Atheistforums.com

I always wonder about "lawful" executions and capital punishment in general. We do not have it here which may be why I find it hard to wrap my head around it.

Do people see it as moral or ethical? I have heard reports of communities in the US celebrating over how many people have been executed under capital punishment laws. This seems a risky way to carry out justice in my point of view. If you make a mistake and execute an innocent party, you cannot undo it. How is that right? And who decides which crimes are punishable by death?

The death penalty has and always will be a controversial thing in the United States. For many years people have combated it based on grounds that it is nothing other than the state exercising form of legal murder. And there have been more than a few innocent people executed unfortunately; which has lead to many states abolishing it completely, preferring to use alternative methods for their most dangerous criminals.  

Many people do not see it as ethical, because of several reasons including but not limited to

-it makes us too much like the criminal in question
-it is too easy a system to corrupt
-is it morally right for us to kill a person, regardless of their crime?

As for who decides whether or not a person dies; it is either a jury that gives him the death penalty, or it is a judge or committee that decides, depending on the crime. Mass homicide is usually enough to get one on death row, which is basically a supposed waiting list for the criminal's demise. Other things such as war crimes or treason can also lead to the death penalty being thrown at the party in question, but treason is usually handled by the military and as such is different from the "civil" death penalty.

The military has the right to exercise and has used this right in the past; to kill soldiers for a number of crimes, including insubordination, dereliction of duty, desertion, and treason. This is decided by a military tribunal and is done most of the time via firing squad. Obviously this practice has been greatly reduced since the Second World War, but still happens occasionally.

Now if you're wanting to know whether or not we as individuals believe in it, it depends on the person to be honest.

I hope this helps

Quote from: "dgirl1986"I always wonder about "lawful" executions and capital punishment in general. We do not have it here which may be why I find it hard to wrap my head around it.

Do people see it as moral or ethical? I have heard reports of communities in the US celebrating over how many people have been executed under capital punishment laws. This seems a risky way to carry out justice in my point of view. If you make a mistake and execute an innocent party, you cannot undo it. How is that right? And who decides which crimes are punishable by death?

I see it as absolutely immoral and unethical as well as inefficient and unjust. And that would be my opinion if there was an absolute guarantee that only guilty parties would be executed.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.

I see no use of keeping something alive that has no qualms with raping/sodomizing and butchering another human into pieces. I am all for running their brain through whatever thinga-ma-jig you wish and then throwing it into a pen of very hungry hogs.

Quote from: "dgirl1986"Do people see it as moral or ethical? I have heard reports of communities in the US celebrating over how many people have been executed under capital punishment laws.

As the sole or heavily outnumbered dissenting party in meatspace capital punishment debates, yes, they do see it as moral.  They see it as richly deserved and regret only that the actual execution takes place years later, if at all.

QuoteThis seems a risky way to carry out justice in my point of view. If you make a mistake and execute an innocent party, you cannot undo it. How is that right?

I agree.

QuoteAnd who decides which crimes are punishable by death?

Congress, iirc.  And then state prosecutors decide to seek the death penalty or not to on an individual basis.

Quote from: "dgirl1986"I always wonder about "lawful" executions and capital punishment in general. We do not have it here which may be why I find it hard to wrap my head around it.

Do people see it as moral or ethical? I have heard reports of communities in the US celebrating over how many people have been executed under capital punishment laws. This seems a risky way to carry out justice in my point of view. If you make a mistake and execute an innocent party, you cannot undo it. How is that right? And who decides which crimes are punishable by death?

Capitol punishment is just revenge and nothing more. Unfortunately here in the USA people relish revenge. Most don't care if an innocent person is executed or not. Statistically minorities and the poor are executed at a far greater percentage then any other demographic, and that sits well with the racist conservatives in this nation.

Quote from: "mykcob4"

Quote from: "dgirl1986"I always wonder about "lawful" executions and capital punishment in general. We do not have it here which may be why I find it hard to wrap my head around it.

Most don't care if an innocent person is executed or not.

"Most" time mykcob4 is fairly close to somewhat of the truth, and then sometimes he opens his hole and shit falls out as is the case this time.

I don't think the average Joe cares if some random black guy in Alabama or Georgia is executed, even though the witnesses said it wasn't him and there is other evidence of bias amongst the jury, judge and officers who responded.

This was national news as well and yet there wasn't much outrage... a few hundred thousand out of millions and millions of people. So yeah, I would say we don't particularly care.

It is the result of a public which in large part does not recognise the difference between justice and vengence.  The first is hard to acheave, the second is easy.

I don't believe there is such a thing as justice, only injustice. What we call justice is retribution not justice. How about the loved ones of the person executed? Is it justice when they are hurt by a draconian punishment because of feelings and emotions. Shouldn't the law be about protecting society instead of revenge. If it was my family that was a victim of a Haines crime I would want revenge also, but should a non entity do what I would do? And how about unjust laws that punish people where there's no victim that over fill our prisons and killers and rapist are let go.
 
Two wrongs do not make a right logically in my opinion. How many guilty people are let go that do a crime that can be punishable by death because a jury doesn't want to be killers? How many are let go because they are rich and can hire unscrupulous lawyers that will win at any cost instead of finding the truth? How about people wrongly accused, is it alright to kill them or put them in prison for life with no chance to get out---it could happen to you or your loved ones---where's the justice there?   Solitary

To put my opinion out there, I don't think mentally ill people should be murdered just because they are sick. This rules out most of the sickos from being executed.

The rest who commit murder and other violent acts do it because of their situation, which is outside of their control. Therefor I don't think they deserve to be executed either, because it could have just as easily been me who had been born in their situation.

People should pay the consequences of their crime, but I think there is an inherently flawed aspect to the idea that the only way to punish someone for killing is to kill them. Rehabilitation is the only morally justifiable response, and if that fails then humane containment to keep them from harming others. But violence does not solve violence.

I suppose I don't have a problem with the state ending the life of a serial killer or rapist. I would still like to see capital punishment abolished, because:

- Innocent people have been executed. An innocent man in jail can be released and compensated. An innocent man executed can never be brought back.
- There is bias in the system (for example, blacks are executed at a higher rate and for lesser crimes than whites), though this is a problem with the justice system as a whole.
- Having a person on death row costs tax payers more than having a person jailed for life, due to additional investigation expenses, appeals, and the execution itself.
- There's no solid evidence that the death penalty does anything to deter the crimes that are punishable by it.

There are far too few benefits to capital punishment to offset these issues. We'd be better off as a society without it.

I am against Capital Punishment, and I really don't care wether or not the inmate is innocent or not.

I am against Capital Punishment, on grounds of ethics, pure and simple. I believe that every man, woman and child, should be treated decently in accordance with basic human needs, such as safety, security and tranquility. Capital Punishment is quite the opposite. I believe that assisted suicide or euthanasia, if voluntary, should be in order for everyone, especially inmates, but they should have all possible available alternatives to choose life instead of their own death.

This is regardless of wether they were thieves, serial killers or dictators who committed mass murders.
We gain NOTHING from punishing them.

With that said, I must also confess that at times and moments, I sincerely believe that people who have done nothing wrong, except for having different political opinions than my own,
should be executed by strangulation in a garrotte while being burned at the stake after being tortured. But that's a moment caused by my anger and powerlessness and tells nothing about my true political opinions on the subject of Capital Punishment, when I'm totally sane.

I will not be sane if someone killed a loved one of mine.

But while writing this, I'm totally sane, and I know I can't watch an execution, therefore I can't be for Capital Punishment.

I also believe that inmates should recieve careful mental assessment and given psychiatric and/or psychological treatment.
If they are a danger to society or to others or in any other way cannot or will not function as a non-criminal, they should be locked away in a secure facility, but they should be
treated decently and with respect to their basic human needs.

I myself live in a country where Capital Punishment was abolished long time ago and I am not a criminal.
Yet, I get suicidal feelings whenever I watch or read about an execution. I am totally scared of being
executed myself (I can't say why). Therefore, it would be wrong for me to fall for the double standard of being for capital punishment, when I, myself, am scared of being executed myself.

