The Death Penalty

[SmokyChica]

So today we discussed the death penalty in English class (we are writing a paper about it after a book we read, blah blah...) and I heard one of my classmates say something interesting to me. She said, "Well like murderers who kill people, that's a terrible crime so they deserve a terrible punishment. So like death is really bad so that's what they deserve."

Me sitting in my desk with my sadistic thoughts, I thought, "Is it though?" We don't have any hard proof that death is necessarily a horrible thing or place. We have no evidence of what comes after someone dies. We can point fingers at prisons and asylums and say that they are not living conditions someone would be begging to be in, but we cannot show anything for what happens after death as it is a big grey unknown area. Some religions believe in Heaven, some in Hell, others in both and depending on your actions in life decides where you go in the afterlife (which, if you were a murderer, I would hope you'd go to Hell or else that would really make me wonder what kind of people DO go to Hell...)

I personally believe there is an afterlife, but I have no idea what it's like. But (and these are the sadistic and twisted thoughts I have) I thought, "Well no one's come back so clearly it's not that bad."

Now I get that death is a serious incident and I am not trying to write that off, but I do not believe that taking someone's life is ever acceptable, no matter what the circumstances are. What are your opinions on the death penalty? Also, I live in the US, but for those who live in other countries, what is the death penalty like there? In the US it's based on what crime you committed and the degree of the severity of it.

[XAccess]

I'm an Atheist, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I think the death sentence should not be used in any case. Unless requested by the person persecuted. I am also a US citizen.

[Typhlosion]

I, on the other hand, am in favor of the death penalty. The moment you void one's rights, you have no rights of equal value yourself. While I wouldn't argue that every murderer should receive such penalty, but special irrecoverable cases where the perpetrator has done wrong on so many levels, death is what they deserve.

Unfortunately, because of bureaucracy, one's death is more expensive than keeping him alive in prison (at least in the US) - and if I'm not mistaken, Vlerchan has pointed this to me (I learned!). We need those bureaucratic costs dramatically reduced so the death penalty becomes a much more viable option, and stop wasting with so many people condemned for life.

[Vlerchan]

On the Death Penalty.

[13/1/2014]

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

On proof beyond doubt:

[3/12/2014]

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.

Thank you past-me. You made that all so much easier.

[green white]

I think this problem dependent your belife/faith.
I believe about death penalty.
I think we just believe or not, we don't need to debate about that.

[Gigablue]

I think we just believe or not, we don't need to debate about that.

Lives are at stake. Isn't this exactly when we should be debating? If the death penalty is wrong, and still being carried out, then a gross violation of basic rights is occurring.

The moment you void one's rights, you have no rights of equal value yourself.

That isn't how human rights work. We can't revoke someone's human rights like that. Basic human rights vainly be violated in very specific situations. For example, violating someone's right to life is justified if it is in self defence. Without very clear justification, you cannot violate another person's rights.

The death penalty is not self defence. Life in prison would serve the same purpose, with less suffering. The death penalty is simple vengence, not justice.

[Typhlosion]

That isn't how human rights work. We can't revoke someone's human rights like that. I am aware that human rights aren't like that, and that sentence mostly just applies in cases of self defence, which you later mentioned.

Life in prison would serve the same purpose, with less suffering. The death penalty is simple vengence, not justice. The least amount of suffering is no suffering. How humane is it do condemn someone for life in a confined environment with basically nothing beyond the most basic rights, if even? Also, ideally, it would be the cheaper solution.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Death is the solution to all problems, so technically, by giving these prisoners the death penalty, you are rewarding them. A better punishment would be to let them slowly rot in jail for the rest of their lives. However, this is the logical point.
The ethical point is that no human deserves to be killed. However, when humans act inhumane we put them with equally inhumane people to be away from the humans that they endanger.
Honestly, about the standpoint that "both life prison sentences and the death penalty violate basic human rights" they're right, but A) we can't just set them free, or reward them for their heinous behavior and B) when you commit horrible crimes like mass murder, you have basically given up your rights, in exchange for the act you have commited.

[Christen]

in germany we dont have the death penalty in my opinion we should have for some crimes , murder - rape - child abuse such stuff
sure its not a real solution but in those cases woul be the only way to prevent such a criminal to get free at some point.
killing one to protect the rest sounds justified.

[Babs]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I'm not sure how I stand on it. I think it certainly shouldn't be used loosely, however in some cases maybe it's in the best interest.

[Gamma Male]

I'm against the death penalty because I don't believe the government should that sort of power. Absolutely nobody should ever be able to take a life except in self defense, and granting the government power to terminate a life just goes too far.

I also really don't see the point in it. It doesn't deter crime, it's more expensive than keeping them locked up, it's usually unnecessarily painful, and keeping them locked up is just as effective at making sure they don't kill again. I've yet to see a good argument in favor of it.

[Harry Smith]

I, on the other hand, am in favor of the death penalty. The moment you void one's rights, you have no rights of equal value yourself. While I wouldn't argue that every murderer should receive such penalty, but special irrecoverable cases where the perpetrator has done wrong on so many levels, death is what they deserve.

Unfortunately, because of bureaucracy, one's death is more expensive than keeping him alive in prison (at least in the US) - and if I'm not mistaken, Vlerchan has pointed this to me (I learned!). We need those bureaucratic costs dramatically reduced so the death penalty becomes a much more viable option, and stop wasting with so many people condemned for life.

If you reduce these costs then more innocent people are going to die without getting a retrial. These steps are in place to make sure the victim is innocent

I am aware that human rights aren't like that, and that sentence mostly just applies in cases of self defence, which you later mentioned.

The least amount of suffering is no suffering. How humane is it do condemn someone for life in a confined environment with basically nothing beyond the most basic rights, if even? Also, ideally, it would be the cheaper solution.

Yeah as giga said human rights never worked like that.

You can't support the death Penalty from a humanic point of view-it's a tad hypocritical imo-look at the recent cases in the US where people have been lying on their back for 2 hours with chemicals pumping through their veins-that's a fuck lot of suffering. I also don't think we should base our legal system on what's cheapest, it would be cheap to give people in hospitals a cyanide vial-but we don't do that because money isn't everything. It's interesting you bring up prison conditions, because they quite clearly are pretty crap-would you favour more funding for prisons?

What would you do about the innocent people who get killed by the death Penalty?

There's also a direct link between progressive well off countries not using it e.g UK, France, Sweden, Germany and less progressive and more brutal regimes using it e.g Saudi Arabia, Iran and the US ( I kid)

[jayjay's toocool]

U.S and i agree with the penalty but i think the penalty is to appease the accuser

[Broken Toy]

I just thought, this could be wrong on a psychological stand point but hey its just my thoughts.

Death penalty for a murder is wrong as its a revenge killing.
But, in cases where people have killed 3+ people (as they could kill a couple) should have a time scale of therapy, say 3 years. And if they don't make progress and show remorse for their actions and a reformation that they aren't capable to kill again, then they should serve a sentence.
But if they show no progress in say 3 years, and they don't show remorse, theyre not reformed, then i think the death penalty is justified as they are dealing with a severely damaged human incapable of change. (but this method would bring up the 'born to kill?' question

[Harry Smith]

But if they show no progress in say 3 years, and they don't show remorse, theyre not reformed, then i think the death penalty is justified as they are dealing with a severely damaged human incapable of change. (but this method would bring up the 'born to kill?' question

So your basically killing people because they don't follow a desired thought process?

Would the same option be open for rapists?

[Broken Toy]

So your basically killing people because they don't follow a desired thought process?

Would the same option be open for rapists?

Oh so you are saying that if a serial killer is incapable of empathy and remorse for his actions, making him a danger to EVERYONE, he should spend his life in prison and probably killing someone in there, than to end their life so that they are put out of their sad cycle. Its not their fault but they cant change.

And i guess it could if they follow the sane path and show that they cant Change. I think that it is more likely that a rapist can change as they only have to understand that they cant have sexual intercourse with a woman without consent. Sadly, for murderers, they would have to learn both empathy and remorse. It is hard to comprehend and understand 2 emotions if they lived a life without it

[Harry Smith]

Oh so you are saying that if a serial killer is incapable of empathy and remorse for his actions, making him a danger to EVERYONE, he should spend his life in prison and probably killing someone in there, than to end their life so that they are put out of their sad cycle. Its not their fault but they cant change.

And i guess it could if they follow the sane path and show that they cant Change. I think that it is more likely that a rapist can change as they only have to understand that they cant have sexual intercourse with a woman without consent. Sadly, for murderers, they would have to learn both empathy and remorse. It is hard to comprehend and understand 2 emotions if they lived a life without it

That's a massive myth on your part-serial killers don't continue killing in jail for several reasons-so no he won't spend his entire life in jail killing. You can't claim to kill out of compassion. That's your biggest hypocrisy-it's bad for a murderer to do it but it's fine for the state to do it?

