View Full Version : Death penalty - yes or no
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 12:41
An old debate, that I believe must be held until all realize why death penalty is barbary.
Why have death penalty?
- prisons cost money (i.e. logistical/practical reasons)
- to get the satisfaction of seeing criminals such as murderers suffer and be punished for what they did
- if crime is genetical, the death penalty will remove "crime genes"
Why not have death penalty?
- crime isn't genetical, so it doesn't solve the problem
- statistics show that death penalty countries have no less criminality
- innocents are struck by it. There's no excuse whatsoever for mudering an innocent. That murder is made so much worse if you, before the murder, in a harsh voice speak to the one you are about to murder and say: "you're a low dog, and deserve this suffering and death. Your very existence on earth is a threat to normal people! You are like the weed that must be cleaned from a lawn!"
- the instincts to punish made sense in nature, where flocks had full overview of all individuals in it. One could know for sure whether someone was a criminal or not. In civilization there are walls, ceilings and floors, no surveillance in the world can tell the complete truth. DNA? It can be planted on the spot. Witness reports? With 6 billion humans there are many looking alike, and the witness himself might be a maniac who wants to see a random person suffer. He can't be charged for perjury if the innocent who was killed by death penalty is killed, and the one voice for justice is silenced.
- the instincts to punish made sense in nature, where it was impossible to build prisons. Prisons can safe keep dangerous people. An innocent man won't suffer too much (although quite a lot still, but it's acceptable) from sitting in prison as from being murdered.
- the objective of law is to protect ordinary people from horrible crime. If the price for it is to kill hundred innocents, then the objective hasn't been met. The end justifies the means, one can say, but the end is the sum of the end you see, and the means. What you have achieved by death penalty is the safety of all ordinary people except one hundred men and women. As those crimes that are officially seen as crimes don't decrease because of death penalty, you have in reality increased the number of murders by a hundred. Do you count them in the statistics?
- if you are ruled by your instincts to punish you are ill suited to living in civilization. What would you do if a man blew up themselves to kill your children? Go find his mother and want her killed? Go find his friends and get them killed? Go find the man reading a newspaper on the other side for not interfering, despite the knowledge that that man obviously had no means of predicting what was about to happen?
- truly innocent people are rare. Very few have so little sin that they may throw the first stone. Jesus was one of them. With a death penalty system, you would be prepared to murder Jesus himself. Murdering the few who exist makes the world a horrible place. The truly innocent people are an inspiration for everyone, and their very existence is what prevents world from falling into darkness.
- would you like to see innocent people be ass-raped, live for some months in threat of dying, then as last thing in their life hear people calling them murderers, dying knowing that their name will be remembered and associated with horrid crime, rather than innocence. Making them know that they may not be present for their children, or their relatives. Hearing someone read that the entire state wishes to see them murdered?
- both Judaism and Christianity clearly explains that killing innocents in order to get to the guilty is wrong. See Genesis 18:24
- Lenin once said: "it's better to let 100 innocent die than letting one guilty escape". Do you want to rank yourself as being on the same level as Lenin and Stalin?
- the costs for keeping prisons for the people that are now killed is ridiculously small.
- death penalty is legalized murder. It's not for the safety of the people and prevention of crime, but a bad replacement for a shrink or prison for the worst of all murderers. An executioner is not only a vicious lust-murderer, but a shrewd lust-murderer, who uses law to satisfy his lusts.
Marcellus
12-21-2005, 12:46
I'm very much against the death penalty, for most of the reasons stated.
The death of one thosuand guilty is not by far worth the death of one innocent.
If you know that they`re gonna kill once out, then don`t let them out.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 13:15
The death of one thosuand guilty is not by far worth the death of one innocent.
If you know that they`re gonna kill once out, then don`t let them out.
If the fear is their release, then the problem isn't really that they live, but that the prison terms are too low. That particular statement doesn't justify the murder of them, but rather justifies longer sentences.
And a series of "just one innocent" soon becomes a hundred or a thousand innocents.
If the fear is their release, then the problem isn't really that they live, but that the prison terms are too low. That particular statement doesn't justify the murder of them, but rather justifies longer sentences.
I guess I wasn`t clear enough, as I doesn`t support death penalty.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 13:23
Ok, no problem :bow:
Kagemusha
12-21-2005, 13:55
No to death penalty.But prisons need to be chanced to something else then Hotels.
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 15:02
yes
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 15:14
yes
but why? :san_huh:
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 15:23
why? :san_huh:
I do not support the death penalty for all murders defending yourself or crimes of passion. You have to take the death penalty by a case by case basis. I beilive if a man rapes and murders a 7 year old that he should die. I just dont beilive you can rehabilatate that and mystate agrees with me.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 15:27
I do not support the death penalty for all murders defending yourself or crimes of passion. You have to take the death penalty by a case by case basis. I beilive if a man rapes and murders a 7 year old that he should die. I just dont beilive you can rehabilatate that and mystate agrees with me.
yes, but that's not the only thing there is to it. Those who can't be rehabilitated could be innocents, as it's impossible to fully prove guiltiness. If you don't believe he can be rehabilitated, then that only defends longer prison sentences, not the actual act of murder of the guy, because he might, after all, be innocent. Sure, I hate men who rapes and murders 7 years olds, and I doubt more than just a handful throughout history of such people would have any chance at all at rehabilitation. But I would hold back my wrath and lynch mob feeling and consider the possibility of the guy being wrongfully accused. Then it turns out it's possible to achieve the most important result - to keep him away from people that he can hurt, without possibly hurting an innocent, by longer prison sentences. The actual killing act achieves nothing in itself.
I do not support the death penalty for all murders defending yourself or crimes of passion. You have to take the death penalty by a case by case basis. I beilive if a man rapes and murders a 7 year old that he should die. I just dont beilive you can rehabilatate that and mystate agrees with me.
The fact your state agrees with you means bugger all, like the fact the rest of the world doesn't agree with you means bugger all, what does matter is whether it is right or wrong and it most certainly is wrong.
Why do you believe retribution is a good form of justice? Especially when every justifiable reason for having a retributive justice system has been disproven - such as it acting as a deterrant and keeping a fair society.
Retributive justice degrades justice and makes it all about settling scores rather than being about what is best for the victims, soceity and yes, the criminal. I don't support murder by individuals and I don't support state sanctioned murder either.
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 15:31
yes, but that's not the only thing there is to it. Those who can't be rehabilitated could be innocents, as it's impossible to fully prove guiltiness. If you don't believe he can be rehabilitated, then that only defends longer prison sentences, not the actual act of murder of the guy, because he might, after all, be innocent. Sure, I hate men who rapes and murders 7 years olds, and I doubt more than just a handful throughout history of such people would have any chance at all at rehabilitation. But I would hold back my wrath and lynch mob feeling and consider the possibility of the guy being wrongfully accused. Then it turns out it's possible to achieve the most important result - to keep him away from people that he can hurt, without possibly hurting an innocent, by longer prison sentences. The actual killing act achieves nothing in itself.
With DNA testing now getting an innocent for murder is hard and even if they were able to he would win on appeal. (I know this wasnt always the case but we were talking now) The actual killing does do something. Why should that man be allowed to live wether he can be rehabilated or not if he killed some one who had done nothing wrong.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 15:38
With DNA testing now getting an innocent for murder is hard and even if they were able to he would win on appeal. (I know this wasnt always the case but we were talking now)
I could frame you for murder with DNA proof and everything easily if I wanted to commit a murder. All you need is some hair. Every human being loses around 20-50 hairs every day, for example. And can you trust you hairdresser? Can you have sex with a woman without guarding her from being killed for the coming few hours, because if she's killed shortly after you have sex you'll be framed from rape and murder? Think of how easy this system makes it for a man to commit two murders legally. He kills one persons, and frames you for it. He escapes justice, and he doesn't even have to get his hands dirty with the killing of you, as the state does that for him.
Why should that man be allowed to live wether he can be rehabilated or not if he killed some one who had done nothing wrong.
This very statement of yours actually says that the executioner should be killed, doesn't it?
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 15:43
I could frame you for murder with DNA proof and everything easily if I wanted to commit a murder. All you need is some hair. Every human being loses around 20-50 hairs every day, for example. And can you trust you hairdresser? Can you have sex with a woman without guarding her from being killed for the coming few hours, because if she's killed shortly after you have sex you'll be framed from rape and murder? Think of how easy this system makes it for a man to commit two murders legally. He kills one persons, and frames you for it. He escapes justice, and he doesn't even have to get his hands dirty with the killing of you, as the state does that for him.
Youre reaching there buddy. Those in a court a law could easily be dispelled or you would win on appeal that is why we dont here about them in real life maybe in the occasional law & Order episode and even then they catch the real killer
This very statement of yours actually says that the executioner should be killed, doesn't it?
Um no it dosent thats like saying all soliders are murders. The man has a job he need to feel no guilt
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 15:49
Youre reaching there buddy. Those in a court a law could easily be dispelled or you would win on appeal that is why we dont here about them in real life maybe in the occasional law & Order episode and even then they catch the real killer
So you're not afraid of being framed for murder and executed? You'd just order a normal MacDonalds menu for last supper and relax? Would say "cmon guys, stop that joking" when they read your death sentence and tell you how your entire state want you dead because you're a brutal, impossible to rehabilitate, murderer?
Um no it dosent thats like saying all soliders are murders. The man has a job he need to feel no guilt
The statement said an executioner should be killed if he ever carried out a death penalty sentence where the victim was innocent. Besides an executioner is not a soldier.
The man has a job he need to feel no guilt
Executioners are legalized lust murderers, who are just as dangerous, brutal and vicious as those who kill and get punishments for it. Only a lust murderer would choose executioner as his job.
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 16:02
So you're not afraid of being framed for murder and executed? You'd just order a normal MacDonalds menu for last supper and relax? Would say "cmon guys, stop that joking" when they read your death sentence and tell you how your entire state want you dead because you're a brutal, impossible to rehabilitate, murderer?
I have a better chance of being struck by lightning and getting eaten by a shark at the same time.Im willing to take my chances. Its not like we are killing people left and right here. Who the hell says I like McDonalds?
I still haent seen your consparacy theory in action. Link
[/quote]Executioners are legalized lust murderers, who are just as dangerous, brutal and vicious as those who kill and get punishments for it. Only a lust murderer would choose executioner as his job.[/quote]
Execuctioner isnt a job some one from the prison does it. IIRC they take turns or something of that nature.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 16:07
Who the hell says I like McDonalds?
Well, I just tried to give an example of how absurd the very situation is.
I still haent seen your consparacy theory in action. Link
Link is broken. BTW, how would you see it if the one knowing the truth is killed? And "conspiracy theory"? A conspiracy is a group of people in secret planning viciousness or own benefit at the cost of others. It only takes a single human being to frame someone for murder. Imagine somebody is jealous at you and your girlfriend/boyfriend. All that is needed is to kill one of you, and frame the other. He/she can then live happily ever after.
Strike you still haven't answered my concerns with your train of thought...
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 16:11
Link is broken. BTW, how would you see it if the one knowing the truth is killed? And "conspiracy theory"? A conspiracy is a group of people in secret planning viciousness or own benefit at the cost of others. It only takes a single human being to frame someone for murder. Imagine somebody is jealous at you and your girlfriend/boyfriend. All that is needed is to kill one of you, and frame the other. He/she can then live happily ever after.
It has never happend. People have been framed before but now it is nearly impossible
Sjakihata
12-21-2005, 16:15
No.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 16:15
It has never happend. People have been framed before but now it is nearly impossible
No, it's easier now. Now all you need to fool is a machine, not human beings. Earlier you needed to perhaps use extremely clever disguises, schemes for alibi etc. etc. Now? You can follow a person for a day, and without doubt finding a hair. Then go murder, put the hair on the body, then go home. Nobody will ever make any inquiry because the hair proves the framed person was guilty. All traces and evidence is cleared for you by the state, when they execute the innocent man you framed.