Quote from: "Hydra009"

Quote from: "dgirl1986"Do people see it as moral or ethical? I have heard reports of communities in the US celebrating over how many people have been executed under capital punishment laws.

As the sole or heavily outnumbered dissenting party in meatspace capital punishment debates, yes, they do see it as moral.  They see it as richly deserved and regret only that the actual execution takes place years later, if at all.

I agree. And in India they are awarded to 'rarest or rare', to the very brutal rapes or murders.

Quote from: "Hydra009"

Quote from: "dgirl1986"This seems a risky way to carry out justice in my point of view. If you make a mistake and execute an innocent party, you cannot undo it. How is that right?

I agree.

In India it goes through a long process, District Courts, State Court, Supreme Court, and lastly President's pardon. I do not think there are mistakes.

Quote from: "Hydra009"

Quote from: "dgirl1986"And who decides which crimes are punishable by death?

Congress, iirc.  And then state prosecutors decide to seek the death penalty or not to on an individual basis.

The National Parliament, a democratically elected body in a free and fair election of peoples' representatives under universal franchise from many parties (6 National Parties, 45 State parties, and 1389 registered unrecognized parties) held regularly for the last 63 years (now on electronic voting machines all over the country, even the most isolated places, where the election officers reach by riding elephants), by a majority vote. Then it goes to Supreme Court for a check that it does not violate Indian constitution in any way. Lastly, it goes to the President for approval.

QuoteIn India it goes through a long process, District Courts, State Court, Supreme Court, and lastly President's pardon. I do not think there are mistakes.

There are always mistakes.

I think it is most scaring when I ask people wether or not they are pro-DP and they answer:
"No, because we could kill innocent people".

- so it's alright to kill, if one is guilty of a crime?

Quote from: "dgirl1986"I always wonder about "lawful" executions and capital punishment in general. We do not have it here which may be why I find it hard to wrap my head around it.

Do people see it as moral or ethical? I have heard reports of communities in the US celebrating over how many people have been executed under capital punishment laws. This seems a risky way to carry out justice in my point of view. If you make a mistake and execute an innocent party, you cannot undo it. How is that right? And who decides which crimes are punishable by death?

It's only really risky to the accused.  If a judge passes a sentence condemning an innocent man, there's no risk of the judge being arrested for murder.


I don't see capital punishment in its current form as moral or ethical.   It's not even cost effective!  It's not even really a punishment, because a dead man feels nothing.  


What I think the US should do in the cases where people are safely convicted of a crime that attracts the death penalty is to take the prisoner and study them.  If we could learn more about these people and what makes them tick and what drives them to commit the crimes that they do, maybe we could actually save lives.

I'm 100% against capital punishment.

Besides being a moral outrage and something that no civilized society should engage in, it's also ineffective as a deterrent, more expensive than incarceration for life, and prone to error.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"It's researched and documented many times that it doesn't deter any crime.

Nonsense, it is an absolute fact that the dead will not, do not and cannot commit any more crimes, whereas, those who have murdered and who manage to escape have killed again or are willing to kill again. Case in point in Florida just last week,  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/21/2- ... thorities/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/21/2-escaped-fla-convicts-captured-by-authorities/)
 now if those escaped murderers were in your neighborhood the howls we would hear. Odd how some scream about any particular "thing" being fixed because it might save ONE life, but eliminating a proven killing machine is somehow more evil than allowing it to live and giving it a chance to kill again.

People who are in favor of allowing people who butcher other humans to live should be willing to sign a list with their address so these pieces of shit can find shelter at their house.

That's not what deterring crime means. At least not in the reasonable meaning of the word, like the way other people use it.

It's not always a black and white issue---or is it? Solitary

For most people, everything is a black and white issue it seems :(

QuoteSee, they escaped, because we didn't murder them.

absolutely. It has happened before. I doubt any of you would not change your mind if a butcherer escaped and carved up your loved one and left them stuffed in a barrel.

One doesn't even need to see the whole carcass to change one's mind, just a 12" little arm sticking out of the mud should do it.

Hey look, this is exactly what drunkenshoe was talking about when she made the whole "not thinking rationally" post.

"You wouldn't think the same if it happened to you" is like the defining line for "when you stop thinking rationally, you'll agree with me."

So it is rational to allow people who have absolutely no qualms about butchering other humans an opportunity to do it again? Hmm. Strange rational indeed.

Interestingly, that argument is blanket enough to be one for killing all soldiers the day they come home from their assignments.

So perhaps you should look for something with a little more nuance.

Quote from: "Plu"Interestingly, that argument is blanket enough blah blah blah.

.

no, it's not for thinking people.

What isn't? I'm missing a lot of context with a response that short.

This is all fascinating and based on emotion and value judgments with a little logic. It's true that letting people out to commit crimes again can't if they are executed, but this assumes they really did it in the first place and that a jury and police always gets it right as well as eye witnesses, and the law is correct to protect society. People do get out that did heinous crimes but who allows that? The way the law is written and "Lawyers" that's who. Why was a pedophile who raped and cut the arms off of a little girl allowed to be let out? Because he served his time and psychiatrist said he was no longer a threat. Right! How many people that have never harmed anyone are in prison because of our stupid drug laws that want to punish instead of protect society?

This is the problem: the legal system has become a system of punishment and money instead of to protect society. Why is there parole, or serving a short time spent in jail or prison, for offenders that are a threat to society? And why are "psychiatrist" allowed to say someone is rehabilitated in "their" opinion and let out when it is so obvious that pedophiles, and killers are a threat to society or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. Truman Capote who wrote: In Cold Blood, said that we are too concerned with protecting innocent people that we let go too many of those who are guilty of major crimes. Solitary

I'm back and forth on the death penalty mainly because there are people who clearly have no business walking or breathing much less taking up jail space, but we split the baby and lock some away in dungeons forever while others walk free then snuff yet others out.
What if Ted Cruz murdered a hundred kids just for shits and giggles? DP opponents might be screaming for his head..

You're both being stupid. This is my original post and I stick fully with it. Stop with the "what if"  shit and postulating like you're some moral superior fucks when you're not.

QuoteI see no use of keeping something alive that has no qualms with raping/sodomizing and butchering another human into pieces. I am all for running their brain through whatever thinga-ma-jig you wish and then throwing it into a pen of very hungry hogs.

What you mention above is only a very small subset of the kind of people who receive the death penalty, though. So do you mean "mostly opposed except for the most extreme cases"? Otherwise your statements still don't seem to make sense, at least not to me.

(There's also plenty of use for them as test subjects, maybe we'll finally figure out how empathy works and can be turned on in people who don't seem to have any.)

Quote from: "aitm"

Quote from: "mykcob4"

Quote from: "dgirl1986"I always wonder about "lawful" executions and capital punishment in general. We do not have it here which may be why I find it hard to wrap my head around it.

Most don't care if an innocent person is executed or not.

"Most" time mykcob4 is fairly close to somewhat of the truth, and then sometimes he opens his hole and shit falls out as is the case this time.

What! You're insane!

Quote from: "aitm"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"It's researched and documented many times that it doesn't deter any crime.

Nonsense, it is an absolute fact that the dead will not, do not and cannot commit any more crimes, whereas, those who have murdered and who manage to escape have killed again or are willing to kill again. Case in point in Florida just last week,  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/21/2- ... thorities/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/21/2-escaped-fla-convicts-captured-by-authorities/)
 now if those escaped murderers were in your neighborhood the howls we would hear. Odd how some scream about any particular "thing" being fixed because it might save ONE life, but eliminating a proven killing machine is somehow more evil than allowing it to live and giving it a chance to kill again.

People who are in favor of allowing people who butcher other humans to live should be willing to sign a list with their address so these pieces of shit can find shelter at their house.

So in your infinite wisdom you used FOX NOISE as your source. That seems logical!@#$%^&*()?! NOT!

