Thoughts on the death penalty?

[KillerGremlin]

Maybe the death penalty is a good idea in a world where the justice system is flawless and where every convicted criminal is guilty. I dunno. I have a few thoughts but am interested in what you all think.

Apologies if this thread has been done before.

Edit: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/photogallery/last_words.html
Some of the last words are touching....some of the last words are humorous. I don't know how you could crack a joke when staring death in the face.

[Professor S]

Human life is not ours to take unless it is to save our own.

[manasecret]

Like you said KG, maybe if a justice system were flawless then capital punishment would be ok. But as we've seen over and over people are acquitted all the time after many years in prison or on death row, or, after being put to death.

Making amends for putting an innocent person in prison for years is already tough enough. But how do you make amends for putting to death an innocent person?

Now, even if we had a flawless justice system, I think on principle I would still be against the death penalty, I don't believe killing is right when you don't have to. If you have someone in custody, in prison, he's no longer much of a threat to society. And I think life in prison (which is essentially the death penalty by old age) is much worse of a punishment than putting someone out of their misery quickly.

[Typhoid]

Well, here we go.


You'd think I'd be for it, but I'm not. The chance of having an innocent person in the place of a guilty one is too big of a risk. If that variable is taken out entirely, then maybe I'd think about it.


One of my best friends was murdered 4 years ago, and I wouldn't wish the death penalty on the kid who did it. It might sound more barbaric, but I'd much prefer he stays in jail his entire life knowing full-well what he did, each and every day. Death would be the easy way out.

[Bond]

Personally, I am against the death penalty. I don't find it to be an act that is indicative of the civilized world.

Legally, it should be left to individual states to decide.

[KillerGremlin]

I never understood how indirectly putting someone to death through the justice system equates to the loss one would have if their loved one or family member got murdered. Of course I cannot speak on behalf of any victim's family or friends because I don't directly know any immediate family or close friends who have been murdered.

2 points....

1) The family has to endure the long and intense emotional stress of court and trial in order to sentence someone to death row (usually).

2) Killing another person doesn't bring back your lost loved ones.

[Professor S]

Legally, it should be left to individual states to decide.

Agreed.

[BlueFire]

I'm against it as well. People say it's a cheaper alternative to life in prison, but I'm not convinced (especially because I'm pretty sure it's not true).

I'm curious.. is there anyone here that is for it?

[Fox 6]

Shoot them all and let god sort them out.

[Combine 017]

Some people deserve to die.

[Bond]

Too many of us agree on this issue - find another controversial topic, quick!

[Swan]

Too many of us agree on this issue - find another controversial topic, quick!

ABORTION!

No we did that a few months ago.


Um, um....


Gay marriage!



No that has been done too...


Hmm...




CANNIBALISM!

[KillerGremlin]

Too many of us agree on this issue - find another controversial topic, quick!

Evidently not :p

I'm down with Swan's cannibalism thread. We could also do anal sex, and Sarah Palin, hot or not.

[Swan]

Evidently not :p

I'm down with Swan's cannibalism thread. We could also do anal sex, and Sarah Palin, hot or not.

Why not kill two birds with one stone and just combine the last two into one topic?

[KillerGremlin]

Why not kill two birds with one stone and just combine the last two into one topic?

Shit! I would have but I didn't read your post.

That would have been an awesome vote.

"Yes I would nail Sarah Palin. Then I would eat her."

"Yes I would nail Sarah Palin, but I wouldn't eat her."

"No I wouldn't nail Sarah Palin but I sure would eat her!"

"No I wouldn't nail Sarah Palin or eat her."

I'd probably vote for option 1 myself.

[KillerGremlin]

Wow, 8 against and 5 for. That's about 38% of voters who support the death penalty so far, not to shabby. I'm not trying to single anyone out but I'm curious who voted for "Yes" and if they are serious and why they support the death penalty.

[TheGame]

I support the death penalty under certain circumstances. But I think how its handled in most cases now is broken.

[Teuthida]

If there's a serial killer who enjoys daily ass rape then sure, kill em.

[KillerGremlin]

If there's a serial killer who enjoys daily ass rape then sure, kill em.

Enjoys receiving or giving?

In all seriousness though, that's not being very empathetic. =/

[Teuthida]

A one off murder I wouldn't give the death penalty as a sentence. A serial killer with no remorse who just keeps killing shouldn't be allowed to live. I just threw in the rape part jokingly because a lifelong sentence wouldn't be so bad for him if he enjoyed the benefits of prison.

[KillerGremlin]

Even if a serial killer had no remorse, I wouldn't feel confident deciding if he has the right to live.

