The death penalty

[Metroarachnidanopolis]

I'll say it again; if there is even the slimmest glimer of hope that the offendee can be reformed or shows any sign of remorse and wishes to atone for their crime(s), then life-with-out-parole should be the maximum sentence. Otherwise, they hang at dawn not more than one year hence from sentencing (to facilate a secondary, confirmational investigation into the primary, initial trial and police proceedings. Capital Punishment is too serious to allow anything less than a completely thorough process).

[UCUMAY]

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.

Some people can... The majority of others (serial anything) cannot, or don't want to be.

[Geniasis]

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.

My religion is sort of entirely based on the concept of redemption. Be a bit weird if I believed certain people were beyond it, don'tcha think?

[Jinos]

I am against it, for the simple reason that it will cost the nation less in judicial spending to remove it then keep it, in addition to freeing up the system a little more.

Besides, life in prison is a much harsher punishment then death.

[Alyakia]

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

In this country and every one that isn't a shithole, you need to go through the legal system in order to have the death penalty. Unless you're proposing we throw away the courts or treat murder cases with the possibility of the death penalty the same way we treat small claims it's perfectly legitimate to argue that the death penalty (and the associated proceedures) are more expensive.

Are you going to make a justice system with the death peanlty that doesn't involve a rigorous trial and most likely appeals?

Why? They aren't the point.

Yes. They are. The death penalty will innevitably resuslt in the execution of innocent people. This is sort of a bad thing.

You can't talk about the death penalty without talking about 1) the systems that are necessary in order for it to be carried out and 2) the results of it being carried out.

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.

So did you just not read the post about how it's not a choice beteween "kill them or LET MURDERS AND RAPIST ROAM FREE TO KILL YOUR FAMILY" or did you just ignore it?

Escaping a prison is arguably a problem with the penal system,

So, when's the last time this happened? For an actual murderer?

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.

It's almost like... Murderers getting released and commiting crimes is a problem of "release/don't release" and not "kill/release".

Can you name me any times where a murderer who would have killed was not killed then was released and killed? Since the death penalty and a life sentence without a chance of release are both essentialy for life, why would there be a court willing to kill someone but not imprison them for life?

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.

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.

But it does mean that, as you said, the system is very much flawed and since the punishment cannot be applied without the system you probably shouldn't implement it.

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

Please stop saying risk like you're pretending it hasn't happened before and will not happen again.

Even if he was 100% in support of killing people morally, he's still have to adress this issue.

[Keronians]

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

In this country and every one that isn't a shithole, you need to go through the legal system in order to have the death penalty. Unless you're proposing we throw away the courts or treat murder cases with the possibility of the death penalty the same way we treat small claims it's perfectly legitimate to argue that the death penalty (and the associated proceedures) are more expensive.

Are you going to make a justice system with the death peanlty that doesn't involve a rigorous trial and most likely appeals?

Why? They aren't the point.

Yes. They are. The death penalty will innevitably resuslt in the execution of innocent people. This is sort of a bad thing.

You can't talk about the death penalty without talking about 1) the systems that are necessary in order for it to be carried out and 2) the results of it being carried out.

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.

So did you just not read the post about how it's not a choice beteween "kill them or LET MURDERS AND RAPIST ROAM FREE TO KILL YOUR FAMILY" or did you just ignore it?

Escaping a prison is arguably a problem with the penal system,

So, when's the last time this happened? For an actual murderer?

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.

It's almost like... Murderers getting released and commiting crimes is a problem of "release/don't release" and not "kill/release".

Can you name me any times where a murderer who would have killed was not killed then was released and killed? Since the death penalty and a life sentence without a chance of release are both essentialy for life, why would there be a court willing to kill someone but not imprison them for life?

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.

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.

But it does mean that, as you said, the system is very much flawed and since the punishment cannot be applied without the system you probably shouldn't implement it.

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

Please stop saying risk like you're pretending it hasn't happened before and will not happen again.

Even if he was 100% in support of killing people morally, he's still have to adress this issue.

This.

[Grave_n_idle]

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



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.

I'm not sure that's believable. Looking at pre-nationstate history, killing people seems historically to only be a problem if you can't find a good excuse for why it's okay.

