The Death Penalty

[slipstrike0159]

I think the biggest problem people have with this issue is not about the money necessarily, its about the ethics associated with making such a decision.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

What the hell type of word is shallow to describe it?

A good word.

There are a significantly larger number of families who DON'T oppose the death penalty after seeing their families murderered in front of them.

So?

The victim should really have the right to choose the punishment for the killer.

Why? Wait; what? The victim is typically dead. Are you counting witnesses/family as victims? So because someone the family cared about is no longer with them, they now own the person responsible and can do with him as they wish? "You took away my husband's life, so I'll substitute my ownership of his life with yours"? One on top of the other, every meaning which reveals itself in minds like yours shows interaction only in terms of coercion, subjugation, and ownership of others. These are the feelings which allow human beings to murder other human beings, please don't try to pretend they're rational or justifiable. This is the hypocrisy which is responsible for all worldly ills.

If someone massacred my family, I would strongly prefer to see them dead, and I don't care how "shallow" that makes me.

That's a shame. You're refusing to be the better person because it feels more satisfying to satiate hatred.

I'd rather not see deeper into the "poor" criminal.

This is the best part. You think I must be defending the criminal's actions, or giving his life more consideration than your families because I don't think you have the right to do what he did not, no matter how "just" your feelings might be. I don't care about your feelings, they don't justify anything. There is no way of showing which feelings are legitimate and which are not. All feelings are arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately baseless. This isn't to say people shouldn't have feelings, but that the important consideration is what the feelings are used for, and for a murderer or for you to employ your feelings to dehumanize others and justify violence is something at the root of all existing death and ill-will, and all to come.

Originally Posted by trillobyite

I don't agree though. Like I said, I'd rather tax money go to feeding and housing people who have not been convicted of a major felony than I would people who have been convicted.

...you're going to end up doing it with or without the death penalty...

Obviously the cost is higher when added to payment for the DA and possibly defense, but I wasn't arguing that the cost is less burdensome on taxpayers, I was arguing that I'd rather extra money go to proving the potential innocence of an accused over money going to feeding and helping someone who is already convicted.

........ .... ... An appeal is done on behalf of someone already convicted. The money ...

oh for crying out loud. You're feeding a convicted person no matter what. Get used to the idea. The argument you've chosen is quantifiably baseless.

As to the fact that people end up on death row for years and the appeals process takes forever....that is a problem, but not a problem inherent in the death penalty itself.

It's a problem which manifests much more seriously within the death penalty.

Just like alleged racism (the whole 50% of people who kill blacks given the DP while 90% of people who kill whites given the DP) is a huge problem, I don't think that's a problem inherent in just the concept of a death penalty.

Perhaps not, but it's a problem worsened significantly by the fact this inequity manifests in terms of life or death rather than in terms of freedom or a reasonable amount less freedom.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

A good word.

Well I can't get over myself. I have enough pride to abhorr a killer.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Why? Wait; what? The victim is typically dead. Are you counting witnesses/family as victims? So because someone the family cared about is no longer with them, they now own the person responsible and can do with him as they wish? "You took away my husband's life, so I'll substitute my ownership of his life with yours"? One on top of the other, every meaning which reveals itself in minds like yours shows interaction only in terms of coercion, subjugation, and ownership of others. These are the feelings which allow human beings to murder other human beings, please don't try to pretend they're rational or justifiable. This is the hypocrisy which is responsible for all worldly ills.

Yes. If the killer feels he has the right to subjugate and kill someone important to me, I feel I have the right to subjugate and kill him. I don't see the logic behind how this thought denotes that my mind can only think of human relationships in terms of coercion and subjugation. Not every human interaction is in the context of the specific discussion we are having now about murder.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

That's a shame. You're refusing to be the better person because it feels more satisfying to satiate hatred.

