Death Penalty - for or against

[leila762]

I used to believe an eye for an eye... Now I believe that the death penalty is the easy way out.

well said !
the concept of 'an eye for an eye' will leave all of us blind!'

The UK's most notorious executioner Albert Pierrepoint (who officiated at hangings for 3 decades before capital punishment was outlawed in that country in the late 1960's) wrote in his memoirs that the death penalty was of no deterrant value & was 100% about revenge.

the reality of capital punishment in the USA is that the state only executes those who are poor & without economic influence . that kind of Malthusian practice & abuse of due process is surely unconstitutional .

 

[Tenchi]

Leila, I'd just like to point out that Capital punishment was never completely abolished in the UK until 1998. Until that point, you could still be hanged for treason.

 

[donkeyPUNCH]

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind - Mahatma Gandhi

I'm so tired of that statement.

it will not leave the world blind. it will only leave those who commit eye removal worthy crimes blind.

 

[Fjones]

I'm so tired of that statement.

it will not leave the world blind. it will only leave those who commit eye removal worthy crimes blind.

So, you are an advocate of revenge. I can understand where you are coming from in that regard, but why should this power rest with the state when ordinary citizens are denied the right to exact revenge?

If you cut my hand off, I am not allowed to cut your off.

If you rape my daughter, should I be able to rape your daughter?

If you burn my house down should I burn yours down? What if in doing so I accidentally set other houses on fire? Or, what if someone else gets hurt?

There is a reason society doesn't allow vigilante justice. There is a reason why society doesn't want people committing revenge crimes. The Phrase "an eye for an eye leaves all of us blind" is not meant to be taken literally. It is meant to point out the chaos and disorder that ensues when vigilante justice and revenge are allowed to go unchecked.

So, why should the state have this power? The people most directly wronged by the perpetrators of crime do not have any such rights of revenge, thus I don't understand why the state does.

 

[atri]

i dont think its so much about revenge for the family of the victim. it has more to do with being held accountable for your actions. an eye for an eye may leave the whole world blind, but not punishing murderers harshly enough would leave the world in a much sadder state.
if you decide to kill an innocent person for personal gain you should be put to death. theres nothing that person can offer society.
the fact that it isnt a deterrent doesnt matter either. who cares if it prevents more murders from happening? it sure as hell prevents that person from being able to murder anyone else.

 

[donkeyPUNCH]

So, you are an advocate of revenge. I can understand where you are coming from in that regard, but why should this power rest with the state when ordinary citizens are denied the right to exact revenge?

If you cut my hand off, I am not allowed to cut your off.

If you rape my daughter, should I be able to rape your daughter?

If you burn my house down should I burn yours down? What if in doing so I accidentally set other houses on fire? Or, what if someone else gets hurt?

There is a reason society doesn't allow vigilante justice. There is a reason why society doesn't want people committing revenge crimes. The Phrase "an eye for an eye leaves all of us blind" is not meant to be taken literally. It is meant to point out the chaos and disorder that ensues when vigilante justice and revenge are allowed to go unchecked.

So, why should the state have this power? The people most directly wronged by the perpetrators of crime do not have any such rights of revenge, thus I don't understand why the state does.

please refer to this post for my opinion on that.

an eye for an eye is a general statement IMO, not to be taken as literally as you have posted here. I believe it is simply a means to say that if you take something from someone or harm them in some way, you should have something taken, or be harmed yourself. not exactly the same thing, but an equal alternative should be dealt out. Obviously if left to go unchecked people would get out of hand with revenge crimes, which is why the state must step in here. But like I said in the post I linked to, I believe the family of the victim should have the right to dole out the punishment if they so choose. In a prison setting, just as the prison executioner would do. I.E. they get to push down the plunger of the lethal injection, or they get to push the button that releases the gas into the gas chamber.

I'm really done with this argument honestly. Its gotten to the point where I get your point and I believe you get mine. Neither of us is going to have an epiphany here and simply agree with the other, lets just agree to disagree eh?

 

[Mona Lisa]

I'm for it in theory but realise they could execute innocent people by mistake plus it's never consistently applied. I'd have thought life in a hard prison almost a fate worth than death, especially if conditions were harsh. There's no hope in such a situation, etc.

 

[Fjones]

please refer to this post for my opinion on that.

an eye for an eye is a general statement IMO, not to be taken as literally as you have posted here. I believe it is simply a means to say that if you take something from someone or harm them in some way, you should have something taken, or be harmed yourself. not exactly the same thing, but an equal alternative should be dealt out. Obviously if left to go unchecked people would get out of hand with revenge crimes, which is why the state must step in here. But like I said in the post I linked to, I believe the family of the victim should have the right to dole out the punishment if they so choose. In a prison setting, just as the prison executioner would do. I.E. they get to push down the plunger of the lethal injection, or they get to push the button that releases the gas into the gas chamber.

I'm really done with this argument honestly. Its gotten to the point where I get your point and I believe you get mine. Neither of us is going to have an epiphany here and simply agree with the other, lets just agree to disagree eh?

Fair enough. A wise friend of mine once said the goal in a discussion like this is to communicate your point of view. If the other person agrees, so be it, and if not, so be it. As you noted, we have accomplished this.