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

Nonsense. Not only is it not looked down upon, it's pretty much the entire basis of our current economic model.

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.

Rights are a construct. They 'exist' in as much as the society allows that they exist. If the state decides you don't have a right, you don't have it. Over-ruled.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

My religion is sort of entirely based on the concept of redemption. Be a bit weird if I believed certain people were beyond it, don'tcha think?

Your religion shouldn't decide the laws of the nation.

[Keronians]

My religion is sort of entirely based on the concept of redemption. Be a bit weird if I believed certain people were beyond it, don'tcha think?

Your religion shouldn't decide the laws of the nation.

Shouldn't does not equate to reality.

Hinduism should not have such a huge sway in India, a secular nation, but it does.

[Grave_n_idle]

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

In this country and every one that isn't a shithole, you need to go through the legal system in order to have the death penalty. Unless you're proposing we throw away the courts or treat murder cases with the possibility of the death penalty the same way we treat small claims it's perfectly legitimate to argue that the death penalty (and the associated proceedures) are more expensive.

Are you going to make a justice system with the death peanlty that doesn't involve a rigorous trial and most likely appeals?

You completely ignored the point, and started speculating about throwing away courts, and a 'small-claims' approach to capital trials. Nonse of that has anything to do with what I said.

The point is - pointing out flaws in the legal system that ascertains 'guilt' is NOT an argument against the 'punishment'. They are two different arguments. Try addressing the one I'm actually making.

Why? They aren't the point.

Yes. They are. The death penalty will innevitably resuslt in the execution of innocent people. This is sort of a bad thing.

You can't talk about the death penalty without talking about 1) the systems that are necessary in order for it to be carried out and 2) the results of it being carried out.

But they aren't the point. Executing the guilty is the point.

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.

So did you just not read the post about how it's not a choice beteween "kill them or LET MURDERS AND RAPIST ROAM FREE TO KILL YOUR FAMILY" or did you just ignore it?

I ignored it because it's irrelevant. No one is saying there's a choice between execution or no punishment. I don't see why I should waste my time on your strawman.

Escaping a prison is arguably a problem with the penal system,

So, when's the last time this happened? For an actual murderer?

I don't know when the last time was, but I remember hearing about this case on the radio:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=6838751

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.

It's almost like... Murderers getting released and commiting crimes is a problem of "release/don't release" and not "kill/release".

Can you name me any times where a murderer who would have killed was not killed then was released and killed? Since the death penalty and a life sentence without a chance of release are both essentialy for life, why would there be a court willing to kill someone but not imprison them for life?

I can't even parse this question as a real paragraph. Can you rephrase it?

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.

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.

But it does mean that, as you said, the system is very much flawed and since the punishment cannot be applied without the system you probably shouldn't implement it.

Unless you're about to argue we similarly shouldn't apply fines, jail time, or community service... then the point is irrelevant. This is the legal system we have. We both wish it wasn't flawed, but it's what it is.

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

Please stop saying risk like you're pretending it hasn't happened before and will not happen again.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a risk that a given execution might kill an innocent person. It's not like we're talking about DELIBERATELY executing the innocent, so it's all 'risk'.

Even if he was 100% in support of killing people morally, he's still have to adress this issue.

No, it's irrelevant. If you wouldn't be in favour of execution even if you were 100% sure of guilt, then the question of the risk of killing innocents is just a smokescreen.

[Grave_n_idle]

Your religion shouldn't decide the laws of the nation.

Shouldn't does not equate to reality.

Hinduism should not have such a huge sway in India, a secular nation, but it does.

Not sure what your point is supposed to be.

[Keronians]

Shouldn't does not equate to reality.

Hinduism should not have such a huge sway in India, a secular nation, but it does.

Not sure what your point is supposed to be.

That religion most certainly does decide the laws of many nations.

Spain, Italy, Poland, India, Pakistan, and the Arab League countries being some of them.

[Keronians]

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.

I'm not sure that's believable. Looking at pre-nationstate history, killing people seems historically to only be a problem if you can't find a good excuse for why it's okay.

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

Nonsense. Not only is it not looked down upon, it's pretty much the entire basis of our current economic model.

