Death Penalty: For or Against?

[MobBoss]

No. The point trying to be made there is that this distinction is completely arbitrary

Not really. In fact, its quite distinct. Calling it 'arbitrary' is simply incorrect.

and there is nothing natural about it. In the same way, the definition of what nets a death sentence is also completely arbitrary.

Again....not really.

 

[Zack]

Thus I prove killing =/= murder

Only because I told you on your VMs.

And way to completely miss the point of the Gandhi quote twice.

 

[civver_764]

If you support the death penalty you're barbaric.

Moderator Action: Let's not get personal with your opinions.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm opposed to it except in extreme cases- ie Hitler/Stalin/Mao types, and certain crimes where they are guilty beyond any doubt. It doesn't act as a deterrent anyway.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Because our appeal system is insane, allowing TEN YEARS, sometimes more, of appeals. I understand appeals are necessary, but since the Feds have no control of punishing crime, SCOTUS has no right to be involved in the case. And the State Court, while constitutionally allowed to be involved, should not be. One appeal, if you feel there is a breach of justice and you weren't tried fairly, and that's it.

The more time between cases, the higher likelihood new evidence can turn up...

Again, because appeals take too long.

I want to see the papers on how much it cost to let these people just rot versus actively going through appeals. Ten bucks says they support people being locked up.

Neither can life once its been served.

Sure. But if you let a person live 40 years versus killing them after 10, and evidence turns up after 20 that proves them innocent, which side made the right choice?

The fact is it's cheaper to lock them up, and you have a higher chance of proving them innocent WHILE IT STILL MATTERS if you use life imprisonment.

No, no. You are such a massive hypocrite if you talk about the sancity of life, whilst advocating executions. Both are incompatible and you should be called out on this!

This is why I add "sanctity of innocent life." The "sanctity of life" position seems hypocritical at first glance, but if you clarify that innocent life has different rights from guilty life, then it's not hypocritical at all - a baby hasn't killed anyone. A murderer has.

If we go by the doctrine of reciprocal rights, that means the baby has the right to life; the murderer does not.

The only thing that distinguishes executions from murders in general is the law that made exceptions for state-sponsered killing of convicts.

That and well, murderers tend to kill innocent people. The state tends to kill non-innocent people.

 

[kosiosko 1]

I


That and well, murderers tend to kill innocent people. The state tends to kill non-innocent people.

that's the crux ... we all know it , you just admit it... Kudos for that mate


we all avoid the point... Murders also "tend to" kill a lot of NON- innocent peolpe

 

[Tani Coyote]

that's the crux ... we all know it , you just admit it... Kudos for that mate

we all avoid the point... Murders also "tend to" kill a lot of NON- innocent peolpe

Hard to define innocence at times since it's nearly impossible to be free from personal sins.

As a a general rule though, most murder victims don't deserve their death since a lot of them are killed for stupid reasons. Whereas nearly all murderers do.

Taking life is the greatest of all vices, I feel, because it isn't reversible. You can give back something you steal. You can apologise for a horrible insult.

You can't resurrect the dead. That's an argument for the death penalty(an unforgivable sin), but also one against it ironically enough - no innocent executed by the state's hand can be brought back.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

What is an acceptable amount of innocent people killed by the sate?

I vote zero.

 

[Abegweit]

The state tends to kill non-innocent people.

Really? I guess you need to give R. J. Rummel this little newsflash.

 

[Camikaze]

At what percentage point does the possibility of innocence decline enough for you to support the death penalty?

It can't. Any possibility of innocence is enough to oppose such a penalty. Humans are more than just statistics. One failing under such a system is a tragedy, facilitated and perpetrated by the state and the death penalty in particular.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Really? I guess you need to give R. J. Rummel this little newsflash.

of all the links that have snuffled me in ... that is really the most brain dead of all , it outdoes all the Zombies eating Christians ones... even out does does 'rick'
I tip a sleeping pommy cricketers hat to you,as i haven't got one at hand, and henceforth will modify all my posts to reflect your... undeniable intellect, and my Kiwi Merlot

 

[Cu Chulainn]

It can't. Any possibility of innocence is enough to oppose such a penalty. Humans are more than just statistics. One failing under such a system is a tragedy, facilitated and perpetrated by the state and the death penalty in particular.

