Is the death penalty ever justified?

[BillyDee]

I am aware this is a PG-13 site so I am not going to post the article here, because it is a truely horrific crime involving the murder of a one-month-old baby in a really disturbing way.THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT to read it can find it HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7589247.stm)

This case is the basis of my argument.

I live in UK where, like most of Western Europe, abolished the death penalty decades ago and, in most cases I am morally opposed to the death penalty. I genuinely believe it does not act as a deterrant, I am uncomfortable with the state having the power to decide who lives and who dies, and I also strongly believe that it cheapens "justice" to "revenge" (how many times have you heard the arguement that the leathal injection is "too good for them" and that people should "bring back hanging"?).

However, in cases like this....how else can you punish someone? Not only did the woman kill her baby in such a gross way, but she lied in her defence and showed no remorse when sentanced. How can anybody inflict so much suffering onto something they created? How can you punish someone who has no respect for the law?

When I first read that this woman was facing the death penalty, my gut reaction was to think "good", which goes against every rational fibre of my being. That got me wondering:

Is the death penatly ever justified? If so, when? Does it make it worse that she killed a totally dependant child, who had no knowledge of what was being done to her, or could have even defended herself? Is this crime made more shocking by the fact a woman - worse still her mother - killed her in such a henious way? Or is the emotive nature of this case a good inditment for the abolition of the death penalty?

Your thoughts.......

[Talulah_SC]

Todays law in Europe does not (although some people might disagree) pass judgement as a means of retribution or penalty, but as a means of rectification towards society.
Herein lies the point to your problem I guess.

[crocobaura]

The problem with these people is that they are mentally and emotionally screwed up and no amount of detention will really prevent them from hurting someone else once they're out of jail. Death penaly is not so much as to punish them, but to protect the rest of the people from being hurt by such people.

[Rabid]

The death penalty is never justified. Killing people to show that killing people is wrong makes no sense whatsoever and is morally offensive to me. Not every criminal has the sort of moral compass that would allow him/her to feel retribution and guilt for their actions, but killing them outright doesn't even provide a chance to test this. Criminals should suffer for their actions, should have to live with the guilt every day and spend the rest of their lives in prison. The death penalty doesn't accomplish this. Not the cushy kind of prison with art programs and cable TV, either- the kind where you stay in your decrepit little cell all day with no entertainment whatsoever. What gives government officials the right to decide someone's fate? It's no one's place, and even though the criminal already took advantage of that right, that doesn't make it morally okay for the government to do the same. The death penalty is never okay.

[tizerist_]

Death penaly is not so much as to punish them, but to protect the rest of the people from being hurt by such people.
Hear hear :thumb:
The death penalty is never justified.The death penalty is never okay.
Well i can think of plenty oy circumstances where it is justified, and as crocabaura said, is the only real way of protecting society.
Josef Fritzl?

[Talulah_SC]

Josef Fritzl?


How would society be protected by him being killed after his crimes?

[Ranta]

Killing another human being is unforgivable. That much is obvious. But the whole; 'an eye for an eye' thing is ridiculous. As Rabid stated, how does it make sense to say; "You killed someone. To show you how wrong and immoral that was, we're going to kill you"?

Also, the death penalty doesn't just punish the murderer. The murderer's friends and family have to suffer as well. And what if the murderer isn't a murderer at all? What if they're innocent? There have been cases in the past where someone has been assigned the death penalty, and later on it has been proven that they never commited a crime. How many innocents have been killed as a result of the death penalty?

So, no- the death penalty is never justified.

[crocobaura]

Well death penalty is not really an eye for an eye, given that the criminals are usually given a lethal injection in a sterile environment and it looks more like a medical procedure. That is no way comparable to the pain and fear they usally inflict on their victims and their families.

[kustirider2]

I think that some of the executions should not be allowed to happen, Such as:
Some american states still use hanging.

I also have a question... What is The execution called Firing Squad. It sounds pretty brutal and they still use it in Idaho,Oklahoma and Utah

EDIT: Ew, I just found out what it means, and it doesn't sound very humane as the lethal injection...

[humblebumble]

That link just makes ill. I don't want to think anyone's capable of something like that.

But... *sigh*

I am against the death penalty. I think it's one of those historic relics our great-great grandchildren will learn about in history books and shudder and be happy they didn't live at a time when the ol' and ridiculous "an eye for an eye" practice was still in place - and people could actually --and legally-- be electrocuted or lethally injected. Just like we look back in horror at the barbaric Medieval torture practices.

[jooxis84]

Killing another human being is unforgivable. That much is obvious. But the whole; 'an eye for an eye' thing is ridiculous. As Rabid stated, how does it make sense to say; "You killed someone. To show you how wrong and immoral that was, we're going to kill you"?

That's not what it's about. To simplify it, it's "only fair". If someone kidnapped me, raped me, tortured me and then killed me I would like to think that one day when the bastard gets caught that he will be no more. Imagine yourself as an innocent victim as some psycho is stabbing and slitting you while you're tied to a chair - now imagine thinking, in this situation, that some bleeding heart anti-death penalty activists will fight for this jerk's right to live because it's "inhumane" to put him to sleep.

I've never been persuaded into thinking the death penalty is "wrong" and yet I understand all the arguments against it.

[Ranta]

Well death penalty is not really an eye for an eye, given that the criminals are usually given a lethal injection in a sterile environment and it looks more like a medical procedure. That is no way comparable to the pain and fear they usally inflict on their victims and their families.

It's true that lethal injections aren't comparable to being shot/tortured, but apparently studies have been done that show that there's a possibility that some people who recieve the injections do feel immense pain before they die. But that said, even though I'm opposed to the death penalty, I do think that lethal injections are better than firing squads and hangings and all that.

That's not what it's about. To simplify it, it's "only fair". If someone kidnapped me, raped me, tortured me and then killed me I would like to think that one day when the bastard gets caught that he will be no more. Imagine yourself as an innocent victim as some psycho is stabbing and slitting you while you're tied to a chair - now imagine thinking, in this situation, that some bleeding heart anti-death penalty activists will fight for this jerk's right to live because it's "inhumane" to put him to sleep.

I see your point, but 'only fair' is essentially the same as an eye for an eye. You're saying that if someone kills me, they should be killed as well, which is a life for a life. But, in my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to punish someone for killing by killing them. It's hypocrisy- it's the state saying that killing is wrong, except when they do it.

[Alissa888]

There's no chance of correcting the mistake of wrongful imprisonment. Imagine someone gets framed for a crime and then executed, only to then be acquitted posthumusly, but what's the point then?

Also, what kind of message does fighting violence with violence send?

[Wildchild453]

I personally go back and forth on it because I feel that criminals that commit murders like this never get the punishment they actually due. While they never gain their freedom back, they're still living better than a good number of innocent people outside with medical services when they need it and three square meals a day. Its never like how Rabid wants their prison sentence to be.

kustirider2, hangings and firing squads don't actually happen in the States anymore. They may still be on the books like a lot of state laws but are unconstitutional and won't even be offered as an option if there is going to be an execution

Ranta, while the death penalty may punish the murderer's family too, what about the victim(s)'s familiy?

[kustirider2]

kustirider2, hangings and firing squads don't actually happen in the States anymore. They may still be on the books like a lot of state laws but are unconstitutional and won't even be offered as an option if there is going to be an execution

Oh... I went onto a website and it said that, I dont know much about the states :)

[Cloudburst]

I don't see what makes humans so special, that no matter what they've done, no matter how many people they've killed or whatever, they still have to be kept alive by law (at the expense of the tax payer as well).
I mean, millions (if not, in fact probably, billions) of animals are killed every year, when they've done nothing wrong, just to be used for things like food and clothing, and yet one person, who happens to live in a country such as the UK, can kill loads of people remorselessly (just an example), can only be sent to jail. I fail to see what makes them so much better, and have so many more rights than any other animal, just because they are human.
It's kind of sick when you really think about it.
And to those people who think that murderers should suffer for what they've done, well does it really matter whether they suffer or not. Surely the point is that they are no longer able harm anyone else. It's not really going to make a difference to the family and friends, because either way they're pretty much not going to see them again anyway.

[Sentate]

Personally...
If I was scentenced to life for what ever reason (which would NEVER happen. have you seen the uniforms?!1?!!?one) I think I'd want a death penalty. I think it's quite merciful to spare someone years and years of suffering in a manky old prison with nothing to do...how boring?
SO really by keeping them alive your punishing them. Dying is the easy way out and would save them from god knows what. And the sort of people who do get locked up don't deserve to die, they deserve to suffer the rest of their life in prison.

[BillyDee]

Humblebumble: Sorry about that, I did try and give a warning about the grusome nature of the link. The last thing I want to do on this forum is offend people.

I personally go back and forth on it because I feel that criminals that commit murders like this never get the punishment they actually due.

This is one of the things that I have a problem with the death sentance. Once you start the bloodletting, where does it end? To take the "eye for an eye" arguement to its literal conclusion, if somebody rapes someone and then slits their throat, does that mean we have to punish the offender by raping them and slitting their throat? I personally would feel very uncomfortable with the state having that kind of punishment at its disposal - and what does it say about society as a whole if we welcome it?

As people keep arguing, the definition of prision that rabid never really exists. If prision was a rabid described, would you be less in favour of the death penalty?

[hszmv]

Here's the problem with societies with no death penalty. Say you have a man, who is convicted for life. Scum of the earth kind of fellow, irredeamable and having no remorse for his past deeds. There is just no way he's getting out of jail. Say he goes and kills a fellow inmate (which happens all the time). What do you do with a guy like that? How do you punish someone more? You can only die once and this guy is going to rot in jail. What possible means do you have to offer that decease's family any form of justice? Hell, for people like this, the trial (if any, sad as it may seem) is a mockery of justice. This guy can't stay in prision for TWO lives now can he? You can't take away anything more than just giving him life in solitary (which near as I can imagine, is worse than death). He has to be fed, he has to be given health insurance for anything including plastic surgery (in the United States, prisoners are the only group of people who have health care garenteed by the Constitution!). Now, like everything, I like to look at things from both sides of an issue. There are some people I am convinced deserve the chair (not that the electric chair is in use anymore, but let me be poetic) like Timothy McVehe (sp?) and some who don't like the twentith highjacker (would have given terrorists a mater and that's the last thing we need). But in my opinion its case by case (which it is).

How ever, I want to know something from the anti-death penalty crowd: What would you do with the sick SOB that has life in prison no parol and kills a fellow inmate? How do you ensure that the dead guys folks get justice like everyone else? How do you make it worse for this guy? Until you can do that, this heartless guy just got away with murder, and there is nothing society can do about it.

[Rabid]

How ever, I want to know something from the anti-death penalty crowd: What would you do with the sick SOB that has life in prison no parol and kills a fellow inmate? How do you ensure that the dead guys folks get justice like everyone else? How do you make it worse for this guy? Until you can do that, this heartless guy just got away with murder, and there is nothing society can do about it.

Anyone who has seen The Shawshank Redemption knows that there are things that go on in penitentiaries behind closed doors that the government wouldn't approve of. Guards abuse inmates right and left, physically, verbally, and even sexually. I'm sure that they wouldn't take a shine to a prisoner who killed other prisoners and might give him some "special treatment." I'm not saying that it's right, but it's something of a makeshift solution. People get away with crime every day- all I can say is lock the guy up tighter to prevent it from happening again and hope that the guards do their unspoken job to make his life miserable. The prison should have high enough security to prevent it from happening in the first place.

[jenny]

I saw this article today:(...really wished I hadn't....the death penalty isn't enough for her.....I wouldn't even give her that.

[longears15]

I am opposed to the death penalty in any situation. Aside from feeling that death as a punishment for murder (for example) is rather hypocritical, I believe that life inprisonment would be a worse punishment. In the situation that hszmv raised, I'd like to see prison along the lines of that Rabid suggested - no comforts, no conveniences. Keep them in solitary confinement. Give them their meals, provide basic medical care and nothing else.

I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to have a close relative or friend murdered, but I wonder how much closure it brings when the perpetrator is executed? It doesn't bring their loved one back and surely doesn't undo the hurt that has been caused. And, as somebody else pointed out, the perpetrator has family too. Even if said perpetrator really is the scum of the earth, why is it okay to kill that family's loved one too? Plus, as [b]Alissa[b] said, the death penalty isn't exactly reversible. I know that you can't give a person X years of their life back if they've spent it wrongfully inprisoned, but it is a step up from being dead.

Somebody raised the question of pain... I can tell you from experience that intravenous potassium chloride is rather painful (and that's at a therapeutic dose - something like 1/10 the lethal dose). But as far as I am aware, lethal injection involves the administration of a barbiturate and muscle relaxant beforehand, so that the person is unconscious when the KCl is administered. In theory at least it should be a painless death, but that to me is beside the point.

[WannabeSith]

I do not see the death penalty as wrong per se, but I do believe that toughening up our prison system could render it largely unnecessary. I know there's a stereotype out there that paints all corrections officers as jerks that get their jollies out of abusing incarcerated men and women. Since my own brother is a corrections officer and an honorable man at that, all I ask there is that no one tars them all with the same brush as those who abuse their power.

Day after day, my brother faces increasing frustration over the fact that prison life is an entirely too cushy a situation to really call a punishment. What is to keep a person from committing a crime if they see the people who do living life high on the hog? My brother faced possible repercussions at work because he turned off the pornography on the inmates' t.v. His bosses said that they didn't want the inmates getting all riled up, so they should just be given what they wanted. He continually meets with taunts from the inmates like the one following: "It's great in here. Come on and join us, do something to get yourself locked up."

But back to the matter of the death penalty, I wonder how much more value the life imprisonment sentence would hold if it were actually something the inmates would dread? Now, I'm not advocating anything medieval, but if you took away their entertainment, their comfort (which is nice, but not truly a need), how many of them would be willing to commit repeat offenses? So in my mind, life imprisonment can really only be a reasonable substitute for the death penalty if it holds some real weight.

That said, I do not like the death penalty, but find it a necessary evil for the time being.

[Doddibot]

Well, firstly I have argued in at least one of the abortion threads (http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?t=57274) that I don't think that a mother killing her newborn should necessarily count as murder. That is, I'm pro-choice on infanticide as well as abortion.

Second, I don't agree with the death penalty at all. The idea of criminal 'penalties' should not be to punish offenders, but to simply prevent them from harming others. There is no justification for torturing or killing a criminal once they have been caught or imprisoned. Nobody 'deserves' to die, nor does anybody 'deserve' to be tortured. These criminals simply obey a different code of ethics to the rest of us, and unless they can change, we can only try to keep them away from those people who they would harm if they acted how they think is right.

I defend the idea of keeping prisons as nice places to live, because these people are no less interested in comfort as we are - they deserve no worse a standard of life to the rest of us. Regardless of how many people they've killed/raped/swindled.

[jooxis84]

I see your point, but 'only fair' is essentially the same as an eye for an eye. You're saying that if someone kills me, they should be killed as well, which is a life for a life. But, in my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to punish someone for killing by killing them. It's hypocrisy- it's the state saying that killing is wrong, except when they do it.

Well, it will always be common sense to me. To know that a person could do whatever the hell he wants, kill as many people as he wants in the most gruesome ways and that society will tolerate it enough to spare him from getting put down is wrong.
Hypocrisy? If someone raped and killed your mother, you'd probably want him dead - would you feel like a hypocrite then?
It's not about "achieving" something really good, we all know the victims won't be revived, we know the families won't feel much better over their loss, we know no one will "learn a lesson" by being put down but it's the only outcome I would want.
They put down dogs who have bitten or killed people, yet they're not achieving anything with it - they technically could still keep them alive. I also think murderers who rape and torture are much worse than dogs who bite someone, but of course being human makes your life all the more precious. No matter how big of a scumbag you are.

[Doddibot]

Hypocrisy? If someone raped and killed your mother, you'd probably want him dead - would you feel like a hypocrite then?
I may very well wish such a person dead, but I wouldn't want society to actually grant my wishes. What a horrible society that would be.

They put down dogs who have bitten or killed people, yet they're not achieving anything with it - they technically could still keep them alive. I also think murderers who rape and torture are much worse than dogs who bite someone, but of course being human makes your life all the more precious. No matter how big of a scumbag you are.
They put down dogs like that to keep them from re-offending. Because they are not people, they can't learn from their mistakes or change their minds, so killing them or locking them away forever are the only two options. But because they are not people, there is no reason to choose the second option.

But criminals are people, so we should keep them from reoffending in a way that doesn't involve killing people, if we can.

[Chazemataz]

People are saying that the government is being hypocritical in executing people, but that is just splitting hairs. If they don't punish someone who, say, raped and then tortured and murdered your loved one brutally, who will?
Put yourself in the shoes of somebody who is the victim of something like this. Would you be happy knowing that as this is happening to you, there are random people fighting for this person's right to live?
I think there's a difference between aggrivated and totally random murder. For example, aggravated would be killing someone but having a reason to do so. Murder is never right IMO but I mean as in you can see why they had a reason to do what they did. This woman had no reason to do such a horrible thing to a defenseless baby for crying out loud. This wouldn't be agravated. Another example would be the sicko who went into an Amish schoolhouse and shot 18 amish girls under the age of 13 a while back, not far from where I live. That was totally brutal and if he hadn't killed himself I would say he definatly deserved the death penalty.
On the other hand, if some guy is molesting your daughter and you have reasonable proof that he is, and you go and shoot him, that would be aggravated. You should still probably go to jail for at least 20 years, but at least you had reason. That doesn't call for the death penalty.

[jooxis84]

I may very well wish such a person dead, but I wouldn't want society to actually grant my wishes. What a horrible society that would be.

I may not want a society that grants people's wishes either, especially if they're fueled by revenge, but I would want a society that at least takes some compassion on the victim's part, not just the murderer's as they seem to do. I would like a society that will side with the victim and his/her family and not be as neutral just cause that's what's considered ethical in this day and age.

But criminals are people, so we should keep them from reoffending in a way that doesn't involve killing people, if we can.

I don't see the point in "rehabilitating" a serial rapist/killer. I don't want society wasting resources in order for a murderer to become "enlightened" about what he committed and feel remorse and feel like he's all of a sudden a differnt person and all that crap. You forcefully took away someone else's right to live, then good bye.

[Mando Verd]

"I genuinely believe it does not act as a deterrant"

No? So you're saying that every human being on the earth would be just as likely to commit a heinous act if they knew they could be killed for it as if they were locked up for life, with: A) A chance to escape and do it again, B) The wonderful plethora of luxuries, freedoms, and amenities given to inmates in western culture, and C) You know... LIFE.

"I also strongly believe that it cheapens 'justice' to 'revenge'"

I'm pretty sure the government has no motive for revenge. They weren't the victims, and the victims rarely play a part in choosing the sentence of a convict, anyway. It's hardly "revenge" if the ones enacting it have nothing to hold personally against the convict.

"When I first read that this woman was facing the death penalty, my gut reaction was to think 'good', which goes against every rational fibre of my being."

Every rational fibre...? Listen, your gut isn't just telling you that because of some abstract emotional impulse. Every woman who gets the impulse to kill their baby for their boyfriends will now think twice. It lets everyone know that such an act will bring horrible consequences, which is what the penal system (Note I did not say 'Correctional' system...) is for.

"The problem with these people is that they are mentally and emotionally screwed up and no amount of detention will really prevent them from hurting someone else once they're out of jail. Death penaly is not so much as to punish them, but to protect the rest of the people from being hurt by such people."

Not always true. If two people were convicted of horrible murders, one without remorse and showing no signs of that changing in the future, and the other totally repentant, trying to do everything he can to make up for his crime, I'd still want them both killed. It has nothing to do with making them feel guilty or making them stop killing. It has to do with applying consequences to actions, plain and simple. You do X, you get Y. If this is not made totally and completely standard, everyone with the inclination to do wrong (which is everyone. I'm certain everyone here has done something wrong, and thought about doing things much worse. Many have probably contemplated murder. It's not uncommon in the least. And the reason you don't commit it? BECAUSE YOU THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES.) will think they have a chance of getting away with it, even if they're caught.

"Not every criminal has the sort of moral compass that would allow him/her to feel retribution and guilt for their actions"

It is NOT about making them feel guilty. Guilt is not a feeling. It is a state of being. If you committed murder, you're guilty. Doesn't matter whether you feel it or not. And no amount of "Correction" or "Rehabilitation" or "Instruction" can force someone to feel guilty. Nor can it change their behavior. That's THEIR choice, and theirs alone. The government cannot be given the idea that it's their responsibility to make criminals no longer criminal. It doesn't work. Offering rehab centers and halfway houses is one thing, but forcing it does no good at all.

"Criminals should suffer for their actions, should have to live with the guilt every day and spend the rest of their lives in prison."

AS AFOREMENTIONED, prison is not for making prisoners feel guilty. It's meant to punish. To penalize. To. Provide. A. Consequence. To make them responsible for their actions. That's it.

"Not the cushy kind of prison with art programs and cable TV, either- the kind where you stay in your decrepit little cell all day with no entertainment whatsoever."

