Death Penalty In America: Justice or Revenge?

[Arkinesia]

To build on my last post, I was going to quote Penn Jillette, but it would be moot in light of some of the recent posts, so I'll just say it this way—we are the government. The public of this country is the government. So any time we execute someone, and discover later that they were innocent, that blood is on all of our hands. Do we really want that responsibility?

One innocent executed negates any degree of right done by killing any untold thousands of murderers.

[The East Marches]

My own feelings towards the death penalty is that it is a necessary evil. Some people don't have the stomach for doing what they really want to do, so they keep people in giant storage facilities so they can alleviate their own guilt. In reality, some people are broken beyond repair. There are those who I would also consider less than human for certain actions they have taken. These people deserve the death penalty. That is not to say that I don't agree that the system should be geared towards rehabilitation or it does not need to be reformed. Regardless, the fact remains that some people on God's green earth need killing. There is no way to fix or otherwise heal them. Keeping them a 6' x 8' cell for the rest of their lives so you can sleep with a clean conscious is the problem. Like most things in the modern age, they want the result, but they don't want the cost that comes with it.

Exactly why do we need to kill someone who is already in prison and can most likely be prevented from ever harming anyone for the rest of their life?

The person who has to kept in prison for the rest of their life is somebody who can not be rehabilitated. In that case, what is the point of keeping them in a concrete box for the rest of their life? You are killing them, you are just killing them over the remaining life span they have left. If you were to just dispose of them, there would be no difference in the end result. The only reason you desire that box is so you can feel better about it.

[Freefall11111]

Exactly why do we need to kill someone who is already in prison and can most likely be prevented from ever harming anyone for the rest of their life?

The person who has to kept in prison for the rest of their life is somebody who can not be rehabilitated. In that case, what is the point of keeping them in a concrete box for the rest of their life? You are killing them, you are just killing them over the remaining life span they have left. If you were to just dispose of them, there would be no difference in the end result. The only reason you desire that box is so you can feel better about it.

Actually, the only reason I desire that box is because it's cheaper.

[Ifreann]

Exactly why do we need to kill someone who is already in prison and can most likely be prevented from ever harming anyone for the rest of their life?

The person who has to kept in prison for the rest of their life is somebody who can not be rehabilitated. In that case, what is the point of keeping them in a concrete box for the rest of their life? You are killing them, you are just killing them over the remaining life span they have left. If you were to just dispose of them, there would be no difference in the end result. The only reason you desire that box is so you can feel better about it.

So we need to kill people who can't be rehabilitated because I would feel better if we didn't? That makes no sense at all.

[The East Marches]

The person who has to kept in prison for the rest of their life is somebody who can not be rehabilitated. In that case, what is the point of keeping them in a concrete box for the rest of their life? You are killing them, you are just killing them over the remaining life span they have left. If you were to just dispose of them, there would be no difference in the end result. The only reason you desire that box is so you can feel better about it.

Actually, the only reason I desire that box is because it's cheaper.

Thats a worthwhile reason and in the current situation of the American legal system, has validity.

[The East Marches]

The person who has to kept in prison for the rest of their life is somebody who can not be rehabilitated. In that case, what is the point of keeping them in a concrete box for the rest of their life? You are killing them, you are just killing them over the remaining life span they have left. If you were to just dispose of them, there would be no difference in the end result. The only reason you desire that box is so you can feel better about it.

So we need to kill people who can't be rehabilitated because I would feel better if we didn't? That makes no sense at all.

The majority of those claiming to oppose the death penalty say they do for moral reasons. Whats the difference between a concrete coffin and a real one in the end? What is the opposition to the death penalty from in your case?

[Ifreann]

So we need to kill people who can't be rehabilitated because I would feel better if we didn't? That makes no sense at all.

The majority of those claiming to oppose the death penalty say they do for moral reasons. Whats the difference between a concrete coffin and a real one in the end? What is the opposition to the death penalty from in your case?

Various reasons, but none of this explains why we need to execute certain people, as you say we do need to do.

[Conserative Morality]

The majority of those claiming to oppose the death penalty say they do for moral reasons. Whats the difference between a concrete coffin and a real one in the end? What is the opposition to the death penalty from in your case?

