Why I support bringing back the death penalty...
-
I'm with Josh and, surprisingly, MM. Let the mofu rot in jail, but no matter how heinous the crime I cannot condone the taking of a life. The death penalty is pure revenge, it doesn't solve anything, it doesn't deter other chrimes, it doesn't bring back the victims. Send the perpetrators to jail and leave them there until they die. The message is there and it is clear - "You are not civilised, you are not part of society. We the society are civilised and so we will not treat you like you treated your victims, but we will choose your destiny. Your life is now owned by society and society chooses to let you live."
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol "Nagy, you have won the internets." - Keith Barrow
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
The death penalty is pure revenge, ...The message is there and it is clear - "You are not civilised, you are not part of society. We the society are civilised and so we will not treat you like you treated your victims, but we will choose your destiny. Your life is now owned by society and society chooses to let you live."
That statement certainly suggests revenge to me.
-
ChrisElston wrote:
Does releasing someone who can fit back into society and get a job make them less likely to re-offend?
Most likely: Yes.
ChrisElston wrote:
Does making prisons more unpleasant make those released less keen to go back again?
"less keen": I suppose so. Less likely to re-offend? Not necessarily. But, if you don't fear something how can it work as a deterrent?
ChrisElston wrote:
Prisons should not, in any situation, be a luxury, but I am all in favour of providing education and doing all that can be done to release people who have the best chance possible to make a positive contribution than a negative one to society from that point on.
With that I agree.
Nicholas Marty wrote:
Most likely: Yes.
Unlikely. It isn't a matter of just having the ability to get a job. Nor even in getting a job. It is a matter of seeing that one has a real opportunity by being employed to better oneself in a reasonable amount of time. Thus the future of a minimum wage job in a society that rates that as below the poverty level and where one can expect only that job for next 20 years is not an incentive.
-
Quote:
it costs more to execute someone than to keep them locked up for the rest of their life.
I doubt that is entirely and actually true. However, that is a different problem. Fix that issue and then what? It should cost a few thousands dollars to kill them. We can fix that.
Quote:
And besides, purely economic arguments are a pretty cold way to decide someone's fate.
Agreed.
Quote:
they're locked up for the rest of their life, the chances of them re-offending are pretty slim.
True. But isn't your argument for keeping them alive that there may be a chance, even a slim chance, that they could be innocent? Same thing here. However, there is a huge chance. They are around people all day, even if it is in jail.
Quote:
Well, I've tried to give you some reasons, but you're obviously not willing to hear them
I must have missed it. There was an illusion to civility but beyond that I have seen nothing of a direct answer. And even civility is voted upon. If the civilized society votes that death penalty is OK then it is therefore civil to kill. So, are there any other reasons or just that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
They are around people all day, even if it is in jail.
And the people they're around are either hardened criminals, who are unlikely to be easy prey, or prison guards, who are even less likely to be easy prey. If the prisoner is that dangerous, they can be kept in solitary confinement with no chance to kill anyone.
ryanb31 wrote:
I must have missed it.
Well, we kind of got side-tracked, but what about the list in this post[^]?
- Absolute certainty of guilt. It's easier to release an innocent man that it is to raise him from the dead.
- For people who believe in an afterlife, the chance to repent and possibly avoid additional punishment after death.
- For people who don't believe in an afterlife, the chance to experience the entirety of the punishment before being snuffed out.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
and most civilised societies have decided that the death penalty is an overreaction
So a culture should only be based on what other cultures do?
jschell wrote:
So a culture should only be based on what other cultures do?
No, but just as the members of a society decide what is and is not acceptable within that society, the aggregate opinion of those societies decides what is and is not acceptable in the larger global community. They don't get to force their rules on other societies, but they can put pressure on any society deemed to be acting in an uncivilised manner.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
And you don't see any contradiction in that statement?
And so it should be perfectly ok for me to imprison people in my house because the government gets to do it? I should also be able to impose an income tax on my neighbors since the government does it also.
jschell wrote:
And so it should be perfectly ok for me to imprison people in my house because the government gets to do it?
The government doesn't imprison people in your house. (At least, I hope they don't!) But if you wanted to try it, you would first need to convict them of a crime in a court of law. Locking someone up without trial[^] is one of the things which most civilised societies agree is very wrong.
jschell wrote:
I should also be able to impose an income tax on my neighbors since the government does it also.
Is your tax going to finance protection from foreign military threats, pay for maintenance of public infrastructure, or pay for social benefits?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
ryanb31 wrote:
They are around people all day, even if it is in jail.
And the people they're around are either hardened criminals, who are unlikely to be easy prey, or prison guards, who are even less likely to be easy prey. If the prisoner is that dangerous, they can be kept in solitary confinement with no chance to kill anyone.
ryanb31 wrote:
I must have missed it.
Well, we kind of got side-tracked, but what about the list in this post[^]?
- Absolute certainty of guilt. It's easier to release an innocent man that it is to raise him from the dead.
- For people who believe in an afterlife, the chance to repent and possibly avoid additional punishment after death.
- For people who don't believe in an afterlife, the chance to experience the entirety of the punishment before being snuffed out.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
And the people they're around are either hardened criminals, who are unlikely to be easy prey, or prison guards, who are even less likely to be easy prey.
