• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are people who oppose death penalty naive?

I

Infohawk

Lifer
Poet who opposed death penalty, after murder of daughter, wanted retribution

For those of you that are categorically against the death penalty, do you feel like you can really sympathize with those who have lost someone?
If so, how do you reconcile one's natural (and in my opinion just) desire for retribution with those feelings?

In my opinion many who oppose the death penalty, like the poet in the link used to be, are naive. If something really happened to you, your friends or family, you would want retribution, which many cases can only be the death of the perpetrator.

(Although I'm sure someone will raise the issue, this thread is not about falsely-convicted people. You can argue for higher burdens of proof for capital cases, but for this thread assume that there are cases where the evidence or plea clearly shows guilt.)

Edit: And for those of you who think that retributive justice is only for emotional basketcases I suggest you read what Kant has to say about it.
 
I think the way you've worded your topic is asking for trolling...

I believe in use of the death penalty, but I also believe that many people who oppose the death penalty are not naive, but simply much more forgiving than I am. Or they simply believe that government should not be in the business of killing.
 
I am against the death penalty not because I oppose retribution for the wicked, but because the justice system is imperfect. Any risk of terminating an innocent innocent life, no matter how minor or small the risk, is far too great.

I don't know of an absolute method in use in courts used to determine guilt/innocence with 100% certainty and 0% chance of error, so therefore, a permanent and irreversible penalty taking everything and leaving nothing is excessive.
 
Go watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on the death penalty. They do an entertaining explanation that one cannot argue is based on naivety.
 
i don't give a flying fuck whether someone wants revenge (justice lol) or not. If someone in my family were murdered/raped, i would hope that noone would listen to me either. The law should be fair, impartial, and respect the rights of the (potentially) innocent, not the rage of a family or individuals loss.
 
I'm not naive. In an ideal world it should be automatic death penalty for first degree murder, no ifs and no buts. However, this is not an ideal world, if it was, there wouldn't be any murders in the first place. And I believe it is naive to think that justice is always 100% correct. Innocent people get sentenced every year and every year people get exonerated based on new evidence. There are documented cases where prosecution or cops fudged up the evidence to convict the guy. I'd hate to put an innocent guy on a death row. Life sentence is every bit as good as death penalty (aside from wasting tax money), and if the guy was innocent, at least he has a chance to be exonerated.
 
Death penalty is not about forgiveness-- it's about providing a dis-incentive to future murderers. I'm not worried about forgiving the current criminals actions, I'm concerned about how this makes a future criminal less likely to restrain himself. Look at China-- hardly any homicides there, you can't get out of a murder no ifs-ands-or-buts.

If you want it to be about forgiveness then you should get a church involved, get the criminal coming, see if he converts and shows some real fruit of change. Otherwise no getting off death penalty; also, esp. if death penalty is cheaper than keeping people in prison for life, then they should be put to death.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Death penalty is not about forgiveness-- it's about providing a dis-incentive to future murderers. I'm not worried about forgiving the current criminals actions, I'm concerned about how this makes a future criminal less likely to restrain himself. Look at China-- hardly any homicides there, you can't get out of a murder no ifs-ands-or-buts.

If you want it to be about forgiveness then you should get a church involved, get the criminal coming, see if he converts and shows some real fruit of change. Otherwise no getting off death penalty; also, esp. if death penalty is cheaper than keeping people in prison for life, then they should be put to death.
Click to expand...

Does not work.
 
I have no problem with it... Other than the fact that you could end up 'murdering' someone who is later deemed innocent.
Forgot to add... It's not a moral issue with me in terms of whether we should kill someone who definitely raped/murdered a person. I don't give a shit about that pos. I'm just worried about the miniscule possibility of having the wrong perp sitting in that chair.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk

Topic Title: Are people who oppose death penalty naive?
[pb]Topic Summary[/b]: If you oppose death penalty, do you really think about what it would be like to have a loved one murdered?

In my opinion many who oppose the death penalty, like the poet in the link used to be, are naive. If something really happened to you, your friends or family, you would want retribution, which many cases can only be the death of the perpetrator.

For those of you that are categorically against the death penalty, do you feel like you can really sympathize with those who have lost someone?
If so, how do you reconcile one's natural (and in my opinion just) desire for retribution with those feelings?

(Although I'm sure someone will raise the issue, this thread is not about falsely-convicted people. You can argue for higher burdens of proof for capital cases, but for this thread assume that there are cases where the evidence or plea clearly shows guilt.)
Click to expand...

