The death penalty

[Grave_n_idle]

The death penalty is only more expensive if it is by lethal injection, if you shoot them in the head with a .22 caliber bullet, its slightly less expensive

Were you joking, or do you actually not understand what makes death sentences so much more expensive than life sentences?

They aren't/ That's an intellectually dishonest argument against a death penalty.

It's like arguing dolphins are the most dangerous pet, because you could drown in the sea.

[Grave_n_idle]

Assuming you've read the thread and know speciifically what crap it is that makes it expensive, do you think you'l be able implement a system without it?

Irrelevant.

What is wrong with the system is NOT a legitimate argument against the death penalty. It's just an argument against the legal system.

Is it really? You could always, you know, just not release them. Perhaps, a sentence, for life? Then maybe even a confinment, where they are themselves, solitary, as it were.

Not 100% certain. People escape from jail, get out of jail, or even hurt people IN jail.

There's literally just one way to eliminate recidivism for sure.

No, really, please, tell us about the innocent people that will innevitably be sujected to the death penalty.

Why? They aren't the point.

[Grave_n_idle]

Assuming you've read the thread and know speciifically what crap it is that makes it expensive, do you think you'l be able implement a system without it?

Is it really? You could always, you know, just not release them. Perhaps, a sentence, for life? Then maybe even a confinment, where they are themselves, solitary, as it were.

No, really, please, tell us about the innocent people that will innevitably be sujected to the death penalty.

Grave and I have been down this road before. Basically, he and I have a fundamental disagreement on which is the higher priority. 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".

Indeed. Murderers and rapists are monsters, and you don't let monsters predate on your children. If you do, you're complicit. That's my view.

I'd rather see a few innocents risked, than see monsters walking free.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is, however, the only 100% certain way to stop recidivism.

I'm assuming you say this because if you put someone in prison you can realease themm, but if you use the death penalty that can never be reversed. That's actually a point against the death penalty.

And the recurrent recidivism is a point against not having one.

[Geniasis]

Grave and I have been down this road before. Basically, he and I have a fundamental disagreement on which is the higher priority. 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".

Indeed. Murderers and rapists are monsters, and you don't let monsters predate on your children. If you do, you're complicit. That's my view.

I'd rather see a few innocents risked, than see monsters walking free.

And likewise, my view is that if you wrongfully execute someone that blood is on your hands and the hands of those who support that system.

I'd rather see a monster spared--not free, than kill an innocent.

[Sorratsin]

I'm assuming you say this because if you put someone in prison you can realease themm, but if you use the death penalty that can never be reversed. That's actually a point against the death penalty.

And the recurrent recidivism is a point against not having one.

Isn't that an issue with the penal system and not an issue with the lack of a death penalty?

[Keronians]

Grave and I have been down this road before. Basically, he and I have a fundamental disagreement on which is the higher priority. 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".

Indeed. Murderers and rapists are monsters, and you don't let monsters predate on your children. If you do, you're complicit. That's my view.

I'd rather see a few innocents risked, than see monsters walking free.

People can be rehabilitated.

[JuNii]

What do you think of it? Are you for it or against it? I am against it because I feel that the idea of bringing justice by doing the exact thing a murderer did is counter intuitive to justice and just a plain silly unethical and revenge driven concept. But what do you think of it?

I don't like how it's being used.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed. Murderers and rapists are monsters, and you don't let monsters predate on your children. If you do, you're complicit. That's my view.

I'd rather see a few innocents risked, than see monsters walking free.

People can be rehabilitated.

That's certainly a nice theology.

[Grave_n_idle]

And the recurrent recidivism is a point against not having one.

Isn't that an issue with the penal system and not an issue with the lack of a death penalty?

Escaping a prison is arguably a problem with the penal system, as is harming someone in jail. The criminal being released, on the other hand, is arguably a problem with the legal system that found and sentenced in the first place. Then again, if an earthquake breaks your prison open, it's not exactly fair to blame that on the prison system, per se.

Execution kills all those birds, with one lethally injected stone.