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 16:16
Strike you still haven't answered my concerns with your train of thought...
Heres my trian of thought. People who rape and murder 7 year olds or shoot and rob a conveinet store clerk dont deserve life becuase they took it from an innocent.
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 16:17
No, it's easier now. Now all you need to fool is a machine, not human beings. Earlier you needed to perhaps use extremely clever disguises, schemes for alibi etc. etc. Now? You can follow a person for a day, and without doubt finding a hair. Then go murder, put the hair on the body, then go home. Nobody will ever make any inquiry because the hair proves the framed person was guilty. All traces and evidence is cleared for you by the state, when they execute the innocent man you framed.
Link of this? We cant debate theorys can we
Heres my trian of thought. People who rape and murder 7 year olds or shoot and rob a conveinet store clerk dont deserve life becuase they took it from an innocent.
Again, you have still not responded to the problems I posed you with your beliefs. Anything now?
Marcellus
12-21-2005, 16:34
With DNA testing now getting an innocent for murder is hard and even if they were able to he would win on appeal. (I know this wasnt always the case but we were talking now)
Harder, maybe. But still by no means impossible. And as for an appeal, why would the person win an appeal when he lost the original trial?
The actual killing does do something. Why should that man be allowed to live wether he can be rehabilated or not if he killed some one who had done nothing wrong.
Why is murder illegal? Because human life is precious. Taking life away would make the murderer a wicked person, but would not change the fact that he is a living human. Killing him would be taking away a precious human life, which, we have established, is wrong.
Prodigal
12-21-2005, 16:57
Nope, & I'll tell you why. You can kill someone & their worries are over, if they deserve a really harsh penalty, make the ******* suffer, keep them alive & locked up, throw away the godamn key & let them rot; this has the added benefit that they may REALLY reform, in which case they will understand the enormity of their crime, how its destroyed their life, and the fact that no matter how bloody sorry they are its too late. Try the idea of dwelling on that for 50, 60 years & then which do you think is worse?
Also, what if you get it wrong...What if they're not guilty, 30 years in chokey for somehting you didn't do is one thing, but you can't release a dead man
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 17:24
Again, you have still not responded to the problems I posed you with your beliefs. Anything now?
with what belifs my backwards christian fundemetalism or what?
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 17:26
Nope, & I'll tell you why. You can kill someone & their worries are over, if they deserve a really harsh penalty, make the ******* suffer, keep them alive & locked up, throw away the godamn key & let them rot; this has the added benefit that they may REALLY reform, in which case they will understand the enormity of their crime, how its destroyed their life, and the fact that no matter how bloody sorry they are its too late. Try the idea of dwelling on that for 50, 60 years & then which do you think is worse?
Also, what if you get it wrong...What if they're not guilty, 30 years in chokey for somehting you didn't do is one thing, but you can't release a dead man
Yes but no one really rots in prison anymore granted nobody likes getting buttraped and its still a shity place. Many would take it over death
English assassin
12-21-2005, 17:48
granted nobody likes getting buttraped
I expect you get used to it after 20 years or so. Maybe we should sentence people to 20 years buttraping and then kill them? In case they are enjoying themselves.
Oh, wait, you do...
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 18:02
I expect you get used to it after 20 years or so. Maybe we should sentence people to 20 years buttraping and then kill them? In case they are enjoying themselves.
Oh, wait, you do...
Oh youre so clever. What do you think Im going to say? Oh you are so right cold blooded murders dont dserve to get buttraped we should let them live while the perfectly innocent die.
solypsist
12-21-2005, 18:18
in america: no
anywhere else: it's their call
Red Harvest
12-21-2005, 18:53
The death of one thosuand guilty is not by far worth the death of one innocent.
Yes it is. With that attitude you would never defend yourself in war, etc. I never have understood that saying. It is illogical. A thousand to one is a very good trade. The truth is that you have to weigh the level of unintended damage against the punishment, the crime, and what might happen otherwise. Not executing sure doesn't let you off the hook. You just chose to ignore the consequence.
There is no moral high ground to be had in incarcerating the innocent for his entire life, so what advantage is there to not executing? Give someone false hope for decades? That is cruel and unusual punishment, I would prefer execution. Ethically, there is no real difference in the end result, nor in the culpability of the society for putting them there. So the argument of executing the innocent versus incarcerating the innocent for life falls flat on its face. Both are death sentences.
The death penalty does ensure more rigorous appeals, and makes DNA testing a near certainty where possible. I argue that you are more likely SAVING the incorrectly convicted by giving them a death sentence. Why because the scrutiny will likely exonerate them, rather than being lost in the system dying in prison.
One thing is certain those executed never kill again. Those who don't might, even if they remain in prison. Does the 1,000 to 1 rule apply to this as well? Oops...another torpedo. We are doing the right thing by sending the guilty on their way. For one thing, you can use the freed up resources for something more useful. (For all those complaining about the cost of execution...why do they neglect to mention the cost of decades of incarceration?)
And what about those killed on the outside by repeat offenders etc.? Does the 1,000 to 1 apply to them. Now you have a serious conundrum. Should those innocents be butchered because we lack the will to deal with the killers?
Fact of the matter is that capital punishment is an appropriate level considering the crime. In a perfect world it wouldn't be needed...nor would war.
Yes it is. With that attitude you would never defend yourself in war, etc.
You cannot compare war to death penalty, it will never be the same.
Also, try to imagine how it would be if you was the one innocent.
There is no moral high ground to be had in incarcerating the innocent for his entire life, so what advantage is there to not executing? Give someone false hope for decades? That is cruel and unusual punishment, I would prefer execution. Ethically, there is no real difference in the end result, nor in the culpability of the society for putting them there. So the argument of executing the innocent versus incarcerating the innocent for life falls flat on its face. Both are death sentences.
The innocent could be found innocent during his time in prison. If he really is innocent, he can get earlier out of prison due to beahviour and alike.
One thing is certain those executed never kill again. Those who don't might, even if they remain in prison. Does the 1,000 to 1 rule apply to this as well?
And what about those killed on the outside by repeat offenders etc.? Does the 1,000 to 1 apply to them. Now you have a serious conundrum. Should those innocents be butchered because we lack the will to deal with the killers?
They might, that is, however, most uncertain. One will have to live with that uncertainty.
If they really are that dangerous, then don`t let them out of prison, and eventually, make sure that they don`t come anywhere near other prisoners.
Red Harvest
12-21-2005, 19:57
You cannot compare war to death penalty, it will never be the same.
What is the difference? Innocent dying at the hands of govt. is not the same? It is the same. You are just trying to rationalize it so you can be comfortable with the idea of national defense.
Also, try to imagine how it would be if you was the one innocent.
Yep, sucks to be the victim no matter what the consequence. Now given the choice of dying to take out 1,000 convicted murderers? Puts a different spin on it doesn't it? Some people wouldn't give up their life for another, some of us would.
Illustrates the fallacy of the simple 1 innocent isn't worth 1000 guilty.
The innocent could be found innocent during his time in prison.
Ironically, his innocence is less likely to be proved if he has a life sentence than if he has a death sentence. His chances are better if he is given a death sentence. Also, in capital cases, juries tend to be even more cautious.
If he really is innocent, he can get earlier out of prison due to beahviour and alike.
No, not by your criteria of keeping them locked away forever, because he has not been exonerated.
By this flawed logic the guilty could also be released to kill again. That has unfortunately been too common.
Kanamori
12-21-2005, 19:59
It is problematic punishment because it eliminates the ability for redress. When a person is wrongfully convicted and put in jail or prison, the mistake can be fixed and balance can be restored by that system; with the death penalty, such a balance is impossible once the system has made an error, which it has been shown to make.
What is the difference? Innocent dying at the hands of govt. is not the same?
They are not within our political system. Although it is a good goal to minimize civilian casualties, the government does not owe them the same as it does to it's citizens, unless the government has recognized that it does.
Ironically, his innocence is less likely to be proved if he has a life sentence than if he has a death sentence. His chances are better if he is given a death sentence. Also, in capital cases, juries tend to be even more cautious.
During his life sentence, new technologies could developed, and already existing ones sharpened. More caution might be taken with caspital cases, but there is not that much more caution to be found, since there is already quite alot of caution taken with life sentences and murders too. It`s higher chances to be proven innocence the longer you live.
No, not by your criteria of keeping them locked away forever, because he has not been exonerated.
First, he will only be locked up 'forever' if he shows no signs improvement, or has even gotten wors. It`s someone whos release is clearly dangerous for society.
Secondly, if he indeed has not killed he might behave thereafter; i.e he behaves ligther than what one should expect from a cold blooded murderer.
By this flawed logic the guilty could also be released to kill again. That has unfortunately been too common.
They will be let out only if they show improvements, and after that psychologists have concluded that they [the prisoners] will probably not do any harm anymore.
Prodigal
12-21-2005, 20:28
Yes but no one really rots in prison anymore granted nobody likes getting buttraped and its still a shity place. Many would take it over death
A woman in the UK, who, with her boyfriend kidnapped & tortured kids, & recorded them during the torture sessions, was put away for life, she became a devout christian, blah, blah blah, she died in prison despite begging for parole toward the end of her nasty little life.
She died in prison, & if there is a god, she is enjoying the attention of some fallen angels who are equipped with rusty scapels, chicken wire & salt sandpaper.
I'm pleased she converted, I'm pleased she saw the error of her ways, I'm pleased she had 40 years in Broadmoor, (max security prison for the criminally insane), to think about what she did, & why she wouldn't ever get out.
Most of all I'm pleased she's dead, & personally I don't think a chair, a noose, or an injection can compete against "You'll leave in a small urn after you're cremated".
Marcellus
12-21-2005, 21:20
What is the difference? Innocent dying at the hands of govt. is not the same? It is the same. You are just trying to rationalize it so you can be comfortable with the idea of national defense.
In war, innocent people die to prevent 'guilty' people from harming others; the guilty are in a position to hurt innocent people. Innocents die to protect innocents.
A captured, guilty murderer is imprisoned. He is not in a position to harm innocents. The death of an imprisoned murderer will not protect innocents any more than keeping him in prison will.
Let them be executed so long as it's as a family member of the victim who takes the axe to their neck.
A.Saturnus
12-21-2005, 21:38
Let them be executed so long as it's as a family member of the victim who takes the axe to their neck.
In the majority of cases, the murderers are family members of the victim.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 21:45
Link of this? We cant debate theorys can we
Theories? Do you really want someone to prove it to you before you believe it? A human being is complex, and difficult to fool. A machine we know the ins and outs of, and can fool easily. It's not theory but fact.
Again, you have still not responded to the problems I posed you with your beliefs. Anything now?
with what belifs my backwards christian fundemetalism or what?
Wait, you're a Christian AND support death penalty? What kind of heretic Christian sect are we talking about here? Fundamentalism, isn't that supposed to mean reading the Bible message literally? You seem to have missed quite a few parts of it:
- The ten commandments: thou shalt not murder (murder is a planned killing)
- Genesis, before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra: God says to Abraham that even if there are just ten innocent men in Sodom and Gomorra he will not destroy the cities by lighting for their sake.
- Jesus revises the commandment: thou shalt not kill, not in any case
- Jesus during the stoning to death of a guilty woman: "may he who is without sin throw the first rock"
- Jesus again: "why do you see the splinter in your brother's eye when you don't see the beam in your own eye?"
Your ideals sound more like roman "crucify all who fought with rebels and were seen near them" ideals. Jesus, and the faith Christianity which sprung from his messages, has as it's very basis the idea that death penalty, and similar actions, are diabolic acts of cruelty.
Red Harvest
12-21-2005, 21:47
It is problematic punishment because it eliminates the ability for redress. When a person is wrongfully convicted and put in jail or prison, the mistake can be fixed and balance can be restored by that system; with the death penalty, such a balance is impossible once the system has made an error, which it has been shown to make.
