Atheistforums.com

This is a controversial debate to say the least.  I think people that take other's lives should be removed this world.  DDespicable acts deserve harsh punishment.

QuoteI think people that take other's lives should be removed this world.

I see an infinite cycle here ;) Needs more nuance.

That said; I'm in the favor of a death penalty under certain conditions. Mostly for people who add nothing to society anyway.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteI think people that take other's lives should be removed this world.

I see an infinite cycle here ;) Needs more nuance.

I see.... maybe I chose porrly written words?

QuoteThat said; I'm in the favor of a death penalty under certain conditions. Mostly for people who add nothing to society anyway.

I agree to a point.  I wouldn't send people that just leech off of society to the gas chamber, I would however keep them from leeching so they either start to add to society or take themselves off the planet.

The problem with not letting them leech is that they'll probably respond by resorting to crime. If it weren't for that, I'd be all for it.

Quote from: "Plu"The problem with not letting them leech is that they'll probably respond by resorting to crime. If it weren't for that, I'd be all for it.

Depends on how you handle it.  Lock them in a prison where they can do things to help society and then let them out. If they refuse, don't.  Give them some land to farm and some animals to slaughter so they can get their own food.  The issue will work itself out eventually.

There is no reason for the death penalty except to exact revenge....so no reason at all.

Even for those who rape and murder, they would be more use alive (in prison) to study the reasons why they did what they did, the general psychology of sociopaths or whatever is wrong with said individual, etc, than to kill them.

Killing lowers the entirety of the society that allows it.  It means we let the whole biblical/emotional eye for an eye thing rule, instead of reason or logic.

It costs less to keep a prisoner for life than to kill them.  Even if we reformed the system so this was no longer true, they would still be of more use to science and society alive than dead.  You get them all dead eventually, anyway, for studying the corpse/brain.

I'd consider scientific study to be an acceptable alternative, but most people are more squeemish about human test subjects than they are at just executing them for some reason.

Quote from: "Aroura33"There is no reason for the death penalty except to exact revenge....so no reason at all.

Even for those who rape and murder, they would be more use alive (in prison) to study the reasons why they did what they did, the general psychology of sociopaths or whatever is wrong with said individual, etc, than to kill them.

Acceptable, but I would use a handful of cases vs all the ones that are out there.

QuoteIt costs less to keep a prisoner for life than to kill them.  Even if we reformed the system so this was no longer true, they would still be of more use to science and society alive than dead.  You get them all dead eventually, anyway, for studying the corpse/brain.

Maybe using the current system, but bullets are cheap.

Also, there's a few people here who see the death penalty as a revenge. I see it more as a form of waste disposal tbh. It's just a way of keeping society a bit safer. Life in prison does about the same, except there's a chance they'll escape.
(And they suffer longer, but that's a different discussion I suppose)

Not because we cant point the obvious. Hitler and Mussolini deserved it. But, when it comes to the everyday accused we are not talking about people with money to defend themselves. In the west the state has much more resources to accuse than an average defendant has to defend themselves with.

There is more than ample evidence that the death penalty is a bad idea.

Can't see how the death penalty can be justified, I'm against it.

If it was a deterrent, then countries that have it would have the lowest crime rates in the world (owing to the fact that its the 'ultimate' punishment). I don't see the figures reflecting that.

Quote from: "Alaric I"This is a controversial debate to say the least.  I think people that take other's lives should be removed this world.  DDespicable acts deserve harsh punishment.

Sounds nice on paper, but you do know that plenty of people in history ARE falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit.

I more agree with psychological testing in the case of serial killers and mass murderers, but some, and I'd wager to guess most, people who commit violent crimes are just POS assholes that don't give a fuck about other people or the consequences of their actions. They aren't worth much of anything, and the end of their continued existence doesn't bother me at all. Quite frankly, life without the possibility of parole seems a much more brutal punishment to me.

My son's mom works in child mental health and even in the field, quite a large portion of her clients are simply assholes and don't have any real psychological disorders, though a few of the ones that do are real doozies.

QuoteIt costs less to keep a prisoner for life than to kill them.

That is such a misleading statistic even if were definitively true, which doesn't seem to be without some controversy. The reason is because of the legal costs of capital cases and life without parole cases are still quite expensive.

All that being said, I just don't care that much about death penalty debate anymore. Doesn't really bother me seeing worthless dangerous assholes permanently removed from existence, but I wouldn't fight against if death penalty was abolished.

If we demand the elimination of firearms to save the life of people, why not off the few who have proven no objections to murdering? Murders have escaped and killed again, murders have been accidently released and killed again. Cost aside, ( and I agree it should be much cheaper) my issue with the DP is that the criteria to deserve it must be more stringent. Certain objections MUST be qualified in order to merit the DP. There must be absolute certainty. Then off away.

Quote from: "aitm"If we demand the elimination of firearms to save the life of people, why not off the few who have proven no objections to murdering? Murders have escaped and killed again, murders have been accidently released and killed again. Cost aside, ( and I agree it should be much cheaper) my issue with the DP is that the criteria to deserve it must be more stringent. Certain objections MUST be qualified in order to merit the DP. There must be absolute certainty. Then off away.

I agree that the qualifications should be more stringent. Something like TX law that if three people see you commit the murder you go to the front of the line.  If at least three people see you than you get a bullet to the brain, if not and you are convicted and all appeals are exhausted than you get offed (I say that because if the innocent people are found guilty, chances of them being found innocent in this day and age are rare, why make them suffer?). I do also a gree with some others that I wouldn't fight to keep it if it were to be abolished.

Quote from: "stromboli"There is more than ample evidence that the death penalty is a bad idea.

It is simply stupid as an idea. All one has to do to know that is to consider what it is like to be falsely accused, not of murder, but anything.

I went to a private school before high school. It was on a high hill with a playground with a sheer drop to the street/sidewalk. It had a concrete wall and railing preventing anyone atop the hill from falling onto the sidewalk/street.

So one day we had a "play day", where the entire school was rewarded for good grades. I was standing by myself next to that rail and actually saw what happened. A car passed on the street below me and kicked up a rock on the street which dinged and made noise on the passenger's side door which the driver heard but did not see. He pulled into the parking lot and accused someone of throwing the rock. Like a dip shit I went up to the principle and told the truth that no one threw the rock. The principle took us all inside and refused to let us out until "someone" meaning me, confessed.

Far too much of media is based on convicting on nature of the charge and not on facts.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Well killing someone who commited that kind of a crime, slowly and painfully is my first emotional response, but it doesn't mean anything than revenge.

What exactly would you call leaving someone in a tiny, uncomfortable concrete and iron room for 40 years with no hope of release until they die from some disease? Sounds kinda like killing them slowly and painfully.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Well killing someone who commited that kind of a crime, slowly and painfully is my first emotional response, but it doesn't mean anything than revenge.

What exactly would you call leaving someone in a tiny, uncomfortable concrete and iron room for 40 years until they die from some disease. Sounds kinda like killing them slowly and painfully.

Yes you have a point. But I also defined that statement as an emotional one and I didn't say I supported extreme isolation in a tiny place. Then in most countries someone who commited a crime of the sort would be killed by inmates in a week if not seperated. (Mostly what happens here in my country.) May be they should be kept somewhere special. I bet it would cost less than executing people in the long run.

So, I honestly don't know BATM. But giving a LAWFUL decision in name of 'justice' for killing someone, killing by the hand of state while people watching it, all that process is some sort of a religious RITUAL for revenge. Don't you think? It's not the same thing as putting someone in jail for 2 life times. Something is seriously wrong with it as an action and it doesn't help anything. That's what I think.

I don't know. I see it like Plu that it's basically pest control. The simple elimination of someone who is incapable of peacefully living in society without hurting other people, not anything ritualistic. When it's completely eliminated, you end up with universally reviled, horrible people like Charles Manson still alive in prison, an endless reminder to all the family members of his group's victims every time his parole hearing comes up. I don't have a problem with it being kept for the worst of the worst, but there's the occasional monster that just doesn't need to be kept around beyond a few years of study.

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"I don't know. I see it like Plu that it's basically pest control. The simple elimination of someone who is incapable of peacefully living in society without hurting other people, not anything ritualistic. When it's completely eliminated, you end up with universally reviled, horrible people like Charles Manson still alive in prison, an endless reminder to all the family members of his group's victims every time his parole hearing comes up. I don't have a problem with it being kept for the worst of the worst, but there's the occasional monster that just doesn't need to be kept around beyond a few years of study.

I honestly think it's a pretty good deterrant.  Can you imagine how things would be if there was no real punishment for murder?  "Oh you killed someone? Well that's not nice." *Swat*.  Shit, the thing that got me the most worried as s kid is when we cussed and had to eat kitchenspoon full of tabasco sauce, swat's didn't mean shit.

What if you're wrong?

If it's 1 in a 100, maybe that's a reasonable ratio of sacrificing innocent people. I'm not so sure. But it's currently a lot more than 1 in 100.

I vote no. An eye for an eye is not part of my credo.

It might be interesting to offer convicted murderers and rapists the option of exile.

Quote from: "Jmpty"I vote no. An eye for an eye is not part of my credo.

It still is if you beleive on taking away their freedom.  Life is more than the ability to breath.

The fact that so many innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit is reason enough to abolish capital punishment.

Quote from: "Valigarmander"The fact that so many innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit is reason enough to abolish capital punishment.

So let me ask you this, because so many innocent people have been imprisoned for life, should we abolish life sentences?  Capitol punishment has it's issues but really, how do we pick and choose when and where to abolish things so innocents don't get caught up in it?

There is a big difference between the death penalty in theory and how it is enacted in fact in America.
As mentioned, we have obviously executed innocent people. While we also imprison innocent people, at least once that is recognized the person can be released.
 It also (seems, at least) to be applied unequally on racial grounds. Of course, the same thing could be said about prison terms, but I don't see how the existence of one injustice should be an acceptable excuse for the existence of another.
The death penalty is also quite costly.
The death penalty, in theory, for some specific criminals, ok. The death penalty as it exists in practice in America, no.

My own feelings about the issue:

1) if you murder a child in the process of molesting or abusing them, you're scum and lose the right to breathe.

2) if you commit murder-for-hire ( or commission it), you're scum and lose the right to breathe.

All other capital offenses should be remanded to a life sentence on some island in our possession, where the convicts are supplied with seed, farming tools, and issues of clothing and shoes.  The waters off the island should be used to train Coast Guard units in local search & destroy tactics.  Root, hog, or die, and don't expect much but the most basic assistance from your jailers.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Valigarmander"The fact that so many innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit is reason enough to abolish capital punishment.

So let me ask you this, because so many innocent people have been imprisoned for life, should we abolish life sentences?  Capitol punishment has it's issues but really, how do we pick and choose when and where to abolish things so innocents don't get caught up in it?

It's a lot easier to release a wrongly-convicted convict with a payment for the wrong done to him than it is to dig up his bones and reanimate him.  The death penalty should be used much more sparingly than we use it now, especially since we have so many problems with putting the right prisoner on Death Row.

Quote from: "Poison Tree"There is a big difference between the death penalty in theory and how it is enacted in fact in America.
As mentioned, we have obviously executed innocent people. While we also imprison innocent people, at least once that is recognized the person can be released.

Issue is that if they are handed a life sentence they normally don't find out until after they have died, either by way of being imprisoned too long or by suicide. I really see no difference as you are still taking someones life away.  The difference is that the death penalty at least keeps them from suffering for a lifetime.
 

QuoteIt also (seems, at least) to be applied unequally on racial grounds. Of course, the same thing could be said about prison terms, but I don't see how the existence of one injustice should be an acceptable excuse for the existence of another.
The death penalty is also quite costly.
The death penalty, in theory, for some specific criminals, ok. The death penalty as it exists in practice in America, no.

