Death Penalty

[prejudged_Fire]

I haven't read all the posts and im sure that this has been said before but oh well.

I used to believe in the death penalty but then I thought wouldn't it be worse for someone to live the rest of their life in a jail cell than just getting killed (in a painless way) a few months after they killed someone? I mean think about it, a lot of these people want to die anyway so half the time you're giving them their wish. Death is like the easy way out so to speak, thats why people commit suicide, its easier than dealing with what they're dealing with. I think its better to make the person's life miserable than to end it.

[brien]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel brien then if you agree with me, you should consider advocating appeal or altering of the VIII Amendment, the law should be dynamic and move with societies needs. :)

Sorry I don't believe in c ruel & unusal punishment.

[chaplainson]

In my opinion, the death penalty is almost more humane than life in a detention facility. As long as we say "If you break these laws, you qualify for the death penalty, then they break those laws, too bad for them, they chose their action, live (or not) with the consequences.

[brien]

Hellsea; My idea of extreme cases and your ideas of the same, are probably very different.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: chaplainson In my opinion, the death penalty is almost more humane than life in a detention facility. As long as we say "If you break these laws, you qualify for the death penalty, then they break those laws, too bad for them, they chose their action, live (or not) with the consequences.

Which laws should earn the death penalty when broken? Why those and not others? Are there any exceptions permissible because of circumstances, or, say, diminished mental capacity?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Hellsea Do you honestly think that major covert organizations in the United States do not use torture methods? It is better to torture a few men without the world knowing it, then to have thousands..even millions die because you played nice with the bad guys. And because you were "nice” you lost the opportunity to gather valuable information that would lead to a cell, headquarters, and or a group of recruits making plans of terror.

If that were the only way to prevent terrorist attacks, the only way to gather information, then I might agree that torture would be worthwhile. But it is not the only way to gather information, or to fight terrorism, and so it should not be used until it is, literally, the last resort. I think that the elements of the US government that use torture do not use it as the last resort, but as a convenient means to an end, and that makes it immoral, whatever the potential benefit, and whatever the crime of the terrorist.

Quote by: Hellsea Brien, there is a huge difference where our country and the terrorists are concerned. The terrorist’s, guess who they torture... They torture innocent American soldiers, men who did no wrong. The soldiers didn't strap bombs to children, give them a gun, tell them to "have faith," then make them blow themselves up. That is what the terrorists do. We are fighting because we believe we, and other countries should have freedom. They are fighting because they are ruthless monsters whose only objective is to cause fear and panic worldwide.

Nonsense. There is no difference between atrocities. Torture is not made acceptable by your political stance, nor by your criminal history. We are set against them: they are our enemies. They strike at us with the weapons at their disposal, we strike at them with the weapons that are at our disposal. Bombing innocent civilians into the ground is not made more palatable when it is done with planes and missiles than when it is done with cars and bomb vests. We do not have the moral high ground here, and we won't as long as we see them as monsters that need to be killed just because they are our enemies.

They are people. They need to be dealt with as people, or we are monsters, too.

Quote by: Hellsea Where the death penalty is concerned, I think that it too should be used in extreme cases. Such cases would be with murderers (brutal murders and serial killers). Pedophiles and rapists should just be locked in a room and never allowed to see the light of day again.

Same answer as above. They are people, who need to be dealt with as people. Their actions make them people that cannot be allowed among other people, but they are, nonetheless, people. Human beings. Not trash, not filth, not monsters: people.

[Autolykos]

Who here has seen Clash of the Titans? There's a scene, near the beginning, where Calybos tells his mother, the goddess Thetis, that he demands justice against those who have wronged him. His mother replies, "Justice? Or revenge?"

Historically speaking, justice was restitution -- restoring to the victim what he had lost. Of course, this has its limits. If you cut off a person's arm, for example, how can you restore it to him? Even worse is when you "cut off" a person's life completely. Then the victim no longer exists, for all intents and purposes. Restitution here would seem to be impossible.