No, wrongful incarceration cannot really be fixed and balance restored. That's the ironic part, it eases the consciences of those who put the person there. Sure the person is happy to be released, but they don't get those years back, nor are the scars of prison removed. And the slower quieter nature of the punishment makes exoneration less likely. If I were innocent, I would rather be sentenced to death as I would have more chance of being exonerated (and sooner) or at least ending the misery of incarceration.
No the issue for me here is one of people wanting to ease their consciences of having made a mistake for either case. It is easier to say, "at least he lived," and NOT address the real problems in the system. That is an advantage of the death penalty, it forces participants to take things more seriously.
They are not within our political system.
I did not specify the nationality of the innocent casualties. Politics matters not one iota in the pure ethical consequences, although it matters very much to us on a personal level. Punishment as war is not as precise as any of us would like it to be. Both are necessary evils at times.
What amuses me as a whole in the death penalty debate is that the anti-death penalty arguments partially appear as efforts to dodge responsbility for the awful consequences of the truth that innocoent folks are sometimes wrongly convicted and punished (and often through misconduct.) To me it is only a small distinction that one rots in prison and the other is executed. I actually see rotting in prison as being less humane in many ways.
The death penalty is a fitting punishment for the guilty. No punishment is befitting the innocent.
Red Harvest
12-21-2005, 21:51
A captured, guilty murderer is imprisoned. He is not in a position to harm innocents. Unless those innocents were wrongly convicted. Murders happen frequently in prison.
The death of an imprisoned murderer will not protect innocents any more than keeping him in prison will.
Not true. Periodcially changes are made that result in release. Dead men never murder again.
Furthermore, life in prison is still a state administered death sentence.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 22:01
What amuses me as a whole in the death penalty debate is that the anti-death penalty arguments partially appear as efforts to dodge responsbility for the awful consequences of the truth that innocoent folks are sometimes wrongly convicted and punished (and often through misconduct.) To me it is only a small distinction that one rots in prison and the other is executed. I actually see rotting in prison as being less humane in many ways.
[...]
The death penalty is a fitting punishment for the guilty. No punishment is befitting the innocent.
With that logic I assume you would at least agree to a system where the convict gets to choose between death penalty or prison for life?
To me it seems like pro-murder people are simply in favor of murder for the purely short term practical logistical reasons, not for any moral, ethical, crime fighting or safety of the people reasons. That, and an animalistic pleasure of seeing people you fear suffer, in order to lighten your own fear.
Edit: by the way let me apply some facts to this debate:
- in pro-murder countries, crime rates are the same as or higher than in pro-justicy countries.
So even in countries where murderers are released so they can strike again, are there the same number of crimes. This implies one of or more of the following:
- in pro-justice systems rehabilitation happens
- in pro-murder countries, there's much desperate crimes committed to hide other crimes, from the fear of being murdered by the state.
- in pro-justice countries, there's more murders carried out caused by the general fear and hopelessness feeling that the death penalty, and it's state-sanctioned murdering of innocents, causes. The very fear of death penalty causes crime!
- there must be a higher percentage of murderers in pro-murder countries. This isn't very odd, as they grow up with the ideal that it's right to murder - the law suggests so
- there are more mass-murderers in pro-murder countries, if the number of murderers is the same as in pro-justice countries. That means those who go mad become more efficient and cruel murderers when there's a pro-murder policy.
In the majority of cases, the murderers are family members of the victim.
I'm talking official execution, here, not vigilantism. Well, actually, I suppose we could all just run around and off each other..
Strike For The South
12-21-2005, 23:19
Wait, you're a Christian AND support death penalty? What kind of heretic Christian sect are we talking about here? Fundamentalism, isn't that supposed to mean reading the Bible message literally? You seem to have missed quite a few parts of it:
- The ten commandments: thou shalt not murder (murder is a planned killing)
- Genesis, before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra: God says to Abraham that even if there are just ten innocent men in Sodom and Gomorra he will not destroy the cities by lighting for their sake.
- Jesus revises the commandment: thou shalt not kill, not in any case
- Jesus during the stoning to death of a guilty woman: "may he who is without sin throw the first rock"
- Jesus again: "why do you see the splinter in your brother's eye when you don't see the beam in your own eye?"
Your ideals sound more like roman "crucify all who fought with rebels and were seen near them" ideals. Jesus, and the faith Christianity which sprung from his messages, has as it's very basis the idea that death penalty, and similar actions, are diabolic acts of cruelty.
Yes just like the bible says gay marrige is illegal to. Have you ever heard an eye for an eye? The Bible says it is in mans nature to sin which is why the whole basic tenet is forgivness with God not with other humans. He can still make his peace with God not with me.
Rodion Romanovich
12-21-2005, 23:34
Yes just like the bible says gay marrige is illegal to. Have you ever heard an eye for an eye? The Bible says it is in mans nature to sin which is why the whole basic tenet is forgivness with God not with other humans. He can still make his peace with God not with me.
A marriage in a church is a marriage before God. That marriage is a holy unition of a man and woman which will later most likely produce a new life through sex. That is what marriage in a church is, blessing the upcoming creation of life, and therefore I see nothing immoral about not letting homosexuals have that. However the Bible doesn't forbid homosexuals to juridically marry, and by that declaring their love towards each other by an action like the modern marriage. It simply says that such a thing is to be interpreted as something different than a holy marriage. As marriage today is something different - it's mostly a declaration of love, the bible doesn't forbid it from taking place even for homosexuals. But it's odd to try and use religious ceremonials during such an action so I'm not sure if a priest should carry out this marriage act. The church could hire out their holy building for such marriages though, as the place is by no means holy, but only a place to find God if you're worthy. The quote used when a new church is taking into use is a line taken out of it's context. In the bible that very line symbolizes the joy of one of the characters having found a home, a place to live, which was everything but godforsaken - where God was present.
Eye for an eye is a good example. It says you should not take the eye of someone who didn't take an eye from you, which is repeatedly the case with death penalty that strikes innocents. So suggests the part of Genesis that I referred to above. Killing innocents to get to guilty is not defended either by the Torah nor by the New Testament. Seen in it's context, the eye for an eye is a commandment on what the maximum restriction on revenge is. There's no minimum.
"It's in man's nature to sin" says that we should even be ready to understand that we too could have committed crimes. It's the very same message as "may he who is without sin throw the first rock". It doesn't say man is evil by nature in the meaning that there's no hope, but that man can commit crimes under certain circumstances, because of his/her nature. Such circumstances must be avoided at all costs.
Jesus also praises forgiveness as the greatest of virtues. Forgiveness of humans to other humans. Forgiveness from God is something the Alcoran and Islamic faith stresses very hard, though. Everyone can be forgiven in the end.
You rather seem to be a follower of the mass-murderers of "heretics" from the Medieval period than a true fundamentalistic Christian. These mass-murderers were by no means Christian. They were real and true heretics and their names are remembered with dishonor. One was quoted for saying:
- how shall we know the guilty from the innocent?
- let's kill them all and God will do the sorting
Marcellus
12-21-2005, 23:43
an eye for an eye
will only make the whole world blind.
I just like that quotation.
Soulforged
12-22-2005, 00:26
No.
Marcellus
12-22-2005, 00:38
Unless those innocents were wrongly convicted. Murders happen frequently in prison.
So prison security needs to increase.
Not true. Periodcially changes are made that result in release. Dead men never murder again.
Murderers are released if they are deemed to have reformed.
Furthermore, life in prison is still a state administered death sentence.
No it's not. Murderers may die in prison, but they die of natural causes, like they would if they were free.
Red Harvest
12-22-2005, 01:21
With that logic I assume you would at least agree to a system where the convict gets to choose between death penalty or prison for life?
No, their victims weren't given a choice. The convicted murderer has no further rights in my view other than the appeals process. Give them the opportunity to show a miscarriage of justice, then if they cannot, dispense justice.
To me it seems like pro-murder people are simply in favor of murder for the purely short term practical logistical reasons, not for any moral, ethical, crime fighting or safety of the people reasons. That, and an animalistic pleasure of seeing people you fear suffer, in order to lighten your own fear.
It's called punishment. Is that so hard to understand??? What color is the sky in your world?
I would classify your stance as "pro-murder" not mine, since yours is more concerned about the murderers than the victims, the victim's families, or society as a whole. Talk about upside down priorities.
I feel no responsibility as a citizen (or as a Christian) to maintain the livelihood of someone who can't re-enter society because of their criminal tendencies. This is not a rehabilitation issue. This is for those who have committed a crime deserving the most severe punishment. They have gone past the ends of the justice system.
I do see executions as justifiable morally, ethically, for crime prevention, AND for logistical reasons. It is a tremendous waste of resources incarcerating someone in max security. In my view it is particularly immoral to spend more public money supporting them, when several families could subsist off those same funds. That IS a crime.
I don't see executions as some sort of end all cure, and prefer to attack the identifiable source problems that we actually have some control over.
I have no sympathy for those who prey on our society, from white collar criminals who steal people's nest eggs and pensions, to violent offenders.
For the most horrendous of murders - yes.
If an individual is given a trail and convicted of murdering another human being while either conducting a rape of the victim especially of a child, The death penalty is warranted for such crimes. Individuals who commit multiple murders over a period of time ie serial murders also warrant the death penalty for their actions.
Rodion Romanovich
12-22-2005, 10:02
No, their victims weren't given a choice. The convicted murderer has no further rights in my view other than the appeals process. Give them the opportunity to show a miscarriage of justice, then if they cannot, dispense justice.
The state-murdered innocents weren't given a choice either.
It's called punishment. Is that so hard to understand??? What color is the sky in your world?
Blue, white and grey. In the evening, when I look to the west, towards the states that have pro-murder laws, it's crimson.
I would classify your stance as "pro-murder" not mine, since yours is more concerned about the murderers than the victims, the victim's families, or society as a whole. Talk about upside down priorities.
Face the facts:
- a pro-murder society hasn't the same amount of or more murders than a pro-justice society, even though most pro-justice societies naively let out some criminals who just revert to their old murdering patterns. This means that probably a society with pro-justice philosophy, i.e. no death penalty, but longer prison sentences and more careful decision making on who should be released, would have less murders than a pro-murder society, and then we're not even counting the murders committed by the so-called "justice". This means that a pro-justice society with longer prison sentences would reduce crime and make the world safer for the average citizen! Keeping up support for pro-murder even after hearing such statistics shows clearly that you're not after the safety of the citizens, but after getting your own satisfaction from seeing the convicts punished, to reduce your own fear.
I feel no responsibility as a citizen (or as a Christian) to maintain the livelihood of someone who can't re-enter society because of their criminal tendencies. This is not a rehabilitation issue. This is for those who have committed a crime deserving the most severe punishment. They have gone past the ends of the justice system.
As you support state murder, you can reverse all your arguments towards yourself, applied to when you kill wrongfully accused innocents. You see no responsibility as a citizen or Christian not to kill innocents in order to get to some individuals. Those who have been wrongfully accused deserve the most severe punishment. They have gone past the ends of the justice system.
I do see executions as justifiable morally, ethically, for crime prevention, AND for logistical reasons. It is a tremendous waste of resources incarcerating someone in max security. In my view it is particularly immoral to spend more public money supporting them, when several families could subsist off those same funds. That IS a crime.
Only thing is that pro-murder policy doesn't reduce crime. On the contrary, the fear it creates in the entire society among most regular citizens causes more frustration and mental instability, which results in more crime, as statistics confirm.
I have no sympathy for those who prey on our society, from white collar criminals who steal people's nest eggs and pensions, to violent offenders.
It's not about symphaty for the criminals, but for the safety of the ordinary people. The main idea of the justice system is to prevent crime and protect citizens from it, no matter what procedure that requires. If we would prove that state murder would reduce crime, it could be considered. But it doesn't. You are afraid of released prisoners committing crimes again, because they were judged as rehabilitated although they were not. So attack the real cause - be more careful with these releases. Nothing in your argumentation supports the actual murder itself, except economical reasons. A man who kills for money is nothing but a thief.
