The Death penalty is barbaric; prove otherwise

[Atlas14]

Tell that to the people who were MURDERED, RAPED, TORTURED by some criminal. If you were murdered, raped, or tortured, would you want the person who did that to you to be able to live a full, healthy life when he could at least have been HUMANELY executed??????????????????????

 

[Ben E Gas]

When society kills a murderer, they are stooping to their level.

Oh, and the death penalty neither deters crime nor is it cheaper than life in prison.

I'm sorry, but killing someone is a hell of a lot cheaper than feeding/clothing/bedding someone. And I can rest easy knowing a mass murderer or rapist is dead rather than living it up, watching cable, reading books in prison.

You're right about the fact that it won't deter crime though.

And oh, boo hoo, we stooped to the murdere's level and killed him. Bah! Load of crap.

Sorry to sound harsh pal. No offense to you personally, just voicing my opinions.

 

[Atlas14]

Ben E Gas
Quote:
I'm sorry, but killing someone is a hell of a lot cheaper than feeding/clothing/bedding someone. And I can rest easy knowing a mass murderer or rapist is dead rather than living it up, watching cable, reading books in prison.
You're right about the fact that it won't deter crime though.
And oh, boo hoo, we stooped to the murdere's level and killed him. Bah! Load of crap.
Sorry to sound harsh pal. No offense to you personally, just voicing my opinions.


Thank YOu Ben E Gas. Well Said. I totally agree.

 

[IglooDame]

Tell that to the people who were MURDERED, RAPED, TORTURED by some criminal. If you were murdered, raped, or tortured, would you want the person who did that to you to be able to live a full, healthy life when he could at least have been HUMANELY executed??????????????????????

If I was murdered I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care what happens. If I was raped or tortured I would likely end up seeking my own vengeance no matter what the judicial system inflicted on the criminal.

I don't think the judicial system is supposed to be exacting vengeance from convicted felons. I'm in favor of the death penalty simply because unlike Plotinus, I think someone who knowingly takes the life of another does indeed forfeit their own life.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm sorry, but killing someone is a hell of a lot cheaper than feeding/clothing/bedding someone. And I can rest easy knowing a mass murderer or rapist is dead rather than living it up, watching cable, reading books in prison.

You're right about the fact that it won't deter crime though.

And oh, boo hoo, we stooped to the murdere's level and killed him. Bah! Load of crap.

Sorry to sound harsh pal. No offense to you personally, just voicing my opinions.

It has been shown time and time again that the cost of imprisoning someone for twenty years is less than the cost of the additional trial stages involved in a capital case. Are you familiar with lawyers' fees and judges' salaries? I do think it is worth the extra cost, myself.

 

[Ben E Gas]

I didn't think of that Igloo.
good point.

But what about a lifer who stays in there 60+ years?

 

[IglooDame]

I didn't think of that Igloo.
good point.

But what about a lifer who stays in there 60+ years?

Don't know, haven't seen the exact numbers/averages. Only sentencing executions for the 18-34 demographic on the basis of likely future expense would be a tough case to make, though.

 

[Akka]

I'm a bit tired about the "prison paradise" legend.
Prisons are NOT a pleasure garden.
Even if the legends were true and the inmates were having a cable TV set in their personnal cell with all the comfort they can get, they are still IMPRISONED. And I'm sure I would not exchange my freedom for a cell, no matter how golden.

But, of course, it's anyway not the case. The reality is rather being piled at 6 in a 4-person cell, with worn-out sheets, dirty floor and toilets, and the so-enjoyable company of other criminals. Yeah, holidays, sure

I admit, my compassion would be extremely short-handed if they were cold-blooded murderers and rapists. But the reality is, that the majority of inmates are rather thieves, crooks and drug dealers. No, they aren't angels. No, I don't see them as innocent victims. But well, they are actually in prison, they are actually punished. I don't see the necessity to become sadistic on them. We want to reform them, not destroy them so that they only become even more of criminals when they go out compared to when they went in. I'm not asking for luxury conditions, but just decent ones.

And finally, there is the truth that there is sometimes innocent persons in prison. People who were wrongly convicted, for once. Perhaps not that common, but certainly not that rare.
And people waiting for their trial, also. People who had a relative killed and are the suspects, people who were caught or are suspected because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. They can often spend six months to one year in prison, before being declared innocent. Making this time a hell for them, isn't exactly what I would call justice.