What's the difference between a metaphorical societal coffin in which we all work and live and are constrained by and a real one in the end?

A: Innumerable factors.

[Alvecia]

So we need to kill people who can't be rehabilitated because I would feel better if we didn't? That makes no sense at all.

The majority of those claiming to oppose the death penalty say they do for moral reasons. Whats the difference between a concrete coffin and a real one in the end? What is the opposition to the death penalty from in your case?

In one scenario you've killed someone?

[The East Marches]

The majority of those claiming to oppose the death penalty say they do for moral reasons. Whats the difference between a concrete coffin and a real one in the end? What is the opposition to the death penalty from in your case?

What's the difference between a metaphorical societal coffin in which we all work and live and are constrained by and a real one in the end?

A: Innumerable factors.

They keep life prisoners in isolation here in Illinois. They may as well be dead. Kept alone is a box with only an hour's worth of exercise a day. You're seriously going to tell me that is the same as societal rules? Why not just execute them? Its virtually the same thing. They aren't getting any rehabilitation nor are they living. They exist in box.

Edit: By life, I mean the really bad ones because we don't have the death penalty anymore.

[The East Marches]

The majority of those claiming to oppose the death penalty say they do for moral reasons. Whats the difference between a concrete coffin and a real one in the end? What is the opposition to the death penalty from in your case?

In one scenario you've killed someone?

You've killed him the same. Leave somebody in a cell like that long enough, they go mad. The prisoner doesn't exist in society. The goal being to remove them permanently. Where is the difference? The end result will be the same.

[Alvecia]

In one scenario you've killed someone?

You've killed him the same. Leave somebody in a cell like that long enough, they go mad. The prisoner doesn't exist in society. The goal being to remove them permanently. Where is the difference? The end result will be the same.

The difference is in one you don't have someone kill them.

Edit: Also maybe chance for rehabilitation, but I suspect those kinds of prisoners are not the ones up for discussion here.

[The East Marches]

The majority of those claiming to oppose the death penalty say they do for moral reasons. Whats the difference between a concrete coffin and a real one in the end? What is the opposition to the death penalty from in your case?

Various reasons, but none of this explains why we need to execute certain people, as you say we do need to do.

The end goal is to remove somebody from society permanently. What is more humane or more efficient here? Leaving somebody in a cell for 23 hours a day like we do? Its better just to get the unpleasant part over with.

[The East Marches]

You've killed him the same. Leave somebody in a cell like that long enough, they go mad. The prisoner doesn't exist in society. The goal being to remove them permanently. Where is the difference? The end result will be the same.

The difference is in one you don't have someone kill them.

Edit: Also maybe chance for rehabilitation, but I suspect those kinds of prisoners are not the ones up for discussion here.

The state killing you with madness and a shorten life span is the same as them killing you with a bullet. The only distinction the method in which the killing has taken place. The difference at the end of the day is perceived. While you may believe you are being more "moral" by refraining from killing them, you're arguably doing worse. This is the kind bullshit morality was referring to.

To address the edit, yes that is who I am referring to. I would prefer to see the justice system structured towards rehabilitation. However, the question remains what do we do with those who can't be fixed?

[Ifreann]

Various reasons, but none of this explains why we need to execute certain people, as you say we do need to do.

The end goal is to remove somebody from society permanently. What is more humane or more efficient here? Leaving somebody in a cell for 23 hours a day like we do? Its better just to get the unpleasant part over with.

I imagine the people who spent some time doing 23 hours a day in a cell but have since been released might be of a different opinion.

[The East Marches]

The end goal is to remove somebody from society permanently. What is more humane or more efficient here? Leaving somebody in a cell for 23 hours a day like we do? Its better just to get the unpleasant part over with.

I imagine the people who spent some time doing 23 hours a day in a cell but have since been released might be of a different opinion.

I imagine those that attempt or commit suicide during that time might be of a different opinion as well.

[Conserative Morality]

They keep life prisoners in isolation here in Illinois. They may as well be dead. Kept alone is a box with only an hour's worth of exercise a day. You're seriously going to tell me that is the same as societal rules? Why not just execute them? Its virtually the same thing. They aren't getting any rehabilitation nor are they living. They exist in box.