Oh and finally I'd like to point out something that most pro-murder supporters seem to forget. Their objective is to punish severely the worst of criminals, because the worst of criminals apparently deserve it, even if it costs the life of more civilians by increasing murder rates in the society. You're missing the worst of all criminals! You're missing those who not only murder, but also frame another for that murder, causing the state to kill an innocent man, and makes the judgement over that dead man a judgement as a murderer and criminal, makes his name be ever remembered with the blood that never was on his hands. The worst of all criminals, those who lie and let's another one, innocent, take their punishment, those go free. The one voice that could give them justice is forever silenced.
And one more thing Red Harvest: Not only do I take offense when people like you call themselves Christians, because you're contradicting the very basis of the faith. But I'm also curious about which logic lies behind the idea that God is making good the suffering of an innocent state-murdered in the name of "justice", but doesn't punish the real murderers in the after-life. You can trust God to make good the suffering of innocents, but not to punish the guilty enough? Either God punishes the guilty and makes good the suffering of innocents killed by state-murder, or he does neither. Which angel spoke to you and gave you a message that suggests otherwise? Lucifer?
I support it, a just system needs an ultimate punishment for crimes that really shouldn't be.
Samurai Waki
12-22-2005, 11:51
- Lenin once said: "it's better to let 100 innocent die than letting one guilty escape". Do you want to rank yourself as being on the same level as Lenin and Stalin?
Yes! Cheers to the Dark Side!
English assassin
12-22-2005, 11:52
Oh you are so right cold blooded murders dont dserve to get buttraped we should let them live while the perfectly innocent die.
@SFTS, Well, yes, that is basically it. Come on, apart from an atavistic desire for revenge, what's the justification for the death penalty? We've established (threads ad nauseam) that its not cheaper than life imprisonment, and it's not a deterent to crime (USA murder rate 4.2802 per 100,000 people UK murder rate 1.40633 per 100,000 people ). If you are worried about reoffending you can give them life in jail if you must.
Even leaving aside the moral argument, what is this death penalty supposed to be doing?
NO.
I do on the other hand support slave labor camps for those rapists, murderers and other scum.
By keeping them alive and actually making them work and pay back to society you can also allow them retrials and so on, give them endless amount of time for them to try and prove their innocence.
Red Harvest
12-23-2005, 10:25
And one more thing Red Harvest: Not only do I take offense when people like you call themselves Christians, because you're contradicting the very basis of the faith. But I'm also curious about which logic lies behind the idea that God is making good the suffering of an innocent state-murdered in the name of "justice", but doesn't punish the real murderers in the after-life. You can trust God to make good the suffering of innocents, but not to punish the guilty enough? Either God punishes the guilty and makes good the suffering of innocents killed by state-murder, or he does neither. Which angel spoke to you and gave you a message that suggests otherwise? Lucifer?
This part is just offensive. No, I am not contradicting the very basis of the faith. Your interpretation of it perhaps, but not the basis of the faith.
I suspect your real problem here is that I struck a nerve in forcing you to consider some aspects that make you uncomfortable with your absolutist approach. While the idealism of "no state sponsored killing" has appeal, the reality of it has problems. It makes people uncomfortable to consider innocents sitting in jail, or being less likely to be exonerated than if they had been sentenced to death, or the potential for killers to be released or escape or kill others in prison. It is very easy to say, "I'm against all killing" but a lot more complex to consider all of the consequences.
Perhaps my rural upbringing has some effect on my pragmatism based approach...I know where my meat comes from, and how it got there. I don't enjoy killing, but I recognize it as a necessity if I want to eat meat. I also know what it is like to put down animals out of compassion or necessity--shooting an animal out of compassion on my birthday was very difficult. Killing one attacking a pet caused me little remorse--my only remorse was that I didn't intend the blow that felled it to be lethal. Then again, I wasn't sure what I was going to do with the animal had I managed to subdue it with out killing it. Most likely I would have had to kill it anyway, I wasn't going to incarcerate it for life for bad behaviour...and releasing it to create a problem for someone else is not in my nature either.
Incidentally, you are so confused as to who is the actual murderer and innocent are elsewhere in this thread that the paragraph leaves me wondering who you are even talking about.
Where you are going with the angel bit is really beyond me. Some sort of cheap shot that doesn't even make sense? I'm not aware that I said anything about how God is dealing with it...that seems to be wholly your own invention and tangent. Have fun debating yourself ~:argue: over it.
I suppose intent has nothing to do with how you thing you will be or should be judged in the afterlife? Intersting faith you have there. Hope you never accidentally to something that results in someones death. That would make you a doomed killer...based on the presentation you are giving here.
Rodion Romanovich
12-23-2005, 10:46
This part is just offensive. No, I am not contradicting the very basis of the faith. Your interpretation of it perhaps, but not the basis of the faith.
So what is your basis in the faith? That a God exists, and someone called Jesus once was on earth, and therefore we should do what our feelings tell us and say everything that disagrees with it in the Bible is wrong?
I suspect your real problem here is that I struck a nerve in forcing you to consider some aspects that make you uncomfortable with your absolutist approach. While the idealism of "no state sponsored killing" has appeal, the reality of it has problems. It makes people uncomfortable to consider innocents sitting in jail, or being less likely to be exonerated than if they had been sentenced to death, or the potential for killers to be released or escape or kill others in prison. It is very easy to say, "I'm against all killing" but a lot more complex to consider all of the consequences.
On the contrary, I start from the axiom that killing of innocents should be minimized. Fewer crimes and fewer murders are committed in societies without death penalty. On top of the more killings and crimes in the death penalty society, there's also a state sponsored killing, often striking innocents who are wrongfully accused, which further increases the number of innocent, regular people that die. I'm against the suffering of innocent people. If it would be 100% certain to recognize the murderer from the innocent, I wouldn't mind leaving that murderer in the hands of the next of kin of those he murdered.
Perhaps my rural upbringing has some effect on my pragmatism based approach...I know where my meat comes from, and how it got there. I don't enjoy killing, but I recognize it as a necessity if I want to eat meat. I also know what it is like to put down animals out of compassion or necessity--shooting an animal out of compassion on my birthday was very difficult. Killing one attacking a pet caused me little remorse--my only remorse was that I didn't intend the blow that felled it to be lethal. Then again, I wasn't sure what I was going to do with the animal had I managed to subdue it with out killing it. Most likely I would have had to kill it anyway, I wasn't going to incarcerate it for life for bad behaviour...and releasing it to create a problem for someone else is not in my nature either.
And I assume you like to eat the corpses of your executed criminals (and innocents) too? Besides, you could most likely have scared away the animal you were referring to by a warning shot. Or if that was impossible, the example is a clear case of where you actually saw, with 100% certainty, that the animal was committing a crime and was a threat. If you had seen the animal commit the crime, then move out of sight, and then come back, the second time without committing a crime, it could theoretically be a different animal coming the second time, for instance. But you saw the animal in the act, and there could be no doubt at all as to which animal committed the act. Therefore, your shooting is justified.
Incidentally, you are so confused as to who is the actual murderer and innocent are elsewhere in this thread that the paragraph leaves me wondering who you are even talking about.
Not at all. The murderer is someone who murders someone. The innocent is someone who hasn't committed a murder. Whether a person is innocent or not is impossible to tell with certainty in the type of society we live in today.
Where you are going with the angel bit is really beyond me. Some sort of cheap shot that doesn't even make sense? I'm not aware that I said anything about how God is dealing with it...that seems to be wholly your own invention and tangent. Have fun debating yourself ~:argue: over it.
Usually God likes to inform all his followers when he changes policy, through angels or other heavenly characters. Apparently he has only given his new message to a chosen few, who are acting in contradiction to the message he gave to all others. Don't you think God wants you to write down a revised bible, because he chose to tell only you, and no other Christians, about these changes, which contradict both Judaism and Christianity?
I suppose intent has nothing to do with how you thing you will be or should be judged in the afterlife? Intersting faith you have there. Hope you never accidentally to something that results in someones death. That would make you a doomed killer...based on the presentation you are giving here.
Who said intent doesn't matter? But you can kill every single human on earth because 10 have sinned, with the OFFICIAL (the real intent is usually to satisfy yourself) intent of clearing out all sin from earth. You're still deserving punishment, because you know as well as all others that the means you're using don't justify the end. The difference between this example, and your opinion, is as you can see not qualitative, but quantitative. I.e. it's not a different strategy, but a difference in a numeric parameter. It means you must have some holy number telling you when killing innocents is justified, because enough guilty are killed at the same time. How many guilty must die per every killed innocent, for it to be ok? Where do you draw the line? And what happens when that line is stepped over? All that differs you from Lenin is a holy number. Give me that number please. For Lenin, it was 0.01. What is it for you? Did God tell you which number it was, when he told you his new message? Is it by chance 666?
Btw, is it a higher purpose to use death penalty when death penalty countries have higher crime rates, and specifically, higher murder rates, than other countries? Is it a higher purpose to do the justice God is supposed to do in the afterlife on earth to satisfy your own fear, even if it costs the lives of many innocents, because murders (yes, only counting such murders that even you admit are murders) increase?
So what is your basis in the faith? That a God exists, and someone called Jesus once was on earth, and therefore we should do what our feelings tell us and say everything that disagrees with it in the Bible is wrong?
You need to be careful threading this ground - the bible clearly states the eye for an eye in the old testiment. Then in the New Testiment it clearly states some contradiction over what is in the Old Testiment. And Jesus also is quoted as saying "give onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, give onto God what is God's. The Bible allows for man to have laws.
On the contrary, I start from the axiom that killing of innocents should be minimized. Fewer crimes and fewer murders are committed in societies without death penalty. On top of the more killings and crimes in the death penalty society, there's also a state sponsored killing, often striking innocents who are wrongfully accused, which further increases the number of innocent, regular people that die. I'm against the suffering of innocent people. If it would be 100% certain to recognize the murderer from the innocent, I wouldn't mind leaving that murderer in the hands of the next of kin of those he murdered.
Oh in many cases the courts have determined that the individual is guilty, based upon scientific evidence. So in those instances - the Death Penality would serve as a applicaple punishment?
And I assume you like to eat the corpses of your executed criminals (and innocents) too? Besides, you could most likely have scared away the animal you were referring to by a warning shot.
Not at all - rabid animals - normally coyotes and other smaller predators - will not run from a gun shot. Nor will some other predators in the midst of an attack to kill thier prey
Or if that was impossible, the example is a clear case of where you actually saw, with 100% certainty, that the animal was committing a crime and was a threat. If you had seen the animal commit the crime, then move out of sight, and then come back, the second time without committing a crime, it could theoretically be a different animal coming the second time, for instance. But you saw the animal in the act, and there could be no doubt at all as to which animal committed the act. Therefore, your shooting is justified.
Your always justified to shoot the animal in the middle of an attack on your livestock or pets regardless if it is the same animal or a different one. Just like a human being is always justified in taking the life of an individual who is partaking in a crime that threatens the life of another.
Not at all. The murderer is someone who murders someone. The innocent is someone who hasn't committed a murder. Whether a person is innocent or not is impossible to tell with certainty in the type of society we live in today.
Not at all - science leads investigators to the individuals involved in the crime all the time. Trace evidence is found and analysised often determining who committted the crime. Why do you think they use DNA whenever possible in a criminal trial - especially one for murder where the death penality is at stake.
Usually God likes to inform all his followers when he changes policy, through angels or other heavenly characters. Apparently he has only given his new message to a chosen few, who are acting in contradiction to the message he gave to all others. Don't you think God wants you to write down a revised bible, because he chose to tell only you, and no other Christians, about these changes, which contradict both Judaism and Christianity?