In my opinion, YOUR opinion is the best argument why the death penalty should be banned for several reasons:
  1. It has nothing to do with sympathy for victims and their families and friends or with serving the cause of justice. Executing the killers won't restore life to the victims, and won't stop them from killing innocent people again if they're locked away for life.
  2. It has nothing to do saving money because it costs the state more to execute killers than to warehouse them for life.
  3. It most certainly has everything to do with not being able to UN-execute someone who has been falsely convicted. Even with the strongest, most plausible evidence available at the time of trial, there have been executions based on what were later determined to be false convictions.
If we are the civil society we claim, or at least aspire, to be, ONE execution of someone falsely convicted is one more than we should tolerate.

Cliffs:

Our courts are intended to be dispassionate determiners of fact, not agents of vengence.

Executions cost more than life sentences.

Executing people for crimes they didn't commit makes those who execute them as much the murderers as those they intend to punish.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Death penalty is not about forgiveness-- it's about providing a dis-incentive to future murderers. I'm not worried about forgiving the current criminals actions, I'm concerned about how this makes a future criminal less likely to restrain himself. Look at China-- hardly any homicides there, you can't get out of a murder no ifs-ands-or-buts.

If you want it to be about forgiveness then you should get a church involved, get the criminal coming, see if he converts and shows some real fruit of change. Otherwise no getting off death penalty; also, esp. if death penalty is cheaper than keeping people in prison for life, then they should be put to death.
Click to expand...

countries that do not have the death penalty have lower murder rates than us, so thats a pretty irrelevant point in general.
 
Yes I've thought about what it would be like and yes I oppose it because I am not an impulsive animal with an undeveloped sense of morality and justice. Retribution is something people do, not something socities and justice systems should do.
 
I think the death penalty should be allowed but only in cases where there was unequivocal evidence that the person is guilty, someone seeing them doing the act or multiple murders for instance. The idea of prison is reform, if someone is a mass murderer the chances for reform are next to nil. Just using things like DNA found at the scene is not enough for me. There have been too many cases where evidence was found later that the person was innocent.

The problem with the death penalty is it was not created as a form of retribution, but a deterrent. It worked rather well when people were hung in public, but now it is removed from the public to the point that people often don't even know when someone has been put on death row unless the media is having a slow news day. It is no longer a deterrent. I can't imagine many criminal about to shoot someone thinking "wait, I might get caught, get convicted and be sentenced to death", that usually comes after the crime is already committed.

Penitentiaries were created for people to make penitence for their crimes. Problem is people just don't give a damn when they commit crimes anymore and so the old idea doesn't work because people are not sorry for what they did, they justify it. Instead we should focus on education. I would love to see the 20 year sentence replaced with a 20 year + must have a college degree to be released.

 
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I am against the death penalty not because I oppose retribution for the wicked, but because the justice system is imperfect. Any risk of terminating an innocent innocent life, no matter how minor or small the risk, is far too great.

I don't know of an absolute method in use in courts used to determine guilt/innocence with 100% certainty and 0% chance of error, so therefore, a permanent and irreversible penalty taking everything and leaving nothing is excessive.
Click to expand...

I am for the death penalty, but the above is the only argument that will give me pause. In the end, I happen to believe that not having a death penalty would be worse than having it. I know how that sounds, it sounds dispassionate and removed from reality. But that's exactly the thing that it prevents. People need to be faced with extreme consequences for extreme actions, otherwise, in the heat of the moment, they lack the reason to restrain themselves. Enough people get heated enough to fling the possibility of their death aside, and if there wasn't even that, I can see people being able to consider murder as an option much, much more.

Originally posted by: sandorski

Does not work.
Click to expand...

What is with your 1 liner responses lately? If you don't care enough to explain yourself, then don't post dissent. I guess you think it makes you look smart. But unfortunately we don't have the benefit of knowing your greatness as you do, so you need to explain these things to us poor peons.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Infohawk

Topic Title: Are people who oppose death penalty naive?
[pb]Topic Summary[/b]: If you oppose death penalty, do you really think about what it would be like to have a loved one murdered?

In my opinion many who oppose the death penalty, like the poet in the link used to be, are naive. If something really happened to you, your friends or family, you would want retribution, which many cases can only be the death of the perpetrator.

For those of you that are categorically against the death penalty, do you feel like you can really sympathize with those who have lost someone?
If so, how do you reconcile one's natural (and in my opinion just) desire for retribution with those feelings?

