If the punishment fits

[Socialist Tera]

And it's illegal for good reasons. And besides, if the threat of death doesn't deter people then the threat of torture and death hardly will.

That's your opinion, one that I don't share. That's a meaningless argument, deterrent punishments will never be fully effective, there will always be some psycho who is unfazed by any deterrent punishment. Being less than 100% effective doesn't disqualify a deterrent punishment from being used.

You have to ask yourself if you are morally right to torture someone and how effective deterrence it would be. You could be executed for petty thief in medieval times but it was often never followed upon.

[Ifreann]

And it's illegal for good reasons. And besides, if the threat of death doesn't deter people then the threat of torture and death hardly will.

That's your opinion, one that I don't share. That's a meaningless argument, deterrent punishments will never be fully effective, there will always be some psycho who is unfazed by any deterrent punishment. Being less than 100% effective doesn't disqualify a deterrent punishment from being used.

The death penalty isn't an effective deterrent as it is, so yes, obviously something being ineffective doesn't stop it being used.

[Telconi]

That's your opinion, one that I don't share. That's a meaningless argument, deterrent punishments will never be fully effective, there will always be some psycho who is unfazed by any deterrent punishment. Being less than 100% effective doesn't disqualify a deterrent punishment from being used.

You have to ask yourself if you are morally right to torture someone and how effective deterrence it would be. You could be executed for petty thief in medieval times but it was often never followed upon.

We practice pain compliance on animals. It's a tool, hard wired into us. We act in such a way as to avoid inflicting additional pain upon ourselves. Therefore, an adequate threat of pain would naturally deter a normal individual from committing an act. If they aren't deterred, as a result of mental illness or defect, then obviously it would fail, but in such a situation I doubt incarceration would effectively deter them either.

[Crockerland]

Capital Punishment is only ever justified punishment for a murderer, allowing it for other crimes encourages those other criminals to murder their victims. If, for example, capital punishment is leveled as a charge against rapists, then rapists will just start murdering their victims to cover up their crimes.

[The Lone Alliance]

The only reason it costs more is the mandatory appeals which just serves to inflate Lawyer's wallets.

And also to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed.

Actually not really, they don't try to appeal the crime, they try to appeal the sentence, as in they continue to claim that the piece of shit is guilty yet somehow deserves life.

[Ifreann]

You have to ask yourself if you are morally right to torture someone and how effective deterrence it would be. You could be executed for petty thief in medieval times but it was often never followed upon.

We practice pain compliance on animals. It's a tool, hard wired into us. We act in such a way as to avoid inflicting additional pain upon ourselves. Therefore, an adequate threat of pain would naturally deter a normal individual from committing an act. If they aren't deterred, as a result of mental illness or defect, then obviously it would fail, but in such a situation I doubt incarceration would effectively deter them either.

I don't know if you've noticed, but humans don't behave very much like other animals. For example, other animals don't create criminal justice systems to address rape and murder. They just fuck and/or kill each other.

[Ifreann]

And also to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed.

Actually not really, they don't try to appeal the crime, they try to appeal the sentence, as in they continue to claim that the piece of shit is guilty yet somehow deserves life.

Which serves to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed.

[Esternial]

Capital punishment isn't truly justified in any situation.

[Telconi]

We practice pain compliance on animals. It's a tool, hard wired into us. We act in such a way as to avoid inflicting additional pain upon ourselves. Therefore, an adequate threat of pain would naturally deter a normal individual from committing an act. If they aren't deterred, as a result of mental illness or defect, then obviously it would fail, but in such a situation I doubt incarceration would effectively deter them either.

I don't know if you've noticed, but humans don't behave very much like other animals. For example, other animals don't create criminal justice systems to address rape and murder. They just fuck and/or kill each other.

Rather animals formulate justice systems is irrelevant, what's relevant is that humans are prone to avoiding pain causing behaviors.

[The Lone Alliance]

Actually not really, they don't try to appeal the crime, they try to appeal the sentence, as in they continue to claim that the piece of shit is guilty yet somehow deserves life.

Which serves to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed.

If they truly believed the person to be innocent then they'd be trying to appeal the crime not the sentence. So you're lying.

[Ifreann]

I don't know if you've noticed, but humans don't behave very much like other animals. For example, other animals don't create criminal justice systems to address rape and murder. They just fuck and/or kill each other.

Rather animals formulate justice systems is irrelevant, what's relevant is that humans are prone to avoiding pain causing behaviors.

