Death Penalty - Punishment or Murder?

[Devek]

The only reason I have a problem with the death penalty is that it is not 100% possible to be certain if anyone committed a crime. Innocent people get convicted of crimes all the time and get later released when new evidence comes in. Living the rest of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit is pretty bad, but at least you are alive and get to talk to your family and stuff.

Not saying that this guy is innocent or anything, except to say that I know how police are and if this guy really has an IQ of 80 he could be forced into confessing to anything. I know there is a lot of evidence against him and I'm pretty sure he did it, I just feel uncomfortable enough saying I'm sure enough to put him or anyone to death.

[TheCursedGatts]

inb4kira/deathnote

[Yangsing]

Some cases I feel the death penalty is appropriate. Imo, the death penalty should be reserved for the most extreme of cases like the article from the op as an example. The dude wasn't retarded enough to tie the girl up and put in a trash bag and bury her.

[evilbau]

I used to be for the death penalty, but I have reversed my position over the last few years. I don't believe the state should murder people, government should be above that. I think we are a little too eager to pass judgment on people and while the criminals may have done horrific crimes, it is no excuse for us to perform another one ourselves (collectively).

Side note: here is a webpage with which countries still allow the death penalty... I'm sure this is a list we really want to be on. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

[divisortheory]

I support the death penalty, but it should be done with a firing squad instead of injections and it should be done within 90 days of conviction.

the criminals may have done horrific crimes, it is no excuse for us to perform another one ourselves (collectively).

By saying that it is "no excuse for us to perform a horrific crime ourselves", you make it sound as if we enjoy carrying out the death penalty and we're looking for excuses. Like perhaps we view horrific crimes as a great thing because it allows us to execute the death penalty on yet another poor soul. You are also subtley labelling the death penalty as a "crime" (i.e. another one = another horrific crime), when in fact it is not a crime, that is the whole point.

No supporter of the death penalty views people committing horrific crimes as an excuse to kill someone. Rather, it is viewed as a legitimate reason.

What is more important? Preserving the fundamental human rights of someone who has violoated another person's fundamental human rights, or preserving the fundamental human rights of innocent people who have not (yet) had their fundamental human rights violated? I choose B.

I do find it ironic however, that while America can see the legitimacy in killing someone who has tortured, maimed, abused, or terrorized innocent people, they cannot see the legitimacy in killing someone who is terminally ill, begging to be killed.

[Charla]

I personally don't agree with the death penalty...

Over in the UK the only crime punishible by death is treason.

According to wikipedia and bau's list, that ended in '98.

[evilbau]

I support the death penalty, but it should be done with a firing squad instead of injections and it should be done within 90 days of conviction.

the criminals may have done horrific crimes, it is no excuse for us to perform another one ourselves (collectively).

By saying that it is "no excuse for us to perform a horrific crime ourselves", you make it sound as if we enjoy carrying out the death penalty and we're looking for excuses. Like perhaps we view horrific crimes as a great thing because it allows us to execute the death penalty on yet another poor soul. You are also subtley labelling the death penalty as a "crime" (i.e. another one = another horrific crime), when in fact it is not a crime, that is the whole point.

No supporter of the death penalty views people committing horrific crimes as an excuse to kill someone. Rather, it is viewed as a legitimate reason.

What is more important? Preserving the fundamental human rights of someone who has violoated another person's fundamental human rights, or preserving the fundamental human rights of innocent people who have not (yet) had their fundamental human rights violated? I choose B.

I do find it ironic however, that while America can see the legitimacy in killing someone who has tortured, maimed, abused, or terrorized innocent people, they cannot see the legitimacy in killing someone who is terminally ill, begging to be killed.

I can understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your characterization that I implied that we, as a nation, 'enjoy it' although clearly some do (the vengeful, ones who will use it for political gain, etc.). It is my opinion that ending a life purposefully, against their will, is murder. Now whether this type of punishment is justified its up to every individual's moral code. I perfectly respect other people's thoughts on this, as I previously held those views, but with so much pro-death penalty opinions being displayed, I thought I would put mine in there for a little balance.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say the human rights of the innocent people who have not yet had their rights violated. Future victims? Could you clarify that point?