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.

Rights are a construct. They 'exist' in as much as the society allows that they exist. If the state decides you don't have a right, you don't have it. Over-ruled.

And I'm telling you that the state should either give the right, or not give it at all. Not on a pick and choose basis.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not sure what your point is supposed to be.

That religion most certainly does decide the laws of many nations.

Spain, Italy, Poland, India, Pakistan, and the Arab League countries being some of them.

Indeed, religion often intrudes into law, even though many of us argue it shouldn't.

But if the question is whether or not you approve of the death penalty, someone else's religion is not going to answer that question for you.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not sure that's believable. Looking at pre-nationstate history, killing people seems historically to only be a problem if you can't find a good excuse for why it's okay.



Nonsense. Not only is it not looked down upon, it's pretty much the entire basis of our current economic model.



Rights are a construct. They 'exist' in as much as the society allows that they exist. If the state decides you don't have a right, you don't have it. Over-ruled.

And I'm telling you that the state should either give the right, or not give it at all. Not on a pick and choose basis.

I assume you similarly object to imprisonment, since it's the state deciding to remove liberty of movement only to some?

[Keronians]

That religion most certainly does decide the laws of many nations.

Spain, Italy, Poland, India, Pakistan, and the Arab League countries being some of them.

Indeed, religion often intrudes into law, even though many of us argue it shouldn't.

But if the question is whether or not you approve of the death penalty, someone else's religion is not going to answer that question for you.

My religion isn't the reason why I oppose it, though it does oppose execution.

I oppose it simply because I do not think that anybody should have the right to take another's life, unless he has no other alternative (this would include self-defence, and acting in defence of another).

I also think that criminals can be rehabilitated, and that there is no rational reason why we should assume that most criminals will commit another crime once released.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed, religion often intrudes into law, even though many of us argue it shouldn't.

But if the question is whether or not you approve of the death penalty, someone else's religion is not going to answer that question for you.

My religion isn't the reason why I oppose it, though it does oppose execution.

I oppose it simply because I do not think that anybody should have the right to take another's life, unless he has no other alternative (this would include self-defence, and acting in defence of another).

And I approve of a death penalty, and my position has nothing to do with my religion. And religion still shouldn't determine law.

[Keronians]

My religion isn't the reason why I oppose it, though it does oppose execution.

I oppose it simply because I do not think that anybody should have the right to take another's life, unless he has no other alternative (this would include self-defence, and acting in defence of another).

And I approve of a death penalty, and my position has nothing to do with my religion. And religion still shouldn't determine law.

My position has nothing to do with religion as well. Or, more accurately, my disapproval of the death penalty isn't based off of religion.

[Grave_n_idle]

I also think that criminals can be rehabilitated, and that there is no rational reason why we should assume that most criminals will commit another crime once released.

You don't have to assume that.

But some criminals do re-offend, that's realistically beyond dispute. And - given that some criminals DO re-offend - it is our responsibility to make sure NONE of those re-offenders are the murderers and rapist and child-molesters.

[Alyakia]

You completely ignored the point, and started speculating about throwing away courts, and a 'small-claims' approach to capital trials. Nonse of that has anything to do with what I said.

The point is - pointing out flaws in the legal system that ascertains 'guilt' is NOT an argument against the 'punishment'. They are two different arguments. Try addressing the one I'm actually making.

When you can't have the punishment without the legal system, it is an argument against trying to have the punishment.

If your argument is about the morality of the punishment its self, I'm not paticularly interested in that at the moment because of all the hurdles that cannot be passed before we even get the point where that is the main point.

But they aren't the point. Executing the guilty is the point.

Yes. They are. It is innevitable that eventually one or more of those "guilty" people you are executing will turn out to have been not so guilty after all. Are you actually reading what I'm saying? It's starting to look like you're trying to avoid actually adressing arguments against the death penalty so you can talk about it in complete isolation, which is pointless.

Unless you're about to argue we similarly shouldn't apply fines, jail time, or community service... then the point is irrelevant. This is the legal system we have. We both wish it wasn't flawed, but it's what it is.

Fines, jail time and community service, once applied, can be stopped and compensated. The death penalty once applied cannot be reversed.

