Capital punishments

[HououinKiyoma]

What are your views on Capital Punishment? What is your country's take on CP?

[Porpoise101]

My country, USA, is open to it, not calling it cruel and unusual punishment. Personally I am open to it. In fact, it should be an expanded and expedited process so that we don't waste public funds having them on death row. Otherwise, it's just not worth the money.

[Judean Zealot]

In my country the only crimes which get the death penalty are high treason and being a Nazi. Adolf Eichmann was the only person executed by the civil courts (during the 1948 war a man was executed by a military court for espionage - turns out he was innocent).

Nonetheless, I hold it should be expanded to rapists, murderers, and corrupt public officials.

[Jinglebottom]

The only crime which holds one eligible for the death penalty here is collaboration with an enemy state/treason (I think). Anyone who committs a severe crime (rape, murder, child molestation, betrayal of the state, terrorists, etc...) should be worthy of being put to death.

[Living For Love]

My country abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes in 1867 and became totally abolitionist in 1976.

About my views on capital punishment, my Christian side tells me I should be against it, while my extreme-rightist side tells me I should be in favour of it only in certain and very specific cases. I must say I'm quite divided on this subject, honestly.

[HououinKiyoma]

My country, USA, is open to it, not calling it cruel and unusual punishment. Personally I am open to it. In fact, it should be an expanded and expedited process so that we don't waste public funds having them on death row. Otherwise, it's just not worth the money.

Yeah, I agree. It shouldn't lead to a waste of public funds.

In my country the only crimes which get the death penalty are high treason and being a Nazi. Adolf Eichmann was the only person executed by the civil courts (during the 1948 war a man was executed by a military court for espionage - turns out he was innocent).

Nonetheless, I hold it should be expanded to rapists, murderers, and corrupt public officials.

The only crime which holds one eligible for the death penalty here is collaboration with an enemy state/treason (I think). Anyone who committs a severe crime (rape, murder, child molestation, betrayal of the state, terrorists, etc...) should be worthy of being put to death.

Fair enough, but what if its the circumstances that are to blame for the crime? For example most terrorists in Pakistan are born in poor areas where they are given food, shelter and education and they are literally brainwashed to believe in Jihad since childhood.

My country abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes in 1867 and became totally abolitionist in 1976.

About my views on capital punishment, my Christian side tells me I should be against it, while my extreme-rightist side tells me I should be in favour of it only in certain and very specific cases. I must say I'm quite divided on this subject, honestly.

Tbh it is a very dividing topic. The religious aspects and the logical aspects preach opposing concepts.

[Judean Zealot]

Fair enough, but what if its the circumstances that are to blame for the crime? For example most terrorists in Pakistan are born in poor areas where they are given food, shelter and education and they are literally brainwashed to believe in Jihad since childhood

In these sorts of cases it is up to the judge to decide whether the standard penalty is applicable or not.

[HououinKiyoma]

In these sorts of cases it is up to the judge to decide whether the standard penalty is applicable or not.

Doesnt that create a possibility of biased judgement based on public opinion and not whats right or wrong?

[Judean Zealot]

Doesnt that create a possibility of biased judgement based on public opinion and not whats right or wrong?

It's the way every court system works. The judge decides whether the sentence ought to be mitigated. Judges at this level are appointed, not elected, and thus don't have to worry about the street.

[kylem1229]

I actually did this on a college essay for my law enforcement class. I agree and support Capitol Punishment to an extent. Sending a student to detention or suspension doesnt really do much, Especially for those who are repeat offenders. There needs to be an inflict of pain upon themselves to understand that they are in trouble. Now I dont agree with some of the C.P Devices that are used. It should be kept simple ex simple slaps like the nun sticks, or some non butt slapping techniques. It should inflict pain, but not injure the student. (There are lots of court cases in which students are severely injured.) I have a google drive link if anyone is interested in reading my C.P Essay for more about it.