 

[Ben E Gas]

I'm a bit tired about the "prison paradise" legend.
Prisons are NOT a pleasure garden.
Even if the legends were true and the inmates were having a cable TV set in their personnal cell with all the comfort they can get, they are still IMPRISONED. And I'm sure I would not exchange my freedom for a cell, no matter how golden.

................. Making this time a hell for them, isn't exactly what I would call justice.

Very true. It's the last place on earth I'd like to be I think. But they shouldn't have luxuries like cable when my own law abiding parents can't even afford it. I tried to buy it for them, but they wouldn't accept it. It just bothers me that's all. Yeah, prison is still hell.

 

[vonork]

So most criminals choosing the death penalty instead of five years of the most extreme physical torture imaginable proves that the death penalty is barbaric?

Yes. ( You say that it only proves that it's more harsh, right?)

Well, my overall point with this is that if it's okay for you to kill me, then why is it not okay to torture me for 5 years? I would gladly take the torture.

 

[IglooDame]

So most criminals choosing the death penalty instead of five years of the most extreme physical torture imaginable proves that the death penalty is barbaric?

Yes. ( You say that it only proves that it's more harsh, right?)

Well, my overall point with this is that if it's okay for you to kill me, then why is it not okay to torture me for 5 years? I would gladly take the torture.

You apparently have never been exposed to real torture.

But in any case, I'm still absolutely about your argument here.

 

[Plotinus]

Executing someone by Death Penalty complies with the simple rules of a Democracy. People have the right to live in freedom, so long as they do not take this right away from someone else. This right to live is defended by the Death Penalty. If you want to murder someone, well, then you can pay the price and be executed.

But this has got nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. Democracy is a form of government where the rulers are directly elected by "the people" (or, in a classical context, where the government's decisions are made by "the people" directly). What has that got to do with whether the death penalty is a good or bad thing?

 

[cgannon64]

Tell that to the people who were MURDERED, RAPED, TORTURED by some criminal. If you were murdered, raped, or tortured, would you want the person who did that to you to be able to live a full, healthy life when he could at least have been HUMANELY executed??????????????????????

Now you're falling back on emotion and vengence, which should have no place in our justice system.

I'm sorry, but killing someone is a hell of a lot cheaper than feeding/clothing/bedding someone. And I can rest easy knowing a mass murderer or rapist is dead rather than living it up, watching cable, reading books in prison.

Capital punishment trials last much longer than non-capital punishmnet trials, and this, plus the time on death row, plus the actual execution ends up costing more than life in prison. But I think IglooDude said this already.

And oh, boo hoo, we stooped to the murdere's level and killed him. Bah! Load of crap.

No offense taken. You see that as a load of crap; I see an eye-for-an-eye as a load of crap.

 

[Sanaz]

So you'd rather want some innocents locked up than a criminal going free? What if you're the innocent?

Then I obviously made some extremely bad decisions to be in a situation that could look enough like guilt for a heinous crime.

By declaring certain people "not human" and "disposing" of them you are just masking your call for revenge;

No. I am also a vengeful person, but Plotinus hit on my point below. I am looking for non-existence of the criminal, which takes away any chance at redemption for them. I am not looking for revenge. Revenge would imply that they could pay for their crime, and I don't want them to have that chance.

a person commiting an extreme atrocity (like an extremely gruesome murder or child abuse) is by definition not in the "sane mind" category. What you are calling for is to execute mentally deficient people instead of treating them.

That isn't always true. I do not believe in killing the mentally ill, just in killing the deranged psychopath. By some definitions they are the same, by some they are not.

If you would simply want them to be "removed" from society, locking up would do, and there would be no need for "dismissing them painfully"

No, this would give them chance for redemption. They do not deserve it.

(why would you want to inflict pain on them anyway?)

From what you're writing it seems that you enjoy the suffering of another person at least as much as someone convicted for it. If you like hurting other people, you might be a criminal just waiting to happen.

That is not true. The death penalty is for extreme cases, not every day life. my phlosophy towards the death penalty does not carry over to the rest of my life, because that would be weird and twisted. the only peole who deserve the pain and suffering are those who have inflicted it on innocents first.

Not having a death penalty does not mean that crimes are all considered the same. Someone commiting a murder in a way that shows he'd be able to do it again should receive a different sentence than someone acting in self defense.

Not having a death penalty does not mean, that murderers will go free; a murderer finishing his sentence and committing the crime a second time would still be a grave error of justice.

