• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Serious Death Penalty

Kinneas said:
I have to fundamentally disagree with that line of thinking and it has nothing to do with the rights of the criminal at all, but how I would expect a society of rational, virtuos actors to behave. I think a lot of people would agree with me, most of the world, in fact, that nobody should be killing anyone, except in self defense, and someone locked up behind bars isn't a danger to anyone except in very exceptional circumstances.
Click to expand...

While it may be an easier pill to swallow for people to think they dont have the right to murder a murderer, rather than the murderer's right to not be murdered, they're one in the same and imply one another.
 
Instead of writing out what i think in a certainly less optimal way I've decided to suggest you a good read on the matter since it pretty much reincarnates my idea on death penalty perfectly. The reading i am suggesting is Dei delitti e delle pene by Cesare Beccaria, chapter XXVIII, that is just one of the most importants writings on the matter as of today that really explains how inhumane and just batshit nonsensical death penalty is. I am sure there are a lot of good translations out there for people who think that the state which wouldn't exist without the citizens themselves has the right to kill one citizen.
And if you support death penalty you might support torture as well since it has roughly the same effectiveness in reeducating some criminal
 
It's bad that some people are trying to downplay the crimes being mentioned here and are cherry picking points to respond to, but as they say it's never good to engage in "last word/post" games so I'll leave my thoughts let others share theirs.

Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, Rape, Torture. Inhumane crimes being committed against a peaceful and law abiding society intentionally to inflict maximum pain and suffering against these innocent individuals and their families. Crimes that we all know have been known to be beyond rehabilitation and forbidding the offender from ever returning to society.

Should we ever forget that, these criminals would be happy to remind us over and over again. Beyond rehabilitation. But surely it's enough to just lock them and throw the keys, I mean that works brilliantly right? No people would ever have to suffer from that, right? More than 800 dangerous criminals including murders, rapists have escaped in four years, and this is just one time frame, in one advanced country.

What about those still locked in? Did being incarcerated hinder them from carrying out what they want? Forget EL Chapo, that guy is a billionaire right? What about all those dedicated prison guard teams that have to sift through letters, correspondences, telephone calls and to be released prison inmates to prevent such acts only to fail many times because lets face it, these people are criminal master minds, they have nothing to do but to acheive them, as long as they live.

But hey, screw the victims family, to hell with them and their rights and calls for justice, it's the criminals right we are concerned about here. The fact that hundreds die because we keep these people continuing on living for no reason doesn't concern us, stay on topic please. Death penalty is bad because you say so. If you lawfully execute someone in order to safeguard society, you are just as bad as they are! You are the same as the murderer! 1 in 1000 of these criminals might actually do something good, he might write a novel or graduate! HE'S BETTER THAN YOU FOR DOING SO.

Right...What is life in prison anyway? What is a real, solid proof super max on the inside?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...g-descending-into-madness-at-supermax/258323/

supermax.jpg


Life time of comfort and solitude. No torture here. Your reign of tyranny and criminality is over once you go inside, right?

"When Jack Powers arrived at maximum-security federal prison in Atlanta in 1990 after a bank robbery conviction, he had never displayed symptoms of or been treated for mental illness. Still in custody a few years later, he witnessed three inmates, believed to be members of the Aryan Brotherhood gang, kill another inmate. Powers tried to help the victim get medical attention, and was quickly transferred to a segregated unit for his safety, but it didn't stop the gang's members from quickly threatening him."

Woops. Well at least those who live get to keep their sanity intact, right? I mean what's I dunno who long being locked up in a grey cage with nothing to do but stare yourself to death going to do to your health and mental well being? I'm glad you asked:

"Likewise, in 2010, a severely and chronically depressed prisoner who had attempted to kill himself a few months earlier was escorted to the ADX [Special Housing Unit] after throwing milk at a corrections officer. He was placed in a cell just vacated by another chronically ill prisoner who had smeared the cell's floors, walls, bed and mattress with feces. The prisoner was given no cleaning supplies, and was not issued a blanket, towel or sheet. He used a roll of toilet paper in the cell to try to wipe the feces off of a spot on the floor that was large enough to enable him to lie down. For two days, he remained lying on that single "clean" space."