Who said intent doesn't matter? But you can kill every single human on earth because 10 have sinned, with the OFFICIAL (the real intent is usually to satisfy yourself) intent of clearing out all sin from earth. You're still deserving punishment, because you know as well as all others that the means you're using don't justify the end. The difference between this example, and your opinion, is as you can see not qualitative, but quantitative. I.e. it's not a different strategy, but a difference in a numeric parameter. It means you must have some holy number telling you when killing innocents is justified, because enough guilty are killed at the same time. How many guilty must die per every killed innocent, for it to be ok? Where do you draw the line? And what happens when that line is stepped over? All that differs you from Lenin is a holy number. Give me that number please. For Lenin, it was 0.01. What is it for you? Did God tell you which number it was, when he told you his new message? Is it by chance 666?
I will let Red Harvest address both this paragraphs - however I will point out that you are committing the emotional appeal fallacy in your claim here.
Btw, is it a higher purpose to use death penalty when death penalty countries have higher crime rates, and specifically, higher murder rates, than other countries?
The death penality serves the justice of man - attempting to link it to a higher purpose is a false arguement by whomever decides to attempt such an arguement.
Is it a higher purpose to do the justice God is supposed to do in the afterlife on earth to satisfy your own fear, even if it costs the lives of many innocents, because murders (yes, only counting such murders that even you admit are murders) increase?
Render onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, Render onto God what is God's. Human Justice can also occur for crimes committed against man, God renders judgement on our souls for our sins against him.
Your arguement here does not work - your attempting to intermix fear with justice as determined by the law.
Rodion Romanovich
12-23-2005, 15:59
You need to be careful threading this ground - the bible clearly states the eye for an eye in the old testiment. Then in the New Testiment it clearly states some contradiction over what is in the Old Testiment. And Jesus also is quoted as saying "give onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, give onto God what is God's. The Bible allows for man to have laws.
Wrong, eye for an eye means that if you're sure of the guilt, maximum revenge is eye for an eye. If you don't know if someone is guilty, or risk hurting innocents, the principle of not destroying Sodom if there are only 10 innocents there applies. There are no contradictions there. "Give onto Caesar what is Caesars and onto God what's God's" doesn't in any way allow death penalty. It might also have been edited into the bible when the romans wrote it.
Oh in many cases the courts have determined that the individual is guilty, based upon scientific evidence. So in those instances - the Death Penality would serve as a applicaple punishment?
If the proof would be 100%, but it never is. Especially as so many seem to believe DNA tests tell the truth. It merely says who's DNA is in a location, not how it got there.
In the next sequence you split my quote in a way so that it changed meaning, and replied to both parts individually. I said: it's probable you could have scared it. If not, that was an example where you were quite certain of the guilt. Your second part of the answer (the part after "[...]"), repeats what I said - in that case you know with certainty who is guilty.
Not at all - rabid animals - normally coyotes and other smaller predators - will not run from a gun shot. Nor will some other predators in the midst of an attack to kill thier prey
[...]
Your always justified to shoot the animal in the middle of an attack on your livestock or pets regardless if it is the same animal or a different one. Just like a human being is always justified in taking the life of an individual who is partaking in a crime that threatens the life of another.
Not at all - science leads investigators to the individuals involved in the crime all the time. Trace evidence is found and analysised often determining who committted the crime. Why do you think they use DNA whenever possible in a criminal trial - especially one for murder where the death penality is at stake.
I've explained this above. DNA can be easily fooled. A normal human being loses around 20-50 hairs per day. You just have to pick one up and plant on the dead body. It's easier than ever to frame someone for murder.
I will let Red Harvest address both this paragraphs - however I will point out that you are committing the emotional appeal fallacy in your claim here.
You're committing the "you're committing a fallacy here because I can't counter-prove your arguments with arguments because I don't have any arguments, but even though my own statement is emotional appeal it isn't emotional appeal because I refuse to admit it is" fallacy.
The death penality serves the justice of man - attempting to link it to a higher purpose is a false arguement by whomever decides to attempt such an arguement.
Well, a person who wants death penalty just for the sake of itself isn't acting in the service of the people. I'm trying to isolate the reasons for and against death penalty. I've shown that Christianity can't be combined with death penalty. I've shown that acting in the interest of the people to reduce crime and protect people from murder isn't possible to combine with a prejudice that death penalty must be. The only reason that remains for death penalty lies in the supporter of death penalty him-/herself. It's caused by emotion, not by logic and rationality.
I was once for death penalty, because of these very emotional reasons. In my subconscious, I wanted to have a system that showed that evil and guilty men were always punished, so that guilty and evil men would refrain from crime by fear. But most criminals aren't planning their evilness to gain anything, but are driven into madness by their own fear. For those who carefully plan murder to in a Machiavellian manner gain something, making examples by killing could work. But for people who rape some 5 years old, they're mad beyond reason, they don't know about their own best anymore, and are confused in many ways. And when it also turned out that the fear in a society system where innocents are repeatedly killed by the state increases the number of persons who go mad and hurt innocents in this way, I stopped being naive and emotional, and realized how primitive an idea death penalty was in peacetime. In peacetime, there's no immediate and intensive threat that blinds good judgement and makes it a necessary self-defense. Maybe in war, we can talk about such things, because there, in some cases, the death of some innocents save the lives of other innocents. But in a case where the death penalty causes the death of many, many more, only personal emotions can support the idea.
Wrong, eye for an eye means that if you're sure of the guilt, maximum revenge is eye for an eye. If you don't know if someone is guilty, or risk hurting innocents, the principle of not destroying Sodom if there are only 10 innocents there applies. There are no contradictions there. "Give onto Caesar what is Caesars and onto God what's God's" doesn't in any way allow death penalty. It might also have been edited into the bible when the romans wrote it.
And in taking a life - and facing man's justice for actions where your proven guilty in the court of law, is not Sodom now is it?
If the proof would be 100%, but it never is. Especially as so many seem to believe DNA tests tell the truth. It merely says who's DNA is in a location, not how it got there.
However it provides science to the equation which allows for accuracy. Other forsnics tests tell how the DNA got there - the accuracy is as good as humans can make it.
In the next sequence you split my quote in a way so that it changed meaning, and replied to both parts individually. I said: it's probable you could have scared it. If not, that was an example where you were quite certain of the guilt. Your second part of the answer (the part after "[...]"), repeats what I said - in that case you know with certainty who is guilty.
Of course I did - the split was to show that animals don't always run away from man. The second part does agree with you - but correctly points out that in the commencement of the criminal act which endangers another the individual is completely justified in using deadly force be it the first instance of seeing it - or the second. Its the act that matters.
I've explained this above. DNA can be easily fooled. A normal human being loses around 20-50 hairs per day. You just have to pick one up and plant on the dead body. It's easier than ever to frame someone for murder.
Your reaching for arguements to say its not logical to use DNA. DNA by itself might be easily fooled - however along with all of the other forsnic science used in a modern investigation - its not as easy to frame an individual as you are attempting to state/
You're committing the "you're committing a fallacy here because I can't counter-prove your arguments with arguments because I don't have any arguments, but even though my own statement is emotional appeal it isn't emotional appeal because I refuse to admit it is" fallacy.
You built a strawman with your emotional appeal arguement. I was going to let Red Harvest counter the obvious attempt of using a strawman arguement because he does a good job of doing just that - especially one as obvious as your attempting with your postion above.
Well, a person who wants death penalty just for the sake of itself isn't acting in the service of the people.
Nice try but the death penalty serves the interest of man's justice, which has been stated - I do not attempt to justify the death penalty to a higher power - since its not my place to do so.
I'm trying to isolate the reasons for and against death penalty. I've shown that Christianity can't be combined with death penalty. I've shown that acting in the interest of the people to reduce crime and protect people from murder isn't possible to combine with a prejudice that death penalty must be. The only reason that remains for death penalty lies in the supporter of death penalty him-/herself. It's caused by emotion, not by logic and rationality.
Like stated above by Red Harvest and myself - I believe the death penality is warrant for certain horrendous crimes where the individual is convicted in a court of law. I have absolutely no problem putting a rabid animal down, and in instance of certain crimes - I have absolutely no problem having a man executed for his actions. Those crimes are killing a child in the process of raping or molestion, the killing of a women in the process of a rape, and mass murderers/serial killers. Again its not hard to determine the guilt of these individuals if they committed the crime. Its even harder to frame them - since they do indeed leave evidence at the crime.
I was once for death penalty, because of these very emotional reasons. In my subconscious, I wanted to have a system that showed that evil and guilty men were always punished, so that guilty and evil men would refrain from crime by fear.
A split because its important. If I believed the death penality should be used to prevent crime - then I would have to change my opinion on the death penality. However that is not the case - I view the death penality as something used to punish an individual for his actions.
But most criminals aren't planning their evilness to gain anything, but are driven into madness by their own fear.
Again a split because its important. Most criminals are not killers - they have simply made bad choices and decisions about the actions they take. The majority of criminals commit crimes such as theft - murderers are a minority in the criminal element. Criminals are not driven to madness by their own fear - they are driven to crime because of thier own decisions.
For those who carefully plan murder to in a Machiavellian manner gain something, making examples by killing could work. But for people who rape some 5 years old, they're mad beyond reason, they don't know about their own best anymore, and are confused in many ways. And when it also turned out that the fear in a society system where innocents are repeatedly killed by the state increases the number of persons who go mad and hurt innocents in this way, I stopped being naive and emotional, and realized how primitive an idea death penalty was in peacetime. In peacetime, there's no immediate and intensive threat that blinds good judgement and makes it a necessary self-defense. Maybe in war, we can talk about such things, because there, in some cases, the death of some innocents save the lives of other innocents. But in a case where the death penalty causes the death of many, many more, only personal emotions can support the idea.
You have reached your conclusion on the death pently because of your beliefs - mine is something else. I don't believe in using the death penality for just any murder - it must be one that is of a horrendous nature.
Rodion Romanovich
12-23-2005, 20:41
And in taking a life - and facing man's justice for actions where your proven guilty in the court of law, is not Sodom now is it?
However it provides science to the equation which allows for accuracy. Other forsnics tests tell how the DNA got there - the accuracy is as good as humans can make it.
Of course I did - the split was to show that animals don't always run away from man. The second part does agree with you - but correctly points out that in the commencement of the criminal act which endangers another the individual is completely justified in using deadly force be it the first instance of seeing it - or the second. Its the act that matters.
Your reaching for arguements to say its not logical to use DNA. DNA by itself might be easily fooled - however along with all of the other forsnic science used in a modern investigation - its not as easy to frame an individual as you are attempting to state/
You built a strawman with your emotional appeal arguement. I was going to let Red Harvest counter the obvious attempt of using a strawman arguement because he does a good job of doing just that - especially one as obvious as your attempting with your postion above.
Nice try but the death penalty serves the interest of man's justice, which has been stated - I do not attempt to justify the death penalty to a higher power - since its not my place to do so.
Like stated above by Red Harvest and myself - I believe the death penality is warrant for certain horrendous crimes where the individual is convicted in a court of law. I have absolutely no problem putting a rabid animal down, and in instance of certain crimes - I have absolutely no problem having a man executed for his actions. Those crimes are killing a child in the process of raping or molestion, the killing of a women in the process of a rape, and mass murderers/serial killers. Again its not hard to determine the guilt of these individuals if they committed the crime. Its even harder to frame them - since they do indeed leave evidence at the crime.
A split because its important. If I believed the death penality should be used to prevent crime - then I would have to change my opinion on the death penality. However that is not the case - I view the death penality as something used to punish an individual for his actions.
Again a split because its important. Most criminals are not killers - they have simply made bad choices and decisions about the actions they take. The majority of criminals commit crimes such as theft - murderers are a minority in the criminal element. Criminals are not driven to madness by their own fear - they are driven to crime because of thier own decisions.
You have reached your conclusion on the death pently because of your beliefs - mine is something else. I don't believe in using the death penality for just any murder - it must be one that is of a horrendous nature.
Your logic is flawed :coffeenews:
Your logic is flawed :coffeenews:
Yes indeed there is some flaws in my logic - which I have absolutely no problem with. :san_tongue:
Red Harvest
12-24-2005, 06:01
So what is your basis in the faith? It isn't really relevant as to what my basis is. Your basis is apparently so narrow (and bizarre judging from the paragraph) that a theology discussion would simply be a waste of time.
