Death Penalty

[Theseus1234]

So I've been thinking about the death penalty lately (no reason...) and I personally think that it's an OK form of punishment for severe enough crimes. Hear me out before you start a flame war. There is no religious backing to my reasoning but just logistics.

When someone has murdered, raped, attempted to kill, partook in a killing, manslaughter, etc., why should we waste valuable prison space and taxpayer money to support the life of these bozos? If they either killed someone or caused irreparable harm, they shouldn't be living off of our money. There is no turning back for these people. No chance of rehabilitation or parole, so what's the point? Why should they be guaranteed a longer lifetime rather than put down once and for all? In a prison they have a chance to escape and resume their heinous crimes. Of course before the death penalty is enacted a jury should have spent much more time deliberating before putting someone's life away.

So what do you think about the death penalty? Sorry if there has already been a topic on this.

[Hippolord]

If given reason to belive that

A: The persons act has in some way been detremental to the upholding of a secure society.
B: The person cannot be Rehabilitated, in any other form.

Then the person must therefore be permanantly removed from said society, in an order to stop the spread of the Decntralization, Destabilization, and all around Destruction and Degredation, of Society.

(Voted Other)

[Djûn]

The thread 'Death to pedophiles?' seems to have taken this turn, but I'll happily give you my reasons in brief for opposing it.

Statistically, it costs far more to execute a person than it would be to keep them imprisoned for a Whole Life Tariff (see: http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42). Secondly, the death penalty seems to not act as a detterent for such crimes (see: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dete...eswithvwithout). Further, I am a strong supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights, and indeed it may well be the topic of my dissertation next year, under which capital punishment is prohibited, though the Whole Life Tariff is still permitted and, in my opinion, an equally severe form of punishment. Next, there are many instances where a person sentenced to death has had their punishment quashed posthumously - capital punishment is an irrevokable punishment thus, any uncertainty in the conviction (i.e. that which lies beyond reasonable doubt but short of complete certainty) could easily create a unjust execution by the State, literally permitting a murder by the State. Finally, I do not believe that the intentional killing of another living being is acceptable (within reason) on moral grounds.

[magickyleo101]

Someone will probably beat me to this, but it actually saves no money to execute someone in lieu of keeping them alive in prisons. Every execution entails extensive process costs though multiple appeals, motions, and writs, all of which take up the time of judges, lawyers (both for the prisoner and for the state), and the court system as a whole. In purely monetary terms, it's just cheaper to keep someone alive.

That said, I think you can salvage the "I don't want to spend the money" argument if you turn it into a dignitary argument. You can say something like, "once we've come to the conclusion that someone is a sufficiently bad person to merit execution, it's an insult to society to tax people to pay for that person's idleness in jail. Even if it's cheaper in purely monetary terms to imprison someone for life, doing so imposes costs to the dignity of society that push the cost of life imprisonment above the cost of execution. Life imprisonment is only cheaper under an impoverished accounting of the values involved in these decisions and a fuller tally of the relevant values still holds execution out to be the most cost effective option."

To draw an analogy: Even if we could save money by bribing criminals not to rob us (i.e. if paying the criminal off cost less than paying a police officer or security guard), we might still think it worthwhile to refuse to pay the criminal because the money saved by paying the criminal isn't worth the indignity of begging someone not to do what they had no right to do in the first place.



And I voted "other" because I really don't know what the right answer is when it comes to the death penalty. [The argument above just addresses one of the many relevant considerations.]

[finsternis]

Well the issues with Death Penalty are that:

1. they are humans (that means something, apparently)
2. they can change (unlikely, but possible)
3. killing is a crime, no matters who does it
4. the person might be innocent (justice is blind alright)
5. its baddddddd


But why did you say "There is no religious backing to my reasoning but just logistics"? Aren't the religious conservatives who usually want death penalty? I thought it was the godless liberals who wanted things like Humans Rights and stuff.

[Theseus1234]

Well the issues with Death Penalty are that:

1. they are humans (that means something, apparently)
2. they can change (unlikely, but possible)
3. killing is a crime, no matters who does it
4. the person might be innocent (justice is blind alright)
5. its baddddddd


But why did you say "There is no religious backing to my reasoning but just logistics"? Aren't the religious conservatives who usually want death penalty? I thought it was the godless liberals who wanted things like Humans Rights and stuff.

I thought there were some religious people who thought every life was sacred

[Pious Agnost]

No for a moral reason.