Again Capitol Punishment is nothing more than revenge. Some say on this forum that it is a deterant and they add that the people executed can never committ another crime. It doesn't change the fact that it is simply revenge. Stats have proven that execution doesn't lower crime.
I get the mob mentality the vegilanty idealism and it's a stupid, unlawful, unjust, and innacurate way to do things. It's basically a knee jerk reaction by moronic people.
"I heard old Bill raped a youngin'! Lets get a rope and hang him!"  That kind of mentality is exactly the thought process that wants, loves the death penalty.
Revenge is revenge!

Quote from: "Mermaid"I see it as absolutely immoral and unethical as well as inefficient and unjust. And that would be my opinion if there was an absolute guarantee that only guilty parties would be executed.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.

Please explain how if it was guaranteed that only guilty parties were executed, it would be an inefficient system, as opposed to keeping them alive and caring for them out of the taxpayer's pocket?

Quote from: "mykcob4"

Quote from: "aitm"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"It's researched and documented many times that it doesn't deter any crime.

Nonsense, it is an absolute fact that the dead will not, do not and cannot commit any more crimes, whereas, those who have murdered and who manage to escape have killed again or are willing to kill again. Case in point in Florida just last week,  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/21/2- ... thorities/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/21/2-escaped-fla-convicts-captured-by-authorities/)
 now if those escaped murderers were in your neighborhood the howls we would hear. Odd how some scream about any particular "thing" being fixed because it might save ONE life, but eliminating a proven killing machine is somehow more evil than allowing it to live and giving it a chance to kill again.

People who are in favor of allowing people who butcher other humans to live should be willing to sign a list with their address so these pieces of shit can find shelter at their house.

So in your infinite wisdom you used FOX NOISE as your source. That seems logical!@#$%^&*()?! NOT!

its a link to the story jack-ass.

Quote from: "mykcob4"Again Capitol Punishment is nothing more than revenge. Some say on this forum that it is a deterant and they add that the people executed can never committ another crime. It doesn't change the fact that it is simply revenge. Stats have proven that execution doesn't lower crime.
I get the mob mentality the vegilanty idealism and it's a stupid, unlawful, unjust, and innacurate way to do things. It's basically a knee jerk reaction by moronic people.
"I heard old Bill raped a youngin'! Lets get a rope and hang him!"  That kind of mentality is exactly the thought process that wants, loves the death penalty.
Revenge is revenge!

there you go again, stupid just gushes from your pie hole today. You should try reading and comprehension. Of course you would associate vigilantism with executing a piece of shit that enjoys butchering people because you want to suck face and get butt -fucked by people who enjoy blood gushing all over their body, you probably want to join their club, sicko.

Quote from: "SilentFutility"

Quote from: "Mermaid"I see it as absolutely immoral and unethical as well as inefficient and unjust. And that would be my opinion if there was an absolute guarantee that only guilty parties would be executed.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.

Please explain how if it was guaranteed that only guilty parties were executed, it would be an inefficient system, as opposed to keeping them alive and caring for them out of the taxpayer's pocket?

The cost in determining absolute guilt would most likely be higher than the cost of life long detention. (If it's not, we've reached a point where these kind of things need to be reconsidered; but I hope by then we've also figured out how to cure psychopathy.)

I'm not in favour of the death penalty unless perhaps in very extraordinary circumstances. I'm also not in favour of locking up people for life if they can be rehabilitated and pose no danger to society anymore, although some people must stay in for life for the protection of society. I don't buy the dichotomy between saints and monsters. The situation about people (even criminal ones) is mostly not that simple. Only in some cases you have well defined extremes and they get the most media attention.... Which is what we crave for. That's at the core of the success of the Nancy Grace's of this world who want to fit everyone in the dichotomy I spoke off. And the public feels comfortable with that.

Gerard

Quote from: "aitm"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Again Capitol Punishment is nothing more than revenge. Some say on this forum that it is a deterant and they add that the people executed can never committ another crime. It doesn't change the fact that it is simply revenge. Stats have proven that execution doesn't lower crime.
I get the mob mentality the vegilanty idealism and it's a stupid, unlawful, unjust, and innacurate way to do things. It's basically a knee jerk reaction by moronic people.
"I heard old Bill raped a youngin'! Lets get a rope and hang him!"  That kind of mentality is exactly the thought process that wants, loves the death penalty.
Revenge is revenge!

there you go again, stupid just gushes from your pie hole today. You should try reading and comprehension. Of course you would associate vigilantism with executing a piece of shit that enjoys butchering people because you want to suck face and get butt -fucked by people who enjoy blood gushing all over their body, you probably want to join their club, sicko.

Alright I've had it with you. You think that you can call someone stupid just because they don't have YOUR fucked up opinion.
The fact is cost wise it is far more expensive to execute some one than give them a live sentence.
When you execute someone you enact revenge, you don't exact justice, you don't prevent crimes. That isn't stupidity it is just a fact. So dumbass since you think that you can be a big fucking asshole because you can hide behind the net, you'd better get a grip on reality and the truth.

Quote from: "mykcob4"Alright I've had it with you.....  

oh boo fucking hoo, you sicko fuck....

[spoil:20r6zrxg](//http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm127/aitm356/4dpjt_zps891acbf6.jpg)[/spoil:20r6zrxg]

At risk of being called a conservative murderer, I side with aitm. Acting all high and mighty with the moral ground is all good, and I respect those of you who do want to avoid the death penalty and executions. It is fine.

However; there are many out there who deserve to die, whom inflicted more pain upon their victims than any lethal injection could possibly match.
I recognize that innocents are sometimes killed, and I am saddened by it, nevertheless I do not believe that abolishing the death penalty out of a desire to be higher morally than the criminals you condemn will accomplish anything than letting them live a lot longer than they should.


Bundy?
Gacy?
Eichman?

Hell you know we would have executed Hitler if we had gotten our hands on him.

These people gave up their humanity when they committed their crimes, as such, they do not deserve mercy. No matter what ethics would say.

Quote from: "aitm"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Alright I've had it with you.....  

oh boo fucking hoo, you sicko fuck....

[spoil:wv18buw4][ Image (//http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm127/aitm356/4dpjt_zps891acbf6.jpg) ][/spoil:wv18buw4]

So in your most mature manner you have decided that you would complete misrepresent this forum and denegrate me with personal insults. You are suppose to be a staff member. Well you've failed in the spirit of the forum and the responsibility of that position. If you disagree with me, it isn't necessary to lob personal insults.
I will not trade insults with you.

Hey Mykcob, in the short time I've been here; every single post you have done has either been what could be considered a rant and or insulting. In one of my first posts you called me something along the lines of an ignorant conservative idiot. And now when you are countered with someone who is meeting your insults with his own, you attempt to take the moral high ground by calling him childish and insinuating that he is not worthy of being a staff member.

to that I say;

Fuck off

:rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:   you're too easy mykob, it is a curious scenario you find yourself in, after all the impromptu attacks you often give to random people who for some reason get on the wrong side of your attitude, you find the need to complain.

Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"Hey Mykcob, in the short time I've been here; every single post you have done has either been what could be considered a rant and or insulting. In one of my first posts you called me something along the lines of an ignorant conservative idiot. And now when you are countered with someone who is meeting your insults with his own, you attempt to take the moral high ground by calling him childish and insinuating that he is not worthy of being a staff member.

to that I say;

Fuck off

^^^THIS

You know it's comical that you are negatively reporting the same behavior that you have most clearly participated in before.  Example #1 (need I go further?);

Quote from: "mykcob4"What the fuck ! I mean WHAT THE FUCK! MMMatlas you are off your rocker. You are trying very hard to mischaracterize atheist in general. Yoor questions aren't questions, they are forgone conclussions by you AND YOU'RE WRONG!

However,  due to the extreme seriousness of your report, we will take it up with congress later tonight!

Quote from: "aitm":rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:   you're too easy mykob, it is a curious scenario you find yourself in, after all the impromptu attacks you often give to random people who for some reason get on the wrong side of your attitude, you find the need to complain.