Perhaps neurotic/psychotic/anti-social tendencies are inborn. Or maybe serial killers were beat or abused as young children. I would support solitary confinement. The US prison system is bullshit. We send way too many people to prison for small drug chargers and minor offenses. We really should just make these people do community service. We could lower the prison costs and get rid of death row and keep the real killers incarcerated for life.

I'm also for getting rid of parole, especially for serial killers or first degree murder that was clearly intentional.

[Teuthida]

See that's another reason I suggested the death penalty. I dunno if it's just me, but if I were to be sent to prison I'd much much prefer solitary confinement. Although if this hypothetical killer would just attack other inmates I suppose solitary confinement would be best if you don't want him killed. Some people just deserve to die...but I see how it can get hazy as a government sanctioned death. We need another Australia to sent convicts to. Mars?

You're right about prison for the small drug chargers. As far as the US prison compares to the rest of the world, I don't know enough about other countries' prisons. I know in a lot of Asian countries marijuana is a much bigger offense than it is here for example.

[KillerGremlin]

See that's another reason I suggested the death penalty. I dunno if it's just me, but if I were to be sent to prison I'd much much prefer solitary confinement.

I like people too much, I would go nuts in solitary confinement. On the other hand, I watched a documentary about prison and the amount of fighting and stuff is pretty crazy. The high security prisons for top-tier criminals are crazy places.

I hope some day in the future we have a better way to store prisoners. Maybe we will even have robot guards and a couple of head humans watching over the place.

If I had the choice of Death Penalty vs. Solitary Confinement or many years getting assraped in a dirty facility while eating shitty food....I dunno, I'd probably go with the first to be honest. =/ That's my rational for not zapping these guys, let them think about their crimes while taking it up the butt. :D

[Jason1]

Legally, it should be left to individual states to decide.

Uh, correct me if im wrong, but isnt it currently up to the states to decided? Maybe it was just the wording, but the way you said that makes it sound like it SHOULD be up to the states to decide, like it is not that way currently.

Personally I dont have a big problem with the death penalty, I think some people dont deserve to live. That may sound harsh but its what I believe, some people are just that terrible.

[Professor S]

Uh, correct me if im wrong, but isnt it currently up to the states to decided? Maybe it was just the wording, but the way you said that makes it sound like it SHOULD be up to the states to decide, like it is not that way currently.

It should and is decided by the states. The conversation was more universal in context, and I think Bond wanted to emphasize that this decision is a very subjective one that should be made by communities, not nations. I think this should be the case with most subjective/social issues (death penalty, smoking in public places, abortion, etc.)

Personally I dont have a big problem with the death penalty, I think some people dont deserve to live. That may sound harsh but its what I believe, some people are just that terrible.

So makes that decision? Would you feel comfortable sentencing someone to death? What if they were innocent and you never found out until after they were killed?

[TheGame]

So makes that decision? Would you feel comfortable sentencing someone to death? What if they were innocent and you never found out until after they were killed?

Yeah that question is the problem with it in the first place.. there needs to be some dramatic overwhelming evidence for the death penalty to be valid. Lets take the opposite situation..

Think of someone you love who is under the age of 18 (boy or girl), and lets say that there is video evidence of a man on trial brutaly raping the kid then killing them, and then selling the videos over the internet and making money off of it. And in the courtroom they are 100% unremorseful for it, and claims they enjoyed it and would do it again if they had the chance. Would you feel like that guy deserves a chance at life?

What would you consider a fitting penalty for that?

[Dylflon]

In the future, death row convicts will fight in gladiator arenas for our amusement.

Go ahead. Quote me on that.

[Professor S]

Yeah that question is the problem with it in the first place.. there needs to be some dramatic overwhelming evidence for the death penalty to be valid. Lets take the opposite situation..

Think of someone you love who is under the age of 18 (boy or girl), and lets say that there is video evidence of a man on trial brutaly raping the kid then killing them, and then selling the videos over the internet and making money off of it. And in the courtroom they are 100% unremorseful for it, and claims they enjoyed it and would do it again if they had the chance. Would you feel like that guy deserves a chance at life?

What would you consider a fitting penalty for that?

Maximum security prison for life with no chance of parole. The question isn't about punishment, but about the value of human life and who gets to make those decisions. I don't think we get t make those decisions unless we are trying to save our life or others. If prison can fit that need just as well, we should use it. Besides, prison is NOT pleasant and I would consider a life term a fate worse than death, honestly.

