Death Penalty

[clocker]

Originally posted by l_p_4_7@6 January 2004 - 15:39

You don't think that murdering a murderer is hypocritical in the slightest?

It's the same scenario as what victims of bullying are usually told:

"If he/she hits you, hit him/her back."

Does this solve the problem or does it merely escalate and make it worse?

all I'm saying is that IMO the death penalty is unlawful and in the most part, contradictory of what is trying to be achieved.

Define what "the problem" is.

In essence isn't the death penalty society's way of saying "We don't like you, you refuse to play by our rules, you are not worthy of being amongst us. You are HISTORY, pal."( to extend your playground metaphor a bit further...)?
Pretty effective problem solving, I would say.
Again, I must state that the entire question of "deterrence" is irrelevant I think.
If deterrence was the primary point of our legal system, then I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any law effective.
It is punishment, plain and simple.
As for your final sentence...
If the point of the death penalty is to rid society of an egregiously substandard member,( as I posit), then the death penalty is a supremely effective method of achieving the goal.


JP, of course I was aware of the irony...I simply couldn't resist the opportunity to use the word "petard".
A chance like that comes all too infrequently.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by l_p_4_7@6 January 2004 - 23:58
mur·der
n

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Question:
Is the death penalty not murder? Or am I under false pretences?

No the death penalty is not murder. I don't agree with it, as you can possibly see, but it is not murder.

If there is a statutory provision which allows it, then it is legal and as such not unlawful.

Using your own definition it is not then murder. That is the very reason the word unlawful appears in the definition, to make certain conditions legal.

War, or the death penalty being two obvious situations, where if the word unlawful did not appear then the killing of one human by another would be murder.

This is not intended as sophistry, merely an honest opinion on the definition of the word and more importantly what that definition means. I think you may have misinterpreted the emphasis.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@7 January 2004 - 01:03
JP, of course I was aware of the irony...I simply couldn't resist the opportunity to use the word "petard".
A chance like that comes all too infrequently.

I used it within the last couple of days I am pleased to say, on this very forum.

Petard

I agree, one cannot miss such chances, it would be wrong somehow.

[l_p_4_7]

Agreed, I understand that the word "murder" is not quite appropriate for the topic of the death sentence but was merely using it to portray how there is human intent to purposely kill someone(body) within this so-called form of "punishment".

The main reason, however, that I am against the death sentence is that I feel it achieves nothing.

Clocker, you mentioned how sentencing someone to death is "punishment".
Is it?

I think it's just an escape for the criminal who is cut off from the world without facing anything.

Does a murderer who had the will to kill another human being really care if he/she loses their own life when faced with the rest of their lives behind bars?
I'm not so sure.

They committed the sin, and got caught but instead of being made to live out the rest of their horrible little lives, they are killed and cease to exist. Hence, an easy way out.

Also, the case that the death penalty protects society does not deem it an advantageous "punishment" method.
Imprisonment achieves this, does it not?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@7 January 2004 - 00:26
Indeed, the contrary appears to be the case. I don't believe that the death penalty causes crime, but clearly other factors are at work in those societies and that problems within those societies require the retention of more barbaric customs (for the moment).

hmmmmm.........

All crime has to do with many more things than their penalties that's for sure.

There's overpopulation (the most overlooked reason), access to guns, influence of television, blahblahblah.
Fix those parts of society and maybe we can get rid of the death penalty.

Maybe this can be Star Trek.  (and btw wipe out poverty)

I'd love to get rid of the death penalty but right now we cannot.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker@7 January 2004 - 01:03
Again, I must state that the entire question of "deterrence" is irrelevant I think.
If deterrence was the primary point of our legal system, then I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any law effective.
It is punishment, plain and simple.
As for your final sentence...
If the point of the death penalty is to rid society of an egregiously substandard member,( as I posit), then the death penalty is a supremely effective method of achieving the goal.

All laws are deterrents; from the smallest fine to the death penalty.
And yes it is obvious.

They don't deter everyone all the time.
Take them away and what happens?

Ask yourself (if it helps)

Do I obey ALL laws because I want to be a good citizen?

I have no change for the parking meter . Will I park here with the meter maid down the street? Will I park here if I knew I could without getting a ticket?

What makes any law "effective"?
For it to have an effect?

If it has an effect then it has to be "effective" in comparison to no law!!!

If you fear certian consequences of breaking a law

YOU HAVE BEEN DETERRED!!! DUH

[MagicNakor]

Not true. To use your parking lot example - my mother gets parking violations all the time. It doesn't stop her.

Why is this, you ask?

Because there is no free parking for any length greater than two hours nearby where she works. She's at the office for eight hours. She can't even move her car to another spot at the end of the two hours, or she gets a "re-parking" ticket, which is, oddly enough, more than just a normal parking ticket.

She pays her tickets when she gets them, but she has no other alternative than walking for two blocks up and three streets over, which she sometimes does in the summer, because it is shady there to leave the car.

She doesn't enjoy paying a $15 fine. But there simply is no other option. As clocker said, "If deterrence was the primary point of our legal system, then I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any law effective."

[Busyman]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@7 January 2004 - 07:46
Not true. To use your parking lot example - my mother gets parking violations all the time. It doesn't stop her.

Why is this, you ask?

Because there is no free parking for any length greater than two hours nearby where she works. She's at the office for eight hours. She can't even move her car to another spot at the end of the two hours, or she gets a "re-parking" ticket, which is, oddly enough, more than just a normal parking ticket.

She pays her tickets when she gets them, but she has no other alternative than walking for two blocks up and three streets over, which she sometimes does in the summer, because it is shady there to leave the car.

She doesn't enjoy paying a $15 fine. But there simply is no other option. As clocker said, "If deterrence was the primary point of our legal system, then I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any law effective."

Sorry Magic but you have to READ MY WHOLE POST, not a piece of it.

They don't deter **everyone all the time**

If you fear **certain** consequences of breaking a law

Let the penalty be a $1000 fine, I guarantee she will park elsewhere (maybe take that 5 block walk).
Now If she was rich, a $1000 fine might be a speck of dust.

A piece of my earlier post:

Run a red light; get a traffic ticket...if ya don't want a ticket..don't run the light
Run a red light; die in a car wreck....blahblahblah
One lady rode in a High Occupancy lane and got a ticket. Her response was that she's been doing it for years and she doesn't care about this one ticket because she saved the time getting to work. She said she would do it again. She was not deterred.
It happens.
My proof is not just that it is logical and sensible. You must read everything.

Way aheada ya Magic.

Your mother did not fear the penalty. If she really did, regardless of you saying there was "simply no other option", she'd have found one.

THERE ARE LEVELS OF DETERRENCE.

Nothing is 100% (including the death penalty).

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@7 January 2004 - 06:59

I'd love to get rid of the death penalty but right now we cannot.

We have in the UK.

I do not think our instances of murder are any higher than those places where the death penalty still exists.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+7 January 2004 - 22:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 7 January 2004 - 22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@7 January 2004 - 06:59

I&#39;d love to get rid of the death penalty but right now we cannot.

We have in the UK.

I do not think our instances of murder are any higher than those places where the death penalty still exists. [/b][/quote]
I agree J&#39;Pol.

Your instances of murder are not higher than those states in the US.
That is why we shouldn&#39;t get rid of the death penalty.