"Prisoners interminably wail, scream and bang on the walls of their cells. Some mutilate their bodies with razors, shards of glass, writing utensils and whatever other objects they can obtain. Some swallow razor blades, nail clippers, parts of radios and televisions, broken glass and other dangerous objects. Others carry on delusional conversations with voices they hear in their heads, oblivious to the reality and the danger that such behavior might pose to themselves and anyone who interacts with them."

See, there is a difference between taking the moral high ground and claiming you are holier than thou, more in tune with whats humane and whats not, in a better position to know true justice than the victims family, state and society and truly believe that life in prison is the cure for all crimes, and reality.

--------

The issue of being 100% of guilt and crime is something we should all agree upon and I'm glad that we do, but it is useful for some people to think about their stances when they are outside their country talking to others, in places where the legal system does not entail a group of uneducated civilians (in the matter of law) being bombarded by hours and days and even weeks of elaborate lawyer shows and then taking their consensus as 100% fact and guilt of crime. Perhaps if you instead take or consider only solid, clear, undeniable proof (which exists no matter how hard some people shake their heads or try to deny) to condemn someone to a maximum penalty, maybe we can avoid sending innocent people to both death row and life in prison.
 
Last edited:
Wait wait wait.

I so did not want to post in this thread but is your argument really "prisons are technically more torturous so yeah"...?

Incarceration standards and Rehabilitation vs. Punishment is a related, but completely different debate than the one we are (presumably) having about the morality of the death penalty.

Also "Crimes that we all know have been known to be beyond rehabilitation" is a contentious statement, it's disturbing to see that asserted as fact. That would render the entire foundation of (proper) debates happening on this subject moot.
 
Saying that the death penalty should never be allowed is silly, it's the type of moral absolutism that falls apart when you consider practical applications.

Should the death penalty be used extremely sparingly (way more sparingly than it is currently being used in the United States)? Yes. Is there never a situation where executing one person is basically society's method of self-defense against that person continuing to harm it? No.

I said this previously but the death penalty can be used prevent someone from harming others in the future if no good options exist to ensure that that person will not hurt someone again and there is reasonable evidence that that person will commit violence again. I've yet to see an argument against this point aside from philosophical absolutes that, frankly, hold very little water with me. People have a right to life and a right to a certain level of protection from people who have demonstrated recurring, uncorrectable violent tendencies that cannot be controlled through typical means.

The point of 'justice' systems is not really to act as some sort of 'balancing the scales' type of god. The point is to make sure that people both A. Do not feel there is a bright future in crime and B. Are prevented from committing future crimes (along with the obvious prerogative to rehabilitate those who have committed crimes so that they do not do so again).

I also feel that in war, executions are justified. For example, I support the fact that the United States executed Osama Bin Laden (because let's face it, that was essentially an execution by firing squad). After a certain point of deviant behavior your continued existence does harm and encourages others to commit violence on innocents, and in that case I feel that the death penalty is also admissible.

I'm not going to argue that anyone ever 'deserves to die'. However, in the real world there are, in some cases, no practical alternatives. And someone's inherent right to life is less important then people's right to not be harmed/murdered by others (thus why self-defense is admissible).
 
UncleSam said:
I said this previously but the death penalty can be used prevent someone from harming others in the future if no good options exist to ensure that that person will not hurt someone again and there is reasonable evidence that that person will commit violence again. I've yet to see an argument against this point aside from philosophical absolutes that, frankly, hold very little water with me. People have a right to life and a right to a certain level of protection from people who have demonstrated recurring, uncorrectable violent tendencies that cannot be controlled through typical means.
Click to expand...
Although I certainly feel you are making a more legitimate case than the people who are just calling for revenge when they advocate the death penalty, I still think your reasoning is flawed. To me, the main problem here is that the circumstances you hold to be necessary in order to justifiably apply the death penalty are too ambiguous to work without fail, and any margin of error is unacceptable when the lives of people are at stake. You feel like the death penalty is a legitimate option if two conditions are met:
  1. The criminal will most likely escape from the place he is confined in
  2. The criminal will most likely start harming other people once he has escaped
Keyword here is "most likely". There is never a guarantee that a prisoner will escape and that they have no chance of becoming a law-abiding citizen, simply because we cannot predict the future. Allowing capital punishment based on the conditions you mentioned, however, implies that we somehow can assure ourselves that the criminal in question will do major harm to others in the future, and we are so certain of this that we are willing to take irrevocable measures (taking someone else's life) to prevent this from happening. I am convinced that something as rigorous as the death penalty should not be allowed based on a possibility that some criminals might escape from their confinement and might start plundering and murdering after they have escaped.