Also, the main reasoning behind the death penalty isn't that it is appropriate punishment, but that it is a deterrent. Maybe it used to be a deterrent, but it's so behind closed doors now that it's almost mythic in character. If it were made public, perhaps it would deter, but then we'd have something more abhorrent than I'd like to comprehend.

You don't have to kill someone to take their life. A lifetime of hard labor can be punsihment enough. Keep in mind, I'm also for alternative punishments as well. Say, if a child molester elects to castrate himself for parole, I'm all for it. The goal should be to correct and/or prevent behavior, not to apply vengeance.

[TheGame]

Maximum security prison for life with no chance of parole. The question isn't about punishment, but about the value of human life and who gets to make those decisions. I don't think we get t make those decisions unless we are trying to save our life or others. If prison can fit that need just as well, we should use it. Besides, prison is NOT pleasant and I would consider a life term a fate worse than death, honestly.

I would disagree completly. You can't honestly say that you'd chose to die over sitting in a cell for the rest of yor life getting free (and instant) medical care, free food, and still being able to socialize. (You'd even get to see your wife/kids again, isn't that enough worth living for?) Now if the prisons were actually tougher by nature, and were a form of torture in a way... then I could see how someone would chose to die. But these days you still have a life, even behind bars.

You don't have to kill someone to take their life. A lifetime of hard labor can be punsihment enough. Keep in mind, I'm also for alternative punishments as well. Say, if a child molester elects to castrate himself for parole, I'm all for it. The goal should be to correct and/or prevent behavior, not to apply vengeance.

I disagree, if you let a person like that go no matter what they did, its a huge risk of the family of the victim taking things into their own hands. If you take the example from my previous post (and I'm talking REALLY taking it into consideration), and the guy castrated himself to get out on parole, and you met them in a store face to face knowing what they did without a doubt...

Well, lets just say that's one of those situations where human's "animal nature" comes out. You're not going to be able to think straight, trust me.

Here's what I think the problems are:
1) The death penalty has been given to people who are innocent.
2) The alternative to death (going to prison) is not harsh enough punishment for some crimes.

Here's what I think the solutions would be:
1) Death penalty should only be reserved for crimes that are public displays, and that are caught on tape. And when its sentanced it should hapen quickly, instead of allowing the govt to waste tons of money on keeping them on death row.
2) If someone is found guilty of a crime that gives them a life sentance.. we should have much harder prisons that are harsh enough to give the prisoner the illusion that they're dead. No visitation, no TV, no reading, no socializing, just a bed, 4 walls, and 3 meals. No parole, either.
3) IF someone is found guilty and sentanced to a life sentance and they're eventually found to be innocent of the crime. The government should provide some type of aide to the prisoner for the rest of their life because this occurance is the result of a broken judgement system.


That's just my opinions on it. I value human life just as much as the next guy, but some people do deserve to die.

[Professor S]

I would disagree completly. You can't honestly say that you'd chose to die over sitting in a cell for the rest of yor life getting free (and instant) medical care, free food, and still being able to socialize. (You'd even get to see your wife/kids again, isn't that enough worth living for?) Now if the prisons were actually tougher by nature, and were a form of torture in a way... then I could see how someone would chose to die. But these days you still have a life, even behind bars.

I think your view of prison is a bit rose colored. I'd rather not have to join a racial gang to avoid being sexually abused and/or traded around by other inmates, worrying about whether or not I'm going to get beat up, raped or stabbed on any given day. I'd rather not go though the mental torment of watching my family's utter and complete shame in me and then watch as they grow more distant and finally (hopefully) disappear.

I guess in the end, the death penalty has proven itself to have zero effect as a deterrent (violent crime and murder rates have risen over time and use of the death penalty), so what is the point of the action? Once again, you can have someone put away for life with the same effect (he/she never commits the crime again). Anything else is a grotesque vengeance fantasy, IMO, and one where mistakes can and will be made.

[TheGame]

I think your view of prison is a bit rose colored. I'd rather not have to join a racial gang to avoid being sexually abused and/or traded around by other inmates, worrying about whether or not I'm going to get beat up, raped or stabbed on any given day. I'd taher not go though the mental torment of watching my family's utter and complete shame in me and then watch as they grow more distant and finally (hopefully) disappear.

So you'd chose to die instead of going to prison for life?

I guess in the end, the death penalty has proven itself to have zero effect as a deterrent (violent crime and murder rates have risen over time and use of the death penalty), so what is the point of the action? Once again, you can have someone put away for life with the same effect (he/she never commits the crime again). Anything else is a grotesque vengeance fantasy, IMO, and one where mistakes can and will be made.