On the contrary, I start from the axiom that killing of innocents should be minimized.
As do I. Our approaches differ. You don't like mine. I'm fine with that.
Fewer crimes and fewer murders are committed in societies without death penalty.
Bogus. When we didn't have a death penalty, we didn't see any corresponding drop in the murder rate. Nice start, a false comparison, so much for reasoning...:san_laugh:
On top of the more killings and crimes in the death penalty society, there's also a state sponsored killing, often striking innocents who are wrongfully accused, which further increases the number of innocent, regular people that die.
Another bogus argument. Out of 1,000 executions, how many at most do you believe were innocent? Most? Yeah right! :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: (And how many "innocent" killed othrs, but were never proved, and instead got fingered for the wrong crime?) How many have been prevented from killing again as a result of the death penalty? I'll wager that on balance (ignoring all other effects) the balance will come out heavily in favor of reducing the number of victims.
And as I'll remind you, the wrongfully condemned now have a better chance of being exonerated, IF they are sentenced to death. Ironic, but true. Result: more injustices are likely to be corrected, because the stakes are higher.
I'm against the suffering of innocent people. If it would be 100% certain to recognize the murderer from the innocent, I wouldn't mind leaving that murderer in the hands of the next of kin of those he murdered.
So now it is Ok if someone else kills them or does whatever. Or it is ok if is 100%, etc??? Congratulations, you've just contradicted your own holier than thou argument.
The system could do more to protect the innocent by properly punishing those responsible for miscarriages of justice. There is usually a chain of misconduct and little personal responsibility. That is a problem with the whole judicial system. The death penalty actually does some good by providing impetus to improving a flawed system--thereby improving more lives than it harms.
And I assume you like to eat the corpses of your executed criminals (and innocents) too?
That's just stupid.
Besides, you could most likely have scared away the animal you were referring to by a warning shot.
This will be fun, as you are going to come off looking really silly. I had fired warning shots at the critter before (a tough feral cat that I recognized)--enough times that he actually responded to the distinctive sound of the slide chambering a round from within the house and would flee (smart one, he learned rapidly before I progressed to kill shots on later encounters.) But it was attacking my cat, eating its food in the garage, and likely to kill the pet eventually. I managed to surprise it while it was in the garage attacking my cat and eating his food again...that was its undoing.
No shooting in the garage, I caught him with what was intended to be a pinning blow with a broomstick. It was a bit more forceful than intended and clipped the base of his skull and neck as he stretched out trying to escape. Paralysis was instant and death was certain based on visual damage to skull and neck. I put the animal down with a single shot in the woods behind the house. Had I caught him as intended I most likely would have shot him, since I had no use for an aggressive feral cat, nor did anyone else I knew. I've "rehabliltated" cats before, this one was not likely candidate for the program.
I've killed plenty of snakes eating eggs, mice, etc. but this critter was different.
I'm going to ignore the long ramble on your version of theology and a bunch of erroneous suppositions in it. My conscience is not any more happy with incarcerating the innocent, than executing them. You have missed this distinction, making yourself comfortable in a badly flawed assumption that not executing somehow removes societal guilt. My conscience is even less comfortable with the guilty being eligible for release, etc. (a serious problem after the overturning of capital punishment.) Furthermore your "first do no harm" logic is likely to eventually free too many that should otherwise be kept in prison or executed. (Not to mention the collateral damage that they produce, consuming resources that would be put to better use, etc.)
There is a need for balance. No execution is not balance, and it does not produce an improved result.
Red Harvest
12-24-2005, 06:26
Well, a person who wants death penalty just for the sake of itself isn't acting in the service of the people.
Another false strawman...:san_rolleyes:
I'm trying to isolate the reasons for and against death penalty.
Looks more like an emotional theological appeal than isolating the reasons.
I've shown that Christianity can't be combined with death penalty.
No, you have not. Instead you've used your own narrow interpretation to *claim* that.
I've shown that acting in the interest of the people to reduce crime and protect people from murder isn't possible to combine with a prejudice that death penalty must be.
No, you have not. And from what I see the opposite is true.
The only reason that remains for death penalty lies in the supporter of death penalty him-/herself. It's caused by emotion, not by logic and rationality.
Mixed bag. Support or opposition to it can be based on either one or both simulataneously. Neither side has a monopoly on the truth. I can respect a fundamental opposition to killing of any kind, but that does not mean I agree with it, nor do I believe it to necessarily be the most just to society as a whole.
I was once for death penalty, because of these very emotional reasons. In my subconscious, I wanted to have a system that showed that evil and guilty men were always punished, so that guilty and evil men would refrain from crime by fear.
Striving for a perfect system that is never unjust is the path to madness. It is a worthy goal, but insisting on it before acting is disastrous. It's like not using a tool because it isn't 100% reliable. Which causes more harm? Lack of the tool, or the use of it?
And when it also turned out that the fear in a society system where innocents are repeatedly killed by the state increases the number of persons who go mad and hurt innocents in this way
That is a preposterous stretch. Fear of being wrongfully executed for killing prompts them to kill? So fear of being wrongfully convicted of speeding makes them drive faster too?
But in a case where the death penalty causes the death of many, many more, only personal emotions can support the idea.That is an irrational fear unsupported by any evidence I have seen.
Red Harvest
12-24-2005, 06:42
You need to be careful threading this ground - the bible clearly states the eye for an eye in the old testiment. Then in the New Testiment it clearly states some contradiction over what is in the Old Testiment. And Jesus also is quoted as saying "give onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, give onto God what is God's. The Bible allows for man to have laws.
Exactly. I considered going down the same line, but went after other easy stuff instead.
I will let Red Harvest address both this paragraphs - however I will point out that you are committing the emotional appeal fallacy in your claim here.
Sorry, I'm not going to have time for it. The summary about it being an emotional appeal is sufficient. I'll add that while he makes the claim that no innocent losses should be acceptable, his choice of action/inaction actually does produce victims as well (and an indefinitely incarcerated, wrongfully convicted individual is also a victim, one who eventually dies.) He can argue about the numbers and culpability, neither approach is perfect. However, as you say he made an emotional appeal.
The death penality serves the justice of man - attempting to link it to a higher purpose is a false arguement by whomever decides to attempt such an arguement.
Render onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, Render onto God what is God's. Human Justice can also occur for crimes committed against man, God renders judgement on our souls for our sins against him.
Your arguement here does not work - your attempting to intermix fear with justice as determined by the law.
Summarizes the religious aspects as justification quite well.
AntiochusIII
12-24-2005, 07:40
Considering the theological discussion going on, I wish to thread around a bit and say that justifying death penalty, or the other way around, with Christian theology puts the application of the law only to Christians. A person with a different religion can simply deny every reasoning in the discussion with "the Bible is not my bible."
Moreover, I am of the opinion that death penalty is unjustifiable in peace. The punishment can be reverted if the wrongfully convicted person is alive, therefore it is in our best interests to keep the convicts alive by their natural human lifetime, in the case that the person is wrongfully convicted.
About the matter of one thousand guilty versus one innocent, I argue that, considering the statistics we've achieved (in other debates long gone), the institution of death penalty does not help reduce crime, but also puts a certain inability that a mistake by the state could not be corrected, therefore it has no use in a modern judicial system.
Another part of what forms my opinion is my own ideological concern that nobody is justified to take another person's life. Who am I to kill you? Of course, I am much of an idealist and this belief might be flawed, therefore I request that debaters "on the other side" ignore this reasoning.
Red Harvest
12-24-2005, 08:18
Considering the theological discussion going on, I wish to thread around a bit and say that justifying death penalty, or the other way around, with Christian theology puts the application of the law only to Christians. A person with a different religion can simply deny every reasoning in the discussion with "the Bible is not my bible."
Agreed, the significant part is that one's religious faith does NOT require a belief on either side. I objected to Legion's claim that it did.
Moreover, I am of the opinion that death penalty is unjustifiable in peace. The punishment can be reverted if the wrongfully convicted person is alive, therefore it is in our best interests to keep the convicts alive by their natural human lifetime, in the case that the person is wrongfully convicted.
Fair enough, though I disagree. Yes, the option is kept open, but it is less likely to be exercised. At any rate, you still cannot reverse incarceration or death in prison for those wrongfully convicted still in prison. Since capital punishment is reserved for the worst level of crime, it seems justifiable to me.
Some might think I would be angered by all the retesting, appeals, and such. That isn't the case. I'm very glad the appeals are made, and that DNA evidence is rechecked. I do consider "getting this right" to be very important. I'm glad that wrongfully convicted are freed. I argue that the additional scrutiny improves the overall system. I am disturbed that innocents are wrongfully convicted, but I must weigh this and consider what happens if they are left in prison instead.
About the matter of one thousand guilty versus one innocent, I argue that, considering the statistics we've achieved (in other debates long gone), the institution of death penalty does not help reduce crime, but also puts a certain inability that a mistake by the state could not be corrected, therefore it has no use in a modern judicial system.
I don't think a full evaluation of the numbers would support that for reasons I have previously given, but it is certainly open to debate. (Much of the debate on numbers will come down to where one chooses to draw the box around the system, and how you compare it. I take a very wide angle view.) I also don't agree that reversability is the overriding factor. In fact, to some degree it encourages sloppiness--all involved can say, "well, if I'm wrong about this, there is no blood on my hands." They sleep better at night, but justice is not necessarily served. The system drivers for review are weakened.
Red Harvest
12-24-2005, 08:29
So prison security needs to increase.
Wishing it doesn't make it so. And there will still be murders. Frankly, while I believe we should maintain reasonable security, I'm more concerned about those on the outside. Better to use the resources on the outside...hmm...back to resource allocation and who is deserving of societies help.
Murderers are released if they are deemed to have reformed.
THAT is an argument in FAVOR of execution. "Reform" is not an appropriate consideration for the crime at the levels reserved for execution. The punishment should fit. This is reserved for the worst varieties of homicide and there is no way they should ever be allowed back into society. They have a lifelong debt to repay.
So when you say that, you actually have fueled proponents of the death penalty. That you would even consider them "reformed" is a VERY serious concern.
No it's not. Murderers may die in prison, but they die of natural causes, like they would if they were free.
No, it is nothing like if they were free. It is in effect a death sentence, assuming they aren't killed by fellow max security inmates.
AntiochusIII
12-24-2005, 08:44
Fair enough, though I disagree. Yes, the option is kept open, but it is less likely to be exercised. At any rate, you still cannot reverse incarceration or death in prison for those wrongfully convicted still in prison. Since capital punishment is reserved for the worst level of crime, it seems justifiable to me.But we could, in the least, extend the "period" that a mistake can be reverted (if a mistake happens) as far as possible by our abilities. It is a concern about the integrity of the law itself, as well. If such practice prevents correction, and the law supports it, and a mistake happens (and correction is impossible due to the capital punishment), then the law is not as "effective" as it could be in serving the individual members of society. A partial recovery from a mistake (since you've used the argument that lost time in prison cannot be recovered) is better than none. It is also a matter that a person cannot give an opinion, or be evaluated, or even serve punishment he is subjected, if he is dead. (not considering "the afterlife.")
And mistakes did happen before.
Some might think I would be angered by all the retesting, appeals, and such. That isn't the case. I'm very glad the appeals are made, and that DNA evidence is rechecked. I do consider "getting this right" to be very important. I'm glad that wrongfully convicted are freed. I argue that the additional scrutiny improves the overall system. I am disturbed that innocents are wrongfully convicted, but I must weigh this and consider what happens if they are left in prison instead.Perhaps. But the value of capital punishment vs the damage of capital punishment is up to a very wide range of interpretations and debate. I am of the opinion that the value is less than the damage.
