Quote from mrodgers :

Someone takes someone elses life away and that person deserves to live, at our expense. That is the consensus I find here. The rights of the victim is thrown out the window in any discussion like this over the rights of the criminal/murderer.

It all depends on who's willing to throw away the rights of the victim, and we know it's a criminal, and who's willing to throw away the rights of a criminal, if we're discussing about right to life. I'm not willing to do either of the two, and so is the European Union, which makes the abolition of capital punishment a prerequisite for entering States. Besides that it's quite easy to see why States separate their collective will from what a single citizen would like, whether these States apply death penalty or not, so the "me" point of view is irrelevant and has to be substituted by the "we the people" point of view.

I, for once, know for sure I'd be willing to kill someone with my own hands in certain circumstances, but I also know I have to repress it and live with the ugly sensation of seeing my bloodthirst forever unsatisfied. That's because I refuse the utilitarian positions defining a human life - whoever it is - as useless ballast, or as the life of an animal which has to be suppressed. I refuse to see life from a productive point of view. Moreover I'm unwilling to dehumanise someone just because he dehumanised someone else.

Dehumanisation is the key here, it removes the responsibility of having to deal with another human being. This mechanism has been used countless times to justify the most horrendous crimes. I can't understand why I would have to resort to something that would deny - first of all - my humanity. The first one losing something would be me. But allow me to hope to never have to prove my determination in this case.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

If the victim wants the criminal dead, how is he any better than the criminal? Civilisation is all about rising above basic hormonal behaviour to create a better place to live, and as such there's no room for revenge killing in a civilised society.

Living in cloud castles has caused lot of problems before too, fact is world is never going to be a cloud castle and there is always going to be persons that are better dead than alive. There is too much people anyway, I really hope that valuing human life too high is going to end in future or this planet is really deep trouble.

First thing when creating better place is not to be removing tough punishments, that is last thing to do, first such society is needed to build that there is not going to be any individuals with problems, however I can't see that happen even in theory it would be perfectly possible, just as 3 day work week could have been reality 10 years ago...

Quote from mrodgers :

Yes they do. I brought up the finding your daughter laying on the side of the road dead after being abused and the consensus was that was ok that the person go to jail, inevitably to be let go years later as a free man because that is what does happen.

Someone takes someone elses life away and that person deserves to live, at our expense. That is the consensus I find here. The rights of the victim is thrown out the window in any discussion like this over the rights of the criminal/murderer.

"Oh poor Jim! They found his wife finally, cut up into little pieces in his neighbor's freezer! What? The neighbor is sentenced to death? Now that's inhumane! Oh poor neighbor! I can't believe they can do that, what about his rights as a human being! I feel sorry for the neighbor!"

You get that attitude too?
ahhh... Charles DeBouche... When this guy was on death row, he still managed to kill three more people. They were on Death Row too, so it was no big loss. I wonder if he was given a life sentence, how many would've been killed?
They executed this one guy a couple of days ago. He robbed, raped and then blew the head off of a single mother - right in front of her kids. While incarcerated, he wrote these sick raps bragging about it and wanting to do more. Now just WHAT benefit to society would've occurred by keeping this piece of trash alive?
Oh wait we're supposed to be above that right? WE should spend $$$ to house the slime-ball and insure he gets three square meals and a TV and plenty of recreation time. While those kids get to have mal-adjusted lives, knowing that the killer is well taken care for......You know maybe my view is a bit "barbaric" towards the killer, but at least it ain't "inhumane" to the VICTIMS.

I want to know why people in prisons have proper meals, plenty of recreation time, TV, free psychiatric help, etc when half the population of North America can't afford these things? Something is definately askew there.

If only the imminent 2nd Depression could somehow be limited to Texas...

I'm with Kev. It's the difference between a civilized society and an uncivilized society. Electrocute, inject, gas, behead or hang. Just don't pretend that it's the act of a civilized nation.

The absence of the death penalty is accepted as one of the basic markers of a civilized society. What happens in Saudi Arabia makes that society definitively barbaric.. and what happens in Texas and other states makes them equally so.