So what about the people incorrectly charged?

[Broken Toy]

That's a massive myth on your part-serial killers don't continue killing in jail for several reasons-so no he won't spend his entire life in jail killing. You can't claim to kill out of compassion. That's your biggest hypocrisy-it's bad for a murderer to do it but it's fine for the state to do it?

So what about the people incorrectly charged?

They WOULD be able to show empathy and remorse. I think therapy is the key. And lets put it this way, the state are running a country, the state would be killing the people unwilling or unable to change, serial killers would be killing innocent people.

[Miserabilia]

oh, it's this thread again.
I say no to the death penalty because of the morals i personaly have higher than others. I think we shouldn't kill for punishment. It contradicts the purpose of punishment.
There's no way to know if it's an actual punishment untill we can proof hell exists for example.
Otherwise the best punishment is to let them live.

Another reason is that the killing of a criminal is for the revenge satisfactin of the popultaion, for example, someone that's raped/mureder alot of people in some town, would be gladly watched killed by the people; heck even tortured in front of them, becasue of that large scale revenge and anger feeling of the people.
However,
to follow these emotions is wrong and it contradicts law and order in our society.
That's why I don't like the idea of a death penalty.

[Harry Smith]

They WOULD be able to show empathy and remorse. I think therapy is the key. And lets put it this way, the state are running a country, the state would be killing the people unwilling or unable to change, serial killers would be killing innocent people.

That doesn't matter.

What would you do about the innocent people you kill?

[Vlerchan]

That isn't how human rights work. We can't revoke someone's human rights like that. Basic human rights vainly be violated in very specific situations. For example, violating someone's right to life is justified if it is in self defence. Without very clear justification, you cannot violate another person's rights.
I presume you forgot ideally?

In reality, rights work how society constructs the to work.

But, in cases where people have killed 3+ people (as they could kill a couple) should have a time scale of therapy, say 3 years. And if they don't make progress and show remorse for their actions and a reformation that they aren't capable to kill again, then they should serve a sentence.
How is it that you determine they have made progress?

Oh so you are saying that if a serial killer is incapable of empathy and remorse for his actions, making him a danger to EVERYONE, he should spend his life in prison and probably killing someone in there, than to end their life so that they are put out of their sad cycle. Its not their fault but they cant change.
probable (adj): likely to happen or be the case.

I might start listening once you can satisfactorily demonstrate that the chance of a convicted killer murdering an innocent person (i.e., a non-other serial killer) in prison is so significant so that it becomes necessary to kill them. I would also then appreciate that if you compared the chances of this happening to the chances of the convicted having been falsely imprisoned.

They WOULD be able to show empathy and remorse.
People suffering from anti-social personality disorder (sociopathy) by definition can't show empathy or remorse.

[Broken Toy]

That doesn't matter.

What would you do about the innocent people you kill?

Yes it does matter. Its the basis of my thought....
And you wouldn't kill innocent people. Please read my earlier post again as i explain that

[Harry Smith]

Yes it does matter. Its the basis of my thought....
And you wouldn't kill innocent people. Please read my earlier post again as i explain that

It doesn't-your idea was based on pseudo psychology that Vlerchan proved to be incorrect in his post above-there's about 10 flaws in the idea of forcing prisoners to undergo therapy or face death

I looked at your post, and it didn't explain it.

About 3 people every year are taken off death row because they're innocent, it's a fact that the death penalty kills people who are not guilty-do you agree with that? Look at this long list

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/innocent-death-penalty-study_n_5228854.html


murder is wrong as its a revenge killing.
But, in cases where people have killed 3+ people (as they could kill a couple) should have a time scale of therapy, say 3 years. And if they don't make progress and show remorse for their actions and a reformation that they aren't capable to kill again, then they should serve a sentence.
But if they show no progress in say 3 years, and they don't show remorse, theyre not reformed, then i think the death penalty is justified as they are dealing with a severely damaged human incapable of change. (but this method would bring up the 'born to kill?' questio

[Broken Toy]

Guys i am really loving that attacks on my opinion. You're telling me that my idea forces people to have therapy or face death, it does but its not a if, or statement. Innocent people would NOT die in my idea of how death row could work because they are not suffering with sociopathy. Unfortunately serial killers with sociopathy cant understand why what they do is wrong as they don't feel for the people they save killed. If a serial killer hasn't got sociopathy then they can have treatment.

My opinion, if its not too much trouble for you.

[Harry Smith]

Innocent people would NOT die in my idea of how death row could work because they are not suffering with sociopathy.

My opinion, if its not too much trouble for you.


And you're still not understanding the issue. I'll do a quick role play

Prison officer: Hey, you murdered someone right

Innocent prisoner: No, I was falsely accused

Prison officer: Why won't you admit your guilt?

Innocent prisoner: Because I didn't do it

Prison officer: Sounds like you don't have any empathy-hang him boys

[Broken Toy]

And you're still not understanding the issue. I'll do a quick role play

Prison officer: Hey, you murdered someone right

Innocent prisoner: No, I was falsely accused

Prison officer: Why won't you admit your guilt?

Innocent prisoner: Because I didn't do it

Prison officer: Sounds like you don't have any empathy-hang him boys

Yeahhhhhh that's not empathy....
That's a confession, and a false one at that

[Harry Smith]

Yeahhhhhh that's not empathy....
That's a confession, and a false one at that

There was no confession in that.

My whole point is what happens to the prisoners who say they're innocent?

[Lovelife090994]

There was no confession in that.

My whole point is what happens to the prisoners who say they're innocent?

And you're still not understanding the issue. I'll do a quick role play

Prison officer: Hey, you murdered someone right

Innocent prisoner: No, I was falsely accused

Prison officer: Why won't you admit your guilt?

Innocent prisoner: Because I didn't do it

Prison officer: Sounds like you don't have any empathy-hang him boys

That was poorly written and thought up. You act like every single person with the death penalty is innocent.

[Gamma Male]

I'm just wondering, what's the acceptable innocent person being executed/ guilty person being executed ratio again? 1 to 10? 1 to 25?

[Harry Smith]

That was poorly written and thought up. You act like every single person with the death penalty is innocent.

You act like every single person with the death penalty is guilty.

[Lovelife090994]

You act like every single person with the death penalty is guilty.

That's an unintellible response. That doesn't address the ratio. Vile people with no regard to life are too dangerous. Usually here in the States we trial and retrial. You have to do something pretty serious to be given death.

[Harry Smith]

That's an unintellible response. That doesn't address the ratio. Vile people with no regard to life are too dangerous. Usually here in the States we trial and retrial. You have to do something pretty serious to be given death.

4.1% of people who are given the death penalty are innocent, what would you do about those 4.1% of people?

[Lovelife090994]

4.1% of people who are given the death penalty are innocent, what would you do about those 4.1% of people?

People will say anything to live. Remember, 96% guilty is still high and good enough. For the innocent minority then we need to investigate. Pulling the death penalty wouldn't be wise. You're acting like 50% accused are innocent.

[Harry Smith]

People will say anything to live. Remember, 96% guilty is still high and good enough. For the innocent minority then we need to investigate. Pulling the death penalty wouldn't be wise. You're acting like 50% accused are innocent.

It's not good enough-how would you feel if you were falsely accused?

I'm not acting like-it's not a case of people saying anything to live-it's a case of judges/lawyers going over case notes and finding out that people simply didn't commit the crime.

It would be rise, the only countries that use it tend to be near authoritarian states like Iran-with the exception of the US. The death penalty doesn't reduce crime either

[Typhlosion]

If you reduce these costs then more innocent people are going to die without getting a retrial. These steps are in place to make sure the victim is innocent

If I'm not wrong, the amount of innocent people executed isn't at a worrying number, or is it? Skimming a google search it showed a percentage of 1%, further increased to 4% based on probability models. [1] Some other one showed 2.3% of cases. [2] The rate is slightly better for people not on the death row, for 2 to 5%. [3] Usually there is a great amount of time (over a decade) from judgment to the actual execution, they've got enough time to revert the case. Also, many of the death sentences that were traced back as innocent were based off newer DNA technology. This should be less of a problem nowadays.

You can't support the death Penalty from a humanic point of view-it's a tad hypocritical imo-look at the recent cases in the US where people have been lying on their back for 2 hours with chemicals pumping through their veins-that's a fuck lot of suffering.

