Are people who oppose death penalty naive?

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
By the way...

Fund health care via live pay-per-view executions? Yes, basically every society is that fucked up.

corrected

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

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.

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.

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.

Am I wrong?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

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.

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.

what country doesnt have a death penalty and has a higher murder rate?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
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.

It is. There was a time when it was difficult to keep someone Locked up. Both from a Technological/Structural view and from a Economic Cost view. It was a practical way to prevent someone from repeating their Crime.

That no longer exists. Even today Innocent people can/will be falsely Convicted. Why? Because Vengeance is not Logical or Reasonable, it is pure Animal/Primitive emotion.

The Death Penalty is Barbaric.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

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.

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.

It would be better than locking someone up for 20 years then letting them go exactly like they came in so they can repeat the same mistakes. Contrary to what you believe most prisoners are not evil, they made bad choices based on bad information they either were taught or learned from life experiences. Very few babies if any are born serial killers. Education can change that to show them that there are other options and other ways to do things.

Putting any living creature in a cage for long periods of time then expecting them to be improved when released is asinine.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Because Vengeance is not Logical or Reasonable, it is pure Animal/Primitive emotion.

There are generally reasonable people that disagree with you. There is a lot of academic work on the idea that reciprocity creates cooperation, specifically in the field of game theory.

I don't believe that we have evolved beyond basic self-interest (otherwise socialism might work). Instead, we are still animals with an ingrained basic sense of justice in us. That doesn't mean we can get rid of trials but I don't think it's useful to stop promoting reciprocity.

 

[soulcougher73]

I am for the death penalty but only in cases where they admited to the murders or are caught on tape or some other fool proof evidence. For other cases where their is no such proof but you are found guilty i give them/their laywer 1 year to find the proof. If not then death. I believe that harsh punishments will detour future crimes.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
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.

Costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life. For that reason alone, I say scrub it. You can add in the possibility of killing an innocent person but at the same time, most people that have had sentences overturned that could potentially have resulted in a death sentence sat in max security hell hole prison for 30 years of their life before being found innocent. Personally, I'd take the death penalty over 30 years in a max security prison for a crime I didn't commit.

 

[villageidiot111]

Killing someone, whether it be an act of murder or state supported retribution, is never right. Whenever the state executes someone there is blood on everyone's hands.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
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.

Costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life. For that reason alone, I say scrub it. You can add in the possibility of killing an innocent person but at the same time, most people that have had sentences overturned that could potentially have resulted in a death sentence sat in max security hell hole prison for 30 years of their life before being found innocent. Personally, I'd take the death penalty over 30 years in a max security prison for a crime I didn't commit.

1 single rope should last a good hundred people before it finally snaps and you have to buy a new one. Plus bullets are cheap as well.

 

[villageidiot111]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
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.

Costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life. For that reason alone, I say scrub it. You can add in the possibility of killing an innocent person but at the same time, most people that have had sentences overturned that could potentially have resulted in a death sentence sat in max security hell hole prison for 30 years of their life before being found innocent. Personally, I'd take the death penalty over 30 years in a max security prison for a crime I didn't commit.

1 single rope should last a good hundred people before it finally snaps and you have to buy a new one. Plus bullets are cheap as well.

That's a rather simplistic view of the death penalty. In reality the combined costs of all of the appeals afforded by our justice system trump the cost of keeping somebody alive in prison for forty years.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
[

1 single rope should last a good hundred people before it finally snaps and you have to buy a new one. Plus bullets are cheap as well.

Read up about botched executions and you might change your mind. It still happens even today.
People that had to be shocked 3 times, people that woke up during lethal injections and suffocated rather than the peaceful method they promote. Others that had to be shot after being hanged because they were still alive.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

what country doesnt have a death penalty and has a higher murder rate?

I might have misspoken. Maybe we do need a lesson about correlation/causation. Let's pretend I'm wrong, and countries with no death penalty have lower intentional homicide rates than the US. Does that necessarily mean that the abolition of the death penalty caused this effect? No, it would be far more reasonable to assume that the countries with high death rates and the death penalty have, through the centuries of recent history, assumed that the death penalty was a deterrent to murder. It would also be reaonsonable to assume that in countries that already have very high murder rates, removing the death penalty would in no way influence a potential murderer's thoughts towards not murdering, in the slightest.

To put this into perspective, would anyone in their right mind try to claim that abolishing the death penalty in, say, Jamaica, would reduce the number of homocides? No.

But the above doesn't matter because I'm not wrong. Just as there are countries with no death penalty and lower murder rates, there are also some with higher. A few of these are, in no particular order:

Mexico
Turkey
Ukraine
Germany

I also did not include ridiculous examples, these are the more civilized nations. For example, in the vast majority of South America, the death penalty has been abolished for any crimes other than crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (mostly times of war). Obviously, South America has a much, much higher murder rate than the US.

In fact, the number of countries with no death penalty for homicide but still with higher homicide rates than the US is rather large. I took all this from Wikipedia, I had to sort through several pages so I won't link them all, just google if you don't believe me.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: sandorski
Because Vengeance is not Logical or Reasonable, it is pure Animal/Primitive emotion.

There are generally reasonable people that disagree with you. There is a lot of academic work on the idea that reciprocity creates cooperation, specifically in the field of game theory.

I don't believe that we have evolved beyond basic self-interest (otherwise socialism might work). Instead, we are still animals with an ingrained basic sense of justice in us. That doesn't mean we can get rid of trials but I don't think it's useful to stop promoting reciprocity.

