Death Penalty

I support the death penalty, but only for murder. I do not believe that it is a suitable punishment for rape, since only killing deserves death in turn.

The death penalty is not as bad as the murderer in the first place, since the murder was committed in cold blood, or at least for reasons that do not deserve death. However, the death penalty is justified because there is a reason for killing in that case: the person you are killing has killed for a reason that did not deserve death.

What I'm trying to say is that the death penalty is not as bad as what the murderer did in the first place.

What do you mean it's not as bad?

A murderer kills someone with a shotgun, stabs them or whatever, the state kills him by strapping him to a chair and electrocuting him until death, or injecting lethal chemicals into his body.

The death penalty is more barbaric and brutal than most murders, and it's only because "You did it first.". It's nonsense.

If you are arguing motive, you might have more of an argument. If it's act Vs act, the death penalty is often worse.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What do you mean it's not as bad?

A murderer kills someone with a shotgun, stabs them or whatever, the state kills him by strapping him to a chair and electrocuting him until death, or injecting lethal chemicals into his body.

The death penalty is more barbaric and brutal than most murders, and it's only because "You did it first.". It's nonsense.

If you are arguing motive, you might have more of an argument. If it's act Vs act, the death penalty is often worse.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What do you mean it's not as bad?

A murderer kills someone with a shotgun, stabs them or whatever, the state kills him by strapping him to a chair and electrocuting him until death, or injecting lethal chemicals into his body.

The death penalty is more barbaric and brutal than most murders, and it's only because "You did it first.". It's nonsense.

If you are arguing motive, you might have more of an argument. If it's act Vs act, the death penalty is often worse.

-AC

If you had to choose, would you rather be stabbed to death or go via lethal injection?

Wouldn't lethal injection be less painful?

Originally posted by Robtard
If you had to choose, would you rather be stabbed to death or go via lethal injection?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Depends, will it be one of those where I slowly witness my muscles relaxing, being unable to move or scream while I suffocate for minutes? I'd take a stabbing by a decent hitman, k thx.

I call bullshit.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you had to choose, would you rather be stabbed to death or go via lethal injection?

Lethal injection because it's less painful, but initial pain wasn't necessarily my point, it was intent.

Muggers freak out and stab people, stabbings can be either wild and impulsive or calculated and precise. Someone actually had the purpose to sit there and think of ways to kill criminals, and they devised the electric chair and injecting chemicals into the body that aren't supposed to be there.

Surely you see the point.

If a serial killer went around using chemicals to put people to death, akin to lethal injection, people would consider him much more evil than a knife-wielding nutcase. Someone goes on a stabbing spree, like the Ipswich Ripper, he just gets the hype and "Ooh, bad that. Murders.". Harold Shipman killed countless patients through medical and precise means, he was considered one of the countries worst serial killers ever.

-AC

I'm against the DP no matter what.

It is hypocritical, contradictory and a viscious cycle of death that is unnecessary in this world. It certainly isn't justice. There is no justice man can carry out against their fellow man for killing a fellow man. It just is impossible.

Jail isn't really justice or a better solution either, but it is far better than just killing them.

Originally posted by BigRed
Jail isn't really justice or a better solution either, but it is far better than just killing them.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed now, are we?

Premise 1 - rehabilitation doesn't work
Premise 2 - the punishment should fit the crime

Given these 2 premises, the death penalty should be administered whenever the government cannot mete a punishment that would be equivalent to the crime originally committed. In the case of a theft for example - I think jail time is stupid, it would be much better to have the criminal pay back the value of what was stolen plus interest. If he had to be detained and forced to work to do that then so be it. Likewise most punishment should aim at correcting the wrong done. In cases like murder there is nothing that the criminal can do to rectify his crime. In such cases it makes sense that his life is forfeit.

The only argument that holds water against the death penalty is that innocents are sometimes convicted. But what that really says is that we need to hone our processes to eliminate mistakes before they reach death row. In cases where there is no doubt about whodunnit. There should be no doubt about the punishment either.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Not the sharpest tool in the shed now, are we?

Originally posted by docb77

The only argument that holds water against the death penalty is that innocents are sometimes convicted. But what that really says is that we need to hone our processes to eliminate mistakes before they reach death row. In cases where there is no doubt about whodunnit. There should be no doubt about the punishment either.

Men are judging men. It is impossible to eliminate all mistakes.

