90 replies to this topic

[Esau of Isaac]

I think rapists SHOULD get the capital punishment, no questions asked.

Why? I want to extend this to everyone that believes in the use of capital punishment in this topic. What crimes do you believe qualify for this, and why them? Why not everything else?

Edited by Esau of Isaac, 11 February 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The death penalty is probably the most humane way to completely remove someone from society, as is what should be done to those who kill others. The only other alternative to it that I can think of at the moment is keeping someone in solitary confinement for life, which is essentially just a much crueler version of the death penalty, assuming we think of jail house life as it's own society, which it kind of is, and that we want to completely remove such people from jail house society too.

Killing somebody isn't humane. It's a pointless punishment through and through. Now, if it is the individual's preferred outcome, then I guess I'd be okay with it. We don't want to remove murderers from society, we want to prevent them from murdering people. I'll say it again, a criminal justice system should not be concerned with punishing criminals, it should be concerned with crime prevention. It is quite possibly true that some forms of punishment work as deterrents to crime, in which case I can accept them, the death penalty simple is not one of those.

I think rapists SHOULD get the capital punishment, no questions asked.

Why? What about being a rapist merits being murdered? What about it ensures their guilt? Killing people for emotional satisfaction is what we accuse criminals of doing.

Edited by Defeatist Elitist, 11 February 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[Blademaster!]

Killing somebody isn't humane.

Never said it was, just that it is probably more humane than a life sentence (In fact, some victims actually prefer for criminals to get a life sentence over the death penalty since they believe it is a more cruel option). Also, just curious, but would you say the same about euthanasia? Based on what you have described below, I guess you are slightly okay with it depending on the circumstance?

Now, if it is the individual's preferred outcome, then I guess I'd be okay with it.

I don't think we should be giving criminals any kind of "reward" for what they have done. Everything that happens to them should be things that they don't prefer, otherwise there would be no point to punishing someone.

We don't want to remove murderers from society

If someone has killed someone, they should be removed from society. They themselves have gone and removed someone else from society with their own hands, and it would be unjust to allow them to continue to roam free in any society after such a point, let alone give them a second chance at a happy future since they have gone and removed any chance of a happy future from the person they have killed can have. To put a spin on this, let's say that you have two baseball players A (BBPA) and B (BBPB). BBPA is jealous of BBPB and goes and breaks his arm on purpose. BBPB can now never play baseball again, which was BBPA's intent for his action. Should BBPA be allowed to continue to play baseball, or should he just get a suspension and be allowed to play again later?

we want to prevent them from murdering people. I'll say it again, a criminal justice system should not be concerned with punishing criminals, it should be concerned with crime prevention. It is quite possibly true that some forms of punishment work as deterrents to crime, in which case I can accept them, the death penalty simple is not one of those.

For preventing crime though, there really isn't all that much that can really be done. Unless someone is there to stop a crime before hand, which rarely ever happens, the fear of punishment is really the best deterrent against crime we have given how society works. The criminal justice system even revolves around the fact that we can't be there beforehand to stop the crime from happening; we are only there afterwords.

Edited by Blademaster!, 11 February 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[Rehab]

Wait, fuck, it wasn't titled Capital Punishment, it was Ultimate punishment. Hur.

In that case, why don't we just call the whole justice department racist given how many minorities get thrown in jail http://en.wikipedia....tates#Ethnicity

That, too!
I admit, on reflection, that it was kind of a weasel-words way of phrasing it, but I've heard people make the argument, and don't really know how to explain it away completely myself. Poverty level could easily play in, but it's a bit much either way. Cases like Troy Davis' make me wonder, too.

The death penalty is probably the most humane way to completely remove someone from society, as is what should be done to those who kill others. The only other alternative to it that I can think of at the moment is keeping someone in solitary confinement for life, which is essentially just a much crueler version of the death penalty, assuming we think of jail house life as it's own society, which it kind of is, and that we want to completely remove such people from jail house society too.

Speaking only for myself, I think it would be more interesting and possibly beneficial if a) instead of killing them, the government conducted focused studies on their psychology and whatever situation ended up giving them a motive for murder, so as to try to understand how to lessen the chances of the same thing happening again, and b) to have the convicted somehow work towards repaying the victims (restorative justice). There are people, innocent or not, who have written books and done good things even while in prison and/or on death row, after all.


edit:

For preventing crime though, there really isn't all that much that can really be done. Unless someone is there to stop a crime before hand, which rarely ever happens, the fear of punishment is really the best deterrent against crime we have given how society works. The criminal justice system even revolves around the fact that we can't be there beforehand to stop the crime from happening; we are only there afterwords

Maybe it was a killing in the midst of some kind of theft born out of poverty, maybe the killer had mental problems, or felt they were doing justice for a perceived wrong as in a revenge killing or killing somebody responsible for a hate crime, maybe it was a hate crime. The killer could have been born into such horrible conditions and had so much misanthropy instilled and continuously reinforced from an early age that it would be difficult to hold them to the same standards as we would anybody else, or have felt otherwise forced into the crime by peer/social pressure. The possibilities go on. I don't think it's possible we know everything there is to know about the origins of every motive for every violent crime out there, and I think it's even less likely that societies can't do anything to positively affect the conditions they take place in.

