The death penalty

[Alyakia]

For my part, I find his treatment of the wrongfully convicted as completely disposable to be disgusting and morally repugnant, but I'm sure he's liable to think something similar about my "willingness to let a murderer go free".

For the last part: Hopefully people will stop pretending that "releasing/not releasing" is relevant to the death penalty and that the death penalty is a choice of "kill them or LET THEM ROAM THE STREETS MURDERING AND RAPING YOUR FAMILY".

[Alyakia]

Did we get our crop of white nationalists this year? I think I missed them.

I think we overplowed the field to be honest in preparation and ruined the crop.

NSG does not understand crop rotation. ):

[Marshallx]

There's something I find amusing or ironic (or both) in reading posts that say they are against the death penalty because you may put an innocent man to death, but then go on to say that anyway, sentencing murderers to life in prison (some here have proposed solitary confinement...known to be harmful and capable of causing long-term damage to human psyche) is a worse punishment than death...

[Geniasis]

For my part, I find his treatment of the wrongfully convicted as completely disposable to be disgusting and morally repugnant, but I'm sure he's liable to think something similar about my "willingness to let a murderer go free".

For the last part: Hopefully people will stop pretending that "releasing/not releasing" is relevant to the death penalty and that the death penalty is a choice of "kill them or LET THEM ROAM THE STREETS MURDERING AND RAPING YOUR FAMILY".

That was a mistake on my part, I don't think that was an assumption he actually made. I'd rather not put words in his mouth.

[Free Pangea]

I'm firmly against the death penalty. I don't even like the idea of life jail sentences.

[Marshallx]

I'm firmly against the death penalty. I don't even like the idea of life jail sentences.

All well and good...but how then would you punish a Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Anders Behring Breivik, or Wal-Mart people? I am serious (except for the last)...what punishment would you meet out?

[Keronians]

I'm firmly against the death penalty. I don't even like the idea of life jail sentences.

All well and good...but how then would you punish a Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Anders Behring Breivik, or Wal-Mart people? I am serious (except for the last)...what punishment would you meet out?

As for Hitler, there's not much I could do about him if I didn't want to be a hypocrite (let's assume that I am the leader of one of the Big Three).

Pol Pot could just be exiled and put on house arrest, and Anders Behring Breivik... 21 years in prison sounds good.

[Bafuria]

There's something I find amusing or ironic (or both) in reading posts that say they are against the death penalty because you may put an innocent man to death, but then go on to say that anyway, sentencing murderers to life in prison (some here have proposed solitary confinement...known to be harmful and capable of causing long-term damage to human psyche) is a worse punishment than death...

A pardon is a lot more useful to those sentenced to life in prison than to those who have been executed.

[Marshallx]

All well and good...but how then would you punish a Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Anders Behring Breivik, or Wal-Mart people? I am serious (except for the last)...what punishment would you meet out?

As for Hitler, there's not much I could do about him if I didn't want to be a hypocrite (let's assume that I am the leader of one of the Big Three).

Pol Pot could just be exiled and put on house arrest, and Anders Behring Breivik... 21 years in prison sounds good.

I think those are extraordinarily light sentences for their crimes. I wouldn't be surprised that many of the family and friends of Breivik's victims felt the same way you do before his killing spree but have subsequently changed their opinion to in favor of the death penalty in certain cases, but i also acknowledge the extreme emotional bias that would have accounted for this.

In fact, i am not a big believer in the DP. BUT i am also certain that there are people walking around today that deserve to die. Unfortunately, I also know that no one, or group of people, is capable of determining with absolute accuracy who these people are. And therein lies (one of) the fundamental issue of this topic.

But where evidence of such heinous crimes is clear, damning, and indisputable, as in Breivik's case, then without question they deserve to be put to death.

[Keronians]

As for Hitler, there's not much I could do about him if I didn't want to be a hypocrite (let's assume that I am the leader of one of the Big Three).

Pol Pot could just be exiled and put on house arrest, and Anders Behring Breivik... 21 years in prison sounds good.

