The Death Penalty

[devonin]

Originally Posted by rzr

The empathy of the mass majority prohibits the generally needed and frankly deserved execution of criminals.

Prove 100% that a criminal is guilty of such a crime, and you might have a leg to stand on. However I don't see how you can say "The penalty for killing someone is that we kill someone" and not see a pretty serious problem with that.

Again, because too many people are sympathetic for taking the mortality and defying human rights, it's under used.

This sentence doesn't make sense, please clarify.

However, if one kills someone then that murderer deserves to die as well.

Prove it. What authority are you appealing to in order to claim you know who does or doesn't deserve to die? Also, even if we granted in certain circumstances that some murders are sufficiently heinous and horrific that we might consider executing the offender, where do you draw that line? What kind of murder is bad enough to execute and what kind isn't? I think we can all agree that the death penalty for self-defense killings is probably not warranted, but there are all kinds of extenuating circumstances that make an absolute statement like that logically untenable.

But if someone important is killed, they are avenged with the death penalty. But if an average joe then they're imprisoned. Get that?

I get that you're pretty much dead wrong on that subject. Look into the cases of those on death row and I think you'll find that the vast majority killed "some person" in the scheme of global affairs.

[rzr]

@ Corbin: keep following, one day you'll see my logic. Or maybe this is just a subject we disagree on, stick around CT and we'll have some fun

@ devonin: ok, well, if I shot... George Bush I would be executed. But if I shot... JKPolk I would be imprisoned. Really it's that way with a lot of higher class people.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm not as up to posting as I usually am and explaining myself adequately. I feel like ****. Expect more sophistication soon... like the old rzr...

[devonin]

Originally Posted by rzr

@ Corbin: keep following, one day you'll see my logic. Or maybe this is just a subject we disagree on, stick around CT and we'll have some fun

He didn't say he disagreed with your logic he said he couldn't understand your logic. That means you explain yourself more clearly, that doesn't mean you patronise another user like they are too dumb to see what you mean.

@ devonin: ok, well, if I shot... George Bush I would be executed. But if I shot... JKPolk I would be imprisoned. Really it's that way with a lot of higher class people.

Killing the president of the united states has dramatically further reaching consequences than killing a stranger on the street and you know it. If it were only the matter of a dead body, status wouldn't matter, but the leader of a nation dying effects the economy, foreign affairs, you name it. That was not a very good example.

The overall point implying that famous people's killers get harsher punishments, I again direct you to look into the crimes of people on death row, and you'll see how few of them involve the death of anybody you've ever heard of.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm not as up to posting as I usually am and explaining myself adequately. I feel like ****. Expect more sophistication soon... like the old rzr...

If you know in advance that you're going to make a crappy point, I suggest waiting until the situation changes to post.

[Rad3n]

In Australia there is no death penalty.

I disagree with the death penalty purely due to my fear of being in "the wrong place at the wrong time". A prisoner sentanced to life imprisonment shouldn't escape. If they do then the jail is to blame.

The man you refered to, "rzr", in your first post does have the death penalty... just a longer wait. much worse if you ask me.

[wwwJ4mmYcouk]

Originally Posted by Rad3n

I disagree with the death penalty purely due to my fear of being in "the wrong place at the wrong time".

This is exactly why i did not go to Thailand with my friends. Imagine if you was in your hotel room and it got raided by authorities and someone had stashed away drugs in there (sounds unrealistic but it has happened on a program i watched called banged up abroad) and you cant speak the language so they arrest you there and then. The next thing you know is you are in a crowded prison room awaiting trial. Then you receive minimum 10 years, or the death penalty.

In Thailand i think its around 80% of drug "criminals" receive the death penalty as they see it as - a murderer may kill 2 or 3 people, but a drug dealer can kill thousands.

Again with regards to the death penalty, how long a time should you get before the prison guards say "come on its your turn to be executed" its about 1 hour in Thailand, whereas in America they get a set date so they can take time to accept they are going to die.

I do agree with the death penalty to a certain extent, but for me to say "YES i fully support the death penalty" i cannot. Unless i sat and read every single case that goes to court to see if they "deserve" it.

