What are your feelings on the death penalty?

[Farroc]

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.

[Zatoichi]

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...

[antediluvian]

Morally wrong.
No matter how heinous the crime.

[bennyboy]

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.

[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 )

[Aupmanyav]

Morally wrong.
No matter how heinous the crime.

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

[Farroc]

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.

[TheDevoutPasta]

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?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Morally wrong.
No matter how heinous the crime.

Do you accept that morality is objective and absolute?

[Alaric I]

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.

[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

[Mermaid]

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.

[Shiranu]

>  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.)

[FrankDK]

> 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

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is wrong to kill people for any reason, IMO.

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