[phuckphace]

About my views on capital punishment, my Christian side tells me I should be against it, while my extreme-rightist side tells me I should be in favour of it only in certain and very specific cases. I must say I'm quite divided on this subject, honestly.

Christianity and the death penalty aren't opposed though, in fact the Christian west used it prolifically against wrongdoers for most of its history. the looters hanging from gallows after the Lisbon earthquake in the 18th century comes to mind, and y'all were Catholic af back then

[Microcosm]

There's always a possibility that people who receive the death penalty are innocent. Plus, I agree with Vlerchan when he said in that other thread that we could just put them on some super-secure island prison for the rest of their lives. That's probably the best course of action.

On capital punishment as in like whippings and such for punishment for certain terrible crimes, I think it's actually okay. People have a natural instinct to want to avoid pain, which makes pain a great punishment for crime.

[mahony0509]

I think mass murder and multiple rapes should signify death. You're going to die in prison anyway.

[phuckphace]

I think it's pretty obvious that a punishment as severe as the capital should be used only where the evidence of guilt is unequivocal. I'm thinking especially of those high-profile spree killings, terrorist attacks, espionage, treason, etc.

as long as we keep affirmative action out of the criminal justice system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Dookhan), modern forensics is reasonably reliable.

[Vlerchan]

I'm against capital punishment because - in no particular order:

I'm not comfortable with the proportion of convicted that end up being exonerated and what it might indicate for the system.
It's exorbitantly more expensive.
Evidence suggests it has no impact on violent crime.
I'm not keen on granting the state the power to take life.
It doesn't gel with the detachment I value in a justice system.
I've probably listed other reasons elsewhere on this forum.

For example most terrorists in Pakistan are born in poor areas where they are given food, shelter and education and they are literally brainwashed to believe in Jihad since childhood.
I just want to ad that this doesn't bother me. I'm very much for impartial treatment under the law for intent-based crimes.

---

The defendant can attempt to plead out on grounds of insanity-by-indoctrination. But I imagine a good prosecution would liken it to the use Dissociative Disorder as a defence and that hasn't worked well in the past.

---

I'll also add that when Ireland had capital punishment it was mandated for the crime in question - that is: homicide of a police officer. But on the same note whenever it was set down it would be commuted to a life of hard labour.

[...] and being a Nazi.
I just want to add that this raises serious questions about the ethics of retroactive criminalisation and what might separate Eichmann's execution from state-sanctioned murder.

[Living For Love]

Christianity and the death penalty aren't opposed though, in fact the Christian west used it prolifically against wrongdoers for most of its history. the looters hanging from gallows after the Lisbon earthquake in the 18th century comes to mind, and y'all were Catholic af back then
That's actually true. I'm not a Catholic (I'm Protestant), but it's still embarrassing and ashaming to admit that Christianity once agreed with killing and burning people alive for not believing in their God or accepting their religion (which is pretty much the same reason ISIS executes people nowadays). I'm not sure, but I think Pope John Paul II made public apologies for the Church's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reform. Not that it serves as an excuse, obviously, but it's a way of affirming the Church's position against death penalty. Maybe one day we'll see Muslim religious leaders looking back at what some "muslims" are doing nowadays and apologise for their acts.


It's exorbitantly more expensive.
Now, here's something I simply cannot understand. Like I said, I'm quite divided on this subject, but I see this argument used over and over again and I just can't seem to grasp it. How can years and years or imprisonment with all the expenses it implies (food, shelter, energy, water, prison maintenance, etc...) turn out to be cheaper than simply putting a bullet through someone's head? Can anyone explain this?

Evidence suggests it has no impact on violent crime.
Hmm, why would that matter? Violent crime will always exist, whether you kill or imprison criminals.

I'm not keen on granting the state the power to take life.
Why?

