Death Penalty

[keith99]

To be fair, I think keith's assessment of wiccan_child's statement was fair. I was going to comment on the statement's inconsistency myself but since overall I'm on the same side of the debate as him, against the death penalty, I didn't want to.

To say it is immoral to infringe upon the free will of others, and then to use that as an argument against the death penalty, is definitely not coherent. Using that logic, any imprisonment is immoral, and I seriously doubt that's what he was getting at. I think he should clarify his morality statement.

While I think there are plenty of reasons not to use the death penalty, I don't see how that is one of them.

Thank you. I think his statement was clear, perhaps not thought through but clear.

On hte other hand mine have been vague. I am in fact not a fan of capital punishment, just someone who thinks it may have some uses. Murder or other nasty crimes for gain comes to mind as does attacks on society itself in the form of judges, jurors and witnesses.

 

[b&wpac4]

Thank you. I think his statement was clear, perhaps not thought through but clear.

On hte other hand mine have been vague. I am in fact not a fan of capital punishment, just someone who thinks it may have some uses. Murder or other nasty crimes for gain comes to mind as does attacks on society itself in the form of judges, jurors and witnesses.

I start off being against it used in the US for one simple reason:

With the amount of appeals, court dates, multiple jurors, and the like that those under the death penalty get (because we are going to kill them, after all, so they deserve a chance to prove they are innocent), keeping a person in already-setup prisons for their life ends up being cheaper than killing them after, what, 15-20 years of the process.

 

[quatona]

To be fair, I think keith's assessment of wiccan_child's statement was fair. I was going to comment on the statement's inconsistency myself but since overall I'm on the same side of the debate as him, against the death penalty, I didn't want to.

To say it is immoral to infringe upon the free will of others, and then to use that as an argument against the death penalty, is definitely not coherent. Using that logic, any imprisonment is immoral, and I seriously doubt that's what he was getting at.

Can´t speak for him, but personally do think that imprisonment is immoral.
In the next step we might try to consider which of the options available is the lesser or least evil, but no matter what the result it wouldn´t change my opinion about imprisonment and the death penalty.

While I think there are plenty of reasons not to use the death penalty, I don't see how that is one of them.

While I personally think that the free-will argument doesn´t have plentiful merits (partly because I think that free-will is a questionable concept, to say the least), I am inclined to acknowledge that ending the life of someone is the final and irreversible infriction on anything that is or can be considered part of the conditio humaine. That´s what makes the death penalty very special and hardly comparablle to imprisonment, fines or other sanctions.

 

[Penumbra]

I start off being against it used in the US for one simple reason:

With the amount of appeals, court dates, multiple jurors, and the like that those under the death penalty get (because we are going to kill them, after all, so they deserve a chance to prove they are innocent), keeping a person in already-setup prisons for their life ends up being cheaper than killing them after, what, 15-20 years of the process.

Do people get so many chances of appeal if they have life in prison instead of death?

 

[b&wpac4]

From Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

Maryland

New Study Reveals Maryland Pays $37 Million for One Execution

A new study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 forecasted that the lifetime expenses of capitally-prosecuted cases since 1978 will cost Maryland taxpayers $186 million. That translates into at least $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since the state reenacted the death penalty. The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.) The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

Of the 162 capital cases, there werer 106 cases in which a death sentence was sought but not handed down in Maryland. Those cases cost the state an additional $71 million compared to the cost non-death penalty cases. Those costs were incurred simply to seek the death penalty where the ultimate outcome was a life or long-term prison sentence.

(“Death penalty costs Md. more than life term,” by Jennifer McMenamin, The Baltimore Sun, March 6, 2008). Read the entire study here.

Now, I'm not trying to say that the money issue should be the deciding factor, but it should certainly be a factor. Why are we wasting so much money trying to put people to death?

 

[b&wpac4]

Do people get so many chances of appeal if they have life in prison instead of death?

Looking for a nice link for you, but if I remember correctly, many courts will hear a death row appeal on less evidence than a life in prison appeal just because once a person is dead, they can't appeal and much of the death penalty system would unravel were we every to put an innocent person to death.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that death row facilities have to be more secure than typical prisons, and so more expensive, because inmates have nothing to lose by trying to escape or to kill a guard or something.

The cost is mostly irrelevant to me anyway because I don't agree with the death penalty morally, but if it is true that the entire cost of the death penalty is more than the cost of a life sentence, then that's one more argument against it.

 

[b&wpac4]

I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that death row facilities have to be more secure than typical prisons, and so more expensive, because inmates have nothing to lose by trying to escape or to kill a guard or something.

Not only that, but there's also a possible argument that keeping men in what amounts to be solitary confinement for over a decade may amount to being unconstitutional under cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty.

On one hand, the death penalty is the most sure way of removing a truly dangerous individual from society, even more sure than life in prison without parole, as dead people don't escape from prisons or come back from the grave to do more damage, or get off on legal technicalities.

On the other hand, there's always the possibility that you got the wrong guy. In which case an inmate's death amounts to little more than state-sanctioned murder.

So I haven't really come to any conclusions either way on the matter.

I'm anti-death penalty. Both of the above make good points I agree with. I also like to add as my main reasoning that we never know when someone will accept God. Many men in prison eventually find God, and it's not up to me to kill them before they may get that chance in the way their life is progressing.

I don't think we are to kill others because they have killed others, seems like circular reasoning. "They did it to others, so let's lower ourselves to do it to them..." kind of thing. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Regarding the cost issue...I've seen this raised in every argument about the death penalty. It may be cheaper to kill them but are we right to decide on murdering people by how much money it saves society?

 

[b&wpac4]

Regarding the cost issue...I've seen this raised in every argument about the death penalty. It may be cheaper to kill them but are we right to decide on murdering people by how much money it saves society?

