Jump to content


The Death Penalty


155 replies to this topic

Poll: The Death Penalty (26 member(s) have cast votes)

Yes or no?

  1. Yes (8 votes [30.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.77%

  2. No (18 votes [69.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.23%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7575 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 17:56

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:52, said:

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:

I would consider serial killers, serial rapists, drug lords and crime bosses eligible for the death penalty, but it should only be used if the evidence is overwhelming. These kind of people have forsaken morality and thus there shouldn't be any moral feelings that killing them is wrong. In their lives all they have done is hurt, and hurt badly. Crime bosses and drug lords may not always do direct harm, but the indirect effects can be massive. Serial killers and serial rapists treat life like it means nothing, they commit crimes so horrible most people cannot even comprehend how they could do such acts. They haven chosen to treat others lives like that and I think we should treat them the same. Why waste £28,000 a year keeping some horrid person locked up when you can just kill them instead.
That's still assuming people consider death worse than life in prison.

Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.


For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.
As said before though, in order to establish the guilt incontrovertibly, like you demand, you need to spend a great amount of time and resources in doing this and as such it may actually end up costing more.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. But the clever have technology, and hide it.
-The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#52 CJ

    Rocket soldier

  • Member Test
  • 2148 posts
  • Projects: Nothing yet

Posted 27 January 2011 - 17:56

Finally someone who partially agrees with me, I was starting to think that all FS members were living in some kind of alternate dimension where evil did not exist...

View PostChyros, on 11 November 2013 - 18:21, said:

I bet I could program an internet


#53 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:04

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56, said:

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:52, said:

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:

I would consider serial killers, serial rapists, drug lords and crime bosses eligible for the death penalty, but it should only be used if the evidence is overwhelming. These kind of people have forsaken morality and thus there shouldn't be any moral feelings that killing them is wrong. In their lives all they have done is hurt, and hurt badly. Crime bosses and drug lords may not always do direct harm, but the indirect effects can be massive. Serial killers and serial rapists treat life like it means nothing, they commit crimes so horrible most people cannot even comprehend how they could do such acts. They haven chosen to treat others lives like that and I think we should treat them the same. Why waste £28,000 a year keeping some horrid person locked up when you can just kill them instead.
That's still assuming people consider death worse than life in prison.

Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.


For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.
As said before though, in order to establish the guilt incontrovertibly, like you demand, you need to spend a great amount of time and resources in doing this and as such it may actually end up costing more.


It depends on the person on trial I guess. Even now trials can cost huge amounts of money, I wouldn't think any amount of extra time or resources would be needed than there currently is, and even though I do support it it would be used only sparingly. A case that I believe would warrant such a punishment would be the crossbow cannibal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...te-murders.html theres just no escaping the fact that people like that are evil.
Posted Image

Posted Image

#54 Sgt. Rho

    Kerbal Rocket Scientist

  • Project Leader
  • 6868 posts
  • Projects: Scaring Jebediah.

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:04

@CJ: Honestly I was starting to think you were living in the middle ages, no offense. If you didn't read: Prison = Worse than death.

Edited by Sgt. Rho, 27 January 2011 - 18:05.


#55 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7575 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:16

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:04, said:

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56, said:

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:52, said:

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:

I would consider serial killers, serial rapists, drug lords and crime bosses eligible for the death penalty, but it should only be used if the evidence is overwhelming. These kind of people have forsaken morality and thus there shouldn't be any moral feelings that killing them is wrong. In their lives all they have done is hurt, and hurt badly. Crime bosses and drug lords may not always do direct harm, but the indirect effects can be massive. Serial killers and serial rapists treat life like it means nothing, they commit crimes so horrible most people cannot even comprehend how they could do such acts. They haven chosen to treat others lives like that and I think we should treat them the same. Why waste £28,000 a year keeping some horrid person locked up when you can just kill them instead.
That's still assuming people consider death worse than life in prison.

Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.


For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.
As said before though, in order to establish the guilt incontrovertibly, like you demand, you need to spend a great amount of time and resources in doing this and as such it may actually end up costing more.