I can't find anything in this part of the statement to disagree with.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Jmpty"I vote no. An eye for an eye is not part of my credo.

It still is if you beleive on taking away their freedom.  Life is more than the ability to breath.

I think the abilty to breathe is kind of important, as far as defining what being alive means. Keeping people who have demonstrated that they are unable to live by society's rules separated from everyone else is the goal. To what degree, and for how long is dependent on the crime they commit. People are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. Killing someone for a crime reduces us to the same level as the criminal. That's why we don't torture people, ( in theory) or why law enforcement has a code of conduct. We don't want to degenerate, as a society, into this biblical idea of "justice."

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Jmpty"I vote no. An eye for an eye is not part of my credo.

It still is if you beleive on taking away their freedom.  Life is more than the ability to breath.

I think the abilty to breathe is kind of important, as far as defining what being alive means. Keeping people who have demonstrated that they are unable to live by society's rules separated from everyone else is the goal. To what degree, and for how long is dependent on the crime they commit. People are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. Killing someone for a crime reduces us to the same level as the criminal. That's why we don't torture people, ( in theory) or why law enforcement has a code of conduct. We don't want to degenerate, as a society, into this biblical idea of "justice."

I think you need to re-examine what life is than.  Breathing is quite important, but what's worse really?  Getting stuck in a small cell for 23 hours a day and having no contact with other people or slowly slipping into darkness?  I myself not really liking people would at least like to converse and get my thoughts out out there.  If I did something to have to stay in a tiny cell the rest of my life I would request the death penalty in order to avoid that.

an unusual perspective may be from those who are actually given the life in a cell sentence and while I am not aware of a book or article I am sure that I would say " I want life" as opposed to a death sentence, but if the sentence was complete solitude as it should be, after a half dozen years alone I may very well ask for the more immediate end.

Quote from: "aitm"an unusual perspective may be from those who are actually given the life in a cell sentence and while I am not aware of a book or article I am sure that I would say " I want life" as opposed to a death sentence, but if the sentence was complete solitude as it should be, after a half dozen years alone I may very well ask for the more immediate end.

Just listening to people talk about their experience in prison general population is enough for me to want to say screw living in there, I'll hang myself if need be.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

QuoteIt also (seems, at least) to be applied unequally on racial grounds. Of course, the same thing could be said about prison terms, but I don't see how the existence of one injustice should be an acceptable excuse for the existence of another.
The death penalty is also quite costly.
The death penalty, in theory, for some specific criminals, ok. The death penalty as it exists in practice in America, no.

I can't find anything in this part of the statement to disagree with.

Agreed as well.

1. I would rather have murderers and rapists spend the rest of their life in prison.  Death is the easy way out.  You wanna teach someone a lesson, you make them Bubba's girlfriend.  I'm not opposed to the death penalty exactly, but I'm kind of vindictive in the 'I want you to suffer' way, not the 'I want you to die' way.
2. We've killed innocents on death row.  You can't do anything at all to even try and fix that.  Death is final.  We can't be using shoddy evidence to put innocent people on the needle table.
3. The death penalty is more expensive than a life sentence right now.  Extra security, legal costs, etc build up.

the thing is the death penalty is made to be a grand production specifically for show. If it was done as a business, the guilty would be given a pill at some time and wake up dead.....cost .12

Quote from: "aitm"the thing is the death penalty is made to be a grand production specifically for show. If it was done as a business, the guilty would be given a pill at some time and wake up dead.....cost .12

How you gonna wake up dead?!?!
[youtube:rf9rhlv1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf8FAqOQUq4[/youtube:rf9rhlv1]

I am not going in anyway to suggest..........however....."wake up dead" has been a line of mine for over 30 years.....I know its silly but it would be cool if I started it....yeah I know. fat chance.

Quote from: "aitm"I am not going in anyway to suggest..........however....."wake up dead" has been a line of mine for over 30 years.....I know its silly but it would be cool if I started it....yeah I know. fat chance.

Fuckin' A.

[youtube:3118dsfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-60HA3exyo[/youtube:3118dsfr]

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Valigarmander"The fact that so many innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit is reason enough to abolish capital punishment.

So let me ask you this, because so many innocent people have been imprisoned for life, should we abolish life sentences?  Capitol punishment has it's issues but really, how do we pick and choose when and where to abolish things so innocents don't get caught up in it?

It's a lot easier to release a wrongly-convicted convict with a payment for the wrong done to him than it is to dig up his bones and reanimate him.  The death penalty should be used much more sparingly than we use it now, especially since we have so many problems with putting the right prisoner on Death Row.

As I stated before.  Most of the inmates that are convicted and served life sentences will die in prison.  This includes the wrongly convicted.  The problem there is once someone is convicted they shut the case never to look at it again.  My thinking behind this is I would rather catch a bullet to the brain than rot in a cell for the rest of my life.  Life is much more than mere breathing, and you can't say you are living stuck in a tiny cell with a toilet, a sink, a bed, and possibly a TV.

Quote from: "Mister Agenda"If it's 1 in a 100, maybe that's a reasonable ratio of sacrificing innocent people. I'm not so sure. But it's currently a lot more than 1 in 100.

what if you are that one person? People get pretty flippant when it comes to what is acceptable when innocent life is concerned. I wonder if i was wrongly accused of murder and the steps I'd want to make sure the truth is found out.

as for the death penalty, it does nothing, it's not a deterrent, solution, cost saver, nothing. It's revenge executed at a state level.

Quote from: "Alaric I"As I stated before.  Most of the inmates that are convicted and served life sentences will die in prison.  This includes the wrongly convicted.  The problem there is once someone is convicted they shut the case never to look at it again.  My thinking behind this is I would rather catch a bullet to the brain than rot in a cell for the rest of my life.  Life is much more than mere breathing, and you can't say you are living stuck in a tiny cell with a toilet, a sink, a bed, and possibly a TV.

That may be true for you, but I am willing to bet the majority of people prefer hope to wrongful death. There have been people who were wrongfully convicted, and years, even decades later, discovered and released.

If you get locked up wrongfully, feel free to kill yourself, don't put that onus on the state or other human beings.

Quotef you get locked up wrongfully, feel free to kill yourself

It's not like they'll let you, which is quite riduculous, but you can try.

Quote from: "surly74"as for the death penalty, it does nothing, it's not a deterrent, solution, cost saver, nothing. It's revenge executed at a state level.

How is life without parole any different?

Quote from: "surly74"as for the death penalty, it does nothing, it's not a deterrent, solution, cost saver, nothing. It's revenge executed at a state level.

I call bull.  If we didn't have these types of punishments then there would be ramapant killing.  Hell, I'd be able to go to Hollywwod and own the Playboy Mansion.

It's actually been proven that introducing the death penalty over life in prison increases the amount of violent crime, because people become more willing to kill others to escape the law or avoid leaving witnesses if they know they'll get killed if caught.

Once someone realises they're going to get the death penalty, they will stop at nothing to avoid being caught. That's the danger of introducing it, and why many countries no longer issue it.

Quote from: "Plu"It's actually been proven that introducing the death penalty over life in prison increases the amount of violent crime, because people become more willing to kill others to escape the law or avoid leaving witnesses if they know they'll get killed if caught.

Once someone realises they're going to get the death penalty, they will stop at nothing to avoid being caught. That's the danger of introducing it, and why many countries no longer issue it.

Proof?

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Plu"It's actually been proven that introducing the death penalty over life in prison increases the amount of violent crime, because people become more willing to kill others to escape the law or avoid leaving witnesses if they know they'll get killed if caught.

Once someone realises they're going to get the death penalty, they will stop at nothing to avoid being caught. That's the danger of introducing it, and why many countries no longer issue it.

Proof?

Something tells me it's going to be real difficult proving a direct correlation there.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre ... thvwithout (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout)

Granted, there is a lot of controversy on the issue so it's probably worth reading around a bit. The whole website has a lot of info on the death penalty (duh, given the name)

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "surly74"as for the death penalty, it does nothing, it's not a deterrent, solution, cost saver, nothing. It's revenge executed at a state level.

I call bull.  If we didn't have these types of punishments then there would be ramapant killing.  Hell, I'd be able to go to Hollywwod and own the Playboy Mansion.

call bull on what?

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"

Quote from: "surly74"as for the death penalty, it does nothing, it's not a deterrent, solution, cost saver, nothing. It's revenge executed at a state level.

How is life without parole any different?

Are any of the things i listed justification for life without parole?

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "surly74"as for the death penalty, it does nothing, it's not a deterrent, solution, cost saver, nothing. It's revenge executed at a state level.

I call bull.  If we didn't have these types of punishments then there would be ramapant killing.  Hell, I'd be able to go to Hollywwod and own the Playboy Mansion.

Proof?

Quote from: "Plu"http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Granted, there is a lot of controversy on the issue so it's probably worth reading around a bit. The whole website has a lot of info on the death penalty (duh, given the name)

Ya dude, that is biased.  Despite claiming they have no stance on the death penalty, a quick look around shows they are anti-death penalty.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "surly74"as for the death penalty, it does nothing, it's not a deterrent, solution, cost saver, nothing. It's revenge executed at a state level.

I call bull.  If we didn't have these types of punishments then there would be ramapant killing.  Hell, I'd be able to go to Hollywwod and own the Playboy Mansion.

Proof?

i thought of asking that question but then figured the proof was he hasn't gone on a killing spree yet.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Plu"http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Granted, there is a lot of controversy on the issue so it's probably worth reading around a bit. The whole website has a lot of info on the death penalty (duh, given the name)

Ya dude, that is biased.  Despite claiming they have no stance on the death penalty, a quick look around shows they are anti-death penalty.

so how are the numbers wrong?

[youtube:11pk06sy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wntitiiLotk[/youtube:11pk06sy]

The philosophy professor in the first half of part two explains pretty well why the death penalty (and really, why NO penalties) deter crimes, except in a very small percentage of a very specific type of crime.

If people want to commit a crime, they will (in most cases) regardless of what, if any, penalty there is if they are caught.  The argument that only punishment is stopping you really is no different than the argument that xtians use that the only thing stopping them (and supposedly, even we atheists) is Gods punishment.  I'm with Penn....It's BULLSHIT.

The entire video is really good, honestly, and brings up a lot of other good points about the death penalty as well.

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Plu"http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Granted, there is a lot of controversy on the issue so it's probably worth reading around a bit. The whole website has a lot of info on the death penalty (duh, given the name)

Ya dude, that is biased.  Despite claiming they have no stance on the death penalty, a quick look around shows they are anti-death penalty.

so how are the numbers wrong?

It has nothing to do with numbers.  You claimed that it's been proven that the death penalty isn't a deterrant and then presented a biased source.  I can take truths and set them up to fit my view point but it's still not truth because I am deliberately fitting it into my own little box.

Quote from: "Alaric I"It has nothing to do with numbers.  You claimed that it's been proven that the death penalty isn't a deterrant and then presented a biased source.  I can take truths and set them up to fit my view point but it's still not truth because I am deliberately fitting it into my own little box.

Just because the site itself is anti-death pentalty does not inherently make their numbers wrong.  The numbers or the studies themselves would have to be bias to dismiss them, not the people who present those numbers.

Quote from: "Alaric I"It has nothing to do with numbers.  You claimed that it's been proven that the death penalty isn't a deterrant and then presented a biased source.  I can take truths and set them up to fit my view point but it's still not truth because I am deliberately fitting it into my own little box.

seriously? you must be a christian with that kind of logic.

kill em all, if they are in prison, most likely they deserve to be shot.....so there.  [-(

Quote from: "Aroura33"Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wntitiiLotk)

The philosophy professor in the first half of part two explains pretty well why the death penalty (and really, why NO penalties) deter crimes, except in a very small percentage of a very specific type of crime.