[Keronians]

People can be rehabilitated.

That's certainly a nice theology.

You don't think they can?

[Grave_n_idle]

That's certainly a nice theology.

You don't think they can?

I think it's a lovely idea, but I don't want to risk my child's life on that wave of optimism.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed. Murderers and rapists are monsters, and you don't let monsters predate on your children. If you do, you're complicit. That's my view.

I'd rather see a few innocents risked, than see monsters walking free.

And likewise, my view is that if you wrongfully execute someone that blood is on your hands and the hands of those who support that system.

I'd rather see a monster spared--not free, than kill an innocent.

Than risk killing an innocent. It's not like I'm saying we should round up innocent people off the street.

No, I think the death-penalty is appropriate where the guilt of the offender is pretty much beyond question - and even then, only for crimes like murder, rape and child molestation.

Find a guy with a dick in a six-year-old? I'm not worried about the 'risk' that he might be innocent. Fry the fucker.

[Hallistar]

Find a guy with a dick in a six-year-old? I'm not worried about the 'risk' that he might be innocent. Fry the fucker.

You took the words out of my mouth.

Ok, fine, my brain

[Keronians]

You don't think they can?

I think it's a lovely idea, but I don't want to risk my child's life on that wave of optimism.

And I don't want to have the government killing people.

It doesn't deter at all.

The only thing it serves for is satisfying our desire for revenge. If you want a guarantee of him never committing a crime again, lock him up forever.

Or, if you'd rather see him recover and become a functioning and productive member of society, rehabilitate him.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think it's a lovely idea, but I don't want to risk my child's life on that wave of optimism.

And I don't want to have the government killing people.

It doesn't deter at all.

The only thing it serves for is satisfying our desire for revenge. If you want a guarantee of him never committing a crime again, lock him up forever.

Or, if you'd rather see him recover and become a functioning and productive member of society, rehabilitate him.

I'm not interested in punishment. I'm not interested in deterrence. I'm not interested in revenge.


If I cared about punishment, and only punishment, I'd be calling for torture.

If I cared about deterrence, I'd say looking for answers AFTER the crime is committed is ALREADY too late.

I I cared about revenge, I'd call for placing the power to sentence in the hands of those who were the victims (or next of kin or executor, in the case of murder).


No - I'm caring about recidivism of the worst kinds of criminals, after they have already proved their guilt.

And still, there's only one 100% guarantee.

[Delanshar]

I think it's a lovely idea, but I don't want to risk my child's life on that wave of optimism.

And I don't want to have the government killing people.

It doesn't deter at all.

The only thing it serves for is satisfying our desire for revenge. If you want a guarantee of him never committing a crime again, lock him up forever.

Or, if you'd rather see him recover and become a functioning and productive member of society, rehabilitate him.

I'd rather have the government killing monsters, than monsters killing innocents.

And whats so bad about the human desire for revenge? We evolved with it for a reason: Everything has it's place.

[Keronians]

And I don't want to have the government killing people.

It doesn't deter at all.

The only thing it serves for is satisfying our desire for revenge. If you want a guarantee of him never committing a crime again, lock him up forever.

Or, if you'd rather see him recover and become a functioning and productive member of society, rehabilitate him.

I'm not interested in punishment. I'm not interested in deterrence. I'm not interested in revenge.


If I cared about punishment, and only punishment, I'd be calling for torture.

If I cared about deterrence, I'd say looking for answers AFTER the crime is committed is ALREADY too late.

I I cared about revenge, I'd call for placing the power to sentence in the hands of those who were the victims (or next of kin or executor, in the case of murder).


No - I'm caring about recidivism of the worst kinds of criminals, after they have already proved their guilt.

And still, there's only one 100% guarantee.

Everybody on death row is considered "guilty". There are still dozens of exonerations, though.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not interested in punishment. I'm not interested in deterrence. I'm not interested in revenge.


If I cared about punishment, and only punishment, I'd be calling for torture.

If I cared about deterrence, I'd say looking for answers AFTER the crime is committed is ALREADY too late.