Sure, people won't touch the stove if they know it's hot. But people drive without seatbelts. You reckon going face first through a windscreen hurts? I would. And I doubt that all the people who drive without seatbelts are mentally ill. These days everyone knows that smoking can cause cancer, and that death by cancer is a fucking horrible way to die. People still smoke. I'm sure one could think of many other ways that people regularly do things that will lead to them feeling pain. Maybe it's not quite the deterrent that you think it is.

[Aelex]

Death penalty is a legitimate punishment for murder and murder alone.

[Telconi]

Rather animals formulate justice systems is irrelevant, what's relevant is that humans are prone to avoiding pain causing behaviors.

Sure, people won't touch the stove if they know it's hot. But people drive without seatbelts. You reckon going face first through a windscreen hurts? I would. And I doubt that all the people who drive without seatbelts are mentally ill. These days everyone knows that smoking can cause cancer, and that death by cancer is a fucking horrible way to die. People still smoke. I'm sure one could think of many other ways that people regularly do things that will lead to them feeling pain. Maybe it's not quite the deterrent that you think it is.

You've once again resorted to the whole "This punishment isn't 100% effective" defense. I'd counter with the fact that people do wear seatbelts, people do quit smoking, or avoid starting, etc. So there is effect from pain deterrence.

[Infected Mushroom]

It is a fitting punishment for everything in the poll except for Kidnapping (if there was sufficient conditional intent to return the person).

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm pretty alright with with capital punishment in the case of terrorism or really egregious cases of murder like serial killers or mass shooters.

You can't really ever be completely certain.

There are some cases where you can be completely certain. Dahmer, Gacy etc being prime examples.

[Chestaan]

I think that the only time it is justifiable is during a war situation where it is not possible to detain the criminal in a prison.

[Neutraligon]

We practice pain compliance on animals. It's a tool, hard wired into us. We act in such a way as to avoid inflicting additional pain upon ourselves. Therefore, an adequate threat of pain would naturally deter a normal individual from committing an act. If they aren't deterred, as a result of mental illness or defect, then obviously it would fail, but in such a situation I doubt incarceration would effectively deter them either.

I don't know if you've noticed, but humans don't behave very much like other animals. For example, other animals don't create criminal justice systems to address rape and murder. They just fuck and/or kill each other.

I don't think I have ever practiced pain compliance on any animal. Instead I convince them using a reward system when they do something right.

[Ifreann]

Sure, people won't touch the stove if they know it's hot. But people drive without seatbelts. You reckon going face first through a windscreen hurts? I would. And I doubt that all the people who drive without seatbelts are mentally ill. These days everyone knows that smoking can cause cancer, and that death by cancer is a fucking horrible way to die. People still smoke. I'm sure one could think of many other ways that people regularly do things that will lead to them feeling pain. Maybe it's not quite the deterrent that you think it is.

You've once again resorted to the whole "This punishment isn't 100% effective" defense. I'd counter with the fact that people do wear seatbelts, people do quit smoking, or avoid starting, etc. So there is effect from pain deterrence.

I'm not saying "This punishment isn't 100% effective", though that is obviously true. I'm saying that you are wrong about how people behave, and consequently your proposed suggestion to torture people sentenced to die twice would be almost worthless as a deterrent. Pain doesn't deter people like you think it does. We had to have years of public awareness campaigns for both seatbelts and smoking to get the numbers up and down, respectively, to where they are today. The simple possibility of a painful death did not work well enough on its own, so we had to do more.

[New Grestin]

I think capital punishment is unjust in almost any circumstance.

It sets a precedent that it is unjust for an individual to commit murder, but it is just for the state to do so.

That said, I'm not going to put rhetoric ahead of practicality. I think that we should invest in rehabilitating prisoners, but there's always going to be people who are too far gone and can't be helped. Those kinds of people, I'd argue, would likely be mentally ill in some regard and would do better in a mental health institution. Barring that, if there is absolutely no chance of bringing this person back to being even semi-functional as a citizen, then Capital Punishment would be justified.

It should be a last resort, not the first choice, regardless of how horrific the crime.

[Crockerland]

I think capital punishment is unjust in almost any circumstance.

It sets a precedent that it is unjust for an individual to commit murder, but it is just for the state to do so.

Capital punishment obviously isn't murder.

[Ifreann]

I'm pretty alright with with capital punishment in the case of terrorism or really egregious cases of murder like serial killers or mass shooters.

You can't really ever be completely certain.

There are some cases where you can be completely certain. Dahmer, Gacy etc being prime examples.

As I went on to say, even if you can be certain that a person did what they are accused of doing, that isn't the same as being guilty.

