Death Penalty

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J'Pol@1 January 2004 - 19:45
I think we just fundamentally disagree.

I simply believe that for a society to deliberately take the life of one of it's members demeans that society. It is doing something that is fundamentally wrong, on behalf of it's citizens.

The fact that the death sentence is available, makes the society which has it less civilized.

Everything else put forward is just other reasons why having it is wrong. I do not put them forward as one argument. They are entirely separate.

In essence :

1. It is morally wrong, so it should not be done.

2. There is an element of revenge in addition to the punitive element. That is at best unsavoury.

3. Society is perfectly capable of defending itself without it.

4. It is of questionable deterrent value.

5. Indeed it may alienate others (family etc) from the society it seeks to protect, causing further dangers.

6. There are too many ways it can be imposed in error, both deliberate and accidental.

These are all separate arguments, each leading to the conclusion that we should not have it.

1. What morals are you referring? Yours?

2. Uh huh...there's an element of revenge in life-imprisonment. There can be an element of revenge in ANY sentence. Example: The townspeople may be so pissed off the jury may give the maximum sentence to a wife-batterer versus the minimum. (There have been some surprises)

3. ...but it does help because it IS a deterrent and a deterrent IS a defense.

4. Questionable deterrent value? Then that means is has some value. It actually is common sense that it is a deterrent.

There are many that think of doing crimes but take a step back when thinking about life imprisonment...
but there are also those who think that if they get caught they can do the time.
There are those who for fear of the death penalty take a step back. I am one of them. There was a "situation" of an associate of mine getting killed and me being grazed by a bullet while getting away. I was between a rock and a hard place because my life was in danger, police didn't put the shooter on trial, and I had crazy thoughts of killing him first. Get the death penalty for killing him or get death from his bullet. Well I backed off and months later the shooter was busted for another charge and was killed in prison (much later). Lucky me.
You see sometimes prison time is not a good detterent because the train of thought is "AT LEAST I'M ALIVE"...as well as getting clothing, shelter, and food.

5. How does it alienate others? Please expound.

6. I agree. I just think there should be stricter rules governing imposing the death sentence.

[vidcc]

i believe that in some extreme circumstances the death penalty is appropriate....however it is not to be confused with anything other than a punishment. The death penalty is not a deterent or the capitol crimes would not still be being comitted in states that still have it.
i'm not sure if it still applies today but a few years ago i saw a documentary about the death sentence in the USA and one interesting fact was that it cost more to put a man/woman to death than a life sentence because of the appeal system that was in place and the length of time from conviction to the sentence being carried out. That said i would rather there was a proper appeal system in place than try to bring the time down as it has on occasion stopped an injustice taking place (innocent people can be wrongly convicted)

[J'Pol]

1. Obviously

2. I believe that the element of revenge in taking a life is repugnant. I do not think it is the same as that involved in imprisoning the person. The former has an element of blood lust about it.

3. Your proof that it is a deterrent seems to be putting the word is in upper case. Have you something more definitive. One cannot say it serves as a deterrent simply because it sounds right.

4. It is questionable whether it has any deterrent value, not how high that deterrent value may be. However the other point is equally valid. If it has a minimal deterrent value can we use this to justify taking a life.

5. If society takes the life of a person, then their family members, close friends etc may decide (subconsciously or otherwise) that they are no longer part of that society. This itself may lead to criminal conduct. Bearing in mind that I said may in my original point.

6. Again, like Clocker, I think we just fundamentally disagree. I think that killing people in these circumstances is wrong, even if we always get the guilt / innocence absolutely 100% correct. This is simply another reason for not having the death penalty.

[vidcc]

i am not in favour of the death sentence except for extreme cases..some people are so evil they do not deserve to live.

this is not directed anyone, however it will probably be more to think about for total opponents.it is an example to which i would like you to try to imagine

i want you to imagine your child, your sweet innocent 5 year old child is taken from you. perhaps raped and tortured..try to imagine the most evil mind perpetrating this act. the child is beaten,sodomised and urinated on. imagine her cries for her daddy, imagine her fear and imagine what she is thinking because you are not there to save her. her ordeal is ended by her death.

if that was your child wouldn't you gladly carry out the death sentence yourself?

ok it's a hyperthetical question and one couldn't really answer it with 100% accuracy unless it happened...but it's an example of one of the reasons i would agree that death is the only punishment.