Try finding one. I work at a prison. They don't have "cells". They have DORMS. You know, like in college. They get cable TV (for which THEY are given the remotes), they get to ORDER things to cook within the facility, they have free walk of almost the entire compound for almost the entire day at least, they are *deliberately given* the means to run businesses out of the facility, (selling artwork and such) and are rarely punished for breaking the rules, and that's just when they're *caught*. Given that there's a 296 to 1 Inmate/Guard ratio frequently, they have little trouble getting away with, well... anything. Granted, there are probably more secure facilities out there, but even in some medium security prisons inmates are given *video game consoles* for each of their cells.

"What gives government officials the right to decide someone's fate?"

It's called the LAW. And frankly, life in prison is as much part of someone's fate as the death penalty.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by tizerist_
Josef Fritzl?



How would society be protected by him being killed after his crimes?"

Well gee, I sure bet his *daughter* and his illegitimate incestuous offspring are feeling safer, don't you?

"And what if the murderer isn't a murderer at all? What if they're innocent? There have been cases in the past where someone has been assigned the death penalty, and later on it has been proven that they never commited a crime."

That's going to happen anyway. Is it more fair to convict an innocent man to life in prison? False convictions will occur; we're human. And given that, we have to work with what we have. Think about this: Would you rather be falsely convicted and sentenced to life, knowing that this system also kept *real* murderers alongside you alive, or convicted falsely and sentenced to death, knowing that at least usually, justice is served. Myself, I'd be upset, sure... but I'd be more upset at the false conviction than the sentence.

"in my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to punish someone for killing by killing them. It's hypocrisy- it's the state saying that killing is wrong, except when they do it."

It's not hypocrisy; it's CONSEQUENCE. You know how there are different charges brought for manslaughter and homicide? MURDER is wrong, KILLING is what the government would be doing.
Murder, by its very definition, is unjustified homicide. When it is justified (e.g. as a penal measure, or defense of other human life,) it's not murder. Therefore, how can it be hypocrisy?

"here's no chance of correcting the mistake of wrongful imprisonment. Imagine someone gets framed for a crime and then executed, only to then be acquitted posthumusly, but what's the point then?"

Yeah... it sucks to be convicted falsely. But as I mentioned, we're human; it happens. You can but do the best with what you have. And also, it's *going to happen anyway*. It's the false conviction that's wrong, not the sentence.

cloudburst, you, for one, present a very interesting viewpoint. While I'm a Christian, personally, and *do* think that humans are more special than animals, (not that animals are not special) You do happen to intrigue me with your argument. Very basic, and to the point. Bravo.

"I think it's quite merciful to spare someone years and years of suffering in a manky old prison with nothing to do...how boring?"

There's a *ton* of things to do in prison. (look above) And even were there not, there'd sure as heck be nothing to do when you're dead. How boring.

"To take the "eye for an eye" arguement to its literal conclusion, if somebody rapes someone and then slits their throat, does that mean we have to punish the offender by raping them and slitting their throat?"

For one, that would require the state to themselves perform a crime to punish the offender. As aforementioned, killing isn't the crime, murder is.
However, I don't deny that would be unbelievably just *results*, if not action.

"What would you do with the sick SOB that has life in prison no parol and kills a fellow inmate?"

Hear, hear. Oh, and have you heard about the ones that kill while out on "Furlough"?

"Anyone who has seen The Shawshank Redemption..."

Stop. Right. There. A movie? You're seriously referring to a movie on a *fictional story* for this?
I won't deny guard-on-inmate abuse does happen. I'll bet you my life that inmate-on-inmate abuse is ten times more frequent, though.

"The prison should have high enough security to prevent it from happening in the first place."

SHOULD.

"That is, I'm pro-choice on infanticide as well as abortion."

So... it's okay to kill you as an infant or fetus, but not if you've killed an entire family?

"Nobody 'deserves' to die"

Waaaaiiitaminute... didn't you just say...?

"The idea of criminal 'penalties' should not be to punish offenders, but to simply prevent them from harming others"

pe·nal
Pronunciation[peen-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or involving punishment, as for crimes or offenses.
2. prescribing punishment: penal laws.
3. constituting punishment: He survived the years of penal hardship.

So... the idea of penalty is not to penalize? Um... Hm... ooookay. Sure. Let's run with that for a moment.
To prevent harm to others... for one, we'd have to pay for them to be in their cushy prisons, and 'Harm' can easily be defined as 'Having detracted integrity from yourself', which would include financial integrity, no? Catch 22, there.
Not to mention that you're not really protecting anyone from the thousands of people who know they'll be pampered if they murder someone.

"These criminals simply obey a different code of ethics to the rest of us"

....Soooooo? The law is meant to enforce one (1) code of ethics. It's not meant, nor able, to cater to every code of ethics at once. Nor should it be.

"I may very well wish such a person dead, but I wouldn't want society to actually grant my wishes. What a horrible society that would be."

What a horrible society it would be to live in a world where no one had to pay the consequences for their actions. What a horrible world it would be to know that your neighbor could rape and kill you horribly, mutilate your corpse, and mock your family afterwards and then get sent to a prison not unlike a motel.
What a horrible society THAT would be.

"Because they are not people, they can't learn from their mistakes or change their minds, so killing them or locking them away forever are the only two options."

When your dog goes poo-poo on your carpet, what do you do? Stick their nose in it and give 'em a smart smack on the rump. And you know what? <GASP> They begin to figure out after a while, that "I poop here, it hurts bad."
Almost every animal reacts to positive and negative reinforcement. It's a basic instinct. "This... causes *this*. Better not do 'this', anymore."
Also... that's WHY YOU KILL THEM. Seriously.

"But criminals are people, so we should keep them from reoffending in a way that doesn't involve killing people, if we can."

If you can. Got news for ya. You can't. You can even use the most horrible brainwashing techniques imaginable (and I'm certain you've thought about that sort of 'criminal rehabilitation') But if someone wants to kill someone, they're going to try. Nothing you can do about *their* choice. Government can merely control the *consequences*. And stopping them from doing such cripples any semblance of a stable society.

Anyhow, I apologize for the long post, but, well... I had a lot to say. I don't want to be one of those "hit-and-run" troll cowards you see so often on the 'net, so I'll be checking in for at least the next few days to address any questions you may have about my argument. I just couldn't read this debate and sit silent.

Bring on the flames... <sigh>

-Mando Verd

[Doddibot]

I may not want a society that grants people's wishes either, especially if they're fueled by revenge, but I would want a society that at least takes some compassion on the victim's part, not just the murderer's as they seem to do. I would like a society that will side with the victim and his/her family and not be as neutral just cause that's what's considered ethical in this day and age.
But take the example given at the very start of this thread. I don't actually think the woman has done anything unethical (though, it was illegal). So in my opinion, giving that woman the death penalty would be killing an innocent woman.

What right do we have to kill people for things that not everyone agrees is immoral? I don't want this woman to be killed, but if the government of my country killed her with my tax money, that would in effect make me responsible for the murder. I don't like that.

Take, as an example, the fact that in some countries like Saudi Arabia, there is a death penalty for homosexuality or adultery. Why is a death penalty for rape or murder acceptable, but a death penalty for homosexuality or adultery wrong?

I'm sure there would be fundamentalist Islamic clerics who would think that our society, allowing adulterers or gay people to walk around without stoning them on sight, is grossly unjust. They would think that the right consequence for the crime of homosexuality is death, and to not enforce any consequences for homosexuality is a total offence.

As far as I'm concerned, death penalties for murder just as bad as death penalties for adultery. I just don't see the difference between cries of "She's a witch, burn her!" and the cries of "She's a baby-killer, kill her!"

"Nobody 'deserves' to die"

Waaaaiiitaminute... didn't you just say...?

I never said anyone deserves to die. Foetuses do not deserve to die, but their death is not wrong either.

You can even use the most horrible brainwashing techniques imaginable (and I'm certain you've thought about that sort of 'criminal rehabilitation') But if someone wants to kill someone, they're going to try. Nothing you can do about *their* choice. Government can merely control the *consequences*. And stopping them from doing such cripples any semblance of a stable society.

For what reason, then, would any form of punishment be useful if it doesn't deter criminals. Why punish?

[jooxis84]

But take the example given at the very start of this thread. I don't actually think the woman has done anything unethical (though, it was illegal). So in my opinion, giving that woman the death penalty would be killing an innocent woman.

There are things that I would consider absolutely NON DEBATABLE as to whether they are right or wrong. Such being murder, rape, mass robbery, etc... I simply do not accept any argument that tries to convince me that rape is not necessarily wrong. It is absolutely wrong and that is the truth. The majority of western society thinks so as well. On the other hand, things like abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, stem cell research, etc.. can and always will be debated within society because those issues can be subjective. Unlike murder. Objectively, murder is wrong.

[BillyDee]

I saw this article today:(...really wished I hadn't....the death penalty isn't enough for her.....I wouldn't even give her that.

This is one sentiment I never get. People who say that prision is "not punishment enough" for murderers, and yet on the other hand say that the death penalty is "too good" for them

What kind of punishment would they offer out, then?

[Mando Verd]

"But take the example given at the very start of this thread. I don't actually think the woman has done anything unethical (though, it was illegal). So in my opinion, giving that woman the death penalty would be killing an innocent woman."

First, I'm really, truly curious as to what you define 'ethical' and 'unethical' as. Some ambiguous feeling that you don't like? Or is it just whatever *you* don't agree with?

So a woman who MICROWAVES HER BABY CHILD is innocent in your eyes, huh? What's wrong then, at all, with killing her, then? I guarantee she's not as innocent as her child was. So why on earth do you think it's wrong?

Right and wrong are NOT subjective. Even if everyone in the world took the stance that murder is okay, that wouldn't make it so. Just as your opinion on "infanticide" (MURDERING BABIES,) doesn't make it true.

Facts in this world are not determined by popular opinion. If 99 people go to a funeral and say the deceased is really still alive, but just sleeping in the coffin, even though their heart's stopped, they're not breathing, and they're beginning to rot, and have for many days, the 1 who said they're dead is going to be the right one.

The law is not about opinion. It's not meant to cater to yours, or any one person. Nor, even, the opinion of the populace, really. It's meant to come as close as people know how to those *absolute truths* of right and wrong, and to provide consequence for when wrong is done. Granted, short of divine providence, no one can be absolutely certain that their perception of right and wrong aren't distorted. But *that's* where popular opinion steps in. It makes the results *less likely* to be wrong, given that there is so much input.

Then again, never underestimate the power of people to be wrong in large numbers...

"I never said anyone deserves to die. Foetuses do not deserve to die, but their death is not wrong either."

So giving death to something that doesn't deserve it is... not wrong? I'm confused. It's not deserved... but it's not wrong. So... this woman doesn't deserve to die, either... and it IS wrong?

"For what reason, then, would any form of punishment be useful if it doesn't deter criminals. Why punish?"

As I stated (more than once) before, it DOES deter. A lot. Would you be more likely to commit murder if you knew you'd be killed for it? I don't think so. That's simple, common sense.

And as I also mentioned, the penal system is not meant to make their decisions for them. Nor can it. What are we, some kind of hive mind?

OBEY THE COLLECTIVE. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

It's about providing consequences to wrong actions, that's all. Because. They. Are. Wrong. And a price needs to be paid for misdeeds, plain and simple. It's not about forcing them to behave differently, nor about revenge. It's about *consequence*, and nothing more or less.

"It is absolutely wrong and that is the truth. The majority of western society thinks so as well. On the other hand, things like abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, stem cell research, etc.. can and always will be debated within society because those issues can be subjective."

Think carefully about what you're saying, though. What determines whether an issue is objective or subjective? Murder's objectively wrong, while, say... homosexuality is only subjective. What determines that? Or is it completely arbitrary? The very thing you're arguing for these "subjective" issues is the same thing they're arguing for murder.

"This is one sentiment I never get. People who say that prision is "not punishment enough" for murderers, and yet on the other hand say that the death penalty is "too good" for them

What kind of punishment would they offer out, then?"

Well, think about the possibilities? What happens after death? No one can prove anything. You're essentially casting the convicted into the unknown. But it's sure an unknown that's away from the rest of us, at least.
When you think about it though, at the very least their existence is completely ended. What worse punishment can there really be? Even in a miserable existence you'd still be *existing*. Can you tell me what it would be like to stop existing? Worse than a horrible existence, I'll tell you that. You wouldn't have the chance to enjoy relief from suffering, because you know... you'd be gone.

-Mando Verd

[Ranta]

Well, I just went back and read the example at the start of this thread (I was avoiding it at first...I'm squeamish). And of course, there's no debate that what this woman did is absolutely, undeniably horrible- but let's think about it for a minute. Honestly, I don't believe that this woman is sane, because I can't imagine any sane person killing anyone- let alone their own child- just to prevent their boyfriend from getting angry. And then, assuming that this woman is insane, she sould have been commited to a mental institution, and not given the death penalty. I'm not defending what she did in any way- it makes me sick to even think about it- but chances are that, given the circumstances, there is something wrong with her.

Hypocrisy? If someone raped and killed your mother, you'd probably want him dead - would you feel like a hypocrite then?

But wanting someone dead isn't the same as actually killing them. Right or wrong, it's very hypocritical to punish someone for doing something wrong by doing to them what they did to someone else.

As I stated (more than once) before, it DOES deter. A lot. Would you be more likely to commit murder if you knew you'd be killed for it? I don't think so. That's simple, common sense.


It is simple, common sense- for a sane person. But a sane person, as I've stated, is probably not going to commit murder to begin with, especially if their only reason for doing so is that their boyfriend might get mad. An insane person, on the other hand- or for that matter, anyone who is intent on commiting murder- won't be stopped by any possible punishment. Also, in California there were an average of six executions a year from 1952 to 1967, and the murder rate in those years was twice as high as it was from 1968 to 1991, when no one was executed.

[kennyinbmore]

The death penalty should be given to everyone who takes another person's life

[Alissa888]

Even if it was done in self-defence?

[RandomAnomaly]

Like Mando Verd, I couldn't read this thread and sit silent. Taking into account the fact that a man has brutally and unlawfully slain an innocent person, should not the government of said people's country have the right (not to mention the responsibility) to respond in kind? If confronted with the question "why", the guilty responds with "because I could", it is not only wrong but stupid to allow him freedom so that he may commit such atrocities again.
That said, I believe the death penalty is the most just punishment there is for crimes such as murder. This thread being painfully longer than it should be, the definition of murder is simple:

mur·der
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

[Mando Verd]

"Honestly, I don't believe that this woman is sane, because I can't imagine any sane person killing anyone- let alone their own child- just to prevent their boyfriend from getting angry."

I'm quite sure she's sane. This sort of act is not at all unusual for sane people. They simply don't value the baby as human life. Grief... a person on this very thread has already stated that they thought this was an innocent act! Unless you think they're insane, too, I suggest you re-evaluate.

Secondly, I don't really care if she's insane. Unless it was such an extreme case of schizophrenia that she thought her baby had turned into some horrible monster out to kill her, she knew exactly what she was doing, insane or no. Insanity is not an excuse, nor a cause, for murder.

"Also, in California there were an average of six executions a year from 1952 to 1967, and the murder rate in those years was twice as high as it was from 1968 to 1991, when no one was executed."

"If this is not made totally and completely standard, everyone with the inclination to do wrong... will think they have a chance of getting away with it, even if they're caught."

As I said, if it's not made standard, it will have a seriously detracted effect. It wasn't standard in the least, ever. Six? I guarantee you the annual murder rate was many, many times that. And frankly, though I don't want to imply you're dishonest, your information doesn't sound credible. Or logical, for that matter. Though, it *is* California...
...I'd show you the graph I found on the U.S. statistics now, but I just discovered I need more posts on this forum before I can post URL's... I'll bring it up later.

In any case, though... 1: Keep in mind that it is by no means a requirement for someone to be insane to commit murder. Sane people do it all the time.
2: Doesn't really matter if they're insane, if they still knew what they were doing.
3: People who don't value their own lives will not care as much about capital punishment. However, most people *do*.

-Mando Verd

[Doddibot]

First, I'm really, truly curious as to what you define 'ethical' and 'unethical' as. Some ambiguous feeling that you don't like? Or is it just whatever *you* don't agree with?
I think something is ethical if I think it is something that should be done, or is acceptable to be done. Something is unethical if is an immoral act.

Of course, these are only from my viewpoint. I can't speak for anyone but myself.

So a woman who MICROWAVES HER BABY CHILD is innocent in your eyes, huh? What's wrong then, at all, with killing her, then? I guarantee she's not as innocent as her child was. So why on earth do you think it's wrong?
I don't care who is innocent or who isn't. My reason for why it is acceptable to kill a newborn is exactly the same as my reason for why abortion is acceptable - embryos, foetuses and neonates don't value their own life, so there is nothing wrong with taking that life from them.

The woman, on the other hand, likely values her own life and wants to keep living. Therefore, to take her life away would, in my view, be wrong.

That said, I do think the method was quite cruel, and therefore I think something should be done to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.

Facts in this world are not determined by popular opinion.
Precisely, but is morality a fact? I am not a moral objectivist, meaning that I do not think that morality is a case of true/false factual statements. I'm a ethical subjectivist.

It's meant to come as close as people know how to those *absolute truths* of right and wrong, and to provide consequence for when wrong is done.
How do we know there is an absolute morality to refer to?

So giving death to something that doesn't deserve it is... not wrong? I'm confused. It's not deserved... but it's not wrong. So... this woman doesn't deserve to die, either... and it IS wrong?
Deserving death and it being ethical to give death are two different things. It is ethical, in my mind, to kill a goat for meat. Goats do not deserve to die, however. On the other hand, it is unethical to kill an adult human being (unless you are saving more lives by doing so), regardless of who deserves to die or not.

But seeing as some here think that some people deserve to die, I was just pointing out that I don't think anyone deserves to die.

As I stated (more than once) before, it DOES deter. A lot. Would you be more likely to commit murder if you knew you'd be killed for it? I don't think so. That's simple, common sense.
Well, I'd need to see the proof of that. Life imprisonment and death seem to both be equally big consequences, and as you said, if somebody really wants to kill somebody else, you're not going to stop them.

I've not seen any evidence for capital punishment reducing capital crimes.

It's about providing consequences to wrong actions, that's all. Because. They. Are. Wrong. And a price needs to be paid for misdeeds, plain and simple. It's not about forcing them to behave differently, nor about revenge. It's about *consequence*, and nothing more or less.
And how do we determine what the consequences for murder are, so that we may implement them?

Can you tell me what it would be like to stop existing? Worse than a horrible existence, I'll tell you that. You wouldn't have the chance to enjoy relief from suffering, because you know... you'd be gone.
But don't many people commit suicide to escape horrible existences?

The death penalty should be given to everyone who takes another person's life
Wouldn't that mean the executioner would have to be executed?

[RandomAnomaly]

First off, I'd like to point out that if you don't care who is innocent and who is not, would you have two people executed if there was equal evidence against both parties, even though only one was actually the murderer? Secondly, morality IS a fact. A million people can read the same book and every translation will be different, but it is still the same book. The same goes for a moral compass. You may interpret it differently than I do, but it does not change what is right and what is wrong.
And the answer to your question referring to an absolute morality: A moral compass was built when mankind was first able to think, and is still being built now. Collectively, from more than just the six billion people currently occupying our planet now, the moral compass was formed by more than just a petty group of bloggers such as ourselves.
I hope this will answer your question, Doddibot.

[Rabid]

Secondly, morality IS a fact. A million people can read the same book and every translation will be different, but it is still the same book. The same goes for a moral compass. You may interpret it differently than I do, but it does not change what is right and what is wrong.

No, it's not. Morality isn't strictly black and white or right and wrong- it's completely subjective. Just because you perceive that Doddi is wrong about this doesn't mean that you're right- perception isn't the truth. There is no rigid moral compass set in stone that everyone adheres to- each and every person has a different set of values based on environment and personal perspectives. It's not how you interpret it that's different, but it's what you were conditioned to perceive as right and wrong. How can you be so obtuse to think that right and wrong are a strict thing? Jesus thought that we should stone adulteresses- is that a stoutly right or wrong statement to you? People are diverse, different corners of the world have drastically different values... there is no right and wrong. It's all different shades of gray.

[WannabeSith]

Rabid, I'd like to respectfully ask that you refrain from slinging insults like obtuse around. Just a matter of civility, thanks.

And if you must bring up the subject of Jesus when it comes to matters of morality, please check to see that your information is accurate first. Jesus is the one person in the crowd that was not crying out for the adulteress' blood. He said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Obviously, none of us has gone our entire lives without screwing up.

When is comes to matters of morality in regard to the death penalty, I'm not saying we should see anyone as beyond forgiveness even. But that is the person. I agree with Mando Verd that actions demand consequences. Cause and effect. Regardless of how one feels about morals, if there is not some common ground (the law) that everyone is expected to adhere to, we would have a serious anarchy issue on our hands. People can be forgiven whereas I believe some actions should not be.

But again, since this is a debate, I fully expect many of you to hold an entirely different opinion from mine. That is your right.