I acknowledge that other people follow different moral codes, and that's why I said if the victim's family can sympathize with the killer, no execution should take place. I myself think differently than most. I grew up in a ****hole in Iraq, and personally, if someone chooses me as an enemy without provocation, I have no qualms in stooping to his/her level to defeat him/her. I know that seems brutal to you (and probably most non-middle easterners), but that's the way I operate.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

This is the best part. You think I must be defending the criminal's actions, or giving his life more consideration than your families because I don't think you have the right to do what he did not, no matter how "just" your feelings might be. I don't care about your feelings, they don't justify anything. There is no way of showing which feelings are legitimate and which are not. All feelings are arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately baseless. This isn't to say people shouldn't have feelings, but that the important consideration is what the feelings are used for, and for a murderer or for you to employ your feelings to dehumanize others and justify violence is something at the root of all existing death and ill-will, and all to come.

So which feelings should the government support and which they should condemn? Feelings of revenge are out of the question, right? What about feeling bad for the poor? Well, they only make the GDP look worse by taking in welfare and depriving the government of money, so screw them right? Should sympathy, as irrelevant and baseless as it is, be ignored? What about fun? Should the government promote conventions and activities and fairs, or is fun just another baseless feeling? Is retribution somehow morally *lower* than those other feelings? I have the right to feel what I feel. The government has no right to make sure I can't feel satisfied by retribution if a killer has chosen someone important to me to satisy himself.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

...you're going to end up doing it with or without the death penalty...

No, with the death penalty he/she is fed and treated until the day the person is proven guilty. The few months between the a final conviction and execution can't really be said to count. Without the DP the person has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for committing a crime and is now being given sustenance by taxpayers.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

........ .... ... An appeal is done on behalf of someone already convicted. The money ...

oh for crying out loud. You're feeding a convicted person no matter what. Get used to the idea. The argument you've chosen is quantifiably baseless.

Ok, let me be more clear. I don't mean until the first legal conviction. I mean until the final point, the pont of no return, at which the execution date has been set and sealed. Though, I do believe clemency hearings should be given. If the person is granted clemency and gets life in prison then fine, money should go to feeding him/her. I don't want every murderer killed. If the person has an IQ below 80 or something, or killed someone who emotionally ruined his/her life, that's a different story. Even if the victim's family wants the person dead, if the victim wasn't qutie innocent, I can agree that the DP should not be used.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

It's a problem which manifests much more seriously within the death penalty.

...?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Perhaps not, but it's a problem worsened significantly by the fact this inequity manifests in terms of life or death rather than in terms of freedom or a reasonable amount less freedom.

That's true. It's a damned significant problem, and one which must be corrected immediately. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty significantly be declined in use until those sorts of kinks are out of the system.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

Well I can't get over myself. I have enough pride to abhorr a killer.

...except when the killer kills a person you aren't fond of.

Yes. If the killer feels he has the right to subjugate and kill someone important to me, I feel I have the right to subjugate and kill him.

Neither of you have that right. If a person breaks a rule that doesn't mean all rules are out, let alone that the new rule should be along the exact same lines as the violation of the past rule.

I don't see the logic behind how this thought denotes that my mind can only think of human relationships in terms of coercion and subjugation. Not every human interaction is in the context of the specific discussion we are having now about murder.

No it isn't, but I doubt your thoughts about other issues would be any less impure if you can think in the way you do at all. Maybe I should give you more credit, but having seen people make a certain type of mistake once and continue to make similar errors in their judgment in other fields, whether politics, sociology, whatever, I tend to get a certain picture of a person whenever they manifest any of these traits in thought I see so often.

I acknowledge that other people follow different moral codes, and that's why I said if the victim's family can sympathize with the killer, no execution should take place.

This may seem like a concession to you, but the fact that it places a persons life, even a murderers, beneath another persons emotions hardly strikes me as a good way for human beings to think or interact.

I myself think differently than most.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you don't. If you look through the topic you'll see more opinions in line with yours than in line with mine.

I grew up in a ****hole in Iraq, and personally, if someone chooses me as an enemy without provocation, I have no qualms in stooping to his/her level to defeat him/her. I know that seems brutal to you (and probably most non-middle easterners), but that's the way I operate.

This is actually understandable to me, and I'm sorry that you've had to deal with that type of interaction in your life, but I think there's an important consideration to make in terms of this. Self-defense is perfectly justifiable. You're defending your own life. Similarly defending others is justifiable in almost all instances. The problem is that the death penalty isn't an act of self defense. You've captured the enemy. They are at your disposal to do with as you please. To kill them when they pose no threat to you doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy as to kill them out of necessary self preservation.

