Capital Punishment

[Aupmanyav]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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

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

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

[Jason78]

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

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

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

[Jason78]

My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

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

[aitm]

My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

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

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

[Jason78]

My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

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

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

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

Which fate would you fear more?

[SilentFutility]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aitm]

Which fate would you fear more?

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

[Jason78]

Although even I would not be able to torture someone for very long.

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

goddamn I can be evil if I wish.

You can do better! :D

[Jmpty]

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

[Hydra009]

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

That's cute.

[aitm]

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

[ Image ]

That's cute.

Hey, Newtons 3rd.

[Aupmanyav]

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

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

[Plu]

I highly doubt it.

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

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

Or check some random other links:

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

All of them say the same thing.

[SilentFutility]

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

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

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