It depends on the person on trial I guess. Even now trials can cost huge amounts of money, I wouldn't think any amount of extra time or resources would be needed than there currently is, and even though I do support it it would be used only sparingly. A case that I believe would warrant such a punishment would be the crossbow cannibal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...te-murders.html theres just no escaping the fact that people like that are evil.
OK, I agree that that case had pretty solid evidence. Even though of course no-one can be completely sure.

Still, stuff like pleading guilty isn't exactly evidence of any kind; this had been proven time and time again.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. But the clever have technology, and hide it.
-The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#56 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:19

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 18:16, said:

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:04, said:

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56, said:

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:52, said:

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:

I would consider serial killers, serial rapists, drug lords and crime bosses eligible for the death penalty, but it should only be used if the evidence is overwhelming. These kind of people have forsaken morality and thus there shouldn't be any moral feelings that killing them is wrong. In their lives all they have done is hurt, and hurt badly. Crime bosses and drug lords may not always do direct harm, but the indirect effects can be massive. Serial killers and serial rapists treat life like it means nothing, they commit crimes so horrible most people cannot even comprehend how they could do such acts. They haven chosen to treat others lives like that and I think we should treat them the same. Why waste £28,000 a year keeping some horrid person locked up when you can just kill them instead.
That's still assuming people consider death worse than life in prison.

Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.


For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.
As said before though, in order to establish the guilt incontrovertibly, like you demand, you need to spend a great amount of time and resources in doing this and as such it may actually end up costing more.


It depends on the person on trial I guess. Even now trials can cost huge amounts of money, I wouldn't think any amount of extra time or resources would be needed than there currently is, and even though I do support it it would be used only sparingly. A case that I believe would warrant such a punishment would be the crossbow cannibal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...te-murders.html theres just no escaping the fact that people like that are evil.
OK, I agree that that case had pretty solid evidence. Even though of course no-one can be completely sure.

Still, stuff like pleading guilty isn't exactly evidence of any kind; this had been proven time and time again.


While that is true his conduct and his comments make his guilt 99.999999% certain, coupled with the CCTV footage its nigh impossible he is innocent.
Posted Image

Posted Image

#57 Wizard

    [...beep...]

  • Administrator
  • 9627 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:26

View PostCJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:56, said:

Finally someone who partially agrees with me, I was starting to think that all FS members were living in some kind of alternate dimension where evil did not exist...

Just because I do not agree that the death penalty is a suitable punishment for a crime, it does not mean that I live with rose tinted spectacles. I do, however, question the logic that evil should be punished with evil.

#58 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7575 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:28

Quote

Quote

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:19, said:

It depends on the person on trial I guess. Even now trials can cost huge amounts of money, I wouldn't think any amount of extra time or resources would be needed than there currently is, and even though I do support it it would be used only sparingly. A case that I believe would warrant such a punishment would be the crossbow cannibal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...te-murders.html theres just no escaping the fact that people like that are evil.
OK, I agree that that case had pretty solid evidence. Even though of course no-one can be completely sure.

Still, stuff like pleading guilty isn't exactly evidence of any kind; this had been proven time and time again.


While that is true his conduct and his comments make his guilt 99.999999% certain, coupled with the CCTV footage its nigh impossible he is innocent.
Is even that minute chance worth the chance of killing an innocent though? Because if he does turn out to be innocent, then it's MURDER regardless of whether you consider killing criminals murder or not.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. But the clever have technology, and hide it.
-The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#59 TheDR

    Whispery Commando

  • Administrator
  • 5843 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:30

Like many things in life, it would all come down to where you draw the line. I'm sure some people would consider every crime should get a death penalty so its a touchy subject as it can't really have any rules as "lots of evidence" is a debatable thing.
Posted Image
F O R T H E N S

#60 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7575 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:31

View PostTheDR, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:30, said:

Like many things in life, it would all come down to where you draw the line. I'm sure some people would consider every crime should get a death penalty so its a touchy subject as it can't really have any rules as "lots of evidence" is a debatable thing.
Well that's why it's such an interesting discussion and why it's already got three pages in only a few hours :) .
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. But the clever have technology, and hide it.
-The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#61 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:42

View PostChyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 18:28, said:

Quote

Quote

View PostIon Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:19, said:

It depends on the person on trial I guess. Even now trials can cost huge amounts of money, I wouldn't think any amount of extra time or resources would be needed than there currently is, and even though I do support it it would be used only sparingly. A case that I believe would warrant such a punishment would be the crossbow cannibal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...te-murders.html theres just no escaping the fact that people like that are evil.
OK, I agree that that case had pretty solid evidence. Even though of course no-one can be completely sure.