The rhetoric of the death penalty is inconsistent with the "values" America claims to hold. The only time death is considered ok according to these values is "to protect self" or "treason." Breaking certain laws could be considered treason but I'm too lazy to go intricate right now

Originally posted by docb77
Premise 1 - rehabilitation doesn't work
Premise 2 - the punishment should fit the crime

Given these 2 premises, the death penalty should be administered whenever the government cannot mete a punishment that would be equivalent to the crime originally committed. In the case of a theft for example - I think jail time is stupid, it would be much better to have the criminal pay back the value of what was stolen plus interest. If he had to be detained and forced to work to do that then so be it. Likewise most punishment should aim at correcting the wrong done. In cases like murder there is nothing that the criminal can do to rectify his crime. In such cases it makes sense that his life is forfeit.

The only argument that holds water against the death penalty is that innocents are sometimes convicted. But what that really says is that we need to hone our processes to eliminate mistakes before they reach death row. In cases where there is no doubt about whodunnit. There should be no doubt about the punishment either.

There will never be a 100% factual/sure conviction. At least not enough for the death penalty to exist, it's that simple.

If you cannot be 100% factually sure every single time, it cannot pass.

-AC

Originally posted by docb77
Premise 1 - rehabilitation doesn't work
Premise 2 - the punishment should fit the crime

Given these 2 premises, the death penalty should be administered whenever the government cannot mete a punishment that would be equivalent to the crime originally committed. In the case of a theft for example - I think jail time is stupid, it would be much better to have the criminal pay back the value of what was stolen plus interest. If he had to be detained and forced to work to do that then so be it. Likewise most punishment should aim at correcting the wrong done. In cases like murder there is nothing that the criminal can do to rectify his crime. In such cases it makes sense that his life is forfeit.

The only argument that holds water against the death penalty is that innocents are sometimes convicted. But what that really says is that we need to hone our processes to eliminate mistakes before they reach death row. In cases where there is no doubt about whodunnit. There should be no doubt about the punishment either.

So rich people can steal all they like with no actual fear of punishment as such a thing is a mere inconvenience to them, whilst poor people who steal are instead forced into labour?

Your pathetically simple attempt to make justice all about redress misses the whole point by a country mile. You;ve got to think about this kind of thing for more than thirty seconds, you know- it is a deep and complex subject. Long story short though- trying to base a system on that premise does not work, and legal systems have long since moved out of such a kindergarden mentality. Punishment should be proportionate to the crume, sure. But trying to make it FIT a crime is a fool's game.

If you did think about it, you would avoid non sequiturs like saying that it 'makes sense' that a murderer's life is forfeit. That is a true non sequitir as it does not follow- not only from many principles of common sense but, perhaps more importantly, it doesn't even follow from your own logic presented in your post. How the heck did you reach that conclusion? "Oh, he cannot bring the dead person back to life, as my earlier principle outlined would be a fitting punishment so... we'd better kill him!"

Huh?

I am still on the fence about the death penalty.

I have a slight distaste for human life, only because I am a hermit. Part of me wants anyone who gets life in prison without parole to be killed immediately after no hope for appeal. If they are not in the system, they are not eating up tax dollars.

The other part of me realizes how barbaric it is to still be executing each other. In a Christian dominated society like America, how can we kill another when our very religion COMMANDS us not to do it?

Throwing all morals out of the window and just being my grumpy self.....kill any criminal who has to go to prison for 40+(without parole until then or something..bla bla) years who has irrefutable evidence against them. (No room for doubt.) F*** 'em. I could care less about their lives anyway. It would save money.

Some may argue that being in prison the rest of your life is much worse than just getting it over with. There is even a classic story on that. There is another side to that coin, too.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Lethal injection because it's less painful, but initial pain wasn't necessarily my point, it was intent.

Muggers freak out and stab people, stabbings can be either wild and impulsive or calculated and precise. Someone actually had the purpose to sit there and think of ways to kill criminals, and they devised the electric chair and injecting chemicals into the body that aren't supposed to be there.

Surely you see the point.

If a serial killer went around using chemicals to put people to death, akin to lethal injection, people would consider him much more evil than a knife-wielding nutcase. Someone goes on a stabbing spree, like the Ipswich Ripper, he just gets the hype and "Ooh, bad that. Murders.". Harold Shipman killed countless patients through medical and precise means, he was considered one of the countries worst serial killers ever.

-AC

You're still being way to general with your "The death penalty is more barbaric and brutal than most murders.", as there are people like John Wayne Gacey, Jeffrey Dahmer, Dennis Lynn Rader etc. etc. etc.