Edited by Rehab, 11 February 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Never said it was, just that it is probably more humane than a life sentence (In fact, some victims actually prefer for criminals to get a life sentence over the death penalty since they believe it is a more cruel option). Also, just curious, but would you say the same about euthanasia? Based on what you have described below, I guess you are slightly okay with it depending on the circumstance?

I believe people have the right to die if they actually want to, yeah.

I don't think we should be giving criminals any kind of "reward" for what they have done. Everything that happens to them should be things that they don't prefer, otherwise there would be no point to punishing someone.

We're not "rewarding" them, there simply is no benefit to actively trying to make things as shitty as possible for them.

If someone has killed someone, they should be removed from society. They themselves have gone and removed someone else from society with their own hands, and it would be unjust to allow them to continue to roam free in any society after such a point, let alone give them a second chance at a happy future since they have gone and removed any chance of a happy future from the person they have killed can have. To put a spin on this, let's say that you have two baseball players A (BBPA) and B (BBPB). BBPA is jealous of BBPB and goes and breaks his arm on purpose. BBPB can now never play baseball again, which was BBPA's intent for his action. Should BBPA be allowed to continue to play baseball, or should he just get a suspension and be allowed to play again later?

Completely irrelevent to society. The only reason ANY punishment should be given to BBPA is to try to prevent that type of thing from happening. Punishing him in an attempt to somehow bring equality of outcome or shit into it is utterly pointless. Nothing we can do will make BBPB be able to play again, so by preventing BBPA from ever playing again you're ruining his life for literally no reason, because there is no net gain. Now, if you could demonstrate that having that as the official punishment for such a thing would produce a demonstrable reduction in further instances of this, then I would agree that we could consider it as a punishment, but considering the death penalty doesn't even reduce crime rates, it's an absolutely absurd system to use.

For preventing crime though, there really isn't all that much that can really be done. Unless someone is there to stop a crime before hand, which rarely ever happens, the fear of punishment is really the best deterrent against crime we have given how society works. The criminal justice system even revolves around the fact that we can't be there beforehand to stop the crime from happening; we are only there afterwords.

Sure, it's difficult to prevent crime from occuring at the actual scene, etc, and yeah, deterrents are one of the most effective methods. But the death penalty doesn't work like that. There isn't even a correlation between nations having the death penalty and crime rate, let alone a causal relationship, so there is absolutely no reason for anybody to think that the death penalty is at all effective as a deterrent.

[SeverIan]

it should be concerned with crime prevention.

So, police state?

Never said it was, just that it is probably more humane than a life sentence (In fact, some victims actually prefer for criminals to get a life sentence over the death penalty since they believe it is a more cruel option). Also, just curious, but would you say the same about euthanasia? Based on what you have described below, I guess you are slightly okay with it depending on the circumstance?

It would help to have a citation on that claim about victims preferences for punishment, since in the admittedly limited number of cases I have heard about the victims have demanded the death penalty as the more severe option. In addition, if the death penalty is a lighter punishment, why doesn't this website talk about how death row inmates given clemency in broad commutations by governors demanded they keep the death penalty in the place of a long or indefinite period of time spent in prison? I actually emailed the people who run this site to ask if they have statistics on how many death row inmates file for clemency, if they respond and have some idea that should give us an idea of whether it is reasonable to conclude that people on death row would rather die than spend their lives in prison.
http://www.deathpena...fo.org/clemency

Completely irrelevent to society. The only reason ANY punishment should be given to BBPA is to try to prevent that type of thing from happening. Punishing him in an attempt to somehow bring equality of outcome or shit into it is utterly pointless. Nothing we can do will make BBPB be able to play again, so by preventing BBPA from ever playing again you're ruining his life for literally no reason, because there is no net gain. Now, if you could demonstrate that having that as the official punishment for such a thing would produce a demonstrable reduction in further instances of this, then I would agree that we could consider it as a punishment, but considering the death penalty doesn't even reduce crime rates, it's an absolutely absurd system to use.