If people want to commit a crime, they will (in most cases) regardless of what, if any, penalty there is if they are caught.  The argument that only punishment is stopping you really is no different than the argument that xtians use that the only thing stopping them (and supposedly, even we atheists) is Gods punishment.  I'm with Penn....It's BULLSHIT.

The entire video is really good, honestly, and brings up a lot of other good points about the death penalty as well.

Should've just posted part 2.  I'm still not convinced with the numbers presented, but they definitely make some really good arguments against it.

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Alaric I"It has nothing to do with numbers.  You claimed that it's been proven that the death penalty isn't a deterrant and then presented a biased source.  I can take truths and set them up to fit my view point but it's still not truth because I am deliberately fitting it into my own little box.

seriously? you must be a christian with that kind of logic.

Really?  That's where you're going with this?  Wow.

Quote from: "aitm"kill em all, if they are in prison, most likely they deserve to be shot.....so there.  [-(

Not all of them, I'd release the pot smokers.

Quote from: "Plu"http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Granted, there is a lot of controversy on the issue so it's probably worth reading around a bit. The whole website has a lot of info on the death penalty (duh, given the name)

Surprised Maryland is that high, but the bulk of the top half of the death penalty list are states that lead poverty lists and sit at the bottom of education lists. The correlation just might have something to do with other factors than the death penalty. Why else would New Mexico be second overall, yet non death penalty?

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Alaric I"It has nothing to do with numbers.  You claimed that it's been proven that the death penalty isn't a deterrant and then presented a biased source.  I can take truths and set them up to fit my view point but it's still not truth because I am deliberately fitting it into my own little box.

seriously? you must be a christian with that kind of logic.

Really?  That's where you're going with this?  Wow.

pretty much. look, you were presented evidence which you dismissed because it didn't agree with what you wanted it to. You picked on a specific reason that had nothing to do with the actual evidence. You've done nothing that furthers your position, just crap on other evidence. Aroura33 commented on your "bias" bitch as well but you ignored her? maybe you are going to comment on her point how the numbers aren't wrong because of bias. Maybe I am jumping the gun.

You don't have to accept the evidence but don't expect to be taken seriously if the only reason you don't is because it doesn't agree with what you want it to. sound familiar? christians do the exact same thing with regards to evidence. therefore with your logic you must be christian.

your "bias" refute is nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and repeating "na na na I can't hear you."

Quote from: "Aroura33"

Quote from: "Alaric I"It has nothing to do with numbers.  You claimed that it's been proven that the death penalty isn't a deterrant and then presented a biased source.  I can take truths and set them up to fit my view point but it's still not truth because I am deliberately fitting it into my own little box.

Just because the site itself is anti-death pentalty does not inherently make their numbers wrong.  The numbers or the studies themselves would have to be bias to dismiss them, not the people who present those numbers.

Which is hard to determine, but we can assess that the studies were biased based on the source.  They show the same info as Amnesty international which is very biased and has used biased testing.  If I could see the source of where they got the info, I'll take another look; but based on the source I can discount the numbers.

Quote from: "surly74"pretty much. look, you were presented evidence which you dismissed because it didn't agree with what you wanted it to. You picked on a specific reason that had nothing to do with the actual evidence. You've done nothing that furthers your position, just crap on other evidence. Aroura33 commented on your "bias" bitch as well but you ignored her? maybe you are going to comment on her point how the numbers aren't wrong because of bias. Maybe I am jumping the gun.{/quote]

I had not seen her reply, I did see yours.  I will however go back and take another look.

QuoteYou don't have to accept the evidence but don't expect to be taken seriously if the only reason you don't is because it doesn't agree with what you want it to. sound familiar? christians do the exact same thing with regards to evidence. therefore with your logic you must be christian.

your "bias" refute is nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and repeating "na na na I can't hear you."

Based on the source you gave me I sure as hell can discount it.  It has nothing to do with what I want to hear, and I could surmise that you used it only because it supports your position.

Above all, your reply was nothing more than a weak attempt at an attack and it made laugh.

Ummmmm....the source is the FBI

Populations are from the U.S. Census estimates for each year.
 
Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.
 
The murder rate for the region (death penalty states or non-death penalty states) is the total number of murders in the region divided by the total population (and then multiplied by 100,000)

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Jmpty"Proof?

i thought of asking that question but then figured the proof was he hasn't gone on a killing spree yet.

No, the proof is taking a look at human nature and history.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "surly74"pretty much. look, you were presented evidence which you dismissed because it didn't agree with what you wanted it to. You picked on a specific reason that had nothing to do with the actual evidence. You've done nothing that furthers your position, just crap on other evidence. Aroura33 commented on your "bias" bitch as well but you ignored her? maybe you are going to comment on her point how the numbers aren't wrong because of bias. Maybe I am jumping the gun.{/quote]

I had not seen her reply, I did see yours.  I will however go back and take another look.

QuoteYou don't have to accept the evidence but don't expect to be taken seriously if the only reason you don't is because it doesn't agree with what you want it to. sound familiar? christians do the exact same thing with regards to evidence. therefore with your logic you must be christian.

your "bias" refute is nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and repeating "na na na I can't hear you."

Based on the source you gave me I sure as hell can discount it.  It has nothing to do with what I want to hear, and I could surmise that you used it only because it supports your position.

Above all, your reply was nothing more than a weak attempt at an attack and it made laugh.

ok first of all. i didn't send this too you. another poster did.

Secondly...for probably the third time. Ignore the website and look at the raw numbers. that's the point. if you disagree with them then find numbers that refute it. It shouldn't be that hard.

Actually I don't think you know what proof or evidence is, especially when I read "No, the proof is taking a look at human nature and history."

It's very very similar to what a christian does. any other topic and the person would be filleted.

Quote from: "Alaric I"The problem there is once someone is convicted they shut the case never to look at it again.  

The difference is, when the person is dead, no restitution is possible.

Convictions are often overturned based upon new evidence or findings of witness improprieties such as perjured testimony.

These are just DNA exonerations:

(//http://www.innocenceproject.org/Images/Know-Intro/Exonerations_by_Year_thru_2010.gif)
Source: http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/ (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/)

The same source indicates that more than 300 exonerations based on DNA have occurred.  I know, as well, that other, non-DNA exonerations have taken place as well.  Granted, it's not a huge number, but cases are reopened when the evidence indicates a wrongful conviction, in some cases.

Quote from: "Jmpty"Ummmmm....the source is the FBI

Populations are from the U.S. Census estimates for each year.
 
Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.
 
The murder rate for the region (death penalty states or non-death penalty states) is the total number of murders in the region divided by the total population (and then multiplied by 100,000)

I think this needs a bump, so Alaric can see where those numbers came from.  They didn't come from Amnesty international or the earlier linked website, those groups are just using raw numbers provided by the FBI and law enforcement.

Quote from: "Alaric I"Should've just posted part 2.  I'm still not convinced with the numbers presented, but they definitely make some really good arguments against it.

Also, thank you for watching the entire video, I appreciate it.  You noted that they used the same statistics, which are indeed from the FBI.

I think you could make an argument that life in prison is worse than death.

As unpopular as it is...........and without 100% certainty........ liberal as I am........ I am For the death penalty.  Me, of all people, I know- Sounds crazy weird.  But there it is.  And I'd prefer to not type up walls of text of our family's history or deep pain that's happened to me in my life to explain why.  I just believe that the planet would be better off if Some people were not on it.  And No, I don't imagine that it would or should be easy to determine that as fact.

And I find it totally insane that it costs less to carry a prisoner for a life's term than to end the world of their presence?? I've always wondered why one bullet and a good fire couldn't clean the place up a little and at little expense?

feel free to throw tomatoes at me........
It's just how I feel about it.

I have struggled with this for years. I was torn on my thoughts from a young age. I joined the USMC and FINALLY I reached MY answer. Death is final. I ended many many peoples lives. None of them were criminals other than fighting for what they thought was right, but technically not criminals. Every death certificate issue classifies someone executed as MUDERED BY THE STATE!
The death penalty is REVENGE. Nothing more. It doesn't deter crime, it's just revenge.
So for that fact I am against the death penalty!
The only reason I feel is justified for such a penalty is treason. So yes all conservatives should be arrested tried convicted and executed for treason....just kidding.
Treason is justifiable for the death penalty!

I believe Science will one day cure and prevent most criminal activity. So I believe the death penalty is actually giving them a way out of atoning their ways and fixing their faulty brain chemistry. Even Hitler could have been turned around with the right Science which I admit is not available yet but he would have been kept around long enough to repair what he damaged or at least a lot of damage instead of just killing him quickly or without repercussion (like he probably wanted).

So all in all, no, do not believe in the eye for an eye logic unless I am under attack, the only person who should have revenge is the dead person the murderer killed but since that isn't possible we need to use criminals the best we can for research and hopefully repair them so they can do good with the new lease on life they may get.

Quote from: "The Non Prophet"I believe Science will one day cure and prevent most criminal activity. So I believe the death penalty is actually giving them a way out of atoning their ways and fixing their faulty brain chemistry. Even Hitler could have been turned around with the right Science which I admit is not available yet but he would have been kept around long enough to repair what he damaged or at least a lot of damage instead of just killing him quickly or without repercussion (like he probably wanted).

So all in all, no, do not believe in the eye for an eye logic unless I am under attack, the only person who should have revenge is the dead person the murderer killed but since that isn't possible we need to use criminals the best we can for research and hopefully repair them so they can do good with the new lease on life they may get.

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

I don't think that drugging people to ensure legal behavior is any world I want to live in, at all.

Quote from: "WitchSabrina"As unpopular as it is...........and without 100% certainty........ liberal as I am........ I am For the death penalty.  Me, of all people, I know- Sounds crazy weird.  But there it is.  And I'd prefer to not type up walls of text of our family's history or deep pain that's happened to me in my life to explain why.  I just believe that the planet would be better off if Some people were not on it.  And No, I don't imagine that it would or should be easy to determine that as fact.

And I find it totally insane that it costs less to carry a prisoner for a life's term than to end the world of their presence?? I've always wondered why one bullet and a good fire couldn't clean the place up a little and at little expense?

feel free to throw tomatoes at me........
It's just how I feel about it.

I agree with you.  If you're gonna catch tomatoes, I will too, and I haven't so far.

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "The Non Prophet"I believe Science will one day cure and prevent most criminal activity. So I believe the death penalty is actually giving them a way out of atoning their ways and fixing their faulty brain chemistry. Even Hitler could have been turned around with the right Science which I admit is not available yet but he would have been kept around long enough to repair what he damaged or at least a lot of damage instead of just killing him quickly or without repercussion (like he probably wanted).

So all in all, no, do not believe in the eye for an eye logic unless I am under attack, the only person who should have revenge is the dead person the murderer killed but since that isn't possible we need to use criminals the best we can for research and hopefully repair them so they can do good with the new lease on life they may get.

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

Isn't killing a person the ultimate way of altering their brain chemistry so they don't kill again?  

Also, we alter people's "natural" brain chemistry all the time to heal or treat illness or disease.  I mean, ASPIRIN alters your "natural" brain chemistry.  Do you think aspirin is bad? If we view criminal behavior as disease, then it is no different.

Quote from: "Aroura33"

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "The Non Prophet"I believe Science will one day cure and prevent most criminal activity. So I believe the death penalty is actually giving them a way out of atoning their ways and fixing their faulty brain chemistry. Even Hitler could have been turned around with the right Science which I admit is not available yet but he would have been kept around long enough to repair what he damaged or at least a lot of damage instead of just killing him quickly or without repercussion (like he probably wanted).