Violent crime has been rising period. The death penalty isn't going to change that. The point of it is to punish people for the crimes that they commit. Life sentances hasn't helped the situation any more then the death penalty has.

If you want to talk about deterrants preventing death, lets talk about war. If death cannot be justified under our system of law in our own country, what gives us the right to go out and kill other people in other countries for their international crimes? (Or for simply standing in the way of us getting the people who commited it) Is this because a millitary works as a deterrent, and it actually lowers the amount of fighting that happens in the world?

[Professor S]

So you'd chose to die instead of going to prison for life?

No, I'd rather die than go to prison for life. I would not choose to die, but I'd rather be dead. But thats just me, and I would not impose that on another human or state that they should have the same opinion.

Violent crime has been rising period. The death penalty isn't going to change that. The point of it is to punish people for the crimes that they commit. Life sentances hasn't helped the situation any more then the death penalty has.

Exactly, so why choose the option that is irreversable if the guilty is proven over time to be innocent? Punishment on any level hasn't proven to be a deterrent in violent crime so in the end you can lock up someone to prevent them from killing, or kill them out of anger and vengeance. I choose the less destructive and reversible option.

If you want to talk about deterrants preventing death, lets talk about war. If death cannot be justified under our system of law in our own country, what gives us the right to go out and kill other people in other countries for their international crimes? (Or for simply standing in the way of us getting the people who commited it) Is this because a millitary works as a deterrent, and it actually lowers the amount of fighting that happens in the world?

No, as I said, killing is justified if it is in self-defence. Now we can argue whether or not all wars have been fought our of self-defence, but that does not alter the fact that wars can and are often fought justly if only for self-preservation. Of course pre-emptive self-defence always brings it's own dubious and vague definitions of morality. Now I can see this easily degrading into a Iraq war tangent. so lets avoid that and keep the discussion high level, shall we?

If one side is morally wrong for attacking another country and it's people, then to defend oneself against their attackers must be morally right.

[TheGame]

No, I'd rather die than go to prison for life. I would not choose to die, but I'd rather be dead. But thats just me, and I would not impose that on another human or state that they should have the same opinion.

Though I understand what you're saying, for the sake of the arguement lets look at it for what it is. In the end, you would chose life in prison over death, period. Because life in prison is the preferable option to most men then death is. If death was the lesser penalty, then you would chose to die.

There are men who really would chose to die, however. But if they chose to die, and the family of the victim wants them to die.. and equal punishment for their crime is to have them die... why would we waste space and money keeping them alive?

Exactly, so why choose the option that is irreversable if the guilty is proven over time to be innocent? Punishment on any level hasn't proven to be a deterrent in violent crime so in the end you can lock up someone to prevent them from killing, or kill them out of anger and vengeance. I choose the less destructive and reversible option.

That's why I said before that it should only be done if there's video evidence or if its some type of public display. I agree with you when it comes to crimes where there's no solid evidence.. but when it comes to crimes where there is such evidence.. why should we waste the money to keep that person alive?

No, as I said, killing is justified if it is in self-defence. Now we can argue whether or not all wars have been fought our of self-defence, but that does not alter the fact that wars can and are often fought justly if only for self-preservation. After all, if one side is morally wrong for attacking another country and it's people, then to defend oneself against their attackers must be morally right. Now I can see this easily degrading into a Iraq war tangent. so lets avoid that and keep the discussion high level, shall we?

:)

How do you define self defense? In your opinion, what does an enemy have to do to justify a war with the united states? And keep in mind, the moment you make the decision to go to war, you are sentancing thousands of people to death (your own people and others) by simply going there.

[KillerGremlin]

In the future, death row convicts will fight in gladiator arenas for our amusement.

Go ahead. Quote me on that.

I've always believed this is the answer. Death Row island....the real reality show. We just place health packs and weapons and ammo in strategic locations on the island and set up some cameras....

I would disagree completly. You can't honestly say that you'd chose to die over sitting in a cell for the rest of yor life getting free (and instant) medical care, free food, and still being able to socialize. (You'd even get to see your wife/kids again, isn't that enough worth living for?) Now if the prisons were actually tougher by nature, and were a form of torture in a way... then I could see how someone would chose to die. But these days you still have a life, even behind bars.

I'd look into maximum security prison a bit more. It's more like solitary confinement most of the time, exercising in a 8x8 courtyard with no equipment for 30 minutes by yourself, having your food passed through a metal box Hannibal Lecter style (and it's not good food), getting your medication (if not voluntarily by force). These prisons have swat teams for cell extractions, they'll bag your head so you can't spit, pin you down and beat the shit out of you if you don't cooperate, and yeah. It's not a cool place to be. I believe restrictions get loosened a bit for good behavior, and I think it varies from psychiatric disorder and degree of murder.

