF you linked me only displayed rates for homicide committed against other inmates.

The assertion you're making is that your assumption (that not a single person can ever be proven 100% guilty) is reasonable, whereas my assumption (that at least one person can be proven 100% guilty) is not. I just proved through mathematical induction that my assumption is actually infinitely more likely to occur than your assumption, thus making it more likely, and thus, more reasonable (yes, that logically follows). Thus, your assertion (that my assumption is unreasonable, whereas yours isn't) is utterly incorrect.
No. (or otherwise define: 'reasonable' - I'm taking it as to mean realistic here because that's the term I've been using to describe by assertion this entire time.)

The closest your formula will ever get towards 0 is 1x10^-(∞-1) . 1x10^-(∞-1) > 0.

* I hope this is right.

The example you quoted from me was, once again, an attempt to demonstrate to you and everyone else exactly to what stretches of the imagination you are basing your belief on.
Though you accept that there is a degree of doubt present. That's the point I've been trying to make here all along. Whether that degree of doubt is negligible or not is certainly something that I can be discussed further once I've been presented the figures for inmate homicides on medical-officers, prison-officers, other 'innocents' as you defined them earlier. I'm awaiting those figures.

Then as long as the institution is not acting in the same manner as the perpetrators--stealing for the purpose of personal enrichment[1], for example, or killing for no other reason than anger[2]--there is no question of the institution's morality[3]. Both of our envisioned utopias would fit this definition.
[1]: I'll accept this. It makes perfect sense (to me) actually. Though, I'd add that there could possibly be more reasons than anger that don't justify ones execution.

[b][2]:[b] Given how morality is hugely subjective there's always going to be a question. Though this is irrelevant I realize.

Again, I'm trying to provide context so that you understand how ludicrous what your saying sounds.
Regardless of whether you or any other finds my assertion ludicrous my point all along has been that it is realistic.

[...] rather than explaining why "virtually 0%" in real world terms is the same as "actually 0%".

This may be our problem here.

I'm discussing guilt in absolute terms. You're discussing guilt in real-world terms.

I thought it was rather obvious how I was attempting to discuss it however.

Unless your aim is to simply be asinine and insist that a probability so close to 0% is more significant than its complement.

I've never attempted to claim that the degree of possibility was reasonable or significant.

I've attempted to claim that it exists, always.

If there is only a 10% chance that someone can be reformed and a 90% that they will kill someone else again, it is madness to risk a 90% chance that an innocent will die just because you want the 10% to occur.
The possibility that a criminal can be reformed and that a criminal may possibly kill again are nowhere near similar once you take into account that I'm considering imprisoning them.

jayce_xt

March 5th, 2014, 02:14 AM

There's a lot of DoubleSpeak occurring here.

I'm going to take this as your acceptance that nothing can be proved to 100% certainty and only ever effectively, essentially, virtually, (etc.) 100% certainty instead.

Then you are doing so incorrectly, assuming that you are still trying to argue your position for the real-world application regarding the death penalty.

Please point me to were I've weighed up the relevant figures against each other and insisted such. I've yet to be presented with the probability of a prisoner murdering a medical-officer, prison-officer, other 'innocent' as you defined them earlier, in jail so it's been rather difficult for me to do. The PDF I was linked to only displayed rates for homicide committed against other inmates.

You did this the moment you said that any probability, no matter how negligible, is sufficient grounds to ban the killing of murderers. This inherently implies that, even were the benefits to be shown statistically to be greater than the cost, you would insistent that the fact that any amount of doubt exists overrides any likelihood that death would be the best option, even if the probabilities were in favor of executing the individual. In layman's terms: even if it turned out that there is a 10% chance someone would not kill again and a 90% chance that they are guilty and would kill again, your would rather risk that 90% chance because it is the "moral high ground" to not kill that person.

Also, you're saying that thieves, drunkards, and brawlers are actually worthy of death in prison now? That's contradicting yourself. As for the data, this is exactly what you asked for. Your claim was that inmates cannot murder while incapacitated. Clearly, this study proves you wrong. It's just as I said earlier: you risk the lives of those who are incarcerated for far lesser crimes as well.