So which feelings should the government support and which they should condemn?

Only thinking in terms of government is silly, but if the government has any place in the affair it should be this. They should only condemn feelings which lead to violence against persons and property. All other emotions should be neither supported nor condemned.

Feelings of revenge are out of the question, right?

When they result in violence, yes. If by revenge you intend to beat someone in a sporting contest that's fine, but I don't think that's how you mean it.

What about feeling bad for the poor?

This is fine.

Well, they only make the GDP look worse by taking in welfare and depriving the government of money, so screw them right?

I personally don't think the government should play any role in the economy at all. Government intervention even in trying to help the poor inevitably just creates more poor and makes those who are already impoverished worse off. That's a separate discussion though.

Should sympathy, as irrelevant and baseless as it is, be ignored? What about fun?

Both should be left up to individual discretion as neither leads to harm. If for some reason certain types of sympathy or fun seeking lead to harm of others, these specific types should be restricted.

Should the government promote conventions and activities and fairs, or is fun just another baseless feeling?

Fun is subjective to the point of being baseless. Or rather, the basis of fun is individual taste, and the basis of individual taste is something no one can discern or prove as having any level of legitimacy for others. So, no, the government shouldn't promote anything relating to "fun". They shouldn't restrict it either. As long as fun doesn't hurt anyone, people are entitled to it, and are entitled to decide for themselves what fun constitutes.

Is retribution somehow morally *lower* than those other feelings?

In some sense of morality, absolutely. Retribution in terms of the death penalty is something which places one human being above another, and even though the problem is that this was done to begin with, the "solution" is just an extension of the problem.

I have the right to feel what I feel.

True.

The government has no right to make sure I can't feel satisfied by retribution if a killer has chosen someone important to me to satisy himself.

Maybe they don't, but you don't have the right to retribution either. The only reason I would say the government doesn't necessarily have this right is because in order to prevent you from killing the killer, it would have to detain you, or take away your ability to kill him in some other way. Generally however it does this by simultaneously taking away the killers freedom by putting him in prison. In this case, it doesn't seem to violate your rights to prevent you from going into the prison to kill them.

No, with the death penalty he/she is fed and treated until the day the person is proven guilty.

You don't understand what an appeal is. The prisoner is fed well after they've been proven guilty. They're just re-proven guilty 2-8 times over in the course of 10-40 years, during which time yes, they eat.

The few months between the a final conviction and execution can't really be said to count.

Sure it can. Even if it doesn't count for much in your opinion, in counts for something.

Without the DP the person has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for committing a crime and is now being given sustenance by taxpayers.

... .... .... .... ... ... ....

Ok, so your argument then seems to be that because under the death penalty the criminal can tie up the justice system for a long period of time, as long as they keep their guilt in contention it's fine for them to eat, but a soon as they can't do this anymore it's wrong for them to eat.

... .... ...

WHAT? So the justice in feeding a person is based on whether or not some arbitrary and expensive custom is in place?

Ok, let me be more clear. I don't mean until the first legal conviction. I mean until the final point, the pont of no return, at which the execution date has been set and sealed.

This doesn't make any sense. It's ok to pay for food to keep them alive, likely until the same age, until they die of unnatural causes, but not of natural causes?

Though, I do believe clemency hearings should be given. If the person is granted clemency and gets life in prison then fine, money should go to feeding him/her. I don't want every murderer killed. If the person has an IQ below 80 or something, or killed someone who emotionally ruined his/her life, that's a different story. Even if the victim's family wants the person dead, if the victim wasn't qutie innocent, I can agree that the DP should not be used.

So now you're weighing life on a more carefully calibrated scale, but you're still weighing life nonetheless.

...?

Because under the death penalty a person dies. That strikes me as more serious.

That's true. It's a damned significant problem, and one which must be corrected immediately. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty significantly be declined in use until those sorts of kinks are out of the system.

No offense, but all the the concessions you've been trying to make ultimately seem to have no effect the problems with your position.

[trillobyite]

Edit: If we go on like this I'm going to end up leaving the debate, because I get tired out really, really easily when dealing with a massive amount of text. It's a big fault and I may not belong on CT for it, but I should let you know....I will most likely respond though...