I said I won't trade insults with you. You are doing nothing more than using typical tactics. Fight bating, insulting. You haven't posted anything on this thread that is reasonable.
The fact is that I don't make impromptu attacks on individuals. I have retaliated but I don't initiate attacks. My post are hardly if ever directed at an individual.
Capitol Punishement is revenge. It serves no other purpose. You disagree with that statement and you start with personal attacks. The fact is that you hide behind the internet to do so.

Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"Hey Mykcob, in the short time I've been here; every single post you have done has either been what could be considered a rant and or insulting. In one of my first posts you called me something along the lines of an ignorant conservative idiot. And now when you are countered with someone who is meeting your insults with his own, you attempt to take the moral high ground by calling him childish and insinuating that he is not worthy of being a staff member.

to that I say;

Fuck off

So you in your most mature manner decided that you would be just as immature as he and begin with personal insults. Hmmm....my guess is that you have been bested in a debate and want to somehow regain what you feel you have lost. "Fuck Off"? Really? Sure thing, I'll get right on that. Hold your breath.

Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"At risk of being called a conservative murderer, I side with aitm. Acting all high and mighty with the moral ground is all good, and I respect those of you who do want to avoid the death penalty and executions. It is fine.

However; there are many out there who deserve to die, whom inflicted more pain upon their victims than any lethal injection could possibly match.
I recognize that innocents are sometimes killed, and I am saddened by it, nevertheless I do not believe that abolishing the death penalty out of a desire to be higher morally than the criminals you condemn will accomplish anything than letting them live a lot longer than they should.


Bundy?
Gacy?
Eichman?

Hell you know we would have executed Hitler if we had gotten our hands on him.

These people gave up their humanity when they committed their crimes, as such, they do not deserve mercy. No matter what ethics would say.

So you think that you are the authority to decide how long anyone/everyone should live. What if someone just doesn't agree with you? Do you decide to execute them as well?

Quote from: "bericks999"

Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"Hey Mykcob, in the short time I've been here; every single post you have done has either been what could be considered a rant and or insulting. In one of my first posts you called me something along the lines of an ignorant conservative idiot. And now when you are countered with someone who is meeting your insults with his own, you attempt to take the moral high ground by calling him childish and insinuating that he is not worthy of being a staff member.

to that I say;

Fuck off

^^^THIS

You know it's comical that you are negatively reporting the same behavior that you have most clearly participated in before.  Example #1 (need I go further?);

Quote from: "mykcob4"What the fuck ! I mean WHAT THE FUCK! MMMatlas you are off your rocker. You are trying very hard to mischaracterize atheist in general. Yoor questions aren't questions, they are forgone conclussions by you AND YOU'RE WRONG!

However,  due to the extreme seriousness of your report, we will take it up with congress later tonight!

1) It is highly unethical to publisize a report of a violation.
2) The example you gave of my past post is out of context concerning the thread and was not a personal insult. It was defensive in nature and not an attack.
3) This: "However,  due to the extreme seriousness of your report, we will take it up with congress later tonight" is nothing more than an irresponsible condescending immature comment and shows a lack of maturity given the responsibility of dealing with a report.

Mykcob, you are very much predictable. In an effort to make yourself look stronger you have taken every argument against your point and have answered it in a separate post. This is a tactic that makes you look stronger, as it gives the appearance of being able to simultaneously argue different points.
However it has had the opposite effect on you, instead it makes you look weak, you feel yourself being ganged up upon and are looking for a way out.
You may notice that you in fact argued that aitm was saying what he said because he had internet immunity; hypocritical, you are doing the same thing.


oh and finally; you jump to conclusions at an astonishing rate, for instance;

QuoteGrinningYMIR wrote:
At risk of being called a conservative murderer, I side with aitm. Acting all high and mighty with the moral ground is all good, and I respect those of you who do want to avoid the death penalty and executions. It is fine.

However; there are many out there who deserve to die, whom inflicted more pain upon their victims than any lethal injection could possibly match.
I recognize that innocents are sometimes killed, and I am saddened by it, nevertheless I do not believe that abolishing the death penalty out of a desire to be higher morally than the criminals you condemn will accomplish anything than letting them live a lot longer than they should.


Bundy?
Gacy?
Eichman?

Hell you know we would have executed Hitler if we had gotten our hands on him.

These people gave up their humanity when they committed their crimes, as such, they do not deserve mercy. No matter what ethics would say.

mykcob wrote
So you think that you are the authority to decide how long anyone/everyone should live. What if someone just doesn't agree with you? Do you decide to execute them as well?

You jump to conclusions and you twist words to make them seem as if your opponent is a maniac. It is a very common thing often associated with shifting the blame.

Just to make things clear; no I don't want to execute people who don't agree with me, because I'm not a totalitarian psychopath. I believe in executions but only when the offender has committed a crime worthy of execution, it isn't something to be thrown around.


In conclusion; you are an asshole, albeit a very intelligent asshole. I'm sure you'll try to find a way to counter this argument, I'm sure there is a flaw somewhere and you'll exploit it in a typical fashion. Blow it out of proportions so that the rest cannot be heard. But the more you do so, the more times you insult people like me, the more you piss off admins, the more you'll start to realize that there are a lot of people who don't like you on this forum. And you're just making it worse for yourself.


so please; fuck off.

:popcorn: Solitary

To try to stay moderately on topic...

QuoteHowever; there are many out there who deserve to die, whom inflicted more pain upon their victims than any lethal injection could possibly match.

So the death penalty gives the state the ultimate choice of who gets to live and who gets to die.

Yes, it will kill people who arguably deserve to die (I disagree with the argument, but I can understand it), but at the same time you are condemning innocent people to be killed as well... people who are victims of racial bias, personal vendettas, faulty evidence and a whole other slew of events.

I simply cannot trust a government that is as corrupt as ours, and has been shown to fail time and time again on executing the right person, with that responsibility. Perhaps if our government was more accountable and we lived in a more civilized society, this wouldn't be an issue, but all morality aside it is simply not a statistically wise position to hold unless you are willing to justify the murder of innocent people... in which case I feel you are not much better off than the murderer (I realise that sounds rather insulting, and I am sorry about that :). The only difference I see is the justification for murdering the innocents... "I didn't know they were innocent" vs "I am a criminal".

I am going to slippery slope here, but I think it is a legitimate issue... what happens when the state start using fabricated information to get rid of people it dislikes? We assassinate people around the world we disagree with, civilian people we disagree with, so what happens when someone decides to plant evidence on a local citizen?

But again I am also morally biased against it, so perhaps I look at that bit wrongly.

It is a simple game of morality that we have all played Shir. If we had the "power" to know for certain that a person had killed and had no issue with killing again and we have to power to kill him would we? I am of the opinion that I would rather kill him than risk him killing someone else, even if ....gasp...it is someone I don't like. Some suggest we take the chance of putting "it" in prison for the rest of its life on the hope it never escapes under the very "knowing" understanding that the chance of said murderer ever killing one of "their" family is less than it killing some other bastards family. I am not willing to do that to someone else family, but some people apparently have no objection to having your family fucked up and murdered because...well....they live hundreds maybe thousands of miles from a prison. Problem solved for them.

Mykcob, you do not argue against the death penalty by insulting the other side and burning down strawmen. You do it like this:


While there is evidence suggesting that the death penalty doesn't deter crime (//http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty), the fact of the matter is that there is no clear consensus (//http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983) on whether it has any effect one way or the other. Obviously, execution will get rid of particularly villainous criminals if correctly identified, but with the highest rate of incarceration on Earth the United States has a pretty bad track record with wrongful execution (//http://www.crimemuseum.org/library/execution/wrongfulExecution.html). Combined with the relative frequency with which convicts must be released from Death Row, it's clear to many people that capital punishment is too final a sentence to risk making mistakes.