Figure 1 supports my claim that guilt cannot be proved to 100% certainty and only ever effectively, essentially, virtually, (etc.) 100% certainty instead.

You're missing the point. If you'd read it right, you'd see it proves that your assertion (that it is impossible for anyone to ever be proven 100% guilty) is infinitely less likely than my assertion (that it is possible for at least one person to be proven 100% guilty). You are blatantly twisting my words while ignoring their original meaning. And I do not appreciate it.

It's (again) also not unrealistic. Unrealistic would imply an impossibility which which would imply rates of doubt >0% (in absolute terms).

Realistic does not mean merely possible: it means "representing things in a way that is accurate or true to life." It also means, "having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected." Simply having a probability greater than 0% does not at all fit this definition.

The PDF you linked me only displayed rates for homicide committed against other inmates.

Because no current case study lumps prisoner homicides and prison worker homicides in the same category. You did ask for statistics on the rates of prisoners murdering other prisoners, and I did make it clear that inmates who had not murdered must also be included as victims, as they were being unfairly (and arbitrarily) sentenced to death in this inadvertent manner due to the negligence of someone who refused to execute their murderers.

No. (or otherwise define: 'reasonable' - I'm taking it as to mean realistic here because that's the term I've been using to describe by assertion this entire time.)

The closest your formula will ever get towards 0 is 1x10^-(∞-1) . 1x10^-(∞-1) > 0.

* I hope this is right.

You are completely reading it wrong. The figure heading toward 0 is the probability that your assertion is correct. The figure heading toward 1 is the probability that mine is correct. This is not a figure to prove that probabilities sufficiently close to 0 are actually 0. This figure is to show that your assumption literally has statistically 0% chance of being correct, where as mine has statistically 100% chance of being correct.

Assume that the probability a single person can be proven 100% guilty is a number between 0 and 1. We will denote it random probability G. To assume that a single person cannot be proven 100% guilty, we denote it as the complement of G, or (1-G). To denote two persons who cannot be proven 100% guilty is then written as (1-G)(1-G), or (1-G)^2. Thus, for N people, that probability is (1-G)^N. Even if G=0.001, making 1-G=0.999, the fact remains that, as we test more and more people, 0.999^N will quickly approach 0. In fact, the probability of 5,000 people being unable to be proven 100% guilty, in this case, is only 0.67%. That's less than 1%.

My assertion is simply the exact complement of yours: that at least one person can be proven 100% guilty. Thus, mathematically, it is 1-[(1-G)^N]. Using the above example, the probability of at least 1 person in 5,000 being able to be proven 100% guilty becomes 99.33%. It is a statistical certainty, then, that my assumption is infinitely more likely to be the case than yours. Your assumption that no one can be proven 100% guilty is, in itself, negligible. Let alone the actual probabilities that exist for people being able to be proven 100% guilty.

But clearly, you weren't interested in that portion of the math, since it didn't prove your point. So you disregarded it and tried to divert attention to a red herring, instead.

Though you accept that there is a degree of doubt present. That's the point I've been trying to make here all along. Whether that degree of doubt is negligible or not is certainly something that I can be discussed further once I've been presented the figures for inmate homicides on medical-officers, prison-officers, other 'innocents' as you defined them earlier. I'm awaiting those figures.

Correction: the point you've been trying to make is that the degree of doubt is never negligible. Which seems pointless, now that you're saying "whether that degree of doubt is negligible" can be "discussed further".

As for those other figures? I've been doing all the work here so far. Find your own research for a change. Prove to me that there hasn't been a single corrections worker who's been killed as a result of taking care of an overly dangerous offender.

Regardless of whether you or any other finds my assertion ludicrous my point all along has been that it is realistic.