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

...except when the killer kills a person you aren't fond of.

My opinions on a killer who kills someone I'm not fond of are irrelevant. I would have no right to interfere.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Neither of you have that right. If a person breaks a rule that doesn't mean all rules are out, let alone that the new rule should be along the exact same lines as the violation of the past rule.

Well, frankly, I dont see why I can't punish the killer by the same rule he breaks. That itself is a human trait. In Dante's inferno, people are punished ironically as a result of whatever sin they commit. Hammurabi says "eye for an eye". Like I said, I operate differently than others. I think two wrongs make a right. The source of human ill is those who initially choose to break the rules, not those who respond.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

No it isn't, but I doubt your thoughts about other issues would be any less impure if you can think in the way you do at all. Maybe I should give you more credit, but having seen people make a certain type of mistake once and continue to make similar errors in their judgment in other fields, whether politics, sociology, whatever, I tend to get a certain picture of a person whenever they manifest any of these traits in thought I see so often.

Well we've already had run-ins in the past, me and you, so I think we'll come to be very much judgemental of each other here on CT

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

This may seem like a concession to you, but the fact that it places a persons life, even a murderers, beneath another persons emotions hardly strikes me as a good way for human beings to think or interact.

Well in my eyes, as soon as someone murders another, that person forfeits his/her right not to be punished in turn. Whether the victim's family chooses to use that to seek revenge or chooses instead to forgive is up to them. The problem with this debate is that I define society's ills not in the desire of humans to kill and then for revenge to be sought after, but for anyone to believe they have the right to kill initially with no good reason.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I'm sorry to tell you, but you don't. If you look through the topic you'll see more opinions in line with yours than in line with mine.

No I don't mean in terms of just the death penalty. I'm one of those people who sees things more in black and white than in grey. I think sometimes there is no compromise and that sometimes there can be only two sides or two options.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

This is actually understandable to me, and I'm sorry that you've had to deal with that type of interaction in your life, but I think there's an important consideration to make in terms of this. Self-defense is perfectly justifiable. You're defending your own life. Similarly defending others is justifiable in almost all instances. The problem is that the death penalty isn't an act of self defense. You've captured the enemy. They are at your disposal to do with as you please. To kill them when they pose no threat to you doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy as to kill them out of necessary self preservation.

Well of course it doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy, but that's because self-defense is the ultimate legitimate excuse for killing another.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Only thinking in terms of government is silly, but if the government has any place in the affair it should be this. They should only condemn feelings which lead to violence against persons and property. All other emotions should be neither supported nor condemned.

Plenty more feelings other than revenge can lead to rage. But I don't see the anger that results from adultery being outlawed, or adultery itself outlawed.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I personally don't think the government should play any role in the economy at all. Government intervention even in trying to help the poor inevitably just creates more poor and makes those who are already impoverished worse off. That's a separate discussion though.

Actually I strongly agree with you on that. I guess I had trouble finding a good example, but I think you know the point I was getting at.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

In some sense of morality, absolutely. Retribution in terms of the death penalty is something which places one human being above another, and even though the problem is that this was done to begin with, the "solution" is just an extension of the problem.

We're going to reach a loop again here. In my view, a killer places him/herself lower than those hurt by his/her actions through killing. Not everyone in the world is equal. A politician convicted for scandal should not be entrusted to hold his position and should not be treated with sympathy. That person is a criminal. That person placed himself below, as a human being, everyone else who is qualified to be an effective politician who wouldn't engage in corruption. A dictator who murders his own people is below other humans. By your logic, people like Adolf Eichmann or Mussolini shouldn't have been hanged because they were no longer a threat. Now I can actually see the argument behind that, but I just don't agree. By doing what they've done those people are officially lower, in every sense of the word, than those they have harmed. They have subjected themselves to the will of those they have harmed.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Maybe they don't, but you don't have the right to retribution either. The only reason I would say the government doesn't necessarily have this right is because in order to prevent you from killing the killer, it would have to detain you, or take away your ability to kill him in some other way. Generally however it does this by simultaneously taking away the killers freedom by putting him in prison. In this case, it doesn't seem to violate your rights to prevent you from going into the prison to kill them.