The 1-drug system now used isn't as human as the 3-drug used before. I could even support holding back sentences, to a degree, until we have better execution methods. Truly, this one is much more error-prone, and another lasts also too long. [4] A lifetime in my view, is still worse than a properly done execution. Shouldn't this just be left to the prisoner's own decision? (If execution conditions weren't made harsher as I'm thinking they should be)

I also don't think we should base our legal system on what's cheapest, it would be cheap to give people in hospitals a cyanide vial-but we don't do that because money isn't everything. This might have to with the different perspective I have w/ Brazilian politics, which (very) often involves moving profits into one sector, re-channeling investments from sector to another. However, the US spends over 3 billion each year on prisoners jailed for life. Or, at least 1 billion by the prisoners w/o parole. Expenditure is probably higher, since many state prison's costs are higher than federal costs.[5][6]

It's interesting you bring up prison conditions, because they quite clearly are pretty crap-would you favour more funding for prisons? Considering the awkward situation with private prisons, I would prefer not to opiniate yet. Disregarding those, while I would say a general yes, I'm thinking of spending cuts with more people executed.

What would you do about the innocent people who get killed by the death Penalty?Whoops?

They're dead. Do you want me to suggest some reimbursement to the families that lost their members? I wouldn't be against it, neither fight for it.

There's also a direct link between progressive well off countries not using it e.g UK, France, Sweden, Germany and less progressive and more brutal regimes using it e.g Saudi Arabia, Iran and the US ( I kid) I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned :P

You guys are way better than sources/references than I am. But here are mine. Most of these are really biased.

[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/innocent-death-penalty-study_n_5228854.html
[2]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/innocent-people-us-prisons
[3]: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_many_innocent_people_are_there_in_prison.php
[4]: http://mic.com/articles/77901/even-death-penalty-supporters-will-think-twice-after-learning-how-it-s-actually-carried-out
[5]: http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1636&id=107
[6]: http://www.justice.gov/archive/jmd/1975_2002/2002/html/page117-119.htm

[Harry Smith]

If I'm not wrong, the amount of innocent people executed isn't at a worrying number, or is it? Skimming a google search it showed a percentage of 1%, further increased to 4% based on probability models. [1] Some other one showed 2.3% of cases. [2] The rate is slightly better for people not on the death row, for 2 to 5%. [3] Usually there is a great amount of time (over a decade) from judgment to the actual execution, they've got enough time to revert the case. Also, many of the death sentences that were traced back as innocent were based off newer DNA technology. This should be less of a problem nowadays.



The 1-drug system now used isn't as human as the 3-drug used before. I could even support holding back sentences, to a degree, until we have better execution methods. Truly, this one is much more error-prone, and another lasts also too long. [4] A lifetime in my view, is still worse than a properly done execution. Shouldn't this just be left to the prisoner's own decision? (If execution conditions weren't made harsher as I'm thinking they should be)

This might have to with the different perspective I have w/ Brazilian politics, which (very) often involves moving profits into one sector, re-channeling investments from sector to another. However, the US spends over 3 billion each year on prisoners jailed for life. Or, at least 1 billion by the prisoners w/o parole. Expenditure is probably higher, since many state prison's costs are higher than federal costs.[5][6]

Considering the awkward situation with private prisons, I would prefer not to opiniate yet. Disregarding those, while I would say a general yes, I'm thinking of spending cuts with more people executed.

Whoops?

They're dead. Do you want me to suggest some reimbursement to the families that lost their members? I wouldn't be against it, neither fight for it.

I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned :P

You guys are way better than sources/references than I am. But here are mine. Most of these are really biased.



Most sources are biased, so don't worry-it's just a question of the actual numbers being correct.

The numbers of innocents killed is around the 4% mark, give or take-and that's simply too high-4% too high. The worst issue is that the majority of these people are from ethnic minorities and poor-see the Pistorius case for example, he was able to afford a top defence lawyer (probably cost 10 million+) the issue is that most people can't do this-and thus the people most affected by wrongful prosecution are the poorer more vulnerable people of society. Even with DNA tech it's still not solved- I'm sure people said the same in the 1930's when fingerprints emerged.

Gross said that this explains the 200 or so missing people highlighted by his study – men and women who are innocent and yet have not been exonerated.

The problem with the lethal injection is that everyone has been saying that it's safe and an improvement when in fact ti's not-there was a case a couple of weeks where it took 3 hours to die

The main problem is that I'm sure many people like this, I'm not saying you do but I've seen people who actually get happy at the prospect of a prisoner spending 3 hours dying, likewise I'm sure people are happy with the risk.

Does the fact that most European/Western nations have abolished it mean anything for you?

[Typhlosion]

The numbers of innocents killed is around the 4% mark, give or take-and that's simply too high-4% too high. The worst issue is that the majority of these people are from ethnic minorities and poor-see the Pistorius case for example, he was able to afford a top defence lawyer (probably cost 10 million+) the issue is that most people can't do this-and thus the people most affected by wrongful prosecution are the poorer more vulnerable people of society. Even with DNA tech it's still not solved- I'm sure people said the same in the 1930's when fingerprints emerged. In modern times, the number was approximately at 2.3%, almost half of 4%. And technology is progressing to reduce mistakes. Of course, those will happen. But...
and that's simply too high-4% too high.
Do you mean that as long as there's an innocent involved, the death penalty shouldn't exist? Or reduced to some less significant percentage?

The problem with the lethal injection is that everyone has been saying that it's safe and an improvement when in fact ti's not-there was a case a couple of weeks where it took 3 hours to die

The main problem is that I'm sure many people like this, I'm not saying you do but I've seen people who actually get happy at the prospect of a prisoner spending 3 hours dying, likewise I'm sure people are happy with the risk.

I do recognize that some executions have been atrocities, and am not in favor of such atrocities. I could even support holding back sentences, to a degree, until we have better execution methods.

I agree with capital punishment on moral grounds and incentivize it to reduce spending. Not as an action of revenge.

Does the fact that most European/Western nations have abolished it mean anything for you?Weak argument: It tells me that nations with generally more modern views and morals do not support it - however, a popular view isn't a great proof of if something is or isn't acceptable, morally or legally. Views of morality change over time, through economic, military, and societal changes.

[Harry Smith]

In modern times, the number was approximately at 2.3%, almost half of 4%. And technology is progressing to reduce mistakes. Of course, those will happen. But...

Do you mean that as long as there's an innocent involved, the death penalty shouldn't exist? Or reduced to some less significant percentage?



I do recognize that some executions have been atrocities, and am not in favor of such atrocities.

I agree with capital punishment on moral grounds and incentivize it to reduce spending. Not as an action of revenge.

Weak argument: It tells me that nations with generally more modern views and morals do not support it - however, a popular view isn't a great proof of if something is or isn't acceptable, morally or legally. Views of morality change over time, through economic, military, and societal changes.

In modern times the number is 4% due to various inaccuracies, but this is something you can argue over for ever.

The issue is that 4% or 2% is too high, we shouldn't have the death Penalty at all, for these reasons (which I'll happily expand on)
-It doesn't lower crime rates, agree?
-It costs more, agree?
-It leaves traumatic scars for those involded,agree?
-Innocents die, as I said before they tend to be A) Poor B) Ethnic minorities

Weak argument: It tells me that nations with generally more modern views and morals do not support it - however, a popular view isn't a great proof of if something is or isn't acceptable, morally or legally. Views of morality change over time, through economic, military, and societal changes.

It's the complete opposite of that, it's supported by members of the public the most-maybe I'm just naive but the fact that our MP's took it away despite public support shows that it's really not in the interests of society (for the reasons above) I could expand on how it links to other progressive issues (gay rights etc) but the fact that it's no longer used in such high quantities around the world suggests there's something wrong with it right?

[DeadEyes]

Death is unavoidable, it's just a good thing if criminals die sooner.
Besides, who cares if a few innocents die in the process, we all have to die sooner or later.

[Gamma Male]

Death is unavoidable, it's just a good thing if criminals die sooner.
Besides, who cares if a few innocents die in the process, we all have to die sooner or later.

Seriously?

[DeadEyes]

Seriously?

Seriously, of course.
I would much rather die than spend 20 years in prison while innocent.

[Gamma Male]

Seriously, of course.
I would much rather die than spend 20 years in prison while innocent.

But the point is if you are later discovered to have been innocent the decision is reversible and you can be freed. But you can't be brought back from the dead.

Besides, if you actually want to die you can just comment suicide.

[DeadEyes]

But the point is if you are later discovered to have been innocent the decision is reversible and you can be freed. But you can't be brought back from the dead.

Besides, if you actually want to die you can just comment suicide.

The point, is that you actually are missing the point.
If your case is revised and you are then freed, you still spend 20 years in jail while innocent.
If I were sentenced to that (innocent or not, that is) I would actually do that, commit suicide.