Still, stuff like pleading guilty isn't exactly evidence of any kind; this had been proven time and time again.


While that is true his conduct and his comments make his guilt 99.999999% certain, coupled with the CCTV footage its nigh impossible he is innocent.
Is even that minute chance worth the chance of killing an innocent though? Because if he does turn out to be innocent, then it's MURDER regardless of whether you consider killing criminals murder or not.


There are minute % chances in most things we do which are negative, but that doesn't stop us doing them. This should be no different.
Posted Image

Posted Image

#62 Libains

    Light up life.

  • Gold Member
  • 4950 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:48

I'm going to look at this from a slightly different perspective. As a Law student, it's possible that one day I'll be representing people in court. Now, were that the same situation for you, and you had to prosecute someone for murder (and thus suggest a sentence), could you, morally, cope with sending someone to their death? It's one of the reasons I've sworn I will never practice criminal law if there is even the remotest chance of somebody's life being extinguished. I would not, and could not, have somebody else's blood on my hands. No matter their crime, people don't deserve to be treated like animals - in this country we put animals down that are a menace to society, not humans. Our compassion and our humanity is what separates us from every other species on this planet. Are you telling me we ought to descend into savagery and barbarism?

Note, evil exists. Some people do the foulest, most horrific things to others, or even to themselves. That is also a part of our humanity - the ability to be quintessentially cruel. But torture, or murder, of people at the hands of government is something that cannot be condoned. The death penalty is seen as revenge, justice, or whatever else you want to call it. It is also stripping people of the single most valuable thing that they will ever possess. There is no way on Earth that you could convince me that somebody ought to die because of their actions. As Golan rightly says, you can't deter people with the death penalty because nobody knows what death truly is. For all we know, by ending their lives we could be pushing their next life forwards, in a place such as Heaven, if it were to exist. My grandmother once told me when I was very young that "Two wrongs don't make a right", and I stand by that to this day.

Further, suggestions that it could be used in the most extreme cases are totally baseless in law. Define 'overwhelming evidence' to the point of where a judge & lawyers could put forward that a person met those criteria. And then, I ask you, what happens to all of those cases that don't have overwhelming evidence? Suddenly, as the evidence is not 'overwhelming', their trials can be questioned, the judgements overruled, etc. By creating a new 'gold standard', you in turn devalue every other conviction. The legal system works because everyone is treated fairly, and there are criteria into which all wrongs can be placed, each of which has defined punishments. You cannot simply create a new criteria, simply to deal with people who are slightly 'worse' than others. Who defines that one? The law-making process would fall into the hands of the judges, and that is a scenario that the English legal system has avoided for about 700 years. Long may it stay that way. Further, in the United States, when asking for the death penalty, you must have committed murder-one (better known these days as first degree murder). But the thing is, there are no guidelines as to what you actually get - life imprisonment or death. It's up to the judge or the jury to decide on the matter, and frankly, asking twelve laymen to hold the life of a person in their hands is a pretty hideous crime in its own right. At the end of the day, what decides it is whether it's enough of a scandal, how much of a deal the press make of it, and what sort of people you get on the jury. The law has no say by leaving it open-ended. If you cannot specifically state what constitutes the death penalty, there is no way that it can be implemented without losing control of the punishment. That is not law.

CJ, your perspective is understandable, considering where you live, compared to the majority of us here from the Western World. But at the end of the day, just as you see the death penalty as the right way, because of the attitude of the world around you, we don't see it as justifiable even slightly, because of the attitude around us. The US is obviously one great big exception, but even there the death penalty is being phased out. One thing you have to remember is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not every nation has embraced this, but these days, most have. Article 3 states that

Quote

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
The right to life cannot be waived. Murderers, even having removed somebody else's right to life, still have the right to life.