Even if we assume that capital punishment is something that should be allowed in some cases, we still don't have a clear guideline regarding when exactly the death penalty is justified. If we want to reduce the margin of error (ie. somebody who would have stayed in prison for the rest of their years is executed) to an absolute minimum, there has to be a clear definition of when a case is basically "hopeless" and further major harm to society is more or less guaranteed if the criminal in question stays alive. Although it may be relatively easy to tell when a case is "beyond repair" and you will never reasonably ensure that they won't rape/murder/etc in the future if they are set free, it's a lot more difficult to tell when the chances of the prisoner in question escaping are high enough to say that death penalty is the best solution from a utilitarian perspective. How would you adjust the death penalty law in such a way that we only kill those who are "definitely" too dangerous and unstable to be kept alive? Should it only be applicable for people like cartel bosses and terrorist leaders? If so, is it worth it to create a rigorous law that could be misinterpreted and therefore would cause collateral damage based on only a very select few of exceptional cases? Or should we also hold capital punishment applicable for other people who have shown they are capable enough of escaping prison? If so, what's a good way to tell that someone is "capable enough" of escaping prison? Should he have escaped prison before? Or would you imagine a more subjective way of deciding whether or not a prisoner can break free? If so, doesn't this stretch the potential margin of error up a little too much (since in this case we are dealing with the subjective judgement of a judge)?

There are all sorts of objections to allowing the death penalty if we justify it based on the idea that it protects society better than imprisonment could. Although it may seem pragmatic, it's very hard to justify morally because of how much amibiguity you allow with the two aforementioned conditions that must be met. In any case, considering the heavy and irrevocable nature of the subject we are dealing with, I would prefer an unambiguous ban on the death penalty over allowing it in some specific cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: g
Robert Alfons said:
Although I certainly feel you are making a more legitimate case than the people who are just calling for revenge when they advocate the death penalty, I still think your reasoning is flawed. To me, the main problem here is that the circumstances you hold to be necessary in order to justifiably apply the death penalty are too ambiguous to work without fail, and any margin of error is unacceptable when the lives of people are at stake. You feel like the death penalty is a legitimate option if two conditions are met:
  1. The criminal will most likely escape from the place he is confined in
  2. The criminal will most likely start harming other people once he has escaped
Click to expand...
people in the general prison population are still free to kill other prisoners, which is a serious problem in and of itself. And i'm aware that death row inmates are in some ways separate from the general prison population, but not sure which ways exactly.

that said, it may be that we should fight for solitary isolation instead of execution. Though i bet that costs more, so it might be more expensive in the long run.

also, many consider full solitary to be incredibly inhumane. I hate to try and make the comparison, but isn't just executing people more humane than it possibly? and in this case, you would want to kill these inmates as the most humane way to stop them from killing or hurting other humans.

edit: Isa, the kind of world where there is no other good solution. I do think the idea of breakout is kind of silly, but at least letting them sit for 15 and not 50 years cuts risk significantly.
 
Robert Alfons said:
Although I certainly feel you are making a more legitimate case than the people who are just calling for revenge when they advocate the death penalty, I still think your reasoning is flawed. To me, the main problem here is that the circumstances you hold to be necessary in order to justifiably apply the death penalty are too ambiguous to work without fail, and any margin of error is unacceptable when the lives of people are at stake. You feel like the death penalty is a legitimate option if two conditions are met:
  1. The criminal will most likely escape from the place he is confined in
  2. The criminal will most likely start harming other people once he has escaped
Keyword here is "most likely". There is never a guarantee that a prisoner will escape and that they have no chance of becoming a law-abiding citizen, simply because we cannot predict the future. Allowing capital punishment based on the conditions you mentioned, however, implies that we somehow can assure ourselves that the criminal in question will do major harm to others in the future, and we are so certain of this that we are willing to take irrevocable measures (taking someone else's life) to prevent this from happening. I am convinced that something as rigorous as the death penalty should not be allowed based on a possibility that some criminals might escape from their confinement and might start plundering and murdering after they have escaped.