Quote from MAGGOT :

I want to know why people in prisons have proper meals, plenty of recreation time, TV, free psychiatric help, etc when half the population of North America can't afford these things? Something is definately askew there.

A good friend of mine in Wisconsin said, a few days ago, that he'd been helping raise funds for an operation on a 6-month old. I was helping to come up with ideas and I threw away a comment along the lines of "if only the kid had been born 200 miles north there'd be no need for the fundraisers". This upset him.. he'd never heard a comment about the US that made it sound so 3rd-world before.

Quote from Racer Y :

WE should spend $$$ to house the slime-ball and insure he gets three square meals and a TV and plenty of recreation time.

Send the guy to Iraq! Then he can kill loadsofpeople, get modern equipment for the job, a handsome salary, and maybe even a medal. It would be silly to execute a man who might become a war hero.

Quote from Shotglass :

and becomming him would solve what exactly ?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

If the victim wants the criminal dead, how is he any better than the criminal? Civilisation is all about rising above basic hormonal behaviour to create a better place to live, and as such there's no room for revenge killing in a civilised society.

Well, how about the fact that ridding the planet of the trash that does the kinds of things Mike mentioned will 100%, gauranteed ensure that the said individual will never cause anyone else the pain and anguish of having their loved ones tortured & beat & raped & killed. Does that not matter? Do you REALLY think that trash like that will EVER be 100% "rehabilitated" and completely unlikely to re-offend?

Seriously, get a grip on this idea guys. Throw your noses in the air and be as "civilized" as you want. Pump endless amounts of cash and resources into a private club for criminals, especially the worst criminals that perform the most vile infractions.

Very rational indeed, wasting resources that could feed the vast array of hungry & homeless.... Instead, lets give that money to rapists and murderers to make sure they get "fixed" prior to returning to the streets and then blugeoning your mom to death with a bat.

Very rational, and very civilized indeed, great work.

When you perform the types of actions that incur the death penalty, as far as I am concerned you indeed forfeit ALL your rights. Period, you should have none.

I find it very oddly ironic that the "turn the other cheek" attitude does not exist most of the time, but when the most awful crimes ever conceived are committed, some how it shows up.

Pardon my passion on this subject.

Interesting debate...
Let's try reason there, removing human rights / philosophical / religious concerns from our minds because they attract passion.
OK in favour of death penalty we have less direct cost - no prison fees for dead people.
But I see flaws there
death sentence take a long time to come to application in Texas, for economical benefit execution should happen right after the sentence. Better understood in China!
Now for indirect costs: What is the cost associated to psychological support provided to the Jury / court / execution crew... who all participated in a murder? Ok we will do a study and then decide if death penalty is financially worthwhile.

Side thought: Old guy with cancer. lots of money to keep him alive for a few month - does the collectivity pay for that? If not how is it comparable to death penalty?
Bring reasonnig further: Older ones, sick ones cost more than they will bring. So we should stop supporting them? Or go one more step further and sentence them to death as they waste collectivity's money?

This may be why us civilised humans came up with values, concepts and ideas to raise a little bit above middle ages. However it seems we easily suffer from amnesia when sufficiently told horror stories of insane murders, orange belt with green ribbons terrorism threat levels and the likes. Maybe we are still in middle ages or getting back there, let's burn a few witches!

Best regards

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Well, how about the fact that ridding the planet of the trash that does the kinds of things Mike mentioned will 100%, gauranteed ensure that the said individual will never cause anyone else the pain and anguish of having their loved ones tortured & beat & raped & killed. Does that not matter?

How many thousands of people are you proposing we kill, here? And why shouldn't we lump you in with them, given that you're keen to bump off a few thousand people in order to save some money?

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Very rational indeed, wasting resources that could feed the vast array of hungry & homeless....

Funny, I've heard similar arguments made about the hungry and homeless - that they're lazy leeches who could work if they wanted to. Maybe we should zap all those guys while we're ridding ourselves of the murderers, then we could save even more money.

If a gene was identified which predisposed a person to violent action, would you want them put down before they offend? Alternatively, if it turned out that socialisation was wholly responsible for making those people that way, would you still think it reasonable to bump them off - even though you're in part responsible for the way they are?