[Gamma Male]

If I were sentenced to that (innocent or not, that is) I would actually do that, commit suicide.

Yes. By being sentenced you are given a choice between life in prison with the hope of someday being proven innocent, or dying by suicide.

If you are sentenced to death you are given no such choice.

[DeadEyes]

Yes. By being sentenced you are given a choice between life in prison with the hope of someday being proven innocent, or dying by suicide.

If you are sentenced to death you are given no such choice.

Then again, we don't have the choice to eventually die, anyway.

[Lovelife090994]

It's not good enough-how would you feel if you were falsely accused?

I'm not acting like-it's not a case of people saying anything to live-it's a case of judges/lawyers going over case notes and finding out that people simply didn't commit the crime.

It would be rise, the only countries that use it tend to be near authoritarian states like Iran-with the exception of the US. The death penalty doesn't reduce crime either

So as long as any innocents die, you are against it? Every punishment in some way has always involved innocents. The truly mad, and guilty deserve to die. If Hitler were alive today he'd get death. No one wants to let a monster live. End of discussion, the US is not Iran but one thing we may agree on; monstrous people deserve to die when they have no regard to life

[Harry Smith]

The truly mad, and guilty deserve to die. monstrous people deserve to die when they have no regard to life

That's unconstitutional. And no I'm against the death Penalty full stop because it's more expensive, doesn't decrease crime rates and simply doesn't work

Do you have regard for life?

Every punishment in some way has always involved innocents

the death Penalty is the only one to kill them

If Hitler were alive today he'd get death

But he's not

[DeadEyes]

Do you have regard for life?

I don't in general, but even less so for the lives of criminal scumbags.

[Harry Smith]

I don't in general, but even less so for the lives of criminal scumbags.

what about the innocent scumbags?

[DeadEyes]

what about the innocent scumbags?

Read my previous posts.

[Harry Smith]

Read my previous posts.

I did, and you claimed that the person should kill themselves. I don't think that's sound advice

[Lovelife090994]

That's unconstitutional. And no I'm against the death Penalty full stop because it's more expensive, doesn't decrease crime rates and simply doesn't work

Do you have regard for life?



the death Penalty is the only one to kill them



But he's not

Actually having prisoners in a failed system for life is more expensive. And I have regard for life but support the death penalty to kill the worse of humanity.

[Harry Smith]

Actually having prisoners in a failed system for life is more expensive.

That's not correct.

Defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not sought, according to a new study by the Kansas Judicial Council. Examining 34 potential death-penalty cases from 2004-2011, the study found that defense costs for death penalty trials averaged $395,762 per case, compared to $98,963 per case when the death penalty was not sought. Costs incurred by the trial court showed a similar disparity: $72,530 for cases with the death penalty; $21,554 for those without. Even in cases that ended in a guilty plea and did not go to trial, cases where the death penalty was sought incurred about twice the costs for both defense ($130,595 v. $64,711) and courts ($16,263 v. $7,384), compared to cases where death was not sought. The time spent on death cases was also much higher. Jury trials averaged 40.13 days in cases where the death penalty was being sought, but only 16.79 days when it was not an option. Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court assigned to write opinions estimated they spent 20 times more hours on death penalty appeals than on non-death appeals. The Department of Corrections said housing prisoners on death row cost more than twice as much per year ($49,380) as for prisoners in the general population ($24,690).

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/KSCost2014.pdf

Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012)

The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:

$1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
$925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
$775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
$1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-study-2011

[DeadEyes]

I did, and you claimed that the person should kill themselves. I don't think that's sound advice

I said that we don't have the choice to eventually die, anyway.
And I'm not trying to advise anything, just sharing my views, as we all do.

Actually having prisoners in a failed system for life is more expensive. And I have regard for life but support the death penalty to kill the worse of humanity.

And the humanity is more than due for a good purge. If a few so called innocents have to die for that, I don't mind, many more innocent people die everyday randomly.

[Lovelife090994]

That's not correct.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/KSCost2014.pdf



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-study-2011

The costs of a prisoner per year is anywhere from $30k to $60k a year every year until the inmate dies. Would you rather pay over $1 million for an inmate sentenced to life times how every many others are sent to jail for life or pay the one time death sentence injection fee? California eh? Well I already know that is wrong because we spend over $2billion a year on our prisoners and that outweighs the military spending. In America we may not sentence as often but we sentence you longer which costs us more. Inmates get food, shelter, boarding, medical care, and access to fitness and recreational activities including work if well-behaved. That all costs money we don't really have. Hard to write checks for $2 B when all you have is $1 B. Vlogbrothers did a good video on the costs. Now to the deaths... most don't care if an inmate found guilty dies. Why? Because why should my sister's murderer get to live?

I said that we don't have the choice to eventually die, anyway.
And I'm not trying to advise anything, just sharing my views, as we all do.



And the humanity is more than due for a good purge. If a few so called innocents have to die for that, I don't mind, many more innocent people die everyday randomly.

I agree to this too.

[Typhlosion]

In modern times the number is 4% due to various inaccuracies, but this is something you can argue over for ever.

The issue is that 4% or 2% is too high, we shouldn't have the death Penalty at all, for these reasons (which I'll happily expand on)

-It doesn't lower crime rates, agree?Most agree that there isn't much evidence in lowering crime rates, but this guy finds otherwise [1]. North Carolina's rates did lower, however, after capital punishment was banned. [2]

What about Florida's anti-gun campaign, the 10-20-somthing? Imposing harsher sentences did work; and, if more executions were performed I believe that the people would be intimidated.
-It costs more, agree? Yes. We should be working towards minimalizing these costs (not only related to the many trials to appeal, which are ok, but the loads of other bureaucracy could be reduced, as well as security) would be ideal. In today's world, yes.
-It leaves traumatic scars for those involded,agree? Undisagreeable.
-Innocents die, as I said before they tend to be A) Poor B) Ethnic minorities Innocents will always be part of any process, there are still innocent people dying in war and being incorrectly judged. I don't see 2-4% too big of a number, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Ethnic minorities and poor people also tend to be imprisoned more, justfully. I'd be interested if such people are more innocently killed than their proportion imprisoned.


It's the complete opposite of that, it's supported by members of the public the most-maybe I'm just naive but the fact that our MP's took it away despite public support shows that it's really not in the interests of society (for the reasons above) I could expand on how it links to other progressive issues (gay rights etc) but the fact that it's no longer used in such high quantities around the world suggests there's something wrong with it right?I didn't think of popular as in populace, just as a synonym to 'common'.

[1]: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15216 and http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983
[2]: http://nccadp.org/issues/deterrence/


------------------------

------------------------


Yes. By being sentenced you are given a choice between life in prison with the hope of someday being proven innocent, or dying by suicide.

If you are sentenced to death you are given no such choice.

The death row lasts a fair amount of time, you'll still have 10-20 years in hope of becoming innocent. People on the death row can still appeal.

[phuckphace]

I think it's a necessary evil. we have to be diligent in culling the most dangerous individuals for the safety of the public. I also think we need to bring back public executions (srsly) as it helped serve as a very visible and jarring reminder to everyone witnessing it of the consequences of committing crimes.

[Vlerchan]

Right.

This should be less of a problem nowadays.
The problem is that regardless of which statistic we're using it remains a problem and will always be a problem.

I don't like the idea of taking such a massive risk in the name of no tangible benefits.

If execution conditions weren't made harsher as I'm thinking they should be.
I disagree that we should deliberately attempt to be more inhumane but I know this is a point I'm hardly going to be able to make you agree with.

Disregarding those, while I would say a general yes, I'm thinking of spending cuts with more people executed.
I hope you realise that legal costs are the problem here.

Good luck taking on the Law Lobby is you go down that route.

[When asked what about the innocents that were bound to be killed:]

Whoops?
It's strange that you'd hold such a tough stance on delivering justice but be so unbothered with justice itself.

I agree with capital punishment on moral grounds and incentivize it to reduce spending.
Would you mind explaining the morality of committing acts with definitive, unretractable, and uncompensationable consequences on the basis of a belief?

And incentivize how?

Imposing harsher sentences did work; and, if more executions were performed I believe that the people would be intimidated.
I read this as:

Just do as I say. It will all work out eventually. I promise.

Am I reading wrong?

... there are still innocent people dying in war and being incorrectly judged.
I don't see how this is comparable.

Capital Punishment is a deliberate and state-mandated killing of one of its own civilian citizens.

Judging someone is not final or incompensatable or unretractable unlike capital punishment.

Killing an innocent in war is not deliberate (when it is, that's a crime) or called for by unaffected majorities unlike capital punishment.

[Typhlosion]

Right.

The problem is that regardless of which statistic we're using it remains a problem and will always be a problem.