[RandomAnomaly]

I wasn't saying that whatever I say is right and everything Doddi says is crap, I was simply stating the fact that just as everyone obeys the laws of physics, everybody uses the same moral compass. And yes, it is set in stone, it always has been and always will be a matter of different interpretation.

[Mando Verd]

So... you're a moral subjectivist, meaning that *everyone* is right, no matter how mutually exclusive their views may be.

Why have laws, then? Honestly? Let's just repeal 'em all. No point if morality doesn't exist except in our own perspectives.

Where, seriously, do you get the idea that the unborn and infants do not value their own lives? They're breathing, aren't they? They cry for food, don't they? In the case of the unborn, they don't stop taking nutrients from their mothers, do they? Everything they do is to survive. How can you say they don't value their own existence, when it's plain they're trying to continue it?

"Well, I'd need to see the proof of that."

I'd *love* to show you quite a few things from the Dept. of Justice, but I can't post any URL's until after my *next* post. They have some bizarre rules on this forum.

"And how do we determine what the consequences for murder are, so that we may implement them?"

Wonderful rule of thumb: "Make the punishment fit the crime." If, of course, you can get people to stop committing the crime with less, more power to you. But good luck, because your chances aren't so great.

"But don't many people commit suicide to escape horrible existences?"

Yes, they do. And these people are incredibly foolish, or so blinded by their situation that they cannot see that to exist miserably is inherently superior to not existing at all.

"Wouldn't that mean the executioner would have to be executed?"

I'll admit, I liked that one. Very well put.

As for your questioning absolutes, I think RandomAnomaly put it eloquently enough.

"Morality isn't strictly black and white or right and wrong- it's completely subjective."

"perception isn't the truth."

Those two statements do NOT mesh. They are fundamentally, mutually, exclusive.

"Jesus thought that we should stone adulteresses- is that a stoutly right or wrong statement to you? "

Yup, stoutly wrong. Plain enough for you?

"It's all different shades of gray."

Funny thing... you ever mix a whole lot of salt and pepper together? One's white, one's black. But throw them together, lose your focus, or view them from a distance, and it looks like a lot of gray.
Perhaps those who believe it is black and white simply can see things a whole lot better than you can.

-Mando Verd

[Doddibot]

First off, I'd like to point out that if you don't care who is innocent and who is not, would you have two people executed if there was equal evidence against both parties, even though only one was actually the murderer?
My point was that even if we knew 100% that one person was innocent and another was guilty, that doesn't make the death of the guilty person less wrong than the death of the innocent one.

Secondly, morality IS a fact. A million people can read the same book and every translation will be different, but it is still the same book. The same goes for a moral compass. You may interpret it differently than I do, but it does not change what is right and what is wrong.
That's rubbish. There is no 'book'. Only what we feel is acceptable or not acceptable.

I wasn't saying that whatever I say is right and everything Doddi says is crap, I was simply stating the fact that just as everyone obeys the laws of physics, everybody uses the same moral compass. And yes, it is set in stone, it always has been and always will be a matter of different interpretation.
Not everyone uses the same compass. Everyone comes to different conclusions, because everyone feels differently about moral issues.

So... you're a moral subjectivist, meaning that *everyone* is right, no matter how mutually exclusive their views may be.

Why have laws, then? Honestly? Let's just repeal 'em all. No point if morality doesn't exist except in our own perspectives.
Well, there is no point punishing people, that's for sure.

I'm still in favour of having laws, because

Where, seriously, do you get the idea that the unborn and infants do not value their own lives? They're breathing, aren't they? They cry for food, don't they? In the case of the unborn, they don't stop taking nutrients from their mothers, do they? Everything they do is to survive. How can you say they don't value their own existence, when it's plain they're trying to continue it?
Breathing and crying isn't 'trying to survive', just like vomiting is not 'trying to to expel bad food' and goosebumps is not 'trying to get warm'. They are reflex actions - everything they do is also done by the millions of cattle we slaughter for meat each day.

To value one's own life requires one to actually be aware of one's own life, and that awareness only comes well after birth.

Wonderful rule of thumb: "Make the punishment fit the crime." If, of course, you can get people to stop committing the crime with less, more power to you. But good luck, because your chances aren't so great.
Ok, then how to we determine the magnitude of a crime?

Yes, they do. And these people are incredibly foolish, or so blinded by their situation that they cannot see that to exist miserably is inherently superior to not existing at all.
They think that not feeling is better than feeling profoundly miserable. How do you know they are foolish? You said it yourself, nobody knows what it is like to be dead.

[RandomAnomaly]

I believe Mando Verd's point is the foolishness of someone who commits suicide lies in the fact that suicide is a totally self-centered way of thinking. I can tell you this from personal experience, because I've spent a week in one of those god-awful "mental facilities" before. The other miserable creeps that went there were total wrecks. I had never felt so strongly about how human emotions work than in that brief time I was there. Even the marijuana addict I had for a roommate led me to believe that he uses my theoretical 'standard moral compass'. Some of his views were different, and that's where my interpretation theory comes in. So no, I don't see how it could be 'rubbish'.

[Mando Verd]

"That's rubbish. There is no 'book'. Only what we feel is acceptable or not acceptable."

"That's rubbish." I know you're capable of better arguments than *that*. And, as aforementioned... If you murder someone, you're guilty. Whether you feel guilty or not does not change the fact that you are. The world won't bend to your feelings, or your perceptions. Just because someone's colorblind does not mean that there's only one frequency of light. It just means they can't see them.

"Well, there is no point punishing people, that's for sure.

I'm still in favour of having laws, because..."

Because what? You kind of left me hanging, there. And think about it: Who is going to follow a law that has no threat of punishment? No one.
'Oh, this is just a recommendation, but I think you shouldn't kill him.'
'You going to do anything about it?'
'No...'
<Many violent stabbings>
'So why should I care?'

"Breathing and crying isn't 'trying to survive', just like vomiting is not 'trying to to expel bad food' and goosebumps is not 'trying to get warm'. They are reflex actions - everything they do is also done by the millions of cattle we slaughter for meat each day."

Reflex actions are still performed for a reason, no? And that reason is... to survive. It doesn't really matter whether they're aware of it or not... their body is sure trying to live, so I'd say it values its own existence.

"Ok, then how to we determine the magnitude of a crime?"

This is simple math here, Doddi. You take a life, you lose a life. You take $20, you lose $20. But as I said, these are merely rules of thumb. Which have worked fantastically well when implemented.

"They think that not feeling is better than feeling profoundly miserable. How do you know they are foolish? You said it yourself, nobody knows what it is like to be dead."

Yes, I did. But people who kill themselves to escape misery are seeking relief. When it's a plain, simple fact that you cannot feel relief if you're not existent enough to feel it. That is why it is foolish.

-Mando Verd

[Doddibot]

I believe Mando Verd's point is the foolishness of someone who commits suicide lies in the fact that suicide is a totally self-centered way of thinking. I can tell you this from personal experience, because I've spent a week in one of those god-awful "mental facilities" before. The other miserable creeps that went there were total wrecks. I had never felt so strongly about how human emotions work than in that brief time I was there. Even the marijuana addict I had for a roommate led me to believe that he uses my theoretical 'standard moral compass'. Some of his views were different, and that's where my interpretation theory comes in. So no, I don't see how it could be 'rubbish'.
Well, it doesn't matter anyway. Whether an objective morality exists or not, the fact remains that it is impossible for us to know whether something is immoral or not. We can't determine what is immoral, be it objective or subjective.

Take homosexuality as an example. How do we know whether that is immoral in the great book of morality? We can't. We either have possibly flawed interpretations of the objective, or we have a subjective view in which homosexuality is immoral only in the eyes of the beholder.

Because what? You kind of left me hanging, there. And think about it: Who is going to follow a law that has no threat of punishment? No one.
Ah, sorry.

I mean to say that I'm in favour of having laws because they keep society functioning. That is, they keep people with different standards of morality than the normal away from the majority, who they would upset by their behaviour.

A person who disobeys the laws should not necessarily be punished, although a punishment may in some cases be a good way to prevent that person from reoffending. But because both life imprisonment and the death penalty are equally effective at keeping people from reoffending, we should opt for the one that doesn't involve killing people.

Reflex actions are still performed for a reason, no? And that reason is... to survive. It doesn't really matter whether they're aware of it or not... their body is sure trying to live, so I'd say it values its own existence.
Ok, do plants value their own existence? Are we going to follow Switzerland and declare pulling petals from flowers to be immoral?

After all, plants react to injury. They don't move, of course, but they react chemically.

This is simple math here, Doddi. You take a life, you lose a life. You take $20, you lose $20. But as I said, these are merely rules of thumb. Which have worked fantastically well when implemented.
All well and good for murder or theft, but what about child rape? You can't exactly enact 'eye for an eye' in that case.

[RussaNodrey_SC]

In my opion, the death pentaly is justified in all but the smallest crimes.

[WannabeSith]

I think something is ethical if I think it is something that should be done, or is acceptable to be done. Something is unethical if is an immoral act.

Whether an objective morality exists or not, the fact remains that it is impossible for us to know whether something is immoral or not. We can't determine what is immoral, be it objective or subjective.

You said something is unethical if it is an immoral act, but that it is impossible to determine what is or isn't immoral? Please pardon my confusion, but how do you reconcile both of those statements?

Are you saying that this makes nothing unethical?

[RandomAnomaly]

As Mando Verd stated earlier, you need to put up a better argument than "That's rubbish." or "Well, it doesn't matter anyway." If you are going to discredit us, please do so with logic. As for child rape, take the FSLDA case in Texas for example. The perverted old men with teenage wives are being thrown in prison for sexual abuse, and rightfully so. And as I said before, we all use the same moral compass, it's just how we see it that determines how we use it.

[Mando Verd]

"I mean to say that I'm in favour of having laws because they keep society functioning. That is, they keep people with different standards of morality than the normal away from the majority, who they would upset by their behaviour."

So... each person who has a new moral perspective should simply... start their own country? Setting aside the ridiculous amount of WAR that would occur then...
People would not be accountable in their own country for anything, as all they would have to do is commit it and move to another.

And the only reason laws keep society functioning is because of punishment. Laws are so much toilet paper without the punishment backing them up.

"But because both life imprisonment and the death penalty are equally effective at keeping people from reoffending, we should opt for the one that doesn't involve killing people."

NOW I get to use my wonderful link. Whee!

http://www.wesleylowe.com/deathpenaltygraph2.jpg

The death penalty is a deterrent. Every living being on this planet, at least on some level, values its existence, and if it's a thinking being, will think twice before risking it. It's that simple.

"Ok, do plants value their own existence? Are we going to follow Switzerland and declare pulling petals from flowers to be immoral?"

Yes they do. And Switzerland? Seriously? Hahaha, that's funny. I didn't know that. But I was simply pointing out that they valued their own lives, since they were so obviously trying to maintain it, consciously or not. I wasn't attempting to boost my own argument at that moment; I was merely pointing out that yours was flawed.

"All well and good for murder or theft, but what about child rape? You can't exactly enact 'eye for an eye' in that case."

Didn't I JUST SAY it was a rule of thumb? Given that it's generally considered a particularly heinous crime, comparable to murder, one can reasonably conclude that it *is* most likely a heinous crime, comparable to murder. Therefore, the same punishment should suffice.

-Mando Verd

[Doddibot]

You said something is unethical if it is an immoral act, but that it is impossible to determine what is or isn't immoral? Please pardon my confusion, but how do you reconcile both of those statements?

Are you saying that this makes nothing unethical?
I said that I'm an ethical subjectivism. I've said that some things are immoral, but in the end those are just my views. I never meant to imply that my opinion is also the fact.

As Mando Verd stated earlier, you need to put up a better argument than "That's rubbish." or "Well, it doesn't matter anyway." If you are going to discredit us, please do so with logic. As for child rape, take the FSLDA case in Texas for example. The perverted old men with teenage wives are being thrown in prison for sexual abuse, and rightfully so. And as I said before, we all use the same moral compass, it's just how we see it that determines how we use it.
But in some Islamic states the men who marry 12-year old girls are not punished but those men who are homosexual are executed.

NOW I get to use my wonderful link. Whee!

http://www.wesleylowe.com/deathpenaltygraph2.jpg

Hmm, I'm not convinced. Can you show me where that graph comes from, so that I can check it out?

[kennyinbmore]

Even if it was done in self-defence?
That's kind of a silly question Alissa. Of course not in self defense

[Zaggytiddies]

While the death penalty may be very well deserved in some cases... it is never justified. No one has the right to end anothers life.... ever... be that war, gun violence, or lethal injection. (self defense is different) I'm still on the fence about assisted suicide... but that is another matter entirely.

[jooxis84]

All you people who are anti death penalty

Why not end a murderer's life? Because the right to life is a human right? The right of freedom and free movement is ALSO a human right, so if you put him in jail you are only violating another one of his human rights. And by the way, the right to freedom is pretty much as important as the right to live. So you think socety has the right to violate one of your fundamental human rights as punishment for your crime but does not have the right to violate the other? If anything is hypocrisy, I'd rather say it's that, and not the views I represent.
You want society to ensure that they don't kill again? Too bad, the only way to do that is to execute them. In prison, they can still kill other inmates and it happens all the time.

[Mando Verd]

"I said that I'm an ethical subjectivism. I've said that some things are immoral, but in the end those are just my views. I never meant to imply that my opinion is also the fact."

No, but you seem to be arguing that the fact is completely indeterminable, in which case, why argue, or take any action, and why make laws?

"But in some Islamic states the men who marry 12-year old girls are not punished but those men who are homosexual are executed."

I fail to see how that has anything to do with what Random said. Random asserts (and I happen to agree) that morality is objective and absolute, but it is people's *perception* of it that becomes distorted, and in many very different ways.

"Hmm, I'm not convinced. Can you show me where that graph comes from, so that I can check it out?"

It's labeled, Doddi. Right there at the bottom. See? "Source: Bureau of Criminal Justice". If you're that doubtful, go to your local library and look it up. They should have the info you need. Or if you're not that determined, look for a website of Criminal Justice archives. Personally though, it looks pretty legitimate to me.

"While the death penalty may be very well deserved in some cases... it is never justified. No one has the right to end anothers life.... ever... be that war, gun violence, or lethal injection. (self defense is different) I'm still on the fence about assisted suicide... but that is another matter entirely."

So... self defense is okay, but what about defending others from a murderer repeating himself? Is that not okay? And what about the countless of people who will be completely willing to commit murder knowing that they will not be killed for it? Is it not self-defense to put a truly horrific consequence on such actions, to protect ourselves from *them*?

Penal systems are meant to enforce a moral standard (the Law) which keeps YOU safe. How is this not self-defense?

-Mando Verd

[RandomAnomaly]

While the death penalty may be very well deserved in some cases... it is never justified.

How can the death penalty be deserved yet not justified? If you murder someone, you deserve to be executed. That, and the government of the citizen that you murdered has not only the right, but also the responsibility to do so. As for war, if a nation infringes upon the rights of another sovereign nation, the victim nation has the right to retaliate. If you are thinking of cruelty to the opposing nation such as storming their cities, robbing and raping their people, that's what is called a war crime.

Another point I would like to emphasize is one that Mando Verd (or anyone else, for that matter) couldn't have put any simpler. No person will obey a law that has no threat of punishment. Given that fact, how could the death penalty not be justified? It doesn't matter what ethnicity you are, what mental disorders you may have, or whether or not you feel guilty. If you commit murder, you deserve to be dealt with accordingly.

[Daisie]

The way I'm interpreting the statement of Zaggy's that you quoted is that, sure, I may feel that the murderer of a loved one deserves to die, but that's not reason for the state to execute them, because the idea of "deserving" is subjective. If an unpleasant person falls down the stairs and breaks a bone, I may think, "Well, they deserved it." But I wouldn't have pushed them. That's the difference.

[RandomAnomaly]

Just as parents are responsible for their children, a government is responsible for its citizens. Just as a misbehaving child needs to be put in time out, rapists and murderers should be locked away for life or executed. As for international crimes, that is what the Geneva convention and Interpol are for.

[Daisie]

What's your point? Who has argued that we shouldn't have laws or justice? Who has argued against life prison sentences?

[RandomAnomaly]

I apologize if I seemed too blunt, but we've had more than one debater on this thread that uses absolutely no logic whatsoever. My point, on the other hand, is that regardless of personal feelings towards the victim and murderer, it is still the government's responsibility to deal back an equal punishment for the crime that was committed.

[Doddibot]

Perhaps I'd best point out that I don't believe in free will, which makes the idea of being morally responsible for a crime, and thus deserving of the death penalty, a little unfair. I don't think that a rapist has much more control over their actions than a homosexual person has control over their desires.

So that's why I think that we shouldn't be punishing criminals just for them doing crimes, but we should simply try to prevent them from reoffending. Now, if it can be shown (and I've seen conflicting reports) that capital punishment dramatically reduces violent crimes (i.e. the loss of the lives of the criminals is outweighed by the lives saved as a result), it may be acceptable as a deterrent, but I'd never go so far as to say that the right punishment for murder or rape is death or that murderers/rapists 'deserve' death.

[RandomAnomaly]

Perhaps I'd best point out that I don't believe in free will...

Excuse me? Free will is the very definition of being human. If you aren't religious, you should at least see the insurmountable pile of scientific evidence in front of you. Our bodies may function as a sort of machine, but our minds sure as hell DON'T. Every living being, down to the smallest microbe can control its own actions. I don't know what you are trying to do by comparing homosexuals to rapists, but they are by no means one and the same.

[lockshockbarrel]

And the only reason laws keep society functioning is because of punishment. Laws are so much toilet paper without the punishment backing them up.

...

The death penalty is a deterrent. Every living being on this planet, at least on some level, values its existence, and if it's a thinking being, will think twice before risking it. It's that simple.


Most crimes in general, including murders, are committed by psychopaths or sociopaths... Both of whom don't think before they act.

I don't have the numbers, but I'm just curious, how would you suggest we deal with them?

[hszmv]

Actually, getting an insanity plea is very rare in the United States (on par with getting the death penalty). Not discounting that there are some real nut jobs out there, but those who kill just for the thrill are far out numbered by those who have a motive (even the DC Beltway Snipers had a reason for their crimes. Sure, they LOVED playing God with us, but they had their own petty reason.). Despite its overuse as a get out of jail free card in American Media, not guilty by reason of insanity is a generally worse plea than guilty and the accused's legal council generally works against an insanity plea, not for it.

[davious]

Perhaps I'd best point out that I don't believe in free will, which makes the idea of being morally responsible for a crime, and thus deserving of the death penalty, a little unfair.

I have stayed out of this debate so far, but, this statement opens up a huge can of worms.

If there isn't any freewill, and we are all forced into our actions, then how can the death penalty be either fair or unfair? Without freewill, there are no choices, there cannot be fair or unfair, just that which "is". Any action I take against you isn't me acting against you, it is simply fate forcing itself upon us. I bear no moral responsibility for any harmful action, and you cannot assign any blame on me for those actions either, as you obviously realize I had no choice. If your position on freewill states that criminals have no choice but to be criminals, then you cannot hold them accountable for their actions, yes? So, if you can't assign blame, then concepts such as fairness or unfairness are completely moot, as they simply don't apply. We are all slaves, and if fate means that you kill my brother, so be it. I can't get mad if there wasn't any freewill, can I?

In fact, the lack of freewill should logically mean that we don't need any laws at all, shouldn't it? If we are who we are, and we can't change it, then society should operate the same with or without laws. Fate forces us to do things, not the law, it is fate that keeps our society functioning, not laws. Without freewill, laws are meaningless, because we have no choice in adhering to them anyway. In fact, Doddibot, I suggest that your concepts regarding freewill are wholly incompatible with your beliefs, as stated earlier on this page, that laws are still necessary to hold society together. If there was no such thing as freewill, laws would be completely irrelevant. If there is no moral responsibility assigned to people who violate the laws, then the laws are meaningless.

[Doddibot]

If there was no such thing as freewill, laws would be completely irrelevant. If there is no moral responsibility assigned to people who violate the laws, then the laws are meaningless.
Laws are not meaningless. We don't have full control over our actions, true, which means that external influences must have some control. Laws are one such external influence on our behaviour.

[Mando Verd]

You've just given up any chance of appearing even remotely logical, Doddi.

"They put down dogs like that to keep them from re-offending. Because they are not people, they can't learn from their mistakes or change their minds, so killing them or locking them away forever are the only two options. But because they are not people, there is no reason to choose the second option."

This statement STRONGLY implies that humans, a.k.a. 'people', have free will. Yet, you assert that you don't believe they do, and nothing anyone does is their fault, merely their environment's effect on them. In which case, how can we try to control our environment with laws, since our environment controls us?

Then, you backtrack, changing your terms to "We don't have *full* control over our actions." Define that, and *very* thoroughly.
And Laws are an *external* influence? Need I remind you that it is *human beings* who write laws, generally? If we're placing an influence on ourselves, it's hardly *external*, is it?

Start. Making. Sense.

-Mando Verd

[hszmv]

What I want to know is, if we have no free will, how can we know it exists and therefor know we don't have it? Maybe there is some confusion with free will and setience going on, but I have always thought that sentience was the ability to be aware of oneself and our actions and choose to disobey what nature has programed us to do for any reason.