Economically, capital punishment is far more expensive than life in prison. This is partly due to modern methods of execution, which attempt to be more humane, but it's also caused by the appeals process put in place to try (and sometimes fail) to prevent wrongful execution. This isn't to say life in prison is necessarily better, as conflicting (//http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2007/01/the_irrational_18yearold_criminal.html) evidence (//http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/07/longer-prison-sentences-cut-crime) will show, but life without parole is nevertheless cheaper (//http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/#.UmnfQnCsiSo) and, of course, much less final.

There really isn't a way to justify capital punishment in a justice system as fallible as ours consistently proves to be.

While that is the argument to some Hijiri (you know that is very difficult to spell with bad eyes and a six pack) and I join your side with that...my argument is NOT about IF they did it, it is indeed THAT they did. Everyone over the age of 8 understands the ramifications of the justice system. My argument is that mother fucker DID it. Period.

edit: with taht, I bid you goodnite...wtf is taht?

Quote from: "aitm"my argument is NOT about IF they did it, it is indeed THAT they did. Everyone over the age of 8 understands the ramifications of the justice system. My argument is that mother fucker DID it. Period.

It's good rhetoric, and I agree that if they did something that bad they should die. But you're putting the "ought" before the "is," and the fact is that our justice system is too fallible to be trusted with this form of punishment.

QuoteHijiri (you know that is very difficult to spell with bad eyes and a six pack)

I've told you guys before to call me Byakuren. "Hijiri" is just Japanese for "Saint." It's not a name. :P

Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"Mykcob, you are very much predictable. In an effort to make yourself look stronger you have taken every argument against your point and have answered it in a separate post. This is a tactic that makes you look stronger, as it gives the appearance of being able to simultaneously argue different points.
However it has had the opposite effect on you, instead it makes you look weak, you feel yourself being ganged up upon and are looking for a way out.
You may notice that you in fact argued that aitm was saying what he said because he had internet immunity; hypocritical, you are doing the same thing.


oh and finally; you jump to conclusions at an astonishing rate, for instance;

QuoteGrinningYMIR wrote:
At risk of being called a conservative murderer, I side with aitm. Acting all high and mighty with the moral ground is all good, and I respect those of you who do want to avoid the death penalty and executions. It is fine.

However; there are many out there who deserve to die, whom inflicted more pain upon their victims than any lethal injection could possibly match.
I recognize that innocents are sometimes killed, and I am saddened by it, nevertheless I do not believe that abolishing the death penalty out of a desire to be higher morally than the criminals you condemn will accomplish anything than letting them live a lot longer than they should.


Bundy?
Gacy?
Eichman?

Hell you know we would have executed Hitler if we had gotten our hands on him.

These people gave up their humanity when they committed their crimes, as such, they do not deserve mercy. No matter what ethics would say.

mykcob wrote
So you think that you are the authority to decide how long anyone/everyone should live. What if someone just doesn't agree with you? Do you decide to execute them as well?

You jump to conclusions and you twist words to make them seem as if your opponent is a maniac. It is a very common thing often associated with shifting the blame.

Just to make things clear; no I don't want to execute people who don't agree with me, because I'm not a totalitarian psychopath. I believe in executions but only when the offender has committed a crime worthy of execution, it isn't something to be thrown around.


In conclusion; you are an asshole, albeit a very intelligent asshole. I'm sure you'll try to find a way to counter this argument, I'm sure there is a flaw somewhere and you'll exploit it in a typical fashion. Blow it out of proportions so that the rest cannot be heard. But the more you do so, the more times you insult people like me, the more you piss off admins, the more you'll start to realize that there are a lot of people who don't like you on this forum. And you're just making it worse for yourself.


so please; fuck off.

Blah blah blah, gee what other nonsense can you come up with? For crying out loud grow up!

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Mykcob, you do not argue against the death penalty by insulting the other side and burning down strawmen. You do it like this:


While there is evidence suggesting that the death penalty doesn't deter crime (//http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty), the fact of the matter is that there is no clear consensus (//http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983) on whether it has any effect one way or the other. Obviously, execution will get rid of particularly villainous criminals if correctly identified, but with the highest rate of incarceration on Earth the United States has a pretty bad track record with wrongful execution (//http://www.crimemuseum.org/library/execution/wrongfulExecution.html). Combined with the relative frequency with which convicts must be released from Death Row, it's clear to many people that capital punishment is too final a sentence to risk making mistakes.

Economically, capital punishment is far more expensive than life in prison. This is partly due to modern methods of execution, which attempt to be more humane, but it's also caused by the appeals process put in place to try (and sometimes fail) to prevent wrongful execution. This isn't to say life in prison is necessarily better, as conflicting (//http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2007/01/the_irrational_18yearold_criminal.html) evidence (//http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/07/longer-prison-sentences-cut-crime) will show, but life without parole is nevertheless cheaper (//http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/#.UmnfQnCsiSo) and, of course, much less final.

There really isn't a way to justify capital punishment in a justice system as fallible as ours consistently proves to be.

You've said exactly what I have been saying.

The fact is that the death penalty has been used to a dispoprtionate level against minorities in this nation. Although whites have committed terrible crimes of the same magnitude they are rarely executed except in  some cases. The proportion of minorities that are executed for the same crimes is high greated by percentage. This screams of the injustice of the death penalty. If for no other reason than racism the death penalty should be abolished. That being said, there are far more reasons to end the death penalty.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am against capital punishment and agree that it's revenge and nothing but blood for blood. It's researched and documented many times that it doesn't deter any crime.

Punishment does deter crime. Compare crime situation in Middle-East and in US or India.

Punishment in the Middle-East is way harsher than in the US, and it's a giant mess. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, but it doesn't seem to work.

Quote from: "Plu"For most people, everything is a black and white issue it seems :(

Soft punishment leads to this:

"Out of the total 54,198 persons arrested in Delhi under various charges of the IPC, a whopping 43,674 were new to the 'world of crime' while 10,524 had committed offences more than once.

According to the statistics released by National Crime Records Bureau for 2006, there were 1,249 arrested persons in the capital who were convicted at least three times or more. While 6,443 (11.9 per cent) of the arrested were convicted once, 2,832 (5.2 per cent) were convicted twice, the statistics revealed."
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/crime/20080110.htm (http://www.rediff.com/news/report/crime/20080110.htm)

I am not able to find statistics right now, but there are many criminals who are involved in multiple murder cases. These people are a danger to society and should certainly be put to death.

"A 32-year-old man, wanted by Delhi Police in connection with over 15 cases of murder and robbery, was killed in a 20-minute shootout between his gang and police in the capital."

"A 41-year-old man, described by police as one of the top 10 criminals of Delhi involved in at least 48 cases, was arrested from Rishikesh for his alleged involvement in the murder of a constable three months ago."

http://www.ndtv.com/topic/murder-cases-in-india (http://www.ndtv.com/topic/murder-cases-in-india)

Quote from: "aitm"It is a simple game of morality that we have all played Shir. If we had the "power" to know for certain that a person had killed and had no issue with killing again and we have to power to kill him would we? I am of the opinion that I would rather kill him than risk him killing someone else, even if ....gasp...it is someone I don't like. Some suggest we take the chance of putting "it" in prison for the rest of its life on the hope it never escapes under the very "knowing" understanding that the chance of said murderer ever killing one of "their" family is less than it killing some other bastards family. I am not willing to do that to someone else family, but some people apparently have no objection to having your family fucked up and murdered because...well....they live hundreds maybe thousands of miles from a prison. Problem solved for them.

You don't want a murderer escaping from prison because they might murder an innocent.

But you're ok with the state executing prisoners, even though they do murder innocents.

If it was an innocent member of your family on death row, would it be acceptable collateral damage?

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am against capital punishment and agree that it's revenge and nothing but blood for blood. It's researched and documented many times that it doesn't deter any crime.

Punishment does deter crime. Compare crime situation in Middle-East and in US or India.

Saudi Arabia made it illegal to be gay under penalty of death.

Even such a harsh punishment hasn't deterred it.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I've told you guys before to call me Byakuren. "Hijiri" is just Japanese for "Saint." It's not a name. :P

And me thinking it was Finnish.....