Realistic is relative to and dependent on on probabilities. As I just told you, realistic is defined as being based on accuracy to real life events. As I just pointed out in the mathematical demonstration, your assertion reaches a probability very close to 0 very quickly. Logically, philosophically, and mathematically speaking: your assumption is the exact opposite of realistic. Compared with all the other possibilities, in fact, it is statistically impossible. There is no accepted definition by which it can be considered realistic.

This may be our problem here.

I'm discussing guilt in absolute terms. You're discussing guilt in real-world terms.

I thought it was rather obvious how I was attempting to discuss it however.

You are not discussing guilt in absolute terms: the instant you attempted to apply it to real-world problem, you began discussing guilt in real world terms. I'm tired of you playing at being witty and demonstrating that you clearly aren't solid in your grasp of the uncertainty concept. You are claiming that the chance that someone is innocent overrules any statistically significant probability that killing them is beneficial. Yet you are also claiming that you aren't seeking significance in the possibility of innocence, only the theoretical fact that it exists always, even as an absolute, microscopic probability that is meaningless in real-world terms. This is a logical contradiction. Nothing can be both applicable to a real problem and also entirely negligible in all empirical respects at the same time.

From what I can gather, your argument has absolutely nothing to do with pragmatism and everything to do with "thinking with your emotions". You seem to be trying to twist the facts however you can to fit with your world view. I take offense to that.

I've never attempted to claim that the degree of possibility was reasonable or significant.

I've attempted to claim that it exists, always.

Actually, you have. You've been asserting that it's reasonable and significant enough to render execution unwarranted. Which is it, now? Either the degree of possibility is reasonable and significant enough to be meaningful in the real world and merit the banning of all executions, or it is not. You can't have both. If you were merely arguing for the sake of a philosophical possibility which had no real-world implications, you would be correct, as theory extends beyond actual, observable, material problems. But the moment you try to force this into human and quantitative applications, you lose all credibility.

The possibility that a criminal can be reformed and that a criminal may possibly kill again are nowhere near similar once you take into account that I'm considering imprisoning them.

This assertion has absolutely no evidence to back it up. Unless you can find some, I really can't take this statement seriously.

jayce_xt

March 5th, 2014, 02:15 AM

....

JohnJack

April 27th, 2014, 11:32 AM

This is the point of been repeatedly making this entire time. Have you decided to accept it?

I find it astounding that you could believe a murderer deserves to be rehabilitated. Someone who has taken a life, or countless lives has done nothing but hurt society, but now somehow society has an obligation to help one as ruthless as a serial killer. No, I think not.

Once you give the state the power to take the life for murder you enter a dangerous road. The state should not have that power over an individual.

There really isn't a single argument that supports it- it doesn't lower crime rates, it doesn't help the victims family, it doesn't cost more and it violated about 101 human rights including those upheld in the US Constitution

I'm sorry, what constitutional right does this violate?

You don't know that, please either redtract it or edit it out. I've met someone who has served time in prision for murder and they have changed, Without a doubt.

Your also missing the complete point about innocent prisoners-it's terrible to imprison someone who is innocent-but you can release them. Can you do that if you execute an innocent prisoner.

If we question the validity of the conviction seriously then yes the death penalty should not be considered, but we must have some trust in our judicial system. If we dod not think they can properly convict someone for a crime then the judicial system as a whole becomes seemingly untrustworthy. I'm also going to pose the same question to you, why does someone who has harmed society deserve the mercy of society? Murderers have unequivocally done serious wrong, especially serial killers, and as such I personally would never be able to trust one again, and the death penalty is a valid solution. I'm not saying people can not change, I just think that most will not change. Therefore, I would propose that serial killers/mass murderers and particularly vicious killers be considered for the death penalty while others may be "rehabilitated".

Vlerchan

April 27th, 2014, 11:53 AM

I find it astounding that you could believe a murderer deserves to be rehabilitated. Someone who has taken a life, or countless lives has done nothing but hurt society, but now somehow society has an obligation to help one as ruthless as a serial killer.
I don't hold individuals with mental illnesses to the full effect of their actions. To hold your position would be to believe that serial killers act on their own free will as opposed to their actions being biologically- or psychologically-determined - which I don't believe. I find it astounding that you could believe we should abandon those with a mental illness on the basis of their actions which came as a direct result of this mental illness.