I I cared about revenge, I'd call for placing the power to sentence in the hands of those who were the victims (or next of kin or executor, in the case of murder).


No - I'm caring about recidivism of the worst kinds of criminals, after they have already proved their guilt.

And still, there's only one 100% guarantee.

Everybody on death row is considered "guilty". There are still dozens of exonerations, though.

Everyone on death row SHOULD be guilty. Even by our current model, this is so - and yet, it's not always the way it happens and that's a flaw in the system.

But just because the system is flawed, doesn't mean the 'punishment' is wrong.

It just means we really should be walking what we're talking - we should actually only be sentencing 'death' in a fraction of those cases.


I suppose the question I need to ask is - does that even matter? If you KNEW the only people to get executed really WERE guilty... would you be in favour, under those circumstances?

[The SGA]

People who are worthy of the Death Penalty, deserve to rot in a cell with one meal a day, and are never let out

[Grave_n_idle]

People who are worthy of the Death Penalty, deserve to rot in a cell with one meal a day, and are never let out

Seems inhumane. Better one quick shot and it's over. Clinical.

[Keronians]

Everybody on death row is considered "guilty". There are still dozens of exonerations, though.

Everyone on death row SHOULD be guilty. Even by our current model, this is so - and yet, it's not always the way it happens and that's a flaw in the system.

But just because the system is flawed, doesn't mean the 'punishment' is wrong.

It just means we really should be walking what we're talking - we should actually only be sentencing 'death' in a fraction of those cases.


I suppose the question I need to ask is - does that even matter? If you KNEW the only people to get executed really WERE guilty... would you be in favour, under those circumstances?

Meh.

As for the last question, no, still no. There are times in which I feel tempted to, like Breivik, but then once I calm down, and think about it, it's still no.

The right to life is a right which should never be violated by the state.

[Grave_n_idle]

As for the last question, no, still no. There are times in which I feel tempted to, like Breivik, but then once I calm down, and think about it, it's still no.

Then any argument about innocence (or risk, thereof) is just a red herring.

The right to life is a right which should never be violated by the state.

There is no 'right to life' unless the state wills it so.

And I'm only talking about over-ruling a 'right to life' where some individual has already chosen to take that 'right' for themselves.

(Or it's equal, in the case of the loss of life quality... and possible additional loss of life... following rape, etc).

[Keronians]

As for the last question, no, still no. There are times in which I feel tempted to, like Breivik, but then once I calm down, and think about it, it's still no.

Then any argument about innocence (or risk, thereof) is just a red herring.

The right to life is a right which should never be violated by the state.

There is no 'right to life' unless the state wills it so.

And I'm only talking about over-ruling a 'right to life' where some individual has already chosen to take that 'right' for themselves.

(Or it's equal, in the case of the loss of life quality... and possible additional loss of life... following rape, etc).

For me it is. For others, it isn't.

If the state were to disappear, I doubt that violating people's right to life would somehow be viewed as wrong. Killing people will still be viewed as wrong, even if it happens more often.

Actions which cause harm to others, and don't benefit anybody other than yourself, are generally looked down upon.

As for overruling a right to life, I don't believe that rights are something that can be overruled. Either you give it, or you don't.

[Furious Grandmothers]

And I don't want to have the government killing people.

It doesn't deter at all.

The only thing it serves for is satisfying our desire for revenge. If you want a guarantee of him never committing a crime again, lock him up forever.

Or, if you'd rather see him recover and become a functioning and productive member of society, rehabilitate him.

I'd rather have the government killing monsters, than monsters killing innocents.

And whats so bad about the human desire for revenge? We evolved with it for a reason: Everything has it's place.

Monsters can't kill innocents if they are locked up. Or rehabed into a Level 1 Human.

Also, we may have evolved an emotional inclination for revenge, but who are you to say that the very reason that we evolved that was so that revenge could play an active role in the legal system? It would be equally absurd to say that we evolved hands for the reason of making knives and holding them to stab people. Evolution does not work on purpose or reason.