Edit: By life, I mean the really bad ones because we don't have the death penalty anymore.

Permanent solitary confinement in the American manner is inhumane and should be done away with as well.

[Conserative Morality]

To address the edit, yes that is who I am referring to. I would prefer to see the justice system structured towards rehabilitation. However, the question remains what do we do with those who can't be fixed?

Keep them away from harming the general population and those who can be fixed. You don't need to put someone in solitary to achieve that.

[Alvecia]

The difference is in one you don't have someone kill them.

Edit: Also maybe chance for rehabilitation, but I suspect those kinds of prisoners are not the ones up for discussion here.

The state killing you with madness and a shorten life span is the same as them killing you with a bullet. The only distinction the method in which the killing has taken place. The difference at the end of the day is perceived. While you may believe you are being more "moral" by refraining from killing them, you're arguably doing worse. This is the kind bullshit morality was referring to.

To address the edit, yes that is who I am referring to. I would prefer to see the justice system structured towards rehabilitation. However, the question remains what do we do with those who can't be fixed?

Given that it is not a guarantee that people who are locked up for life go mad, and it is, or should be, the case that the prisoners mental wellbeing should be addressed. I don't think there is anything morally wrong about isolation from the rest of society until they can be proven to be able to become a functioning part of it.

[The East Marches]

They keep life prisoners in isolation here in Illinois. They may as well be dead. Kept alone is a box with only an hour's worth of exercise a day. You're seriously going to tell me that is the same as societal rules? Why not just execute them? Its virtually the same thing. They aren't getting any rehabilitation nor are they living. They exist in box.

Edit: By life, I mean the really bad ones because we don't have the death penalty anymore.

Permanent solitary confinement in the American manner is inhumane and should be done away with as well.

Society generally wants these people gone permanently but it doesn't have the stomach to follow through. It makes me sick at their cowardice. Bland claims of "morality" in not killing.

[The East Marches]

To address the edit, yes that is who I am referring to. I would prefer to see the justice system structured towards rehabilitation. However, the question remains what do we do with those who can't be fixed?

Keep them away from harming the general population and those who can be fixed. You don't need to put someone in solitary to achieve that.

If somebody can't be fixed, what is the point in keeping them around? Do we store unrepairable machinery?

[The East Marches]

The state killing you with madness and a shorten life span is the same as them killing you with a bullet. The only distinction the method in which the killing has taken place. The difference at the end of the day is perceived. While you may believe you are being more "moral" by refraining from killing them, you're arguably doing worse. This is the kind bullshit morality was referring to.

To address the edit, yes that is who I am referring to. I would prefer to see the justice system structured towards rehabilitation. However, the question remains what do we do with those who can't be fixed?

Given that it is not a guarantee that people who are locked up for life go mad, and it is, or should be, the case that the prisoners mental wellbeing should be addressed. I don't think there is anything morally wrong about isolation from the rest of society until they can be proven to be able to become a functioning part of it.

I disagree entirely. Isolation for more than a set period of time (I can't remember atm tbh) is proven to be extremely inhumane. I am on mobile atm, I can't exactly dig sources up so good. If anybody would be so good as to post the report regarding this topic, I'd appreciate it.

[Conserative Morality]

If somebody can't be fixed, what is the point in keeping them around? Do we store unrepairable machinery?

People aren't machinery. I'm also not an advocate of euthanasia for the disabled.

[The Foxes Swamp]

if its known 100% that you have killed someone you should die but if its not known 100% jail seems like a fair thing.

[The East Marches]

If somebody can't be fixed, what is the point in keeping them around? Do we store unrepairable machinery?

People aren't machinery. I'm also not an advocate of euthanasia for the disabled.

People are just that in the aggregate. Disabled people can function in society unlike a serial killer or some other type of murderer. In this case, it is the control system that is broken and poses a danger to those around them. To rephrase the example, why leave killbot™® alive? What good does it do us? If they are unable to be rehabilitated and will always pose a danger, what is the harm in disposing of the problem entirely?