Well of course there shouldn't be some honor revenge killing on the spot. Procedures have to be followed.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You don't understand what an appeal is. The prisoner is fed well after they've been proven guilty. They're just re-proven guilty 2-8 times over in the course of 10-40 years, during which time yes, they eat.

Ok yeah you're right. But that's a problem with the American implementation of the death penalty more than with the Dp itself.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Sure it can. Even if it doesn't count for much in your opinion, in counts for something.

As cold-hearted as I've been sounding this whole thread, even I believe the most brutal of killers should be given food, hell in fact, the best food there is, if they are going to be executed shortly.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

... .... .... .... ... ... ....

Ok, so your argument then seems to be that because under the death penalty the criminal can tie up the justice system for a long period of time, as long as they keep their guilt in contention it's fine for them to eat, but a soon as they can't do this anymore it's wrong for them to eat.

... .... ...

WHAT? So the justice in feeding a person is based on whether or not some arbitrary and expensive custom is in place?

I think we're getting way too deep into this eating thing...my only point is that without the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted and will be given sustenance by taxpayers, and with the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted (at some point- and that seems to be the problem here, since at what point ends up a huge mess because of the appeals system), and won't be fed forever by taxpayers.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

This doesn't make any sense. It's ok to pay for food to keep them alive, likely until the same age, until they die of unnatural causes, but not of natural causes?

Well the emphasis here is the "likely until the same age" and that once again goes into the whole appeals problem.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

So now you're weighing life on a more carefully calibrated scale, but you're still weighing life nonetheless.

I think it's fair for an impartial jury to make the decision of whether the killer's motives were legitimate enough not to be killed or whether they were twisted enough for him/her to deserve death.
But, and here's another pointless concession, clemency is not enough. For instance, Wanda Jean's victims' family were mostly forgiving, and she had a borderline retarded IQ. She was not granted clemency, and she did not deserve the death penalty. And Texas and many of the states who use the DP really overuse it. The very fact that innocent people could be on death row is terrifying. Imo, that's the greatest argument against the DP and one I have trouble responding to.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Because under the death penalty a person dies. That strikes me as more serious.

Yes I've acknowledged a thousand times the seriousness of the appeals problem and the necessity of a more effective- but no more harsh- method of finalizing conviction.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

My opinions on a killer who kills someone I'm not fond of are irrelevant. I would have no right to interfere.

This is a fairly ambiguous statement, but virtually every interpretation still strikes me as wrong.

If you're saying: I don't have the right to interfere with a killers actions, that's a somewhat shocking statement.

If you're saying: I don't have the right to prevent the government from killing someone I don't like, that seems to contradict an earlier statement.

Why don't you just clarify what you mean?

Well, frankly, I dont see why I can't punish the killer by the same rule he breaks. That itself is a human trait.

It sure is. A horrible, indefensible, inexcusable human trait.

In Dante's inferno, people are punished ironically as a result of whatever sin they commit. Hammurabi says "eye for an eye".

Your first justification is literature, your second the first legal code ever enacted which happens to be millenniums old.... ... right.

Like I said, I operate differently than others.

You don't. People may give lip service to a perspective that contradicts yours, but by and large they don't think or act that way.

I think two wrongs make a right.

You feel that two wrongs make a right. No offense, please try to understand the context in which I mean this, I doubt you think much on the subject at all.

The source of human ill is those who initially choose to break the rules, not those who respond.

Great. So, being religious like we apparently are, Adam and Eve are to blame, and perhaps Cain as well. That's great news.

No, to mimic the senseless and hypocritical educators of this country "I don't care who started it, if you continue it you're just as bad as anyone else". Except I don't go on to prove my lack of character by forcibly restraining you and putting you in confinement.

Well we've already had run-ins in the past, me and you, so I think we'll come to be very much judgemental of each other here on CT

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Sticks and stones...

Well in my eyes, as soon as someone murders another, that person forfeits his/her right not to be punished in turn. Whether the victim's family chooses to use that to seek revenge or chooses instead to forgive is up to them.

Assuming the first part is true, I would still hold that the minimum effective punishment should be employed. However, I don't consider the first part to be true. The only justification, period, for aggression against another human being is self-defense. Punishment should thus be pragmatic based on its effect in preventing and minimizing further damage.