And I wholeheartedly agree on your last point, the irony is delicious.

[Khamsin]

I used to be against the death penalty, but I have reversed my position over the last few years. I don't believe the state should murder people. The government should be above that. They should execute people in an officially sanctioned manner. While the criminals may have done horrific crimes, it is no excuse for us to perform another one ourselves. Instead, we should do it legally and execute them without commiting a crime ourselves in the process.

[Yangsing]

How would you propose that? In essence, you are committing a crime when you execute someone.

[Khamsin]

How would you propose that? In essence, you are committing a crime when you execute someone.

Actually, you aren't (if done in an officially sanctioned manner by the government). I'd have to do a little digging to find the pertinent laws, but it's actually legal.

[Fuuko]

The only problem I have with the death penalty is that somewhere, somehow an innocent person is going to be killed. Even in the best humanly possible system. So I think it should only be reserved when guilt is pretty much 99.9999999%. It will still not be 100% though =/

That being said, in cases were that have you on camera, or other 100% things it should be mandatory punishment. As well as carried out swiftly.

[evilbau]

Yes, it is done legally. I am referring to natural laws.

[divisortheory]

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say the human rights of the innocent people who have not yet had their rights violated. Future victims? Could you clarify that point?

Yes, future victims.

The only problem I have with the death penalty is that somewhere, somehow an innocent person is going to be killed. Even in the best humanly possible system. So I think it should only be reserved when guilt is pretty much 99.9999999%. It will still not be 100% though =/

Here's two choices, pick the one you prefer:

A) a few innocent people and hundreds of guilty people killed.
B) 0 guilty people and hundreds of innocent people killed.

A is what happens when you institute the death penalty, B is what happens when you abolish it. There's no third choice, and anyone who says there is is dealing with a case of denial and idealism.

[Devek]

A) a few innocent people and hundreds of guilty people killed.
B) 0 guilty people and hundreds of innocent people killed.

A is what happens when you institute the death penalty, B is what happens when you abolish it. There's no third choice, and anyone who says there is is dealing with a case of denial and idealism.

Thats fucking retarded. Someone in prison forever won't get out to kill innocent people.

You're not protecting anyone by killing someone who is locked up.. forever! There is no danger of someone in prison that can't be mitigated. You think this guy is going to molest and murder children in prison? Where are these children in prison he is going to murder?

I'll donate $10 if anyone can find a single case where a child under the age of 10 abducted, raped, and murdered by someone who was in maximum security prison for life (and by life, I mean actually life.. not 20 years or so).

[evilbau]

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say the human rights of the innocent people who have not yet had their rights violated. Future victims? Could you clarify that point?

Yes, future victims.

Thank you, this brings us back to the original point:

What is more important? Preserving the fundamental human rights of someone who has violoated another person's fundamental human rights, or preserving the fundamental human rights of innocent people who have not (yet) had their fundamental human rights violated? I choose B.

I'm sorry, but this is a straw man argument. You can't compare the rights of criminals to the future victims because you are also making several (unstated) assumptions: the criminal is not convicted of life imprisonment, that the criminal is free to commit more crimes by not being put to death, and that the criminal desires to commit more crimes. You are comparing the rights of the group (death-row inmates) against the rights of the victims of the most extreme version of them (ones that qualify for all three of the above conditions).

Here's two choices, pick the one you prefer:

A) a few innocent people and hundreds of guilty people killed.
B) 0 guilty people and hundreds of innocent people killed.

A is what happens when you institute the death penalty, B is what happens when you abolish it. There's no third choice, and anyone who says there is is dealing with a case of denial and idealism.

Although this an extension of your straw man argument, I'll choose the realistic C choice in a world without executions.
C) Lots of guilty jailed, some innocent jailed. 0 state sponsored killed.

[Khamsin]

On the most basic level of humanitarianism, what are we trying to accomplish? Big picture. From world relief efforts (hunger, natural disaster, medical) to capital punishment, from clothing drives to charitable donations, from the spotted owl to the blue whale, from global warming to peace treaties, from labor laws to menopause (just because it rhymes) to saving the forests... why?

Ultimately, we want to increase the collective number of man-hours of existance of humans and compatible (symbiotic) lifeforms, while eliminating that which inhibits this goal.