Gerard

Quote from: "Jason78"

Quote from: "aitm"It is a simple game of morality that we have all played Shir. If we had the "power" to know for certain that a person had killed and had no issue with killing again and we have to power to kill him would we? I am of the opinion that I would rather kill him than risk him killing someone else, even if ....gasp...it is someone I don't like. Some suggest we take the chance of putting "it" in prison for the rest of its life on the hope it never escapes under the very "knowing" understanding that the chance of said murderer ever killing one of "their" family is less than it killing some other bastards family. I am not willing to do that to someone else family, but some people apparently have no objection to having your family fucked up and murdered because...well....they live hundreds maybe thousands of miles from a prison. Problem solved for them.

You don't want a murderer escaping from prison because they might murder an innocent.

But you're ok with the state executing prisoners, even though they do murder innocents.

If it was an innocent member of your family on death row, would it be acceptable collateral damage?

Once again, you're stepping outside my argument. My point is not that the system is ineffective, which we all know, my argument is not that process is expensive, which we all know. My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

Quote from: "aitm"My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

See my above post: you're putting the "ought" before the "is." If we know without a doubt, we ought to execute them. Currently, there is no system in the world capable of producing such certainty.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "aitm"My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

See my above post: you're putting the "ought" before the "is." If we know without a doubt, we ought to execute them. Currently, there is no system in the world capable of producing such certainty.

I fully understand what you are saying, I am merely playing the morality "game" that I think would show, most people would favor execution if they knew for certain that someone butchered someone else and if cost was not an issue.

Quote from: "Jason78"Even such a harsh punishment hasn't deterred it.

Person's choice. Violate the law, get the punishment.

Quote from: "aitm".. if cost was not an issue.

Cost is not an issue in India. Perhaps it costs less than 100 US dollars (Hanging by neck, long drop).

QuotePerson's choice. Violate the law, get the punishment.

Actually no. Violate the law, get caught, get the punishment. All serious criminals assume they won't get caught, so they do not fear the punishment.

QuoteCost is not an issue in India. Perhaps it costs less than 100 US dollars (Hanging by neck, long drop).

The cost is in catching and judging the person. Every layer of judgement they go through costs a lot of money.

QuotePerson's choice. Violate the law, get the punishment.

And if stealing is punishable by having your hand cut off or life in prison (which happens in the U.S., the latter anyways...) is it still justifiable to say, "They broke the law, they knew the consequences."?

What if it was a black man who killed a white man in self defense in South Carolina, which for him means he is guilty of murder, yet if it was a white killing a black in self defense it is legally self-defense?

The law is not black or white (no pun intended) and therefor does not have the necessary moral superiourity to dictate if someone should be mutilated or have their life taken from them. Only if the law was applied evenly to all people would that argument be justifiable. But this is a justice system that, around the world, is renowned for its bias and inefficiency, and I don't think any right minded person can justify that system being used to execute people.

In Utopia, it might be possible to have this discussion as a moral debate, but in as broken of world we live in it simply comes down to cold hard numbers... the government cannot be trusted with accurately insuring that the guilty are guilty and that the innocent aren't and therefor have zero right to take someone's life as they choose.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuotePerson's choice. Violate the law, get the punishment.

Actually no. Violate the law, get caught, get the punishment. All serious criminals assume they won't get caught, so they do not fear the punishment.

And there's the perpetrators in crimes of passion, who don't even stop to think.

Quote from: "aitm"It is a simple game of morality that we have all played Shir.

The word "morality" comes up again, and I think this is where the rub is. Morality is a continuum, everyone has a slightly (or even vastly) different definition of what "moral" is, and falls somewhere on a spectrum of "Don't do anything and sit quietly with your hands folded" to "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!".

Some believe the lives of others are subject to scrutiny and judgment based on their actions, some do not. To some, this is conditional.

I think arguing about something like this is pointless because nobody is going to move anyone around on their own particular spectrum. Once you make an informed (informed being the operative word) decision in how you feel about something like this, is there any changing? Yeah. Pointless. I guess that makes me a misfit for a forum filled with arguers.  :)

Quote from: "Shiranu"And if stealing is punishable by having your hand cut off or life in prison (which happens in the U.S., the latter anyways...) is it still justifiable to say, "They broke the law, they knew the consequences."?

What if it was a black man who killed a white man in self defense in South Carolina, which for him means he is guilty of murder, yet if it was a white killing a black in self defense it is legally self-defense?

... I don't think any right minded person can justify that system being used to execute people.

... the government cannot be trusted with accurately insuring that the guilty are guilty and that the innocent aren't and therefor have zero right to take someone's life as they choose.

1. It is simple, Shiranu - whatever punishment the society (in a democracy, people's representatives as in India) decide.
2. Self-defence - a completely different matter. White/black/yellow/red/brown does not matter.
3. Opinions differ.
4. The judiciary and not the government. It always has the right to say that the evidence is not enough to justify punishment. Many cases end like that.

Quote from: "Jason78"And there's the perpetrators in crimes of passion, who don't even stop to think.

They pay the price (for example, honor killings in India).

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"1. It is simple, Shiranu - whatever punishment the society (in a democracy, people's representatives as in India) decide.
2. Self-defence - a completely different matter. White/black/yellow/red/brown does not matter.
3. Opinions differ.
4. The judiciary and not the government. It always has the right to say that the evidence is not enough to justify punishment. Many cases end like that.

Much like aitm, you're putting the "ought" before the "is." (Though at least he'll tell you that's the point of his argument.) Yes, the law ought to be full of open-and-shut cases like your list suggests. But the fact is, as I demonstrated earlier, that too many mistakes are made for capital punishment to be entrusted to the government. Your second point is all too indicative of this fact: prejudice plays a massive role in how justice is handed out; and if you think your own country's justice system is free of prejudice, you're deluding yourself.

Also, your argument of "the judiciary, not the government" is stupid. The judiciary is not separate from the government.

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"

Quote from: "Jason78"And there's the perpetrators in crimes of passion, who don't even stop to think.

They pay the price (for example, honor killings in India).

Honour killings are an example of a premeditated crime.  Try again.

Quote from: "aitm"My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

I'm astounded that you would let a guilty person off with such a light sentence.

Quote from: "Jason78"

Quote from: "aitm"My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

I'm astounded that you would let a guilty person off with such a light sentence.

Only because I know my ideas would never make it past the courts...but I would never actually execute anyone, but they sure as hell would wish I did.

Quote from: "aitm"

Quote from: "Jason78"

Quote from: "aitm"My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

I'm astounded that you would let a guilty person off with such a light sentence.

Only because I know my ideas would never make it past the courts...but I would never actually execute anyone, but they sure as hell would wish I did.

But why punish a person with death which is about 30 seconds of discomfort followed by unconsciousness and death, when you can punish them with an extremely long unhappy life of pain and suffering with no hope of things ever getting any better culminating in a long slow lingering death?

Which fate would you fear more?

Quote from: "Plu"

Quote from: "SilentFutility"

Quote from: "Mermaid"I see it as absolutely immoral and unethical as well as inefficient and unjust. And that would be my opinion if there was an absolute guarantee that only guilty parties would be executed.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.

Please explain how if it was guaranteed that only guilty parties were executed, it would be an inefficient system, as opposed to keeping them alive and caring for them out of the taxpayer's pocket?

The cost in determining absolute guilt would most likely be higher than the cost of life long detention. (If it's not, we've reached a point where these kind of things need to be reconsidered; but I hope by then we've also figured out how to cure psychopathy.)

I highly doubt it. Keeping someone in prison is VASTLY expensive. Heating, clothes, entertainment, food, medical equipment, salaries of all the people involved in that, and the salaries of healthcare professionals, salaries and training costs of all prison staff (parole officers, wardens, cleaners, managers etc.) cost of maintaining the grounds and building, cost of building prisons in the first place, cost of prisoner transport, cost of facitilies for visitors..

Those are just a few that I made up as I typed them without stopping.