Even if we assume that capital punishment is something that should be allowed in some cases, we still don't have a clear guideline regarding when exactly the death penalty is justified. If we want to reduce the margin of error (ie. somebody who would have stayed in prison for the rest of their years is executed) to an absolute minimum, there has to be a clear definition of when a case is basically "hopeless" and further major harm to society is more or less guaranteed if the criminal in question stays alive. Although it may be relatively easy to tell when a case is "beyond repair" and you will never reasonably ensure that they won't rape/murder/etc in the future if they are set free, it's a lot more difficult to tell when the chances of the prisoner in question escaping are high enough to say that death penalty is the best solution from a utilitarian perspective. How would you adjust the death penalty law in such a way that we only kill those who are "definitely" too dangerous and unstable to be kept alive? Should it only be applicable for people like cartel bosses and terrorist leaders? If so, is it worth it to create a rigorous law that could be misinterpreted and therefore would cause collateral damage based on only a very select few of exceptional cases? Or should we also hold capital punishment applicable for other people who have shown they are capable enough of escaping prison? If so, what's a good way to tell that someone is "capable enough" of escaping prison? Should he have escaped prison before? Or would you imagine a more subjective way of deciding whether or not a prisoner can break free? If so, doesn't this stretch the potential margin of error up a little too much (since in this case we are dealing with the subjective judgement of a judge)?

There are all sorts of objections to allowing the death penalty if we justify it based on the idea that it protects society better than imprisonment could. Although it may seem pragmatic, it's very hard to justify morally because of how much amibiguity you allow with the two aforementioned conditions that must be met. In any case, considering the heavy and irrevocable nature of the subject we are dealing with, I would prefer an unambiguous ban on the death penalty over allowing it in some specific cases.
Click to expand...
I never said 'escape'. I said that if our justice system cannot protect people adequately from that person.

As in, criminals commit violence in prison. So no, that first point is not assumed nor is it ambiguous. If there is not a reasonable chance we can stop a person from harming others (prisons, citizens, or otherwise) then that person ought to be executed, essentially as a means of self-defense. The rest of your points assume the 'escape' criteria so they sort of fall by the wayside in the absence of it...
 
tehy said:
people in the general prison population are still free to kill other prisoners, which is a serious problem in and of itself. And i'm aware that death row inmates are in some ways separate from the general prison population, but not sure which ways exactly.
Click to expand...
The fact that people in US prisons can kill each other has got more to do with the deplorable state some US prisons are in than anything else. Rather than just killing off the annoying prisoners that can't keep their hands off their inmates, maybe instead US prisons should be improved so that prisoners are in a humane and non-threatening environment.

that said, it may be that we should fight for solitary isolation instead of execution. Though i bet that costs more, so it might be more expensive in the long run.
Click to expand...
Money is not an issue when the alternative is "just kill them."

also, many consider full solitary to be incredibly inhumane. I hate to try and make the comparison, but isn't just executing people more humane than it possibly? and in this case, you would want to kill these inmates as the most humane way to stop them from killing or hurting other humans.
Click to expand...
Complete solitude isn't necessary in most cases, changing the prison environment from one where rape and violence are everyday business and the prison guards don't give a shit if the inmates fuck each other up to one where such things aren't tolerated and prisoners are treated like actual human beings should prevent a lot of this kind of shit from happening. And even if this doesn't work, I would say life in solitary confinement (provided that your cell doesn't consist of just four walls and nothing else) is still preferrable to life amidst your violent and uncontrollable inmates.

UncleSam said:
I never said 'escape'. I said that if our justice system cannot protect people adequately from that person.