So all in all, no, do not believe in the eye for an eye logic unless I am under attack, the only person who should have revenge is the dead person the murderer killed but since that isn't possible we need to use criminals the best we can for research and hopefully repair them so they can do good with the new lease on life they may get.

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

Isn't killing a person the ultimate way of altering their brain chemistry so they don't kill again?

Well yes, but I'm not for the death penalty.

Quote from: "Aroura33"Also, we alter people's "natural" brain chemistry all the time to heal or treat illness or disease.  I mean, ASPIRIN alters your "natural" brain chemistry.  Do you think aspirin is bad? If we view criminal behavior as disease, then it is no different.

Here's the difference between Aspirin and the "good behavior pills."  I choose to take Aspirin.  I'm assuming that we would be force feeding these criminals the "good behavior pills," which again, I understand the reason for wanting to do so but it opens a dangerous precedent.

Now if these behavior pills weren't mandatory, but were offered to criminals that were looking for some kind of rehabilitation towards their criminal behavior I would be a lot more comfortable with that.

If we could put prisoners to work somehow, make them useful, then that could offset the cost of feeding them. I don't know the full details behind that suggestion though.

Quote from: "BlackL1ght"If we could put prisoners to work somehow, make them useful, then that could offset the cost of feeding them. I don't know the full details behind that suggestion though.

They already do that in most states. They pay an inmate 30 cents an hour to do a job that makes the institution 10 dollars an hour, so it actually does more than offset costs. Prison industry is  profitable.
Look up Minncor. It's the Minnesota version.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "BlackL1ght"If we could put prisoners to work somehow, make them useful, then that could offset the cost of feeding them. I don't know the full details behind that suggestion though.

They already do that in most states. They pay an inmate 30 cents an hour to do a job that makes the institution 10 dollars an hour, so it actually does more than offset costs. Prison industry is  profitable.
Look up Minncor. It's the Minnesota version.

Awesome. Let's do that then.

In all fairness, execution has a zero percent recidivism rate.

Quote from: "_Xenu_"In all fairness, execution has a zero percent recidivism rate.

Yes, and I would argue that perhaps the argument isn't so much against the death penalty as it is the methodology of determining the sentence. If we knew for 100% that the guilty was indeed guilty I think those against (but not all of course) might reconsider.

Quote from: "Aroura33"Isn't killing a person the ultimate way of altering their brain chemistry so they don't kill again?  

Indeed, but the suggestion that it be used to "prevent" crime (his word) is Orwellian, and should be rejected out of hand.

Quote from: "Aroura33"Also, we alter people's "natural" brain chemistry all the time to heal or treat illness or disease.  I mean, ASPIRIN alters your "natural" brain chemistry.  Do you think aspirin is bad? If we view criminal behavior as disease, then it is no different.

Aspirin is voluntary.

I have no feelings on the death penalty but I have thoughts. The death penalty is barbaric to say the least and immoral. Just like war. But sometimes you are presented with a clear and present danger to the well being of your society and you have to act upon it and sometimes that act as to be final, deliberate and violent.

Some people are a clear and present danger to society in a very meaningful way and they need to be dealt with in a final, deliberate and violent manner or they will continue to be a clear and present danger.

Fundamentally opposed.

Quote from: "Aroura33"I think this needs a bump, so Alaric can see where those numbers came from.  They didn't come from Amnesty international or the earlier linked website, those groups are just using raw numbers provided by the FBI and law enforcement.

QuoteSome did, others came from other sites that did not source their work.  It's a huge clusterfuck of different sources. I'm taking a look at the FBI data when I have some free time to really see what's up.

QuoteAlso, thank you for watching the entire video, I appreciate it.  You noted that they used the same statistics, which are indeed from the FBI.

Not a problem, i love Penn & Teller and Bull$h!t is a great show.

I favor the guillotine for the bourgreois.. I wanna see the filthy rich cocksuckers eyes pop out of their heads as they stand in line awaiting their fate as one bloody head after another rolls on past..

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "Aroura33"

Quote from: "commonsense822"I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

Isn't killing a person the ultimate way of altering their brain chemistry so they don't kill again?

Well yes, but I'm not for the death penalty.

Quote from: "Aroura33"Also, we alter people's "natural" brain chemistry all the time to heal or treat illness or disease.  I mean, ASPIRIN alters your "natural" brain chemistry.  Do you think aspirin is bad? If we view criminal behavior as disease, then it is no different.

Here's the difference between Aspirin and the "good behavior pills."  I choose to take Aspirin.  I'm assuming that we would be force feeding these criminals the "good behavior pills," which again, I understand the reason for wanting to do so but it opens a dangerous precedent.

Now if these behavior pills weren't mandatory, but were offered to criminals that were looking for some kind of rehabilitation towards their criminal behavior I would be a lot more comfortable with that.

This is a great point, and I think an interesting moral dillema. If we did have the means to "cure" criminal behavior, which is the correct moral choice (for thsose who don't want to take the supposed behavior pills)?  Killing them (for me a big no), locking them up forever, or curing them even if it is against their will?

Do you think locking them up forever, which is also against their wishes I would assume, is really a better option than forcing a cure on them that would allow them to lead a "normal" life?  I'm not saying it is or isn't, because there is a fair amount of moral ambiguity here that I don't have the answer to, just wanted your thoughts on comparing it to the other options(s).

I suppose it is all academic really, since we don't have any magic cure.

It just occurred to me that some states already do force a medical "cure" on some criminals. Chemical castration has become more common for pedophiles and rapists. Does that mean we are already living in an orwellian dystopia, or are we helping people live normal lives outside the prison system?

Quote from: "Aroura33"It just occurred to me that some states already do force a medical "cure" on some criminals. Chemical castration has become more common for pedophiles and rapists. Does that mean we are already living in an orwellian dystopia, or are we helping people live normal lives outside the prison system?

Is that a penalty arising from a conviction, or a precaution imposed upon people who have yet to commit a crime?  It is the latter that I labeled "Orwellian", which renders your point an equivocation, seemingly.

Well, the point can be made that the incarceration of sex offenders beyond the end of their sentences, via civil commitment, is a bit Orwellian. They are committed simply because they are likely to offend again. It sets a dangerous precedent, as maybe a burglar, or drug dealer will be deemed likely to offend again, so, just lock 'em up, throw away the key.

Quote from: "Aroura33"This is a great point, and I think an interesting moral dillema. If we did have the means to "cure" criminal behavior, which is the correct moral choice (for thsose who don't want to take the supposed behavior pills)?  Killing them (for me a big no), locking them up forever, or curing them even if it is against their will?

Do you think locking them up forever, which is also against their wishes I would assume, is really a better option than forcing a cure on them that would allow them to lead a "normal" life?  I'm not saying it is or isn't, because there is a fair amount of moral ambiguity here that I don't have the answer to, just wanted your thoughts on comparing it to the other options(s).

I suppose it is all academic really, since we don't have any magic cure.

It definitely is an interesting, theoretical moral dilemma.

I agree with you that killing the remaining criminals that decided to not take the "cure" wouldn't be the right process to go about.  I guess an argument could be made for it, but honestly the idea of killing a group of people based on previous behavior seems to avoid the possibility of natural rehabilitation of some of those individuals.  It also comes too close to a mental/psychological equivalent of ethnic cleansing for me to be comfortable with.

I am also definitely wary of the "forced cure," for two main reasons.  One is that it speaks to a level of totalitarianism, where even a person's thoughts are to be subject to government control.  It gives the impression of Orwellian "thought crime."  Secondly, what is considered a crime is completely dependent on which group occupies the most influence over our laws.  For example lets say somehow the country shifts to the far right and the president is a far right Christian fundamentalist, as well as a majority of the Congress members.  And then consider that they actually implement an "abortion is murder" law, which makes an abortion the same felonious charge as murder.  A forced cure would stifle any form of protest towards that law.

I think prison sentences are really the best option at that point.  We've had prisons forever, and they seem to work pretty well as a form of punishment.  The prison systems we currently have could definitely use some revising, but at least the don't disrupt the mental or psychological autonomy of the individual.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Aroura33"It just occurred to me that some states already do force a medical "cure" on some criminals. Chemical castration has become more common for pedophiles and rapists. Does that mean we are already living in an orwellian dystopia, or are we helping people live normal lives outside the prison system?

Is that a penalty arising from a conviction, or a precaution imposed upon people who have yet to commit a crime?  It is the latter that I labeled "Orwellian", which renders your point an equivocation, seemingly.

It is a penalty arising from conviction an a precation to prevent repeat offense.

I am not the non prophet, so I cannot be certain of his meaning, but I read it to mean exactly this. To prevent repeat crimes, as opposed to killing or locking up those who have already offended. Personally, I have no issues with medical treatments for criminals used in this way. It treats criminality as a disease, allows them to become productive members of society, prevents biblical barbaric notions of eye for an eye type revenge, and saves government money. Seems win-win to me.

I don't even see how you could prevent all crimes before they occur using something like a medical treatment, it does not seem possible even. Of course I would not support that idea even if it were possible.

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "Aroura33"This is a great point, and I think an interesting moral dillema. If we did have the means to "cure" criminal behavior, which is the correct moral choice (for thsose who don't want to take the supposed behavior pills)?  Killing them (for me a big no), locking them up forever, or curing them even if it is against their will?

Do you think locking them up forever, which is also against their wishes I would assume, is really a better option than forcing a cure on them that would allow them to lead a "normal" life?  I'm not saying it is or isn't, because there is a fair amount of moral ambiguity here that I don't have the answer to, just wanted your thoughts on comparing it to the other options(s).

I suppose it is all academic really, since we don't have any magic cure.

It definitely is an interesting, theoretical moral dilemma.

I agree with you that killing the remaining criminals that decided to not take the "cure" wouldn't be the right process to go about.  I guess an argument could be made for it, but honestly the idea of killing a group of people based on previous behavior seems to avoid the possibility of natural rehabilitation of some of those individuals.  It also comes too close to a mental/psychological equivalent of ethnic cleansing for me to be comfortable with.

I am also definitely wary of the "forced cure," for two main reasons.  One is that it speaks to a level of totalitarianism, where even a person's thoughts are to be subject to government control.  It gives the impression of Orwellian "thought crime."  Secondly, what is considered a crime is completely dependent on which group occupies the most influence over our laws.  For example lets say somehow the country shifts to the far right and the president is a far right Christian fundamentalist, as well as a majority of the Congress members.  And then consider that they actually implement an "abortion is murder" law, which makes an abortion the same felonious charge as murder.  A forced cure would stifle any form of protest towards that law.

I think prison sentences are really the best option at that point.  We've had prisons forever, and they seem to work pretty well as a form of punishment.  The prison systems we currently have could definitely use some revising, but at least the don't disrupt the mental or psychological autonomy of the individual.

Do you really think prisons are an effective form of punishment? I don't. They certainly are not an effective means of rehabilitation. Also, I completely disagree that they do not disrupt the mental or psychological autonomy of an individual. That is exactly what they do, what they are designed to do, even. It is one of the reasons low risk criminals can be turned high risk simply by imprisoning them.

On the abortion thing, you make a good point, but as we are already discussing, it turns out the US and many other western countries already do impose forced cures for possible repeat sex criminals, and it is only becoming more and more common, with little to no opposition that I can find with google, anyway. So, that horse has already left the barn.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Plu"It's actually been proven that introducing the death penalty over life in prison increases the amount of violent crime, because people become more willing to kill others to escape the law or avoid leaving witnesses if they know they'll get killed if caught.

Once someone realises they're going to get the death penalty, they will stop at nothing to avoid being caught. That's the danger of introducing it, and why many countries no longer issue it.

Proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ)   I don't know how to embed


I'm entirely undecided on this issue, have we asked prisoners what they think of this?

