Buttermilk
Member
But can you save more innocent lives by killing all murderers than by not killing any? that's the real question. I think the answer would be yes. I'm sure others would disagree.
Are You Against the Death Penalty and Why?
- Thread starter foxtrot3d
- Start date
- Status
But can you save more innocent lives by killing all murderers than by not killing any? that's the real question. I think the answer would be yes. I'm sure others would disagree.
Extra Sauce
Member
Yes because I don't trust any government to be infallible.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Yes. Any civilized state that can't find a better way to deal with violent criminals than state-sanctioned murder based on retribution isn't a civilized state at all.
I don't think i'd be able to change your mind, but if you held the State to an higher standard than any single human when it comes to power (which i think is a good thing) then why not also held it at an higher moral standard, than any one person?
As i expressed in my first post here:
You differentiate revenge and State sanctioned retribution through murder, and that's where i think the discrepancy lies, but i think it actually stems from the idea of punishment and the different ideas what "Justice" means.
-
I think having the ability to establish the State, or more in general our societal structure, as an higher form of moral compass than any one individual would be able to handle alone, is a fantastic goal in bettering Humanity as a whole.
I can't ask a single individual to not desire revenge or feel the need for someone to be punished, it's just human to; i can however ask that of an higher system, such as the State, and through that moral compass, we can all more easily follow up and better ourselves.
There's no way to reliably know. One of those killers release might have killed again if not executed. At the same time, one of the murders that was executed might have saved many innocent lives as a productive member of society. You can't base your actions (especially ending a life) off of wild, unfounded speculation. And the speculation is unfounded because, as mentioned earlier, murder has one of the lowest rates of recidivism.
I don't believe I've ever seen a good argument for the death penalty. The idea that even ONE innocent person has been killed as a result of it is a stain on any society primitive enough to still utilize it.
It serves no real purpose but retribution. It's vengeful, emotional bullshit in a legal system that NEEDS to be cold and logical. It's not even actually cost effective, and to become cost effective, checks and balances need to be dropped in order to more quickly kill people - which will undoubtedly mean more innocent people are marched through a hallway, strapped to a table and then poisoned to death. That's not okay.
What's wrong with Life without parole?
It serves no real purpose but retribution. It's vengeful, emotional bullshit in a legal system that NEEDS to be cold and logical. It's not even actually cost effective, and to become cost effective, checks and balances need to be dropped in order to more quickly kill people - which will undoubtedly mean more innocent people are marched through a hallway, strapped to a table and then poisoned to death. That's not okay.
What's wrong with Life without parole?
A lot, but i guess that's not what we're discussing.
It's not difficult to answer the question in it's context or ignore it entirely.
It really depends for me. I am more in favor of life without parole because that person will never be free again and forced to deal with their crime the rest of their life.
Death is the end. If they get the death penalty, they are freed. Something they don't deserve.
I take more comfort in knowing they would be forced to dream about the horrible things they did until the day it's all over.
But some crimes really make me reconsider.
Death is the end. If they get the death penalty, they are freed. Something they don't deserve.
I take more comfort in knowing they would be forced to dream about the horrible things they did until the day it's all over.
But some crimes really make me reconsider.
what do you think about war
That false equivalency is the stupidest of the stupid.
Shooting a person who is going to shoot you back is not the same as marching a prisoner to a table to slaughter him. In War, there are rules and those who don't adhere to them are rightly vilified.
Kano on the Phone
Member
Like what? Murder is really the only crime you can "reasonably" punish with the death penalty.
so I guess you never heard of someone bombing a city. I guess that's stupid too
I'm sure he or she has the power to stop that from happening.
falsest of the false equivalencies
To cut it short it's simply about being either for punishment or for rehabilitation and i'm for the latter.
Child molesters/killers, among some others. Those are crimes I honestly would be happy with knowing the monster has been put down for good.
Anyone who could rape and kill a child is the most evil being in the world to me.
I don't think a life sentence is inherently wrong, if the subject isn't seen fit to be reentered in society even extensive rehabilitation.
If someone is still deemed a menace, despite the imprisonment, i don't think they should be let out arbitrarily.
Now that's implying prison itself to be more humane and useful in creating a rehabilitating setting, instead of just a violent and alienating dump to lock people in until the clock's up.
It's also a false equivalency, and collateral damage is a very different discussion than the willful execution of a captured person.
I agree, but the context in which I answered that question is: "Why is Life without Parole not enough".
What does this have to do with executing someone in prison?
Kano on the Phone
Member
So why murder them in return? I'm not agreeing they aren't the worst of the worst, but how does society also being immoral make an awful situation any better?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Against. It's too expensive, and the potential for unjust sentences doesn't sit well with me. You can't reverse death if the prosecution made an oopsie.
I agree. My problem is the "without parole" part since by sentencing someone to that you are preemptively declaring that they can't be rehabilitated ever. I posted this link earlier in the thread, but it's a lot more relevant to the discussion. I agree with the argument put out by the European Convention of Human Rights.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-prison-without-parole-inhuman-and-degrading/
Honestly, I don't know. It's not me thinking rationally at all, I'll admit.