I think those are extraordinarily light sentences for their crimes. I wouldn't be surprised that many of the family and friends of Breivik's victims felt the same way you do before his killing spree but have subsequently changed their opinion to in favor of the death penalty in certain cases, but i also acknowledge the extreme emotional bias that would have accounted for this.

In fact, i am not a big believer in the DP. BUT i am also certain that there are people walking around today that deserve to die. Unfortunately, I also know that no one, or group of people, is capable of determining with absolute accuracy who these people are. And therein lies (one of) the fundamental issue of this topic.

But where evidence of such heinous crimes is clear, damning, and indisputable, as in Breivik's case, then without question they deserve to be put to death.

And what crime did Hitler commit? Therein lies the biggest problem. He committed no crime!

As for Pol Pot, yeah, perhaps house arrest is too little, but I'd have probably just negotiated to grant him amnesty so long as he left Cambodia for good.

Breivik, no. You cannot violate someone's human rights and call it "justice". But I do support life sentences, though, so yeah, I'd probably support him being sentenced to life in prison.

[Marshallx]

There's something I find amusing or ironic (or both) in reading posts that say they are against the death penalty because you may put an innocent man to death, but then go on to say that anyway, sentencing murderers to life in prison (some here have proposed solitary confinement...known to be harmful and capable of causing long-term damage to human psyche) is a worse punishment than death...

A pardon is a lot more useful to those sentenced to life in prison than to those who have been executed.

I'll assume you meant sentenced to life unjustly and then found innocent. And I agree with you there. But I suspect a pardon after thirty years of solitary confinement would be of little value to someone in the larger scheme of things. This of course is something of a rationalization. Speaking for myself, if I was unjustly convicted of murder and locked away when I was 20, and 30 years later was exonerated on DNA evidence or whatever reason, the pardon or any financial restitution (unlikely!) would be of little comfort. What would my life be? At 50 am I going to go to college, graduate and get an entry level position in a company, find a wife, marry and have kids, raise them send them to school and retire happy? Realistically, no. In fact, I would rather have been put to death 30 years before than live what years were left to me after being incarcerated for so long. I mean that. I understand not everyone else would agree with me.

We don't live in a utopia, and therefore have to deal with vagaries and baser elements of human nature. As I said in a previous post, there is no doubt in my mind that some people deserve to die for the actions/crimes. Coming up with a system that is 99.99% infallible is the tricky part. I am clearly implying that the .01% that are unjustly sentenced and put to death must be a necessary cost for the system and society as a whole, just as soldiers, firemen, and people that die in traffic accidents because we are not willing to make driving absolutely 100% safe are.

One point in closing: the position that no one should ever be sentenced to death/put to death is an extreme position. By that I mean on the spectrum of choices of applying the death penalty, e.g. always for every crime (the other extreme), only for major crimes, only for crimes in which an intentional death occurred, only for crimes in which a mass murder occurred, or never applied, the last is the other extreme. It has been my experience in life that extreme positions are rarely the correct or best ones.

[Geniasis]

That sounds like an argument to moderation, which is a fallacy. Just because something lies between two extremes doesn't make it more reasonable.

[Marshallx]

I think those are extraordinarily light sentences for their crimes. I wouldn't be surprised that many of the family and friends of Breivik's victims felt the same way you do before his killing spree but have subsequently changed their opinion to in favor of the death penalty in certain cases, but i also acknowledge the extreme emotional bias that would have accounted for this.

In fact, i am not a big believer in the DP. BUT i am also certain that there are people walking around today that deserve to die. Unfortunately, I also know that no one, or group of people, is capable of determining with absolute accuracy who these people are. And therein lies (one of) the fundamental issue of this topic.

But where evidence of such heinous crimes is clear, damning, and indisputable, as in Breivik's case, then without question they deserve to be put to death.

Breivik, no. You cannot violate someone's human rights and call it "justice". But I do support life sentences, though, so yeah, I'd probably support him being sentenced to life in prison.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement. Which is OK by me and what makes the discussion interesting, and creates discussion like this that help raise people's consciousness.

Now if only our idiot politicians could understand the fact that civil discourse can occur even when points of view are widely disparate...sigh.