I don't like the idea of taking such a massive risk in the name of no tangible benefits.
Present-day benefits are very few, truly. Currently we'd just have a few more jobs coupled with a greater spending.

I disagree that we should deliberately attempt to be more inhumane but I know this is a point I'm hardly going to be able to make you agree with.I meant to say that more executions were performed, as conditions necessary to perform were reduced; not how the executions were performed were more clue.

I hope you realise that legal costs are the problem here.I realize that. I am aware that the costs of maintaining one on the death row, in the US, are more than triple of that of maintaining a prison sentenced for life.

This doesn't mean that these costs shouldn't be minimized to more than make the death penalty a viable option. For example, the extra security they receive, and a reduction of the legal processes related to the death sentence (not necessarily reducing money on appeals)

Would you mind explaining the morality of committing acts with definitive, unretractable, and uncompensationable consequences on the basis of a belief?

And incentivize how?
I read this as:

Just do as I say. It will all work out eventually. I promise.

Am I reading wrong??

It has worked in the past for crimes related to other sentences. Due to the lack of resources available on the subject (please correct me, if possible) this can only be left to speculation.

It's strange that you'd hold such a tough stance on delivering justice but be so unbothered with justice itself.I don't see how this is comparable.

Capital Punishment is a deliberate and state-mandated killing of one of its own civilian citizens.

Judging someone is not final or incompensatable or unretractable unlike capital punishment.

Killing an innocent in war is not deliberate (when it is, that's a crime) or called for by unaffected majorities unlike capital punishment.Sorry, it's hard for me to not be apathetic. They're comparable as a number of innocent people dying.

You can both appeal on the death row and on normal sentences. After the appeals are done (and have failed) there's pretty much nothing left beyond prison or death. I'd rather have a person dead (that would incur less costs, in a not-current government) than one alive that does nothing bud

[Vlerchan]

Present-day benefits are very few, truly. Currently we'd just have a few more jobs coupled with a greater spending.
Right. So currently there's no reason to even consider supporting it.

This doesn't mean that these costs shouldn't be minimized to more than make the death penalty a viable option. For example, the extra security they receive, and a reduction of the legal processes related to the death sentence (not necessarily reducing money on appeals)
I've found these states to have their costs tracked the best:

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission (http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/CCFAJFinalReport.pdf) estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
If you read the second line you'd spot that costs are likely to move upwards as opposed to downwards.

The study (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf) examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

It's notable that it costs more at every stage: I'd imagine that it would be simply impossible to reduce costs for a capital-punishment inclusive system below that of a non-capital punishment inclusive system. Even if you can convince people that we don't need the extra appeals and post-trial safeguards that work to exonerate an average four people a year or convince the general population that the most dangerous men and woman in your country need less security, you're still going to be running over.

In terms of an economic argument for the death penalty, there is no argument.

---

You also didn't give me that moral argument.

It has worked in the past for crimes related to other sentences.
I agree that what's been produced about the effectiveness is mixed. I find that what makes the difference is what variables you include and what variables you disclude. I can post some studies arguing for and some studies arguing against. I don't believe I'm learned enough in analysing streams of data to really be able to say which one you should rely on.

I would be of the opinion though that given that murders are primarily the result of a) impulse and b) passion as opposed to financial gain (as in the case of a number of other crimes) a general deterrent is unlikely at best - esp. considering that murderers don't intend to get caught when it comes to the latter so any fear would be numbed. Regardless I believe there's more cost efficient ways to deter crime that a reinstatement of the death penalty, primarily investment in our social infrastructure and movements away from the current economic model.

They're comparable as a number of innocent people dying.
I have no idea why you don't believe context is important.

Do you also believe that there's no difference between a) a man being beaten up in a boxing match, b) a man being beaten up in a backstreet mugging and c) me swinging my hand back and accidentally breaking someone's nose. All involve someone being hurt though I'd believe that the contextual difference should evoke different responses.

I'd rather have a person dead (that would incur less costs, in a not-current government) than one alive that does nothing bud
This is untrue.

You'll find that most of the costs are involved in trials and appeals processes. It is more expensive to maintain death row prisoners in prisons though. However the costs can be reduced here by simply making them not death row prisoners. I can see though why you'd want to get "your money's worth" after spending all that money on legal fees convincing yourself that these people actually deserve to die in the first place.

---

I've also decided that on long-ish posts I'm going to include a link to the song that was playing when I finished typing. It seems like an imaginative way to introduce people to good music.

[soundtrack] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koQ2iVu2Uo4)

[DeadEyes]

The law system is far from perfect, but it's not an excuse to not allow death penalty.

[Vlerchan]

The law system is far from perfect, but it's not an excuse to not allow death penalty.
Would you mind expanding on what you believe the benefits of the death penalty are? Thank you.

[DeadEyes]

Would you mind expanding on what you believe the benefits of the death penalty are? Thank you.

Cleaning up society, simple as that.

[Gamma Male]

Cleaning up society, simple as that.

Would life sentences in secure facilities not accomplish the same thing?

[Vlerchan]

Cleaning up society, simple as that.
Would you mind explaining now how removing convicted murderers from society [ed: and placing them in secure facilities] doesn't count as "cleaning it up"?

[DeadEyes]

Would life sentences in secure facilities not accomplish the same thing?

Would you mind explaining now how removing convicted murderers from society [ed: and placing them in secure facilities] doesn't count as "cleaning it up"?

Prisons are the landfills of our society.

[Gamma Male]

Prisons are the landfills of our society.

I was looking more for an actual way in which the death penalty accomplishes something prisons don't rather than an obscure metaphor.

[Vlerchan]

Prisons are the landfills of our society.
Would you mind explaining now how removing convicted murderers from society [ed: and placing them in secure facilities] doesn't count as "cleaning it up"?

[DeadEyes]

I was looking more for an actual way in which the death penalty accomplishes something prisons don't rather than an obscure metaphor.

Then, you will need to look elsewhere.

[Typhlosion]

I've found these states to have their costs tracked the best:

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission (http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/CCFAJFinalReport.pdf) estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.



The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.



The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.



The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
I've been seeing way, way less disparate values than these.

You've convinced me, it's not worth fighting for.

Thank you.

[Broken Toy]

Questioon.

Is it psychologically harming to put someone in prison for the rest of their life when they no there is no chance of getting out?


Quote me thanks...

[DeadEyes]

Is it psychologically harming to put someone in prison for the rest of their life when they no there is no chance of getting out?

Of course it is, so might as well put them out of their misery.

[Miserabilia]

Of course it is, so might as well put them out of their misery.

So... You want to... help, people who were sentenced to life...
You feel... sorry? for them? And,. that's why you want to use the death penalty on them?
That's... Not even...

[Vlerchan]

Is it psychologically harming to put someone in prison for the rest of their life when they no there is no chance of getting out
It's damaging to detain people in-general:

The prison system has been used as a form of punishment and deterrence for centuries. Many people do realize that conditions in prisons are often times inhumane and cause negative psychological effects on inmates. In recent years, psychologists and researchers have begun to take a closer look at these effects and what causes them as well as what we can do as a society to eliminate them. Studies have found that anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are common in those who have lived in prison for a long period of time and who are accustomed to prison life. These negative symptoms and disorders follow the individuals even after they have been released and can prevent them from living a successful life upon their reentry to society. Rehabilitation programs have been suggested as a solution to this problem and research is beginning to develop more effective ways of helping released inmates. There is still a great deal that we have to learn about the negative effects of prison as well as how to effectively treat them.

http://chrystalwriting101.wordpress.com/literature-review/psychological-effects-of-long-term-incarceration/

It's worse for people on death row though:

The phrase death row syndrome, or death row phenomenon, was adopted to describe the psychological effects of living on death row. Some psychiatrists and lawyers argue that the conditions on death row and the protracted amount of time spent there can make prisoners delusional, violently insane or suicidal.

http://www.scu.edu/news/rossdeathpenalty.cfm

Dr. Grassian4 described a number of severe psychiatric reactions to these conditions, which together have come to be referred to in legal venues as death row syndrome. A small body of literature5 has emerged since then that supports the finding that severe conditions of confinement can and often do produce severe psychopathologic reactions. [...] The symptoms described both by Dr. Grassian4 and in the review by Haney5 include the fullest panoply of severe symptoms, from extreme anxiety, to dissociation, to full-blown psychosis.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/33/2/153.full

[asrlem]

The death penalty should not be used in any case because if they are executing a murderer with for example an electric chair then suddenly the person who flipped the switch for the electric chair is now a murderer. Also what if the jury made a wrong judgment. They are all murder planners basically. Also if there is an innocent person then it is just wrong. Every person jave a right to "life, liberty, and property"- Sam Adams
That is just my response if you disagree with me read the novel The Innocent Man by John Grisham. Its based on a true story of rape and murder and this man gets put on death row for all the wrong reasons.