[J'Pol]

I have a 5 year old daughter. I have read your post.

Me desiring to kill someone who behaved in such a way, or even killing them, is not the same as having the death penalty available and using it on such a person.

I fully and without reservation believe that they should be locked away from society for life. Life meaning life - no parole, no licence.

It is wrong to take lives, the death penalty is wrong.

[hobbes]

JPol,

I would kill in self defense and we kill routinely in war, is that not wrong, if not necessary?


I don't like the death penalty because of potential abuse. When horrible things happen, people demand results. I would hate to see an innocent scape goat (probably black or Islamic) killed to appease the masses.

JPol and I have personally witnessed hysteria and lynch mob mentality. Killing people should not be an option, because once the deed is done, it cannot be undone.

Many people remember that freak Richard Speck who seemed to enjoy his prison life as a pampered sodomized cross-dressing drug addict.

I think prison should be a terrible place, not from cruel beatings, just from keeping them locked in small cages 24/7 with no visitors.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J'Pol@2 January 2004 - 00:05
1. Obviously

2. I believe that the element of revenge in taking a life is repugnant. I do not think it is the same as that involved in imprisoning the person. The former has an element of blood lust about it.

3. Your proof that it is a deterrent seems to be putting the word is in upper case. Have you something more definitive. One cannot say it serves as a deterrent simply because it sounds right.

4. It is questionable whether it has any deterrent value, not how high that deterrent value may be. However the other point is equally valid. If it has a minimal deterrent value can we use this to justify taking a life.

5. If society takes the life of a person, then their family members, close friends etc may decide (subconsciously or otherwise) that they are no longer part of that society. This itself may lead to criminal conduct. Bearing in mind that I said may in my original point.

6. Again, like Clocker, I think we just fundamentally disagree. I think that killing people in these circumstances is wrong, even if we always get the guilt / innocence absolutely 100% correct. This is simply another reason for not having the death penalty.

1. I was wondering if it was religiously based.

3. I gave proof; you must read on. (try looking at 4)
The reason I said it is common sense is because people do not just stop themselves from commiting crimes just on there own morals. Some don't commit crimes because of the punishment involved. That is painfully logical.
vidcc made a very weird comment that if the death penalty was a deterrent, capitol crimes wouldn't be committed. Ridiculous. There is ALWAYS going to capitol crime no matter what punishment. To say no one thinks of the consequences and therefore decides not to commit a capitol crime is total crap.

5. Well that point is rather moot. There are a number reasons that may happen including just jailing the individual. Let's say Joe Shmoe is tried and imprisoned for life, his "close friends" may turn to criminal conduct in response.
Basically it sounds like the family is pissed the government killed there son, daughter, etc.

6. I get the "we fundamentaly disagree" part but you said "this is simply another reason for not having the death penalty" but you gave no other reason besides "it is wrong" and you've basically said that already.

I think it is easy for you to say not to hand down a death sentence when I does not affect you. When something tragic like capitol murder hits your family and the murderer gets:

three meals a day
shower
shave
clothing
heat
air conditioning
shelter
basketball
weightlifting
library
to bring countless lawsuits

And YOUR family helps pay for it all your tune will quickly change.

btw he still gets to murder others in prison and for his further crimes he gets.....

prison

Awww man but he's already there

[J'Pol]

Taking the life of an aggressor, who is a danger to your life, or that of your family, or who is part of a force which is invading your country is not analogous.

The death penalty deals with someone who has been arrested, who is within the control of the state and who should present no danger.

I think it was Busyman who mentioned the gun to the head scenario earlier. I really don't think it is the same. I would fully support the Police Officer who killed that person, to directly save the life of the victim.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J'Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:15
Taking the life of an aggressor, who is a danger to your life, or that of your family, or who is part of a force which is invading your country is not analogous.

The death penalty deals with someone who has been arrested, who is within the control of the state and who should present no danger.

I think it was Busyman who mentioned the gun to the head scenario earlier. I really don't think it is the same. I would fully support the Police Officer who killed that person, to directly save the life of the victim.

Let's say the gun wasn't loaded.

Then it was a "perceived" threat.

The officer didn't save a life at all. He took one.

That is why I asked #1 earlier. I was trying to figure whether your morals are Christian based, etc.

[hobbes]

So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don't explain any exceptions.