The problem with this debate is that I define society's ills not in the desire of humans to kill and then for revenge to be sought after, but for anyone to believe they have the right to kill initially with no good reason.

What constitutes "good reason"? For that matter, what constitutes "initially"?

No I don't mean in terms of just the death penalty. I'm one of those people who sees things more in black and white than in grey. I think sometimes there is no compromise and that sometimes there can be only two sides or two options.

Ironically this is also fairly common, although at least the specifics of your dogmatism vary from others. I have to give you that.

Well of course it doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy, but that's because self-defense is the ultimate legitimate excuse for killing another.

The same "degree" of legitimacy? How quickly you betray your black and white perspective. Well this is where mine comes in then. There either is legitimacy or there isn't legitimacy in terms of things such as murder. Self defense isn't so much the "ultimate" legitimate excuse for killing another as it is the only legitimate excuse for killing another.

Plenty more feelings other than revenge can lead to rage. But I don't see the anger that results from adultery being outlawed, or adultery itself outlawed.

Right. You can't outlaw feelings. There's also no guarantee that a human being will act on their feelings in an immoral way, meaning preemptive restriction is a violation of liberty. I just want people to have enough self-awareness to prevent their feelings from getting the better of them.

We're going to reach a loop again here. In my view, a killer places him/herself lower than those hurt by his/her actions through killing.

Perhaps, but killing people isn't justified merely because they're "lower".

Not everyone in the world is equal.

In terms of rights we generally assume that they are. When rights aren't universal, they become privileges. How would suggest determine who has the "privilege" to life? Doesn't this question itself strike you as repugnant?

A politician convicted for scandal should not be entrusted to hold his position and should not be treated with sympathy.

Isn't that up to the voters?

That person is a criminal. That person placed himself below, as a human being, everyone else who is qualified to be an effective politician who wouldn't engage in corruption.

I think he placed himself below them as a politician, but not as a human being. At least not in terms of rights. Similarly a murderer places themselves below others in terms of morality, but they're still human. There is necessity in treating the murderer differently to prevent further crime , but I don't think the maximum possible punishment, death, should really be called for.

A dictator who murders his own people is below other humans.

A threat to other humans, but no less human.

By your logic, people like Adolf Eichmann or Mussolini shouldn't have been hanged because they were no longer a threat. Now I can actually see the argument behind that, but I just don't agree. By doing what they've done those people are officially lower, in every sense of the word, than those they have harmed. They have subjected themselves to the will of those they have harmed.

There's a number of senses in which this is both right and wrong. They may not have constituted a threat in terms of individual potential to harm, but remember that both of those individuals were most threatening by how they influenced others. Keeping them alive at all permits them the opportunity to do this. This isn't unfounded paranoia either, when the US finally conquered Japan at the end of WWII, we were faced with the option of hanging a number of similar figures, which we ultimately didn't do because we wanted a strong Asian ally to offer strategic military benefits to our country. Now, many conservative Japanese politicians point to the lack of executions as evidence that no war crimes were committed by the Japanese people.

The other issue is that while generally I would disagree that they waive their humanity as a result of their crimes, I think there is a potential argument that as a person entrusted with power over a populace by the populace, by failing this contract they have deprived themselves of something or other, although I'm having difficulty weighing specific considerations at the moment.

Well of course there shouldn't be some honor revenge killing on the spot. Procedures have to be followed.

I'm not sure what difference the procedures make, except for making something which is already horrible into something both mechanical and cultural custom.

Ok yeah you're right. But that's a problem with the American implementation of the death penalty more than with the Dp itself.

I'm highly skeptical over whether a superior implementation could be achieved.

As cold-hearted as I've been sounding this whole thread, even I believe the most brutal of killers should be given food, hell in fact, the best food there is, if they are going to be executed shortly.

You haven't sounded cold-hearted, you've just sounded unduly passionate.

I think we're getting way too deep into this eating thing...my only point is that without the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted and will be given sustenance by taxpayers, and with the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted (at some point- and that seems to be the problem here, since at what point ends up a huge mess because of the appeals system), and won't be fed forever by taxpayers.