The point, is that you actually are missing the point.
If your case is revised and you are then freed, you still spend 20 years in jail while innocent.
If I were sentenced to that (innocent or not, that is) I would actually do that, commit suicide.
Now here is the thing is that you can sue if you are innocent and some cases actually get thru and you get a large sum of money. Read the novel the Innocent Man if you think i am wrong.

Please don't double post. Use the 'edit', 'quote', and 'multiquote' buttons to avoid this. ~Typhlosion

[DeadEyes]

So... You want to... help, people who were sentenced to life...
You feel... sorry? for them? And,. that's why you want to use the death penalty on them?
That's... Not even...

I don't feel sorry for anybody.

[James Dean]

It has to go down to what the case was and who the person was. Like if it was a case to where it wasn't much evidence supporting the suspect and they are sent to death row, then I don't agree with that. Because that could have been an innocent person they just killed. However, if it's someone who is a serial killer or just a danger to society and shows no remorse or anything, they deserve to be sent to death.

[Miserabilia]

I don't feel sorry for anybody.

Saying
might as well put them out of their misery

Directly implies that you want to releif their misery, which implies you feel sorry for them.
Unless what you posted was completely irrelevant and you can ofcourse admit that this is not a proper argument at all

[DeadEyes]

Saying


Directly implies that you want to releif their misery, which implies you feel sorry for them.
Unless what you posted was completely irrelevant and you can ofcourse admit that this is not a proper argument at all

The fact they are indeed living in misery doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for them.
And I couldn't care less wether my argument was "proper" or not.
Besides, you apparently never heard the saying "I'll put you out of your misery" which is not implying that you feel sorry for the person whatsoever.

[Miserabilia]

The fact they are indeed living in misery doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for them.

Ofcourse it doesn't, but "putting them out of their misery" as an argument for their death penalty must imply one of two things

- you actualy feel sorry for them and want to spare them pain by killing them
- you have no actual argument and just want to kill them



And I couldn't care less wether my argument was "proper" or not.

What I mean with proper was logicaly following. I have a poor choice of words sometimes.


Besides, you apparently never heard the saying "I'll put you out of your misery" which is not implying that you feel sorry for the person whatsoever.

It is when you say "I want to have a death penalty because the pycological effects of life long emprisonment makes me want to put them out of their misery"

[DeadEyes]

Ofcourse it doesn't, but "putting them out of their misery" as an argument for their death penalty must imply one of two things

- you actualy feel sorry for them and want to spare them pain by killing them
- you have no actual argument and just want to kill them




What I mean with proper was logicaly following. I have a poor choice of words sometimes.



It is when you say "I want to have a death penalty because the pycological effects of life long emprisonment makes me want to put them out of their misery"

Quite right, I have no argument and I just want them to die. Poor choice of words, indeed. If I could put most of them "out of their misery" myself, I would (but that is obviously illegal).

[Vlerchan]

I have no argument and I just want them to die.
And this sums up the pro-death camp.

[DeadEyes]

And this sums up the pro-death camp.

For me, it's not even an argument, so I don't believe in the need of so called elaborated arguments that are, in the end, nonsense.
There is an obvious problem with over population and there's people who wants to keep the worst of humanity alive, absolute nonsense.

[Vlerchan]

For me, it's not even an argument, so I don't believe in the need of so called elaborated arguments that are, in the end, nonsense.
Keep digging if you want I suppose.

There is an obvious problem with over population and there's people who wants to keep the worst of humanity alive, absolute nonsense.
You'll find that capital punishment uses up more resources than life-imprisonment.

I produced evidence supporting this claim on page 3.

[DeadEyes]

You'll find that capital punishment uses up more resources than life-imprisonment.

Which is yet another nonsense.
And what does the flaws of the system has anything to do with the philosophical principle of the death penalty?

[Miserabilia]

Which is yet another nonsense.

As Vlerchan said, on page three of this thread he posted numorous clear evidence. The claim is far from nonsense, it's supported by official data.


And what does the flaws of the system has anything to do with the philosophical principle of the death penalty?

The philosophical principle of "i just want them dead"?
what philosophical principle are you referring too?
Do you just mean revenge?
Because in that manner, it's better to have them locked up; atleast you'll be guaranteed to punish them. If there is an afterlife, we wont know if they'll be punished there. We can't base our law on a religious idea of an afterlife such as hell.

[Vlerchan]

Which is yet another nonsense.

Retrieved from page 3:

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission (http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/CCFAJFinalReport.pdf) estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

The study (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf) examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

And what does the flaws of the system has anything to do with the philosophical principle of the death penalty?
I consider putting personal values and principals ahead of empirical evidence to be moronic.

I also don't believe a modern justice system should be built around ideas such as 'revenge'.

[DeadEyes]

As Vlerchan said, on page three of this thread he posted numorous clear evidence. The claim is far from nonsense, it's supported by official data.



The philosophical principle of "i just want them dead"?
what philosophical principle are you referring too?
Do you just mean revenge?
Because in that manner, it's better to have them locked up; atleast you'll be guaranteed to punish them. If there is an afterlife, we wont know if they'll be punished there. We can't base our law on a religious idea of an afterlife such as hell.

The nonsense is the fact that it does cost more to execute a prisoner, than keep him imprisoned.
It's not as much a matter of revenge (although it is, up to a certain point) but justice. Some people just don't deserve to live, and as you said so well, we can't base the law on the idea that a so called god will send them to hell, we are the only judges.
And we are on our own to clean the society.

I also don't believe a modern justice system should be built around ideas such as 'revenge'.

Then, you live in an a utopia, my dear friend. Revenge has more to do with justice than the law does.

Please use the 'multiquote'/'edit' buttons and do not double post. ~Typhlosion

[Vlerchan]

The nonsense is the fact that it does cost more to execute a prisoner, than keep him imprisoned.
As long as we can agree that your original claim was untrue I don't care what you think about the truth.

Some people just don't deserve to live.
Why?

And we are on our own to clean the society.
From earlier:

Would you mind explaining now how removing convicted murderers from society [ed: and placing them in secure facilities] doesn't count as "cleaning it up"?

Revenge has more to do with justice than the law does.
In your opinion. Though I'm not sure what you're saying even makes sense.

Our legal systems stated grounds for its existence are to:
punish criminals, as to deter others from engaging in the same activities.reform criminals, as to ensure that such individuals can then engage lawfully in society on release.allow criminals pay back their dues to society, through community service etc.
I don't see a reason why we need consider revenge coming into that.

[DeadEyes]

As long as we can agree that your original claim was untrue I don't care what you think about the truth.


Why?


From earlier:

Would you mind explaining now how removing convicted murderers from society [ed: and placing them in secure facilities] doesn't count as "cleaning it up"?


In your opinion. Though I'm not sure what you're saying even makes sense.

Our legal systems stated grounds for its existence are to:
punish criminals, as to deter others from engaging in the same activities.reform criminals, as to ensure that such individuals can then engage lawfully in society on release.allow criminals pay back their dues to society, through community service etc.
I don't see a reason why we need consider revenge coming into that.

We're spinning around in circles here, and it's getting quite boring.
First of all, pointing out it doesn't make sense it's costing more to execute than imprison was my first claim.
Now, you have the worst rapists and murdering monsters living the big life in jail and you simply ask why such people would deserve to die? I think I'm not the moron here.
We pollute the planet by dumping thrash in landfills and do the same with society by dumping human garbage in prison, that's what my previous "obscure metaphor" was about.

[Vlerchan]

First of all, pointing out it doesn't make sense it's costing more to execute than imprison was my first claim.
Right. Well that's what happens.

Now, you have the worst rapists and murdering monsters living the big life in jail and you simply ask why such people would deserve to die? I think I'm not the moron here.
Please don't assume that I hold the same mindset as you. I don't. I'd also still appreciate that explanation.

I also never called you a 'moran'. I called your ideals 'moronic'.

We pollute the planet by dumping thrash in landfills and do the same with society by dumping human garbage in prison, that's what my previous "obscure metaphor" was about.
It's notable that landfills are where garbage goes when we choose to dispose of the garbage in our communities.

In real terms though I'd appreciate an explanation as to why locking people up doesn't equate to cleaning society up.

[DeadEyes]

Right. Well that's what happens.


Please don't assume that I hold the same mindset as you. I don't. I'd also still appreciate that explanation.

I also never called you a 'moran'. I called your ideals 'moronic'.


It's notable that landfills are where garbage goes when we choose to dispose of the garbage in our communities.

In real terms though I'd appreciate an explanation as to why locking people up doesn't equate to cleaning society up.