Also, efficiency is not only defined by cost. I'm asking what is meant by efficient? Most effective way of preventing harm to society? Most eco-friendly? Most cost-effective? It's far too vague a term and has likely just been thrown into the mix to add weight to the argument, hence my asking for an explanation.

Quote from: "Jason78"Which fate would you fear more?

That's actually what I am getting at. Although even I would not be able to torture someone for very long. And it wouldn't really be painful but it would be hopeless. Just a little paralysis, some sensory deprivation and voila, left in a quiet dark brain with only the occasional touch by a caretaker to alert you that someone is even there.. left to think about what you did with no possible chance of ever seeing light, or tasting food or hearing a voice or smelling bacon.... or moving, goddamn I can be evil if I wish.

Quote from: "aitm"Although even I would not be able to torture someone for very long.

It's ok, you can get a trained professional in for that.

Quote from: "aitm"goddamn I can be evil if I wish.

You can do better! :D

Where does this idea of "punishment" come from? When I punish my children for some misdeed, it is an educational event, to correct a behavior. How does killing someone do that, or is it merely revenge you are after? If so, why?

Quote from: "aitm"That's actually what I am getting at. Although even I would not be able to torture someone for very long. And it wouldn't really be painful but it would be hopeless. Just a little paralysis, some sensory deprivation and voila, left in a quiet dark brain with only the occasional touch by a caretaker to alert you that someone is even there.. left to think about what you did with no possible chance of ever seeing light, or tasting food or hearing a voice or smelling bacon.... or moving, goddamn I can be evil if I wish.

(//http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130725211227/villains/images/b/b4/Roose_tvseries.jpg)

That's cute.

Quote from: "Hydra009"

Quote from: "aitm"That's actually what I am getting at. Although even I would not be able to torture someone for very long. And it wouldn't really be painful but it would be hopeless. Just a little paralysis, some sensory deprivation and voila, left in a quiet dark brain with only the occasional touch by a caretaker to alert you that someone is even there.. left to think about what you did with no possible chance of ever seeing light, or tasting food or hearing a voice or smelling bacon.... or moving, goddamn I can be evil if I wish.

[ Image (//http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130725211227/villains/images/b/b4/Roose_tvseries.jpg) ]

That's cute.

Hey, Newtons 3rd.

Quote from: "Jmpty"Where does this idea of "punishment" come from? When I punish my children for some misdeed, it is an educational event, to correct a behavior. How does killing someone do that, or is it merely revenge you are after? If so, why?

Internment for life and banishment; these may be mistakenly called punishment, actually we are trying to stop heinous criminals and serial offenders to continue with their designs to safeguard other members of the society. Death punishment for those whose acts were totally unacceptable to the society (in India, 'rarest of rare' - which I think is fair enough).

QuoteI highly doubt it.

All the research shows that executions are more expensive than life in prison due to the amount of trials and research involved.

//http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Or check some random other links:

//https://www.google.nl/search?q=execution+more+expensive+than+life+in+prison&oq=execution+more+expensive&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l4.3014j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

All of them say the same thing.

Quote from: "Jmpty"Where does this idea of "punishment" come from? When I punish my children for some misdeed, it is an educational event, to correct a behavior. How does killing someone do that, or is it merely revenge you are after? If so, why?

In my opinion there are those who need help or re-education and can re-integrate into society, so keeping them in a properly-managed prison environment might be beneficial if enough effort and funding is put into rehabilitating people and helping them.

There are also those who will never re-integrate into society, and who have done terrible things to their fellow human beings, who will never be released back into society. However, after incurring the huge losses to society that they have caused, the rest of society then has to spend vast amounts of money that could be spent those less fortunate on keeping these people clothed, fed, supervised and healthy for the rest of their lives. That is hugely wasteful and not good for wider society. For me it is not about vengeance, it is about doing what is in the interest of society. That money could pobably keep 2-3 homeless people clothed, fed and homed to a similar standard of living, given that they wouldn't need the same level of supervision etc. Yet we have many starving people who have endured great tragedy and suffering in their lives recieving little to no state spending while those who seek to tear the fabric of society into shreds leech from the very society they have attacked. This is clearly not an ideal solution.

Quote from: "Plu"All of them say the same thing.

Perhaps because all of them are written by people having same type of views.

QuoteThat money could pobably keep 2-3 homeless people clothed, fed and homed to a similar standard of living, given that they wouldn't need the same level of supervision etc. Yet we have many starving people who have endured great tragedy and suffering in their lives recieving little to no state spending while those who seek to tear the fabric of society into shreds leech from the very society they have attacked. This is clearly not an ideal solution.

What is, then? Killing them without trial to make sure they are without a doubt guilty? Because of that process, killing a death row inmate is more expensive than housing him for the rest of his life.

It's not the vengeance that is expensive, it's the making sure you are killing the right person that hurts your wallet book, and I very well like it that way. If you think killing people should be cheap you might want to recheck your priorities.

QuotePerhaps because all of them are written by people having same type of views.

That executing people is not economically sound because it costs more? Yeah, the evidence probably would make them think that way.

I guess all scientists agree on evolution as well because they all just think the same as well...

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"

Quote from: "Plu"All of them say the same thing.

Perhaps because all of them are written by people having same type of views.

If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to bring it up. Just, as Shiranu says, make sure it's comparing a system where they actually make sure they have the right guy (or gal).
Lynch mobs might be cheaper than life in prison, but they're not exactly reliable.

Lynch mobs are remarkably efficient.

Innocent man burned to death by vigilante gang (//http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/28/innocent-man-burned-to-death-by-vigilante-gang-who-believed-he-was-a-paedophile-4164644/)

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"

Quote from: "Plu"All of them say the same thing.

Perhaps because all of them are written by people having same type of views.

No, it's actually factually true that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment, at least in the US.  This is because of the costs involved in capital punishment trial (which is more expensive than non-capital punishment trials) and the lengthy appeals process.

Like Plu said, look it up.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... tates#Cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate_in_the_United_States#Cost)

Quote from: "Hydra009"No, it's actually factually true that life imprisonment is more expensive than the death penalty, at least in the US.

You have this backwards, but the data isn't all that clear for all states.

This quote sums up why executions often cost more than life in prison:

"What we are paying for at such great cost is essentially our own ambivalence about capital punishment. We try to maintain the apparatus of state killing and another apparatus that almost guarantees that it won't happen. The public pays for both sides." -Frank Zimring.

Quote from: "aileron"

Quote from: "Hydra009"No, it's actually factually true that life imprisonment is more expensive than the death penalty, at least in the US.

You have this backwards, but the data isn't all that clear for all states.

Yeah, I noticed the mistake shortly after and edited it.

Quote from: "Hydra009"

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"

Quote from: "Plu"All of them say the same thing.

Perhaps because all of them are written by people having same type of views.

No, it's actually factually true that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment, at least in the US.  This is because of the costs involved in capital punishment trial (which is more expensive than non-capital punishment trials) and the lengthy appeals process.

Like Plu said, look it up.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... tates#Cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate_in_the_United_States#Cost)

Yes but keeping someone in inhumane and degrading conditions for decades on death row is an extremely bad system, and as I understand it the number of people who are actually executed vs. the number who are kept like this until they die is very small.
I would hardly say the US prison system is good by any metric really. Because one, awfully carried-out way of doing something isn't working properly doesn't mean it cannot work.

Also, that article compares the costs of the trials. It doesn't seem to compare the costs of life imprisonment to execution directly, and another thing to note is that keeping someone on death row for decades is imprisoning them.

Quote

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteThat money could pobably keep 2-3 homeless people clothed, fed and homed to a similar standard of living, given that they wouldn't need the same level of supervision etc. Yet we have many starving people who have endured great tragedy and suffering in their lives recieving little to no state spending while those who seek to tear the fabric of society into shreds leech from the very society they have attacked. This is clearly not an ideal solution.

What is, then? Killing them without trial to make sure they are without a doubt guilty? Because of that process, killing a death row inmate is more expensive than housing him for the rest of his life.