As in, criminals commit violence in prison. So no, that first point is not assumed nor is it ambiguous. If there is not a reasonable chance we can stop a person from harming others (prisons, citizens, or otherwise) then that person ought to be executed, essentially as a means of self-defense. The rest of your points assume the 'escape' criteria so they sort of fall by the wayside in the absence of it...
Click to expand...
See the top of this post. If the only point of your post was that prisoners in US prisons fuck each other up too often, then I would simply say there are more viable alternatives to prevent this from happening than to just take away someone's right to live if he can't behave properly.
 
Robert Alfons said:
The fact that people in US prisons can kill each other has got more to do with the deplorable state some US prisons are in than anything else. Rather than just killing off the annoying prisoners that can't keep their hands off their inmates, maybe instead US prisons should be improved so that prisoners are in a humane and non-threatening environment.


Money is not an issue when the alternative is "just kill them."


Complete solitude isn't necessary in most cases, changing the prison environment from one where rape and violence are everyday business and the prison guards don't give a shit if the inmates fuck each other up to one where such things aren't tolerated and prisoners are treated like actual human beings should prevent a lot of this kind of shit from happening. And even if this doesn't work, I would say life in solitary confinement (provided that your cell doesn't consist of just four walls and nothing else) is still preferrable to life amidst your violent and uncontrollable inmates.


See the top of this post. If the only point of your post was that prisoners in US prisons fuck each other up too often, then I would simply say there are more viable alternatives to prevent this from happening than to just take away someone's right to live if he can't behave properly.
Click to expand...

money is always an issue.

as for the other, you're right that the inmates need to be more strictly policed, but they're still murderers and thugs. Do you really think there will be 0 violence? what's the true viable alternative?

well, the violent and uncontrollable inmates are theoretically being offed-which is what I said earlier, so don't try to trap me with words that I didn't say. There's still a large amount of violence, but the worst offenders are out of it due to death. And i'm not so sure people are o.k. with solitary confinement, even if it isn't just four walls (in what sense do you mean this? books and radio? a view of outside?)
 
tehy said:
money is always an issue.
Click to expand...
The preservation of people's lives is always more important than money, though.

as for the other, you're right that the inmates need to be more strictly policed, but they're still murderers and thugs. Do you really think there will be 0 violence? what's the true viable alternative?
Click to expand...
Of course I don't think there will be zero violence, I never implied such a thing. However, the fact that some inmates will still show signs of violent behaviour does not mean we should just give them death penalty when so many alternative means are available (therapy, small punishments, (possibly temporary) solitary confinement).

well, the violent and uncontrollable inmates are theoretically being offed-which is what I said earlier, so don't try to trap me with words that I didn't say. There's still a large amount of violence, but the worst offenders are out of it due to death. And i'm not so sure people are o.k. with solitary confinement, even if it isn't just four walls (in what sense do you mean this? books and radio? a view of outside?)
Click to expand...
I find it very amusing that you pretend to care if inmates are ok with the idea of solitary confinement, when you don't seem to care at all if they're ok with the idea of them receiving death penalty. Double standards, much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
Robert Alfons said:
The preservation of people's lives is always more important than money, though.


Of course I don't think there will be zero violence, I never implied such a thing. However, the fact that some inmates will still show signs of violent behaviour does not mean we should just give them death penalty when so many alternative means are available (therapy, small punishments, (possibly temporary) solitary confinement).


I find it very amusing that you pretend to care if inmates are ok with the idea of solitary confinement, when you don't seem to care at all if they're ok with the idea of them receiving death penalty. Double standards, much?
Click to expand...

money is always an issue.

if there won't be zero violence, then there you go. these alternative means won't necessarily work.

considering I think solitary might be worse than the death penalty, that's not a double standard so much as it is obvious logic. That's like saying

"i find it very amusing that you pretend to care if someone gets their arm chopped off, when you don't seem to care at all if their finger is chopped off. Double Standards, much?'
 