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Do you REALLY think that trash like that will EVER be 100% "rehabilitated" and completely unlikely to re-offend?

As a matter of fact, yes. A large part of people who kill are unlikely to do it again after they get out of jail. The exceptions are the psychopaths, and the soldiers . The former can be found and diagnosed. Many countries either give them life sentences, or only release them after long psychological treatment.

Quote :

Very rational indeed, wasting resources that could feed the vast array of hungry & homeless....

Ironically, the parties who are most in favour of the death sentence (the conservative side) generally oppose support for the hungry and homeless.

Quote :

When you perform the types of actions that incur the death penalty, as far as I am concerned you indeed forfeit ALL your rights.

That's a known tactic: first you dehumanize them by giving them other names (scum, trash, etc.), and exaggerate the crime (= present examples of the most gruesome murders). Then you're free to do whatever you want. That's not rational, it's rethorical.

If you stop seeing the offenders as humans, then you can just as well kill them and sell the bodies as dog food.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

How many thousands of people are you proposing we kill, here? And why shouldn't we lump you in with them, given that you're keen to bump off a few thousand people in order to save some money?

I didn't see money mentioned in that particular quote, but rather reoffending. It's not JUST about money, if the "system" worked even the vast majority of the time, then you'd have a point - but the rule is that it doesn't work. So you're both wasting money and creating second/third/fourth offenses for heinous crimes. That's my point, stop being a bleeding heart towards people that'd slice your head off for no reason given an opportunity.

Quote :

Funny, I've heard similar arguments made about the hungry and homeless - that they're lazy leeches who could work if they wanted to. Maybe we should zap all those guys while we're ridding ourselves of the murderers, then we could save even more money.

Stop acting like money is my primary argument, you know better than that! I'll make sure I kick the hungry bloated kids in Africa out of their complacency and laziness when / if I ever go on a missions trip there. Sometimes economies can get out of hand too, for example it's hot enough where I live that we having lots of working people with full time jobs living on the street because affordable housing is impossible to find.

Quote :

If a gene was identified which predisposed a person to violent action, would you want them put down before they offend?

What a load. Conveniently people are "predisposed' to things when it makes the explanation simple, other times it's their free choice. Right, I'm sure there's a "murder & pillage" gene in there somewhere, get real man. Oh right, HUMANS in general have a propensity for that, but when I say that I get yelled at... You said it yourself though before; something about rising above basic hormonal traits.

Quote :

Alternatively, if it turned out that socialisation was wholly responsible for making those people that way, would you still think it reasonable to bump them off - even though you're in part responsible for the way they are?

More poop, really
"Everyone's doing it"
"Johnny made me do it"
Usually it's kids that have to learn their way past peer pressure. If there's no consequences for actions, people will do them. Plain and simple.

Nothing personal BTW, just debating.

Quote from wsinda :

As a matter of fact, yes. A large part of people who kill are unlikely to do it again after they get out of jail.

I'd like to see a detailed number of reports on that, not published by a proponent of the justice system. I've read countless things contrary to that.

Quote :

Ironically, the parties who are most in favour of the death sentence (the conservative side) generally oppose support for the hungry and homeless.

Irrelevant, what does that have to do with the ideal or what I'm saying? Politics are silly, who doesn't know that?

Quote :

That's a known tactic: first you dehumanize them by giving them other names (scum, trash, etc.), and exaggerate the crime (= present examples of the most gruesome murders). Then you're free to do whatever you want. That's not rational, it's rethorical.

Well, stealing a chocolate bar is NOT the same as raping someone, which I can see it must be in your eyes since "calling a spade a spade" is "exaggerating" the crime in your view. I suspect you'd call a raging murdering rapist a "Sexually deprived life preservingly challenged individual" :rolleyes:

If you can, by some twisted application of protracted logic, convert basic "murder=wrong" into "murder=right" either by "killing <> murder" or "wrong = right". In other words, if you can rationalize the pre-meditated death of a human being (any), then you are a risk to (civilized) society. These are the applications of logic employed by murderers and sociopaths.