Otherwise, I'll let you and Prof S carry on. :p

[Professor S]

Though I understand what you're saying, for the sake of the arguement lets look at it for what it is. In the end, you would chose life in prison over death, period. Because life in prison is the preferable option to most men then death is. If death was the lesser penalty, then you would chose to die.

No, you misunderstand my argument completely. I would rather be dead than live in prison, but I would not kill myself because THAT IS NOT MINE TO TAKE. No life is man's to take except in self-defense, IMO, and includes our own.

There are men who really would chose to die, however. But if they chose to die, and the family of the victim wants them to die.. and equal punishment for their crime is to have them die... why would we waste space and money keeping them alive?

Because that is not ours to take except in self-defense. My argument is is not an argument based in economics (the horror of economics being a factor in choosing the death penalty scares me to death), its based in morality and philosophy.

That's why I said before that it should only be done if there's video evidence or if its some type of public display. I agree with you when it comes to crimes where there's no solid evidence.. but when it comes to crimes where there is such evidence.. why should we waste the money to keep that person alive?

Because that life is not ours to take, and to be quite simple about it, two wrongs do not make a right. But thats just my opinion and in the end this is a subjective argument. My main objection to man believing they can make life and death decisions is that is cheapens our value of life overall and makes us believe we can engineer or euthanize our way to a better society, and I think that is a slippery slope.

How do you define self defense? In your opinion, what does an enemy have to do to justify a war with the united states? And keep in mind, the moment you make the decision to go to war, you are sentancing thousands of people to death (your own people and others) by simply going there.

Well thats a difficult question. Fighting an aggressor is always justified, IMO, such as the Allies fighting against the Axis in WW2 or the US invading Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't think anyone can argue against that. It's when a country acts in preemptive self-defense that the moral lines blur considerably, and quite ironically, these actions in theory are to prevent another WW2/Nazi terror. The vague and dubious area of preemptive self-defense is that we'll never know if it worked because if the action it prevents the justifying evidence from ever existing. We'll never definitively know whether or not the Iraq War was truly justified because we'll never know the alternative.

[TheGame]

So what it boils down to is morality, and you just have a different set of values then I do. "That life is not mine to take" is not a good arguement in my opinion. I think the fact of the matter is that keeping a man in a cage for the rest of their life is a less efficient way of handling punishment then the death penalty is.

While I agree in cases in which there is no 110% solid evidence that proves the person took another life (or multiple other lives) that they should be put in prison, I disagree with the fact that the death penalty is something that's immoral.

When the person who is killed decided to kill an innocent baby, mother, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, nephew, niece, etc they took their own life in my book. That's where I moraly stand on it.

As far as the effects of the death penalty.. I think when handled correctly it makes much more since then keeping a person alive who we're never going to let go anyway. Why waste the space, money, and time keeping this person alive when they didn't do the same for some innocent victim?

And lastly, I think its hipocracy to say "that life is not ours to take" to any crime that a person commits in the US, but still have the ability to justify a war that's not fought on your home turf. I belive in either case that some actions need retaliations. And sometimes I feel like its worth dying, and worth killing to punish people for crimes that they commit.

[BlueFire]

I find this discussion to be quite interesting and I have two questions:

1) TheGame, if I remember correctly, you are a Christian, right? How do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your approval of the death penalty (if you are a Christian)?

2) Bringing economics back into this (sorry, Prof :p), is the death penalty really a wiser choice? According to ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/capital/general/10441pub19971231.html#incarceration) in their "Case against the Death Penalty,"

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT COSTS MORE THAN INCARCERATION

It is sometimes suggested that abolishing capital punishment is unfair to the taxpayer, on the assumption that life imprisonment is more expensive than execution. If one takes into account all the relevant costs, however, just the reverse is true. "The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been, a more economical alternative to life imprisonment."56 A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs – including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs – are mostly borne by the taxpayer. A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.57

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence."58 In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $11 million."59 Florida, with one of the nation's most populous death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence."60

A 1993 study of the costs of North Carolina's capital punishment system revealed that litigating a murder case from start to finish adds an extra $163,000 to what it would cost the state to keep the convicted offender in prison for 20 years. The extra cost goes up to $216,000 per case when all first-degree murder trials and their appeals are considered, many of which do not end with a death sentence and an execution.61