Robert Alfons said:
The preservation of people's lives is always more important than money, though.
No, it isn't. It is worth a large amount of money certainly, and the current death penalty implementation costs more than imprisonment so there isn't really a conflict here. Just to take it to the extreme to demonstrate a point, let's say ISIS told us they would be willing to sell us a hostage back for a trillion dollars. If preservation of people's lives were always more important than money, this would be a deal the United State would take. I think it's obvious that both the US wouldn't and shouldn't take that deal.

Of course I don't think there will be zero violence, I never implied such a thing. However, the fact that some inmates will still show signs of violent behaviour does not mean we should just give them death penalty when so many alternative means are available (therapy, small punishments, (possibly temporary) solitary confinement).
Me saying 'some people can't be dealt with in typical means' and then you saying 'but LOOK AT ALL THESE TYPICAL MEANS WE HAVE TO CORRECT VIOLENT BEHAVIOR' is sort of...meaningless. Yes, there are ways to deal with violent tendencies in most criminals. No, these means do not and obviously will not work for all inmates.

I find it very amusing that you pretend to care if inmates are ok with the idea of solitary confinement, when you don't seem to care at all if they're ok with the idea of them receiving death penalty. Double standards, much?
This is a good point and not in response to my post but to tehy's. Solitary is not worse than death.
Click to expand...
Responses bolded obviously.
 
tehy said:
money is always an issue.
Click to expand...
Is it really that hard to understand what I'm saying? Repeating yourself isn't going to help either of us.

if there won't be zero violence, then there you go. these alternative means won't necessarily work.
Click to expand...
I prefer a prison with some violence and no deaths to a prison with no violence and some deaths.

considering I think solitary might be worse than the death penalty, that's not a double standard so much as it is obvious logic. That's like saying

"i find it very amusing that you pretend to care if someone gets their arm chopped off, when you don't seem to care at all if their finger is chopped off. Double Standards, much?'
Click to expand...
Just now you were saying that solitary confinement might be worse than death, but in your example you are suddenly jumping to the conclusion that solitary confinement is, in fact, much worse a fate than death? It's a completely retarded comparison, sorry to say. Unless you can prove to me that solitary confinement is worse than death, I'm not buying it.

UncleSam maybe in extreme situations this counts, but when dealing with extreme sums of money, you also have to take into account the fact that in many situations, large sums of money can be used to help other people out (especially when a government is involved), potentially saving lives directly or indirectly. Like you said though, considering the great expenses that come with the death penalty, solitary confinement probably is a cheaper solution anyway, so the only one who really disagrees here is tehy, who greatly underestimates how much the process of the death penalty costs.

If violent behaviour is incorrigible, then permanent solitary confinement (bar maybe restricted and supervised contact with family etc) still is a solution. Rehabilitation might not be possible in every case, but solitary confinement should be a sufficient solution if worst comes to worst. You yourself admitted that solitary confinement is not worse than death, so I don't see much of a problem in using that as a final means of combatting violent behaviour inside prison walls.
 
I don't think that executions should be allowed to continue unless we are 100% certain that the person in question is guilty, especially under the circumstances that the apparatus/tool used can cause the convicted a long and painful death.

Now, if this is someone ruthless like El Chapo, who is known to have not only killed, but tortured many people, and who organization continues to do so, I don't want to share this planet with him, and if he were to get that agonizing 43 minute execution, like what happened to that one guy, then maybe he would have deserved it.

But how terrible would it be for one someone who is innocent to have to go through this very same experience? Imagine how it would feel to go through that, and it'd be even worse to read wait on death row, knowing that people think it is fine for you to "get sacrificed for the greater good", even if it isn't a case where you're dead before you even feel a thing, but a case where you will suffer. Of course, I'd rather fight the guards then be dragged to the lethal injection chamber. This is of course because I'm deathly afraid of needles and IVs (no, not those IVs!), and would consider this to be one of the most torturous, cruel, and definitely unusual ways to die, which as I understand it, stop your heart, and destroy your organs from the inside out. They'd have to shoot me, because I'd fight tooth and nail, and I'd rather get shot then experience the dizziness and difficulty breathing that I'd experience before dying.

I think that it should only be saved for the most ruthless and narcissistic individuals, or for individuals who have killed more than once.