"Freaking out" and stabbing an innocent person to death for the few dollars in their pocket is far more barbaric than killing a murderer via injection.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am still on the fence about the death penalty.

I have a slight distaste for human life, only because I am a hermit. Part of me wants anyone who gets life in prison without parole to be killed immediately after no hope for appeal. If they are not in the system, they are not eating up tax dollars.

The other part of me realizes how barbaric it is to still be executing each other. In a Christian dominated society like America, how can we kill another when our very religion COMMANDS us not to do it?

Throwing all morals out of the window and just being my grumpy self.....kill any criminal who has to go to prison for 40+(without parole until then or something..bla bla) years who has irrefutable evidence against them. (No room for doubt.) F*** 'em. I could care less about their lives anyway. It would save money.

Some may argue that being in prison the rest of your life is much worse than just getting it over with. There is even a classic story on that. There is another side to that coin, too.

Then go live in the hills by yourself, hermit.

It's really "thou shall not murder"; not "thou shall not kill". You know, all those translations and rewrites tend to skew things up.

Technically, they could always be "room for doubt", also, 40 years isn't that bad if you're in your 20's. Im certain that there have been people paroled at 60+ that went on to enjoy the next 20+ years of their lives and abide my societies rules.

Some would argue, that is subjective, as some people may prefer to live in a cell than be dead.

Some premises that may be faulty

1 - that the death penalty is contradictory to American values

This is just BS. Some people claim that life has inherent values. But you see this nowhere in the documents from the time of the founding of the nation. What you do see is people trying to make something of their lives - trying to give their lives values. Eliminating a murderer is just like getting rid of the trash as far as society is concerned. I fail to see the "non sequitur" with regards to saying that since someone can't bring back a person they killed their life is forfeit. It follows one to the other - a life for a life. It's still not enough, but it's all we can do.

2 - It's impossible to ever be 100% sure about a murder conviction

Again this may be true most of the time, and if you wanted to argue that the death penalty should be rare, then I could accept that. But to eliminate it as a possible punishment completely is ridiculous. If any of these high school shooters had been caught in the act, then you would have had a 100% certainty of having the right person. multiple eyewitnesses, even video footage in some cases. It might not be possible to be 100% sure all the time, but in those cases where it is possible, the death penalty should be implemented speedily.

3 - primitive justice systems don't work/we've evolved past x system

Just looking at crime rates puts the lie to this one. In the end there are only 3 principles that one can look at when dealing with criminals: 1- rehabilitation 2- retribution 3-rectification

We've seen that rehabilitation doesn't work. I would argue that even if it did, it isn't the state's job to "convert" criminals to an honest life. Retribution is really only half justice, and it's true that there are times when that's all we can get, it certainly isn't perfect. This is really where the death penalty fits in. It is a commensurate punishment for an act that can't be redressed. Third we have rectification/redress this is true justice. The criminal gets nothing out of the crime and has to pay back the victim/society, and the victim regains what they lost. It is justice on both sides.

It is true that no system can rely solely on any one of these principles, but we can prioritize them. My own priorities would be 1- redress and 2- retribution. I would leave rehabilitation to the criminals themselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then go live in the hills by yourself, hermit.

You may think you'rr funny...but I plan on moving away from so many people as soon as I get enough credentials to get a better IT job.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's really "thou shall not murder"; not "thou shall not kill". You know, all those translations and rewrites tend to skew things up.

If you've ever argued this "death penalty" thing with anyone, you'd realize that the anti-death penalty Christians argue that it is murder and murdering a murderer makes you a murderer. That was my point and I figured that everyone would understand.

Originally posted by Robtard
Technically, they could always be "room for doubt", also, 40 years isn't that bad if you're in your 20's. Im certain that there have been people paroled at 60+ that went on to enjoy the next 20+ years of their lives and abide my societies rules.

No. Sometimes that can NOT be room for doubt. I'm sure you can think of some examples. And, no, kill the bastard even IF he can get out at 65. That was my point...I don't care about human life as much as others.

Originally posted by Robtard
Some would argue, that is subjective, as some people may prefer to live in a cell than be dead.

Hence my mentioning of the story. It is called 'The Bet".

I can see both sides and I am not sure what should be done at this point. My post may look like I am for the death penalty but how many people do you know give into that type of hate ALL the time? I mentioned it more for shock rather than to make a point for the death penalty side.