I'm sorry, what constitutional right does this violate?
Whilst not a constitutional right, the Right To Life is apparently inalienable in the United States, and furthermore the government apparently exists to uphold it.

I'm also going to pose the same question to you, why does someone who has harmed society deserve the mercy of society?
Because reacting through harming the guilty offender aids society in no demonstrably tangible manner and only serves in equating the mindset of that of our Justice system with that of the guilty offender in question.

Harry Smith

April 27th, 2014, 01:01 PM

I find it astounding that you could believe a murderer deserves to be rehabilitated. Someone who has taken a life, or countless lives has done nothing (1)

I'm sorry, what constitutional right does this violate? (2)

If we question the validity of the conviction seriously then yes the death penalty should not be considered, but we must have some trust in our judicial system. If we dod not think they can properly convict someone for a crime then the judicial system as a whole becomes seemingly untrustworthy. I'm also going to pose the same question to you, why does someone who has harmed society deserve the mercy of society? Murderers have unequivocally done serious wrong, especially serial killers, and as such I personally would never be able to trust one again, and the death penalty is a valid solution. I'm not saying people can not change, I just think that most will not change. Therefore, I would propose that serial killers/mass murderers and particularly vicious killers be considered for the death penalty while others may be "rehabilitated".

(1) Then why do we let soldiers back in the country after killing Iraqi's? I believe that killers should be rehabilitated because we can't have such a blind view about it you know? You can't just close your eyes and scream 'he must be bad, he must be bad''

(2) Eighth Amendment- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted People have had their heads set on fire, been in pain for 15 minutes, had failed injections. I could keep listing but the death Penalty is cruel and unusual, or do you think that setting a man on fire isn't evil?

That's just two I'd point out, I get your point about having faith in our justice system but I just want to tell you that when you kill an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit you can't reverse it, can you? At least with Jail you can release them, as Vlerhcan has said about 101 times countless innocent people have been killed by the state under the great and powerful death Penalty.

we give prisoners mercy because the death Penalty doesn't achieve anything-it doesn't lower crime, it doesn't help the police, it cripples the prison staff forced to kill and you know-it kills even more innocent people. You claim to see them as heartless murderers-what does that make the government then?

On a side note I never understand why conservatives are in favour of the death penalty-surely isn't it like the worst example of big government?

Gamma Male

April 27th, 2014, 06:20 PM

The death penalty blurs the line between justice and revenge. Justice is about keeping people safe and preventing further harm from occurring. The death penalty does not accomplish this.

Jean Poutine

April 27th, 2014, 09:08 PM

Just gonna say that people for the death penalty should be ashamed of themselves.

Without even considering the various ethical arguments in play, you have to be cray-cray to allow a government to end a life. It's the most prized possession anyone can have and it's definitely not what anybody signed on when the social contract is concerned. Then you've got courts of law that definitely aren't immune to condemning perfectly innocent people and you're all set.

The death penalty saves no deterrence purpose, and exists only to satisfy the hunger of blood of a few depraved, retrograde individuals.

Miserabilia

April 28th, 2014, 04:43 AM

The death penalty blurs the line between justice and revenge. Justice is about keeping people safe and preventing further harm from occurring. The death penalty does not accomplish this.

Just gonna say that people for the death penalty should be ashamed of themselves.

Without even considering the various ethical arguments in play, you have to be cray-cray to allow a government to end a life. It's the most prized possession anyone can have and it's definitely not what anybody signed on when the social contract is concerned. Then you've got courts of law that definitely aren't immune to condemning perfectly innocent people and you're all set.

The death penalty saves no deterrence purpose, and exists only to satisfy the hunger of blood of a few depraved, retrograde individuals.