They won't be fed "forever" either way, you realize. Oh, and if spending money on food is wrong because of what it accomplishes, keeping a murderer alive, isn't spending money on appeals wrong as well because it accomplishes the same thing? But this can't be right, because now we've ruled out the ability of a person to defend themselves, opened up the likelihood of ever more innocent deaths, and all because we were so hasty in our emotions we threw the baby out with the bathwater.

You know what the best guarantee is that an innocent person might be exonerated? If they're alive. If you're willing to spend money to give a person the opportunity to prove their innocence, there's no reason paying to keep them in prison for life and to feed them contradicts this.

Well the emphasis here is the "likely until the same age" and that once again goes into the whole appeals problem.

There's no way to solve the appeals problem without turning the death penalty into something with no redeeming merit at all.

I think it's fair for an impartial jury to make the decision of whether the killer's motives were legitimate enough not to be killed or whether they were twisted enough for him/her to deserve death.

I don't think there are impartial juries. I also don't think a killers motive is ever legitimate unless it's self-defense.

The very fact that innocent people could be on death row is terrifying. Imo, that's the greatest argument against the DP and one I have trouble responding to.

Innocent people are on death row. I guarantee it. If you have no response to this, perhaps you should consider adopting an alternate stance.

Yes I've acknowledged a thousand times the seriousness of the appeals problem and the necessity of a more effective- but no more harsh- method of finalizing conviction.

Such a method doesn't exist.

[-SPONG3Y--DDR--M4N!4C-]

I don't criticize or go against death penalty. In fact, death penalty was here to destroy all evil inside these humans (hopefully they don't destroy their minds).

The Catholic Church was trying to "ban" death penalty because it was trying to remove the very essense and meaning of life itself. It was a complete mockery to kill someone just because he or she did such a terrible disgrace.

Capital Punishment also has a looooooooong history. Firstly they used beheadings by using guillotines. It was quick and painless solution. Secondly next to the invention of electricity was the electric chair, used to fry the skin out of humans. After that they used gas chambers to smoke out remaining breaths of criminals. Now in the modern times they used lethal injections. All were in the books except for hangings. Hanging was not a quick solution, it was meant to rot out a human throat in order of the victim to die. It requires a lot of time, usually a minute or two.

Death can always be the end. Some people deserve death, some do not. What only controls our desires like this the control of overflow of emotions, misuse of intellectual thoughts and (most importantly) the lack of common-sense.

But it must go on. Surely, choices can be reversed, but not this one. We should only accept reality and not go on completely with theory. I agree to death penalty, heh, maybe because I hate humans too much.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by -SPONG3Y--DDR--M4N!4C-

The Catholic Church was trying to "ban" death penalty because it was trying to remove the very essense and meaning of life itself. It was a complete mockery to kill someone just because he or she did such a terrible disgrace.

Um...are you quite sure about that? The Catholic Church has been responsible for not a small number of executions over the years. The wicth hunts, the inquisition etc. The bible contains 'eye for an eye' logic in plenty of places, and while a non-trivial number of catholics cleave to the new testament ideals of forgiveness and second chances, an equally non-trivial number still feel that those who commit the most grevious acts against God ought to have their trip to hell hastened.

Capital Punishment also has a looooooooong history. Firstly they used beheadings by using guillotines. It was quick and painless solution. Secondly next to the invention of electricity was the electric chair, used to fry the skin out of humans. After that they used gas chambers to smoke out remaining breaths of criminals. Now in the modern times they used lethal injections. All were in the books except for hangings. Hanging was not a quick solution, it was meant to rot out a human throat in order of the victim to die. It requires a lot of time, usually a minute or two.

Well, there were executions for -centuries- before the guillotine was invented in France, and hanging was a legal method of execution in many places (Still is, in a few, though most places that have the death penalty use the electric chair, lethal injection or firing squad)

Death can always be the end. Some people deserve death, some do not. What only controls our desires like this the control of overflow of emotions, misuse of intellectual thoughts and (most importantly) the lack of common-sense.

If you aren't using emotions, or intellect to determine who deserves death or not, could you please explain how you're making that distinction?

But it must go on. Surely, choices can be reversed, but not this one. We should only accept reality and not go on completely with theory. I agree to death penalty, heh, maybe because I hate humans too much.