Quote from: "Jmpty"Well, the point can be made that the incarceration of sex offenders beyond the end of their sentences, via civil commitment, is a bit Orwellian. They are committed simply because they are likely to offend again. It sets a dangerous precedent, as maybe a burglar, or drug dealer will be deemed likely to offend again, so, just lock 'em up, throw away the key.

I agree, and I'm certainly not arguing that such treatment is just.  I think if the sentence is contingent upon meeting psychiatric metrics, then that ought to be made plain in the sentence, rather than tacked on at the end and being inaccessible to appeal.

However, that's a different matter than what I'm addressing.  I'm objecting on broad principles to the idea of "preventing"  crimes a priori by neurochemistry.

Quote from: "Aroura33"It is a penalty arising from conviction an a precation to prevent repeat offense.

I am not the non prophet, so I cannot be certain of his meaning, but I read it to mean exactly this. To prevent repeat crimes, as opposed to killing or locking up those who have already offended. Personally, I have no issues with medical treatments for criminals used in this way. It treats criminality as a disease, allows them to become productive members of society, prevents biblical barbaric notions of eye for an eye type revenge, and saves government money. Seems win-win to me.

I don't even see how you could prevent all crimes before they occur using something like a medical treatment, it does not seem possible even. Of course I would not support that idea even if it were possible.

Fair enough, thanks.  I had read the "prevention" in a different light, myself, and while my objection was based on principle rather than (im)practicality, your point that it would seem very hard to predict the success of such a course is indeed a good point.  That would seem to mitigate against it being meted out as a result of conviction, though, don't you think?

Myself, I don't think criminality is a disease, in most cases.  I think in most cases it is willful choices made by people. (There are clearly some cases where is is caused by chronic mental disorder, and other cases where temporary insanity takes hold).  I also think that giving the government any hypothetical  power to intrude into the crania of citizens, even for such an ostensibly noble cause as insuring domestic tranquility, is a terribly dangerous idea, because it once and for all punctures the separation between the individual and the state, and makes the state the predominant partner in the relationship.  I would prefer to live with higher crime rates, myself.

I think a lot of people confuse having sympathy for the victim with having anger or hate towards the criminal. I find that when you tell people you're against the death penalty they accuse you of not feeling for the victim and sympathizing with the criminal. But the truth you can have the deepest sympathy and compassion for the victim and their family and still not have an ounce of hate for the criminal. Even in extreme cases it is possible. If someone is tortured, murdered, and cut up into pieces you can empathize and feel horrible. You can send your best wishes for the family. You can fill your heart with compassion for them. And not at any point does that mean you must fill your heart with hate for the murder or wish them harm.

Likewise, you can not feel the least bit of hatred towards the criminal and still be in favor of killing them. I don't hate flies, but I still kill them mercilessly whenever they get into my house, because I don't want them there. Same applies to serious criminals. I don't want them in society. I don't hate them, but they do have to go.

Also, you might not wish harm to the criminal, but you're still going to lock him up for life, which is going to be pretty harmful to him.

And I agree with many here that prison is not a punishment and definately not teaching them anything.

i would gladly kill rapist,religious freaks(hardcore muslis,christians,mormons,...),killers,... or i would enslave them both of this options are good.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Jmpty"Well, the point can be made that the incarceration of sex offenders beyond the end of their sentences, via civil commitment, is a bit Orwellian. They are committed simply because they are likely to offend again. It sets a dangerous precedent, as maybe a burglar, or drug dealer will be deemed likely to offend again, so, just lock 'em up, throw away the key.

I agree, and I'm certainly not arguing that such treatment is just.  I think if the sentence is contingent upon meeting psychiatric metrics, then that ought to be made plain in the sentence, rather than tacked on at the end and being inaccessible to appeal.

However, that's a different matter than what I'm addressing.  I'm objecting on broad principles to the idea of "preventing"  crimes a priori by neurochemistry.

Quote from: "Aroura33"It is a penalty arising from conviction an a precation to prevent repeat offense.

I am not the non prophet, so I cannot be certain of his meaning, but I read it to mean exactly this. To prevent repeat crimes, as opposed to killing or locking up those who have already offended. Personally, I have no issues with medical treatments for criminals used in this way. It treats criminality as a disease, allows them to become productive members of society, prevents biblical barbaric notions of eye for an eye type revenge, and saves government money. Seems win-win to me.

I don't even see how you could prevent all crimes before they occur using something like a medical treatment, it does not seem possible even. Of course I would not support that idea even if it were possible.

Fair enough, thanks.  I had read the "prevention" in a different light, myself, and while my objection was based on principle rather than (im)practicality, your point that it would seem very hard to predict the success of such a course is indeed a good point.  That would seem to mitigate against it being meted out as a result of conviction, though, don't you think?

Myself, I don't think criminality is a disease, in most cases.  I think in most cases it is willful choices made by people. (There are clearly some cases where is is caused by chronic mental disorder, and other cases where temporary insanity takes hold).  I also think that giving the government any hypothetical  power to intrude into the crania of citizens, even for such an ostensibly noble cause as insuring domestic tranquility, is a terribly dangerous idea, because it once and for all punctures the separation between the individual and the state, and makes the state the predominant partner in the relationship.  I would prefer to live with higher crime rates, myself.

This ^^^.  All of it.  Completely agreed.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Fair enough, thanks.  I had read the "prevention" in a different light, myself, and while my objection was based on principle rather than (im)practicality, your point that it would seem very hard to predict the success of such a course is indeed a good point.  That would seem to mitigate against it being meted out as a result of conviction, though, don't you think?

Myself, I don't think criminality is a disease, in most cases.  I think in most cases it is willful choices made by people. (There are clearly some cases where is is caused by chronic mental disorder, and other cases where temporary insanity takes hold).  I also think that giving the government any hypothetical  power to intrude into the crania of citizens, even for such an ostensibly noble cause as insuring domestic tranquility, is a terribly dangerous idea, because it once and for all punctures the separation between the individual and the state, and makes the state the predominant partner in the relationship.  I would prefer to live with higher crime rates, myself.

Well, I think I have found the fundamental point upon which we disagree.  But I don't want to totally derail this thread, free-will or lack-there-of is a discussion for it's own topic, and one I suspect we would probably not change each others minds on. Suffice it to say, just because we can identify the causes behind some people's misbehavior (mental illnesses or brain tumors, etc) does not mean that the others don't have causes just as powerful that nulify free-will, we just haven't discovered them fully yet. After all, 2000 years ago, we didn't have a very good grasp on mental illness or brain tumors, and assumed those people made willfull evil/sinfull choices as well.  I completely agree with Sam Harris on this topic. (This is funny, because people told me in another thread that determinism probably doesn't affect a persons world view much, but here I can see that at least in the case of how we view criminal behavior and there-for how we would treat those particular human beings, it most certainly does).

I do agree with you that having the government in your brain is a pretty scary thought, but they already decide who lives, who dies, who stays in prison for life, and who gets out, and what sort of prison each person is best suited for. We already force violent mental ill criminals to take anti-psychotic drugs while in institutions for the criminally insane....and even while out on parole (if they are granted that), so again, it seems to me that horse has also already left the barn. Basically, they already have almost god-like control over those who break the law in order to insure some level of domestic tranquility.  Seems like those fears are already fullfilled.  Those who are convicted of breaking the law already lose most of their rights, it seems.

I'm against it for financial reasons.. No moral outrage here..
It just costs too much to actually get someone "on the stretcher' Because of that it does not really serve as a deterrent..
Life without parole is WAY less expensive and I think a better deterrent IMHO

Quote from: "Aroura33"Well, I think I have found the fundamental point upon which we disagree.

If you absolve people of their responsibility for their own decisions, we definitely disagree.  As I noted earlier, there are circumstances in which alleviating the criminal of the responsibility for his or her choices is mete.  But I'd like to see evidence for your disease model of criminality.

Quote from: "Aroura33"I do agree with you that having the government in your brain is a pretty scary thought, but they already decide who lives, who dies, who stays in prison for life, and who gets out, and what sort of prison each person is best suited for. We already force violent mental ill criminals to take anti-psychotic drugs while in institutions for the criminally insane....and even while out on parole (if they are granted that), so again, it seems to me that horse has also already left the barn. Basically, they already have almost god-like control over those who break the law in order to insure some level of domestic tranquility.  Seems like those fears are already fullfilled.  Those who are convicted of breaking the law already lose most of their rights, it seems.

Of course they do, and rightfully so.  I don't think that some people losing some of their rights should justify other people who haven't committed a crime losing theirs as well.  The idea that the middle must be necessarily excluded in this discussion doesn't seem self-evident to me.  When I punish my son I don't punish him for the misdeeds of his friends, nor do I punish him in anticipation of his future misdeeds.  

Applying preventative chemistry to civic behavior is, besides the obvious uncertainty of efficacy which you have pointed out, offensive to the ideals of freedom, and you're right: I will never agree that any government has the right to dictate thoughts to its citizenry.  Ever.  Even in prisons, convicts have the refuge of their own minds, and their own selves.  Equating a physical prison to a mental prison, which is in essence what any preventative pharmacological "treatment" would be, is vapid on those grounds alone.

None of this even addresses the effects the Law of Unintended Consequences might have.

Again ^^^^

Everything he said.  I should just stop talking and let Thump do it for me.

lol, thanks.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Aroura33"I do agree with you that having the government in your brain is a pretty scary thought, but they already decide who lives, who dies, who stays in prison for life, and who gets out, and what sort of prison each person is best suited for. We already force violent mental ill criminals to take anti-psychotic drugs while in institutions for the criminally insane....and even while out on parole (if they are granted that), so again, it seems to me that horse has also already left the barn. Basically, they already have almost god-like control over those who break the law in order to insure some level of domestic tranquility.  Seems like those fears are already fullfilled.  Those who are convicted of breaking the law already lose most of their rights, it seems.

Of course they do, and rightfully so.  I don't think that some people losing some of their rights doesn't justify the loss of other people, who haven't committed a crime, losing theirs as well.  The idea that the middle must be necessarily excluded in this discussion doesn't seem self-evident to me.  When I punish my son I don't punish him for the misdeeds of his friends, nor do I punish him in anticipation of his future misdeeds.  

Applying preventative chemistry to civic behavior is, besides the obvious uncertainty of efficacy which you have pointed out, offensive to the ideals of freedom, and you're right: I will never agree that any government has the right to dictate thoughts to its citizenry.  Ever.  Even in prisons, convicts have the refuge of their own minds, and their own selves.  Equating a physical prison to a mental prison, which is in essence what any preventative pharmacological "treatment" would be, is vapid on those grounds alone.

None of this even addresses the effects the Law of Unintended Consequences might have.

Is anyone actually arguing in favor of preventative medication?  I'm just checking, I don't think anyone has.  Only preventative + punitive after conviction, right?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Aroura33"Well, I think I have found the fundamental point upon which we disagree.

If you absolve people of their responsibility for their own decisions, we definitely disagree.  As I noted earlier, there are circumstances in which alleviating the criminal of the responsibility for his or her choices is mete.  But I'd like to see evidence for your disease model of criminality.

I don't think determinism absolves people of consequences at all.  Consequences must still happen for actions, but what those consequences are might change (I.E real rehabilitation instead of biblical punishment). If you are actually interested on how the notion of lack of free will would impact the treatment of criminals, I would steer you towards this:

[youtube:2tzq7h4e]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk[/youtube:2tzq7h4e]

He's got a lot to say on the subject, most of it things people don't like to hear right away, but it's all more than I care to type up right now. :)

Edited to add a side note:  I railed and fought, absolutely denied this and demanded free will must be true for years.  My husband actually first brought this idea of determinism up to me about 8 or 9 years ago, and I despised it.  I was baffled that he could think such a thing.  It took me a long time and a lot of research on my own to accept this idea.  It was, in some ways, harder than losing my belief in god, and it certainly changed my outlook on the universe and life just as much as atheism did.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind overnight, or even ever, as free-will is a pretty deeply ingrained belief, taught to us from birth.  So please don't be pissed, just think of it as me presenting a different viewpoint.  :-D  But it is very much part of my reasoning behind why the death penalty is wrong, so it isn't totally off-topic at least!  :lol:

Quote from: "Aroura33"I don't think determinism absolves people of consequences at all.  Consequences must still happen for actions, but what those consequences are might change (I.E real rehabilitation instead of biblical punishment).