I don't think a full evaluation of the numbers would support that for reasons I have previously given, but it is certainly open to debate. (Much of the debate on numbers will come down to where one chooses to draw the box around the system, and how you compare it. I take a very wide angle view.) I also don't agree that reversability is the overriding factor. In fact, to some degree it encourages sloppiness--all involved can say, "well, if I'm wrong about this, there is no blood on my hands." They sleep better at night, but justice is not necessarily served. The system drivers for review are weakened.Not necessarily so. If the problem lies with the attitude or the effectiveness of prisons and forensics departments, solve it at the prison and police level. A death penalty, in this case, is just an external "bandage," not solving the true problem for those convicted into prison anyway. Things such as prison murders and prison conditions should not justify capital punishment.
Rodion Romanovich
12-24-2005, 09:21
Instead of replying to each part of your post and explain how you misunderstood me, I'll ask the question I'm most interested in. Where do you draw the line? How many guilty must be killed per innocent for death penalty to be a moral act, and no a Lenin-style act?
For the theological debate, I'm interested to know which parts of the Christian faith you believe are the basis of the faith, as you contradict the most important parts of the faith. I personally don't believe Jesus sacrificed his life on the cross in order to tell us humans to use death penalty. To tell us "use your own instincts and feeling, of which you already have full knowledge, and don't need anyone to tell you anything about, so my coming to earth is in fact unnecessary, as I have nothing new to tell you". To tell us "the parts of my message that can't be immediately understood by applying own feelings are false and should be ignored, not the result of deep divine insight". To say "don't believe in my message, and you'll recieve eternal life". No, he came to tell us of things we couldn't possibly work out on our own, he asked us to trust him and believe that following his message would grant eternal life, and that eventually we'll understand, when we look further than our feelings. He come with a message larger than that of our immediate emotions, otherwise his coming would have been unnecessary. And he said "believe me, and you'll have eternal life".
Oh, and finally I'll tell you something very funny. How many murdered do you think are absolutely innocent? Most murders are carried out in revenge. However, framing someone for murder is a very cruel act against which your system can't defend itself. You play into the hands of those who want to frame people for their murders.
Finally, it's shown that countries with death penalty indeed have more murder. You should stop looking at the little strawman world in your head and look at real statistics :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
Red Harvest
12-24-2005, 09:22
Things such as prison murders and prison conditions should not justify capital punishment.
Taken alone, I agree they should not. However, the same applies to wrongful conviction. It is not the punishment that is the concern in that regard. It is errors in the system leading up to punishment, just as prison deaths and conditions.
I do believe that if you draw the box widely, instead of narrow the scales will be in favor of execution. That is without even considering that the majority feels justice is done by execution compared to life in prison. That is an important consideration.
Red Harvest
12-24-2005, 09:40
Instead of replying to each part of your post and explain how you misunderstood me, I'll ask the question I'm most interested in. Where do you draw the line? How many guilty must be killed per innocent for death penalty to be a moral act, and no a Lenin-style act?
That is easy, I don't have any magic number. More than 1:1, preferably a lot more. Comfort level starts to improve at 10:1. Striving for infinity would be best, but perfection on earth isn't likely. Again it is an oversimplification to go for a simple number. There are a lot of facets to the punishment tool, use of resources for other things, public perception as to whether appropriate punishment/justice is done, prevention of release of horrendous criminals. Additionally, guilty folks facing the death penalty have extra incentive to plead guilty in exchange for life rather than gambling at trial. (And on the flip side it seems to me that innocents have more incentive not to plead, as they get more scrutiny, external support, and automatic appeals. If you are innocent, that should greatly improve your chances.)
as you contradict the most important parts of the faith.
No I do not as has already been explained. You are going nowhere fast on this part and should just drop it.
Rodion Romanovich
12-24-2005, 10:34
No I do not as has already been explained. You are going nowhere fast on this part and should just drop it.
So, what is the basis of Christian faith according to you?
If you see contradictions in the Bible, it's because you interpret it wrong. The one correct interpretation is the one where all statements together form a set of rules without contradictions. "Give onto Caesar what is Caesars" can mean "let Caesar handle the practical parts of God's laws" or "let Caesar decide the laws and execute". In order to know which it is, we must look at the rest of the text, similarly to what we do in any book. No statement alone can convey the entire truth. An example:
"It was pitch dark outside, and the field was covered in snow. Despite the gleaming snow, it was impossible to see any further than a few metres ahead."
The first statement obviously tells us it's dark. Can we see far or short? The statement doesn't reveal. So we use the next statement, and find out that indeed we can only see a short way ahead of us. If we start with the second statement, do we know if it's fog or darkness or our own eyes that makes us unable to see far? So we must go to the other statement, to find the entire truth. I we don't, we may see it as a contradiction that it can be pitch dark and we can still see as far as more than one meter.
BTW, here's the passage about eye for an eye that's so often misquoted and put out of it's context, this time correctly quoted and in it's context:
Exodus 21:22 to Exodus 21:24:
21:22 If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.
21:23 But if damage comes to her, let life be given in payment for life,
21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
So eye for an eye is the punishment given to someone who in a conflict between men hurts an innocent woman with child who in pursuing his own ideology. No contradiction at all to Genesis 18:24 to Genesis 18:32. Death penalty in peacetime is still forbidden. It's claimed that he who kills an innocent in his personal struggle, is to be put to death. He who damages eyes of an innocent in his own personal struggle, is to lose his own eye. He who destroys teeth of an innocent in an own struggle, is to lose own teeth.
Reenk Roink
01-03-2006, 04:06
Finally, it's shown that countries with death penalty indeed have more murder. You should stop looking at the little strawman world in your head and look at real statistics :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
Not to rehash an old argument here, but I remember seeing more than once that countries with strict judicial systems like Singapore and Saudi Arabia are among the lowest murder rates in the world (not to mention other crimes)...
AntiochusIII
01-03-2006, 05:58
Not to rehash an old argument here, but I remember seeing more than once that countries with strict judicial systems like Singapore and Saudi Arabia are among the lowest murder rates in the world (not to mention other crimes)...And I do remember that both countries are totalitarian, with the government keeping order at the cost of freedom (not that Saudi Arabia is very "orderly") I wonder if that has to do with anything... :juggle2:
Red Harvest
01-03-2006, 06:33
And I do remember that both countries are totalitarian, with the government keeping order at the cost of freedom (not that Saudi Arabia is very "orderly") I wonder if that has to do with anything... :juggle2:
I lived and worked in Singapore for a few months, I wouldn't consider it totalitarian. I won't claim its legal system has the kinds of protections that I personally feel it should have, nor the political diversity that it should have, but I felt quite safe there, no matter where I walked. Most importantly, the citizens did not express fear of their govt. to me, even when we were inebriated having rather frank discussions.
One thing I felt certain of in Singapore: if someone was caught committing a crime, they were in for an appropriate level of punishment. That included "white collar crime." I remember reading about a woman getting several years in prison because her husband embezzled a rather large amount of money from his employer with her knowledge. That, my friend, is deterrence.
Red Harvest
01-03-2006, 06:41
So, what is the basis of Christian faith according to you?
If you see contradictions in the Bible, it's because you interpret it wrong.
Listen, Mr. Modern Day Prophet, I don't happen to subsribe to your particular interpretation. Do you get it yet? Am I getting through or has your religious zeal completely destroyed your cognitive capabilities? I tried to be nice enough, but I'm taking off the kid gloves now, DROP IT! I can't stand religious fanatics that think THEIR way is the only way.
Rodion Romanovich
01-03-2006, 11:53
On the contrary, I'm an atheist. I just point out that you're contradicting your own faith, and that you're deliberately seeing contradictions where they don't exist in order to justify your breaking of the faith without being forced to admit you aren't a Christian, but only slightly inspired by the parts you like most. Your move.
Rodion Romanovich
01-03-2006, 11:55
Not to rehash an old argument here, but I remember seeing more than once that countries with strict judicial systems like Singapore and Saudi Arabia are among the lowest murder rates in the world (not to mention other crimes)...
Look at history for more examples, and look at more countries with death penalty, not just the two examples that speaks in favor of your thesis. Like I said, the main idea of law is fighting crime, not some prejudical urge to punish. If it turns out death penalty can reduce crime, it might be worth considering even if innocents are hurt, depending on your ethical views. But if not, there are no arguments left to support it, except prejudice.
Lentonius
01-03-2006, 12:04
If someone has commited a terrible deed worthy of death they should not receive it. The death penalty is painful for a few seconds or minutes.
A dark disgustuing cell for the rest of your life is more painful, and you suffer more. Death is the easy way out
and also, forty years locked up may change a man...
Reenk Roink
01-03-2006, 22:07
Look at history for more examples, and look at more countries with death penalty, not just the two examples that speaks in favor of your thesis. Like I said, the main idea of law is fighting crime, not some prejudical urge to punish. If it turns out death penalty can reduce crime, it might be worth considering even if innocents are hurt, depending on your ethical views. But if not, there are no arguments left to support it, except prejudice.
First of all, no need to be confrontational, I did not state a "thesis" and did not mean to imply one......yet.
Second, penalties for breaking laws are given BOTH to punish the perpatrator and to act as an deterrent to society as large.
Third, your example of looking at history is quite useless, as even as short as 100-200 years ago, I will say with confidence, that almost all (never use absolutes ~;p ) countries had the death penalty (for things like Sodomy even in Britan).
Fourth, it is true that many European nations which don't have capital punishment have low murder rates, but one can bring up the arguement that these nations are wealthy and have wealthy citizens...and that it is poverty that leads to crime. Also, do not be so quick to dismiss my examples as Singapore, which recently hanged a man for drug trafficking (harsh in my point of view, but who am I to say something about their laws?) has a extremely low rate of drug crimes...Saudi Arabia, which cuts off a hand for grand theft (same) has people leaving their jewelry shops open on the street as they go to pray. Obviously these harsher penalties work well as a deterrent...
Now of course that being said, I am extremely displeased with the unfairness of capital punishment in my country (USA). I recently did a statistical problem with Simpson's paradox that showed that black people are more likely to recieve the death penalty for killing white people and that white people are less likely to recieve the death penalty for killing black people as compared to killing white people...
And sadly innocents are hurt when they are sent to life in prison as well. But you make a great point here, I feel we must do all we can do to prevent this from occuring.
And now, for my stance on the death penalty, although when I was younger I completely opposed it, someone asked me the very simple question of "what if it was your mother who was killed?" Though I still felt that in my decision, I would remit the penalty, I also saw the other side of it and how the victims families would feel. Who am I to stand between them getting justice...?
Rodion Romanovich
01-03-2006, 22:27
Sorry I didn't mean to sound confrontational.
As for the capital punishment it's often abused in a way so that it doesn't have it's crime fighting function. You need a scale with more severe punishments for more severe crimes, but if you apply the death penalty, which is the most severe crime, to early, you lose that effect. If someone killed someone by accident but it looked like a murder, that man wouldn't hesitate to kill all witnesses. If drug affairs causes death penalty if discovered, you want to kill anyone you can't trust, etc. etc. Framing someone for murder, which is also a more severe crime than just doing the killing, is another example. For the effect to work, there must be ways the criminal can avoid getting it worse by some action, and making sure that things get worse if cover-up crimes are committed.
As for the "if your mother was killed" argument, I must say that it's difficult to guarantee that the relatives of a murder victim won't try to get revenge for the act. But it's not up to the law to do that killing. I think killing in revenge should have lower penalty than killing when it isn't revenge, but if you kill somone in revenge and that person turns out not to be guilty, your term should of course increase as if it was an unprovoked murder. That would calm down the will for revenge among most people, and make them think twice before judging anyone as guilty, when the proof isn't 100 percent.
Red Harvest
01-04-2006, 04:07
On the contrary, I'm an atheist. I just point out that you're contradicting your own faith, and that you're deliberately seeing contradictions where they don't exist in order to justify your breaking of the faith without being forced to admit you aren't a Christian, but only slightly inspired by the parts you like most. Your move.