^^^^^^^

all of this :yes:

CutYouDown

May 1st, 2014, 08:21 PM

I support the death penalty, no matter the age of the person receiving it. The person has done something wrong enough to receive such consequences and there is no reason we should be spending taxpayers dollars feeding them and guarding them in prison. I do, however, thing that there should be indisputable proof before they receive the death sentence, though, because new evidence may be brought to life that can free them. Going back to what I said before, I think all ages should be able to receive the death sentence because if they go to prison at a young impressionable age, then they are 9/10 times going to become a bad person and get themselves sent back to prison, where taxpayers waste their money on them. Just my opinion on this topic.

Capto

May 1st, 2014, 08:29 PM

CutYouDown

May 1st, 2014, 08:54 PM

The main problem is when does a crime become "something wrong enough to receive such consequences"?

Crime becomes wrong enough to receive said consequences when a person commits murder or something equally as wrong, such as multiple rapes or the like.

And I suppose we should stop sending taxpayers' dollars to prisons in general, then.

No, because there are still those who commit smaller crimes and must go to prison, and have a good chance of rehabilitation. Taxpayers' dollars can also be spent on prison education to help prisoners get their GED, or read stimulating books, or have a decent meal.

JohnJack

May 2nd, 2014, 04:01 PM

I don't hold individuals with mental illnesses to the full effect of their actions. To hold your position would be to believe that serial killers act on their own free will as opposed to their actions being biologically- or psychologically-determined - which I don't believe. I find it astounding that you could believe we should abandon those with a mental illness on the basis of their actions which came as a direct result of this mental illness.

Whilst not a constitutional right, the Right To Life is apparently inalienable in the United States, and furthermore the government apparently exists to uphold it.

Because reacting through harming the guilty offender aids society in no demonstrably tangible manner and only serves in equating the mindset of that of our Justice system with that of the guilty offender in question.

I am not sure where you have seen "The Right to Life" as an inalienable right of the constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence, but the Declaration does not govern the country as the constitution does.

Someone may be mentally impaired and under these circumstances it may be reasonable to remove the possibility of the death sentence, but this must be well proven as there are plenty of people who kill fully aware of their actions. What the death penalty does is rids society of someone is disobeying law and order in the worst of ways by harming the innocent hard working people around him. However, while I see the merits of capital punishment, you might be able to to persuade a murderer would be better off in jail for the rest of their life because it just might send a stronger message.

Then why do we let soldiers back in the country after killing Iraqi's? I believe that killers should be rehabilitated because we can't have such a blind view about it you know? You can't just close your eyes and scream 'he must be bad, he must be bad'' (1)

Eighth Amendment- People have had their heads set on fire, been in pain for 15 minutes, had failed injections. I could keep listing but the death Penalty is cruel and unusual, or do you think that setting a man on fire isn't evil? (2)

That's just two I'd point out, I get your point about having faith in our justice system but I just want to tell you that when you kill an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit you can't reverse it, can you? At least with Jail you can release them, as Vlerhcan has said about 101 times countless innocent people have been killed by the state under the great and powerful death Penalty. (3)

we give prisoners mercy because the death Penalty doesn't achieve anything-it doesn't lower crime, it doesn't help the police, it cripples the prison staff forced to kill and you know-it kills even more innocent people. You claim to see them as heartless murderers-what does that make the government then?

On a side note I never understand why conservatives are in favour of the death penalty-surely isn't it like the worst example of big government?(4)

(1) Soldiers fight and kill to protect us, no killing could be said to be good, but this is somewhat honorable. You know very well that war is a different circumstance entirely. A murderer on the other hand is very easily proved to be bad; therefore, it is unnecessary that I convince myself as the fact that they killed one or more people already proves that point.

(2) To my knowledge, no official execution in the western world over the past century and a half or so has set anybody's head on fire, so I'm not sure where exactly that came from, but you will note that according to countless Supreme Court rulings the death penalty does not violate the eighth amendment, and it is after all their job to uphold and interpret the constitution.

(3) We obviously are not going to come to any conclusion about the killing of innocent people, and I am not going to repeat the point I previously made, but that would be my response.