There is also the issue of getting something wrong. Roughly, the payout by the government for a unlawfully killed relative is £1m. It'll cost a little less than that to keep them in prison, and then if you get it wrong, the payout is far less as they're not bloody well dead. If somebody is executed, there is little chance of reprieve. But if they're still alive, well, at least they still have some of their life left to go. Say you were in a situation where it looked an awful lot like you'd killed someone, and you hadn't. Are you telling me you want to be looked on as scum and executed, even when wrongly convicted, or do you want the chance to fight your conviction? I know which I'd rather prefer.

In short: Everyone has the unquestionable right to life, the possibility of reserving the death penalty for a select few is incompatible with most legal systems, and just because you are used to something, doesn't make it right. Prison is where murderers belong, not shallow graves.
For there can be no death without life.

#63 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 18:52

Sometimes this forum makes me sick. How in an enlightened (well hopefully) time can anyone condone murder by the state? Seriously there is something fucked up with you.

If you're religious (and I know a lot of people here are) then I'm sure your good book has a chapter or two on destruction by the superior being and then some other things on stoning for being a prostitute, in debt, female or just the wrong skin colour. These bits are generally penned while someone is at war (check your history and the times when these books are made. Guess what, while they are not under fire (from some equally unpleasant people) the books say, treat your neighbour well, turn the other cheek, forgive each others sins. I know religion puts the blinkers on but FFS try reading the bile you're quoting.

Right now they're all offended time to move onto the atheists/agnostics/non-religions/hippies etc

For all any of you know, this is the one chance we have to have a life. Do you think you have the right to end someone else's chance? What if you're wrong and kill an innocent?

#64 Destiny

    Twintails are eternal!

  • Member Test
  • 3139 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 03:07

Oh, and here in Singapore we hang anyone for doing anything (well not literally but you get it). We've got the highest execution rate in the world and get criticized by Amnesty International. It's a sad thing really...
Posted Image

#65 Jok3r

    veritas vos liberabit

  • Project Team
  • 1909 posts
  • Projects: Hangar 13 Projects

Posted 28 January 2011 - 03:28

In general, I'm against the death penalty, mainly because it doesn't seem to work. In the normal/civilized/(I hate to say it but largely Western) world, Death is not a deterrent, and when we see those exonerated, the system clearly isn't perfect. That said, I'm in favor of life sentences (and I don't believe parole should exist for first degree murder), and I do believe that there are, occasionally, cases where the death penalty is valid- Saddam and Hitler, who Alias mentioned, come to mind. Why? Because these are men who have committed crimes against humanity. Perhaps an Eye for an Eye will make the world blind, but these are cases of extremes. The world is not black and white, and there are always exceptions to the rule- in normal circumstances, I don't think the death penalty is a particularly good idea, but there are cases where it does make sense.
kinda, sorta alive.



#66 Alias

    Member Title Goes Here

  • Member
  • 11705 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 03:32

It might be a crime toward humanity, but think of what Hitler would think if he saw Germany now. His entire system completely disproved infront of his own eyes. Germany once again the powerhouse of Europe, except this time through justified means.

I think him seeing the utter failures of his system and his life is far more of a punishment than death.
Posted Image

#67 Whitey

    <Custom title available>

  • Member
  • 8743 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 04:51

With 6% of inmates in U.S. prisons serving life sentences, and with incredible overcrowding, I think a couple things need to be done.

First, a more streamlined death row. The argument that putting a person to death is more costly than keeping them in prison for life, however absurd it sounds, is completely valid. But that doesn't mean it cannot be fixed.

Some of you probably read that and said to yourselves "This is barbaric". Is it really though? Isn't a life sentence a death sentence in and of itself? Are they really so different that one can be labeled inhumane and the other humane? Absolutely not. The instrument of death is different, the timeframe is different, but the result is more or less the same to the inmate. But what about the victim's loved ones? Some of you, against the death penalty, have agreed that the death penalty is more gratifying to the victim's side. Life in prison may be a more prolonged carrying-out of the same punishment, but the gratification, assuming the victim's side can be gratified, is going to be the same be it tomorrow or in fifty years - at least to a point that a difference is relatively negligible.