But if we don't have free will, how can addicts hope to break an addiction (which does happen)? Wouldn't Doddie's logic sugest that an alchoholic is doomed to remain a slave to booze?

[davious]

If he remained consistent, hszmv.

So that's why I think that we shouldn't be punishing criminals just for them doing crimes

this statement completely negates the point of having laws. What is a crime? Something that goes against the law. What is the law? Something that Doddibot acknowledges as necessary to provide society with structure. If laws are necessary, then criminals shouldn't be able to break them consequence free. If I can't be punished for committing crimes, what prevents everyone from simply doing what they want to, completely ignoring those laws? If crimes are nonpunishable, laws are completely theoretical, and without substance. If they are unenforceable, they are worthless. Just meaningless words on paper. Meaningless laws don't hold society together. We observe laws and avoid the descent into anarchy because we give those laws power, we acknowledge their authority to take action if we violate them. Violations of law MUST be punishable, else there is no motivation to observe the law. People simply do not act in the interests of what is best for society when left to their own devices. People are, by nature, selfish. We do what helps ourselves, first and foremost. Laws are necessary, and those laws must be enforceable. If we don't punish violators, laws are worthless. Again, the two beliefs are incompatible. If you support the rule of law, you must support punishment for violating that law.

[iCad]

Wow, some pretty interesting reading down in this forum. I've never poked around in here before, even though I love a good debate.

Anyway...It always amazes me when people argue that abortion is OK but the death penalty is wrong all in the same breath. Basically, the stance boils down to this: Ending an innocent child's life is perfectly OK if that's the choice its mother makes, but God forbid that someone who is clearly not at all innocent should be lawfully killed as a consequence of his or her knowing actions. Of course, oftentimes those who question this stance usually get in response, "Well, how can you be against abortion but support the death penalty?" Which is easy. Abortion is the taking of a human life, often simply for the convenience of an unwilling mother. The death penalty, on the other hand, is a lawful (in the US) consequence of a (very bad) choice that an adult person knowingly makes. (The death penalty, remember, is only a consequence of first-degree -- meaning, aggravated *and* premeditated -- murder, not for ALL murders. Many murder trials do not actually revolve around whether or not the person did the deed, but whether or not it was premeditated. Second degree -- unpremeditated -- murder does not carry as severe a penalty as first degree murder.) So really, there is no comparison between the abortion and the death penalty.

Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean that you don't value human life, either, which is another argument I often see bandied about against it. One supports the death penalty simply because one puts a *greater* value on the lives of *many* people who presumably do value human life vs. the life of *one* person who has conclusively *proven* that he or she values the life of at least one human being *not at all.*

In all honesty, I don't think morals even enter into the equation here. As others have said, the death penalty is not really meant as punishment for a heinous crime so much as it is insurance: It entirely removes all possibility of that person hurting anyone again. It also, ideally, serves as a message and a warning to other people who might be contemplating homicide themselves, though its debatable whether or not it's an effective deterrent. In the end, morality at least in its details can be subjective, sure -- at the very least, local culture greatly affects it -- but pretty much all cultures condemn murder. It is perhaps one of the few moral absolutes out there. I'd be willing to bet that most people in the world would say that aggravated, premeditated murder is wrong.

In the end...Well, frankly, I sleep a little better knowing that, say, Ted Bundy is no longer walking amongst us. I feel badly for his family, sure, but frankly I feel far, *far* worse for the families of his victims.

[lockshockbarrel]

Actually, getting an insanity plea is very rare in the United States (on par with getting the death penalty). Not discounting that there are some real nut jobs out there, but those who kill just for the thrill are far out numbered by those who have a motive (even the DC Beltway Snipers had a reason for their crimes. Sure, they LOVED playing God with us, but they had their own petty reason.). Despite its overuse as a get out of jail free card in American Media, not guilty by reason of insanity is a generally worse plea than guilty and the accused's legal council generally works against an insanity plea, not for it.

Psychopaths and sociopaths are not insane. Well, not insane in, like a schizophrenic, "God told me to smother my babies" way. It's a personality disorder, and remarkably common. For example, a lot of bullies and juvenile delinquents are psychopaths. The symptoms are basically a lack of empathy and an inability to understand the concepts of actions and consequences. Other things like superficial charm, fearlessness and poor impulse control are created by those two.

It doesn't guarantee that the person will be a criminal, let alone a brutal murderer or someone people might think would deserve to die... But it doesn't help prevent it. It's very easy for someone with no empathy or impulse control to get really angry or frustrated and end up hurting someone in the process, for example.

But what I'm saying is, these sorts of people don't think, "Wait a second! If I kill this person, I might get the death penalty!" Their brains just don't work that way. They CAN'T work that way. Since they make up a significant portion of criminals, how would the death penalty prevent them from committing murders and other crimes?

[RandomAnomaly]

It doesn't matter what country you're from or what laws you have to abide by, the morals are all the same. It doesn't matter whether or not you are sane, or what your "genetic predisposition" is. As Mando Verd stated earlier, NO ONE IS GOING TO ABIDE BY A LAW THAT HAS NO THREAT OF PUNISHMENT. We may not be bound by the same laws, but everybody that dares call themselves human is bound by the same moral compass. It can't get any simpler than that.

[iCad]

Since they make up a significant portion of criminals, how would the death penalty prevent them from committing murders and other crimes?

In short, it wouldn't. But on the other hand, impulse killers generally DON'T get the death penalty in the first place because any murders they commit are, by definition, not premeditated, not planned in advance. The death penalty generally only comes into consideration in cases of premeditated murder. Further, the question becomes one of where you draw the line in terms of what constitutes "premeditated," and this is in fact what takes up often weeks or months of time in the penalty phase of a murder trial. Does a person who plans a murder for 5 minutes count as premeditated murderer? 5 seconds? Or does it have to be 5 days or more? That's where the line gets blurry, and this is precisely why the death penalty is invoked only rarely and even more rarely actually carried out. If the jury is at all unsure, the convicted person usually gets a life sentence.

Of course, the question is whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent to people who DO carefully plan their murders. Many of this type of murderer are sociopaths, who are different than psychopaths and, unfortunately, they often are completely confident that they can't be caught so they, frankly, don't care about whether or not they might be put to death. One has to be caught in order to be put to death, after all. :)

Honestly, I doubt the deterrent aspect of the death penalty; I support it simply as insurance that the worst premeditated murderers can be completely removed from society, according to due process of the law.

ETA: NO ONE IS GOING TO ABIDE BY A LAW THAT HAS NO THREAT OF PUNISHMENT.

Now, wait a moment. On the one hand you're saying that we all have an ingrained moral compass (an assertion I mostly agree with, I might add), but with this you're saying that no one will do good (or at least not do harm) without some sort of penalty for noncompliance in place? That would seem to contradict an ingrained moral compass, wouldn't it? I mean, I would never commit a murder, not really because of fear of punishment but be because I know that murder is wrong. It is possible, I believe, to make a moral choice with no penalty for non-compliance in place.

This is not to say that laws should be abolished, of course. Because unfortunately we're not all apparently in tune with the same moral compass. Some of us aren't pointing to "moral north" anymore. :)

[RandomAnomaly]

You may not have read the earlier bits to this thread iCad, but what I meant by a standard moral compass is that everyone uses it, it's just how you interpret it that determines how you act. I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that it's hard for me not to get uber-defensive.

[Mando Verd]

Psychopathy and sociopathy, in my opinion, are nothing more than the result of people who 1) care more about themselves than anyone else, and 2)aren't afraid to act upon that self-value.
That's hardly a disorder. Humans, by their very nature, are very selfish. It hardly makes one not responsible for their actions because, hey, they're a sociopath.

It's like saying someone's not guilty because they don't feel guilty. Which is something I've already argued about on here. Guilt isn't a feeling. Keep that in mind.

As much as people argue about these psychological 'disorders', it's still a cold, hard fact that they choose their own actions. And, in fact, that they are aware when consequences are placed upon those actions. Psychopathy and sociopathy do *not* pardon a person of their crimes, in any way, shape or form.

The point RandomAnomaly was trying to make is that right and wrong are the same for everyone, even if they cannot see it. Psychopaths and sociopaths are among those who cannot, or will not, perceive it. So, perhaps, a more accurate way of saying it would be this: We don't all use the same moral compass, but that doesn't change where north is.

And as an aside: People do things they know are wrong all the time.

-Mando Verd

[lockshockbarrel]

I wasn't saying they should be pardoned... I just was saying it can't be a deterrent for them. I don't know much about the death penalty, but I do know a bit of abnormal psychology; this is just my way of stirring the pot. :)

[Doddibot]

But if we don't have free will, how can addicts hope to break an addiction (which does happen)? Wouldn't Doddie's logic sugest that an alchoholic is doomed to remain a slave to booze?
No, only if alcohol was the only thing that could possible influence the mind of an alcoholic. But it isn't, so other things can cause the alcoholic to 'break' the addiction (though addictions are never really broken, because relapse is not merely reacquiring an addiction. There are permanent brain changes caused by addiction.).

Interesting that you bring up alcohol though. It makes my point perfectly. People under the influence of drugs are often considered to be less responsible, but the brain is awash in chemicals all the time. Crimes of passion, anger, etc are no less under 'our' control than crimes committed while on cocaine.

[iCad]

Interesting that you bring up alcohol though. It makes my point perfectly. People under the influence of drugs are often considered to be less responsible...

By whom?

Call me crazy, but I hold the drunk guy who hit the car that I and my father were riding in completely responsible for my father's death that day. Because said drunk guy chose to drink in the first place. What happened after that is still the drunk's fault, because of that choice. Someone who kills someone while on drugs is completely, utterly, and totally responsible for their actions. Period. Because to drink alcohol or take drugs is always a choice, and one needs to take responsibility for one's choices and the consequences, positive or negative, that result from them. It's so very easy to blame someone or something else for the bad choices that we make, but the hard truth is that we are responsible for them. We just don't like to admit it. This "no free will" thing seems to me like the ultimate, "But it's not my fault!"

...but the brain is awash in chemicals all the time. Crimes of passion, anger, etc are no less under 'our' control than crimes committed while on cocaine.

People who cannot control their emotions are considered abnormal or at the very least in need of counseling like, for instance, anger management training. We are not slaves to our impulses, our emotions, our instincts, or our hormones. It's what separates us from...Well, from every other creature on the planet. Again, this argument smells of a big "But it's not my fault! I can't control myself!" Absolutely, one can control oneself.

[prettiammie2005]

I'm going to have to say that, all in all, I'm FOR the death penalty.

As others have pointed out, humans seem to have no problem at all killing animals, killing nature, but then when it comes to killing other human beings it's some huge deal.

People who are seriously mentally ill who commit violent and horrific crimes can't be thought about or treated like a regular human being. These people are incapable of feeling guilt or remorse for the things they've done. When you put them in prison they simply live on as if they've done nothing wrong. Some of these psychopaths get out of prison eventually and get to continue their lives like they never did anything in the first place.

We have repeat offenders in all kinds of crimes because you CAN'T rehabilitate someone who doesn't think like a human being. We try to force our morals and our rights and wrongs on them, and because many of them are masters of lying they tell us exactly what we want to hear them say. They have only their own self-interests in mind.

As far as I'm concerned, a human being who takes the life of an innocent person has sacrificed their rights to be treated like an equal. When they CHOOSE to take the life of someone else, they shouldn't even be considered human anymore. These people who kill indiscriminately aren't human, they're MONSTERS.

Anyone who can murder a newborn child in any way is sick, and someone who can put their baby in a microwave is even worse. Can you imagine how that must have sounded to her while she was standing there? How loudly do you think that baby screamed in horrible agony? How long do you think it took for the baby to die? The way she killed her own child wasn't just murder, it was torture.

Yes, I know people can then argue where does the murder end? The executioner is just as guilty as the one who killed in the first place! Yes, this is a fact that bothers me as well... but I would rather someone so sick and twisted be taken out of this world forever, rather than have them lie about being all better now and have them sent back out into the world to do it again!

The fact that any person has the lack of emotion to commit such a crime is appalling to me. I personally feel sick just thinking about what happened, not only in this case but in hundreds of other cases! Again, anyone who is so sick in the head that they don't know they're doing wrong, or they don't care, shouldn't be left alive to do the same thing again to someone else!

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but this is a topic I had to add my two cents to. I've been debating this with my family for a long time.

[RandomAnomaly]

Everything we do is by choice. I had to choose whether or not to post this reply, just as murderers choose to murder, or alcoholics choose to drink. There is no action a man can take that he is not in control of. There is always another option than the ones we choose. I've met a gay who is now heterosexual, I've met drug users who now lead joyful lives, and the only reason they are like this is because they chose to be. A few months ago, I was practically emo, and now I'm happier than a pig in crap. Why? Because I CHOSE TO BE. It's that simple!

[Doddibot]

Because I CHOSE TO BE. It's that simple!
But did you really choose, or did it only feel like you chose?

I'd argue this point further, but maybe it belongs in a new debate.

[lockshockbarrel]

But did you really choose, or did it only feel like you chose?

I'd argue this point further, but maybe it belongs in a new debate.

Hmm, perhaps. I'd join your side; I actually don't believe in free will, either, in pretty much exactly the same way you don't.

[jooxis84]

Well, I guess it's your own choice not to believe in free will...

[Mando Verd]

"Well, I guess it's your own choice not to believe in free will..."

Ahahahahahahaaa... I like you already.

"But did you really choose, or did it only feel like you chose?"

Might as well be saying, "Do we exist, or do we just *think* we exist?".
It's a simple fact that choosing to believe you have no choice in anything invalidates your belief. In fact, it's just plain idiotic. Just like the "there are absolutely no absolutes," tripe. Self-defeating, inherently impossible, utterly foolish bunk.

Not to mention a total cop-out. You go on about how 'unethical' it is to execute a woman for barbecuing her baby, when you say you believe there's no free will. Ethics don't exist without free will. Nothing is right or wrong without free will. Nothing *can* be. To overstep that conclusion is a STUPENDOUS oversight.

"People under the influence of drugs are often considered to be less responsible, but the brain is awash in chemicals all the time. Crimes of passion, anger, etc are no less under 'our' control than crimes committed while on cocaine."

For one, who considers people under the influence less responsible? I certainly don't. They imbibed, they caused it. It takes no fault away from them.
For another, who produces the chemicals in our brains, hmm? That'd be... you know, US. What, are you going to blame your body for your actions? That would imply that you are not your body. But unless you believe yourself to be a spiritual being (And from what I've garnered, you most definitely don't,) You *are* your body. Therefore, you're blaming yourself. So passing responsibility on to your bodily functions only points the finger at YOU. Have I put things in perspective, yet?

To be clear: There is no argument you can make which will clear you of the blame of your own choices. Every single one will require you to double back on yourself and make another statement which will nullify everything you just said. You've done that several times now already.

Finally, about believing in no free will: 1) The lengths at which one will go to ignore the extraordinarily huge holes in the logic of such a theory are astounding, 2) Have no place in arguing the ethics of *anything*, because ethics cannot exist in a world without free will, and 3) If I actually believed such things, I'd have offed myself ages ago. Because there is no point existing in a world without free will.

-Mando Verd

[lockshockbarrel]

Sheesh, way to be hostile to something as harmless as a concept you haven't come across.

Here, let me try to explain it, or how I think of it.

People's identities consist of two things:
1: Their personality, the things they're born with.
2: The changes impressed upon them by their environment.

That's it. I don't believe in souls, really, and I don't believe in free will.

The decisions people make and their reactions to things are determined by their identity, which they don't choose. A psychopath CAN'T help being a psychopath. It's who they are. A neat person can't help that they were either born or trained to be neat.

BUT if some part of their environment forces them to change, they will. Say, a person who's a neat freak and yells at people when they don't clean stuff up. Perhaps one day someone tells them that they don't like being yelled at, and then, because they're a nice person, they stop.

You might say they chose to stop yelling, but they didn't, really. They stopped yelling because the combination of their environment and their personality, being confronted and being a nice person compelled them to. They could continue, but they wouldn't want to.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be punished. That's part of their environment. If a child is raised with no punishments or consequences, they usually end up spoiled, right? Same for adults. I don't see why there can't be ethics without free will.

I also don't think that it takes away from living. I know this might seem like a vast oversimplification of the human mind, but sorry, I have to oversimplify in order to explain. There are millions and millions of factors that shape people's identities, and therefore their behavior; I'm not saying we're just stupid living machines. It just makes sense that that's how people work to me, because I'm a logical person, and more inclined to try and find the truth than something more romantic or emotional. ;)

But, I don't really see how much this has to do with anything. This theory doesn't disguise the fact that there are some people who others would call evil, and there are some people (more emotional, I would think) who think that evil people deserve to die. I'm still unsure on that part myself.

[iCad]

lockshockbarrel, I would agree with you...if we were talking about dogs. :) They are indeed the sum of their in-born personality and their environment/learned behaviors.

But you're forgetting an important thing that separates humans from the rest of the Earth's creatures: Intellect. Intellect can and often does trump both genetic predisposition and learned behaviors. A person may have, for instance, a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism but in the end, they chose to have that very first drink that ultimately led to their addiction. Their genetic predisposition didn't force them to have that very first drink. A decision, a product of pure intellect (or a lack of using that intellect, as the case may be :) ), caused it. Likewise, an alcoholic can make an intellectual realization that their situation sucks and then make an intellectual choice to overcome their genetic predisposition *and* their learned behavior and stop drinking. Intellect trumps both predisposition and learned behaviors. And again, this decision isn't forced; it's a choice the individual made. Sometimes it's influenced by other people; more often than not, it isn't. Likewise, a psychopath CAN choose to try to overcome his nature. He might not be able to help that he became a psychopath in the first place, if it's the result of some chemical imbalance, but he most certainly can make an intellectual choice to overcome his problem. Drugs and therapy are readily available to him to help him to do so.

So, no, I contend that your initial premise is flawed. I don't disagree that the two items you listed are a part of a person's identity, but they are far from the *only* components of one's personality, as you claim. You're forgetting what is, in my opinion, the most important part. Even if you were right, however, human beings can still make a choice that directly conflicts with their predispositions and their upbringing. People do it all the time and not just because they're "nice people." Sometimes people make the right choice for all the wrong reasons. :) It's still a choice, regardless.

And the possibility of a choice to be made inherently implies free will to at least some degree. If there is no free will at all, then there is no real choice to be made. Your life is all mapped out by God or fate or karma or universal constants or whatever you believe in, and you're just along for the ride.

Ethics are of course based upon choices. Situation A arises and you have a choice to respond with Choice B or Choice C. Ethics come into play when you make your choice according to what you believe to be right. An example: Suppose that I am raped and become pregnant as a result. I then have two choices before me: I can abort the pregnancy, or I can carry the child to term. Suppose further that I believe that abortion is wrong under any circumstances whatsoever, so I then make an ethical choice to have the baby. Again, a choice has been made and there are future consequences of that choice. The consequences of the other choice have been completely removed from the possibility of occurring. Thus, the future has been affected, which is the ultimate outcome of free will: We shape our own destinies, knowingly or otherwise. Thus, having a choice at all logically applies free will. A child doesn't have much free will because most of his important decisions are made by and are the responsibility of his parents. The same cannot be said of an adult.

Now, as this applies to the death penalty question...Well, as I said earlier I don't think it really does. The death penalty is simply a possible consequence of a choice a person makes. Emotions and "deserving" and such, IMO, don't enter into it. It's plain old cause and effect, the effect in this case being sanctioned by the law, at least in the US. If a person makes a choice to take another person's life, carefully planning it all out and such (which as I said, is the only way --theoretically, at least :) -- that they'll get the death penalty) then they simply need to accept that they could lose their life in return. Cause and effect. Karma, if you will. In the end, it does indeed come down to a choice. Most things, if not all things, do. It's just a matter of degree. You make the wrong choice, you suffer the consequences. You make the right choice, you reap the rewards. IMO, life really does boil down to that. Some things are completely random, sure, but most things are under the aegis of individual free-will choice.

[Doddibot]

anyone who is so sick in the head that they don't know they're doing wrong, or they don't care, shouldn't be left alive to do the same thing again to someone else!
Usually we try to cure sick people, or we isolate them in quarantine, rather than kill them.

[davious]

Usually we try to cure sick people, or we isolate them in quarantine, rather than kill them.

I am interested in your explanations for the apparent contradictions in your beliefs...

From the Euthanasia thread:

Except that sometimes that person can still feel pain, so removing the 'plug' causes them to die in a horrible, painful and slow manner. A cocktail of drugs could cause them to die in a easy, painless and rapid manner. Which of those is more right, do you think?

That doesn't sound like trying to cure people instead of killing them, does it?

In murder, the person wants to live, so killing them takes away that which they value immensely - their life. In euthanasia, the person doesn't want to live, so you are doing them a favour by removing their pain and suffering.

Again, doing someone a favor by killing them isn't curing them either.

Aren't we all just waiting to die, anyway? We're all mortal - all beyond help (at least with current science). How long do they need to have left before it becomes ok to end it all?