If you kill someone out of self-defense, no matter how gruesome the results might be, then the death penalty shouldn't apply. If you try to seriously harm or kill me, I'm gonna try to return the favor, when the legal consequences come later, I'll burn that bridge later when I get to it.

For example, I can across something recently called the "pinprick", in which someone who is infected with HIV would infect a victim with an infected needle, and might even say "welcome to the HIV club", before running off.

If I find that person, I'm going to kill him, because last time I checked, if you get infected with something like HIV, that is a death sentence anyways. And I will do it by whatever means I have available, even if that means beating him until he is on the floor, and stomping on his head until it is squashed like a watermelon. Like I said, I hate needles, so said person would have offended me in a very vulgar and basic way.

If a guy murders someone for cash, maybe the problem isn't the guy, but the system. I think that if higher education were free (in other words, college), maybe we'd see less crime, less murders, and less need for the death penalty. They'd still have to pay for transportation (or maybe even free transportation should be provided?).

Someone convicted of a lesser crime, released back on the streets, and then commits a murder perhaps did so due to not having any economic opportunities, and thus turns to drugs and crime, which can lead to even worse stuff of course. He probably sees the world in a dog-eats-dog kind of way, and thus more likely to act less civilized than those of us with hope of a career and better life.

So is it people like this who deserve to get punished, or are those responsible for not changing this system the ones truly guilty? It is one thing if they think "goodbye cruel world", but it is another if they don't want to die, and are in the position they are in just because the only economic opportunity they had was flipping burgers, or some other minimum wage job.

So for those who are poor, unless they've killed more than one person over more than one occasion, I don't think that they should be among the first to go to death's row, at least not any more than that young man who killed, I think 7 people while drunk driving, and crippled at least one other.

Like I said about El Chapo however: men and women like that who have willingly killed, AND tortured people, and I don't mean criminals (though this should be a rare occasion anyways) should be immediately put to death. And if his goons come after the executioners, we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

And same thing goes for those who are definitely 100% guilty of killing for no damned good reason, and had plenty of economic opportunity.

In conclusion, until we can get the damned system fixed, the DP should only be saved for those who just have no regard for anyone besides themselves, and maybe for friends and family, and whose actions say as much.
 
blarajan said:
I used to support the death penalty. However, I was often struck with an uncomfortable feeling when saying so, especially when comparing it to my other views regarding social issues (I'm Democratic and socially liberal). I had believed that someone committing crimes worthy of the death penalty deserved a similar punishment: death at the hands of the state. It seemed fair, and it seemed logical. Considering the past tense of that statement, I believe it is obvious that I have changed my views in that regard. I no longer support the death penalty.

My change in view did not come from some sort of moral change of heart; I am not opposed necessarily to the idea of a death penalty, or its inclusion in the penal code. However, I do not believe it can be conducted effectively in our criminal justice system nor can it ever really be "fair." To elaborate, our criminal justice system, as we all know, is incredibly overworked. The trial process is a long and convoluted one, including several phases and motions prior to trial, the actual trial, the possibility of retrials, post-trial motions, appeals, and post-appeals. This process is so long as this nation truly emphasizes "innocent until proven guilty;" we want to provide as many opportunities and stages as possible to catch any mistakes and ensure an innocent person is not being punished for something they did not commit.

Considering that, I believe the death penalty opposes that notion and inherently conflicts with that ideal. After someone is put to death, there is no undoing that punishment. We have most definitely executed innocent people, and have exonerated several people on death row (over 330). That in and of itself to me is reason enough to do away with the death penalty. While no amount of reparations can make up for the lost time an innocent person spends battling the criminal justice system or in prison, we can at least try to rectify the mistake by removing him from the prison environment and easing his transition back to his family and his community. That is impossible with the death penalty.

Likewise, the multiple steps that are so very important to maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system, the several layers of appeals, have particularly negative effects with regards to the death penalty. Appeals are time-consuming and incredibly costly. Individuals languish on death row for years while their appeals are processed. It is not only cruel to subject an individual to the years of mental anguish regarding one's fate, but it is expensive. Death penalty cases cost several thousands of dollars more than non-death penalty cases, due to the lengthy appeals process and their otherwise complicated nature. Compounding this is the increased cost in keeping a prisoner on death row as opposed to the general prison population.