I would imagine that murder is considered the most serious crime by far because it is the one crime that has no real restitution. So how should it be dealt with? Do you treat it like other crimes, which means putting a certain value on a person's life? Do you kill the murderer in turn? Do you "lock him up" forever? Is there even any one right answer here?

A lot of people believe in "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". But I think most of them forget about the corollary to this that existed in ancient times. If a man accused another of an offense, and it was determined that he bore false witness, he would receive the punishment instead of the falsely accused. So obviously, for example, a man recommending the death penalty against another would himself be killed if he bears false witness. We don't seem to have anything like that in this day and age. Honestly, I think it would be an important check on those willing to provide false witness.

Also, I fail to see how exile no longer works. One could argue that prison is "internal exile", but there may be an even more effective form -- the old concept of outlawing. If a murderer is convicted and made an outlaw, his victim's survivors may kill him with impunity, if they so desire. This lays the responsibility for murdering the murderer squarely with those who would most want to see him dead. I think it's easier to have someone killed by someone else than to do it yourself.

- Rob

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Autolykos If a murderer is convicted and made an outlaw, his victim's survivors may kill him with impunity, if they so desire. This lays the responsibility for murdering the murderer squarely with those who would most want to see him dead. I think it's easier to have someone killed by someone else than to do it yourself.

I like the idea of outlawing. Assuming a person was accurately judged guilty, this sentence would still provide a grand social justice while minimizing the vengeful nature of the situation to between the criminal and the victim's survivors But then, there are notable objections, such as allowing a wild and unruly society, but of course, we should limit the sentence to only the most deserving cases.

[Autolykos]

Would you mind explaining how outlawing could lead to "a wild and unruly society"?

- Rob

[Epistemologist]

Well, no, I said why it doesn't necessarily lead to that kind of society, because the sentence would be limited.

But one might say that when things--especially killing--are taken out of the hands of the state, power becomes redistributed to smaller units (i.e. from the government to individuals), and then we'd have a bunch of people battling against each other. That would a faulty view, though, because, again, outlawing would be regulated by the government, and families have a choice to let the outlaw go.

Some might also say that there's nothing to stop victim's families from blowing up a bomb in a cafe to kill an outlaw while also making collateral damage, but then I suppose their impunity would be invalidated.

And perhaps the biggest objection to outlawing would be that it seems to take away the "institutionalized" part of the institutionalized killing that's the death penalty; that's basically the only thing that differentiates it from regular murder. But again, the government would still have a major hand in the killing. Perhaps outlawing would just be like offering the victim's family members to be the executioners (without salary) at the criminal's death; in fact, I guess that's what it is.

[brien]

I think it's easier to have someone killed by someone else than to do it yourself.

This could be why the people who favor the DP can live with themselves because it isn't they that are required to throw the switch, fire the bullet or start the injection flow. Even in firing squads some riflemen have blanks and no one knows who has them. The guilt of taking a human life SHOULD bother the conscience of a human being.

Oh I know of the bravados who say: "Just give me the chance and I will do the deed" but I am suspect of them. If they were to spend any time with a death row inmate at all, and then had to throw the switch, fire the rifle, or start the injection as he looked into the eye of the condemned, I again suspect they would sing a different tune.

[Hellsea]

Brien I'm starting to think so also :) On the other hand, even though we have different views on the "extreme" topice, I think that we have similar views on some of the other issues.

[Hellsea]

Coffee Saint, I honestly agree that torture should not be given lightly. Torture is not something that we can have done on every scum terrorist, but unfortunately there are times when torture needs to be used. Example.... many terrorists have such deep beliefs in their cause that they would rather kill themselves before giving away information. In that case, we aren’t going to simple be able to sweet talk our way to information. Sometimes extreme situations call for extreme actions.