If we are all just waiting to die anyway, what difference does it make if we execute serial murderers?

No, as Valentine said we do it for animals who are in pain, even though they don't ask for it. But I do agree that the pain must be obviously severe, and the person must be unable to express any form of autonomy, before we consider non-voluntary euthanasia.

Non-voluntary euthanasia? The intentional killing of another human being? How is it different than capital punishment? If you are so dead set against capital punishment because it punished people for not having free will, and thus no actual responsibility for their actions, how is non-voluntary euthanasia any different? Aren't you punishing people for involuntarily getting sick? What happened to trying to cure them instead of killing them? Why is it okay to kill sick people, but not okay to kill hardened murderers? Sorry Doddibot, but this appears to be a massive contradiction on your part.

[Mando Verd]

"Sheesh, way to be hostile to something as harmless as a concept you haven't come across. "

Oh, I've come across it *plenty* LSB. This philosophy is nothing new. The idea of blaming ones actions on the environment has been around for a loooooong time.

"People's identities consist of two things:
1: Their personality, the things they're born with.
2: The changes impressed upon them by their environment.

That's it. I don't believe in souls, really, and I don't believe in free will. "

Therefore, you DO believe in: the *Body*. I believe in souls, myself. But if you don't, you must admit the only recourse is to believe that our bodies are the central source of our identities. This would include any original predispositions they had (what you call 'personalities').

So, from that angle... You're now a body. Just a body, no free will at all. Everything you do is determined by your environment and how your body is preprogrammed to react to it. Why exactly, are you there? Just to continue being there? Yes. Because that's all you can do. React to your environment in such a way as to stay in said environment.

"They could continue, but they wouldn't want to. "

Here's the rub, bub: People do things they don't want to *all the time*. So it's not just a matter of whether you're disposed toward an action that determines whether you'll do it.

And, as you yourself said, punishment is part of the environment, therefore this worldview is relevant to our discussion.

And ethics without free will, hm? You'd better have a clear definition of 'ethics'.

"eth·ic (thk)
n.
1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "

"Right conduct..." Given that nothing can be right or wrong in a world with no free will... that sounds wrong, doesn't it?

"I'm not saying we're just stupid living machines."

Yes, as a matter of fact, you are. Very plainly, too. Listen, just because our environment is incredibly complicated doesn't make us any less pointless creatures without free will. Say you're watching two machines. One's the little clack-clack balls on strings, one's a computer that calculates billions of totally random numbers per second. Does neither one of these seem less pointless than the other?

"It just makes sense that that's how people work to me, because I'm a logical person, and more inclined to try and find the truth than something more romantic or emotional."

Oh, emotional, you're not, I'll agree. But you're *far* from logical, given that you cannot seem to see the total lack of logic in your worldview.

"What happened to trying to cure them instead of killing them? Why is it okay to kill sick people, but not okay to kill hardened murderers? Sorry Doddibot, but this appears to be a massive contradiction on your part."

Ooh, an archivist. I like you, too.

Couldn't help but notice this now, too, Doddy:

"and the person must be unable to express any form of autonomy..."

Autonomy. Meaning self-government, self-direction, you know... Free. Will.

Weren't you just saying no one had that anyway?

-Mando Verd

[Doddibot]

I am interested in your explanations for the apparent contradictions in your beliefs...

From the Euthanasia thread:

That doesn't sound like trying to cure people instead of killing them, does it?
It's entirely different when the person either wants to be killed, or is clearly in so much pain that trying to cure them would be worse than quickening their death.

My rule is not "Always cure". There are many things to be considered.

If we are all just waiting to die anyway, what difference does it make if we execute serial murderers?
That point was made tongue-in-cheek.

No, as Valentine said we do it for animals who are in pain, even though they don't ask for it. But I do agree that the pain must be obviously severe, and the person must be unable to express any form of autonomy, before we consider non-voluntary euthanasia.Non-voluntary euthanasia? The intentional killing of another human being? How is it different than capital punishment? If you are so dead set against capital punishment because it punished people for not having free will, and thus no actual responsibility for their actions, how is non-voluntary euthanasia any different? Aren't you punishing people for involuntarily getting sick? What happened to trying to cure them instead of killing them? Why is it okay to kill sick people, but not okay to kill hardened murderers? Sorry Doddibot, but this appears to be a massive contradiction on your part.
It's not a contradiction at all.

I'm not in favour of killing people who want to live, regardless of what others think they may 'deserve'. Unless killing such a person results in many more lives being saved (I'm a utilitarian, after all).

I am in favour of killing people who want to die, or those who are clearly in an immense amount of pain, but only if the person is in a state where they are unable to decide either way (or even make their decision known to you).

"and the person must be unable to express any form of autonomy..."

Autonomy. Meaning self-government, self-direction, you know... Free. Will.

Weren't you just saying no one had that anyway?

-Mando Verd
We can have autonomous robots.

Autonomy means that other people should not be deciding for you. Whether you can truly decide for yourself is another matter entirely.

[RandomAnomaly]

I find it hard to believe your argument of free will being nonexistant when you use words like "voluntary" and "involuntary".

[Doddibot]

I find it hard to believe your argument of free will being nonexistant when you use words like "voluntary" and "involuntary".
It's not that complicated. If I do something voluntarily, it means I do so without any obvious coercion from other people. That is, I do it under my own will, whether that will is truly free or not.

In that sense then, the 'freedom' of the will is freedom from the will of others. It doesn't imply that it is completely under our control.

[RandomAnomaly]

You fail to understand that there can be no will without free will. People aren't robots. People are PEOPLE.

[Elyasis_SC]

Soon even robots will have free will.. What will we say then?

[Doddibot]

Soon even robots will have free will.. What will we say then?
Well, it's feasible for robots to have as much free will as we do, however much that actually is.

After all, we - our bodies AND brains - are, fundamentally, biological machines. And a lot of the thoughts, reactions and feelings we have are not under our conscious control. That is, the consciousness program that runs on our brains does not control every aspect of the brain, and because the brain influences the consciousness program in a feedback loop, we don't have as much control over our thoughts as we instinctively feel we do.

[Aries66]

I think the Death Penalty is Justified in Certain Cases,
(1)People that kill Babies and Children-these or our most innocent victims.
(2)Torture Killings.
(3)Hate Crimes that lead to Murder.
(4)Murder for Hire.
(5)Spree Killings.

Though I think living life in Prison in Solitary Confinement with the pictures of the victims on the wall so they can face what they did each day is Great Punishment to me.

[jooxis84]

(1)People that kill Babies and Children-these or our most innocent victims.

I don't understand why so many people think it's so much worse to kill a child than an adult or an elderly person. Or even that it's worse to rape a child rather than a grown woman or an elderly lady. It's kind of disgusting to me that people differentiate the severity of crimes according to the victim's age.

[Henry_SC]

I'm going to have to say that, all in all, I'm FOR the death penalty.

As others have pointed out, humans seem to have no problem at all killing animals, killing nature, but then when it comes to killing other human beings it's some huge deal.

People who are seriously mentally ill who commit violent and horrific crimes can't be thought about or treated like a regular human being. These people are incapable of feeling guilt or remorse for the things they've done. When you put them in prison they simply live on as if they've done nothing wrong. Some of these psychopaths get out of prison eventually and get to continue their lives like they never did anything in the first place.

We have repeat offenders in all kinds of crimes because you CAN'T rehabilitate someone who doesn't think like a human being. We try to force our morals and our rights and wrongs on them, and because many of them are masters of lying they tell us exactly what we want to hear them say. They have only their own self-interests in mind.

As far as I'm concerned, a human being who takes the life of an innocent person has sacrificed their rights to be treated like an equal. When they CHOOSE to take the life of someone else, they shouldn't even be considered human anymore. These people who kill indiscriminately aren't human, they're MONSTERS.

Anyone who can murder a newborn child in any way is sick, and someone who can put their baby in a microwave is even worse. Can you imagine how that must have sounded to her while she was standing there? How loudly do you think that baby screamed in horrible agony? How long do you think it took for the baby to die? The way she killed her own child wasn't just murder, it was torture.

Yes, I know people can then argue where does the murder end? The executioner is just as guilty as the one who killed in the first place! Yes, this is a fact that bothers me as well... but I would rather someone so sick and twisted be taken out of this world forever, rather than have them lie about being all better now and have them sent back out into the world to do it again!

The fact that any person has the lack of emotion to commit such a crime is appalling to me. I personally feel sick just thinking about what happened, not only in this case but in hundreds of other cases! Again, anyone who is so sick in the head that they don't know they're doing wrong, or they don't care, shouldn't be left alive to do the same thing again to someone else!


That pretty much summed up what I was gonna say, I agree with it though. =P

That article made me feel disgusted. Idk what is wrong with people these days.

[hszmv]

I don't understand why so many people think it's so much worse to kill a child than an adult or an elderly person. Or even that it's worse to rape a child rather than a grown woman or an elderly lady. It's kind of disgusting to me that people differentiate the severity of crimes according to the victim's age.

In the prison systems, child killers, rapists, and abusers are handled with the ut most security and automatically are given permanant solitary confinement. Why? A good deal of prisoners where abused or raped as a child and will bring this guy to within an inch of his life. It's not so much about public opinion as it is about what goes on behind bars that makes the law come down hard on criminals who are charged with such crimes.

Same for spies and traitors (and possibly terrorists) in that the threat isn't so much that they will talk but that villians have standards and child abuse and betrayal of the nation two of such lines they won't cross.

[jooxis84]

That's all well except that I am talking about public opinion. I'm mentioning what I have noticed to be a general belief many people share for some reason, regardless of the prison systems.

[Alissa888]

I don't understand why so many people think it's so much worse to kill a child than an adult or an elderly person. Or even that it's worse to rape a child rather than a grown woman or an elderly lady. It's kind of disgusting to me that people differentiate the severity of crimes according to the victim's age.

I agree, rape and murder are grevious crimes, regardless of whom the victim is, it is a grevious crime carried out by the perpetrator. However, I think with rape, the media influences count a lot and the case histories, given that people are more likely to see the grey area in a rape case with an adult who is capable of consent - 'he said/she said' and 'was she asking for it' etc

With murder, I don't know why... I can only imagine it's because people think children have a whole lot more potential that was ripped away when they were killed, but in my book, a life is a life and I don't think anyone, the government or general public, has a right to decide whether it stays or goes.

Of course, euthanasia is a different matter.

[davious]

I think perhaps it might have something to do with the perception that an adult might have a reasonable if not likely chance of defending themselves from an attacker intent on killing them. Children are not as capable of defending themselves as adults are. Further, there is a far less likely chance that a child did something to egg the murderer on. Children aren't cheating wives or husbands, children aren't drug dealers (hopefully), children generally don't piss off mob bosses, etc. Its not that it it is just the "who would want to kill a kid" mentality, its also looking at what motivations murderers have, and not being able to see how a child could trigger it. We get if not condone why someone with a few loose screws might try to kill his cheating wife or something. We don't condone it, we don't agree that it is justifiable, but, at least we can see the motivation for it. We have a much harder time figuring out why someone would want to kill a kid.

[Avara]

(how many times have you heard the arguement that the leathal injection is "too good for them" and that people should "bring back hanging"?). I've heard that quite a few times, mostly because I've been the one saying something similar... rofl. My opinion is, look at how some of these sick criminals have killed their victims, did their victims ask to die like that? No. I don't like the idea that our tax dollars are going to keep freaks like Charles Manson alive (one of the MOST deserving for lethal injection imo), instead of to something that our money needs to go to like the crappy education system in this country. Although, my state is one of the few who are pretty adamant about sentencing the death penalty in very severe and atrocious cases.

I think the comedian Ron White said it best about my state: "Some states are trying to abolish the death penalty. My state is putting in an express lane."

[Alissa888]

I think perhaps it might have something to do with the perception that an adult might have a reasonable if not likely chance of defending themselves from an attacker intent on killing them. Children are not as capable of defending themselves as adults are. Further, there is a far less likely chance that a child did something to egg the murderer on. Children aren't cheating wives or husbands, children aren't drug dealers (hopefully), children generally don't piss off mob bosses, etc. Its not that it it is just the "who would want to kill a kid" mentality, its also looking at what motivations murderers have, and not being able to see how a child could trigger it. We get if not condone why someone with a few loose screws might try to kill his cheating wife or something. We don't condone it, we don't agree that it is justifiable, but, at least we can see the motivation for it. We have a much harder time figuring out why someone would want to kill a kid.

But surely, a crime should be gauged from by the actions of the prepetrator rather than the victim. Regardless of who was killed, they were killed, the crime is murder and it shouldn't be a case of 'Oh, did they deserve it?'

Although, I am in agreement that people find it more grevious when people who aren't supposed to be capable of triggering violence are killed, but really, that should be the crux of serving justice?

[davious]

I think you misunderstood...I was suggesting that we look at crimes against children more harshly not because they are just victims, but, rather what would motivate a person to rape or kill a child is beyond that which might motivate them to kill another adult. I thought I was looking at it from the actions of a perp. As an adult, I can understand why someone in a jealous rage could conceivably kill another adult that infuriated them somehow. That doesn't condone it, doesn't make it justified, just that I can see what might lead to it. I cannot fathom what would set off an adult to kill a child, so I am gonna view crimes against children more harshly.

[Alissa888]

Oh, no, I understand that you're suggesting people usually look at what could trigger an attack on someone and thus believe that a child is less likely to produce a sufficient trigger, but murder is murder regardless of who the victim is... and the crime is yeilding to trigger rather than the trigger itself or who it comes from...

So, someone killing a child because it wouldn't stop crying for attention and someone killing their wife because they wouldn't stop complaining about... money problems or whatever, is on the same level. It's wanton murder of someone, regardless of who the victim is, its a crime of the same degree.

[Avara]

I think that some of the executions should not be allowed to happen, Such as:
Some american states still use hanging. Errr, I don't think that's true... because if it was, my state would definitely be one of the ones doing it since people here are /still/ very 'Old West' mentality when it comes to things. I believe the last hanging in the States was done in the 50's, I could be wrong though.

As for my opinion on the life in prison option 'because they will have to live with what they've done'. I'm going to be bluntly honest here, most people in prison DO NOT care or feel remorseful about what they've done. Granted there are some who in the end do feel bad, you have to keep in mind these people are usually calculated killers. They are smart. They know how to manipulate and deceive. I mean, if anyone honestly thinks that Charles Manson (for an example again) is going to feel sorry for what he did before he dies... that person has my pity, because the man thinks he's God for crying out loud. He doesn't care. He will never care. In fact, he probably laughs at how stupid we are for giving him life in prison.

I agree that the death penalty does not act as a deterrant for criminals though, why should it when you can go out and take a life with an almost guaranteed pass to 'life in jail'? And then people wonder why murderous crime is so rampant these days. Gee, I have no clue why THAT could be. >>; Because basically, we're letting them get away with it.

[Alissa888]

Errr, I don't think that's true... because if it was, my state would definitely be one of the ones doing it since people here are /still/ very 'Old West' mentality when it comes to things. I believe the last hanging in the States was done in the 50's, I could be wrong though.

As for my opinion on the life in prison option 'because they will have to live with what they've done'. I'm going to be bluntly honest here, most people in prison DO NOT care or feel remorseful about what they've done. Granted there are some who in the end do feel bad, you have to keep in mind these people are usually calculated killers. They are smart. They know how to manipulate and deceive. I mean, if anyone honestly thinks that Charles Manson (for an example again) is going to feel sorry for what he did before he dies... that person has my pity, because the man thinks he's God for crying out loud. He doesn't care. He will never care. In fact, he probably laughs at how stupid we are for giving him life in prison.

Not true in all cases. Granted, psychopaths and sociopaths do commit crimes - such as in the case of Charles Manson - and then feel no remose because of their lack of conscience, but that's a fraction of the population and there are way more criminals than that. People commit crimes for all sorts of reasons and under all sorts of conditions - revenge, emotional duress, under the influence of narcotics, accidental, teenage gang inductions, peer pressure, anything and everything, it's not acceptable, but it happens - and they do feel remorse. Otherwise rehabilitation would be a pipe dream.

Most calculated killers, if they're that calculated, actually don't get caught - their accomplices do.

I agree that the death penalty does not act as a deterrant for criminals though, why should it when you can go out and take a life with an almost guaranteed pass to 'life in jail'? And then people wonder why murderous crime is so rampant these days. Gee, I have no clue why THAT could be. >>; Because basically, we're letting them get away with it.

Prison isn't such a great place for living in. In fact, men in prison are five times more likely to commit suicide than the general populace.

Although, crime does have to be punished, but is the death penalty the best way to go about it given cases like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley)? Plus, if the death penalty is alright, how do you decide one crime is more grevious than another? Why should killing a child be justification for a death sentence more than the torture and murder of an adult?

[novemberlove_SC]

Why should killing a child be justification for a death sentence more than the torture and murder of an adult?

Most people would probably say killing a child is worse because children seem more innocent, and less able to defend themselves (especially infants). However, I do agree that killing any human should have the same punishment, regardless of age. I've been reading this thread and i'm still not sure where I stand exactly. In some ways I think criminals should spend life in jail, but at the same time I know if a loved one was killed, I would want nothing less than for their murderer to get the death penalty.

[Avara]

Oh, I didn't mean just for the lady who killed the baby. I'm for adults getting the death penalty for killing other adults too.

And from what my uncle tells me, who has been in and out of prison so many times I've literally lost count... they have it pretty good in there. Gym facilities, television, internet, food, he said it's no wonder homeless people will often assault cops to be thrown in jail. To them, prison would be like heaven. Granted my uncle has never killed anyone... but he has peddled cocaine which is obviously how he's landed himself in prison multiple times, lol.

But I digress! I know that not all people in prison aren't remorsely, which is why I said most. Most of them are, but then again... it's really hard to know for sure since a good majority of them can be convincing liars. Not much you can do there, but, eh. I just hate that my tax dollars are going toward giving criminals (mainly the murderers) satelite television and internet service.

( Edit: Yeah, I realize my post is kind of all over the place but I'm really tired and rambly, rofl. x.x )

[Alissa888]

Perhaps cutting off their luxuries is one thing, but killing them is another?
I'm sure prison can get comfortable, but again, that's not for everyone, most people have it really bad - suicide rates, therapy and testimonies attest to that fact.

[Avara]

Yeah, I have no idea what kind of prison he got sent to... but it sounded better than my school at the time, lol.

And I just think that if people are criminally insane, have been convicted of murder... as someone else said before me, what's the point of letting them live when most who somehow do get released back into society eventually revert back to their old ways? Yeah, it's sad that the person made the decision to kill someone and now in turn has to pay the price for it... but I guess I just don't get the concept of keeping people like that who would obviously never fit back into society alive when our money could be going to something else.

As someone else also pointed out, these poor animals we kill every day don't get as much attention as the prisoners do. Animals here are put into a cubicle and gassed in the big cities. I fail to see how THAT is humane, and lethal injection is supposedly not. Just so many double standards that irritate me.

[Alissa888]

lol, some schools are worse than prison

What right do we have to end other people's lives? Okay, they're a danger to society, lock them up, but we have no right to - that too under the guise of legal right - end another human life. A lot of people have problems that impair their ability to fit into society - extreme cases of schizophrenia, for example - in that argument, we should kill them too.

And really, if money is the issue, how can you correctly put a price on human life?

Animals are a different story, yes, it's double standards in a way and yes, I'm against animal culling too, but they were never treated the same as humans, they don't know our laws and neither are they expected to.

[Avara]

I don't think we need to start killing off everyone in the mental institutions, lol, that's not what I meant. I mean the people who are mentally ill, but there is no real scientific reason for it. I mean... aside from just being psycho, I'm not aware of what would make a person decide to start resorting to cannibalism in this modern age. There was a case here two years ago where a guy did that to a kid. And you have to think of the families who would want justice for their loved ones, what about them? I am not certain that anyone can, with complete confidence, say they would not want the death penalty a loved one's killer if it happened directly to them.

It's easy to sit back and say, "Oh, well, I would say no way still." But honestly? You can't say that for certain, you just can't. So it's like, for me, the family of the victim gets overshadowed by the prisoner's "unfair" death sentence. To me, it's not unfair. Life in prison or the death penalty are your options for intentional/savage murder, I just honestly don't feel sorry for them; they did it, they got caught, if they get rolled the death penalty then.... you know, tough luck. It's no one's fault but their own. Not to mention it usually takes another ten or so years for them to be put to death most times, if at all even.

[Alissa888]

Schizophrenics don't know what they're doing most of the time. Some hallucinogenic drugs cause people to think other people are a gourmet meal... there are many things, aside from flat out malicious psychosis that cause people to resort to cannibalism. Treatable things. And with mental patients, sometimes you can't tell whether they'd snap and kill and they might not even realise it.

I can only imagine the agony someone would feel over losing a loved one like that and I know that I'd want them dead, but those are personal feelings. The law is impartial, it is unemotional (idealistically speaking) and it's not supposed to go 'man, I'd want that guy dead' in some cases and then go 'meh, give him prison' in other cases even if circumstances are the same.

It still doesn't justify that you think we should kill people because they're not worth the money.