Quote from SamH :

If you can, by some twisted application of protracted logic, convert basic "murder=wrong" into "murder=right" either by "killing <> murder" or "wrong = right". In other words, if you can rationalize the pre-meditated death of a human being (any), then you are a risk to (civilized) society. These are the applications of logic employed by murderers and sociopaths.

Then I guess you'd better stop "murdering" cows to eat a burger, they're alive too. Clearly, being a carnivore is evil.

It's not always the action in and of itself that's wrong, it's the context. Stop being so simplistic. And it's REALLY downright bizarre to say that the same logic is employed by murderers, that's quite shocking actually. Their logic is "Gee, putting prostitutes through pig grinder is fun! Wheee!" (This happened in Canada to over 20 women, but we'll spend lots of effort for years making sure that he "gets better") Yeah, that's the same alright.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

if the "system" worked even the vast majority of the time, then you'd have a point - but the rule is that it doesn't work. So you're both wasting money and creating second/third/fourth offenses for heinous crimes.

This line of argument is useless without rock-solid statistics. Personally, I think it's wrong to kill people, whereas you say it's justifiable if the stats bear it out, so I'll leave you to produce the numbers required to make your stance defensible.

I actually doubt that you care very much whether rehabilitation works at all. I imagine you're keen enough to see revenge killings happen that you would dismiss rehabilitation as an unsuitable solution even if it worked.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

This line of argument is useless without rock-solid statistics. Personally, I think it's wrong to kill people, whereas you say it's justifiable if the stats bear it out, so I'll leave you to produce the numbers required to make your stance defensible.

I'll see what I can dig up, give me some time.

Quote :

I actually doubt that you care very much whether rehabilitation works at all. I imagine you're keen enough to see revenge killings happen that you would dismiss rehabilitation as an unsuitable solution even if it worked.

Well, this made me think for sure.

If there was some kind of proof (which there can't be, I understand that) that a said individual was 100% sure to NOT reoffend, then I'm not sure what I would think TBH.

I should probably clarify also, that I'm not talking about death penalties in every specific circumstance involving murder. I'm talking about serial killers for sure, sexual crimes / violence towards kids and whatnot. Circumstances where there is no doubt, and are cut and dried. Circumstances like Mike and JTBo have mentioned.

Now I'm starting to sound like I'm softening on the issue, but I should've clarified this before I started shooting my mouth off.

That being said... If things were REALLY strict, there would probably be a lot less crime; and at the least - a lot less criminals alive

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

That being said... If things were REALLY strict, there would probably be a lot less crime

Very common argument. But have you heard about a criminal who doesn't think he can't get caught? They always think they can get away with whatever they do, they might know doing wrong things, but probably wouldn't do them if they knew getting caught, but they think they get away.

Quote from Blackout :

Very common argument. But have you heard about a criminal who doesn't think he can't get caught? They always think they can get away with whatever they do, they might know doing wrong things, but probably wouldn't do them if they knew getting caught, but they think they get away.

I agree, but still. There's still much less theft in countries where your hand is removed from your carcass for stealing... NO, I'm not saying we should do that, but maybe we could learn something from the principle thereof.

Besides, a very simple glance at crime statistics : populus in places where the death penalty is used compared with places where it isn't will quickly show that this just isn't the case.. and actually tends towards suggesting that the opposite is true.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Well, this made me think for sure.

If there was some kind of proof (which there can't be, I understand that) that a said individual was 100% sure to NOT reoffend, then I'm not sure what I would think TBH.

Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about you specifically, but people who support capital punishment generally. It seems to me that it's an emotional response to the crimes themselves - not a reaction intended to reduce reoffenses, but purely as punishment for the crimes the person was already found guilty of.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

I should probably clarify also, that I'm not talking about death penalties in every specific circumstance involving murder. I'm talking about serial killers for sure, sexual crimes / violence towards kids and whatnot. Circumstances where there is no doubt, and are cut and dried. Circumstances like Mike and JTBo have mentioned.

Now I'm starting to sound like I'm softening on the issue,

On the contrary, you're sounding much more determined about it. You seem to have a set of circumstances according to which you would like to see a person be killed, and those circumstances are very specific. They are all crimes which carry a heavy emotional weight. What you're talking about is revenge.