At this point, the punishment, between life in prison and death row, is the same to the victim and to the inmate.

This leaves the cost and the potential of proving innocence after the execution. To the first, this is where my comment on streamlining comes in. If we could accept the death penalty as a reasonable means of punishment, perhaps we could move on to other related topics such as how to make it more efficient. If that is an impossibility, and I do not believe it is, then my argument ends here.

Speaking to the possibility of belated proof of innocence, advances in forensic analysis are continuing to reduce instances of wrongful convictions. Besides that, I have no reasonable argument against that point.

Just my view.

#68 Wizard

    [...beep...]

  • Administrator
  • 9627 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:43

View PostBoidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 4:51, said:

Isn't a life sentence a death sentence in and of itself?
I apologise for the overly simplistic answer, but not really. Condeming someone to an early and untimely death is very different than allowing them to see out the course of their natural life. Whether that course is in solitary confinement or a more traditional arrangement is not the same as using an untimely death.

View PostBoidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 4:51, said:

The instrument of death is different, the timeframe is different, but the result is more or less the same to the inmate.
That is an even more simplistic answer. I doubt there are many 'termers that wish they were on death row?!

#69 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7575 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:50

View PostBoidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 6:51, said:

Isn't a life sentence a death sentence in and of itself? Are they really so different that one can be labeled inhumane and the other humane? Absolutely not. The instrument of death is different, the timeframe is different, but the result is more or less the same to the inmate.
That's just not true at all. Your life being ruined and your life ending aren't even remotely the same.

Quote

But what about the victim's loved ones?
And what about the offender's loved ones?
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. But the clever have technology, and hide it.
-The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#70 Whitey

    <Custom title available>

  • Member
  • 8743 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:20

View PostWizard, on 28 Jan 2011, 2:43, said:

View PostBoidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 4:51, said:

Isn't a life sentence a death sentence in and of itself?
I apologise for the overly simplistic answer, but not really. Condeming someone to an early and untimely death is very different than allowing them to see out the course of their natural life. Whether that course is in solitary confinement or a more traditional arrangement is not the same as using an untimely death.

View PostBoidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 4:51, said:

The instrument of death is different, the timeframe is different, but the result is more or less the same to the inmate.
That is an even more simplistic answer. I doubt there are many 'termers that wish they were on death row?!


To argue this properly, what do you define as worse then? A normal lifetime of solitary confinement? Or an untimely death? I am working on the assumption that most would rather perish early than face a torturously repetitive and lonely existence for an extended period of time. As you seem to disagree, then it is at least fair to say that you are at odds with those that agree with me that a life sentence is more grueling than a death sentence. (Just trying to sift through the various dissents here)

In the event that I have pegged your view properly, then I can only say that I disagree for my previously stated reasons. Furthermore, if what you say is true, then shouldn't the death penalty serve as a bigger deterrent? Or perhaps as somebody said before, with such serious crimes, the penalty is irrelevant to the offender. To which I can return to my argument that the death penalty is justified even despite inmate protest.


View PostChyros, on 28 Jan 2011, 2:50, said:

View PostBoidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 6:51, said:

Isn't a life sentence a death sentence in and of itself? Are they really so different that one can be labeled inhumane and the other humane? Absolutely not. The instrument of death is different, the timeframe is different, but the result is more or less the same to the inmate.
That's just not true at all. Your life being ruined and your life ending aren't even remotely the same.


Quote

But what about the victim's loved ones?
And what about the offender's loved ones?


As for the first part: No, they are not. But in either case, your life is ruined, and then it ends. Neither is exclusive to either a life sentence or the death penalty.