I know life would be more devastating, but... sigh. I'm more inclined to be less merciful towards those who hurt kids.
my comment was based on the first reply. check up on it
The Faceless Master
Member
i wouldn't want to take it completely off the table, but it's applied much too often for my tastes and there's also a large disparity on the way it's applied if you factor race in...
Kano on the Phone
Member
But there are different ways and severities for hurting another person. Do you kill someone that kills a child but not someone who rapes a child? I just feel like it's just a better policy to lock someone away and take away their freedom than stoop to their level.
Dark Octave
Banned
Not sure where I stand on it but that first post, god damn. Something to think about, that's for sure.
The process needs to be streamlined to be more efficient and cost effective. It should also be reserved for the worst offenders and in only in cases where the evidence is irrefutable.
I think some people need to come to terms with the idea that there are people living in our society with a negative societal net worth. Those people's lives provide nothing for society.
I think some people need to come to terms with the idea that there are people living in our society with a negative societal net worth. Those people's lives provide nothing for society.
Who are you to decide that? What makes anyone qualified to make that judgment?
Short answer is no one is really qualified to make that decision but sometimes someone has to do it and pretending that isn't the case is lacking in maturity.
Why is there a need to do it?
In cases of self-defense, you'd be correct. But this is in relation to the merits of the death penalty. Why does someone need to be killed as punishment for a crime?
To provide a better society for those who wish to live within it and abide by its rules.
I have no problem with the concept of it. The problem has been that innocent people have been put to death, and modern tech would have exonerated them. I do not see killing horrible people as some sort of reflection on society as a whole.
But I do think the US has killed some innocent people within the laws and judicial system we have put up in order to avoid such things, and people have slipped through the cracks.
So the question now is, whether or not the judicial system works. With DNA evidence and modern science and such, I think the 10 plus years it takes to put someone down, we are beyond stupid killing of people.
And just for the sake of being humane, killing a terrible person is more humane then probably sticking them in a Supermax prison. That is where you will find some of the worst peeps in modern American history, and I bet they are wishing each and every day they were dead.
But I do think the US has killed some innocent people within the laws and judicial system we have put up in order to avoid such things, and people have slipped through the cracks.
So the question now is, whether or not the judicial system works. With DNA evidence and modern science and such, I think the 10 plus years it takes to put someone down, we are beyond stupid killing of people.
And just for the sake of being humane, killing a terrible person is more humane then probably sticking them in a Supermax prison. That is where you will find some of the worst peeps in modern American history, and I bet they are wishing each and every day they were dead.
Kano on the Phone
Member
That's an argument for prisons, not executions.
Indeed an interesting argument.
Thanks for the link.
Many innocent people provide nothing for society.
There are people with mental illness so severe, that it prevents them from providing anything of "worth" for society, i hope you'd (rightfully) find it revolting if we decided to kill off these people, yes?
On the other hand there are plenty of murderers who turn their life around and create a "net worth" by doing a job.
I think the "usefulness for society" angle, is an argument with very gross and dangerous implications.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
But this implies that the death penalty cannot be cold and logical and that imprisonment is never anything BUT cold and logical. There's multiple people in this thread suggesting that imprisonment is a more cruel punishment in it's own way because it means the person has to serve a long sentence. To me that sounds vengeful.
I know you're right. Life imprisonment is the more effective and more debilitating consequence.
With cases like those, I know revenge is the motivation, and it's wrong. I'm just gonna have to get past that since I know it's the right thing to do.
Eventually I believe I'll get to that point that I completely stand against it. Thanks for the gentle nudge. ;3
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I'm against it because if a human can fuck up they will.
And because of that I have no idea if the person awaiting execution should be.
And because of that I have no idea if the person awaiting execution should be.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Our current penalization system is too inefficient and corrupted to support death penalties.
Depends if it's imprisonment aimed at punishing, or aimed at keeping a dangerous individual away from other individuals, as well as trying to rehabilitate said individual.
"I think some people need to come to terms with the idea that there are people living in our society with a negative societal net worth. Those people's lives provide nothing for society."
That was the initial starting point. That was the reasoning for Euthanasia.
I would argue that there are some people in the world who have proven that they are so despicable that they need to be removed from society permanently and prisons are not a fool-proof containment mechanism. It's a last resort and has to be done under circumstances where there is no denying the crimes of the person but it is still something that comes up.
Politically motivated mass murder of thousands of people by the state, all within the framework of then-applicable laws (before the Allies invented the concept of obviously ilegal laws that can't be valid in the trials of those judges).
And the Third Reich was't alone in doing this,I mean, look at some countries in the last decade *cough*China*cough*.
Even without my personal understanding of justice and the purpose of punishments that's enough reason to be against the death penalty.
Capital punishment doesn't do that.
Wouldnt that imply quite alot dead american presidents? And how exactly is death punishment fool-proof?
Stop bringing up your president fetish thing, you're a fool if you can't see the difference between the crimes of a country and the crimes of an individual.
And when I say fool-proof there, I am talking about making sure that someone who is likely to commit a big crime again (a serial murderer, for example) is never able to. People can escape from prison, people can't come back to life.
- Status