Where is the justice in holding someone responsible for an outcome that was arrived at deterministically?  Inherent in the idea of crime and punishment is the idea that the punishment is used to help teach the criminal to not choose the same path again -- in other words, inherent in the idea of punishment is the idea that the crime was a choice.

When a plane crashes because the engine due to metal fatigue, we don't charge the pilot with murder even though some passengers were killed, and the reason why is beacuse while something happened, the pilot didn't choose to cause the engine to fail.

Quote from: "Aroura33"If you are actually interested on how the notion of lack of free will would impact the treatment of criminals, I would steer you towards this:

Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk)

He's got a lot to say on the subject, most of it things people don't like to hear right away, but it's all more than I care to type up right now. :)

I will watch this later, when it's more convenient.

Quote from: "Aroura33"Edited to add a side note:  I railed and fought, absolutely denied this and demanded free will must be true for years.  My husband actually first brought this idea of determinism up to me about 8 or 9 years ago, and I despised it.  I was baffled that he could think such a thing.  It took me a long time and a lot of research on my own to accept this idea.  It was, in some ways, harder than losing my belief in god, and it certainly changed my outlook on the universe and life just as much as atheism did.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind overnight, or even ever, as free-will is a pretty deeply ingrained belief, taught to us from birth.  So please don't be pissed, just think of it as me presenting a different viewpoint.  :-D  But it is very much part of my reasoning behind why the death penalty is wrong, so it isn't totally off-topic at least!  :lol:

Oh, I'm not angry ... I just think you, and he, are wrong.

I think if you reject the death penalty because the criminal could not help but commit his crime due to the deterministic nature of reality, then you must, necessarily, reject all punishments for all crimes on the same grounds, or you will yourself be perpetrating injustice.  Indeed, logically, determinism is incompatible with morality at all, because the essential premise of morality is that one chooses to be moral or immoral.

I'm for the death penalty, but only for extreme cases, i.e. massmurderers and serial killers. And there has to be 100% certainty that the person did it.

Edit: As for free will, and Sam Harris' argument. People seem to be confused with this based on the old fashioned notions of free-will. Lack of free will does not = determinism. Though our concious self simply gets commands from what could be considered an "computer program" this is just chemical processes reacting to situations. It has not been pre-programmed, and depending on what interacts with it the outcome is completely different. New information added will also have effect. Nothing is set in stone.

It should also be added that this does need a bit more study as the experiments this far has been really basic. And of course, it's also the argument that the non-concious parts of the brain is also us. And with the knowledge we have of how it works we can actually change and manipulate it.

Around 1999 the governor of Illinois called for a reinvestagation of the cases of the people on death row often using dna analysis that was not available at the time of their conviction. more than 10% were exonerated! Not a good enough average to be killing people
The way our criminal justice system really works is the police get kudos and career advancement for collaring bad guys, ?Prosecutors get kudos and career advancement for convictions. Public pretenders are usually overworked and often in cahoots with the prosecutors. Judges generally want to get you through their courtroom as quickly as possible. While there are some ethical people among them for the most part they don't give a shit about the truth or  if you're guilty or not, its all about whether they can get a conviction. Under these circumstances I cannot support a death penalty

Quote from: "Aroura33"

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "The Non Prophet"I believe Science will one day cure and prevent most criminal activity. So I believe the death penalty is actually giving them a way out of atoning their ways and fixing their faulty brain chemistry. Even Hitler could have been turned around with the right Science which I admit is not available yet but he would have been kept around long enough to repair what he damaged or at least a lot of damage instead of just killing him quickly or without repercussion (like he probably wanted).

So all in all, no, do not believe in the eye for an eye logic unless I am under attack, the only person who should have revenge is the dead person the murderer killed but since that isn't possible we need to use criminals the best we can for research and hopefully repair them so they can do good with the new lease on life they may get.

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

Isn't killing a person the ultimate way of altering their brain chemistry so they don't kill again?  

Also, we alter people's "natural" brain chemistry all the time to heal or treat illness or disease.  I mean, ASPIRIN alters your "natural" brain chemistry.  Do you think aspirin is bad? If we view criminal behavior as disease, then it is no different.

In the "ultimate sense" no, it would be to fix it and to program them to do good for the rest of their days. Most of us don't just go off and murder people, there is major brain chemistry flaws in the minds of serial killers, rapists and other people who generally don't care for others. I suppose if you have a pessimistic point of view, sure, killing them is your only answer if you don't care to fix the problem.

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "The Non Prophet"I believe Science will one day cure and prevent most criminal activity. So I believe the death penalty is actually giving them a way out of atoning their ways and fixing their faulty brain chemistry. Even Hitler could have been turned around with the right Science which I admit is not available yet but he would have been kept around long enough to repair what he damaged or at least a lot of damage instead of just killing him quickly or without repercussion (like he probably wanted).

So all in all, no, do not believe in the eye for an eye logic unless I am under attack, the only person who should have revenge is the dead person the murderer killed but since that isn't possible we need to use criminals the best we can for research and hopefully repair them so they can do good with the new lease on life they may get.

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

It's not a natural state, that's the point, have you ever seen how different the brain structures of a serial killer are? There are often abnormalities and now in days we can see the parts of the brain that produce compassion are not firing properly, all brain problems can be fixed with Neurology, at least someday. The writers of a movie hardly have all the facts on brain chemistry.

The death penalty is not something I can get behind.  I don't trust any institution to get it right 100% of the time--and I am afraid the death penalty is given to innocents about as often as the guilty.  Even if the margin of error were only 1%, I couldn't ethically consider it a good thing.

This is something that I don't think enough people consider when weighing in on this topic:  Even if the person confesses, there is ample evidence, plenty of witnesses, etc.--in other words, there is no questioning the person's guilt, and the crime is heinous enough that most would declare he "deserves" death--I STILL do not agree with the death penalty!  Why?

People are creatures of habit.  If someone has committed a terrible crime, it is unlikely that it is the only bad thing they have done.  If you kill that person, valuable knowledge is killed with him/her.  Crimes will go unsolved.  They may never confess to prior misdeeds, but affording them continued life provides them the opportunity to confess.  I don't know about you, but if I had a missing love one--I would be tormented by this idea that a person could have told me what happened to them---but they were killed and forever silenced.

If you don't have the death penalty, then how can you be sure that inconvenient opposition never comes back to bite you in the butt?

Quote from: "bennyboy"If you don't have the death penalty, then how can you be sure that inconvenient opposition never comes back to bite you in the butt?

Easy, you tie them up and force them to listen to Al Gore.  The boredom involved brings on a comatose state, I'm told.

I am pro death penalty (federal jurisdiction, not each state having its own rules), but I think it's just weird the various ways we have come up with to execute people. Complicated and expensive. Gas chamber? It takes hours to recover the actual chamber back to readiness for the next execution. Electric chair? There's something kind of sinister about it. Somebody must have really enjoyed coming up with that kind of apparatus to kill. In Belarus, it is simply a bullet to the back of the head. Simple. Cheap. Probably painless, but frightening to think about.

All that said, even though I am pro-dp, I would reserve it for murder and for rape, and never mandatory in either case.

Quote from: "C172"I am pro death penalty (federal jurisdiction, not each state having its own rules), but I think it's just weird the various ways we have come up with to execute people. Complicated and expensive. Gas chamber? It takes hours to recover the actual chamber back to readiness for the next execution. Electric chair? There's something kind of sinister about it. Somebody must have really enjoyed coming up with that kind of apparatus to kill. In Belarus, it is simply a bullet to the back of the head. Simple. Cheap. Probably painless, but frightening to think about.

All that said, even though I am pro-dp, I would reserve it for murder and for rape, and never mandatory in either case.

This^
thanks - I feel less crazy now.

The problem with bullet to the back of the head is that you need a sane person to pull the trigger. Those tend to be hard to come by. Especially keeping them sane after the first few. It's why firing squads often had half the men fire blanks and half live, without telling them who got which. It was the only way to keep them somewhat sane through the proces.

Hell, even the nazi's came up with the concept of gas chambers because even their most devout troops broke down after executing people in the 'bullet to the head' way. It really fucks with your mind.

Quote from: "Plu"The problem with bullet to the back of the head is that you need a sane person to pull the trigger. Those tend to be hard to come by. Especially keeping them sane after the first few. It's why firing squads often had half the men fire blanks and half live, without telling them who got which. It was the only way to keep them somewhat sane through the proces.

Hell, even the nazi's came up with the concept of gas chambers because even their most devout troops broke down after executing people in the 'bullet to the head' way. It really fucks with your mind.

This is true.  One of the main reasons lethal injection has become more common isn't because it is actually more humane for the person being put to death (studies show many people are still awake and alert when they get the heart attack, and they cannot breath, suffocating while in agony but unable to show it basically), but because it is easier on the executioner.  It is not as violent, and there are no outward signs or feelings of death.  Hell, they look like they just fell asleep, so there are less psychological issues for those who have to do the killing.

To often , we seem to think like the excecuted people will just drop over dead on their own.  You have to a realize a sane, non murderer (often a doctor who has taken oaths not to harm) has to kill another human being.  That should be taken into account as well.

Quote from: "The Non Prophet"

Quote from: "Aroura33"[quote author="commonsense822"

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

Isn't killing a person the ultimate way of altering their brain chemistry so they don't kill again?  

Also, we alter people's "natural" brain chemistry all the time to heal or treat illness or disease.  I mean, ASPIRIN alters your "natural" brain chemistry.  Do you think aspirin is bad? If we view criminal behavior as disease, then it is no different.

In the "ultimate sense" no, it would be to fix it and to program them to do good for the rest of their days. Most of us don't just go off and murder people, there is major brain chemistry flaws in the minds of serial killers, rapists and other people who generally don't care for others. I suppose if you have a pessimistic point of view, sure, killing them is your only answer if you don't care to fix the problem.[/quote]
No, I'm all for altering brain chemistry to fix criminals.  I think you misunderstood me.  I was trying to point out to those who thought it was Orwellian to do so that killing people certainly alters their brain chemistry....permanently.

[quote="Thumpalumpacus"]

Where is the justice in holding someone responsible for an outcome that was arrived at deterministically?  Inherent in the idea of crime and punishment is the idea that the punishment is used to help teach the criminal to not choose the same path again -- in other words, inherent in the idea of punishment is the idea that the crime was a choice.
[/quote] Justice is an outdated, barbaric, and biblical a notion as revenge. I think seeking justice, in the tradition sense, is totally the wrong way to go about things.

And if punishment is really supposed to help teach the criminal not to commit crimes in the future, it sure isn't working, and never has. Recidivism rates for those incarcerated and later released are VERY high, between 70% and 80%, depending on the type of crime.  Punishment fails as a mechanism of deterrent.
Prisons and punishment do not exist to reach people not to commit again, they are their for victims to take their revenge, and to keep dangerous people who might re-offend off the streets (which they also often fail at).
 

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When a plane crashes because the engine due to metal fatigue, we don't charge the pilot with murder even though some passengers were killed, and the reason why is beacuse while something happened, the pilot didn't choose to cause the engine to fail.