[rzr]

Ok, hopefully my EXPLANATION will be better this time...

@ Mr.Nothing: you pretty much spoke my mind, I just had more tact than to point-blank say it.

@ rad3n: why is my name in quotes? And yes, it is the jails fault, but after the killer escapes it's pretty pointless to blame anybody. The focus should be solely on recapturing him.

@www the rest of your name is too long for me to remember: if that's the case I agree with Thailand. I'm VERY anti-drug. In fact, I'd most likely be the guy enforcing it over there. But they're right, a drug dealer does kill more people than a murderer. Actually, they kill exponentially. A murderer gets his licks in and that's it. A drug dealer deals to one perso who shares with another who buys from another who shares with another etc etc. I mean, for drug dealing I wouldn't enforce the DEATH PENALTY, but a life imprisonment, yes.

@ devonin: yeah, I know. Hopefully we've all gotten my point [this time].

[Mookage]

I think the death penalty is a good way to get rid of people who can hurt society. The problem with the death penalty is if somebody is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death and killed, there is no going back. I think there should be undeniable evidence that the murder was commited by that person. I think the death penalty should come into effect for a murderer.

[devonin]

So you're going to pick and choose which crimes are worthy of death and which aren't? Once again I ask where you're getting the validity for your standards other than you just figuring it seems good to you.

I mean, you've all been saying "murderers" but what about someone who kills in self-defense, or someone who was pushed beyond all reasonable limits to not lash out at someone, or someone who wasn't in their right mind etc etc.

What about non-murder crimes? Getting really angry and killing someone in a bar fight who would just as easily have killed you if you lost gets you executed, but raping a child doesn't? Eye-for-an-eye style justice only lets you kill killers, but I'm pretty sure that most people including most of you, could easily rank many non-killing crimes as worse than many killing crimes.

[rzr]

Self defense murder is still technically murder. However, it's morally granted. And yes, devonin, I am judging the majority of the crimes I deem suitable for the death penalty on my own personal feelings. As are many people in this thread.

[devonin]

But do you feel justified in basing the entire actions of say, a nation's legal system, on your own personal feelings?

I'm a fan of Kant in this instance, that you should act as though you would will your action to be a universal maxim. In otherwords: Act as though you wish every person acted that way all the time.

Given that, I'm not prepared to act in a way that suggests "My own personal feelings are correct enough to force them on other people" Because if everyone did that, we would be in an awfully big mess.

[rzr]

I'm not sure how adequate this response is, but no, I couldn't. I mentally could not make a decision that would set a precedent for the entire universe.

[devonin]

And yet you're arguing for the validity of the death penalty, admittedly on the grounds of it being your personal opinion that it should be practiced.

Wanting the law to be willing to kill people is an active stance meaning that it's something that directly effects other people from the status quo. Keeping them alive is a passive stance because even if you're imprisoning them, you aren't taking away their life and their right to life.

That's one of the reasons why I think it is so much more defensible to suggest that the death penalty is a bad idea.

[rzr]

So what about torture? Either physical or mental. Based on your logic, we're still keeping the killers alive.

[devonin]

The stated purpose of torture when people want to justify it is to gain information from someone that they don't want to give up, so you give them the incentive of making the pain stop to encourage them to tell you what they know.

I don't see how that's applicable in this case. You seem to want to use torture simply as a means of punishment. You did something bad, so I'm going to hurt you a bunch. I can't see how that could possible be helpful any more than normal incarceration would be.

I didn't say "Any punishment that doesn't kill them is okay by me" I said "Not killing them is more acceptable than killing them" Cruel and unusual punishment is also not something I'm particularly willing to get behind. The only way I could justify it ever would be in a case where someone provably knew information vital to saving the lives of a large number of innocent people and was refusing to give it up. Even then, I imagine I'd be carrying an awful lot of guilt around afterwards.

[Shadowlessheart]

How far can you take torture before it becomes "involuntary manslaughter"? Here in the great U.S-of-A we can go as fair as to anything that doesn't purposely cause organ failure, though if deemed "Oh...we didn't know it'd do that" it becomes completely legal.