Oh, alright, someone gets rolled the death sentence, and they get exectuted and the victim's family feels justice has been served - what if they're innocent? No chance of appeal and exoneration. Does that guy's family have the right to demand a death sentence for the judge? What happens when everyone's just looking for a scapegoat?

[Avara]

Well, I'm sorry but supporting convicted killers because I have to? Yeah, could think of much better things to spend my money on. Like, I don't know... supporting the healthcare system for law abiding citizens, supporting the school systems for children, supporting the ASPCA... yeah, I'm not going to lie. I can think of many other things my money would be MUCH better off going to.

If that makes me heartless, then it does. Oh well. People who break the law then cry foul because they get the death penalty... well, maybe you should have thought of that before killing someone. Also, the 'innocent person being found guilty, then found not guilty' is something that has been extremely rare and it is very avoidable these days with all the DNA testing and other things crime labs can do.

[Alissa888]

Convicted killers are human. Some of them even have understandable, almost justified reasons. Even if they don't, they are human and killing them like animals, leaves us without a leg to stand on for moral high ground when judging them. What kind of a society is it if we can't even attempt to help those of us who've made mistakes.

Okay, for argument's sake, you said that you'd want someone dead if they hurt anyone close to you, say under emotional duress you went out and killed them and did to them exactly what they'd done before, would it be alright to give you the death penalty?

Law abiding citizens only? I hope you realise how poverty creates crime? You live in America, as far as I know, and your social and health system hinges on insurance rather than state right, a lot of people don't have access to it anyway, so they commit crimes and and yes, sometimes they kill people. What they did, even in that situation, is not right and the best thing to do is to kill them in return? Well, death to socialism, then.

It's not very rare, circumstantial evidence, if enough, is adequate to convict someone, not all crimes pivot on DNA evidence and despite the odds, sometimes DNA could be wrong.

[Avara]

Yeah, it would be all right to give me the death penalty. I killed the guy and that's all there is to it. That's the law, everyone should know the law. I'm sorry, but I really don't feel bad for them and I'm probably never going to. That's it. If they don't get the death penalty? Fine. If they do? Fine. I'm just for the death penalty as in not abolishing it completely from the justice system. If we didn't have it, then what? We'd get over-run prisons and more of our hard earned money going to support people who have commited acts that are /against/ moral nature.

And for those who are poor, that is no excuse at all. There are places made specifically for them to go to and get help, so they do not have to resort to violence. I know of several here in my town. That, to me, is a cheap excuse. Also, it IS rare here as I've never once heard of someone being convicted to be found innocent; in my state that is.

[Alissa888]

So, you killed someone in self-defence and that's alright for the death penalty too? Also, the people carrying out the execution are technically committing murder, should we give them the death penalty too? How about soldiers?

And judging by what you're saying, we should kill a lot of people. Yeah, everyone should know the law, but the law says killing someone is illegal and we're using the law to break the law?

The places that are specifically made to help them? Yeah, I was a volunteer there once and let me tell you, you can never help everyone. There will always be those who slip out of the net and how do you know what desperation drives people to enough to deem it a 'cheap excuse'?

Well, I ask you to search out cases, exoneration is somewhat rare, but it isn't that rare.

[Avara]

You are throwing out examples that are not even relevant to what we're talking about. And I do not appreciate you twisting my words around to insinuate I think soldiers should be put to it. That is ludicrous.

So, you're saying that soldiers are murderers then who should also be subject to it? That's what it looks like to me. Same for doctors administering lethal injection.

I've also volunteered at one of those places, two actually, and so yes I do think it's cheap when they know they don't have to resort to violence but do it anyway because they think accepting help from a charity is somehow demeaning. How is it anymore demeaning than committing a crime?

[Alissa888]

Yes, they are. Thus far, you're only point for justifying the death penalty has been 'I want my money spent on better things' and while you're entitled to your opinion as a tax payer, I am entitled to mine. You've completely disregarded the points about rehabilitation, about emotional duress and mental instability and treatment and everything and you brought it down to 'murder is murder and so they deserve to be punished with the death penalty'.

In fact, your words were " I killed the guy and that's all there is to it".

That's what soldiers do, that's what the doctors adminstering leathal injection do, that's what people killing in self-defence do, that's what savage killers do.

They all kill people and when you look straight at it, the crime is murder and that's all there is to it.

By your reasoning, they all deserve the death penalty.

And it's not that they don't accept charity, it's that there aren't enough resources for charity to help everyone. And for every person that you saw in the places you volunteered, there are others out there, without help, without shelter and there aren't enough resources for them.

[Avara]

And yet, those are your words and not mine. You brought all the other into this, not me. So yes, you are indeed twisting my words around and you're right. You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, and I'm beginning to think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

It's common sense to know that soldiers in combat are exempt from the death penalty and I was not even including them in what I was saying at all. I think you'd know that.

At any rate, I am done here because this is pointless to continue.

[Alissa888]

The point of debate is to extrapolate, which is what I was doing. It's not arguing for the sake of it, I've made my point clear; we don't have the right to take another human life, regardlss of reasons. You said, if someone killed someone else, the death penalty is justified.

Which is why I extrapolated it to situations where that can't apply. And why do you think we incarcerate people for war crimes if soldiers are exempt from everything? Yes, combat is in, but you made the point that killing people is worthy of the death penalty. I was just proving that that point was wrong.

And if you want to leave the debate, please go ahead, but my point still stands that devaluation of human life is not acceptable.

[Avara]

No, what you did was brought in situations that I wasn't even refering to when I said those things. I think I made it pretty clear who I was refering to.

But that was just my trying to prove your point was wrong.

And my point still stands that in some cases, it is. That's all I'm going to say.

[Alissa888]

You can't say things regarding a general law (i.e. what you said was people who kill other people deserve the death penalty) and you made no exceptions when you said that (you may make it now). You can't say 'oh, that example doesn't apply' when it adheres to your own definition of murder - killing. You didn't specify out anything at all, and further more, you said turning to crime was a pathetic excuse regardless the reasons.

My point was that the death penalty cannot be revoked if carried out and if the defendant turns out to be guilty - you didn't prove it wrong
My point was that people commit crimes and the reasons aren't always clear cut, that they have mental illness etc and deserve treatment instead of just killing them - you didn't prove it wrong
My point was that you can't put a monetary value on human life, to say 'oh, if we kill that person, we have more money to spend on this' - you didn't prove it wrong

Now, please do explain what your point is?

My standing questions thus far have been a) how does one decide that one crime is more grevious than another and b) what gives us the right to kill people (using law) when our very laws condemn it?

And I'll add that the first question as been answered, that people are more likely to sympathise in cases involving children because they're deemed more innocent and defenceless and though I don't agree with that perspective (I think every human life is important), I do understand it.

[davious]

There is no such thing as "just killing them". There is a long list of legal barriers that have to be overcome in order for a convicted felon on death row to ever be executed. First, they have to be convicted by a jury willing to sentence him or her to death. In order for that to happen, the jury has to be absolutely convinced beyond any shadow of doubt they are guilty. Then, there are multiple appeals processes. Then they can ask the Governor of the state to stay the execution, among other legal maneuvers. The process can take years.

Our laws do not condemn capital punishment. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. The US Constitution clearly, in very specific terms, allows the use of capital punishment. The only Constitutional question is whether the convict went through due process first.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The double jeopardy, right to not self-incriminate, and private property seizure aspects aren't really important to this discussion, but, the US Constitution is clearly okay with capital punishment, (deprived of life) as long as there is due process of law. A convict on death row has already been legally found guilty, and either chose to exercise their rights to appeal or not. Due process has been observed, satisfying the Constitution. Individual states can choose to not employ it, but US law says it is legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that condemns it.

[Alissa888]

There is no such thing as "just killing them". There is a long list of legal barriers that have to be overcome in order for a convicted felon on death row to ever be executed. First, they have to be convicted by a jury willing to sentence him or her to death. In order for that to happen, the jury has to be absolutely convinced beyond any shadow of doubt they are guilty. Then, there are multiple appeals processes. Then they can ask the Governor of the state to stay the execution, among other legal maneuvers. The process can take years.

Absolutely. And I'm glad that the matter isn't taken lightly and given out to just about everyone, which is why I strongly disagree with Avara's apparent view that murder in general deserves execution without the stress on special cases and circumstances (I'm not talking about soldiers, but about people with genuine mental illness, temporary or permanent) - and that prisoners should be killed because the society shouldn't have to pay money to maintain them rather than because they truly are - and always will be - a danger to society.

Our laws do not condemn capital punishment. To take a page from the pro-choice side, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. They use that argument to claim abortion isn't murder, because it isn't illegal. The US Constitution clearly, in very specific terms, allows the use of capital punishment. The only Constitutional question is whether the convict went through due process first.

It's the lawful vs unlawful bit that gets to me. Either way, the laws state that it's illegal to take human life illegally, but I question the legal right to take life. Why should capital punishment be allowed rather than is it allowed.

I know why capital punishment is in place, I know how it's used, and I understand, but I'm not sold on the idea that its the right thing to do, and strongly believe that human life, regardless of whose, should not be taken.

So, my question, and the part of the question of this thread, is should capital punishment be allowed and why?

Personally, there are some cases where I believe that capital punishment would be befitting, whether on an emotional level or a moral level, but it isn't justified to take another person's life in any case, which is my current stance on it, but I am open to ideas as to why it's justified to take someone's life as payment for their victim's.

[davious]

Well, being morally opposed to capital punishment is a completely different argument than stating that our own laws condemn it. I wasn't assigning any value to either your or Avara's views (although, I am pro-capital punishment in theory, and have no moral objections to it) I was merely showing that the laws do not condemn it, as you has asserted. Whether it is the right thing to do or not wasn't my objection to your post, just the factual nature of American law regarding it. Carry on.

[Avara]

Even though you seem to think you know what my definition of murder is, Alissa... I'll tell you what it really is.

Murder - the unlawful killing of a human being.

The only one who ever said I think all killers should be killed was you; I was refering to unlawful killing by default, because I assumed you would have enough common sense to figure that out... considering what this topic is about in the first place. I guess I should have been more clear with you, though. Oh well.

[Alissa888]

Let me point this out to you, did you mention that? No, you did not. I pointed out that 'unlawful' killing occurs under a variety of circumstances, not always worthy of capital punishment, and then you indicated that everyone who kills (your words) should be executed. So I pointed out that not everyone who kills is guilty of murder. Simple as.

I asked you what right we have to legally kill people and you said that tax money should be spent on better things than incarceration and rehabilitation and really, what society is it that thrives on killing off it's population instead of giving them at opportunity to correct their mistakes?

You throw around extreme cases like cannibalism and you yourself said that if you killed someone in emotional duress, you wouldn't contest the death penalty. The death penalty is used in extreme cases where there are no other options, no hope of redemption for the perpetrator and/or if the crime really is that grevious. You really need to understand the weight of costing another person their life, legal right notwithstanding.

Furthermore, your disregard for impairment of mental stability when it comes to the prepetrator seems hilarious, really. You said that there's no scientific basis in cases aside from being a psycho, well, psychosis, schizophrenia and other mental disorders are clinical pathology of the mind, actually, and yes, there is scientific basis, but it is opinion and subjective calculation. You don't run tests on people and go 'Wow, he has substance X in his blood, he's definitely a psycho' - some people lie, and some people actually really don't know what they're doing and you'd apparently have them killed instead of getting them possible treatment.

You made no mention of even trying for rehabilitation, you have made no mention of reasons for unlawful killing other than 'he's nuts', you have made no mention of therapy or anything. In fact, you'd rather have your tax money spent on something else - I suggest you make a special request on that, because I'd like my tax money spent on helping people with serious problems. You seem to think it's alright to just throw the death penalty at everyone who murders. The question here is who do we get to sentence to death (not just should we) and you answer was...?

Why don't you go back and read the title of the thread, it's whether Capital Punishment is ever justified or not, not what is it used for. And if you think it's justified in all cases of murder (now you've cleared that up), you really need to think more about this, for I think you have a ridiculously low value on human life.

That aside, I'd like to point out that Capital Punishment isn't just used in cases of murder, it's used for all sorts of reasons and in a government that truly cares about rightful carriage of justice, perhaps it's a viable option (and I say perhaps, but I still don't believe that people should be killed as punishment), but take this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5217424.stm) case for example - a 16 year old girl executed for crimes against chastity? Firstly, US isn't the only country that uses capital punishment and secondly, I don't think there's much hope or point in defining the laws of other countries.

I think as a whole, capital punishment should be abolished world wide, there are plenty of more options for adequate punishment, life long imprisonment isn't fun and games, I'd imagine and prison is generally, by all of statistical evidence, not a good place to be in, short or long term. And if that isn't a deterrent, I wouldn't imagine death threats work magnificently. Plus, the initial idea of punishment is to teach the prepetrator a lesson; if s/he's dead, that lesson can't be learnt. And yes, it's an example to society, but really, after years and years of using capital punishment, did that theory work? Have crime rates decreased enough to justify? Not much. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4457402.stm)

Is it right to keep killing people using a theory that thus far has not worked?

[Avara]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, but I obviously don't agree with you and you obviously don't agree with me... plus I'm tired of going around in circles on this honestly. We're both just saying the same things over and over. So.. yeah... lol. That's all from me on this topic.

[Peace]

Death penaly is not so much as to punish them, but to protect the rest of the people from being hurt by such people.


VERY well said CROCOBAURA!!!!

[Xerolise]

DNA has cleared too many innocent people for me to ever justify the death penalty.

[iCad]

Wow, miss a couple of days, miss a lot. :)

You've completely disregarded the points about rehabilitation, about emotional duress and mental instability and treatment and everything and you brought it down to 'murder is murder and so they deserve to be punished with the death penalty'.

But what YOU (and others) seem to have forgotten is which criminals get the death penalty. You (and others) keep talking about emotional duress, crimes of passion, the effects of drugs/alcohol, etc. as reasons not to execute. Arguments like, "Well, she was taking PCP and thought the guy she killed was an alien monster, so she killed him in self defense. It's not fair to kill her in return because it was the drug's fault." Yadda yadda. Stuff like that, yes?

Well, the people who commit murders under those conditions ARE NOT SUBJECT to the death penalty in the first place, according to the laws in place at the moment, which are not likely to change anytime soon. The ONLY people who are subject to the death penalty are those who commit either treason (like the Rosenbergs) or first degree murder, murders which are calculated and well-thought-out (like Ted Bundy). If a person commits a murder and the jury decides it was not first-degree murder, then that person is not subject to the death penalty. Often (though not always if children are the victim(s)), people have to commit more than one first-degree murder for judges and juries to start thinking about death penalties. You'll notice that even that woman who drowned her kids by buckling them into their car seats and then driving the car into lake, all because her new boyfriend didn't like kids -- a crime any sane person should consider heinous -- didn't get the death penalty because her lawyers convinced the jury that it wasn't done in a cold, calculated way but under, to use your term, "emotional duress." Once a jury agrees with that sort of description, then no way is that person going to get the death penalty. Simple as that.

On the other hand, the people who DO get executed are, often, serial killers, especially those who brutalize and torture their victims before killing them. People like the aforementioned Ted Bundy. And even then many of them avoid the death penalty. Like, oh, Jeffrey Dahmer. And even if they are sentenced to the death penalty, appeals are often launched immediately, and then the person sits in jail for many years while all that is hammered out. (I've often wondered how many people sentenced to death are actually put to death and the average length of time between sentencing and execution. I need to look up that statistic.) In the end, it's not like people sentenced to death are taken out back and shot, you know. :) There are rules, checks, and balances in place to ensure that the death penalty is only used in cases where it is justified according to the laws in place at the time of sentencing. In this case, for most of what y'all are arguing about, the death penalty doesn't apply in the first place and, likely, never will apply. Heck, even Timothy McVeigh, the guy who blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City, didn't get the death penalty, and his crime WAS very premeditated AND he killed a lot of people, MANY of them children.

So what I see here is lots of appeals to emotion that, frankly, don't apply to the question at hand, as I said. I think a lot of people have misconceptions about the death penalty and where and how it applies that cloud their judgment about this particular issue. This thread makes that quite obvious.

~iCad
Not a lawyer, but I come from a loooooooooooooooong line of them. :)

[Alissa888]

Wow, miss a couple of days, miss a lot. :)

Well, the people who commit murders under those conditions ARE NOT SUBJECT to the death penalty in the first place, according to the laws in place at the moment, which are not likely to change anytime soon. The ONLY people who are subject to the death penalty are those who commit either treason (like the Rosenbergs) or first degree murder, murders which are calculated and well-thought-out (like Ted Bundy). If a person commits a murder and the jury decides it was not first-degree murder, then that person is not subject to the death penalty. Often (though not always if children are the victim(s)), people have to commit more than one first-degree murder for judges and juries to start thinking about death penalties. You'll notice that even that woman who drowned her kids by buckling them into their car seats and then driving the car into lake, all because her new boyfriend didn't like kids -- a crime any sane person should consider heinous -- didn't get the death penalty because her lawyers convinced the jury that it wasn't done in a cold, calculated way but under, to use your term, "emotional duress." Once a jury agrees with that sort of description, then no way is that person going to get the death penalty. Simple as that.

Yes, exactly, they don't get capital punishment, whereas other cases do, so how does one decided that one crime deserves capital punishment whereas another doesn't. To make my point, not all child killers get executed, do they? Sometimes, crimes that are equally grevious don't get equal punishment, so it's not really justice to be subjective in that way, is it?

Also, you don't know - rather can't tell - whether the woman who drove her children into the lake was mentally balanced. No emotional duress, understandable, but an entire lack of emotion is also pathological and hence, again requires treatment. Granted, sometimes, people are just completely cold and beyond help.

Talking about the cited case, the woman microwaved her baby. It's completely disgusting, but I don't think killing her is the answer, because really, what does it prove? She'd probably never be rehabilitated, she's definitely not normal, but she's human and I don't agree with the idea of killing someone when life without parole is adequate. Though again, I am open to ideas as to why she really deserves the death penalty.

Even if it's legally allowed, out own social morals supposedly look down on killing, do they not?

On the other hand, the people who DO get executed are, often, serial killers, especially those who brutalize and torture their victims before killing them. People like the aforementioned Ted Bundy. And even then many of them avoid the death penalty. Like, oh, Jeffrey Dahmer. And even if they are sentenced to the death penalty, appeals are often launched immediately, and then the person sits in jail for many years while all that is hammered out. (I've often wondered how many people sentenced to death are actually put to death and the average length of time between sentencing and execution. I need to look up that statistic.) In the end, it's not like people sentenced to death are taken out back and shot, you know. :) There are rules, checks, and balances in place to ensure that the death penalty is only used in cases where it is justified according to the laws in place at the time of sentencing. In this case, for most of what y'all are arguing about, the death penalty doesn't apply in the first place and, likely, never will apply. Heck, even Timothy McVeigh, the guy who blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City, didn't get the death penalty, and his crime WAS very premeditated AND he killed a lot of people, MANY of them children.

So what I see here is lots of appeals to emotion that, frankly, don't apply to the question at hand, as I said. I think a lot of people have misconceptions about the death penalty and where and how it applies that cloud their judgment about this particular issue. This thread makes that quite obvious.

~iCad
Not a lawyer, but I come from a loooooooooooooooong line of them. :)

Often, but not always. Like I said above, it's all well and good if it's applied in the right case and to the right person (I still don't agree with the idea of execution, but I see how it'd apply), but what about in cases where it's completely wrong, such as in the case I pointed out, where the 16 year old Iranian girl was executed.

I agree that that's a case where the death penalty was completely abused, and the thread asks for cases where it is justified, but the allowance and usage of the death penalty as a whole, when compared to those cases - and come on, people in some countries are executed for ridiculous reasons - is unjustified.

So, the death penalty as a punishment to the criminal - legal punishment is mainly used to teach/rehabilitate criminals; when they're dead, there's no lesson they learn.
As a lesson to society; thus far, it hasn't had enough results to justify itself.

[davious]

But, saying that the microwave woman would probably never be rehabilitated defeats the purpose of legal punishment then, doesn't it?

It's completely disgusting, but I don't think killing her is the answer, because really, what does it prove? She'd probably never be rehabilitated

legal punishment is mainly used to teach/rehabilitate criminals

Okay, so if legal punishment is used to rehab criminals, and you acknowledge that she probably cannot be rehabilitated, what would you do with her? According to your own words, punishing her would be fruitless, as she is not rehabilitatable, nor would she likely learn anything from it. So, what would be your argument to justify keeping her locked up anywhere as opposed to being set free? I disagree with your notion that punishment is to rehabilitate the criminals, its to protect the rest of us. How many prisoners, once released from prison, stay clean? Not nearly as many as the amount of prisoners who find themselves back in prison, completely unrehabilitated. In fact, what you will find, is that while they were in prison, they learned valuable skills from other convicts that make them even better at breaking the law, provides them with more contacts on the outside, so that when they get out, they are better prepared to continue violating the law. By and large, hardened criminals do not get rehabilitated. It might work on minor criminals, people getting busted for marijuana, or teens breaking into homes for fun, maybe someone who steals a car, but, for someone who killed another human for sport, raped a woman for fun, or something like that, those are the ones that don't lead productive lives after they are supposedly rehabilitated. They are Predators, preying on everyone else. For those criminals, rehabilitation is a pipe dream, a myth. They are kept in prisons to protect us from them because they are unrepentant, not so they can see the error of their ways and become good little reformed ex-convicts.