It's not the vengeance that is expensive, it's the making sure you are killing the right person that hurts your wallet book, and I very well like it that way. If you think killing people should be cheap you might want to recheck your priorities.

"Capital punishment provides a cost benefit in some cases" =/= "killing everyone is cheap".

What of the cases that are extremely clear-cut? Those where the perpetrator has admitted guilt? Those who have committed huge mass murders or cut people down in broad daylight in front of dozens of onlookers, on camera?

Is it expensive to figure out who the perpetrator of those crimes is?

Also, if you think someone has killed someone but you are not 100% sure, you STILL have a massively expensive trial even if the potential punishment is a lengthy custodial sentence, you don't just go "hmm this is a tricky case let's not spend any money on a trial and let him walk free", do you?

Of course accusing me of thinking "killing should be cheap" and having messed up priorities is also very constructive... not that I actually even vaguely hinted at that or anything. I love how pointing out that the state probably spends far more per murderer than it does per homeless person or other vulnerable person, or victims of violent crimes etc. and that maybe this is an issue that needs addressing ellicits this response rather than an explanation of why it isn't an issue or what a better solution would be.

Quote from: "SilentFutility"Yes but keeping someone in inhumane and degrading conditions for decades on death row is an extremely bad system, and as I understand it the number of people who are actually executed vs. the number who are kept like this until they die is very small.

Correct.

QuoteI would hardly say the US prison system is good by any metric really. Because one, awfully carried-out way of doing something isn't working properly doesn't mean it cannot work.

Of course it isn't good.  That's something just about everyone agrees on.  We're on-again-off-again with the death penalty.  And it's applied very unevenly, with some states (namely Texas) executing people like crazy and other states rarely or never executing people.

(//http://lawmagazine.richmond.edu/Summer_13/features/images/charts1.gif)

And it's even more unbalanced in the rest of the world:

(//http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DeathPenaltyExecutionsMap.jpg)

(explanation:  country sizes are distorted based on number of executions - skinny countries rarely/never execute, fat countries often execute)

QuoteAlso, that article compares the costs of the trials. It doesn't seem to compare the costs of life imprisonment to execution directly, and another thing to note is that keeping someone on death row for decades is imprisoning them.

Well, yeah.  But the appeals process is part of the cost of applying the death penalty so naturally, that's going to be included (as is imprisonment during the appeals process).  I suppose you could fudge the numbers by comparing only the cost of the execution to the cost of life imprisonment, but would that paint an accurate picture?

QuoteWhat of the cases that are extremely clear-cut? Those where the perpetrator has admitted guilt? Those who have committed huge mass murders or cut people down in broad daylight in front of dozens of onlookers, on camera?

Is it expensive to figure out who the perpetrator of those crimes is?

And what of them?  What should the procedure be in such cases?  How does one differentiate "clear-cut" cases from cases that aren't so clear cut?

QuoteWhat of the cases that are extremely clear-cut? Those where the perpetrator has admitted guilt? Those who have committed huge mass murders or cut people down in broad daylight in front of dozens of onlookers, on camera?

In the rare cases where these people are taken alive, they are valuable research subjects and should be treated as such.

QuoteWhat of the cases that are extremely clear-cut? Those where the perpetrator has admitted guilt? Those who have committed huge mass murders or cut people down in broad daylight in front of dozens of onlookers, on camera?

I don't think admission of guilt should qualify, no.

As for people who have done mass murderers, such as Hitler, Stalin or whatnot, then I think an argument can be made. That is an extremely rare occurrence though, and mass murderers generally exist outside or above the law.

Eye witness accounts are not held with much weight in court, so I don't think that should be a useful tool for determining someone's guilt.

Cameras are more reliable, so it would really depend on circumstance for that.

QuoteIs it expensive to figure out who the perpetrator of those crimes is?

I would assume so, besides mass murderers who are, again, generally above the law.

QuoteAlso, if you think someone has killed someone but you are not 100% sure, you STILL have a massively expensive trial even if the potential punishment is a lengthy custodial sentence, you don't just go "hmm this is a tricky case let's not spend any money on a trial and let him walk free", do you?

But not statistically as expensive as death trials because you have less appeals and trials.

QuoteOf course accusing me of thinking "killing should be cheap" and having messed up priorities is also very constructive... not that I actually even vaguely hinted at that or anything.

You argued that the money could be better spent on helping the needy, therefor you are arguing that the cost of killing a death row inmate should be cheaper. You didn't hint, you outright said it.

QuoteI love how pointing out that the state probably spends far more per murderer than it does per homeless person or other vulnerable person, or victims of violent crimes etc. and that maybe this is an issue that needs addressing...

Again, implying that the cost of death penalties is too high. To me it's not nearly high enough.

Quote(explanation: country sizes are distorted based on number of executions - skinny countries rarely/never execute, fat countries often execute)

Gee, I sure wish we handled our law more like the Middle East and China (said no civilized country besides the U.S. ever...).

Quote from: "Hydra009"

QuoteAlso, that article compares the costs of the trials. It doesn't seem to compare the costs of life imprisonment to execution directly, and another thing to note is that keeping someone on death row for decades is imprisoning them.

Well, yeah.  But the appeals process is part of the cost of applying the death penalty so naturally, that's going to be included (as is imprisonment during the appeals process).  I suppose you could fudge the numbers by comparing only the cost of the execution to the cost of life imprisonment, but would that paint an accurate picture?

QuoteWhat of the cases that are extremely clear-cut? Those where the perpetrator has admitted guilt? Those who have committed huge mass murders or cut people down in broad daylight in front of dozens of onlookers, on camera?

Is it expensive to figure out who the perpetrator of those crimes is?

And what of them?  What should the procedure be in such cases?  How does one differentiate "clear-cut" cases from cases that aren't so clear cut?

Of course you could include a trial for the death penalty's extra expense over a trial for life imprisonment in the cost of execution.
I'm simply pointing out that comparing only the costs of both trials and then saying that one is overall more expensive than the other is clearly not painting an accurate picture at all. I don't want to fudge the numbers.


I'm not sure, however certain cases certainly spring to mind. I don't have a perfect system that incorporates capital punishment all worked out, I'm trying to argue that it is worth giving some serious thought. Clearly most of the examples of such systems today are pretty badly implemented, but that doesn't mean that the idea should be automatically written-off as a result.

Quote from: "Shiranu"But not statistically as expensive as death trials because you have less appeals and trials.

The trial isn't the entire cost of imprisoning someone, nor is it the entire cost of executing someone.

Quote from: "Shiranu"You argued that the money could be better spent on helping the needy, therefor you are arguing that the cost of killing a death row inmate should be cheaper. You didn't hint, you outright said it.

I pointed out a way in which society is operating which is far from ideal: we are spending vast amounts of money on people who in some cases will never re-integrate into society and will only harm others if given the chance. I then suggested that capital punishment was a posible solution to this. If you have a better solution, or a reason why capital punishment is not a good solution, then I'd like to hear it. Problems don't get solved if everyone ignores them. They also don't get solved if people appeal to emotion rather than actually debating something.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteI love how pointing out that the state probably spends far more per murderer than it does per homeless person or other vulnerable person, or victims of violent crimes etc. and that maybe this is an issue that needs addressing...

Again, implying that the cost of death penalties is too high. To me it's not nearly high enough.

No, implying that the cost of keeping someone in prison for life with no gain to society whatsoever other than keeping them out of it is too high. That is literally my entire point.

All I've said about the massive costs of the death penalty in the US is that obviously keeping someone in harsh, degrading and inhumane conditions for decades on end while they slowly rot and go insane is neither the right way to go about it nor does it save money nor help society, so it is pointless to do it that way.

I'm willing to consider capital punishment as a solution with an open mind, that's not the same thing as "I want killing to be cheap". I want western societies to curb the VAST amounts they are spending on those who do not deserve it, and spend those savings on those who deserve and need it. This is clearly not ideal, do you have any solutions or better ways of doing things to propose?