Considering BBPA has shown himself to be a competitive douchebag who breaks people's arms over sports, there actually is a benefit to the other players in preventing him from playing again, which is that they don't risk injury by playing sports with him and possibly raising his ire. Those baseball players are members of society, therefore I don't think it's irrelevant to society. You might be making his life a hell of a lot harder, but if he's so invested in baseball that losing it ruins his life for him, then he should have played according to the rules of the game he was so invested in (aside from pumping steroids of course). Of course, society might be sad to see a baseball player permanently leave the field before his time, so there is a balance (because, for reasons I can't fathom Revan, people in society actually do enjoy watching professional baseball).

Edited by Jet Black Gunner, 11 February 2012 - 01:50 PM.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Considering BBPA has shown himself to be a competitive douchebag who breaks people's arms over sports, there actually is a benefit to the other players in preventing him from playing again, which is that they don't risk injury by playing sports with him and possibly raising his ire. Those baseball players are members of society, therefore I don't think it's irrelevant to society.

Sorry if I was unclear, I meant to include that in my second part about preventing that type of thing from happening again. But again, regular prison sentences accomplish that.

[Second Pronoun]

I think rapists SHOULD get the capital punishment, no questions asked.

What about those convicted of rape who were wrongly convicted of rape. Many people are convicted because of many's needs for a person to blame. It is called scapegoating. The American law system is not perfect so we should not be killing people for their crimes. And about the whole Pro-Life thing. Its not just about fetuses because they like keeping incurable vegetables on life support. To be truly Pro-Life you must be Anti-Death and the Death Penalty is not Anti-Death.

Edited by Second Pronoun, 11 February 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[SeverIan]

And about the whole Pro-Life thing. Its not just about fetuses because they like keeping incurable vegetables on life support. To be truly Pro-Life you must be Anti-Death and the Death Penalty is not Anti-Death.

While I agree that your criticism holds in terms of removing the label "pro-life" from these people's political agendas, I also suspect that a label wouldn't matter that much to them compared to the actual issues they stand for. My earlier objection to your point - that killing a fetus innocent of any crime and a person found guilty of a crime are two entirely different things - holds just as well with people on life support who have not been charged with any crime.

[Second Pronoun]

While I agree that your criticism holds in terms of removing the label "pro-life" from these people's political agendas.

Then just call it what it is anti-abortion. I have a problem with this false label from those like the governor of Texas who has sent upwards of 50 people to their death on death row.

Edited by Second Pronoun, 11 February 2012 - 10:27 PM.

[SeverIan]

Then just call it what it is anti-abortion. I have a problem with this false label from those like the governor of Texas who has sent upwards of 50 people to their death on death row.

So it isn't good enough to focus on eliminating the death penalty, we have to make sure that people who support the death penalty can't call themselves some irrelevant label? Personally, I have exactly the same degree of disrespect for someone who sends 50 people to death without calling themselves "pro-life" as I do for someone who calls themselves "pro-life" and sends 50 people to death (holding all other factors constant). Honest wrongdoing doesn't demand more respect in my eyes.

[Blademaster!]

Completely irrelevent to society.

Something that we have probably all forgotten, myself included, is that the justice system isn't just about society. It's primarily about the victim and the accused. If someone robs you, rapes you, or assaults you, you don't have to press charges and you can let the accused get off with nothing happening to them. If something happens to you, you're going to want to see justice done in return, and that's probably why the death penalty exists.

Sure, it's difficult to prevent crime from occuring at the actual scene, etc, and yeah, deterrents are one of the most effective methods. But the death penalty doesn't work like that. There isn't even a correlation between nations having the death penalty and crime rate, let alone a causal relationship, so there is absolutely no reason for anybody to think that the death penalty is at all effective as a deterrent.

If I was to think of the best reason to possibly still keep the death penalty, it would be this: It has been shown that homeless people commit crimes to get thrown in jail to improve their living conditions. Let's say I'm a homeless person with no future, family, etc. I want to go to jail for life since that would be the only way I could live a better life than the one I have now. The easiest way to do this is to kill someone, but if there was a chance that I would get the death penalty for committing this crime, then I would be less likely to do so, if at all, since I still want to live out my life as I want to an extent.

It would help to have a citation on that claim about victims preferences for punishment

I learned about it in lecture from my criminal justice teacher so I can't really "cite" it.

[Esau of Isaac]

Never said it was, just that it is probably more humane than a life sentence

I'm sure that's why prisoners are always just jumping for the death penalty.