(4) It is not the government who convicts someone it is a jury of one's peers, a representation of society, and; therefore, it may be a judge who sentences a criminal, but the decision to punish someone who is guilty of a crime originates with the people.

plebble

May 2nd, 2014, 04:17 PM

I'm for it, but only in extreme situations like terrorism and mass killings

Vlerchan

May 2nd, 2014, 04:28 PM

I am not sure where you have seen "The Right to Life" as an inalienable right of the constitution[1]. It is in the Declaration of Independence, but the Declaration does not govern the country as the constitution does.[2]
[1]: I never said I saw it in the constitution. I actually stated that it wasn't a constitutional right in my response.

[2]: Okay. Does the Deceleration Of Independence hold any legal authority in the United States? I've never studied American law so I've no idea.

Someone may be mentally impaired and under these circumstances it may be reasonable to remove the possibility of the death sentence, but this must be well proven as there are plenty of people who kill fully aware of their actions.
You'll find that most serial-killers are mentally ill to an extent: that was the point I was getting at in my last post. Though, I'm unsure why you'd think that mental-illness and awareness are mutually-exclusive: serial killers can be well aware of their actions and still hold a mental-illness - especially if it's just ASD or something.

I'm also in favour of life-parole without attempted recuperation if it's found that the convicted doesn't possess a mental illness (and so can't be recuperated) instead of the death-penalty. I've outlined extensively in this thread (amongst others on the board) why the death penalty is not only unneeded but harmful.

Harry Smith

May 3rd, 2014, 09:59 AM

(1) Soldiers fight and kill to protect us, no killing could be said to be good, but this is somewhat honorable. You know very well that war is a different circumstance entirely. A murderer on the other hand is very easily proved to be bad; therefore, it is unnecessary that I convince myself as the fact that they killed one or more people already proves that point.

(2) To my knowledge, no official execution in the western world over the past century and a half or so has set anybody's head on fire, so I'm not sure where exactly that came from, but you will note that according to countless Supreme Court rulings the death penalty does not violate the eighth amendment, and it is after all their job to uphold and interpret the constitution.

(3) We obviously are not going to come to any conclusion about the killing of innocent people, and I am not going to repeat the point I previously made, but that would be my response.

(4) It is not the government who convicts someone it is a jury of one's peers, a representation of society, and; therefore, it may be a judge who sentences a criminal, but the decision to punish someone who is guilty of a crime originates with the people.

But it seems a tad hypocrictal of you to celebrate soldiers as honorable men, and then somehow decide that all murderers are evil, hateful people. Step out of the castle mate and have some perspective.

Ha-the supreme court. The same court that ruled segregation was legal for about 50 years under Plessy vs Ferguson, but sure tell me again how great the supreme court because they always get American values and beliefs correct don't they?

The Judge gets his power from the Federal courts, and thus the power comes from the government in some form. I mean I'd hardly call it power to people, that's just perverse.

I also love how you ignored the the fact that so many innocents die because of the death Penalty, but when the have the right wingers in America ever cared about a high death? I just love how pro-death Penalty people just some how block out the idea that there own theory is fucking crap.

If you cared about innocent lives you wouldn't support a system that kills innocents would you?

PinkFloyd

May 3rd, 2014, 10:01 AM

I'm for it if the person like raped 5 people and killed 30 people. Healthy or not for me mentally, I would like to slit their throats myself.

If they killed one person, then no, they should just get a life sentence.

GoJonny

May 3rd, 2014, 11:54 AM

I don't agree with the death penalty. What would that person learn if you kill her/him? I bet it's harder to stay 50 years in prison than die in a couple of minutes. But we are humans after all. We need revenge, altough revenge won't help.

JohnJack

May 3rd, 2014, 05:48 PM

But it seems a tad hypocrictal of you to celebrate soldiers as honorable men, and then somehow decide that all murderers are evil, hateful people. Step out of the castle mate and have some perspective.