I can name tens, if not hundreds of countries that operate perfectly fine without the death penalty. I cannot do the same for countries without a jail system. Unless you're seriously going to say giving someone a tiny fine for something is the exact same level of severity as killing them.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a risk that a given execution might kill an innocent person. It's not like we're talking about DELIBERATELY executing the innocent, so it's all 'risk'.

Deliberately insituting a system that has before and will innevitably again kill innocents, while knowing fully well that it will happen.

No, it's irrelevant. If you wouldn't be in favour of execution even if you were 100% sure of guilt, then the question of the risk of killing innocents is just a smokescreen.

So, did you just ignore all the people posting who would be in favour of the death penalty if it wasn't because of the risk of killing innocents and cost? Because if your argument is "we can talk about the morality of killing people and only that lalalala SMOKESCREEN" then you should probably go back and read them.

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing, because you're trying to reframe the argument despite the fact that if you suceeded we'd have to go right back to the points you are saying are irrelevant.

[Alyakia]

I also think that criminals can be rehabilitated, and that there is no rational reason why we should assume that most criminals will commit another crime once released.

You don't have to assume that.

But some criminals do re-offend, that's realistically beyond dispute. And - given that some criminals DO re-offend - it is our responsibility to make sure NONE of those re-offenders are the murderers and rapist and child-molesters.

No matter what the cost!

I've always wanted to say that. :3

[Keronians]

I also think that criminals can be rehabilitated, and that there is no rational reason why we should assume that most criminals will commit another crime once released.

You don't have to assume that.

But some criminals do re-offend, that's realistically beyond dispute. And - given that some criminals DO re-offend - it is our responsibility to make sure NONE of those re-offenders are the murderers and rapist and child-molesters.

And therefore multiple offenders should be sentenced for life.

[Alyakia]

You don't have to assume that.

But some criminals do re-offend, that's realistically beyond dispute. And - given that some criminals DO re-offend - it is our responsibility to make sure NONE of those re-offenders are the murderers and rapist and child-molesters.

And therefore multiple offenders should be sentenced for life.

But what if they escape because our prisoner officers are incompetent?! (Also this is irrelevant, clearly.)

[Grave_n_idle]

When you can't have the punishment without the legal system, it is an argument against trying to have the punishment.

No, it isn't - and you admit as much later.

If your argument is about the morality of the punishment its self, I'm not paticularly interested in that at the moment...

That's unfortunate, because that's arguably the topic.

Yes. They are. It is innevitable that eventually one or more of those "guilty" people you are executing will turn out to have been not so guilty after all.

Inevitable? No. Possible? Sure.

Probable even, maybe.

Are you actually reading what I'm saying? It's starting to look like you're trying to avoid actually adressing arguments against the death penalty...

On the contrary, of the two of us, I'm the only on that is actually addressing the death penalty.

Fines, jail time and community service, once applied, can be stopped and compensated. The death penalty once applied cannot be reversed.

And... this is where you admit that a flawed system is not an argument against the punishment.

Deliberately insituting a system that has before and will innevitably again kill innocents, while knowing fully well that it will happen.

May happen. Hence 'risk'.

So, did you just ignore all the people posting who would be in favour of the death penalty if it wasn't because of the risk of killing innocents and cost?

No. I was replying to one person who admitted that, in their case, it was irrelevant.

And I'm arguing that - if you oppose the death penalty EVEN in the case of certain guilt, the 'innocents suffer' argument is a red erring.

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing, because you're trying to reframe the argument...

Reframe? That IS the topic of the thread. Read the OP.

...despite the fact that if you suceeded we'd have to go right back to the points you are saying are irrelevant.

Different question.

I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.

[Alyakia]

I also think that criminals can be rehabilitated, and that there is no rational reason why we should assume that most criminals will commit another crime once released.

You don't have to assume that.

But some criminals do re-offend, that's realistically beyond dispute. And - given that some criminals DO re-offend - it is our responsibility to make sure NONE of those re-offenders are the murderers and rapist and child-molesters.

I am allowed to talk about the failings of the prison system and parole system because it is relevant. You are not allowed to talk about the failings of the legal system because they are irrelevant.