I have other grievances against the death penalty, including racial factors such as the over-representation of minorities in literally every negative facet of the criminal justice system and how that interacts with the ruling in Furman v. Georgia (1972), which deemed the death penalty unconstitutional as it inconsistently applied the death penalty and often included racial bias. However, my main arguments against it are the possibility for error and its increased cost.

I would recommend looking through innocenceproject.org. The Innocence Project is committed to applying DNA evidence to exonerate death row inmates, and has been involved with several. Look through the case profiles of some of these individuals, and how unfortunate their stories are. It really isn't that difficult to be falsely convicted, especially with the over-reliance of frequently unreliable witness testimony and primarily circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...
Agreeing with this sentiment. I have no qualms with the government killing someone who is actually guilty of the crimes required of the death penalty (like the Boston Marathon bomber or James Holmes) but the problem is that too many innocent people end up getting on death row. Now, I disagree with the government being able to select which criminals die and which live by virtue of witnesses and poor evidence. These two ideas sound contradictory however they are why I dislike the implementation of the death penalty but not the fundamental logic behind it.
 
I'm not sure whether I support the death penalty or not, but I've heard that execution is much more costly than life in prison and that innocent people are sometimes killed which makes me lean towards 'no.'

However, I don't think that just regular life in prison is a good alternative either. Some crimes and criminals are so disturbing and evil that they deserve to be severely punished, and life in prison doesn't always do that. High-level gangsters or drug lords who are imprisoned will no doubt have some friends who are already in prison, so that will make their time in prison much more bearable.

I think that criminals who committ terrible crimes bad enough to warrant the death penalty should instead be placed in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives with no chance of getting out unless they are somehow proven innocent. These prisoners should be locked up in a small, blank room with nothing more than a toilet and a bed. They will be fed everyday, but they will not be allowed any books or any other materials, and they will stay in the rooms for the rest of their lives.
 
Shokktrooper said:
I'm not sure whether I support the death penalty or not, but I've heard that execution is much more costly than life in prison and that innocent people are sometimes killed which makes me lean towards 'no.'

However, I don't think that just regular life in prison is a good alternative either. Some crimes and criminals are so disturbing and evil that they deserve to be severely punished, and life in prison doesn't always do that. High-level gangsters or drug lords who are imprisoned will no doubt have some friends who are already in prison, so that will make their time in prison much more bearable.

I think that criminals who committ terrible crimes bad enough to warrant the death penalty should instead be placed in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives with no chance of getting out unless they are somehow proven innocent. These prisoners should be locked up in a small, blank room with nothing more than a toilet and a bed. They will be fed everyday, but they will not be allowed any books or any other materials, and they will stay in the rooms for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

Wow, locked in a room with nothing to do. That is actually pretty cruel. If I were them, I'd probably pray to die, especially since they have no regard for life anyways.
 
That's honestly incredibly disgusting. How can we live in a world where people do that shit? @_@ agreed entirely about death penalty. Why the fuck would anyone do that to her? It actually makes me really upset to read that holy fuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
Can we please refrain from ad passiones by means of articles like the one JES posted and instead make an actual case, please? No matter how disgusting the acts of some people may be, it does not automatically justify death penalty, you're gonna need to make some actual arguments.
 
I believe evidence of what happened when those criminals were released from prison (aimed at defendants of rehabilitation of all criminals of all crimes even this severe), after committing countess counts of verfied (see this word?) crimes (over 400 rapes alone, facial burns, beating her down to loss of mental capacity among others, this one goes to those who call crimes like these "super duper bad" and everyone has a right to live no matter what) and what the lack of real deterrent does (many post-crime threats, "I do it because I can", nothing will happen to me, etc.) to be actual, solid real arguments.

And instead of maybe dismissing these articles each time they are posted, maybe you should, I dunno comment on them? Offer your analysis, maybe even an alternative solution to prevent what happened or at least stopping it from getting worse? Or do you love to go back to theorizing about what works and what doesn't and expressing your feelings again? Cause your feelings sure ain't the feelings of the victims or their families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top