Whatever the immediate impacts or moral reasonings for any humanitarian cause, no matter how far of a stretch you have to make, it eventually trickles down to that.

Somebody running around murdering people inhibits this goal, and this goal is better reached without said people running around murdering people. Granted, there are flaws with the system, and humans aren't omniscient. But what we do is better than not doing anything at all. Doesn't mean there aren't better ways of achieving the ultimate humanitarian goal, but those better ways certainly don't include letting murderers stick around.

Imagine if you could play god for a moment, and had a means of determining what impact the life of one person had on the longevity of others' lives. e.g. you knew that by eliminating person #1,273,490,883 that twenty other people would live for another 40 years each, on average. If you could manage the world from this vantage point, would you not work toward that ultimate humanitarian goal? Or would you just let things run its course, and not work to increase the collective life of the world?

[divisortheory]

Thats fucking retarded. Someone in prison forever won't get out to kill innocent people.

I don't consider life sentences without the possibility of parole, since they are even stupider than the death penalty.

[Osede]

A) a few innocent people and hundreds of guilty people killed.
B) 0 guilty people and hundreds of innocent people killed.

A is what happens when you institute the death penalty, B is what happens when you abolish it. There's no third choice, and anyone who says there is is dealing with a case of denial and idealism.

Thats fucking retarded. Someone in prison forever won't get out to kill innocent people.

You're not protecting anyone by killing someone who is locked up.. forever! There is no danger of someone in prison that can't be mitigated. You think this guy is going to molest and murder children in prison? Where are these children in prison he is going to murder?

I'll donate $10 if anyone can find a single case where a child under the age of 10 abducted, raped, and murdered by someone who was in maximum security prison for life (and by life, I mean actually life.. not 20 years or so).

You might dont know that if that prisoner has a good standing in the prison for like 10years, then they might get a prison discount that reduce their prison life? I'm not sure about the life prison case got this or not. But if you want me to paying the tax for fund this kind of prisoner to spend their life i would say no.

Besides, I would like the death penalty on the serial raper too

Still remember few years ago in my country, there got a serial rape case on like 10 or 20s women? Not sure about whether those women got murdered after raped or not. But most of the time alots of raping case in my country coming with the end of murdering the women after the criminal done what they want...

[evilbau]

On the most basic level of humanitarianism, what are we trying to accomplish? Big picture. From world relief efforts (hunger, natural disaster, medical) to capital punishment, from clothing drives to charitable donations, from the spotted owl to the blue whale, from global warming to peace treaties, from labor laws to menopause (just because it rhymes) to saving the forests... why?

Ultimately, we want to increase the collective number of man-hours of existance of humans and compatible (symbiotic) lifeforms, while eliminating that which inhibits this goal.

Whatever the immediate impacts or moral reasonings for any humanitarian cause, no matter how far of a stretch you have to make, it eventually trickles down to that.

Somebody running around murdering people inhibits this goal, and this goal is better reached without said people running around murdering people. Granted, there are flaws with the system, and humans aren't omniscient. But what we do is better than not doing anything at all. Doesn't mean there aren't better ways of achieving the ultimate humanitarian goal, but those better ways certainly don't include letting murderers stick around.

Imagine if you could play god for a moment, and had a means of determining what impact the life of one person had on the longevity of others' lives. e.g. you knew that by eliminating person #1,273,490,883 that twenty other people would live for another 40 years each, on average. If you could manage the world from this vantage point, would you not work toward that ultimate humanitarian goal? Or would you just let things run its course, and not work to increase the collective life of the world?

This is not a humanitarian effort I am championing. It is an opinion I hold. I am not trying to quantify it with something like 'productive man-years saved' as that wouldn't be realistic to calculate nor particularly significant to my point. My point is about natural laws: that each individual person have a right to life. I think it is appropriate to 100% remove offenders from society, but not to take their life. They may have taken this right from someone else, but in my opinion (and I emphasize that is just that), it does not mean the government has the right to do it to them.

[divisortheory]

My point is about natural laws: that each individual person have a right to life.

I agree with this natural law. I differ however in thinking that anyone who acts outside the boundaries of such a natural law forfeits his own protection by the law.