[Keronians]

Breivik, no. You cannot violate someone's human rights and call it "justice". But I do support life sentences, though, so yeah, I'd probably support him being sentenced to life in prison.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement. Which is OK by me and what makes the discussion interesting, and creates discussion like this that help raise people's consciousness.

Now if only our idiot politicians could understand the fact that civil discourse can occur even when points of view are widely disparate...sigh.

Meh, I just don't think that we should have the power to violate people's human rights. They should be universal, not on a choose and pick basis.

That, and the fact that the death penalty is more expensive and carries the risk of executing innocents, as well as the possibility of rehabilitation.

[Marshallx]

That sounds like an argument to moderation, which is a fallacy. Just because something lies between two extremes doesn't make it more reasonable.

As indicated, my comment is less of an argument, from a technical or debating stance, and more of an observation. I am not even coming close to saying that since my stance is in the middle of two extremes it must be better or more correct; you are completely inferring that. It is entirely possible that the extreme viewpoint on this subject is the correct or best one, but do you find it common that a given policy, solution, or law, or whatever is always right in all cases and applications, or never right in all cases and applications? As I said this does not happen a lot in my experience.

[Condunum]

(Phone post is phone.)

It's bad. If you're moralistic:
A: Why give a political entity the right to remove your life?
B: Everyone has (should have) a right to live, regardless of what they have done. Yes, I am saying Hitler should not be executed, had he not commited suicide. A human is a human. You should not reduce yourself to eye for an eye.
C: Innocent people are often executed, because they can not find enough evidence to support their side, or it is suppressed.

If you're a cold-hearted capitalist who belives that money is the only thing of value:
A: The death penatly is an expensive process, from the moment they step on the grounds, to the moment their heart stops.
B: Two words. Prison labor.

[Geniasis]

That sounds like an argument to moderation, which is a fallacy. Just because something lies between two extremes doesn't make it more reasonable.

As indicated, my comment is less of an argument, from a technical or debating stance, and more of an observation. I am not even coming close to saying that since my stance is in the middle of two extremes it must be better or more correct; you are completely inferring that. It is entirely possible that the extreme viewpoint on this subject is the correct or best one, but do you find it common that a given policy, solution, or law, or whatever is always right in all cases and applications, or never right in all cases and applications? As I said this does not happen a lot in my experience.

Actually, you'd be surprised at just how often "Geniasis is an incredible lover" ends up being entirely relevant to the situation at hand.

[Marshallx]

Meh, I just don't think that we should have the power to violate people's human rights. They should be universal, not on a choose and pick basis.

I understand, and I've read preceding post you have made on subject, but if one believes that these rights derive from society itself, and one's participation in that society, what is the implication? Put another way, if you are the only one alive in the universe, does talking about human or universal rights even make sense? Or do they only make sense once another person exists that can impact your existence?

Also, a second question: do you consider freedom/liberty (i.e. "...inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...") a universal human right? If so, do you think your position on incarceration is at odds to your position on the death penalty?

I am enjoying this discussion...for the record, I am far more willing to live in or allow a no-death penalty society than I was before engaging in this thread...but I still think I am right :-)

[Keronians]

Meh, I just don't think that we should have the power to violate people's human rights. They should be universal, not on a choose and pick basis.

I understand, and I've read preceding post you have made on subject, but if one believes that these rights derive from society itself, and one's participation in that society, what is the implication? Put another way, if you are the only one alive in the universe, does talking about human or universal rights even make sense? Or do they only make sense once another person exists that can impact your existence?

Also, a second question: do you consider freedom/liberty (i.e. "...inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...") a universal human right? If so, do you think your position on incarceration is at odds to your position on the death penalty?

I am enjoying this discussion...for the record, I am far more willing to live in or allow a no-death penalty society than I was before engaging in this thread...but I still think I am right :-)

I rather view incarceration as isolation from society. That is, society telling a person that they do not want him until he does not mend his ways. And, anyway, I'd rather focus more on rehabilitation than punishment.