(Although I'm sure someone will raise the issue, this thread is not about falsely-convicted people. You can argue for higher burdens of proof for capital cases, but for this thread assume that there are cases where the evidence or plea clearly shows guilt.)
Click to expand...

In my opinion, YOUR opinion is the best argument why the death penalty should be banned for several reasons:
  1. It has nothing to do with sympathy for victims and their families and friends or with serving the cause of justice. Executing the killers won't restore life to the victims, and won't stop them from killing innocent people again if they're locked away for life.
  2. It has nothing to do saving money because it costs the state more to execute killers than to warehouse them for life.
  3. It most certainly has everything to do with not being able to UN-execute someone who has been falsely convicted. Even with the strongest, most plausible evidence available at the time of trial, there have been executions based on what were later determined to be false convictions.
If we are the civil society we claim, or at least aspire, to be, ONE execution of someone falsely convicted is one more than we should tolerate.

Cliffs:

Our courts are intended to be dispassionate determiners of fact, not agents of vengence.

Executions cost more than life sentences.

Executing people for crimes they didn't commit makes those who execute them as much the murderers as those they intend to punish.
Click to expand...
Death to the Murdering Tobacco Executives!!! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: :|

Oh wait...

 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Death penalty is not about forgiveness-- it's about providing a dis-incentive to future murderers. I'm not worried about forgiving the current criminals actions, I'm concerned about how this makes a future criminal less likely to restrain himself. Look at China-- hardly any homicides there, you can't get out of a murder no ifs-ands-or-buts.

If you want it to be about forgiveness then you should get a church involved, get the criminal coming, see if he converts and shows some real fruit of change. Otherwise no getting off death penalty; also, esp. if death penalty is cheaper than keeping people in prison for life, then they should be put to death.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because when I look at a justice system to mold our own to, I think of China :roll:
 
Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Executing people for crimes they didn't commit makes those who execute them as much the murderers as those they intend to punish.
Click to expand...

Death to the Murdering Tobacco Executives!!! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: :|

Oh wait...
Click to expand...

Ah... Would you feel better if I had said something like...

hyperbole to the Murdering Tobacco Executives!!! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: :|
Click to expand...

Thanks for trolling. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
I would love to see the 20 year sentence replaced with a 20 year + must have a college degree to be released.
Click to expand...

Lol, nice... so we can welcome our newly released murderer's and rapists smarter than before they came in? Look, vast majority of these people are inherently evil or malevolent and no amount of "rehab" will ever make them acceptable members of society.
How about we reform this tool Linky
and turn him into a college grad yay! I'd sure feel safe having my daughter share classes with him in college. This guy should get firing squad.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Harvey

Executing people for crimes they didn't commit makes those who execute them as much the murderers as those they intend to punish.
Click to expand...

Death to the Murdering Tobacco Executives!!! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: :|

Oh wait...
Click to expand...

Ah... Would you feel better if I had said something like...

hyperbole to the Murdering Tobacco Executives!!! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: :|
Click to expand...

Jackass! :roll:
Click to expand...
You're right, you do sound like a jackass when you're calling for their death, but don't really mean it. Thanks for pointing that out!

 
It's interesting that many people assume retribution is necessarily animalistic and/or primitive.

This is simply not the case. I would refer you to Kant:
Kant on Capital Punishment

Furthermore, the legal system does have to take into consideration the emotions of society as a whole. If the entire populace felt that justice was not being dolled out to criminals, they would simply take the law into their own hands.
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot

countries that do not have the death penalty have lower murder rates than us, so thats a pretty irrelevant point in general.
Click to expand...

Some countries, yes. I'm sure it wouldn't take long to find a country with no death penalty with higher murder rates than us as well. I guess here I should insert a random correlation/causation lesson, but no. Fact is, the death penalty has worked as a deterrent in the past, and for most people, if being killed is the penalty for raping and murdering a little child, then that's enough of a deterrent to not do it.

I do understand that I'm assuming people to be rational, but at the same time if you try to use that argument against me, I'll just say that nobody is truly and completely rational, we're all just at various degrees. The real question is whether someone who is considering murder, or besides themself with rage, will be deterred by the possibility of their own death, since we are far removed from death penalties these days, as pointed out above. The problem is, either you have psychos murdering and raping, or you have people who would, at least at the time, tell you they'd be willing to give their lives up to achieve the "justice" they suppose they are achieving. Then again, the fact that very many murders are committed in cold blood is an indicator that the status quo is working. You'll never prevent all murders, but if having a death penalty prevents some, then it's worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top