Beautiful things our congress passes...pure beauty, so what I'm saying here is torture never works at all...just in shows, you torture me (or most sane ppl) and we'll tell you what you wanna hear no matter the situation, just so it'd stop.

I believe most people who deem it o.k. to torture use the validity of saying "it was for our country (as torture is only legal for them, any normal joe does it they're screwed)" already know it won't work, so in my opinion i believe that's just as wrong as manslaughter.

Now on the death penalty, who is who to deem what is and isn't morally right or wrong? Over all it's society, so if we all said it was o.k. to kill someone for murder perhaps (eye for and eye...etc [which would mean in Hammurabi's time death penalty would be socially accepted as people wouldn't argue with a king because of their impending fear of eternal damnation, and in that wouldn't think twice]) then the death penalty could work.

I don't know I'm probably completely under analyzing this, and for that I'm sorry, but I guess if my over all statement hasn't been apparent, what I'm trying to say is "Nobody who isn't everybody can deem what is and isn't the context of correct morals."

~Edit~: This is where I got that whole "organ failure" thing if people didn't believe me, I'm sorry I don't remember what part is was I'm thinking 1. Anyway this is a credible source I believe :X.

[rzr]

Ok, devonin, let's look at it scientifically:

I have two white lab rats. I have four doors. I seperate the rats. Each sat gets two doors. The scenarios are identical: one door is guarded by an invisible electric fence, the other has a slice of Swiss cheese behind it.
Rat A tries to open door 1. He is electrictued. He tries again. Same result. Again. Same result. Finally he tries the other door. He gets the cheese. He no longer tries door 1.

A murderer/rapist/robber etc is put in a dungeon. There is no light. There is no clean air. There is no indoor plumbing. They eat their own feces. They drink their own urine. They see nothing. Every morning a man comes to them and slices a pattern into their genitals. Every evening a different man comes to them and pours boiling water over their naked body. They are released.
Prior to all that they are told that for committing the crime that is their punishment.

Well, something tells me they won't do it again (subtracting the factor of mental insanity etc).



*I know that was graphic, but hopefully it made my point. Torture could be a perfectly effective, not reasonable, but effective, method of enforcing laws.

[devonin]

Negative reinforcement works on dogs too, but it's still a) less effective than positive reinforcement and b) illegal cruelty.

In fact, what is likely to happen in that case, when you just release the person is that they are going to go after the people responsible for their horrible torture to get revenge. You don't come away from 5 years of horrible torture going "Well, I guess I won't do -that- again, maybe I should go find a nice job" You come away from that swearing revenge and substantially more prone to violence. Hell, you've pretty much -created- the mental insanity you've described as an exception.

[Grandiagod]

I'd imagine extreme prolonged torture would work less as a deterrent and more as a way to create a mentally instable individual.

[tsugomaru]

It probably would considering that for people who do murder, they do not think of the consequences. People who commit murder for several reasons, for those who commit murder for money, they usually completely believe that they can get away with it. People who commit murder for passion will not be stopped because they strongly believe that what they are doing is right. People who commit murder based on a whim do not think of their punishments as they commit murder. Of course there are the people who kill others on accident, there is really no way to avoid that type of killing because it really isn't intentional.

~Tsugomaru

[rzr]

Originally Posted by devonin

Negative reinforcement works on dogs too, but it's still a) less effective than positive reinforcement and b) illegal cruelty.

In fact, what is likely to happen in that case, when you just release the person is that they are going to go after the people responsible for their horrible torture to get revenge. You don't come away from 5 years of horrible torture going "Well, I guess I won't do -that- again, maybe I should go find a nice job" You come away from that swearing revenge and substantially more prone to violence. Hell, you've pretty much -created- the mental insanity you've described as an exception.

This is pathetic. Four posts on this thread since I've last been on.

Devonin, they don't walk away saying "I'll never do that again" even know. Hence the term 'repeat offender'. It does seem more likely that they would refrain from repeating the actions after extreme torture. I mean, duh, they're going to want revenge. I would too. I would swear it too. But I sure as hell would never commit the same crime again.