[Quelesh]

One point in closing: the position that no one should ever be sentenced to death/put to death is an extreme position. By that I mean on the spectrum of choices of applying the death penalty, e.g. always for every crime (the other extreme), only for major crimes, only for crimes in which an intentional death occurred, only for crimes in which a mass murder occurred, or never applied, the last is the other extreme. It has been my experience in life that extreme positions are rarely the correct or best ones.

That sounds like an argument to moderation, which is a fallacy. Just because something lies between two extremes doesn't make it more reasonable.

Agreed. The position that no infant should ever have both of her arms ripped off is also an "extreme" position. There's a spectrum of choices of ripping infants' arms off: doing it to all infants (the other extreme), only for infants that cry too much, or to no infants. I support the extreme "never" position here, not the moderate "only if they cry too much" position.

(This isn't intended to compare the two practices. I'm using this as an example to argue against the assertion that "extreme" positions are bad.)

[Marshallx]

One point in closing: the position that no one should ever be sentenced to death/put to death is an extreme position. By that I mean on the spectrum of choices of applying the death penalty, e.g. always for every crime (the other extreme), only for major crimes, only for crimes in which an intentional death occurred, only for crimes in which a mass murder occurred, or never applied, the last is the other extreme. It has been my experience in life that extreme positions are rarely the correct or best ones.

That sounds like an argument to moderation, which is a fallacy. Just because something lies between two extremes doesn't make it more reasonable.

Agreed. The position that no infant should ever have both of her arms ripped off is also an "extreme" position. There's a spectrum of choices of ripping infants' arms off: doing it to all infants (the other extreme), only for infants that cry too much, or to no infants. I support the extreme "never" position here, not the moderate "only if they cry too much" position.

(This isn't intended to compare the two practices. I'm using this as an example to argue against the assertion that "extreme" positions are bad.)

So you are saying that extreme positions are always good?

[Keronians]

Agreed. The position that no infant should ever have both of her arms ripped off is also an "extreme" position. There's a spectrum of choices of ripping infants' arms off: doing it to all infants (the other extreme), only for infants that cry too much, or to no infants. I support the extreme "never" position here, not the moderate "only if they cry too much" position.

(This isn't intended to compare the two practices. I'm using this as an example to argue against the assertion that "extreme" positions are bad.)

So you are saying that extreme positions are always good?

He's saying that they can be good.

[Marshallx]

So you are saying that extreme positions are always good?

He's saying that they can be good.

Oh...I thought it was "twist someone's words Tuesday". Sorry.

Obviously I wasn't serious in what I wrote in response to your post. In fact i have already said that they can/might be the correct stance. My point simply is I have NOT argued toward the middle. All I have been explicit in saying that from my experience an extreme viewpoint is rarely the correct one, not that it can't be, or that someone can't contrive a scenario where the extreme view point is the correct/best one. Put another way, what I am saying is something similar to Occam's Razor (which I am sure we are all familiar with), i.e. Marshallx's Razor: extreme/endpoint views, policies, or laws should be treated with suspicion, not accepted or assumed to be true because they sound good.

Quelesh: for the record, if the only way to save a baby's life was to amputate or rip off her arms, what would you do?

[Alyakia]

while i really don't have time to read through al this due to magical udnerground monorails i would like to say i fully support the extreme positions of never raping someone or commiting genocide (as suspicious as they are)

quoting the united states consitution to a spanish guy itt

[Hallistar]

I'm divided over it, but I do feel like if they did something really heinous or went on a killing spree (and were perfectly sane as ruled by a court of law) then they should get the death penalty. The thought of death on someone else comforting people as a justification for the death penalty does come off as strange to me at times, but on the other hand I feel like people who so readily end another's life should be ready to reap what they sow. Regrettably though, the issue of innocents being executed does come to hand, so I feel that it should be a case of absolute no doubt over the guilt. The case of people like Troy Davis and the jury setting his execution date is one of those things that I am against, since there is a huge amount of doubt over it as many witnesses changed their story and evidence is pointing in other directions.

Edit: I will say though; Life in prison with no parole or appeal whatsoever imo is way worse than the death penalty.