True. But the point is they can still kill.
Quote:
they can be kept in solitary confinement with no chance to kill anyone.
In that case, that would be more expensive than killing them, ruling out that argument.
Quote:
but what about the list
You're right. I guess I did not see those as reasons to not kill mostly because I addressed each one. I still say let the people vote on a law. Either way, restitution can't be made so who cares, kill them, keep them alive, I can see both ways, although I do strongly support death penalty.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
No, it's not revenge because it is not revenge. That's why. Disagree, I don't care, but revenge is motive based and you are not qualified to determine the motives of people other than yourself.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Justice. I support a society that votes on whether or not to use the death penalty. I support both sides. Since no restitution can be made by the offender both sides are valid. I do support the death penalty when there is no doubt of guilt. There's no reason to keep them alive.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
_Josh_ wrote:
But for what purpose? Do you think having the death penalty would have been deterrent enough to have stopped this from happening? Personally, I doubt it would have made a lick of difference.
And so even though people are put in prison other people continue to steal. So it follows that no one should go to prison for stealing?
jschell wrote:
So it follows that no one should go to prison for stealing?
So if I'm not in favor of the most extreme punishment then I must be in favor of no punishment? Custodial sentences serve two purposes - as a deterrent to others and the removal from society of the offender. Execution also provides both but I argue that the deterrent is no greater and as execution has several other negative aspects custodial sentences are preferable.
-
Quote:
Because members of a civilized society don't kill each other.
Exactly. So, one someone is uncivilized enough to murder someone else, they should be kicked out of society (killed.)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Exactly. So, one someone is uncivilized enough to murder someone else, they should be kicked out of society (killed.)
Is hell a society?
Quote:
Is hell a society?
:) It must be. I know some people that will be there so perhaps we can ask later. :laugh: But I can't assume you are serious about comparing the death penalty to living in hell?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Is hell a society?
:) It must be. I know some people that will be there so perhaps we can ask later. :laugh: But I can't assume you are serious about comparing the death penalty to living in hell?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I'm with Josh and, surprisingly, MM. Let the mofu rot in jail, but no matter how heinous the crime I cannot condone the taking of a life. The death penalty is pure revenge, it doesn't solve anything, it doesn't deter other chrimes, it doesn't bring back the victims. Send the perpetrators to jail and leave them there until they die. The message is there and it is clear - "You are not civilised, you are not part of society. We the society are civilised and so we will not treat you like you treated your victims, but we will choose your destiny. Your life is now owned by society and society chooses to let you live."
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol "Nagy, you have won the internets." - Keith Barrow
OK, Here's a suggestion. Make them a slave to the victim's family for the rest of their natural lives.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
So therefore execution does not remove people from society. Unless you don't believe that the people executed are going to hell?
Quote:
So therefore execution does not remove people from society.
How so? Society is a group of people living together. How does killing someone not remove them from that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
- death is just an occupational hazard for murderers, kill all of them. - throw them in prison, stand back, and let them kill each other. In fact, give them some cars to make it more interesting[^]. - if you kill a killer, are you really any better? - it wouldn't really be killing anyway, we'd just euthanize them. - murderers might as well be useful and "donate" their organs. - murderers aren't people in the first place, so who cares what happens to them? - death isn't good enough, force them to kill their own children so they can share the experience. - prisoners are useful for all sorts of things, like slave labour[^] and drug testing, so throw those murderers in prison. - no sane person would commit murder, so murderers must have a dangerous psychological disease which should be eradicated. I'm sure that for each of these opinions, at least one person could be found who holds them.
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm sure that for each of these opinions, at least one person could be found who holds them.
I wonder if there is someone who holds all of those opinions. :rolleyes:
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm sure that for each of these opinions, at least one person could be found who holds them.
I wonder if there is someone who holds all of those opinions. :rolleyes:
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Justice. I support a society that votes on whether or not to use the death penalty. I support both sides. Since no restitution can be made by the offender both sides are valid. I do support the death penalty when there is no doubt of guilt. There's no reason to keep them alive.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Justice.
Has nothing to do with justice. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't add anything productive nor anything of value.
ryanb31 wrote:
I do support the death penalty when there is no doubt of guilt.
There is always doubt. DNA testing can go wrong, and even with 500 witnesses you'd have to rule out that you didn't accidentally apprehended his twin.
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so? Then again, people who want to bring the death-penalty back are a problem for society - not my problem :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Justice.
Has nothing to do with justice. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't add anything productive nor anything of value.
ryanb31 wrote:
I do support the death penalty when there is no doubt of guilt.
There is always doubt. DNA testing can go wrong, and even with 500 witnesses you'd have to rule out that you didn't accidentally apprehended his twin.
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so? Then again, people who want to bring the death-penalty back are a problem for society - not my problem :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so?
A UK Councillor has just resigned for the second time because he keeps saying that disabled children should be killed.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so?
A UK Councillor has just resigned for the second time because he keeps saying that disabled children should be killed.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
Quote:
So therefore execution does not remove people from society.
How so? Society is a group of people living together. How does killing someone not remove them from that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
