Thoughts on the death penalty?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.