I disagree, when you say that killers, i.e. murderers, pedophiles, and rapists are people. People don't go slaughter each other just to get an adrenaline rush. People don't rape little children, who are supposed to be innocent to the horrors of the world. People don’t do any of those things. Only monsters do. They should be treated as such. Of course, these "people" are trash, they are filth, and giving them a little smack on the hand isn't going to change who they are. Like I said above, extreme situations call for extreme measures.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: brien This could be why the people who favor the DP can live with themselves because it isn't they that are required to throw the switch, fire the bullet or start the injection flow. Even in firing squads some riflemen have blanks and no one knows who has them. The guilt of taking a human life SHOULD bother the conscience of a human being. Oh I know of the bravados who say: "Just give me the chance and I will do the deed" but I am suspect of them. If they were to spend any time with a death row inmate at all, and then had to throw the switch, fire the rifle, or start the injection as he looked into the eye of the condemned, I again suspect they would sing a different tune.

Or they wouldn't, but in so doing, they would reveal to everyone else that they are as bloodthirsty as the murderer they've killed -- they simply have a different target.

- Rob

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Hellsea Coffee Saint, I honestly agree that torture should not be given lightly. Torture is not something that we can have done on every scum terrorist, but unfortunately there are times when torture needs to be used. Example.... many terrorists have such deep beliefs in their cause that they would rather kill themselves before giving away information. In that case, we aren’t going to simple be able to sweet talk our way to information. Sometimes extreme situations call for extreme actions.

I'm not really qualified to speak on the means of gathering information, but I find it hard to believe that a single, suicidally dedicated terrorist is ever our sole source of information. If there's a cell, there is more than one person in that cell. There are people who supply the cell, who rent rooms to the cell, the cell members have friends and family -- and so on. If there were ever a situation when a single suicidally motivated terrorist had necessary information, as in he is the only one who knows where the bomb is while the timer is ticking down, then I can conceive of torture being called for. I doubt very much that that is the only time it is used.

But it seems we don't really disagree on this, and it is off the topic.

Quote by: Hellsea I disagree, when you say that killers, i.e. murderers, pedophiles, and rapists are people. People don't go slaughter each other just to get an adrenaline rush. People don't rape little children, who are supposed to be innocent to the horrors of the world. People don’t do any of those things. Only monsters do. They should be treated as such. Of course, these "people" are trash, they are filth, and giving them a little smack on the hand isn't going to change who they are. Like I said above, extreme situations call for extreme measures.

I think you are entirely wrong: that is exactly what people do, what human beings do, and it is what we have always done. It is part of what defines our race, as no other animal is quite as savage to those who pose it no threat as are humans. That is what murderers do, and that is what you are trying to do when you argue that a convicted felon should be taken out of a controlled prison environment and killed, because he is less than we are. It makes all of us into monsters. Sadly, it doesn't make us any less human.

[McTojo]

Whatever happened to redemption ?

[Beckah]

Quote by: brien Perhaps you should reconsider your opinion because it has been shown that the DP doesn't act as a deterrent in cases of murder. Can you provide an example of such escapes from modern prisons in the last 15 years, or is this merely your opinion as well? What about Pedophiles? You want to execute them as well? Why stop there? Let's execute wife beaters, child abusers, and the mentally ill. Afterall, one has to be mentally disturbed to murder, to abuse children and to beat their spouses as well, do they not? Let's just execute the dregs of society, right?:rolleyes:

OK....wasn't expecting that...
First of all, when you said that DP doesn't act as a deterrent in cases of murder, it might be because the culprit is dead...that's the law, right? If someone murders, they should be killed. Let's put it this way...what if someone came into your house in the middle of the night and shot your mom/dad point blank in the head in cold blood? According to your "opinion," this person shouldn't be punished. According to you, DP is too "overreactive." The tables turn when you're the victim, brien. You'd want them punished. If they killed someone you loved, you'd want them dead. That's how millions of people around the world feel, and that's how DP was created. Somebody makes a bad decision, there's going to be consequences. It's OK for justice to win in the end.
Second of all, the mentally ill don't belong with the wife beaters and child abusers. The abusers have a choice whether or not they're going to hurt the people they love. Mentally ill people can't decide. Most of the time, they don't realize what's going on. (That's not an insult towards the mentally ill. DON'T take it as one...) Mental people are controlled by their conditions. We, however are controlled by our minds, our hearts, our souls. It all depends on the decisions you make in life. Bad decisions breed bad consequences. Someone has to learn that sooner or later. That's another reason why the DP was put into place.