From one end of the country to the other public officials decry the additional cost of capital cases even when they support the death penalty system. "Wherever the death penalty is in place, it siphons off resources which could be going to the front line in the war against crime…. Politicians could address this crisis, but, for the most part they either endorse executions or remain silent."62 The only way to make the death penalty more "cost effective" than imprisonment is to weaken due process and curtail appellate review, which are the defendant's (and society's) only protection against the most aberrant miscarriages of justice. Any savings in dollars would, of course, be at the cost of justice: In nearly half of the death-penalty cases given review under federal habeas corpus provisions, the murder conviction or death sentence was overturned.63

In 1996, in response to public clamor for accelerating executions, Congress imposed severe restrictions on access to federal habeas corpus64 and also ended all funding of the regional death penalty "resource centers" charged with providing counsel on appeal in the federal courts.65These restrictions virtually guarantee that the number and variety of wrongful murder convictions and death sentences will increase. The savings in time and money will prove to be illusory.

You can check their sources in the end notes.

Anyway.. thoughts?

[KillerGremlin]

1) TheGame, if I remember correctly, you are a Christian, right? How do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your approval of the death penalty (if you are a Christian)?

I'll answer that. The Old Testament frowns upon murder (hence the Commandment) but it actually suggests the death penalty (or punishment of death) for acts of Adultery, Bestiality, and yes, Murder.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly say as far as I know, and the message (Jesus' message) is mostly love and happy times.

There's a reason hardcore Islamic countries still stone people to death for having affairs and stuff; because it's in the theology. =/

I'd say it is fairly open-ended. I don't know what the Catholic (or Pope's) position is. I never really asked and the topic never came up during church. I suppose the issue depends on who you are and how you want to interpret the Bible and your faith.

[TheGame]

I find this discussion to be quite interesting and I have two questions:

1) TheGame, if I remember correctly, you are a Christian, right? How do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your approval of the death penalty (if you are a Christian)?

http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html

The only reason I'm using that site is because I didn't feel like digging up the info myself. But the bible does support giving the right for people to execute others for commiting crimes. Though this point is one of the many things in the bible that can be read both ways, and can be used by either side to justify or to not justify capital punishment.

In this case I'm using my own judgement. I don't feel like the death penalty is a happy thing, however I feel like it is a nessicary thing to have to keep people's morals in check. Just as I don't think war is a happy thing, but I still think that it is nessicary to prevent your home land from being made vunerable to attacks.

And to me it simply makes more sense then locking someone away forever.

2) Bringing economics back into this (sorry, Prof :p), is the death penalty really a wiser choice? According to ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/capital/general/10441pub19971231.html#incarceration) in their "Case against the Death Penalty,"

Yeah I'm well aware of the facts presented in that article, which is why I feel the system as it is now is broken.. To quote myself:

"Here's what I think the solutions would be:
1) Death penalty should only be reserved for crimes that are public displays, and that are caught on tape. And when its sentanced it should hapen quickly, instead of allowing the govt to waste tons of money on keeping them on death row."

The death penalty, as handled by most states that have it, I disagree with right now. But I don't disagree with the overall concept of executing someone for a crime that they commit.

-EDIT-

I'd also toss in the fact that, depending on the crime.. if a person takes ownership of it and its bad enough. I'd still give them the death penalty even without sufficient evidence. If we captured Osama Bin Laden right now, and he swears he wasn't the one behind 9-11 and other attacks, then I'd toss him in prison for the rest of his life. If he claims he was behind it, and doesn't really have and remorse for what he did, then in the words of movie directors... "That's a wrap"

[KillerGremlin]

TheGame, I'd like you to humor my question if you do not mind.

Being a supporter of the death penalty, would you tie the noose? That is to say, do you consider it your duty to provide the service of keeping an even moral slate in our society? Should the executioner be similar to the civil servant in Jury Duty position?

If you had the switch and Bin Laden, would you pull it?

[BlueFire]

I'll answer that. The Old Testament frowns upon murder (hence the Commandment) but it actually suggests the death penalty (or punishment of death) for acts of Adultery, Bestiality, and yes, Murder.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly say as far as I know, and the message (Jesus' message) is mostly love and happy times.

There's a reason hardcore Islamic countries still stone people to death for having affairs and stuff; because it's in the theology. =/

I'd say it is fairly open-ended. I don't know what the Catholic (or Pope's) position is. I never really asked and the topic never came up during church. I suppose the issue depends on who you are and how you want to interpret the Bible and your faith.

The Catholic view:

In Evangelium Vitae, the Church teaches that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, and that with today's penal system such a situation requiring an execution is either rare or non-existent.[87] The Catechism of the Catholic Church holds a similar view
..thank you, Wikipedia.