Correct.  We look to see what went wrong and then we fix it.  It should be the same way with criminal behavior.  We should do our best to rehabilitate them, and those who cannot be rehabilitated should be locked up until we can, if ever.  They should still be charged with a crime, because that is part of identifying the problem, but punishment alone solves nothing.
If we put all of the resources we currently use into just locking people up into finding real ways to fix problems, I'm sure we could do much much better.  Already there exist many programs that actually work towards turning ex-criminals into functional people, instead of turning the into even worse criminals (which is what prison/punishment does).

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Oh, I'm not angry ... I just think you, and he, are wrong.

I think if you reject the death penalty because the criminal could not help but commit his crime due to the deterministic nature of reality, then you must, necessarily, reject all punishments for all crimes on the same grounds, or you will yourself be perpetrating injustice.  Indeed, logically, determinism is incompatible with morality at all, because the essential premise of morality is that one chooses to be moral or immoral.

You are using the outdated ideas of justice and punishment, so none of this actually applies to what I believe.  
I do reject the notion of punishment for the sake of punishment alone, for all crimes.  As a society, we must of course do our best to keep people safe, so dangerous criminals who cannot be rehabilitated should be locked up, humanely, and those who can be rehabilitated should be.

The REAL injustice is that biblical ideas of revenge and punishment still rule our justice system.  Victims and survivors should be rehabilitated as well, because they have obviously been damaged by the harm done to them.  The fact that our justice currently includes helping victims only by giving them a sense of revenge IS barbaric, and it doe NOT heal their wounds or losses mental or physical.  It is completely an eye for an eye system, and it does not work for anyone, victim or criminal.

If you did find time to watch the Sam Harris video, you'll have heard his much more eloquent response to these exact arguments.  Of course we must continue to deal with criminals, even when we realize they are also victims of circumstance, illness, or whatever.  Our duty to society only changes for the better, we don't abandon it.

It is a similar argument, to me, that theists often make that without god there can be no morality.  Obviously, that isn't true.  The same holds with free-will.  Without free will, there would still exist morality, and there would also exist more understanding and compassion for victims as well as criminals, instead of guilt, blame, and revenge.

Quote from: "Aroura33"Justice is an outdated, barbaric, and biblical a notion as revenge. I think seeking justice, in the tradition sense, is totally the wrong way to go about things.

Yep, we definitely disagree.

Quote from: "Aroura33"And if punishment is really supposed to help teach the criminal not to commit crimes in the future, it sure isn't working, and never has. Recidivism rates for those incarcerated and later released are VERY high, between 70% and 80%, depending on the type of crime.  Punishment fails as a mechanism of deterrent.
Prisons and punishment do not exist to reach people not to commit again, they are their for victims to take their revenge, and to keep dangerous people who might re-offend off the streets (which they also often fail at).

However, punishment does sequester convicts away from law-abiding citizens.
 

Quote from: "Aroura33"Correct.  We look to see what went wrong and then we fix it.  It should be the same way with criminal behavior.  We should do our best to rehabilitate them, and those who cannot be rehabilitated should be locked up until we can, if ever.  They should still be charged with a crime, because that is part of identifying the problem, but punishment alone solves nothing.

How would you suggest going about rehabilitating convicts?

Quote from: "Aroura33"If we put all of the resources we currently use into just locking people up into finding real ways to fix problems, I'm sure we could do much much better.  Already there exist many programs that actually work towards turning ex-criminals into functional people, instead of turning the into even worse criminals (which is what prison/punishment does).

How effective are those programs?  Do you have recidivism numbers from them?

Quote from: "Aroura33"You are using the outdated ideas of justice and punishment, so none of this actually applies to what I believe.  

I don't believe that they're "outdated"; that is just you imposing your subjective values upon this discussion, and as such, I reject it, unless you can demonstrate that a better methodology has arrived to make this approach purely obsolete.  Don't forget to bring your data.

Quote from: "Aroura33"I do reject the notion of punishment for the sake of punishment alone, for all crimes.  As a society, we must of course do our best to keep people safe, so dangerous criminals who cannot be rehabilitated should be locked up, humanely, and those who can be rehabilitated should be.

The REAL injustice is that biblical ideas of revenge and punishment still rule our justice system.  Victims and survivors should be rehabilitated as well, because they have obviously been damaged by the harm done to them.  The fact that our justice currently includes helping victims only by giving them a sense of revenge IS barbaric, and it doe NOT heal their wounds or losses mental or physical.  It is completely an eye for an eye system, and it does not work for anyone, victim or criminal.

This is really a discussion about the role of government, then.  I don't believe it is the role of government to assuage the hurt of every citizen no matter the cause.  I believe it is the role of the government to separate dangerous citizens from those who abide the laws which govern our conduct.

Quote from: "Aroura33"If you did find time to watch the Sam Harris video, you'll have heard his much more eloquent response to these exact arguments.  Of course we must continue to deal with criminals, even when we realize they are also victims of circumstance, illness, or whatever.  Our duty to society only changes for the better, we don't abandon it.

It is a similar argument, to me, that theists often make that without god there can be no morality.  Obviously, that isn't true.  The same holds with free-will.  Without free will, there would still exist morality, and there would also exist more understanding and compassion for victims as well as criminals, instead of guilt, blame, and revenge.

I'll admit -- it completely slipped my mind to go back and watch it.  My apologies for that oversight.

I admit also that I don't see why a fallacious argument on the part of theists should make my point incorrect, though.  I'm not talking about any supernatural construct.

I'll go ahead and let you have the last word, I have said my piece, and honestly, everyone in my house is sick again, (damn it), and I haven't got time to type up more counter arguments for a bit.

I would like to thank you for having a very civil debate though.  :) Too often I see disagreements on this forum turn to insults or nitpicking over fallacious details or semantics, and it was nice to have a discussion with you, you are very thoughtful and rational.  Thank you for the conversation.

I'm off to buy some more Dayquil and also childrens tylonol.  And then make everyone take a nap so I can have 15 minutes of quiet!  lol

Quick note:  The theist thing I said does not make your argument fallacious at all, I didn't mean to insinuate that.  It just reminds me of it, honestly, it was just a loose comparison.

If were going to kill criminals outright then we've got to at least put it on TV and make betting odds like the concept of that Stone Cold Steve Austin Movie where criminals fight on an island for freedom or whatever. Ratings would be through the roof.



















edit; someone wrote 30 seconds after me

I appreciate your kindness as well.  It's refreshing to meet with people who can disagree without being disagreeable.

I'll watch the video later.  Hope y'all get to feeling better.

Quote from: C172Electric chair? There's something kind of sinister about it. Somebody must have really enjoyed coming up with that kind of apparatus to kill

QuoteThe elctric chair was thought up to discredit AC current.

Quote from: "The Non Prophet"

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "The Non Prophet"I believe Science will one day cure and prevent most criminal activity. So I believe the death penalty is actually giving them a way out of atoning their ways and fixing their faulty brain chemistry. Even Hitler could have been turned around with the right Science which I admit is not available yet but he would have been kept around long enough to repair what he damaged or at least a lot of damage instead of just killing him quickly or without repercussion (like he probably wanted).

So all in all, no, do not believe in the eye for an eye logic unless I am under attack, the only person who should have revenge is the dead person the murderer killed but since that isn't possible we need to use criminals the best we can for research and hopefully repair them so they can do good with the new lease on life they may get.

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

It's not a natural state, that's the point, have you ever seen how different the brain structures of a serial killer are? There are often abnormalities and now in days we can see the parts of the brain that produce compassion are not firing properly, all brain problems can be fixed with Neurology, at least someday. The writers of a movie hardly have all the facts on brain chemistry.

Look again I understand the reason for wanting to condition someones brain to to make it "morally correct" in an effort to deter crime, but it sets a dangerous precedent.  One of the main arguments that I see for modifying someone's brain seems to be that it is for the greater good of the whole society.  But how far are we willing to take that argument?  Some may say that going over the posted speed limits poses a danger to other drivers on the road and pedestrians walking in public.  Should we then modify brain behavior for drivers to have an aversion to high speeds?  

Who gets to set the rules for what can be modified to an individuals brain and will they be subject to change depending on who is in power?  This is especially important in matters where morality falls into the grey area.  Abortion for example is one of those morally grey areas, no matter where your position on it is.  If the appropriate executive and congressional members were anti-abortion because they considered the rights to life of the fetus trumped those personal rights of the mother, could our brains be modified to make us reject abortion by making us feel like it is an immoral act?  

What laws will we ingrain?  It seems obvious to say only serious laws like murder or rape, but as I mentioned before with the speed limit, where do we decide that the benefit towards society outweighs the individual?  Obesity causes higher health care costs amongst us all, should we then also program the brain to encourage people to eat healthier or less?  Or does someone have the right to be fat?

The death penalty is society's way of throwing up their hands in defeat and saying, "Well shit... we don't know how else to deal with people who misbehave and hurt or kill other people, so let's just kill them so we don't have to deal with it."

When I think of how much could have been learned from people like Ted Bundy... the insights that might have been gained by studying his particular psychosis, I think, what a loss.

After all, when a plane crashes we don't throw out the wreckage , we keep it around to study in hopes of learning more about what went wrong. And often, they house that wreckage indefinitely as a learning tool for future investigators.

It's worth the cost of keeping them alive, but there is a wealth of opportunity to learn about human nature and deviant behavior sitting in our prisons right now. I don't see why they don't set up research in every single prison and make an intensive study of criminals. It's not like they're going anywhere or have any choice. A potential wellspring of knowledge completely untapped, and we'd be getting something of value (knowledge) to society for the expense.

In any case, we can hardly call ourselves a civilized society if we punish murder by murdering the murderer. It's simply sweeping the dirt under the rug.

It costs more to execute people than keep than in jail, so I think its a bad idea.

(From a strictly economic view... I disagree with it morally as well.)

Quote from: "Zatoichi"The death penalty is society's way of throwing up their hands in defeat and saying, "Well shit... we don't know how else to deal with people who misbehave and hurt or kill other people, so let's just kill them so we don't have to deal with it."

When I think of how much could have been learned from people like Ted Bundy... the insights that might have been gained by studying his particular psychosis, I think, what a loss.

After all, when a plane crashes we don't throw out the wreckage , we keep it around to study in hopes of learning more about what went wrong. And often, they house that wreckage indefinitely as a learning tool for future investigators.

It's worth the cost of keeping them alive, but there is a wealth of opportunity to learn about human nature and deviant behavior sitting in our prisons right now. I don't see why they don't set up research in every single prison and make an intensive study of criminals. It's not like they're going anywhere or have any choice. A potential wellspring of knowledge completely untapped, and we'd be getting something of value (knowledge) to society for the expense.

In any case, we can hardly call ourselves a civilized society if we punish murder by murdering the murderer. It's simply sweeping the dirt under the rug.

I always thought Bundy would've been a guy to keep around for this very purpose, and I've thought the same thing about the Aurora Joker guy cause it's so rare a mass shooter is captured alive. But Bundy's also a good example why it ultimately wouldn't work near as well as one might think, and also why rehabilitation doesn't tend to work both with criminal and substance abuse. People need to want to help, seek help, or be helped.

Bundy was smart and quite cocky. He thought he could out smart everyone during his trial. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him give the shrinks studying him either what they wanted to hear or completely wrong info just to fuck with them. Have we really learned anything substantial from keeping Charlie Manson alive the past 40 years? For all the interesting information you might get out of these guys, you're also going to get a lot of bullshit data that sets the whole program back even more. Most sociopaths with zero empathy probably aren't going to be all that cooperative.

Personally, I don't like it.

I must say that Aurora gives a lot of interesting views, and I really need to take some time somewhere to listen to that Sam Harris video. When I finally have time again, that is.