I could not in good conscience, sentence a man to death (Instead of depriving him of his personal freedom and cooping him up with crowds of convicted, 'desperate' men)

[finsternis]

I thought there were some religious people who thought every life was sacred

Yeah, but most of the people who want death penalty are people who call themselves "conservatives". And what is the number one weapon that conservatives use in EVERY argument they have?
God.

They usually use it wrong, but they still use it.

[vizi]

I have been pondering the insanity of some of my friend's views as of late. Supporting the death penalty but opposed to abortion. Supporting abortion but opposed to the death penalty.

I can not really separate the death penalty from all that is wrong. From where I am standing presently, taking the life of a person is wrong. And when someone is put of death row and later executed, it is done by the will of the State. And the State is the People. Therefore we are each killing a person. Yes a person that has most likely killed other people. However what gives us the right to take someone's life? Besides, is sinking down to a murderer's level really the right option? Oh, this guy killed five people. So we should kill him for being bad.

It seems hypocritical to punish someone for killing other people by killing that person.

I mean we should be promoting life. At least that is how I feel about it.

[Time Commander Bob]

I have been pondering the insanity of some of my friend's views as of late. Supporting the death penalty but opposed to abortion. Supporting abortion but opposed to the death penalty.

The death penalty and abortion are only comparable if one considers the embryo or foetus that is to be aborted a person. In addition, what crimes has a foetus committed? But anyway, that is another matter...

I think that the death penalty should not be allowed as a punishment for small-scale murder simply because there is the small chance that the person might actually be innocent and new evidence might come through suggesting different circumstances (manslaughter instead of murder say).

However, I think that the death penalty should be held as a punishment for those who have intentionally killed hundreds with overwhelming evidence to suggest that this is the case. Such people are too dangerous to keep alive and have proven that they would murder again. Though such people are rare, it means that I cannot rule out the death penalty for all crimes.

[Rich86]

The death penalty is wrong on so many levels....

When someone has murdered, raped, attempted to kill, partook in a killing, manslaughter, etc., why should we waste valuable prison space and taxpayer money to support the life of these bozos?

Because you could be wrong - they might not have commited the crimes you think they have - in which case you would be killing an innocet human being.

If they either killed someone or caused irreparable harm, they shouldn't be living off of our money.

It actually costs more money to kill them than to imprison them for life by the way - so that argument doesn't hold at all.

There is no turning back for these people.

Really? You can confidently tell us that in every single case these people remain 'bad' - none of them reform?

In a prison they have a chance to escape and resume their heinous crimes.

In countries like the UK that chance to escape is quite small - and even if they did escape; how long until they are caught?

However, I think that the death penalty should be held as a punishment for those who have intentionally killed hundreds with overwhelming evidence to suggest that this is the case. Such people are too dangerous to keep alive and have proven that they would murder again.

What's actually solved by killing them though? It's nothing more than revenge.

[roy34543]

Id like to mention it could be much much cheaper to institute the death penalty - if you did away with the hassle of long trails proving that someone commited the crime and deserves the penalty.
Personally dont think anyone deserves the death penalty though, it could always turn out they are innocent, and the person could change or ti could be a purely one-time action no matter how horrible that someone was driven to by anger.

[Rich86]

it could be much much cheaper to institute the death penalty - if you did away with the hassle of long trails proving that someone commited the crime and deserves the penalty.

That would involve removing people's legal rights - you'd be making a flawed system twice as flawed - and twice as likely to make a mistake (i.e. send an innocent man to his death).

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Death penalty is not just the direct violation of the Mosaic law, but also the violation of the moral principles of the Enlightenment, the violation of human rights, pretty much everything the Western civilization is based upon. Therefore death penalty is the characteristic of an uncivilized society:

United States
Iran
Singapore
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Malaysia
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Zimbabwe
Brunei
Vietnam
Laos
Iraq
Oman
China

[Frankie88]

Life in jail is a death penalty why would you need anything else then that?

[Lancy]

Someone will probably beat me to this, but it actually saves no money to execute someone in lieu of keeping them alive in prisons. Every execution entails extensive process costs though multiple appeals, motions, and writs, all of which take up the time of judges, lawyers (both for the prisoner and for the state), and the court system as a whole. In purely monetary terms, it's just cheaper to keep someone alive.

It would save money if we sent them straight to the gallows upon conviction.

Because you could be wrong - they might not have commited the crimes you think they have - in which case you would be killing an innocet human being.

So too could an innocent man be imprisoned for life for a crime he did not commit. We should just deal away with the whole justice system to avoid such possibilities.