I said a while ago that I believed revenge killings were not appropriate in a civilised society and that's still my position. Like Sam, I simply don't understand what leads people to conclude that killing is wrong, but killing in response to killing is right.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Then I guess you'd better stop "murdering" cows to eat a burger, they're alive too. Clearly, being a carnivore is evil.

Great! Finally you're starting to talk some sense! Read this book for a well-founded explanation that killing animals is wrong.

Quote :

If things were REALLY strict, there would probably be a lot less crime.

That's what they thought in England, around 200 years ago. And boy, was it a success... Not. Oh well, at least it helped with populating Australia.

The error in the reasoning for harsh laws is that a good citizen feels certain that he won't commit a crime if it is a capital offense. But he wouldn't do it anyway, so that makes no difference. And he doesn't really know how the mind of a less-well-behaved citizen works.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

It seems to me that it's an emotional response to the crimes themselves - not a reaction intended to reduce reoffenses, but purely as punishment for the crimes the person was already found guilty of.... and those circumstances are very specific. They are all crimes which carry a heavy emotional weight. What you're talking about is revenge.

I 100% agree, and you really struck a chord in my heart with that statement (not ashamed to admit it). In fact, I'll be the first to admit that if I ever saw a woman being raped or a child being molested, I'd be the first one there and I'd have a hard time stopping probably even after the guy had stopped breathing. That probably makes me a barbarian in your eyes, but I don't care much honestly. Plus I have long hair and muscles, so I fit the picture.

Whilst I resented your comment about Christians before, (I do think i am a reasonable individual), I'll also admit that I think you've shown me something here that I needed to see about myself; ironically for you even concerning my faith, and where I need to grow (haha, take that!)

You see, I simply cannot stomach the thought of people being hurt / maimed/tortured etc. Bring kids into the picture and I can almost cry just thinking about it. My blood boils inside my veins at the very notion of these things, and I just have a very very hard time thinking that certain situations don't simply deserve death, period. Crime inherantly carries emotional weight, that's why it's crime. You cannot seperate the emotionalism from the facts, because they are interwoven on an intrinsic level.

So whilst I do agree with what you're saying, and it is "revenge" in part, you must also concede by the same token therefore that it's also to prevent reoffences. It's impossible to want to punish a crime in any fashion, without the outcome of preventing reoffences, so by definition I'm not hiding behind that whatsoever. I do want revenge in part, but I definitely also want to make 100% sure that (human) dirtbag could never hurt another kid, so the argument is still totally valid, and is infact tied to the former.

You always make me think too much; I'm starting to despise that in you!

Quote :

And he doesn't really know how the mind of a less-well-behaved citizen works.

Excellent point thank you

Quote :

That's a known tactic: first you dehumanize them by giving them other names (scum, trash, etc.), and exaggerate the crime (= present examples of the most gruesome murders). Then you're free to do whatever you want. That's not rational, it's rethorical.

If you stop seeing the offenders as humans, then you can just as well kill them and sell the bodies as dog food.

Hitler understood this, and that allowed him to do what he did- same for countless other dictators and politicians throughout history. The problem is, when people start believing in these terms, you can just about get away with anything, for a time atleast. We have to understand that throughout history, capital punishment has not been simply a criminal issue, but a political, racial, religious, and ideological one as well.

Quote :

You see, I simply cannot stomach the thought of people being hurt / maimed/tortured etc. Bring kids into the picture and I can almost cry just thinking about it. My blood boils inside my veins at the very notion of these things,

I hear ya.

edit:

but, along those same lines, think of all the people who were routinely murdered (executed) and tortured due to standards that today the majority of us would consider fairly normal and within the bounds of social acceptability. We wouldn't burn a witch these days, or kill a gay person for being gay, for instance. I look back on these events in history as murders by the state; and pushed for definitions I don't really see the difference between state sanctioned murders and individuals committing murders.

Hopefully, killing people will always be wrong, which I think is a very good reason for getting rid of capital punishment (echoing wsinda below)