One such failing makes the general public (us) guilty of killing an innocent person without cause. Thus making murderers of us all.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Really? I guess you need to give R. J. Rummel this little newsflash.

It seems you're talking about dictators and whatnot.

I'm talking about America. The state here doesn't murder its foes. America's legal system tends to kill non-innocents.

What is an acceptable amount of innocent people killed by the sate?

I vote zero.

Indeed, especially considering this is crime and punishment, where innocent deaths are easily avoided. This isn't some huge war where civilian casualties are practically a given.

 

[Abegweit]

It seems you're talking about dictators and whatnot.

I'm talking about America. The state here doesn't murder its foes. America's legal system tends to kill non-innocents.

Perhaps you need to tell all the Iraqis and Vietnamese about this particular piece of news. Not to mention the bombed wedding parties in Afghanistan and Yemen.

Indeed, especially considering this is crime and punishment, where innocent deaths are easily avoided. This isn't some huge war where civilian casualties are practically a given.

Riight. It's more like Waco, Ruby Ridge and Wounded Knee.

One of the more interesting little factoids about the US is that, despite a 1995 Congressional Mandate, there are no statistics about how many people the police kill.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'm against death penalty because of the possibility of innocents getting killed. I don't subscribe to other arguments against it.

 

[kosiosko 1]

it realy needs saying twice

They come from my series of alternative history novels, the Never Again Series, and help explain why my interpret lovers volunteer to be sent back to 1906 on a deadly mission to prevent such democides and wars from ever happening.

one cilck away from a link and you get this crap... why will not people just give to the Salvos

 

[MobBoss]

It can't. Any possibility of innocence is enough to oppose such a penalty.

Any?

Dont you think thats a bit extreme?

Especially in cases where the evidence is simply overwhelming? Like in the cases of so many serial killers we have seen?

Also, your comment begs the follow up question. If you require zero percent chance of error there.....how much error do you allow in cases that give life in prison without parole then?

Humans are more than just statistics. One failing under such a system is a tragedy, facilitated and perpetrated by the state and the death penalty in particular.

Has there ever been an absolute positively known error in the US death penalty system where an innocent person was put to death since its re-enactment?

Answer:

Spoiler :

Nope.

One such failing makes the general public (us) guilty of killing an innocent person without cause. Thus making murderers of us all.

Isnt the same true if we keep a murderer alive and he kills again?

 

[Zelig]

How can there be rehabilitation without punishment? How do you know what you did is wrong and you shouldnt do it again without punishment? If there is no punishment why not just do what you did again and again?

What?

I'm not saying punishment shouldn't be part of the justice system, I'm saying it should be used with a goal in mind, either rehabilitation or deterrance. One should not be in favour of increasing punishment simply because they like inflicting pain onto others.

 

[MobBoss]

What?

I'm not saying punishment shouldn't be part of the justice system, I'm saying it should be used with a goal in mind, either rehabilitation or deterrance. One should not be in favour of increasing punishment simply because they like inflicting pain onto others.

No, punishment is the main reason for a prison. Rehab and deterrance secondary to that. Because you simply cant even have rehabilitation and/or deterrance without adequate punishment.

Punishment is increased by the nature of the crime committed. The more serious the crime, the longer the punishment.

Simple.

 

[PeteAtoms]

No, punishment is the main reason for a prison.

I disagree, I think it is more about increasing the safety of the public. it's less about punishment for wrong-doers, and more about the benefit of everyone else. Criminals have a negative impact on society, so removing them from society is a good way to fix that. I don't really think it should be viewed as punishment, but it certainly is (just not the primary reason IMO).

When you spank a kid, its as much of a lesson or teaching tool as it is as a way to get revenge.