Christians supporting the death penalty doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In my ~*~amazing Catholic upbringing~*~, it felt more like you could learn more from the New Testament than the Old Testament. Believing in the values Jesus Christ taught and supporting the death penalty.. seems like a big joke. :p

[Professor S]

So what it boils down to is morality, and you just have a different set of values then I do. "That life is not mine to take" is not a good arguement in my opinion. I think the fact of the matter is that keeping a man in a cage for the rest of their life is a less efficient way of handling punishment then the death penalty is.

While I agree in cases in which there is no 110% solid evidence that proves the person took another life (or multiple other lives) that they should be put in prison, I disagree with the fact that the death penalty is something that's immoral.

When the person who is killed decided to kill an innocent baby, mother, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, nephew, niece, etc they took their own life in my book. That's where I moraly stand on it.

Then thats just a simple disagreement on a subjective topic, which is why I think Bond and I both maintain that this should be a states rights issue.

And lastly, I think its hipocracy to say "that life is not ours to take" to any crime that a person commits in the US, but still have the ability to justify a war that's not fought on your home turf. I belive in either case that some actions need retaliations. And sometimes I feel like its worth dying, and worth killing to punish people for crimes that they commit.

I'm not sure how my statements were hipocritical when I made efforts to explain that pre-emtive self-defense is a morally dubious activity. And to use your own terminology, was the US's involvement in the European theater in WW2 immoral? We certainly were not on our home turf by any means. We were across the Atlantic, and Germany never ever attacked the US!

Of course it was moral because to do nothing ran the risk of an openly agressive Nazi Germany ruling Europe and Asia and in the position to threaten the US and the rest of the free world, exterminating who they pleaed along the way. This is why preemption is so muddled... you'll never know the moral consequence of the alternative because it was never given the option of existing.

[TheGame]

TheGame, I'd like you to humor my question if you do not mind.

Being a supporter of the death penalty, would you tie the noose? That is to say, do you consider it your duty to provide the service of keeping an even moral slate in our society? Should the executioner be similar to the civil servant in Jury Duty position?

If you had the switch and Bin Laden, would you pull it?

If he was tried and found guilty in a court of law, yes I would.

A lot of people don't have the nerve to do it, but I've had friends (and one family member) who we're killed before. I've sat with families who had to grieve the loss of their children, and been to funerals that shouldn't have happend as soon as they did. Mentally, all I'd have to do is think about the looks on those people's faces, and multiply it by the amount of lives that man has taken.

With that said, it shouldn't be like jury duty. It would take a person who understands what his affect on people really was.. Not some person who isn't in touch with reality.

[TheGame]

Then thats just a simple disagreement on a subjective topic, which is why I think Bond and I both maintain that this should be a states rights issue.

I can agree to that.

I'm not sure how my statements were hipocritical when I made efforts to explain that pre-emtive self-defense is a morally dubious activity. And to use your own terminology, was the US's involvement in the European theater in WW2 immoral? We certainly were not on our home turf by any means. We were across the Atlantic, and Germany never ever attacked the US!

Of course it was moral because to do nothing ran the risk of an openly agressive Nazi Germany ruling Europe and Asia and in the position to threaten the US and the rest of the free world, exterminating who they pleaed along the way. This is why preemption is so muddled... you'll never know the moral consequence of the alternative because it was never given the option of existing.

I still think its hipocritical from a moral standpoint to universaly say that the death penalty is wrong to do in all cases, and then support and pre-emtive war effort. Because in one case you're saying killing a single person for their crimes is wrong, and in the other case you're saying killing thousands of people for crimes they haven't commited yet, but simply "threaten" to commit is ok. And EVEN IF the country in question commited international crimes, its still hipocritical to say you'd kill them but not kill a single person who is found guilty here.

[Professor S]

Because in one case you're saying killing a single person for their crimes is wrong, and in the other case you're saying killing thousands of people for crimes they haven't commited yet, but simply "threaten" to commit is ok.

No, I did not say that it's ok, I said it's a difficult and morally dubious question. You're beginning to fall back into the habit of putting words in my mouth. The fact that preemptive war is not clear cut does not make it right, but it also does not make it wrong. It depends on the situation and evidence provided as to whether or not one can argue preemptive war is a moral good.

After all, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler/thousands of his supporters before he becomes Chancellor, would that be murder or would that be defending the lives of millions of innocent people who he would have killed? That is th exact question that preemption attempts to answer but can never fully answer because time machines do not exist and we cannot see the reality that the action has prevented, if it prevented anything at all.

And EVEN IF the country in question commited international crimes, its still hipocritical to say you'd kill them but not kill a single person who is found guilty here.

