Do You Support Capital Punishment?

[Tuddrussell]

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"?

You don't understand my point. 25=25.

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

But not impossible.

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.

No one is debating whether it is a deterrent, or at least neither you nor I are. If you can assure me that there is no chance at all that a convicted murderer will not kill again then I will concede that the death penalty is redundant.

(Though still useful, prison overcrowding is a very real thing.)

Can we at least both agree that the prison system as it is now is not ideal, or at the very least could be better?

Common ground is important if we are to accomplish more than bickering.

 

[Tuddrussell]

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?

If they are dead they are a threat to no one, Davy Jones' locker is the only truly escape proof prison.

 

[Aryn9189]

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.

Those lives could also be saved by locking the serial killer somewhere where he couldn't hurt anyone, as I said. Of course, there's always the chance of escape, but with adequate security measures he wouldn't get far. Killing a serial killer in an escape attempt is less wrong, in my opinion, than in a state-sanctioned execution.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

yu don't understand my point.

In which case let me put it another way:

You argue that the lives of, say, 25 innocent people are worth more than the lives of a single innocent person. But you also say the life of an innocent person is worth more than the life of a guilty person - specifically, the life of a murderer.

So to ask you a bizzarre question ... how much is the life of an innocent person worth, compared to the life of a guilty person? That is, if the state wrongly executed an innocent man, how many guilty men would they need to execute in order to make up for it?

No one is debating whether it is a deterrent, or at least neither you nor I are.

Well it was one of my questions in the OP.

If you can assure me that there is no chance at all that a convicted murderer will not kill again then I will concede that the death penalty is redundant.

How much is the life of a guilty person worth? I'm not trying to dodge your argument - no I cannot guarantee that a convincted murderer will never kill again, and I know the death penalty can.

But I consider the life of a guilty person who repents of greater value than the life of a guilty person who does not repent. Not all murderers are the same; some are sickening and feel no remorse, some (despite it all) go on to lead normal lives afterwards. I'd rather not kill the latter.

 

[Tuddrussell]

So to ask you a bizzarre question ... how much is the life of an innocent person worth, compared to the life of a guilty person? That is, if the state wrongly executed an innocent man, how many guilty men would they need to execute in order to make up for it?

There is no making up for it.

How much is the life of a guilty person worth? I'm not trying to dodge your argument - no I cannot guarantee that a convicted murderer will never kill again, and I know the death penalty can.

Their lives do have value, perhaps it was unreasonable to say that their lives are necessarily of lesser value than the lives of anyone else. However, all the good they do in their lives will have to be subtracted by all the good the ones they killed would have done if not killed. As that is an unknown quantity, so too is their total value.

In math terms this would be X, the value of murder A, subtracted by Y, the value of victim A. X is not necessarily less than Y in terms of value, but Muderer A is definately of less value than he was before he killed victim A... unless Y is less than or equal to 0. To sum up: X is always less than Y, so long as Y is greater than or equal to X.

But I consider the life of a guilty person who repents of greater value than the life of a guilty person who does not repent. Not all murderers are the same; some are sickening and feel no remorse, some (despite it all) go on to lead normal lives afterwards. I'd rather not kill the latter.

Whether they're very sorry doesn't change what they did, or make that loss go away. That being said, I don't care about vengeance or justice.

Prevention is all I care about. I am more concerned with stopping crime, than punishing criminals.

 

[chris4243]

Another reason to support the death penalty is that we're human and make mistakes. At least with the death penalty we have plenty of chance to correct any mistakes.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Another reason to support the death penalty is that we're human and make mistakes. At least with the death penalty we have plenty of chance to correct any mistakes.

Hardly. Unlike other punishments, the death penalty is irreversable.

So to ask you a bizzarre question ... how much is the life of an innocent person worth, compared to the life of a guilty person? That is, if the state wrongly executed an innocent man, how many guilty men would they need to execute in order to make up for it?

There is no making up for it.

Do you mean there is no X number of murderers we need to execute to make up for the death of an innocent person? Should we simply shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, mistakes happen"?

Whether they're very sorry doesn't change what they did, or make that loss go away. That being said, I don't care about vengeance or justice.

Prevention is all I care about. I am more concerned with stopping crime, than punishing criminals.

Remorse makes a difference - although the real problem is whether they are genuinely remorseful or simply putting on an act. Better to let a murderer live and (perhaps) actually to something to make up for their crime, rather than simply kill them.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Do you mean there is no X number of murderers we need to execute to make up for the death of an innocent person? Should we simply shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, mistakes happen"?

There are downsides to all things, nothing is perfect. If we can find the perfect solution, that would be great. Right now this is the only real solution we have.

Remorse makes a difference - although the real problem is whether they are genuinely remorseful or simply putting on an act. Better to let a murderer live and (perhaps) actually to something to make up for their crime, rather than simply kill them.

Being sorry doesn't change anything, using those emotions as a drive to do good does something. It takes actually doing good to start the path to redemption, not just feeling bad.

Guilt is just the catalyist for attonment.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There are downsides to all things, nothing is perfect. If we can find the perfect solution, that would be great. Right now this is the only real solution we have.

No it isn't. We have several other solutions, including solitary confinement, which is generally conserved for the worst criminals (in other words, the kind of criminals who were going to be executed).

Being sorry doesn't change anything, using those emotions as a drive to do good does something. It takes actually doing good to start the path to redemption, not just feeling bad.

Guilt is just the catalyist for attonment.

My argument wasn't that feeling remorse should automatically excuse them - it was that a genuinely remorseful criminal is more likely to actually change and do something good with his life than an unremorseful criminal. The death penalty simply eliminated murderers, rather than giving them the chance to make it up to society.