[Alissa888]

But, saying that the microwave woman would probably never be rehabilitated defeats the purpose of legal punishment then, doesn't it?

Okay, so if legal punishment is used to rehab criminals, and you acknowledge that she probably cannot be rehabilitated, what would you do with her?

In all honesty, I don't know. I don't know what to do with someone who can't be rehabilitated, which is why I said that I understood the application of capital punishment. However, that said, I simply don't believe that killing another human being is the answer to anything, when really, moral standards are so weighed upon to uphold laws and then you start making compromises over that moral standing? Morally we believe that it's wrong to take another person's life, but legally we do it?

It seems a little hypocritical to say that killing someone (outside of self-defence, war, euthanasia in some countries etc) is illegal and morally wrong, and then make legal exceptions that don't fit into those categories when again, life without parole would suffice.

I think in agreement with WannabeSith, over what Avara pointed out, if prisons were more of a deterrent, people would stop committing crimes. I don't believe that prisons as they are are currently great places to spend time in and it drives people to suicide, but if there are places with cable TV and whatnot like Avara said, I think we seriously need to cut back on those.

According to your own words, punishing her would be fruitless, as she is not rehabilitatable, nor would she likely learn anything from it. So, what would be your argument to justify keeping her locked up anywhere as opposed to being set free? I disagree with your notion that punishment is to rehabilitate the criminals, its to protect the rest of us. How many prisoners, once released from prison, stay clean? Not nearly as many as the amount of prisoners who find themselves back in prison, completely unrehabilitated. In fact, what you will find, is that while they were in prison, they learned valuable skills from other convicts that make them even better at breaking the law, provides them with more contacts on the outside, so that when they get out, they are better prepared to continue violating the law. By and large, hardened criminals do not get rehabilitated. It might work on minor criminals, people getting busted for marijuana, or teens breaking into homes for fun, maybe someone who steals a car, but, for someone who killed another human for sport, raped a woman for fun, or something like that, those are the ones that don't lead productive lives after they are supposedly rehabilitated. They are Predators, preying on everyone else. For those criminals, rehabilitation is a pipe dream, a myth. They are kept in prisons to protect us from them because they are unrepentant, not so they can see the error of their ways and become good little reformed ex-convicts.

I still think punishment is to rehabilitate criminals, if it's to protect society (which is also part of the reason in cases), then why let them - anyone - back out if they're really beyond help?

And if they learned how to better their criminal skills, I think the prison system is at fault rather than the idea.

And how do you decide who can be rehabilitated and who can't be rehabilitated without trying? If the death penalty is to be used, then it should be a last resort when rehabilitation is clearly a pipe dream, should it not? But that isn't the case, there's no attempt of rehabilitation because right at the end of a trial, the defendant is sentenced to death.

[iCad]

Yes, exactly, they don't get capital punishment, whereas other cases do, so how does one decided that one crime deserves capital punishment whereas another doesn't. To make my point, not all child killers get executed, do they? Sometimes, crimes that are equally grevious don't get equal punishment, so it's not really justice to be subjective in that way, is it?

In the US legal code, there are several classifications of murder. There is for example manslaughter, which is when a person through negligence kills another person. Like, if I'm driving my car at night and hit a pedestrian because they were dressed in black and I couldn't stop in time to not hit them. I didn't intend to kill this person; it was an accident. But a trial has to commence to see if I was negligent and whether or not my negligence caused that other person's death. Then there's second degree murder, under which falls the "crime of passion" scenario. Then there is first degree murder, which is the ONLY kind of murder for which the death penalty applies. The definition of this kind of murder, because of state's rights, varies from state to state. In most states, though, first-degree murder is defined as a killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim. In some states a person can also be charged with first-degree murder if a person is killed during the course of a different crime they're carrying out. This is usually the case with deaths associated with arson, rape, and robbery, all of which are also premeditated crimes.

So, for your hypothetical child killer, if the person carefully planned their crime and carried it out in such a way as to avoid being caught (showing that the person knows that what they're doing is wrong), then if apprehended and convicted through due process by a jury willing to invoke the death penalty (and certainly not all of them are!) then he or she is theoretically subject to the death penalty. Whether or not he or she will get it is totally up to the jury and the judge in the case, and whether or not the sentence will actually be carried out is a whole 'nother pickle.

If, however, a mother freaks out irrationally because, say, her child spilled something, and she subsequently threw the child against a wall, cracking his skull and causing his death, then the mother in question most likely will not be subject to the death penalty because it was an unpremeditated "crime of passion" and therefore not first-degree murder. In the case of the drowning-in-lake mother, I guess it ultimately happened that the jury judged it more as a crime of passion than of premeditation, and that's why she wasn't subject to the death penalty.

Really, though, it is not up to you, me, or any other individual person to decide what type of murder anyone committed. It is up to the jury, and if the jury can unanimously decide that the death penalty is warranted, then it will be a factor. But there are a whole bunch of "ifs" involved here, and that's the safety valve, so to speak. This is why not many people convicted of even first-degree murder are sentenced to death. It's RARE. Very rare. It's not handed out willy-nilly to anyone who kills another person, and it never will be. The key, as I said, is intent.

So to answer your question, yes it IS justice because the laws are being followed as they were set down, and the purpose of the law is to serve justice through an organized, agreed-upon system. We can argue the morality of the law and the system, sure, but that's not really what I'm talking about here. The original wording of this thread is, "Is the death penalty justified?" and in the eyes of the laws of the US it is indeed in certain rare and very well-defined cases under certain tight circumstances. Now, if one does not agree with the law, then one can take steps to have it changed. Regardless, at this point in time the death penalty in the US is indeed justified, according to the restrictions above.

In reality, there are very few if any clear cut-and-dry murder cases. When it comes time to sentence once someone has been found guilty, it's usually a question of the perpetrator's intent, and the intent behind the crime is mostly what determines what sentence the person gets. In murder trials, it's the jury's job to figure out the intent of the perpetrator, once he or she is actually convicted of the crime.

Also, you don't know - rather can't tell - whether the woman who drove her children into the lake was mentally balanced.

Of course she wasn't. Mentally balanced people don't generally kill other people, certainly not their own children and not in the way she did it. But in many cases being mentally unbalanced does not excuse one from the crime that one commits. Again, it's a question of degree. The measure usually used is whether or not one tries to cover up the crime committed. If one tries to cover up a crime, then obviously one knows that one has done something wrong. In my opinion, if you're mentally balanced enough to make the choice to premeditatedly kill someone and to take proactive measures to conceal your guilt, then you're certainly mentally balanced enough to be fully subject to the consequences of your crime, whatever they are.

No emotional duress, understandable, but an entire lack of emotion is also pathological and hence, again requires treatment. Granted, sometimes, people are just completely cold and beyond help.

Treatment? Well, let's take the case of a person who was actually executed: Ted Bundy. He eventually confessed to killing 30 women, though it's thought that he probably killed more than that. Perhaps many more. Now, say he was fully rehabilitated -- and let's put aside the very real possibility that a person as smart and deceptive as he was could very well fake being rehabilitated -- and became an upstanding citizen. Does this mean that he gets to suffer no consequences of his crime? Does this mean that his sentence, whatever it was, should not be carried out, just because he's a "nice person" now? Being rehabilitated doesn't excuse those thirty deaths, in my opinion. At all. Even Ted himself said that, in his last interview the night before he was executed.

Talking about the cited case, the woman microwaved her baby. It's completely disgusting, but I don't think killing her is the answer, because really, what does it prove?

Why is it a question of "proving" anything? She committed a crime. There are prescribed consequences of that crime. She ought to be subject to them once the details of the case are worked out in trial. It's not my place to say that she "should" get this sentence or that sentence. That's the jury's decision to make, not mine. If they go through the proper process and decide that the death penalty is warranted, so be it. If they decide that it isn't warranted, so be it.

The point is that it's not about "proving" something here. Again, the point is to follow the law, including enforcing any and all legal consequences of one's knowing actions, if the judge/jury deems it necessary and warranted. The details of each case are not mine or yours to decide. That's the purpose of the trial.

She'd probably never be rehabilitated, she's definitely not normal, but she's human and I don't agree with the idea of killing someone when life without parole is adequate.

Then you need to contact your state representative about changing the laws. Just like it's not my place to decide what sentence, if any, Microwave Woman should get, it's not your place to decide what punishment for a crime is "adequate." That's the job of the law. Laws can be changed, certainly, but they aren't going to be changed by stating opinions on the internet. State reps are the best place to start as they have more say over what goes on in your individual state than the Federal government.

...if you're a US citizen, that is. :)

Even if it's legally allowed, out own social morals supposedly look down on killing, do they not?

Individual citizens going around killing other individual citizens is wrong, yes. That's what the law says. The state legally meting out the prescribed consequence for a crime through due process of the law is not wrong. If you feel the law and/or the consequences of breaking it is wrong, then you have recourse, as I said above. But for the moment, no, it is not wrong or illegal for judges and juries to sentence someone to death in certain circumstances as I've outlined above, nor is it wrong or illegal for the state to carry out that sentence.

Often, but not always. Like I said above, it's all well and good if it's applied in the right case and to the right person (I still don't agree with the idea of execution, but I see how it'd apply), but what about in cases where it's completely wrong, such as in the case I pointed out, where the 16 year old Iranian girl was executed.

I am, of course, only discussing US law here. Law is very closely tied to culture, and in Iran it is even more so because they have blended religion and state together. Thus, the penalties for crimes committed there are different than in the US and, indeed, what is considered illegal is very different, as well. To us, some of their laws and the consequences of breaking them seem cruel and unnecessarily harsh. And perhaps they are.

But then we're down to judging other people's cultures. And frankly, I'm not about to say that our culture is better than Iranian culture. I'll bet that's how people like Hitler or Milosevic started out in their thinking, you know? I may not like or agree with how the people of Iran have structured their society, but...Well, it's their society to structure. Their culture. When one culture decides that theirs is better than their neighbor's...Well, that's when nasty things like genocide start happening, and I'm not going there. I'll talk about US law and US culture, sure, but as I'm not Iranian I have no right to say anything about theirs. If the people of Iran don't like their legal system, then they're the ones who need to do something about it.

So, the death penalty as a punishment to the criminal - legal punishment is mainly used to teach/rehabilitate criminals;

No, it isn't. It's used mainly to...punish. It's like the ultimate time out, you know? If a person learns something while they're in there and gets out of prison a better person who doesn't do mean and nasty things, great. Programs are offered to inmates in the hope that they'll avail themselves of them and come out on the other side a "better person." But the overall point of the prison system is really not to teach or rehabilitate. It's meant to punish. Plain and simple.

...when they're dead, there's no lesson they learn.

No, it's when they're dead, they're dead, and there's no way for them to escape and kill again. Like Ted Bundy, for a famous example, did.

As a lesson to society; thus far, it hasn't had enough results to justify itself.

How do we really know that, though? We can look at statistics, sure, but statistics can be twisted and made to say whatever you want them to say. The murder rate may have stayed the same or even increased, but that could be due to many different factors, even just to the increasing overcrowding of cities. More bodies closer together to get irritated with each other is a recipe for an increased murder/crime rate. Plus, as I said, most killings aren't subject to the death penalty, anyway. I don't think it's really meant as a deterrent; I think it's meant more as a way to protect society from the possibility of these perpetrators escaping or being released without really mending their ways. Because life in prison often...isn't, you know.

In any case, I personally don't give much weight the "death penalty as a crime deterrent" argument, but it doesn't matter because the fact is that the law is there on the books to be invoked at will in certain cases. I believe in individual responsibility and that consequences of willful actions should be carried out regardless of a person's actions after their conviction of a crime. No matter how rehabilitated they become, it doesn't excuse the fact that, previously, they had tortured and killed, say, 10 people. So if the death penalty is a legally-prescribed consequence for a crime, I'm good with that. Especially because I do understand the crimes to which it applies and, quite frankly, I have little sympathy for the people who commit those crimes.

[Doddibot]

But the overall point of the prison system is really not to teach or rehabilitate. It's meant to punish. Plain and simple.
I think that is a major point of disagreement. I don't think prisons are to punish people at all. They are to prevent crime, both by removing the criminal who may re-offend and by deterring others from offending. Punishment may be a useful way of achieving this goal, but it is not the purpose of prisons.

So if the death penalty is a legally-prescribed consequence for a crime, I'm good with that. Especially because I do understand the crimes to which it applies and, quite frankly, I have little sympathy for the people who commit those crimes.
I took the question of this thread to be asking if the death penalty was morally justified, not legally justified. Of course, all one need to for legal justification is look at the laws and legal precedents.

But I DO have sympathy for people who commit even the most heinous crimes. I don't think that we can say that mass murder deserves death. And I don't think we can automatically be morally justified in killing somebody just because the law says we can, unless we accept the premise that the law is perfect in every way.

[Alissa888]

I am, of course, only discussing US law here. Law is very closely tied to culture, and in Iran it is even more so because they have blended religion and state together. Thus, the penalties for crimes committed there are different than in the US and, indeed, what is considered illegal is very different, as well. To us, some of their laws and the consequences of breaking them seem cruel and unnecessarily harsh. And perhaps they are.

But then we're down to judging other people's cultures. And frankly, I'm not about to say that our culture is better than Iranian culture. I'll bet that's how people like Hitler or Milosevic started out in their thinking, you know? I may not like or agree with how the people of Iran have structured their society, but...Well, it's their society to structure. Their culture. When one culture decides that theirs is better than their neighbor's...Well, that's when nasty things like genocide start happening, and I'm not going there. I'll talk about US law and US culture, sure, but as I'm not Iranian I have no right to say anything about theirs. If the people of Iran don't like their legal system, then they're the ones who need to do something about it.

I was using the case as a miscarriage of the death penalty, if she really did commit 'crimes against chastity' as was claimed, then fine, jail time would suffice. However, it was an example of how the death penalty is irreversibly abused.

But the overall point of the prison system is really not to teach or rehabilitate. It's meant to punish. Plain and simple.

Then what's the point of punishment if it has no long term goals, especially for the individual concerned? If everyone is going to go out and commit crimes again, why let them out? If it's for society, then all criminals - not just murderers - are going to go back and like you said, commit their crimes with more skill.

In any case, I personally don't give much weight the "death penalty as a crime deterrent" argument, but it doesn't matter because the fact is that the law is there on the books to be invoked at will in certain cases.

Yes, and I'm questioning why it should be there in the first place. In any country's laws.

I believe in individual responsibility and that consequences of willful actions should be carried out regardless of a person's actions after their conviction of a crime. No matter how rehabilitated they become, it doesn't excuse the fact that, previously, they had tortured and killed, say, 10 people. So if the death penalty is a legally-prescribed consequence for a crime, I'm good with that. Especially because I do understand the crimes to which it applies and, quite frankly, I have little sympathy for the people who commit those crimes.

Absolutely, wilful killing deserves serious punishment - in my opinion life without parole is sufficient - but the line between wilful and the actions of a crazy person is blurry and the line between treatable and untreatable isn't even defined. I don't think it's enough of justification to kill people over that. I'm not saying it's legally wrong - I know it's not - and I'm not saying that it's cruel to kill people - I can see how it's applied, though inducing the heart to go into spasm isn't the most humane way to do it - but, as Doddibot put it, I'm questioning our moral standing over it. In a society where we morally condemn wilful killing of another human, how do we - in any set of circumstances - compromise our basic beliefs?

That is, unless you're taking the argument of self-defence of society, in which case, self-defence only stands in the act of emergency; you kill someone when you're in danger at that exact moment and the only way out is to harm them... not the case when you can just lock them up for life.

[davious]

Here you go, Doddibot...

10Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. 11If, however, if I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"

These are the words of Paul, after he was arrested by the Romans. Now, this passage is interesting, in that it accomplishes multiple things. First, he acknowledges the authority of the Roman court to try him. Secondly, it establishes that there are crimes that are worthy of death. Thirdly, it acknowledges that if he had committed any of those crimes, Paul would willingly go to his death. Lastly, it grants the Roman government more authority, by Paul stating he appeals to Caesar, not to God. This ties in to Christ's "give to God what is God's, give to Caesar what is Caesar's" line which grants earthly authority.

That passage grants authority to human governments to use capital punishment, establishes that there are crimes worthy of it, and shows Paul's submission to the idea. Paul is not against the concept of capital punishment for those guilty of crimes deemed worthy of receiving it.

It would seem that as a Christian, using the Bible as a sourcebook, there is moral justification for the Death Penalty, as God grants authority to human governments and established the Death Penalty as a valid form of punishment. There are other verses that would support this position, but, this short passage seems to accomplish everything I wanted to say in two verses, so no term paper length post today.

[iCad]

I was using the case as a miscarriage of the death penalty, if she really did commit 'crimes against chastity' as was claimed, then fine, jail time would suffice. However, it was an example of how the death penalty is irreversibly abused.

According to the laws of Iran, it wasn't a miscarriage of the death penalty at all. She was convicted according to their legal system of committing the crime, and she was given the prescribed penalty for the transgression. Now, personally, I don't like or agree with their law in this case, but it is their law based on their culture, which as I said has had religion and state blended together. Thus, their sexual morality is encoded into their legal structure, with penalties in place that are in accord with (at least their interpretation of) Islamic scripture. Now, you and I may not like this, but there is not at this time any one world government in place that gets to decide what's moral and what isn't for everyone on the planet. Unless and until there is (and I sincerely hope that there never is), it is up to the people of Iran to make changes if they do not like what is going on in their country. Organizations like Amnesty International can pressure the hell out of Iran's government but I believe that it will mostly have to be an internal change, and hopefully there are souls in Iran with the bravery and the fortitude to lead the charge, so to speak.


Then what's the point of punishment if it has no long term goals...

Rehabilitation is a proactive process that hopefully heads off future trouble at the pass, so to speak. Punishment, on the other hand, is a reactive process that (more or less) immediately addresses one wrongdoing that a person has already committed. You commit a crime, you go to jail for it. The hope (i.e. the "long term goal") is that the jail experience is unpleasant enough that you don't do whatever it was you did again, once you're released. It's like using a bark collar used on a nuisance-barking dog, one that emits an uncomfortable ultrasonic sound whenever the dog barks. It's immediate punishment for an unwanted behavior, the hope being that the unpleasantness of the sound is enough to make the dog stop barking in the long term. (Though the PC term is "correction," not "punishment;" you'll notice that most prisons are called "correctional facilities" not "rehabilitation facilities" and the governmental department responsible for overseeing the prisons is the Department of Corrections, which is a polite term for The Punishment Department :) ) The prison system as it stands now operates on the very same principle as a bark collar, only without the physical discomfort. If you believe that it operates differently...Well, you'd be mistaken. I believe there is someone in this thread who actually is a corrections officer. I'm sure he could confirm this.

Anyway, as I said, there are programs offered in jails that one hopes the inmates take advantage of, but it's not like there are intense daily therapy sessions going on or anything of that sort. For that, the person would have to be confined in a mental facility, not a jail, and that's a different kind of conviction altogether. So basically, your average inmate is just whiling away their time, playing video games, watching TV, removed from their friends and families, just waiting to get out, if they are going to get out.

Is this a good thing? No. The prison system as it stands is demonstrably ineffective in terms of reducing recidivism. Frankly, I'd spend less time worrying about the extremely few people who are sentenced to death and the morality of the death penalty in general, and focus far more attention on the THOUSANDS of inmates convicted of lesser but still violent crimes who are not subject to the death penalty and who, statistically, are very likely indeed to get out of jail and repeat their crime. Like rapists and gang-member criminals and child molesters, for instance. But hey, that's just me. :) I guess I'm more of a practical person than a moralist/idealist. Or something. :)

Absolutely, wilful killing deserves serious punishment - in my opinion life without parole is sufficient...

In your opinion, yes. As I said, that's not your call to make unless you're sitting on a jury. Of course, if you're talking from a moral standpoint, then you're going to get a lot of opinions on the subject. Mine happens to disagree with yours, but in the end opinions stated on the internet don't even amount to a hill of beans, you know? If you're that concerned about the issue, as I said, contact your state rep about it. Gather like-minded individuals and do some lobbying. Get the word out. Get active. Add your voice to an already-existing anti-death-penalty organization, if you haven't already. That's how our systems works. Arguing with other folks on the Internet doesn't really further causes, you know? But small groups of individuals who take a stand and don't take no for an answer can make huge changes.

Me, I'm inclined to worry more about those inmates I described above. Which is why I volunteer for an organization that is very concerned about these people and that tries to help them to modify their behavior in the hope that they can and will become contributing members of society. I do that primarily by going to prisons two evenings a week and teaching inmates how to read and how to write well enough to fill out job applications. Others more qualified than me address any psychological issues they might have, all on a volunteer basis, because these people aren't getting any counseling in jail. Eventually, these people will get out of prison, and I simply feel a deep need to address their issues, for their own sakes as well as for the sake of society. I don't really feel a need to address the issues of people that will (theoretically, at least) rot in prison. Call me cold, but that's where I draw my line.