You got to be kidding me right? This is for real?
I guess it is so first, telling somebody he has stupid ideas is implying that person is stupid (DUH?)
Secondly, obviously you are not in the same mindset as I am, there was really no need to even mention it.
And last, you really didn't get the parallel between the thrash pollution and overfilled prisons did you?

[Vlerchan]

You got to be kidding me right? This is for real?
I am being real.

I guess it is so first, telling somebody he has stupid ideas is implying that person is stupid (DUH?)
I guess if you want to take it as that you can.

I don't presume such things though.

Secondly, obviously you are not in the same mindset as I am, there was really no need to even mention it.
Please just answer my earlier question. Thank you.

And last, you really didn't get the parallel between the thrash pollution and overfilled prisons did you?
I explained in my response how I interpreted your metaphor. You're free to correct me if you want.

Are you going to respond to my request besides this?

[DeadEyes]

Are you going to respond to my request besides this?

How putting people in jail is not cleaning the society?
My metaphor was the answer to your question. But ok, it's annoying to have a question answered by a question but I must now:
How putting garbage in landfills is not cleaning the planet?

[Vlerchan]

My metaphor was the answer to your question.
I don't believe your metaphor works. See:

It's notable that landfills are where garbage goes when we choose to dispose of the garbage in our communities.

How putting garbage in landfills is not cleaning the planet?
I do believe that moving garbage to a landfill contributes to cleaning up society.

The garbage is removed from where I have to interact with it.

---

I'm also still waiting to know why some people deserve to die.

[DeadEyes]

The garbage is removed from where I have to interact with it.

Ah, so there we have it, out of sight, out of mind eh? As long as it's not in your courtyard, it doesn't matter anymore.

[Vlerchan]

Ah, so there we have it, out of sight, out of mind eh?
In the case of garbage yes.

In the case of prisoners I've produced numerous lines of reasoning. Feel free to address them.

---

I'm just going to presume you don't know why some people deserve to die.

[DeadEyes]

I'm just going to presume you don't know why some people deserve to die.

I think I've mentioned the words, rapists, murderous monsters. I think it's more than enough.

Besides, since apparently it does cost more to send prisoners to execution than keep them in prison, that must be the real reason why death penalty is not legal anymore in most places.

Use the 'edit' button. Do not double post. ~Typhlosion.

[Vlerchan]

I think I've mentioned the words, rapists, murderous monsters. I think it's more than enough.
It's not for me. Because as I said, and you realise, we don't share the same mindset.

Is it because you find their actions to be of heightened immorality?

[Capto]

It's not for me. Because as I said, and you realise, we don't share the same mindset.

Is it because you find their actions to be of heightened immorality?

Good to see you still around.

As for myself personally, I don't care about the death penalty. Either way it does not affect me in a significant manner at all.

[dakeep18]

I'm for it because keeping criminals is a lot of tax money

[Miserabilia]

I'm for it because keeping criminals is a lot of tax money

It costs more tax money to pend the death penalty than to keep prisoners for life.

[DeadEyes]

It costs more tax money to pend the death penalty than to keep prisoners for life.

The same circular reasoning, over and over again. The point of reasoning and thinking through is not to camp on such worthless facts but to think out of the box and see the meaning behind it.
The fact it does cost more to execute a prisoner than keep him in jail is an aberration, it shouldn't work that way.
Yet, as I've already stated, the flaws of the system (such as this) is not a reason to not apply death penalty.
The principle itself of capitol punishment is to evacuate the rotten apples out of our society once and for all and using a flaw in the system of law as an argument is ridiculous.
The system will be flawed no matter what, wether there is death penalty or not, and it has nothing to do with the principle itself.

[Vlerchan]

In other words: despite the fact that it's flawed in every measurable way (as compared to life sentencing) we should continue to use it so some people can feel good about themselves.

Right.

[DeadEyes]

In other words: despite the fact that it's flawed in every measurable way (as compared to life sentencing) we should continue to use it so some people can feel good about themselves.

Right.

I've said THE LAW is flawed, not the death penalty in itself.
The law is flawed this is a fact, wether capital punishment is part of it or not doesn't change that fact.

[Miserabilia]

The same circular reasoning, over and over again. The point of reasoning and thinking through is not to camp on such worthless facts but to think out of the box and see the meaning behind it.
The fact it does cost more to execute a prisoner than keep him in jail is an aberration, it shouldn't work that way.
Yet, as I've already stated, the flaws of the system (such as this) is not a reason to not apply death penalty.
The principle itself of capitol punishment is to evacuate the rotten apples out of our society once and for all and using a flaw in the system of law as an argument is ridiculous.
The system will be flawed no matter what, wether there is death penalty or not, and it has nothing to do with the principle itself.

I'm doubting whether you are actualy aware of the meaning of what a circular argument is, or just don't have a counter argument.
I'm not using tax costs as an argument against death penalty, because, obviously, like you said, the system can be changed to have it cost less money. I was merely pointing out that what he said was not true; the claim that it currently costs more to keep them alive than sentence the deah penalty is simply not true.
How would you suggest they change the procedure? Just skip the nonsense and kill them right away?

[DeadEyes]

I'm doubting whether you are actualy aware of the meaning of what a circular argument is, or just don't have a counter argument.
I'm not using tax costs as an argument against death penalty, because, obviously, like you said, the system can be changed to have it cost less money. I was merely pointing out that what he said was not true; the claim that it currently costs more to keep them alive than sentence the deah penalty is simply not true.
How would you suggest they change the procedure? Just skip the nonsense and kill them right away?

Doubt as you will and my point is this argument was used more than once in this debate. Unlike some of you who I have seen trying to play the deciders who make those law, I'm not going to improvise myself as someone who is able, or willing to change the laws.

[Miserabilia]

Doubt as you will and my point is this argument was used more than once in this debate.

Could you please explain this sentence? It's not making any sense to me.

Unlike some of you who I have seen trying to play the deciders who make those law, I'm not going to improvise myself as someone who is able, or willing to change the laws.

Trying to play the deciders?
I'm not claiming I'm able to change the laws. However, if you say that the law is flawed, surely you have some kind of image of how the law would be if it's not flawed?
I'm not requesting you actualy take action to change this, I understand that that would basicly be impossible,
but just explain how you would like to see the death penalty be, and in what way that would save money compared to how it's now.

[DeadEyes]

Could you please explain this sentence? It's not making any sense to me.



Trying to play the deciders?
I'm not claiming I'm able to change the laws. However, if you say that the law is flawed, surely you have some kind of image of how the law would be if it's not flawed?
I'm not requesting you actualy take action to change this, I understand that that would basicly be impossible,
but just explain how you would like to see the death penalty be, and in what way that would save money compared to how it's now.

The argument stating it costs more to execute a prisoner rather than imprison him was used quite a few times in this debate, in response to whatever had to do with death penalty.
For me, it does not matter, as I've said I still believe in the fundamental principle of capitol punishment no matter what.
I was talking about the fact an ideal society is an utopia in another topic, due to the corrupted and flawed human nature.
Therefore, there is no way the law system could be flawless, but then again, nothing is perfect. But to make it at least a bit better, cut off all of the excessive bureaucracy in dealing with trials, it's making the system (in general) utterly sluggish.

[Miserabilia]

cut off all of the excessive bureaucracy in dealing with trials, it's making the system (in general) utterly sluggish.

What would be an example of such exessive bureaucracy regarding the death penalty?

[DeadEyes]

What would be an example of such exessive bureaucracy regarding the death penalty?

Not regarding capitol punishment only, but the law (and even the whole governmental system) in general.
But the fact it does cost more to execute a crimal than keeping him alive is in fact an exemple that it's not done right.
Once again, the argument began with this and is concluding the same way (circular reasoning). The answer to this question is the same as the one to the other question.
Your thinking in circles and you don't even realize it.

[Vlerchan]

I've said THE LAW is flawed, not the death penalty in itself.
I thought it was quite clear I was discussing how the death penalty is in reality.

The law is flawed this is a fact, wether capital punishment is part of it or not doesn't change that fact.
I'm arguing that a system with life-imprisonment as the maximum sentence is less flawed that a system with capital punishment as the maximum sentence.

I've also provided arguments you've failed to address in regards to this.

Doubt as you will and my point is this argument was used more than once in this debate.
This isn't what circular reasoning refers to.

It's called repetition.

Unlike some of you who I have seen trying to play the deciders who make those law, I'm not going to improvise myself as someone who is able, or willing to change the laws.
Right. Like Cheese I'm not sure what this means.

The argument stating it costs more to execute a prisoner rather than imprison him was used quite a few times in this debate.
I feel I should add that this still isn't what circular reasoning refers to.