Ha-the supreme court. The same court that ruled segregation was legal for about 50 years under Plessy vs Ferguson, but sure tell me again how great the supreme court because they always get American values and beliefs correct don't they?

The Judge gets his power from the Federal courts, and thus the power comes from the government in some form. I mean I'd hardly call it power to people, that's just perverse.

I also love how you ignored the the fact that so many innocents die because of the death Penalty, but when the have the right wingers in America ever cared about a high death? I just love how pro-death Penalty people just some how block out the idea that there own theory is fucking crap.

If you cared about innocent lives you wouldn't support a system that kills innocents would you?

Realistically you are the one without perspective, you see a death as a death, but you ignore the fact that a soldier is fighting in a war, not lurking in the shadows before he kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young girl. Go ahead, tell me it is the same thing.

You may not see the significance of the Supreme Court, but I assure you that their decisions are not to be taken lightly. The decision of Plessy vs. Ferguson was made based on the assumption of the statement "separate, but equal" meaning they would be separate, but the facilities would be equal. Of course, "seperate, but equal" was not adhered to and this decision was reversed in Brown vs Board of Education.

I was referring to the jury of one's peers which convicts someone of murder, and pointing out that it is not entirely the government who makes the decision to have you killed because of the presence of a jury.

According to Time Magazine (who I am fairly confident checks their sources and facts thoroughly) has reported that about 4.1% of those killed on death row are innocent, and I admit that is terrible. However, it does not mean the practice should be abandoned entirely, but instead it should be refined. http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Vlerchan

May 3rd, 2014, 06:07 PM

Of course, "seperate, but equal" was not adhered to and this decision was reversed in Brown vs Board of Education.
It was decided that segregated schools are "inherently unequal" as opposed to "seperate, but equal" and such not being adhered to, though I'm really just nitpicking here.

However, it does not mean the practice should be abandoned entirely, but instead it should be refined.
Do you believe that the death penalty should be with be withheld until the execution process is refined?
What is an acceptable number of innocents dying in your opinion?

Harry Smith

May 4th, 2014, 05:33 AM

Realistically you are the one without perspective, you see a death as a death, but you ignore the fact that a soldier is fighting in a war, not lurking in the shadows before he kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young girl. Go ahead, tell me it is the same thing.

You may not see the significance of the Supreme Court, but I assure you that their decisions are not to be taken lightly. The decision of Plessy vs. Ferguson was made based on the assumption of the statement "separate, but equal" meaning they would be separate, but the facilities would be equal. Of course, "seperate, but equal" was not adhered to and this decision was reversed in Brown vs Board of Education.

I was referring to the jury of one's peers which convicts someone of murder, and pointing out that it is not entirely the government who makes the decision to have you killed because of the presence of a jury.

According to Time Magazine (who I am fairly confident checks their sources and facts thoroughly) has reported that about 4.1% of those killed on death row are innocent, and I admit that is terrible. However, it does not mean the practice should be abandoned entirely, but instead it should be refined. http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

My whole point about the soldiers was trying to get you to understand that not every murderer is a hateful evil person as you want to believe, in the same way that every soldier killing in warfare isn't a good honest person

Eh I'd be skeptical of the brown ruling because that was really down to Earl Warren alone, if it had been 4 years early it would of ruled school segregation legal. Heck the NAACP had to go back to the SC in 56 to get Brown 2 passed, but my whole point was that the supreme court doesn't automatically make the right decision so you can't assume that just because the supreme court says it's legal under the Constitution that it is-it took them 50 years to get segregation right how long for the death Penalty.

Just this week a man was forced to go through an hours worth of pain because the fatal injection failed, I know this probably made the table rise 6 inches for most Americans but that's not justice. I'd say spending an hour in pain justifies a

'Cruel and Unusual punishment'' which is outlawed in the Constitution, do you agree? I mean the disagreement here is that you support a system which is not only used by great countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, but that you support a system which kills innocents, costs more for the taxpayer and doesn't help reduce crime. Sounds great right?