It's not hipocritical if it is in the defense of life, which is what most arguments for preemption are based in. My full argument is that killing is immoral except in the defense of human life. To attack an innocent is immoral, but to defend oneself against agression is a moral imperative, IMO.

[TheGame]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I just think the act of supporting any pre emptive war in some cases and not suppoorting the death penalty in all cases is hippocritical. Which is exactly what you're doing/saying. (Now if you're saying attacking pre-emptively in self defense is wrong in ALL cases, then you can ignore the rest of this post because then I don't think you're a hipocrite.)

The reasoning for having a millitary and for having punishments for crimes in a peaceful country is deterrence. And when someone actually does step out of bounds (or threatens to), then sometimes you have to flex your deterrent to get a point across.

If there was no threat of the US millitary coming in and killing thousands of people, then a lot of wars that didn't happen could have happend. Just like if there was no threat of the death penalty (or cops just blowing your brains out on the spot).. a lot of crimes that would have happend didn't happen.

I personally support the idea that killing pre-emptively in self defense is ok, but I'm not the person who is saying that killing someone as a penalty for a crime they commit is universally wrong, you are.

[Professor S]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I just think the act of supporting any pre emptive war in some cases and not suppoorting the death penalty in all cases is hippocritical. Which is exactly what you're doing/saying. (Now if you're saying attacking pre-emptively in self defense is wrong in ALL cases, then you can ignore the rest of this post because then I don't think you're a hipocrite.)

I don't think understanding that everything isn't 100% black and white in terms of self-defense isn't hipocritical, but I've already explained myself in this thread. If you wish to call me a hipocrit for not being an absolutist when it comes to the definition of self-defense, go right ahead, it doesn't affect the validity of my statements regardless of whatever perjorative you wish to apply to them.

Meanwhile you've conveniently avoided my entire arguementabout killing Hitler and his supporters before WW2 to preempt the destruction and genocide he cause. I can only believe thats because you have no answer, or haven't yet found a way to misstate the concept to fit your opinion.

I have maintained from the beginning that killing in self-defense is moral and even preemptive self-defense can be moral (depends on the situation), while killing for punishment or vengeance is not. I've also presented reasoned argument in defense of these ideas. There is nothing hipocritical about anything I've said, regardles of whether or not you wish to agree or disagree with my comments.

And since we're heading back down the road of repetition, I'll exit this conversation... stage right eveeeeeen...

[TheGame]

I don't think understanding that everything isn't 100% black and white in terms of self-defense isn't hipocritical, but I've already explained myself in this thread. If you wish to call me a hipocrit for not being an absolutist when it comes to the definition of self-defense, go right ahead, it doesn't affect the validity of my statements regardless of whatever perjorative you wish to apply to them.

No, I'm calling you a hypocrit for claiming you value human life too much to allow someone to die for a crime they have commited, no matter what crime they commit.. Yet you find ways to justify killing people proactively who only threaten to do the same thing who are in a different country.

Meanwhile you've conveniently avoided my entire arguementabout killing Hitler and his supporters before WW2 to preempt the destruction and genocide he cause. I can only believe thats because you have no answer, or haven't yet found a way to misstate the concept to fit your opinion.

I didn't ignore it, my responce to that was: "I personally support the idea that killing pre-emptively in self defense is ok, but I'm not the person who is saying that killing someone as a penalty for a crime they commit is universally wrong, you are."

So if he made himself out to be a realistic threat to do such things before he did them, then I have no problem with knocking him off before hand. But if the threat was not realistic (i.e. Saddam Hussein) I would disagree with it. Unfortunately the problem with gambling such things is that sometimes you are going to be wrong, and in many cases you have to wait for something to happen before taking action.

I have maintained from the beginning that killing in self-defense is moral and even preemptive self-defense can be moral (depends on the situation), while killing for punishment or vengeance is not. I've also presented reasoned argument in defense of these ideas. There is nothing hipocritical about anything I've said, regardles of whether or not you wish to agree or disagree with my comments.

You don't believe there is anything hipocritical about it, but there is. You just want to ignore the facts to try and sound reasonable.. There is no consistancy to your arguement. If you can't hang your own people for breaking your laws, then you have no right to go around the world hanging other people for doing the same. If you do that, then you're a hipocrite, period.

[Acebot44]

Here an interesting TED video on the minds of Psychopathic Killers that made me think of this thread :p

<object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/embed/JimFallon_2009-embed_high.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/JimFallon-2009.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=602" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/embed/JimFallon_2009-embed_high.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/JimFallon-2009.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=602"></embed></object>