Do You Support Capital Punishment?

[Tuddrussell]

There's no need for the sarcasm. There's already a debate over christian versus atheist morality.
Interestingly I haven't noticed much distinction between atheisst and christians in support of the death penalty on this particular thread.

If morality comes from God, which you believe, and I don't care what God thinks. Then it logically follows that I can do what I want. (No sarcasm.)

Not really a phrase you want to hear from a self-labelled "Humanist".

One person is less than a thousand. That makes my position more humanistic, less humans die.

Depends on whose paradigm you accept. From her point of view, god exists and says that's a faux pas, whether you believe in the big lug or not.

It doesn't matter if He exists or not, I owe him nothing either way.

 

[needinganame]

--------------------------
Back on topic:

For those who support the death penalty, do you think the method of death matters? Are public executions more effective than private ones, for example?

I said it before, make it swift. As for the publicity question, make it private. The only thing it is effective at is taking the convicted out of society. I can only see the public execution turning into a spectacle of nonsense.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If morality comes from God, which you believe, and I don't care what God thinks. Then it logically follows that I can do what I want. (No sarcasm.)

In which case that is nothing more than your personal opinion and doesn't add much to the debate over whether the death penalty is acceptable.

One person is less than a thousand. That makes my position more humanistic, less humans die.

Doesn't the idea that we are so outraged by the death of an innocent person that we are willing to (accidently) kill innocent people strike you as hypocritical?

I said it before, make it swift. As for the publicity question, make it private. The only thing it is effective at is taking the convicted out of society. I can only see the public execution turning into a spectacle of nonsense.

The reason I ask is because one of the most frequently-asked questions is whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent. I think this depends on which country you look at. Consider Thailand for example, where more crimes are punishable by death than they are in most Western countries.

Crime rate: While their non-violent crimes are very low compared to Western countries, the number of people killed using guns is staggeringly high. Far, far higher than in the USA.

 

[Tuddrussell]

In which case that is nothing more than your personal opinion and doesn't add much to the debate over whether the death penalty is acceptable.

Yes, but do you think it is wrong if I kill? I'm a lost cause anyway, might as well point me in the right direction so I do some good.

Doesn't the idea that we are so outraged by the death of an innocent person that we are willing to (accidently) kill innocent people strike you as hypocritical?

Hypocracy is inevitable, I don't even care anymore.

The reason I ask is because one of the most frequently-asked questions is whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent. I think this depends on which country you look at. Consider Thailand for example, where more crimes are punishable by death than they are in most Western countries.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent, it's a solution.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yes, but do you think it is wrong if I kill?

Odd question. If you were to kill in cold blood (as oppose to say, an accident or in self-defence) of course it would be wrong.

Hypocracy is inevitable, I don't even care anymore.

Another phrase you never want to hear from a humanist.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent, it's a solution.

We may prevent future deaths if we execute one particular murderer. We guarantee he will never kill again. But if this has little to no effect on future crimes, what's the point?

 

[Tuddrussell]

Odd question. If you were to kill in cold blood (as oppose to say, an accident or in self-defence) of course it would be wrong.

Yes, but is it less wrong than a Christian doing it? I mean, I can't get more damned to hell.

Another phrase you never want to hear from a humanist.

Just because I think of humans as flawed, does not mean I think they are not of value and worthy of protection and existence. In other words, I may be a cynic but that doesn't make me not an optimist.

We may prevent future deaths if we execute one particular murderer. We guarantee he will never kill again.

This is good enough of a reason.

 

[needinganame]

The death penalty isn't a deterrent, it's a solution.

I was just thinking that

 

[chris4243]

For those who support the death penalty, do you think the method of death matters? Are public executions more effective than private ones, for example?

Unless we're going to bring back crucifixion or something, all it would do is remind people how painless it is to be executed by the state. Make the fact of their execution public, but how about we leave the details to people's very active imagination aided by their fear of death.

 

[Tuddrussell]

I was just thinking that

U jelly?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yes, but is it less wrong than a Christian doing it? I mean, I can't get more damned to hell.

I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't really want to debate atheist morality vs. christian morality - and I don't want to blather on about whether you in particular are a good or bad person.

My original question was (not just to you but to anyone who supports the death penalty) is how much they value the life of an innocent person. My guess would be ... not as much as they think.

We may prevent future deaths if we execute one particular murderer. We guarantee he will never kill again.

This is good enough of a reason.

No it isn't. If capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, then rather than decreasing the crime rate, we're simply treading water. One murderer goes, another one replaces him and so on and do on without any noticeable change.

 

[needinganame]

I need that as a backup avatar

 

[needinganame]

Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer
Now there is one sick individual. He was caught in the act. No question of his guilt. There is no rehab for that crime. Society is better off without him. Keeping him alive was an inspiration to the few like minded individuals, not a deterrent. And his cell mate agreed, apparently.