Read my cost argument closer.

 

[Penumbra]

Not only that, but there's also a possible argument that keeping men in what amounts to be solitary confinement for over a decade may amount to being unconstitutional under cruel and unusual punishment.

For some non-deathrow inmates I think they have to do that anyway because they kill other prisoners.

Another poster mentioned that a death sentence is the more humane choice than life imprisonment, and I can see his point, but since most people, including inmates, would choose to not have the death penalty (and even cut deals to avoid it), it must mean they value life imprisonment instead.

I for one would probably break down if I was in prison for life. You're locked in a cage all the time and have to be handcuffed to go anywhere so it's a terribly restrictive life. But unfortunately there isn't really a more humane way to do it.

 

[b&wpac4]

For some non-deathrow inmates I think they have to do that anyway because they kill other prisoners.

Another poster mentioned that a death sentence is the more humane choice than life imprisonment, and I can see his point, but since most people, including inmates, would choose to not have the death penalty (and even cut deals to avoid it), it must mean they value life imprisonment instead.

I for one would probably break down if I was in prison for life. You're locked in a cage all the time and have to be handcuffed to go anywhere so it's a terribly restrictive life. But unfortunately there isn't really a more humane way to do it.

Once you put someone to death, however, you can't fix the problem if you were wrong.

 

[Penumbra]

Once you put someone to death, however, you can't fix the problem if you were wrong.

Yeah I know, hence so many appeals.

And also why I'm against it.

I'm just pointing out that it's a really hard thing to maintain humane standards in any serious prison.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I'm just pointing out that it's a really hard thing to maintain humane standards in any serious prison.

Agreed also :o

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you want to let mass murders, child molesters and anyone else run free and undetered?

Of course not. I said that it's immoral to infringe upon the free will of another, not that we shouldn't imprison people. Yes, prison infringes upon the free will of the inmate and as such is immoral, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Notice how mass murder and child molestations are themselves examples of infringement upon free will.
Consider it the lesser of two evils.
And yes, I've thought my code through. I'd love someone to poke holes in it, though (how else will I learn?).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To be fair, I think keith's assessment of wiccan_child's statement was fair. I was going to comment on the statement's inconsistency myself but since overall I'm on the same side of the debate as him, against the death penalty, I didn't want to.

Oh please, I argue with my fellow atheists all the time ! What's life without a little conflict?

To say it is immoral to infringe upon the free will of others, and then to use that as an argument against the death penalty, is definitely not coherent. Using that logic, any imprisonment is immoral, and I seriously doubt that's what he was getting at. I think he should clarify his morality statement.

No, that's exactly what I meant. But "X is immoral" is not the same as "We shouldn't do X".

While I think there are plenty of reasons not to use the death penalty, I don't see how that is one of them.

I'd wager that your arguments against the death penalty boil down to my argument (with enough lateral thinking, of course ).

 

[tanzanos]

So you want to let mass murders, child molesters and anyone else run free and undetered?

Death penalty = Leg hurts? Cut leg.

Civilised society = Leg Hurts? Let us find out why it hurts and then we can either cure it or make sure the pain at least goes away. Also let us find ways to understand what causes the hurt and thus have the capability of prevention.

 

[Penumbra]

Oh please, I argue with my fellow atheists all the time ! What's life without a little conflict?

No, that's exactly what I meant. But "X is immoral" is not the same as "We shouldn't do X".

I'd wager that your arguments against the death penalty boil down to my argument (with enough lateral thinking, of course ).

I don't think I use the same argument.

My argument against the death penalty is that it is hypocritical (killing for killing), unnecessary, and apparently expensive. We can learn from inmates, they can better themselves by reading and feeling remorse sometimes. Plus the emotional argument that I really just don't think we should be killing people because it's barbaric.

Not infringing on people's free will is not an argument against the death penalty specifically because it could be applied to any type of punishment equally as well. You say the death penalty is the greater of two evils, and I agree, but in order to define it as a greater of two evils, you must have some reasons. I'd wager that those reasons are not drastically different than my own, meaning that with some lateral thinking, your arguments against the death penalty are probably similar to mine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think I use the same argument.

My argument against the death penalty is that it is hypocritical (killing for killing), unnecessary, and apparently expensive. We can learn from inmates, they can better themselves by reading and feeling remorse sometimes. Plus the emotional argument that I really just don't think we should be killing people because it's barbaric.

What is wrong with barbarism, hypocrisy, wasteful expense, etc? Why does the benefit from learning from them and bettering ourselves, outweigh the benefit from executing them?
I'm not trying to catch you out, I just want to probe deeper...

Not infringing on people's free will is not an argument against the death penalty specifically because it could be applied to any type of punishment equally as well. You say the death penalty is the greater of two evils, and I agree, but in order to define it as a greater of two evils, you must have some reasons.

One infringes more than the other. Thus, one is more immoral than the other.

I'd wager that those reasons are not drastically different than my own, meaning that with some lateral thinking, your arguments against the death penalty are probably similar to mine.

[FONT=&quot]And, thus, my original prophecy will be fulfilled: if mine boils down to yours, so to do yours boil down to mine .[/FONT]

 

[tanzanos]

What is wrong with barbarism, hypocrisy, wasteful expense, etc? Why does the benefit from learning from them and bettering ourselves, outweigh the benefit from executing them?
I'm not trying to catch you out, I just want to probe deeper...


One infringes more than the other. Thus, one is more immoral than the other.


[FONT=&quot]And, thus, my original prophecy will be fulfilled: if mine boils down to yours, so to do yours boil down to mine .[/FONT]

I don't think the yanks understand Brit humour! Now be a good boy and go fly a kite, and should you meet up with the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal; dont forget to cover your head!