[Luziyca]

I think capital punishment is unjust in almost any circumstance.

It sets a precedent that it is unjust for an individual to commit murder, but it is just for the state to do so.

That said, I'm not going to put rhetoric ahead of practicality. I think that we should invest in rehabilitating prisoners, but there's always going to be people who are too far gone and can't be helped. Those kinds of people, I'd argue, would likely be mentally ill in some regard and would do better in a mental health institution. Barring that, if there is absolutely no chance of bringing this person back to being even semi-functional as a citizen, then Capital Punishment would be justified.

It should be a last resort, not the first choice, regardless of how horrific the crime.

Pretty much this, for the most part.

In regards to the bolded point (that I have bolded), does this include crimes that are so grave that just being charged with them basically causes the public to assume you are guilty until proven otherwise? That even if they are acquitted or could theoretically be rehabilitated for that crime, there is an ice cube's chance in hell that society would ever welcome them back?

Because if so, I cannot blame them if the death penalty were implemented.

Though personally, if I were in charge and they were convicted of these grave offenses, I'd favor bringing back outlawry if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was of sound mind. Of course, the sentence will only start 30 days after either the final appeal was denied, or if the outlaw refuses to file any appeal for the offense. But once you're considered an outlaw... good luck with having a life.

[Ifreann]

I think capital punishment is unjust in almost any circumstance.

It sets a precedent that it is unjust for an individual to commit murder, but it is just for the state to do so.

That said, I'm not going to put rhetoric ahead of practicality. I think that we should invest in rehabilitating prisoners, but there's always going to be people who are too far gone and can't be helped. Those kinds of people, I'd argue, would likely be mentally ill in some regard and would do better in a mental health institution. Barring that, if there is absolutely no chance of bringing this person back to being even semi-functional as a citizen, then Capital Punishment would be justified.

It should be a last resort, not the first choice, regardless of how horrific the crime.

Pretty much this, for the most part.

In regards to the bolded point (that I have bolded), does this include crimes that are so grave that just being charged with them basically causes the public to assume you are guilty until proven otherwise? That even if they are acquitted or could theoretically be rehabilitated for that crime, there is an ice cube's chance in hell that society would ever welcome them back?

Because if so, I cannot blame them if the death penalty were implemented.

Though personally, if I were in charge and they were convicted of these grave offenses, I'd favor bringing back outlawry if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was of sound mind. Of course, the sentence will only start 30 days after either the final appeal was denied, or if the outlaw refuses to file any appeal for the offense. But once you're considered an outlaw... good luck with having a life.

I cannot fathom why any person would want a society where some people are not afforded any protection of the law.

Well, no, that's not true. I can think of lots of reasons, but they're all horrible.

[Luziyca]

Pretty much this, for the most part.

In regards to the bolded point (that I have bolded), does this include crimes that are so grave that just being charged with them basically causes the public to assume you are guilty until proven otherwise? That even if they are acquitted or could theoretically be rehabilitated for that crime, there is an ice cube's chance in hell that society would ever welcome them back?

Because if so, I cannot blame them if the death penalty were implemented.

Though personally, if I were in charge and they were convicted of these grave offenses, I'd favor bringing back outlawry if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was of sound mind. Of course, the sentence will only start 30 days after either the final appeal was denied, or if the outlaw refuses to file any appeal for the offense. But once you're considered an outlaw... good luck with having a life.

I cannot fathom why any person would want a society where some people are not afforded any protection of the law.

Well, no, that's not true. I can think of lots of reasons, but they're all horrible.

I can think of two good reasons:

1) The state would not need to provide the death penalty, so the state can still boast that they do not execute people.
2) For some vile crimes, we have a gut instinct to demand punishment, no matter if they're based on evidence or not. Outlawry recognizes that certain acts are so severe that no other means of punishment can be proportional to the crime, especially if that person was of sound mind at the time he committed the offense.

While rehabilitation is a good idea, and should be done for most crimes, for such severe crimes, it is impossible to rehabilitate certain criminals, mainly because of the acts that they have committed, in combination with society's reluctance to welcome them back into society once they did their time.

[The Olog-Hai]

I'd say no capital punishment, for a few reasons. First, a life stuck in prison could be considered worse. Second, it would just cause people who commit these crimes to kill more, so there's no witnesses, no evidence that it was them (because they'd have more of a motivation). Finally, if you get the wrong guy, you can't just exchange the actual murderer for the innocent, executed man. In the words of a wise wizard: "Many that live deserve death. And some that died deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."