 

[Tuddrussell]

My original question was (not just to you but to anyone who supports the death penalty) is how much they value the life of an innocent person. My guess would be ... not as much as they think.

The life of one innocent person is of no more worth than the life of another innocent person. That being said it is of less value than the lives of multiple innocent persons, and more than the value of a murderer.

No it isn't. If capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, then rather than decreasing the crime rate, we're simply treading water. One murderer goes, another one replaces him and so on and do on without any noticeable change.

If there is no change in the number of killers if we are executing them at the current rate, then slowing that rate will directly increase the ammount of killers in the world.

Just because it is a futile battle, doesn't mean it is one we shouldn't be fighting.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That being said it is of less value than the lives of multiple innocent persons, and more than the value of a murderer.

The value of human lives aren't determined by numbers. Worldwide there are more christians than there are atheists, but this does not mean christian lives are more important than the lives of atheists.

If there is no change in the number of killers if we are executing them at the current rate, then slowing that rate will directly increase the ammount of killers in the world.

Only if we think that capital punishment is an effective deterrent - that is, if we were to stop capital punishment, the number of murderers would increase. But your earlier comment suggested you don't think it matters whether capital punishment is a deterrent.

 

[yasic]

There's no need for the sarcasm. There's already a debate over christian versus atheist morality.
Interestingly I haven't noticed much distinction between atheisst and christians in support of the death penalty on this particular thread.

BTW I just noticed this:


Not really a phrase you want to hear from a self-labelled "Humanist".

--------------------------
Back on topic:

For those who support the death penalty, do you think the method of death matters? Are public executions more effective than private ones, for example?

I feel that executions should be painless unless the charges are extreme (such as torture of dozens). I feel it should be public if it can be shown to help deter other crimes but I think studies have shown otherwise?

 

[chris4243]

My original question was (not just to you but to anyone who supports the death penalty) is how much they value the life of an innocent person. My guess would be ... not as much as they think.

Are there any people who are innocent? We're all sinners...

 

[Tuddrussell]

The value of human lives aren't determined by numbers. Worldwide there are more christians than there are atheists, but this does not mean christian lives are more important than the lives of atheists.

On an individual basis a Christian is no more, or less, important/valuable than an atheist. However, collectively, Christians have more value and importance.

Numbers really do matter.

Only if we think that capital punishment is an effective deterrent - that is, if we were to stop capital punishment, the number of murderers would increase. But your earlier comment suggested you don't think it matters whether capital punishment is a deterrent.

If we stopped killing murderers, and the ammount of new murderers stays consistant, a net gain in total murderers is achieved. That is simple math.

In other words: If 2 minus 2 plus 2 equals 2, then if you repeat the equation without subtracting then you end up with 4. 2 plus 2 equals 4.

 

[Aryn9189]

I agree, numbers matter. Better one person die than two, better two than twenty, etc. The value of that one person is not more than each of the two, but the two together are more valuable than the one.

I am 100% against the death penalty. I believe there are better ways to deal with violent criminals. Once the person is dead they are no longer being punished, so that's not a good reason. It doesn't deter future criminals, so that's not a good reason. What other reasons might there be? Retribution, an eye for an eye sort of thing? That's not a good reason, either; that doesn't actually solve anything. I realize not everyone can be rehabilitated, there are some people who are simply mad and can't be reasoned with. But they shouldn't be killed for it, just put somewhere where they can't hurt anyone else.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

On an individual basis a Christian is no more, or less, important/valuable than an atheist. However, collectively, Christians have more value and importance.

Numbers really do matter.

So hypothetically it would be worse to kill 25 christians than it would be to kill 25 atheists, since collectively christians have "more value and importance"?

If we stopped killing murderers, and the ammount of new murderers stays consistant, a net gain in total murderers is achieved. That is simple math.

The number of murderers may increase simply because they're alive and sitting in their cells. But would the number of murder victims go down? It's the prevention of future victims we're concerned about. A man cannot kill if he is dead, but it's pretty hard for him to kill if he's locked up in solitary confinement 23hrs a day too.

That's why we debate whether capital punishment is a good deterrent - the number of victims should go down, even if the number of murderers go up simply because they remain alive.

I agree, numbers matter. Better one person die than two, better two than twenty, etc. The value of that one person is not more than each of the two, but the two together are more valuable than the one.

If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to support the death penalty? After all, by killing a serial killer you could have potentialy saved the lives of dozen of people.

 

[needinganame]

but it's pretty hard for him to kill if he's locked up in solitary confinement 23hrs a day too.

That leaves an hour of freedom from solitary. That is an hour too much.