Everyone will have a different "tolerance level". I have a fairly specific set of crimes in mind that "deserve" death in return, and that list include only crimes that all other sane people agree fall into the classification of "heinous crime against innocent victims". The degree of consequence is what separate you from me on this issue. I say death, you say lock up/rehab.

 

[Ben E Gas]

Now you're falling back on ...........No offense taken. You see that as a load of crap; I see an eye-for-an-eye as a load of crap.

Yeah, in a way an eye for an eye is a load of crap too. But it feels good sometimes especially when you were the one effected by the crime. If you've ever had a family member killed in a crime then you know what I mean. But then that's bringing the emotion into it.

 

[Caranamrta]

OK, I've got to admit I've only read the last 40 or 50 posts, but can anyone tell me why the issue of INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING EXECUTED has only been mentioned once? Better still, how come no-one responded to it?

Surely killing someone who is innocent of the crime they are accused of IS murder, even if it is state sanctioned, and even if it is a mistake?

I think it is better to get killed while being innocent, than spend 18 years in prison, between all sorts of criminals, while being innocent. Our justice systems aren't perfect, they never were and never will be. There will be always justice miscarriages, but I'd sooner get killed than locked up with criminals, even if I'm innocent.

 

[Cilpot]

It is a difference in opinion wether the justice system is for vengeance or for protecting society against criminals.

 

[Sanaz]

And what, precisely, is your definition of "human"? I don't think I've ever heard a definition which refers to morality or virtue.

This notion that "humanness" is an intrinsically positive thing, and those we consider the worst in society, seems to be very widespread - as when paedophiles etc. are called "monsters" or "inhuman". Well, they're just as human as anyone else. They're just bad. Human beings are capable of evil just as much as they are of good. If you think that Mozart or St Francis are human, you'll have to accept that Harold Shipman is too.

Than change my wording to "very very bad people" should cease to exist. My short-hand for this, as you point out, is saying that someone capable of acts like this is sub-human or non-human. The goal in my mind is to strip away any rights that they ever may have had, and ever may have again.

Besides which, I don't remember any reason why humanity is the only criterion which allows someone to exist. Most animals aren't human but are allowed to exist.

free-will, self-determination, advanced self-awareness, etc. As someone more philosophically minded than I am, you can probably argue my point for me better than I could myself, if you were to play devil's advocate against yourself. I know you're trying to corner me, but that's actually much easier than you'd suspect and not much of a challenge.

I don't see why having committed a crime should rob someone of the right not to be killed, either. I think that's a fundamental right that persists irrespective of what one does or becomes. Killing people is not a way of dealing with a problem - it is a way of throwing the problem away and avoiding it. If the death penalty is a statement, then it is stating: "Some should be torn out and thrown away."

I think that a society that gives up on even its most incorrigible and morally debased members no longer deserves to be called civilised. Conversely, a civilised society is one that recognises that crime is a problem within itself that must be dealt with within itself. It is not something that is performed by "the other", which can be excised like a surgeon cutting away a tumour. It is performed by members of that society. An uncivilised society says, "Here are good people. Here are bad people. Good people good. Bad people bad. Get rid of bad people. Everybody good now."

You have described my point of view very clearly. Cut them out like a tumor. this isn't for prevention or retribution, it just is.

A civilised society recognises that things are not that clear-cut. Declaring that certain people have given up the right to be considered human is not a civilised way of going about things.

Correct. I do not believe in handling some situations in a "civilised" manner. But I think that's pretty clear. It's all a matter of value - I value "civilised" behavior to a point, and then I believe it needs to be temporarily tossed aside to handle certain situations. I do not look for a simple (or even complex) set of rules to follow in all situations. the death penalty is not a "solution" to crime, the criminal mind, or the conditions that set up criminal behavior. I believe that those all need to be handled separately from crime and punishment.

 

[Cilpot]

I think it is better to get killed while being innocent, than spend 18 years in prison, between all sorts of criminals, while being innocent. Our justice systems aren't perfect, they never were and never will be. There will be always justice miscarriages, but I'd sooner get killed than locked up with criminals, even if I'm innocent.

Don't you think its unfair to assume that most other people would want the same?

 

[vonork]

You apparently have never been exposed to real torture.

If given the option I would choose torture, I might regret it after 3 years, but that's then. However, I do perhasp value life(of me) more then you(of yours).

But in any case, I'm still absolutely about your argument here.

? Am I wrong but did you not agree to it, but said that it was wrong to say more barbaric, that it only proved that it was more harsh.