What's actually solved by killing them though? It's nothing more than revenge.

The chance of them ever committing further crimes is reduced to a comfortable 0%

[The Count(er)]

It would save money if we sent them straight to the gallows upon conviction.

Just like the dark ages? All this extra time in court is to make sure we don't make any mistakes when convicting someone of a crime, and if they're in jail then you can still fix it, if you just kill them you won't do so well trying to fix that, it costs more for a reason, but if your fine with just throwing out our freedom bit by bit so we can kill a couple bad or good people at a lower cost then there's plenty of un-developed nations that still like that policy.

So too could an innocent man be imprisoned for life for a crime he did not commit. We should just deal away with the whole justice system to avoid such possibilities.

Right, so if a innocent guy was in jail and they find out, they'll let him out, if he was executed, what do you do? Do you un-kill him?

The chance of them ever committing further crimes is reduced to a comfortable 0%

But is it worth it?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

It would save money if we sent them straight to the gallows upon conviction.

No appeal system - aw'some. Perfect way for a legal system deteriorate into a system of injustice.

So too could an innocent man be imprisoned for life for a crime he did not commit. We should just deal away with the whole justice system to avoid such possibilities.

Are you educated enough to make a distinction between life and death? I'm not sure.

The chance of them ever committing further crimes is reduced to a comfortable 0%

Let's also exterminate all the dangerous animals, because the casualties inflicted by them is reduced to a comfortable 0%.

This is the umpteenth death penalty debate on TWC, where American death fanatics will be owned big time.

[Lancy]

@The Count(er)

Just like the dark ages? All this extra time in court is to make sure we don't make any mistakes when convicting someone of a crime, and if they're in jail then you can still fix it, if you just kill them you won't do so well trying to fix that, it costs more for a reason, but if your fine with just throwing out our freedom bit by bit so we can kill a couple bad or good people at a lower cost then there's plenty of un-developed nations that still like that policy.

But shouldn’t one time in court be enough to convict. Why must we go through the system several times, unless our justice system is inherently flawed in the first place. In which case it has no business of authority over anyone.

Right, so if a innocent guy was in jail and they find out, they'll let him out, if he was executed, what do you do? Do you un-kill him?

True, they’ll let the innocent guy out, but will they give him back the time he’s lost due to being in prison. It’s the same principle on a lesser scale.

But is it worth it?

That’s a matter of personal opinion. In the US around 70% think it is.
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/opinion.htm
In the UK around 50-60%, and though I’m sure this poll was biased by recent tragedies, bias only goes so far.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/97

@PowerWizard

No appeal system - aw'some. Perfect way for a legal system deteriorate into a system of injustice.

Justice is subjective. Also, since injustice is the violation of the rights of others then all you need to do is to change those rights, and the system is just once more.

Are you educated enough to make a distinction between life and death? I'm not sure.

So you are for the death penalty then? It’s merely a matter of education, with someone being able to decide that such and such a crime deserves life, another death? Thankfully then, if it is just a matter of education then someone can achieve this, and thus set the death penalty.

Let's also exterminate all the dangerous animals, because the casualties inflicted by them is reduced to a comfortable 0%.

Good idea.

This is the be umpteenth of death penalty debates on TWC, where American death fanatics will be owned big time.

What a delightfully arrogant statement. Also misguided since not all people who support the death penalty are American. So am I one of these American death fanatics? Despite never having stated whether I’m for or against it? Interesting. I’m curious, will it be you doing the owning of the fanatics? Because I look forward to seeing you start.

[The Count(er)]

@The Count(er)

But shouldn’t one time in court be enough to convict. Why must we go through the system several times, unless our justice system is inherently flawed in the first place. In which case it has no business of authority over anyone.

So, if we can't have the cheap death penalty by allowing the government to be nice and oppressive then we should just go with anarchy? An extreme is essentially never a good thing.

True, they’ll let the innocent guy out, but will they give him back the time he’s lost due to being in prison. It’s the same principle on a lesser scale.

Exactly, a lesser scale, one that you can at least keep going after it's happened, you'll probably be pissed off, but your not dead.

That’s a matter of personal opinion. In the US around 70% think it is.
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/opinion.htm
In the UK around 50-60%, and though I’m sure this poll was biased by recent tragedies, bias only goes so far.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/97

Just because people think it's worth it doesn't make it so, you can find a trend is pretty much every country that the murder rate lowers when the death penalty is removed(generally the punishment for such murderers), and at least in my opinion keeping more good people alive is worth more than killing some bad people, and possibly some good people along with it.