I never realised before how outdated I considered the concept of justice to be. It's so ingrained into most people that you don't even realise it until someone points it out.

I'm against it. Mostly for reasons that have already been stated on this thread.

I also think we need to focus more on preventing the crimes in the first place, and actually rehabilitating the criminals, instead of punishing them and calling it rehabilitation. This seems like it would be obvious, but for some stupid reason, it's not. You see, that's why I'm such a misanthrope. All of the people in charge of society are either complete idiots or greedy.
Our education system sucks.
Our prison system sucks.
Our medical system sucks.
Sometimes when I try to formulate plans to improve society(You know, just for fun.),  I get so I can't even think about it anymore.
I swear, if time travel is ever invented, I am kidnapping Bill Hicks, bringing him into the future with me, and taking over the world with him.

[right:39kmp9wa][sup:39kmp9wa]Yay! That was such a great rant! Please do more![/sup:39kmp9wa][/right:39kmp9wa] =D>
No, no, I shouldn't, thank you. :lol:

Quote from: "Farroc"I swear, if time travel is ever invented, I am kidnapping Bill Hicks, bringing him into the future with me, and taking over the world with him.

I hope your wish comes true. We needed so much more of Bill Hicks...

And Hitchens
And Carlin
And Greg Geraldo
And so many more...

Morally wrong.
No matter how heinous the crime.

It's only morally wrong if all human lives matter.

Some of the people killed may not have done the crime they're accused of, but they probably aren't high-value members of society, either.  I seriously doubt that the state has, for example, executed someone destined to cure cancer.

Here's one thing I think the state should do: ask inmates who have multiple life sentences whether they want to commute that to a death sentence.  I'm sure some would say yes, resulting in a net savings and a benefit to society.

Here's an even nastier one: ask them if they want to become test subjects in exchange for monetary support to a person of their choosing. We could use the test subjects.

(I'm not sure if I'm even comfortable with this idea myself, though.  :-s )

Quote from: "antediluvian"Morally wrong.
No matter how heinous the crime.

Morally correct.
Heinous criminals or traitors to the nation deserve it.

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"

Quote from: "antediluvian"Morally wrong.
No matter how heinous the crime.

Morally correct.
Heinous criminals or traitors to the nation deserve it.

Whether or not they deserve it is beside the point. Life imprisonment keeps them away from society just as well, is cheaper, provides opportunities to study the criminals, provides a chance(though slim it may be) for innocent people to prove their innocence and get out., and provides a chance(again, very slim, but still there) for guilty criminals to get better, get parole, and lead normal lives. Except for keeping them away from society, the death penalty does none of that.

I still haven't read all the post on this thread so i don't know if this has been addressed or not, but have we done surveys on how prisoners, both on and not on death row, feel about this?

Quote from: "antediluvian"Morally wrong.
No matter how heinous the crime.

Do you accept that morality is objective and absolute?

Quote from: "antediluvian"Morally wrong.
No matter how heinous the crime.

In your eyes maybe.  Morality is not something that is universal, if it was then why is cannabalism moral in some areas?  Why is it immoral for our women to expose their breasts in public and yet is the norm for some cultures?  Morality is subjective.

>  I think people that take other's lives should be removed this world.

The paradox has already been pointed out, so I'll make other comments.

The death penalty doesn't deter crime.  For example, Texas executes more people than any other US state.  If the death penalty deterred murder, Texas would have the lowest murder rate in the country.  In fact, it has the second highest, after California, which has the gang activity skewing the curve.

After their execution, several people have been shown to be innocent by DNA evidence.  How many innocent people are you willing to kill in order to include all the actual murderers?  And of course, if you kill an innocent person, you are a murderer.

Frank

Quote from: "Plu"The problem with bullet to the back of the head is that you need a sane person to pull the trigger. Those tend to be hard to come by. Especially keeping them sane after the first few.

This. This is precisely why I am opposed fundamentally. If it is the moral and right thing to do, it would not cause the executioner such emotional angst.

It is wrong to kill people for any reason, IMO. When I was a young kid and barely old enough to grasp what capital punishment was, I asked my Mom how that wasn't hypocritical to kill someone because they killed someone. She quoted the Bible, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

I think that may have been the seed that planted my later realization that I am an atheist.

Quote from: "FrankDK">  I think people that take other's lives should be removed this world.

The paradox has already been pointed out, so I'll make other comments.

The death penalty doesn't deter crime.  For example, Texas executes more people than any other US state.  If the death penalty deterred murder, Texas would have the lowest murder rate in the country.  In fact, it has the second highest, after California, which has the gang activity skewing the curve.

After their execution, several people have been shown to be innocent by DNA evidence.  How many innocent people are you willing to kill in order to include all the actual murderers?  And of course, if you kill an innocent person, you are a murderer.

Frank

And Texas doesn't have high gang problems?

(Irrelevant to overall point, but still... Texas has alot of Mexican drug problems as well.)

> And Texas doesn't have high gang problems?

(Irrelevant to overall point, but still... Texas has alot of Mexican drug problems as well.)

I confess I have no idea how the numbers compare, but I suspect the nature of the crimes is different.  In CA (especially LA), the gang killings and drive-by shootings are less of a business.  The drug-related violence in Texas is more an off-shoot of the drug trade, and not just teenagers killing randomly.

I'm just guessing, though, and statistics might prove me wrong.

However, the original point still stands: The death penalty doesn't lower the murder rate.  In fact, right after an execution, the number of similar crimes increases slightly in the area where the execution was publicized.  It does reduce recidivism, though.

Frank

Quote from: "Mermaid"It is wrong to kill people for any reason, IMO.

As an aside -- even in self-defense?  Or the defense of another?

QuoteHowever, the original point still stands: The death penalty doesn't lower the murder rate. In fact, right after an execution, the number of similar crimes increases slightly in the area where the execution was publicized. It does reduce recidivism, though.

Yeah, I agree the death penalty isn't an effective deterent.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Mermaid"It is wrong to kill people for any reason, IMO.

As an aside -- even in self-defense?  Or the defense of another?

Hm. You got me. I know for a fact that I would feel justified in killing someone in my own defense. You are right. I don't know fr sure about defending another because I have not been in that situation.

Yeah. That kind of invalidates my whole post, doesn't it?

Quote from: "Mermaid"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Mermaid"It is wrong to kill people for any reason, IMO.

As an aside -- even in self-defense?  Or the defense of another?

Hm. You got me. I know for a fact that I would feel justified in killing someone in my own defense. You are right. I don't know fr sure about defending another because I have not been in that situation.

Yeah. That kind of invalidates my whole post, doesn't it?

Doesn't invalidate it, just needs an addendum.  Killing another person is always wrong except when they are a direct threat to yourself or another.
Someone locked in prison is not a direct threat.

Quote from: "Aroura33"Doesn't invalidate it, just needs an addendum.  Killing another person is always wrong except when they are a direct threat to yourself or another.
Someone locked in prison is not a direct threat.

That could be construed as moving the goalpost.

Quote from: "Mermaid"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Mermaid"It is wrong to kill people for any reason, IMO.

As an aside -- even in self-defense?  Or the defense of another?

Hm. You got me. I know for a fact that I would feel justified in killing someone in my own defense. You are right. I don't know fr sure about defending another because I have not been in that situation.

Yeah. That kind of invalidates my whole post, doesn't it?

No, not really, because I get what you're saying, which (I think) is that unavoidable killing is wrong?  

I was just curious about how deeply this opinion ran in you, is all.  Thanks for the plain-spoken answer.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Aroura33"Doesn't invalidate it, just needs an addendum.  Killing another person is always wrong except when they are a direct threat to yourself or another.
Someone locked in prison is not a direct threat.

That could be construed as moving the goalpost.

Or it could be construed as someone who has refined their opinion.

I don't share her opinion myself, but I respect anyone honest enough to say, "Y'know, I hadn't thought of that."

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Alaric I"That could be construed as moving the goalpost.

Or it could be construed as someone who has refined their opinion.

I don't share her opinion myself, but I respect anyone honest enough to say, "Y'know, I hadn't thought of that."

Fair point, I guess it didn't look at it that way. My apologies.

Yeah, it's food for thought.

I guess I do not think it's wrong to kill in all cases and that's kind of disturbing.

Quote from: "Mermaid"Yeah, it's food for thought.

I guess I do not think it's wrong to kill in all cases and that's kind of disturbing.

Well, we take morality aboard in such a complex manner that it's pretty easy to pick up dissonant elements.  It's good to think about this stuff, though, and I appreciate the good convo, m'self.

Quote from: "Alaric I"Fair point, I guess it didn't look at it that way. My apologies.

No apologies necessary on my account, bud, but it's appreciated.

Quote from: "Plu"Here's an even nastier one: ask them if they want to become test subjects in exchange for monetary support to a person of their choosing. We could use the test subjects.

(I'm not sure if I'm even comfortable with this idea myself, though.  :-s )

That would open up some very dangerous territory, not to mention the immorality of using human beings as test subjects.

It would be the same as torture.
It would not necessarily be 100% consensual, as many poor people might do so out of desperation and that's borderline coercion.
Companies wanting to do testing would mislead, coerce, etc, in order to get test subjects.
Justice systems wanting to make $$$ from this would be more likely to use broader definitions of 'eligibility' in order to send more inmates into such a program.

We already have a real problem with the private prison industry lobbying for stricter laws in order to imprison more and more people for lesser crimes. More inmates = more $$$, so the incentive to 'create' rather than reduce crime is already growing. I don't think we need to be creating any more monetary incentive to justify more of this than already exists.

Quote from: "Plu"Here's an even nastier one: ask them if they want to become test subjects in exchange for monetary support to a person of their choosing. We could use the test subjects.

(I'm not sure if I'm even comfortable with this idea myself, though.  :-s )

Actually they kind of do that already. They study the background of many killers to find out what makers them killers. Then they share the information among academics and the politicians ignore it so that they can use demagoguery tactics without fixing a damn things. Dorothy Otnow Lewis and Lonnie Athens are a couple of what I have found the best researchers on this subject and they have found that violent people have something in common they come from abusive backgrounds so if the politicians didn't bury this information they could use it for policy purposes and educate the public about how violence escalates starting with child abuse then bullying and domestic abuse etc.

As for the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent it doesn't work. In addition to the work I just cited Peter Singer also wrote a few pages on statistical studies in his book "The President of Good and Evil"

http://zakherys.tripod.com/booksqz.htm#sppge (http://zakherys.tripod.com/booksqz.htm#sppge)

The politicians and commercial media don't even allow the reliable researchers  to present their work to the majority of the public let alone base their decisions on it. Only those that seek it out will find out about this research.

I'm not sure that too many people expect the death penalty to really be much of a deterent, then again prison in general doesn't seem to be much of a deterent.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17)

Quote-Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
-Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
-These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

Until we start dealing with the real sources, causes, and reasons for crime, all the death penalty, imprisonment, and gun control arguments aren't going to mean a thing or make any real difference. Those topics deal with the last few steps in a very long path....but they're easier to use to rile people up and make laws about so it looks like something's actually being accomplished.

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Until we start dealing with the real sources, causes, and reasons for crime, all the death penalty, imprisonment, and gun control arguments aren't going to mean a thing or make any real difference. Those topics deal with the last few steps in a very long path....but they're easier to use to rile people up and make laws about so it looks like something's actually being accomplished.

Exactly, the politicians and medias aren't interested in educating the public about any issues instead they're too interested in using manipulation tactics to advance their agenda which has little if anything to do with the best interest of the majority of the public.

The statistics you cite are a lot like the ones Singer cited but the best research to indicate cause and effect are the ones that researched in depth in the background of the killers.

Also they need to address social injustice and the fact that many people don't have economic opportunities with wage suppression etc.