No it mustn't. Why can't this 'choice' be reversed? Many countries that had capital punishment don't anymore, they made that choice, and it no longer goes on there.

[Silent assasin]

I didn't read all of this crap, but if you ask me the death penalty is wrong. If we murder them we are stooping down to their level, remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"? Hope this was'nt a dead thread........

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Silent assasin

I didn't read all of this crap, but if you ask me the death penalty is wrong. If we murder them we are stooping down to their level, remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"? Hope this was'nt a dead thread........

1/ Read all this crap. That is the point of a -discussion and debate- thread. This isn't a "State your random opinion in a vaccuum" thread.

2/ Yes we remember the saying, would you care to connect it to the topic at hand? Isn't locking someone up forever also a "wrong"? In that case, you seem to support two wrongs making a right.

3/ It wasn't dead, but that doesn't mean that a random lagrely empty bump isn't still a bad call.

[Silent assasin]

Originally Posted by devonin

1/ Read all this crap. That is the point of a -discussion and debate- thread. This isn't a "State your random opinion in a vaccuum" thread.

2/ Yes we remember the saying, would you care to connect it to the topic at hand? Isn't locking someone up forever also a "wrong"? In that case, you seem to support two wrongs making a right.

3/ It wasn't dead, but that doesn't mean that a random lagrely empty bump isn't still a bad call.

You are a very critical thinker, lol unlike me. The only reason I said that is, when I turn to my ethics, it seems "more" right then killing them. I meant that if we killed them, it could still be thought as murder, since they did it for what seems to be punishment. Would'nt that in a way make it revenge?






That's the best I can say, lol.

[trillobyite]

I'm sorry I didnt make a response, I have half of it saved on notepad but I find myself way too lazy to continue the second half. It takes me almost 30 minutes for these responses and it tires the hell out of me. Also there is another issue which is 20 times more important to me that I'm debating on with many other people in other forums (gaza) and that is why I didn't put this on high priority. But if/when I do finish the response I'll edit this post and put it here.

[madmatt621]

If you kill someone, we will kill you back.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by madmatt621

If you kill someone, we will kill you back.

The logic inherent in the death penalty is that your right to your own life is abrogated as a result of you taking away another's right to their own life. It isn't especially -useful- logic but it does make people who work as an executioner feel better about themselves, I imagine.

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by Chrissi

They not always 100% sure the people are guilty. I remember a long time ago when they found out that a guy who had been put to death ALREADY was completely innocent.. they gave the family a few billion dollars or something to "make up for it".

This is the main reason why I'm against the death penalty (and we don't have it here in Canada, yay). They're often not as sure as they think they are.

Well then let me go against this.

I approve of the death penalty. Very few times does this happen. I would know, speaking as a person that lives with a detective type family.

Asia, somewhat like America, has people that are ****y ( boasting a lot- if it cuts out) , and that like to do things fast. Most of the time, the detective agencies there judge to quickly, without a lot of hard work.

I believe that America works harder, and that about (researched) 2% of all cases, is there ever a false convict.

[devonin]

"It is better that one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

[Kilroy_x]

edit: beat me to it, but that quote is off. Well, considering it originally had to do with witches I suppose the revision is called for.

[devonin]

Actually, if you look up the history of the quote, the particular version I stated was attributed to Ben Franklin. A similar quote referencing the witch trials is also stated, along with plenty of others. It is a useful quote, and it has been adapted plenty of times.

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by devonin

"It is better that one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

I have a question. Would it matter if the crimes that the 100 people that escaped are less off than the one person? Meaning that the crimes are minuscule compared to the extraordinary.

[devonin]

The statement is less an objective one of actual numbers (Like, it isn't therefore saying that if only 10 guilty persons escape it is therefore justified for one person to suffer) and more of a statement of the purpose of the justice system as a whole.

The numbers are irellevant, the statement is saying that if there is even the -slightest most miniscule tiny chance that maybe the person is not guilty - then they ought not to be punished because, as the saying implies: It is better than -any number- of guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.

Unfortunately, since that level of incontrovertable truth is functionally impossible to obtain, we have to settle for "Beyond a -reasonable- doubt" but even "reasonable" is a term up for debate.