I also don't see the problem with repetition.

For me, it does not matter, as I've said I still believe in the fundamental principle of capitol punishment no matter what.
So you see it's flawed and still continue to support it.

What a hopelessly ironic position for an antithieist to take.

I was talking about the fact an ideal society is an utopia in another topic, due to the corrupted and flawed human nature.
I don't care about ideals.

I care about which happens to work better in practice. You don't seem to on the other hand.

Therefore, there is no way the law system could be flawless, but then again, nothing is perfect.
I accept that the legal system isn't flawless.

Which is why I advocate a retractable maximum punishment.

But to make it at least a bit better, cut off all of the excessive bureaucracy in dealing with trials, it's making the system (in general) utterly sluggish.
This just makes errors more likely.

This "excessive bureaucracy" results in exonerating 5 falsely-imprisoned people on death row in America every year.

But the fact it does cost more to execute a crimal than keeping him alive is in fact an exemple that it's not done right.
Please expand here. Thank you.

Once again, the argument began with this and is concluding the same way (circular reasoning).
I'll add again here that you're still using a completely wrong definition for circular reasoning.

[soundtrack] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2oTuxXjbO4)

[DeadEyes]

I'll add again here that you're still using a completely wrong definition for circular reasoning.

We must not have read the same definition then.

[Vlerchan]

>A is true because B is true.
>B must be true because A is true.

That's what circular reasoning is. It has nothing to do with plain repetition.

[DeadEyes]

I've also provided arguments you've failed to address in regards to this.

I haven't "failed" to address them, I just found they didn't worth addressing.

[DeadEyes]

>A is true because B is true.
>B must be true because A is true.

That's what circular reasoning is. It has nothing to do with plain repetition.

And so, you fail to see the similarity between circular and repetition?

[Miserabilia]

And so, you fail to see the similarity between circular and repetition?

I haven't "failed" to address them, I just found they didn't worth addressing.

Then honestly what's the point? You're making accusations but if they're not worth adressing, according to you, why even make them? It's pointless and honestly a little tiring.

[DeadEyes]

Then honestly what's the point? You're making accusations but if they're not worth adressing, according to you, why even make them? It's pointless and honestly a little tiring.

What's pointless is to have to repeat myself over and over because you guys do the same. I do find repetition tiring.

So you see it's flawed and still continue to support it.

I never said capitol punishment was flawed, I said the law is flawed in general.
You said that death penalty is flawed, since the law is flawed, and that the law is flawed because of death penalty, and here is one perfect example of one of your much circular reasoning.
Now, the law is flawed because we are flawed, the world is flawed and so, how could you not support something that is not actually flawed?

[Vlerchan]

And so, you fail to see the similarity between circular and repetition?
similar: resembling without being identical.

I don't care if you consider them similar. I'm saying they're not the same thing. Repeating yourself isn't a logical fallacy.

I never said capitol punishment was flawed, I said the law is flawed in general.
I was referring to its implementation.

You said you realised how it was implemented was flawed but would always support it on principal. I then drew an implied comparison between you and a religious fundamentalist.

You said that death penalty is flawed, since the law is flawed, and that the law is flawed because of death penalty, and here is one perfect example of one of your much circular reasoning.
No. I didn't. You're grasping at straws.

But feel free to quote exactly where I said this.

Now, the law is flawed because we are flawed, the world is flawed and so, how could you not support something that is not actually flawed?
I've made two arguments:

1, a system inclusive of the death penalty is more flawed than a system noninclusive of it.

2, courts sometimes make wrong decisions because we are flawed so it's best to have a retractable maximum sentence.

I would appreciate if you now stopped strawmanning me and actually addressed these arguments.

[DeadEyes]

No. I didn't. You're grasping at straws. I don't care if you consider them similar.

Ridiculous, I'm done with you.

[Hyper]

Ridiculous, I'm done with you.

Lol you didn't even debate anything here you just, figuratively, put your hands over your ears or in this case eyes and wrote NO NO NO and NO U 15 times.

But it was sort of entertaining to read.

[DeadEyes]

you didn't even debate anything here you just, figuratively, put your hands over your ears or in this case eyes and wrote NO NO NO and NO U 15 times.

You're right when you say I didn't debate anything, I haven't even said NO once actually, I wasn't looking to argue and only explain my philosophy about this (which you apparently completely missed). That's the point I'm trying to make since the beginning: I'm only looking to express my views which you are free to agree or disagree with.

I'm much more interested in reading what kind of philosophy and views a wise person may share on this topic (and others, which is the essence of this board) than having random arguments in response to mine.
I will not deny your point of view if you believe in the principle of preservation of life, I just happen to be on the other end of the spectrum, denying the value of human life.
As far as the way law works and integrate capital punishment, I couldn't care less since as I've said, it's flawed anyway.

[Hyper]

Forgive me I forgot this forum is now just an opinion poll, while it used to be an actual debate/angry kids arguing forum.

The NO was metaphorical. While you're claiming you never intended to debate anyone you started responding to people who were trying to engage in a debate with you.

[Miserabilia]

I'm much more interested in reading what kind of philosophy and views a wise person may share on this topic.

It seems that you've been outirght loathing pretty much any opinion or argument I've seen posted here. So, feel free to show some interest in any of them, but if you feel like NOBODY on this forum fits your criteria for what a wise person is, please, just don't post about it as it's not debate material.

than having random arguments in response to mine.

An argument in response to you; that's not random. That's what it says it is; an argument in response to you. That's what a debate is. It's not "post your opinion". It's "debate each others views."



I will not deny your point of view if you believe in the principle of preservation of life, I just happen to be on the other end of the spectrum, denying the value of human life.
As far as the way law works and integrate capital punishment, I couldn't care less since as I've said, it's flawed anyway.

If you don't care, your argument is baseless. Your defending thin air. It would be more structured if you had an idea of what kind of death penalty (how it would operate) you'd want to see.

[DeadEyes]

just don't post about it as it's not debate material.

What part of not looking for a dabate you don't get? I'm completely free, like anybody, to share my views on the matter and you have no right to tell me if I should post my thoughts or not.

[Miserabilia]

What part of not looking for a dabate you don't get? I'm completely free, like anybody, to share my views on the matter and you have no right to tell me if I should post my thoughts or not.

This is literaly a debate forum. It's a forum. To debate. If you want to post your opinion and are not looking for a debate, there are two options.

- Go to a different subforum
- Stop replying

It's quite simple.

[DeadEyes]

This is literaly a debate forum. It's a forum. To debate. If you want to post your opinion and are not looking for a debate, there are two options.

- Go to a different subforum
- Stop replying

It's quite simple.

So you decide what the board is for.

[Vlerchan]

This is a forum to involve yourself in intellectual, serious debates about any topic. It could be philosophical, religious, social, economic, political, or whatever else there is to debate, as long as it isn't silly! (Okay maybe a little silly)

Be wary that while you might feel very strongly about a topic or feel very attached to your point of view, other opinions are sure to differ and we urge you not to take that difference personally. This isn't the board for childish arguments and any personal attacks on a user will be dealt with harshly.

Please also remember to keep the VirtualTeen site rules in mind when posting here.

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/announcement.php?f=29&a=265

You're always free to start a blog.

[DeadEyes]

So, I have to counter argument whatever you guys might be saying no matter how little interest I have in it? Yep, might as well stop replying.

You're always free to start a blog.

I am also free to reply to anybody I please.

While you're claiming you never intended to debate anyone you started responding to people who were trying to engage in a debate with you.

Right, I shouldn't have bothered to start what I was not going to care to finish. What's funny with debates in general is people will camp on their positions no matter what so, what's the point in arguing then? I have made many, many points in my replies, yet it was as if I didn't say anything at all.

[Typhlosion]

This is literaly a debate forum. It's a forum. To debate. If you want to post your opinion and are not looking for a debate, there are two options.

- Go to a different subforum
- Stop replying

It's quite simple.So you decide what the board is for.

So, I have to counter argument whatever you guys might be saying no matter how little interest I have in it? Yep, might as well stop replying.

I am also free to reply to anybody I please.

Right, I shouldn't have bothered to start what I was not going to care to finish. What's funny with debates in general is people will camp on their positions no matter what so, what's the point in arguing then? I have made many, many points in my replies, yet it was as if I didn't say anything at all.

Please remember that the VirtualTeen forums are a privilege, not a right. As Vlerchan quoted from ROTW's welcoming announcement, "This is a forum to involve yourself in intellectual, serious debates about any topic.". This is not a forum just to post and shun replies arguing that you do not want to debate. Of course, the message applies to everyone.

I am locking the thread so this discussion does not go any further. If you must, DeadEyes (or anyone else, for that matter), please PM me about this.