As for the second: You've missed my point in taking that out of context. As you don't seem to have read, I argued against the potential benefits to the victim's party in suggesting that it is gratification today or gratification tomorrow. The same goes for the offender's party except substitute gratification for dismay. That the offense occurred means that the offender's party is going to face dismay just as the victim's party is going to face gratification. I simply meant that it is only down to a matter of WHEN that is experienced. Though I did not mention the offender's party, I figured that it was implied.

Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 09:25.


#71 Wizard

    [...beep...]

  • Administrator
  • 9627 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:35

View PostBoidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 9:20, said:

I am working on the assumption that most would rather perish early than face a torturously repetitive and lonely existence for an extended period of time. As you seem to disagree, then it is at least fair to say that you are at odds with those that agree with me that a life sentence is more grueling than a death sentence. (Just trying to sift through the various dissents here)
Yes, I wouldn't classify "an" existence as worse than no existence. Life is the only thing we really have, people don't voluntarily give this up. I am guessing that if you took a poll of the people on this planet, the larger proportion would prefer to live in jail than not live at all.

View PostBoidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 9:20, said:

if what you say is true, then shouldn't the death penalty serve as a bigger deterrent?
I would imagine that if the law was a deterrent at all then crime wouldn't exist at all. I suspect the death penalty fails as a deterrent is due to a number of reasons. For those derranged enough to become serial killers they are likey (but not always) to suffer from a condition that does not allow them to appreciate the ramifications of their actions or it's consequences to the fullest extent. Career criminals make a choice, probably expecting to wind up dead before they reach jail anyway. And for those crimes that would attract the death penalty that are "heat of the moment" actions, I doubt there is any consideration as to the consequnces anyway.

Edited by Wizard, 28 January 2011 - 09:36.


#72 Whitey

    <Custom title available>

  • Member
  • 8743 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:55

"they are likey to suffer from a condition that does not allow them to appreciate the ramifications of their actions or it's consequences to the fullest extent"

So they don't really value life all that much.

"Career criminals make a choice, probably expecting to wind up dead before they reach jail anyway"

So they too don't really value life all that much.

"And for those crimes that would attract the death penalty that are "heat of the moment" actions, I doubt there is any consideration as to the consequnces anyway."

And so during the crime, these people, too, completely disregard their existence in favor of something more pressing.

If a man values his life over all else, he won't jeopardize it with his actions because those actions are, of course, less valuable to him than his life. In committing said action - murder, etc - with the understanding of the consequence, he is, necessarily, putting the value of that action in a higher priority than his life. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am not, then your argument contradicts itself.

Unless of course you want to suggest that priorities change between committing the crime and sitting in court. To which I ask: Would it then be humane for the offender to be killed immediately upon completion of the crime?.When that action IS valued above life itself? And if so, am I the only one that finds that completely absurd? That THAT is fair and the death penalty itself is not?

Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 09:56.


#73 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3300 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:15

You're basing your argument on the assumption that a delinquent is aware of the legal consequences as well as the outcome of a court trial at all time. Being found guilty several months ahead, even more so being put on death row, is an abstract possibility. It's like crossing the road when the light is red - you could potentially die doing it, but that doesn't mean you value crossing the road higher than your life.

If you had an executioner following every single person, then the death penalty could work as a deterrent - it would elevate it from an abstract, future possibility to a certainty. Frankly, I'd consider this to be even crueler, waiting for someone to commit a crime, letting it happen, then executing him. It's also quite impossible to enforce such a thing, unless you wish for Mr. Stalone running around in a tight spandex with plastic armor, shouting The LAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!! whenever the script requires it.
Furthermore, it wouldn't make it any more humane - the act of killing is what is considered making it inhumane, not the circumstances.
Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!

#74 Whitey

    <Custom title available>

  • Member
  • 8743 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:27

But what is the difference between killing and letting die in prison? Morally? I still fail to see a distinction. The humanity of it? Rot for the duration of death row and die? Or rot for the duration of a normal lifespan and die? Death at the end of a nonexistence is still the ultimate outcome.

Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 11:31.


#75 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3300 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:37

The difference is someone doing the killing and dying of natural cause. No one should decide when someone's life has to end, this is the entire reason why murder is considered bad.

Edited by Golan, 28 January 2011 - 11:37.

Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users