[Judean Zealot]

Living For Love

You seem to be equating the Church's renunciation of killing heretics and the civil death penalty. Why is this? Isn't there a clear difference between executing a person for their beliefs and executing a rapist or murderer.
Vlerchan

Mass murder (and accessory thereof) was a recognised crime well before the Holocaust. This isn't a case of retroactively declaring something criminal as much as deciding on the punishment. Mind you, nobody tried trying Oscar Schindler.

[Living For Love]

You seem to be equating the Church's renunciation of killing heretics and the civil death penalty. Why is this? Isn't there a clear difference between executing a person for their beliefs and executing a rapist or murderer.
Yes, there is, because the former is never justifiable under any circumstances, whereas the latter might be justifiable in some cases.

Also, when I said my Christian side tells me I should be against capital punishment (in general), it's because we believe only God should have the right to take someone's life.

[Judean Zealot]

Yes, there is, because the former is never justifiable under any circumstances, whereas the latter might be justifiable in some cases.

This is all I'm trying to say. :)

Also, when I said my Christian side tells me I should be against capital punishment (in general), it's because we believe only God should have the right to take someone's life.

Was it immoral in OT times to execute a murderer? After all, the principle you've applied above would apply then as well.

[Living For Love]

Was it immoral in OT times to execute a murderer? After all, the principle you've applied above would apply then as well.
In the OT, it would be considered a direct order from God, which doesn't apply nowadays anymore.

[Judean Zealot]

In the OT, it would be considered a direct order from God, which doesn't apply nowadays anymore.

I see what you did there. :)

Nonetheless, I don't think that the revelation of Christ is meant to change that dynamic of society and government, only to remove those laws which distinguished Jew from gentile. Execution as a civil penalty is (and was) intended as a universal law, not merely a Jewish one, and as such hasn't changed.

[HououinKiyoma]

Maybe one day we'll see Muslim religious leaders looking back at what some "muslims" are doing nowadays and apologise for their acts.


No no no no you just cannot equate the views of ISIS and Muslim religious leaders.

How can years and years or imprisonment with all the expenses it implies (food, shelter, energy, water, prison maintenance, etc...) turn out to be cheaper than simply putting a bullet through someone's head? Can anyone explain this?

Im curious too.


Hmm, why would that matter? Violent crime will always exist, whether you kill or imprison criminals.


Wouldn't the fear of a harsh punishment deter potential criminals from commiting the crime in the first place?

[Living For Love]

I see what you did there. :)

Nonetheless, I don't think that the revelation of Christ is meant to change that dynamic of society and government, only to remove those laws which distinguished Jew from gentile. Execution as a civil penalty is (and was) intended as a universal law, not merely a Jewish one, and as such hasn't changed.
I understand what you're saying. I still think that, whenever we end someone's life, we're automatically nullifying their chances of converting to God and accepting Jesus as their saviour. That's why we shouldn't do it, because God, as unbelievable as it may sound, loves the most generous and kind-hearted person on this planet precisely as much as he loves the most hateful and abhorrent man you can imagine, and thus wants everyone to be saved, or at least giving everyone the same opportunities to do so. That's why I think capital punishment might negatively interfere with God's plan for each one of us, and as a Christian, I should be opposed to that.

No no no no you just cannot equate the views of ISIS and Muslim religious leaders.
In that sentence I wasn't referring to ISIS but to all people who consider themselves Muslims and defend the execution of people for not believing in their God or accepting their faith.

Wouldn't the fear of a harsh punishment deter potential criminals from commiting the crime in the first place?
Would it? I'm not so sure, honestly. Tobacco packaging warning messages do not deter people from smoking. The huge amount of information available explaining the health risks of alcohol abuse do no deter people from abusing it and getting drunk. Same with reckless driving, same with drug abuse of all kinds, same with overconsumption of sugar and salt, and, possibly, same with imprisonment of criminals. People are too gullible, it's their natural tendency. I mean, it would actually be quite desired if harsh punishments deterred other people from committing the same crime, but I think it simply does not happen. Nevertheless, the main objective of either death penalty and imprisonment is punishing the offender. The effects that can provoke on other people are, unfortunately, minimal.