Removed by Ser Clegane
There is nothing you have to say about religion that interests me in the least, as I have repeatedly said. I'm not deliberately seeking contradictions, YOU ARE.
Removed by Ser Clegane
Ser Clegane
01-04-2006, 14:11
Please keep this debate civil - personal attacks are not tolerated :stare:
(patronizing other people usually also doesn't help to keep a discussion civil)
Ser Clegane
01-04-2006, 14:46
If the proof would be 100%, but it never is. Especially as so many seem to believe DNA tests tell the truth. It merely says who's DNA is in a location, not how it got there.
Not quite true I would say - if you e.g. catch somebody red-handed, having eye-witnesses and a confession, I would say you can be 100% sure.
The problem rather is where you can draw the line between 100% sure cases and not 100% sure cases.
The question is then - are you rather willing to let the 100% cases live instead of applying the eye-for-an-eye principle, or are you rather willing to run the risk of killing an innocent person (however small it might be) to apply eye-for-an-eye justice to the 100% cases?
Rodion Romanovich
01-04-2006, 15:15
Not quite true I would say - if you e.g. catch somebody red-handed, having eye-witnesses and a confession, I would say you can be 100% sure.
The problem rather is where you can draw the line between 100% sure cases and not 100% sure cases.
The question is then - are you rather willing to let the 100% cases live instead of applying the eye-for-an-eye principle, or are you rather willing to run the risk of killing an innocent person (however small it might be) to apply eye-for-an-eye justice to the 100% cases?
Yes, extreme cases where someone comes out with the victim's blood on his hands, and confesses repeatedly even if the judges etc. ask "are you sure you confess?" and there are multiple eye-witnesses, none of them being biased, and the person isn't exposed to torture before confessing and so on. Then the room for making mistakes is very, very small. The problem is that in reality it's never that simple. A real murder is often done in a way to cover up and hide who did it, that's what differs murder from accidental or impulsive killing. Therefore the police naturally has problems finding any such 100% proof in those cases. By principle applying death penalty to the near 100% certain cases (of very cruel acts only) only wouldn't be very different from having no death penalty at all because murder can almost never be 100% sure. Only accidental killing or impulsive killing etc., which are generally considered less cruel crimes (judging from current punishment scales in most countries) can be 100% sure in more than just a handful of cases in a century, but there we usually don't consider death penalty anyway.
And the problem of not being able to increase the punishment is another thing that speaks in favor of abolishing death penalty. If you've got the death penalty it can't get much worse. Sure, adding torture before the execution can make it worse emotionally, but not in the ultimate effect, which is deprival of life and ability to reproduce and have a family etc. If you have death penalty you make people who have committed a death penalty-causing offense want to cover it up at any costs, by any crimes needed. And if the accused didn't commit any crimes to cover up when he could have, it's also quite strange to give him/her death penalty, as his/her refusal to commit more crimes shows he/she has improved a lot compared to one who tries to cover it up. You need a possibility to increase the punishment if the criminal tries to hide his crime by committing more crimes, but you can't do that if death penalty is used for that first crime he committed.
Ser Clegane
01-04-2006, 15:23
Yes, extreme cases where someone comes out with the victim's blood on his hands, and confesses repeatedly even if the judges etc. ask "are you sure you confess?" and there are multiple eye-witnesses, none of them being biased, and the person isn't exposed to torture before confessing and so on. Then the room for making mistakes is very, very small. The problem is that in reality it's never that simple.
Actually I would not say that these 100% cases are that rare. A case of e.g., armed robbery were an unmasked robber executes the shopkeeper while being filmed isn't that much of an extreme case
And if the accused didn't commit any crimes to cover up when he could have, it's also quite strange to give him/her death penalty, as his/her refusal to commit more crimes shows he/she has improved a lot compared to one who tries to cover it up. You need a possibility to increase the punishment if the criminal tries to hide his crime by committing more crimes, but you can't do that if death penalty is used for that first crime he committed.
Does that mean you would approve death penalty for those who murder to cover up thier crimes or to escape their punishment, e.g. this guy (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/09/inmates.escape/index.html)?
Just for the record - I am opposing death penalty, but I have some problems following certain parts of your argumentation.
Rodion Romanovich
01-04-2006, 15:28
Does that mean you would approve death penalty for those who murder to cover up thier crimes or to escape their punishment, e.g. this guy (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/09/inmates.escape/index.html)?
Not necessarily. I confine myself to stating that I think that someone who tries to cover a murder up with more murder is worse than one who murders and then goes to the nearest police office and admits. In a system where covering up is beneficial, cover-up crimes are much more likely.
Just for the record - I am opposing death penalty, but I have some problems following certain parts of your argumentation.
Sorry if I've been unclear, feel free to ask about the unclear points.
Ser Clegane
01-04-2006, 15:45
Not necessarily. I confine myself to stating that I think that someone who tries to cover a murder up with more murder is worse than one who murders and then goes to the nearest police office and admits. In a system where covering up is beneficial, cover-up crimes are much more likely.
How would that "being worse" be reflected in punishment? If death penalty is not an option how would you deifferentiate?
BTW, covering up is always potentially beneficial as it gives the perpetrator the option to not get punsihed at all (see the case I provided the link to, where the perpatrator was not even facing a death penalty before he decided to sacrifice another person's life for his escape).
While I buy into your argument of opposing death penalty based on the risk of killing somebody who has been falsely convicted, I doubt that a credible case can be made for the hypothesis that death penalty even increases homocide rates.
Kralizec
01-04-2006, 16:12
Not quite true I would say - if you e.g. catch somebody red-handed, having eye-witnesses and a confession, I would say you can be 100% sure.
The problem rather is where you can draw the line between 100% sure cases and not 100% sure cases.
The question is then - are you rather willing to let the 100% cases live instead of applying the eye-for-an-eye principle, or are you rather willing to run the risk of killing an innocent person (however small it might be) to apply eye-for-an-eye justice to the 100% cases?
If you catch a criminal red handed, you and only you (and the criminal himself) can be 100% sure.
But a judge can never be 100% certain that a person is guilty. If a suspects fingerprints are on a knife and a withness claims he saw the suspect kill the victim with it, the defending lawyer could still say that the witness is a liar and that his client touched the knife when the victim was already dead. Very close to full certainty of the suspects guilt, but not quite there.
With harsher punishments you'll want to get closer to the 100% mark.
http://www.truthinjustice.org/dpissues.htm
Jamison is the 119th innocent person to be freed from death row since 1973 and the first to be exonerated in 2005.
I'll try to find some statistics as of how many people were actually executed in the US, and later turned out innocent. My impression so far though is that the US court system is interpreting "nearly 100% certainty" a lot more loosely then I would :juggle2:
I'll try to find some statistics as of how many people were actually executed in the US, and later turned out innocent. My impression so far though is that the US court system is interpreting "nearly 100% certainty" a lot more loosely then I would :juggle2:
The United States Court System is not based on "nearly 100% certainty."
There are some legal experts that can explain it better - but the system is based on "beyond reasonable doubt." Which is why courts use the Jury Trail to allow the advocates for the defense and the state argue their case in front of other citizens.
Ser Clegane
01-04-2006, 16:53
My impression so far though is that the US court system is interpreting "nearly 100% certainty" a lot more loosely then I would :juggle2:
And that's exactly the issue I have with death penalty - even if you have cases that are "100% clear" you still have to define a threshold were "100% clear" begins or ends, and no matter how you define it - there will always be borderline cases that allow for some doubt and create the risk of killing an innocent person.
So the question is what has death penalty to offer that would justify the risk of killing an innocent person?
a) A subjective feeling of justice and revenge when a brutal killer is irrevocably removed from society and gets a taste of what he did to his victims.
Certainly an understandable emotion that could justify death penalty, especially if you can strongly relate to the feelings of the victim's relatives/friends (e.g., due to personal experiences, circumstances).
Personally, I do not think that such a subjective feeling should justify the potential killings of innocents.
b) Deterrence, i.e. preventing crimes by other potential perpetrators via the threat of very harsh punishment.
This would mean sacrificing the lives of potentially innocent people to potentially save the lives of innocent people that might become victims.
To my knowledge there is no credible evidence that death penalty is an effective deterrent (please note that I think that there neither is irrefutable evidence that this isn't the case). Too many factors play a role here (e.g., cultural differences between countries where death penalty either is applied or isn't).
As long as the effectiveness of death penalty is not proven, I would not be willing to make the conscious decision to sacrifice specific people for this experiment (of course you can generally have a long philosophical discussion about the morality to sacrifice the life of one potentially innocent person to potentially save the life of another innocent person - regardless whether death penalty is effective as deterrent or not)
c) Making sure that a murderer never gets the opportunity to kill again
An important point here is that, if life in prison is supposed to be an alternative to death penalty, "life in prison" should really effectively mean "life in prison". If a murderer is considered enough of a risk to society that death penalty would be applied as a means of protection of society from this person, real life in prison without chance of parole can be the only alternative.
Considering this, there is still the potential risk of the convict escaping from prison and thus posing a threat to the lives of innocent people.
This is actually an argument I can relate to to some extent and were trade-offs might be considered IMO. Here the relative risks of a dangerous prisoner escaping vs. the risk of applying the death penalty to an innocent person should play a role in the pro and contra death penalty discussion (and I have to admit that I do not have an idea how this relation currently looks like in the US - and to which extend security in prisons would need to be improved or to which extent scrutiny in potential death penalty cases would need to be increased to produce a clear case contra death penalty)
Of course in this case again the moral question could arise to which extent a society should be willing to kill a potentially innocent person to potentially save the lives of other innocent people (who do not face an immediate/tangible threat)
Long post that hopefully adds some material for thought to the debate and helps to again focus it a little bit :bow:
Red Harvest
01-04-2006, 16:59
Please keep this debate civil - personal attacks are not tolerated :stare:
(patronizing other people usually also doesn't help to keep a discussion civil)
It's a bit late to interject now. Where was the moderating before when I made it clear that he was out of line and offensive and he should drop it? This is BS!
Rodion Romanovich
01-04-2006, 18:24
content removed
/solypsist
Red Harvest
01-04-2006, 19:56
going...going....gone.....
/solypsist
Adrian II
01-04-2006, 20:04
I have discussed this topic once too often to join the fray all over again. But I want to share the answer given by evolutionary biologist David Dawkins when Edge asked him, along with many other prominent thinkers, what he considered to be his 'most dangerous idea'.
The Edge Annual Question — 2006
WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?
The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?
Richard Dawkins
http://www.edge.org/q2006/images/dawkins100.jpg
Let's all stop beating Basil's car
Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'.
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.
Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me).
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.
Link (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_print.html#dawkins)
Rodion Romanovich
01-04-2006, 21:00
edited for content. let's get thsi thread back on topic and away from personal insults and back-and-forth
/solypsist
@AdrianII: very good article :2thumbsup:
Ser Clegane
01-04-2006, 21:02
Final post for the ORG to make sure Legion Ultraprick gets to see it
Wow - you sure have style, don't you :rolleyes:
Reenk Roink
01-04-2006, 21:09
This is a difficult topic indeed..:shame:
from my personal stand point, im against the dp.
not because i believe it is immoral to kill them, but its an easy out for some of these individuals, once you end their life, their suffering is over, i believe they should be locked in a 8 x 10 foot cell for the rest of their natural lives.
then again i also beleive in corporal punishment as well, i dont think the dp is a good deterent anymore, people who commit the crimes that the dp is associated with are usually so messed up in the head, they dont value thier own lives, how can we as society expect them to value anyone elses lives.
by making them live out their natural days in a cell, deprive them of freedom, or choice, that would be more retribution from my stand point..
also if their is a mistake then they can always be released, that is something i differ with the norm on, i think anyone jailed falsely should be not only given hefty compensation, but the case needs to be examined and find out why an innocent man/woman was put their in the first place, and if any foul play is determined by the prosecution, then they should be charged and jailed for their crime..
ill post more later, my wife just got home from work.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.