Uhh, you're wrong. It is useful to stop all kinds of things.

1) A 13(approx) year old girl is ready to Mate. We prevent that to give her the chance to Learn more free of influence from Older Men. To give her the Opportunity to choose her path.

2) We prevent people from Speeding or travelling wherever they feel like it. Causes less Death/Destruction and improves Traffic Flow

3) We do all kinds of things to thwart Barbarism that results in a better Life for all.

What you propose is ridiculous. "Evolution" has very little to do with this discussion as Civilization is not the result of Evolution, it is the result of Our conscious Effort to rise out of Animalistic and Barbaric existence.

Perhaps that's what you want, Somalia comes close to a Society adhering to Evolutionary Instincts. I hear they send out Welcoming parties to Sea Vessels.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
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.

Costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life. For that reason alone, I say scrub it. You can add in the possibility of killing an innocent person but at the same time, most people that have had sentences overturned that could potentially have resulted in a death sentence sat in max security hell hole prison for 30 years of their life before being found innocent. Personally, I'd take the death penalty over 30 years in a max security prison for a crime I didn't commit.

1 single rope should last a good hundred people before it finally snaps and you have to buy a new one. Plus bullets are cheap as well.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


what you said isn't really deserving of a response.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: villageidiot111
Killing someone, whether it be an act of murder or state supported retribution, is never right. Whenever the state executes someone there is blood on everyone's hands.

This is true. Let's think about it this way though. While in wartime we do bloody our hands as well, the aim is to keep our citizens safe. I'm quite sure that no reasonable person would advocate the abolition of violence completely. We need to protect ourselves, and sometimes the only way to do that is by killing someone else who means harm to our society.

Do you see where this is going? Of course you do. The difference is that we call that war. Would it make you feel better if the US declared war on all rapists and murderers? Does the word "war" really justify a killing in any way that logic does not? No. If killing someone makes the nation safer, then by the same logic that war is justified, killing that person is also justified.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Uhh, you're wrong.

Wow that was helpful. Maybe you can publish your findings for all those game theorists out there and they can stop wasting their time.

It is useful to stop all kinds of things.

1) A 13(approx) year old girl is ready to Mate. We prevent that to give her the chance to Learn more free of influence from Older Men. To give her the Opportunity to choose her path.

2) We prevent people from Speeding or travelling wherever they feel like it. Causes less Death/Destruction and improves Traffic Flow

These points don't really contradict mine.

Our conscious Effort to rise out of Animalistic and Barbaric existence.

I hear this kind of thinking works well in abstinence programs.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: sandorski
Uhh, you're wrong.

Wow that was helpful. Maybe you can publish your findings for all those game theorists out there and they can stop wasting their time.

It is useful to stop all kinds of things.

1) A 13(approx) year old girl is ready to Mate. We prevent that to give her the chance to Learn more free of influence from Older Men. To give her the Opportunity to choose her path.

2) We prevent people from Speeding or travelling wherever they feel like it. Causes less Death/Destruction and improves Traffic Flow

These points don't really contradict mine.

Our conscious Effort to rise out of Animalistic and Barbaric existence.

I hear this kind of thinking works well in abstinence programs.

They do, you just fail to see it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
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 like that reasoning.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: tk149
Or they simply believe that government should not be in the business of killing.

the government has no right to kill its citizens

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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.

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

Yep, correlation != causation.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
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.

Costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life. For that reason alone, I say scrub it. You can add in the possibility of killing an innocent person but at the same time, most people that have had sentences overturned that could potentially have resulted in a death sentence sat in max security hell hole prison for 30 years of their life before being found innocent. Personally, I'd take the death penalty over 30 years in a max security prison for a crime I didn't commit.

1 single rope should last a good hundred people before it finally snaps and you have to buy a new one. Plus bullets are cheap as well.

Its irrelevant because thats not the way it works and it will never work that way under our current system. You could advocate people just not killing each other anymore and get the same results.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
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.

Kant was another century. He's outdated.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I vote for using a firing squad and sending the bill of that to your family. OF course we need some major cost reductions first of all. Execution reform just like health care reform. All it takes is 5 guys with 5 rifles. The cost should be to drive your ass to a field and the cost of shooting 5 bullets... oh and the cost of those 5 guys who get to shoot you (by the hour). I'd say under $1000 no?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

1 single rope should last a good hundred people before it finally snaps and you have to buy a new one. Plus bullets are cheap as well.

That's not where the cost is. The cost is in the appeals process for legal counsel, court time and the added security required for capital cases. If you think you're willing to forego all that due process, you'Il probably change your mind if you ever have to experience dealing with it from as an wrongly convicted defendant. :shocked:

Originally posted by: DLeRium

I vote for using a firing squad and sending the bill of that to your family. OF course we need some major cost reductions first of all. Execution reform just like health care reform. All it takes is 5 guys with 5 rifles. The cost should be to drive your ass to a field and the cost of shooting 5 bullets... oh and the cost of those 5 guys who get to shoot you (by the hour). I'd say under $1000 no?

< sarcasm >

I vote for testing that theory on you after you're falsely accused, tried and convicted of a capital offense. :roll:

< /sarcasm >

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
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.

I guess you didn't notice that the guy who did that think on Kant also blew him out of the water?

 

[JD50]

I am against the death penalty because juries can be absolutely retarded and I have no faith in our government to be correct 100 percent of the time.