Your solution to the problem of extreme-scale first-degree murderers is to toss them in jail, add more people to an already overloaded system, and keep them there for the rest of their lives, which could be a very long time indeed. And, I guess, try to rehabilitate them? Although if they're just going to sit in prison for the rest of their lives, then what's the point of rehabilitation? But anyway, in order for that to really work as you would hope, then the system needs to be reformed for real first. One step at a time, you know? I'm trying to do my part. What are you doing?

In a society where we morally condemn wilful killing of another human, how do we - in any set of circumstances - compromise our basic beliefs?

You know, it's also illegal for me to lock someone else in a small jail cell and keep them there for months or years at a time. It is both legally and morally wrong for me to do so. Yet governments do it all the time as punishments for crime. Are you going to claim now that governments are wrong for locking people up, then? Because by your logic above, you very well should...

In any case, you're conflating individual human beings with government institutions, and they are not exactly the same thing, nor are they bound by the same codes of conduct. Governments can do and do do all sorts of things that individuals can't do, on a regular basis. Like collecting taxes. And convicting people of crimes and executing them if that's their sentence. As the duly-elected/appointed government, it is given the right and, indeed, the responsibility to do so by our constitution. Individuals do not have the same rights as governments do, however, and they are subject to different codes of conduct. So yes, governments can kill people as a punishment for first-degree murder or for espionage/treason, according to the law. Individuals, however, can't go about killing people for any reason other than self-defense. If you want the government to stop executions...then you know, I trust, what you should do about it.

[iCad]

I think that is a major point of disagreement. I don't think prisons are to punish people at all. They are to prevent crime, both by removing the criminal who may re-offend and by deterring others from offending. Punishment may be a useful way of achieving this goal, but it is not the purpose of prisons.

Were that the case, and the purpose of prisons was to prevent crime, then which came first: The prison or the criminal? Clearly, there were criminals long before there were prisons, and prisons were invented primarily as punishment for committed crimes, not primarily for prevention of future crimes. I would say that the idea of prisons is a deterrent to crime, yes, but that is certainly not their primary purpose at all. That's why it's the Department of Corrections, not the Department of Prevention, eh? :)

But I DO have sympathy for people who commit even the most heinous crimes.

Then you are a far better person than me, I'm afraid. No really, I'm serious. I'm scarred and callused, and I DO believe that people who murder in the first degree have given up their rights and privileges. If you can see clear to sympathize with these people...Well, I might call you foolish, but perhaps it is a mark of wisdom to sympathize with people with whom no one else can sympathize. Or not. I don't really know. I just don't share your sympathy, I'm afraid.

I don't think that we can say that mass murder deserves death. And I don't think we can automatically be morally justified in killing somebody just because the law says we can, unless we accept the premise that the law is perfect in every way.

It is not a question of "deserving." The fact is, the death penalty is on the books as a punishment for first-degree murder and espionage/treason. The fact is that the government, at least here in the US, is elected and appointed and that it is granted the power to enforce the law by the US Constitution. If one believes anything in the law to be wrong, then one has recourse. Further, the law is not perfect and does not need to be. It is regulated by a specific and well-defined set of checks and balances. Which, as I said elsewhere, is the precise reason why the death penalty is rarely a person's sentence and is even more rarely actually carried out.

[Doddibot]

Were that the case, and the purpose of prisons was to prevent crime, then which came first: The prison or the criminal? Clearly, there were criminals long before there were prisons, and prisons were invented primarily as punishment for committed crimes, not primarily for prevention of future crimes. I would say that the idea of prisons is a deterrent to crime, yes, but that is certainly not their primary purpose at all. That's why it's the Department of Corrections, not the Department of Prevention, eh? :)
Well, if you think that punishment is the purpose of prisons, then let me ask this - what is the purpose of punishment?


I DO believe that people who murder in the first degree have given up their rights and privileges.
My opinion of rights is based on what is called "choice theory" of rights. That is, that rights are protecting freedoms, such as the freedom to choose to live or die. That is a choice that other people should not be making for you - you should only be killed if there is a very good reason to assume that you would not choose to continue living. Criminals, largely, wish to keep living, so they should have that right.

[iCad]

Well, if you think that punishment is the purpose of prisons, then let me ask this - what is the purpose of punishment?

I'll just reiterate what I wrote to Alissa: Punishment [as opposed to rehabilitation] is a reactive process that (more or less) immediately addresses one wrongdoing that a person has already committed. You commit a crime, you go to jail for it. The hope (i.e. the "long term goal") is that the jail experience is unpleasant enough that you don't do whatever it was you did again, once you're released. It's like using a bark collar on a nuisance-barking dog, one that emits an uncomfortable ultrasonic sound whenever the dog barks. It's immediate punishment for an unwanted behavior, the hope being that the unpleasantness of the sound is enough to make the dog stop barking in the long term. ... The prison system as it stands now operates on the very same principle as a bark collar, only without the physical discomfort."


My opinion of rights is based on what is called "choice theory" of rights. That is, that rights are protecting freedoms, such as the freedom to choose to live or die.

I agree with you about this. But maybe you missed the part in my reply to you where I said that my opinion is that a person who has chosen to murder in the first degree (meaning, with premeditation, knowing full well what one is doing and that it is wrong), who has chosen to completely disregard another person's right to live, has in turn chosen to forfeit their rights to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and, if the court decides it is warranted, life. Simple as that.

We will now proceed with the "I'm right/no, you're not/yes, I am/no, you aren't" arguments, yes? :) Point is: We're down to opinion on this. Opinions aren't something that you can really argue about, really. Mine are based on the experiences I've had with the judicial system (Not as the defendant, but as the plaintiff in a rape trial) and the experiences I've had volunteering in the prison system. I am a great advocate of prison reform, indeed, but as I said to Alissa, I frankly don't spend my time worrying about the vanishingly small percentage of people actually sentenced to death or the morality of the death penalty in general. I worry more about helping the inmates who are not subject to the death penalty and who will be out on the streets one day -- like, for instance, rapists -- to become contributing members of society. It is, indeed, part of my own therapy. :)

[HyjaClinton]

I am against the death penalty simply because life in prison is much worse.

[RussaNodrey_SC]

Well, I know I already posted this but:

I am for the death penalty in all but the smallest crimes.

[kustirider2]

I am Kinda half and half because i think people should suffer and die for the horrible murders that they commit (especially in the James Bulger case, That was just sick) but also what if they got the wrong man?

[Troll]

We don't kill people to show people killing is wrong. We don't kill people as an act of revenge. We kill people when we find them to be so freaking distorted and useless to society that they'd just be a huge burden to keep around. The death penalty is simply a punishment for a crime. Obviously, like our parents, society tosses out harsher punishments for harsher crimes.

So yeah, the death penalty is justifiable in many cases

[Elyasis_SC]

DNA has cleared too many innocent people for me to ever justify the death penalty.

Then how about having the death penalty only given to people who a) confess to being guilty in front of a lie detector to make sure and/or b) DNA evidence suggests they were at the scene of the crime and were, in fact, the murderer.
I would also suggest it be reserved for people who would commit the crime again given the chance. Not just for those whom it was an accident or a crime of passion. Forgive the reference to Heroes here, but it's like the difference between Maya and Sylar.

[hszmv]

Because at some stage (don't know when, don't ask) of the Death Penalty appeals case, you MUST plead not guilty. It's the courts job to prove that statement wrong. With out a shadow of a doubt. DNA evidence has cleared alot of people, and its increasing use in the United States in the 90s made another round of appeals for immates on death row. However, they can also put away other killers very convincingly. So it works that it is another obsticle to keep an innocent man out of jail and a guilty man in.

[davious]

It seems to me that the convicted killers whose sentences are overturned were convicted before DNA was used as a common investigative technique. The more prevalent DNA testing is used now, the less likely a person will be wrongfully convicted, the less likely they will be cleared after conviction. While I believe in the Death Penalty, I also believe in ANY technique that can help prove beyond any doubt whether the accused did it or not. I am completely in favor of any science that adds to the due process, to reduce the chances of wrongful convictions. I think even the most ardent Death Penalty supporters would be in favor of anything that makes it tougher for a person to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. I don't want to be just sure about their guilt, I want to be DAMN sure.

[Alissa888]

It seems to me that the convicted killers whose sentences are overturned were convicted before DNA was used as a common investigative technique. The more prevalent DNA testing is used now, the less likely a person will be wrongfully convicted, the less likely they will be cleared after conviction. While I believe in the Death Penalty, I also believe in ANY technique that can help prove beyond any doubt whether the accused did it or not. I am completely in favor of any science that adds to the due process, to reduce the chances of wrongful convictions. I think even the most ardent Death Penalty supporters would be in favor of anything that makes it tougher for a person to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. I don't want to be just sure about their guilt, I want to be DAMN sure.

Which is entirely fair enough, and actually quite recommended that you demand absolute proof of guilt before issuing the death penalty. However, that said, how many cases do you get that in? Every form of scientific testing has it's odds of being wrong - some more than others and yes, it might be too small to qualify as reasonable doubt, but the chances being small doesn't qualify for full dismissal that small odds may just apply in this case. Furthermore, we don't always get something as reassuring as DNA evidence is cases, we get plenty of other things; ballistics, fingerprints etc and those have their own odds.

The small odds of a theory being wrong never disproves the null hypothesis - should we really kill people when even the smallest odds of them being innocent applies?

We hardly get cases where we're THAT sure of guilt and even if we do, I still oppose the Death Penalty on moral grounds.

[Dreamydre]

The death penalty is never justified, killing people for killing people is crazy! These people are emotionally and mentally screwed up. I know people do some harsh things and I know what China Arnolds did was inhuman but aren't we being unhuman by murdering people? Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission. Okay so if this is the case then why is it right for the government to kill innocent people by "accident" and why is the death penalty legal?

Capital punishment is justified because the brutality of certain crimes can only be reprimanded through the death penalty. It's the only appropriate punishment for crimes such as mass murder, rape, first degree murder, murder for hire, and killing an officer of law. It Pays Proper Respect to the Importance of Human Life, it is that simple.

[Doddibot]

Capital punishment is justified because the brutality of certain crimes can only be reprimanded through the death penalty. It's the only appropriate punishment for crimes such as mass murder, rape, first degree murder, murder for hire, and killing an officer of law. It Pays Proper Respect to the Importance of Human Life, it is that simple.
I don't see how it respectful of human life to take it as a form of punishment.

[RandomAnomaly]

The issue here isn't respect, it's JUSTICE. If you say you don't see how it's respectful to take human life as a form of punishment, what about the person that was murdered in the first place? Was that not 'disrespectful'? Forgive me for quoting a war movie, but when Mark Hammill's character in The Big Red One was questioned as to why he hadn't hit a single target in a previous battle, he responded by stating that he could not murder, and to this his sergeant replied that killing in a war is simply to defend one's country or that of an ally. Obviously, there is still the issue of war crimes, that being the only case in which technically, a soldier can commit murder.

[BillyDee]

Just thought that you'd all be interested to know that today (10th October) is the World Day Against the Death Penalty (http://www.worldcoalition.org/modules/accueil/)

In that spirit, the European Parliament and the European Commission along with Member State ministers of the Council of Ministers and the European Council have all signed a European declaration against the death penalty, creating a de facto European-wide ban on the death penalty (read HERE (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1481&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)) and the European Commission is now pushing for a universal declaration agains the death penalty (read HERE (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1480&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en))

[Alissa888]

:D Great move. I'm still not sure that the death penalty is avoidable/unnecessary ever in every single case, but I feel that as a society, we should practice what we preach regarding taking people's lives.

The issue here isn't respect, it's JUSTICE. If you say you don't see how it's respectful to take human life as a form of punishment, what about the person that was murdered in the first place? Was that not 'disrespectful'?

Well, how about we lead by example when it comes to respecting human life by not killing?

The Death Penalty condones a form of killing, and let alone legally, MORALLY that should never be allowed in a society. Even killing in self-defence is somewhat of a tentative issue, the killing in that case being a result of an emergency with no other options to ensure personal safety and that's not the case with the death penalty. Hence, it seems a little ridiculous to say 'Oh, you killed a person, it's wrong, so we're going to kill you' - and suddenly the idea of killing isn't so wrong.

So, if you're going to kill someone based on the fact that they're no longer any use/harmful to society, why not condone euthanasia for terminally ill patients? Because they're a drain on resources, and that never will change either.

[sayyadina_SC]

I don't believe in an eye for an eye. But recently I started to think that some criminals should be given the choice to take their own life, like an assisted suicide.

[davious]

The Death Penalty condones a form of killing, and let alone legally, MORALLY that should never be allowed in a society.

We already condone legal killing. It is incredibly ironic that you would use a moral argument against the Death Penalty, and yet ignore the same moral argument in regards to abortion. Does not abortion condone a form of killing? Is it not legal? Is not the pro-life argument that it should never be morally allowed in society? At least the criminal did something to deserve his or her fate.

Are you also going to call every single veteran of WWII that is still alive a murderer? They took human life as well. Society condoned it, it was legal, and in the case of WWII, it was certainly morally justified, at least on the Allied side. The Nazis absolutely had to be stopped, and I don't think you can convince me it would have been possible without massive bloodshed.

The issue isn't that taking a human life is so morally reprehensible that it is never permissible in society, because, there are counter examples that show when it is permissible. Those executed by the state for their crimes deemed serious enough to merit the death penalty brought it on themselves. They were the ones that showed complete disregard towards someone else's right to live, not the state. They were the ones that violated someone, not the state. When you are convicted by a jury unanimously (needed for Capital punishment in most places) of a crime so heinous that merits it, I am sorry, but they deserve it. Rights are not limitless, and the right to live is no more limitless than other rights.

[gonebynow_SC]

Well, how about we lead by example when it comes to respecting human life by not killing?

The Death Penalty condones a form of killing, and let alone legally, MORALLY that should never be allowed in a society. Even killing in self-defence is somewhat of a tentative issue, the killing in that case being a result of an emergency with no other options to ensure personal safety and that's not the case with the death penalty. Hence, it seems a little ridiculous to say 'Oh, you killed a person, it's wrong, so we're going to kill you' - and suddenly the idea of killing isn't so wrong.

So, if you're going to kill someone based on the fact that they're no longer any use/harmful to society, why not condone euthanasia for terminally ill patients? Because they're a drain on resources, and that never will change either.

How about when soldiers go to war? It's advertised on TV, it's in the papers, it's everywhere. They go off to kill people, and kids grow up pretending to be army men. There's even dolls. That, to me, is condoning legal murder by making it seem like a fun and respectful thing to do, not killing someone who has slaughtered an innocent human being or maybe even went on a killing spree.

Prisons aren't even as bad. I once read in the paper of how someone managed to sue a prison because he didn't get good TV channels. Hardly anyone gets life anyway. How is that justice? What about the victims family and how they feel?

My personal thoughts on this issue are that the victims family gets a say in what happens with the scum that took the life of their loved one. I also believe that if they don't get killed, they get put in a tiny cell with only a hole in the ground as a toilet. They deserve nothing better.

[Alissa888]

We already condone legal killing. It is incredibly ironic that you would use a moral argument against the Death Penalty, and yet ignore the same moral argument in regards to abortion. Does not abortion condone a form of killing? Is it not legal? Is not the pro-life argument that it should never be morally allowed in society? At least the criminal did something to deserve his or her fate.

Okay, a foetus is not a human life in the same sense as an actual cognitive human being. I've already argued my point regarding this in the abortion thread.

Are you also going to call every single veteran of WWII that is still alive a murderer? They took human life as well. Society condoned it, it was legal, and in the case of WWII, it was certainly morally justified, at least on the Allied side. The Nazis absolutely had to be stopped, and I don't think you can convince me it would have been possible without massive bloodshed.

War is obviously a different case - it's done under emergency duress and one would hope that declaring war is done as a last resort when there is no other viable alternative (in the case of sole criminals, this would be locking them up). And yes, there have been wars fought when they could have been avoided, but in a society with several mistakes, we should refuse to fix even one just because there are others condoning it?

The issue isn't that taking a human life is so morally reprehensible that it is never permissible in society, because, there are counter examples that show when it is permissible. Those executed by the state for their crimes deemed serious enough to merit the death penalty brought it on themselves. They were the ones that showed complete disregard towards someone else's right to live, not the state. They were the ones that violated someone, not the state. When you are convicted by a jury unanimously (needed for Capital punishment in most places) of a crime so heinous that merits it, I am sorry, but they deserve it.

And life imprisonment is never sufficient? I find it rather hypocritical that a society that condemns murder - well, killing unlawfully, let's say - to a point where the criminal is punished with a death penalty and yet, that punishment involves killing someone by causing their heart to go into spasm while others watch on - and that's not heinous? And yes, they have shown complete disregard towards someone's right to live and yes, they have committed a horrible crime and yes, they do deserve to be punished, but really, why should that involve the state taking it's turn to practically show complete disregard for someone's right to live?

Murder in general is reprehensible, but the death penalty seems to be a way of fighting fire with fire. By this argument - and the idea of teaching them a lesson by killing them - every bank robber should have his house robbed by the bank workers.

Rights are not limitless, and the right to live is no more limitless than other rights.

Yes, that's true. But, the right to live is such a basic and important right... so, as a society - I'm excluding war from this because it's a complex situation and the argument of individual self-defence is brought in at some point - why should we ever have the right to violate it?


How about when soldiers go to war? It's advertised on TV, it's in the papers, it's everywhere. They go off to kill people, and kids grow up pretending to be army men. There's even dolls. That, to me, is condoning legal murder by making it seem like a fun and respectful thing to do, not killing someone who has slaughtered an innocent human being or maybe even went on a killing spree.

Again, we're making a mistake. It doesn't mean we can't fix our other mistakes.

Prisons aren't even as bad. I once read in the paper of how someone managed to sue a prison because he didn't get good TV channels. Hardly anyone gets life anyway. How is that justice? What about the victims family and how they feel?

That's more to do with our own failings of putting cable TV and God only knows what else in prison. We should put an end to that, and restrict prisons to providing basic human needs - which doesn't involve cable TV - and little else. The idea of incarceration is an excellent one, we're just not doing it very well.

My personal thoughts on this issue are that the victims family gets a say in what happens with the scum that took the life of their loved one. I also believe that if they don't get killed, they get put in a tiny cell with only a hole in the ground as a toilet. They deserve nothing better.

Yup, I'm in total agreement with you. Just make sure that the basic needs - food, shelter, warmth, clothing and water - are provided and give them practically nothing else. I consider that adequate punishment and it stops people from seeing prison as an easy affair.

[Hinoemasim]

Okay, I'll put in my bit; keep in mind that this is my personal opinion only. I have a question.

Regarding the general principle of state sanctioned lethal force, it's already in use. Soldiers are sanctioned to use lethal force in what is deemed appropriate for national defense. Domestic law enforcement officials are sanctioned to use lethal force under circumstances deemed necessary for public safety. It only seems to be such an issue when the end result of the judicial process seems to be using lethal force when deemed necessary for public safety, as opposed to when it is used during the course of public enforcement or when it is used in national defense.

What does everyone think are the significant factors that make lethal force when used by a military agent or lethal force when used by a law officer different than lethal force when administered by judicial penalty?

[davious]

I don't think there should be a difference. In all cases, it is state sanctioned, with the overall goal to increase public safety. With soldiers, its a broad, overarching sense of security, tied into national security, that by going to war, we are preventing the world from becoming a less safe place. Okay, that makes sense. In the case of policemen and women, it is still public safety that is paramount, by sanctioning killing criminals who are endangering the lives of the innocent public, or in self defense, if the officers are being shot at. Perfectly justifiable. I would argue that capital punishment is in the best interests of public safety as well, while the felon is already incarcerated, someone who is willing to commit such heinous acts isn't going to be scared off of doing them again while in prison. When you are sentenced to life in prison, what is to stop you from murdering other prisoners? What else can they punish you with? You are already spending the rest of your life in prison, so what is your motivation to stop? Are people suggesting that a guy in prison for stealing cars doesn't have a right to live? That its okay that he is put in the same place as a serial killer? He just stole cars, he didn't rob anyone else of their right to life, putting him in danger by forcing him to associate with a mass murderer is hardly justice, is it? He just wants to serve his time and get out...When the state executes a convicted felon of crimes that are deemed capital punishment worthy, they are not only protecting you and I on the outside, they are also protecting the rights of the other prisoners, who didn't take anyone else's life. They are safer, we are safer.

[RandomAnomaly]

Prisons aren't even as bad. I once read in the paper of how someone managed to sue a prison because he didn't get good TV channels. Hardly anyone gets life anyway. How is that justice? What about the victims family and how they feel?

Praise God for the Scots! This is a lot like what I said earlier;

If you say you don't see how it's respectful to take human life as a form of punishment, what about the person that was murdered in the first place? Was that not 'disrespectful'?

On the issue of war, it's basically a scaled-up version of people brought to court for killing in self-defense, with war crimes being the proverbial 'murder'.