I don't think we should be giving criminals any kind of "reward" for what they have done. Everything that happens to them should be things that they don't prefer, otherwise there would be no point to punishing someone.

Is that how you think punishment works? Just do the opposite of what they like until they behave in a way you like?

If someone has killed someone, they should be removed from society. They themselves have gone and removed someone else from society with their own hands, and it would be unjust to allow them to continue to roam free in any society after such a point, let alone give them a second chance at a happy future since they have gone and removed any chance of a happy future from the person they have killed can have.

Why? If the person truly repents and never commits that crime again, then they are rehabilitated. What is the point in going out of your way to make them miserable? It's not going to do anything.

For preventing crime though, there really isn't all that much that can really be done. Unless someone is there to stop a crime before hand, which rarely ever happens, the fear of punishment is really the best deterrent against crime we have given how society works.

That's why there was no crime back in the days of brutal torture for the most minor of transgressions, right?

[Anouleth]

If I was to think of the best reason to possibly still keep the death penalty, it would be this: It has been shown that homeless people commit crimes to get thrown in jail to improve their living conditions. Let's say I'm a homeless person with no future, family, etc. I want to go to jail for life since that would be the only way I could live a better life than the one I have now. The easiest way to do this is to kill someone, but if there was a chance that I would get the death penalty for committing this crime, then I would be less likely to do so, if at all, since I still want to live out my life as I want to an extent.

You don't need to commit a murder or rape someone to get thrown in prison. Unless you think the death penalty should be brought in for petty theft, I don't see this problem stopping.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Something that we have probably all forgotten, myself included, is that the justice system isn't just about society. It's primarily about the victim and the accused. If someone robs you, rapes you, or assaults you, you don't have to press charges and you can let the accused get off with nothing happening to them. If something happens to you, you're going to want to see justice done in return, and that's probably why the death penalty exists.

But that's a silly illogical way to do things. As I said before, killing people for emotional satisfaction is exactly what we accuse criminals of doing, and if you're killing people to fulfill some artificial sense of justice, you're doing just that.

If I was to think of the best reason to possibly still keep the death penalty, it would be this: It has been shown that homeless people commit crimes to get thrown in jail to improve their living conditions. Let's say I'm a homeless person with no future, family, etc. I want to go to jail for life since that would be the only way I could live a better life than the one I have now. The easiest way to do this is to kill someone, but if there was a chance that I would get the death penalty for committing this crime, then I would be less likely to do so, if at all, since I still want to live out my life as I want to an extent.

That seems to be more of an argument for why we should have a better social safety net, but whatever. Regardless, most people who do that do something like rob a bank for one dollar or something. I mean, in Norway criminals get treated fucking amazingly, and you don't have people committing crimes just to be sent to their jail equivalent. Fuck, they have really low crime rates in general.

[Narga_Rocks]

You don't need to commit a murder or rape someone to get thrown in prison. Unless you think the death penalty should be brought in for petty theft, I don't see this problem stopping.

He said to do something that can get you a life sentence. Life sentence. I don't imagine petty theft, even a dozen times, will get you a life sentence ever. Granted, you could just keep doing the same crime over and over until you die of old age, but maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

[Defeatist Elitist]

He said to do something that can get you a life sentence. Life sentence. I don't imagine petty theft, even a dozen times, will get you a life sentence ever. Granted, you could just keep doing the same crime over and over until you die of old age, but maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

Commit armed robbery for very little money, then give yourself up. If necessary do it a second time.

[Furetchen]

I think rapists SHOULD get the capital punishment, no questions asked.

Rape is terrible. Nobody is arguing with this. But if the government is killing people who aren't even murderers, it has too much fucking power.

And yeah, again, the law isn't infallible. And as for deterrence, well, murder is a crime of emotion, not of risk/reward.

Besides, I'm moderately certain that as western law in general stands the death penalty is more expensive. It just seems... really, really stupid in every way.

[Defeatist Elitist]

And as for deterrence, well, murder is a crime of emotion, not of risk/reward.

Yeah, I've also heard it put like this: To kill someone in a fit of passion might be understandable, but to kill someone after sober deliberation before a panel of their peers is unthinkable. It's not an incredible argument, but I think it does hold a little merit.

Edited by Defeatist Elitist, 12 February 2012 - 02:12 AM.

[Darros]

He said to do something that can get you a life sentence. Life sentence. I don't imagine petty theft, even a dozen times, will get you a life sentence ever. Granted, you could just keep doing the same crime over and over until you die of old age, but maybe blademaster thinks that a homeless guy would see that as too much work?

IIRC armed robbery can give you a life sentence in Canada (in more extreme cases, the minimum I think is below that).