[Vlerchan]

Can anyone explain this?
Trials are more expensive to run on average. On top of this the trial is [edit:] runs longer There's multiple appeal processes that add a considerable sum to this. In all stages it's more expensive per capita because of a reduced spread of fixed costs.

I can find a breakdown if you want.

Hmm, why would that matter? Violent crime will always exist, whether you kill or imprison criminals.
It matters because if it was the case that capital punishment deterred crime it might be justifiable to allow it. If it doesn't deter crime then the state is taking both irresponsible and expensive risk to sate the public lust for blood or revenge. I would prefer the state remained a detached arbitrator in such matters - and in general - and restrained from indulging the population in such base desires.

Why?
I'm of the opinion that in forming the social contract members of a given community can't offer up what can't be returned and-or reimbursed.

Wouldn't the fear of a harsh punishment deter potential criminals from commiting the crime in the first place?
Lots of the most horrific offences aren't commited with thoughts of punishments. In a lot of case these are acts of passion or based on impulse. In other cases the attacker has no intentioned - and pays not heed towards - getting caught.

Mass murder (and accessory thereof) was a recognised crime well before the Holocaust.
The Geneva Convention didn't contain an article inditing genocide until after WWII [1948 - and it came into effect in 1951]. The occurrence of the Holocaust was at a time where the state was sanctioned to deal with it's own citizens in whatever manner it saw fit. The Nuremberg Trials themselves relied on no established precedent that could be referred to in concrete terms and neither does an Isreali case that seeks reliance on international precedent.

Eichmann wasn't to be convicted of mass-murder - his convictions were steeped in the language of public international law. Even then it sets a bizarre precedent to bring to trial a man from another state - that committed crimes in that other state - in yours. Especially if it involves convicting on the basis of an offence that doesn't exist on paper in that other state.

---

This also isn't me arguing that the trial should not have happened - or that it was unethical. I just wonder whether the trials were of a legal question as much as a political question.

[Kahn]

Nonetheless, I hold it should be expanded to rapists, murderers, and corrupt public officials.

How far gone does a public official have to be in order to warrant such a penalty?

Not saying I disagree, just curious to what extent. It'd have to be a grievous crime to warrant such an action, in my opinion.

[Exocet]

Why should the trash of society still be able to live ?

[Demosthenes]

Why should the trash of society still be able to live ?

Because it is not society's place to determine who retains the privilege of life.

The death penalty in my country is legal and actively in use. I believe it should be totally abolished and the crimes that merit it should instead merit only life imprisonment, no matter how sure we are of the criminal's guilt or how abhorrent we find the crimes committed.

I do think that someone sentenced to life in prison should have the ability to choose death over life in prison, though.

The justice system should be a system of isolation and rehabilitation, not one of punishment. Those who cannot be rehabilitated should be permanently isolated.

[Exocet]

Because it is not society's place to determine who retains the privilege of life.

The death penalty in my country is legal and actively in use. I believe it should be totally abolished and the crimes that merit it should instead merit only life imprisonment, no matter how sure we are of the criminal's guilt or how abhorrent we find the crimes committed.

I do think that someone sentenced to life in prison should have the ability to choose death over life in prison, though.

The justice system should be a system of isolation and rehabilitation, not one of punishment. Those who cannot be rehabilitated should be permanently isolated.

Those trashes should have thought twice before doing crimes,now they have to face the consequences of their acts.

[Vlerchan]

Those trashes should have thought twice before doing crimes,now they have to face the consequences of their acts.
Demostheses point wasn't that criminals shouldn't have to face the consequences of their acts. It's quite possible to still support criminal justice whilst opposing capital punishment.

[HououinKiyoma]

Those trashes should have thought twice before doing crimes,now they have to face the consequences of their acts.

Well we should believe that all people are fundamentally good and should be given a second chance.

How much of this still applies to the modern world is debatable.