 

[Tuddrussell]

No it isn't. We have several other solutions, including solitary confinement, which is generally conserved for the worst criminals (in other words, the kind of criminals who were going to be executed).

We can't afford to keep them all locked up. We need to rehibilitate those we can, and be rid of those we can't. Just locking them in a room solves nothing, though it does lessen their threat to the people.

My argument wasn't that feeling remorse should automatically excuse them - it was that a genuinely remorseful criminal is more likely to actually change and do something good with his life than an unremorseful criminal. The death penalty simply eliminated murderers, rather than giving them the chance to make it up to society.

Not all murderers are eliminated, just some of them. Imprisonment, and execution are just treating the disease: Killing. What we need is a cure, and/or effective prevention.

Killing humans to stop them from killing humans is a stupid solution, but it is a solution. What you are proposing, eliminating execution, is just trading one set of problems for another.

 

[chris4243]

Another reason to support the death penalty is that we're human and make mistakes. At least with the death penalty we have plenty of chance to correct any mistakes.

Hardly. Unlike other punishments, the death penalty is irreversable.

Not if the new evidence never gets gathered or used. At least with the death penalty there's an automatic appeal, which is also why many cases are left at life in prison.

Do you mean there is no X number of murderers we need to execute to make up for the death of an innocent person? Should we simply shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, mistakes happen"?

How many of an innocent victim's murderers need to die to make up for the death of the victim? All of them, and it's still not enough. Innocent people have died and will die, whether or not the state executes murderers, some of them killed directly by the state and some by the state releasing the future murderer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We can't afford to keep them all locked up.

We've been doing it so far, and with prisons bloated with people on non-violent drug offenses. End the War on Drugs, and keeping dangerous criminals behind bars their whole lives won't be a problem.

Imprisonment, and execution are just treating the disease: Killing. What we need is a cure, and/or effective prevention.

Ah, so you've dehumanized people down to the point where they are a "disease" that needs to be "cured"? I realize that you are talking about people convicted of murder, for example, but they are still human beings.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tuddrussell]

We've been doing it so far, and with prisons bloated with people on non-violent drug offenses. End the War on Drugs, and keeping dangerous criminals behind bars their whole lives won't be a problem.

You make a good point. Trim the fat so to speak. I suppose more pervasive use of house arrest would be helpful as well.

I am not opposed to the legalization of drugs, as far as I am concerned a person is free to do as they wish as long as they are aware of the risks involved and strive to minimize the negative effects on others. That, however, is another debate. One I'm sure is raging here somewhere.

Ah, so you've dehumanized people down to the point where they are a "disease" that needs to be "cured"? I realize that you are talking about people convicted of murder, for example, but they are still human beings.

No, unjust killing is a disease. A disease of the heart. Something wrong that needs to be corrected, for the good of us all.

 

[mzungu]

We can't afford to keep them all locked up. We need to rehibilitate those we can, and be rid of those we can't. Just locking them in a room solves nothing, though it does lessen their threat to the people.


Not all murderers are eliminated, just some of them. Imprisonment, and execution are just treating the disease: Killing. What we need is a cure, and/or effective prevention.

Killing humans to stop them from killing humans is a stupid solution, but it is a solution. What you are proposing, eliminating execution, is just trading one set of problems for another.

If your country could afford to pay 1 billion dollars per day on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions then it certainly can afford to better the penal system! Ignorance and laziness are no excuse!

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, unjust killing is a disease. A disease of the heart. Something wrong that needs to be corrected, for the good of us all.

Do doctors treat diseases by killing the patient? Or do they treat the patient, and keep him isolated while he is very contagious?

Death isn't a cure or a correction, it's only an act of desperation, and likely a needless one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

No, unjust killing is a disease. A disease of the heart. Something wrong that needs to be corrected, for the good of us all.

And we all know that cardiothoracic surgeons correct cardiogenic problems by taking out the heart and leaving the patient to die.

 

[Tuddrussell]

If your country could afford to pay 1 billion dollars per day on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions then it certainly can afford to better the penal system! Ignorance and laziness are no excuse!

We can't afford that either. That's 365 billion dollars more a year that could be better spent elsewhere.

That being said, what's done is done and there's no changing it now. Obama promised to get our troops back, and I see no reason why he won't do so in due time.

Do doctors treat diseases by killing the patient? Or do they treat the patient, and keep him isolated while he is very contagious?

Death isn't a cure, it's only an act of desparation, and likely a needless one.

Again, I am aware that killing is not the apropriate thing to do. However, it does solve the imediate problem very effectively.

If you truly believe execution to be unjust, then work to change the system into a better one that doesn't need killing. Perhaps it is time for a new system, but the system in place is designed with executions in mind.

If we stop it now, the effects could be disaterous. It needs to be phazed out gradually, once the new system takes root then such unsavoury things are no longer necessary.

 

[mzungu]

Again, I am aware that killing is not the apropriate thing to do. However, it does solve the imediate problem very effectively.

How so? It has never brought back the murdered victim and it certainly has not lessened such crimes! Don't believe me? Look up Amnesty International.

Any country that applies the death penalty is uncivilised!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Any country that applies the death penalty is uncivilised!

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It's simply a misguided tradition, possibly unavoidable in the distant past, but certainly avoidable now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[needinganame]

Ah, so you've dehumanized people down to the point where they are a "disease" that needs to be "cured"? I realize that you are talking about people convicted of murder, for example, but they are still human beings.

N0, the "human beings" lose their humanity in their violations of others in violent crime.