My opinion is my opinion. But, it only takes one opinion to change the world...
~Beckah

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, no, I said why it doesn't necessarily lead to that kind of society, because the sentence would be limited.

I didn't say "necessarily lead", I said "could lead". :)

But one might say that when things--especially killing--are taken out of the hands of the state, power becomes redistributed to smaller units (i.e. from the government to individuals), and then we'd have a bunch of people battling against each other. That would [be] a faulty view, though, because, again, outlawing would be regulated by the government, and families have a choice to let the outlaw go.

Would redistributing power to smaller units necessarily (here I am using the word ) lead to "a bunch of people battling against each other"? On the one hand, the outlaw would have no incentive not to commit crime, since he's already been given the ultimate punishment -- absence of any legal protection. But on the other hand, it also means that others could commit crimes against him (including murder) with legal impunity.

Some might also say that there's nothing to stop victim's families from blowing up a bomb in a cafe to kill an outlaw while also making collateral damage, but then I suppose their impunity would be invalidated.

Yes, their impunity would only extend to the outlaw himself. Then again, there's nothing stopping what you describe above today, aside from physical constraints.

And perhaps the biggest objection to outlawing would be that it seems to take away the "institutionalized" part of the institutionalized killing that's the death penalty; that's basically the only thing that differentiates it from regular murder. But again, the government would still have a major hand in the killing. Perhaps outlawing would just be like offering the victim's family members to be the executioners (without salary) at the criminal's death; in fact, I guess that's what it is.

What's so special about the "institutionalized" part, anyway?

I don't think outlawing would be so restrictive, and historically it wasn't. The government wouldn't necessarily be handing the convict a death sentence; it would simply say "You have no rights anymore".

- Rob

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Autolykos I didn't say "necessarily lead", I said "could lead". :)

Indeed.

Quote by: Autolykos Would redistributing power to smaller units necessarily (here I am using the word ) lead to "a bunch of people battling against each other"? On the one hand, the outlaw would have no incentive not to commit crime, since he's already been given the ultimate punishment -- absence of any legal protection. But on the other hand, it also means that others could commit crimes against him (including murder) with legal impunity.

Yes, and this situation would appear disorderly. That's why redistributing the power into small units could leads to chaos.

Quote by: Autolykos Yes, their impunity would only extend to the outlaw himself. Then again, there's nothing stopping what you describe above today, aside from physical constraints.

So it could lead to that situation.

Quote by: Autolykos What's so special about the "institutionalized" part, anyway? I don't think outlawing would be so restrictive, and historically it wasn't. The government wouldn't necessarily be handing the convict a death sentence; it would simply say "You have no rights anymore". - Rob

Many death penalty advocates are comforted by differentiating executions for the state from full-blown murders. But yeah, in outlawing, the family has a choice whether or not they want to kill, so it's not necessarily a death sentence.

By losing his/her rights, the outlaw would be further removed from society, which actually happened when they committed the crime, since they rejected societal standards in the form of laws; removal from society is also in other sentences like exiling and executions.

If outlawing was frequent, though, then theoretically we'd have lots of deviants who aren't members of a society walking around in what is geographically a part of that society, thus partially displacing that society; if they were in prison instead, deviance would be more concentrated and easier to manage for that society. Of course, they'd only be walking around if the families didn't take revenge, and if they did, there's still the possibility for chaos. Maybe it's just paranoia on the part of those against outlawing, but it sure is a possibility.

[chaplainson]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Which laws should earn the death penalty when broken? Why those and not others? Are there any exceptions permissible because of circumstances, or, say, diminished mental capacity?

This is my opinion, but i think serial rapists and serial killers definately merrit the death penalty, or possibly premeditated single murders done in extremely painful ways.

Obviously if someone has been previously determined as mentally ill, they would merit an exception, and I don't think non-premeditated single murders, would merit the death penalty either. This is just my opinion though.

However I don't think drunk is a permissable circumstance. You don't ever hear of people being forced to drink so much alchohol they became drunk, so if a person drinks and then kills someone, i believe they're just as guilty as a sober nonpremeditated murderer.