 

[Fjones]

I'm for it in theory but realise they could execute innocent people by mistake plus it's never consistently applied.

Yes. These important points are rather conveniently overlooked by supporters of the death penalty.

 

[donkeyPUNCH]

^ I do see that point, and I agree that's a good argument. But in my "ideal" capital punishment system, only people who have admitted to multiple murders and show no remorse for them would be candidates for execution. The people I have continuously spoken of (the high ranking gang members in the prison system) mostly admit to their crimes, and speak about them openly because they do not have anything to lose with their 4 or 5 life sentences. who cares if you admit to killing the guy? and, well I've said enough about the gangsters life in prison for anyone who reads it to make up their own mind.

Fair enough. A wise friend of mine once said the goal in a discussion like this is to communicate your point of view. If the other person agrees, so be it, and if not, so be it. As you noted, we have accomplished this.

Indeed. A slightly less wise friend of mine has taught me the value of quitting before you're pissed off at the other person. He will argue til he's blue in the face with anyone, and when the other person doesn't agree with him he just resorts to name calling. Very childish IMO so I've learned that once its clear that you're not going to change anyone's mind on the matter the best course is to agree to disagree and remain civil about the whole thing.

 

[Fjones]

i dont think its so much about revenge for the family of the victim. it has more to do with being held accountable for your actions. an eye for an eye may leave the whole world blind, but not punishing murderers harshly enough would leave the world in a much sadder state.
if you decide to kill an innocent person for personal gain you should be put to death. theres nothing that person can offer society.
the fact that it isnt a deterrent doesnt matter either. who cares if it prevents more murders from happening? it sure as hell prevents that person from being able to murder anyone else.

This is a rather simplistic viewpoint that ignores many of the relevant issues. There are ways to hold someone accountable without killing him.

Innocent people have been put to death. I don't know what the total number is, but ONE is already too many, and I know the total is higher than that.

 

[atri]

sorry im so simple 8)
and what relevant issues am i ignoring?
ill agree that innocent people being put to death is a terrible tragedy, but these days, with dna evidence and forensic science, i think it happens much less often.

 

[Fjones]

sorry im so simple 8)
and what relevant issues am i ignoring?
ill agree that innocent people being put to death is a terrible tragedy, but these days, with dna evidence and forensic science, i think it happens much less often.

In fairness, I only said your argument/viewpoint was simple, not that you are simple.

There are many facets of the death penalty debate. Saying "someone who kills should be killed" is a good starting point for a discussion, but I don't like when people present it as their final and complete argument.

As for DNA testing--Many people on death row have been DENIED DNA testing that could prove their innocence. Society isn't bending over back wards to try to release people from prison, even if they might be Innocent.

Also, Supreme Court Justice Scalia has said that even if DNA evidence shows a person to be innocent, he doesn't think the conviction necessarily needs to be overturned, as long as the person's constitutional rights were not violated.

 

[atri]

someone who kills for personal gain, like murder in the course of a robbery, killing a person in order to prevent them from getting you in trouble (such as a rape victim, or someone that would testify against you), contract killings and things of that nature. i think revenge killings could fall under this as well. im not for killing everyone that kills another person, theres tons of mitigating factors involved. but for heinous crimes like these, i do believe the death penalty is acceptable.

 

[drscience]

employ murderers or those with homicidal tendencies as executioners, or maybe slaughterhouse employees. we just need to keep them occupied.

i sure as hell know i couldnt kill something.

make lemonade!!

 

[leila762]

Leila, I'd just like to point out that Capital punishment was never completely abolished in the UK until 1998. Until that point, you could still be hanged for treason.

I stand corrected .Capital punishment was still the max penalty for treason until 10 years ago but was never used.

In practice hanging ended in the late 1960's & it's worth noting for the purpose of this thread that one of the last people to be hanged was an innocent man!
His name was Derek Bentley & he had the 'mental age' of a very young child.
He was given a posthumous Royal pardon in the 1990's.It was widely accepted even at the time of his conviction that he was innocent .

 

[leila762]

someone who kills for personal gain, like murder in the course of a robbery, killing a person in order to prevent them from getting you in trouble (such as a rape victim, or someone that would testify against you), contract killings and things of that nature. i think revenge killings could fall under this as well. im not for killing everyone that kills another person, theres tons of mitigating factors involved. but for heinous crimes like these, i do believe the death penalty is acceptable.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I can see what you are getting at but in practice it is too subjective. ponder this.....;
1) Who is too decide which murder is the MORE heinious??
2. If there is to be a hierarchy of motives involved in 'heinious capital crimes then the logical progression is that their would be a 'hierarchy of victims' ie , one victim is judged more 'worthy' than another ?
3) Who is to decide this hierarchy of victims ?

Surely that is not right

 

[That_Guy]

There is already a hierarchy of of those crimes

1. Involuntary Manslaughter - One's actions resulted in the death of another because of the commission of another crime
2. Voluntary Manslaughter - Typically defined as a "Crime of Passion" or a death that is not premeditated and occurs in the heat of the moment
3. Murder in the 2nd Degree - An intentional killing that is not premeditated
4. Murder in the 1st Degree - Premeditated murder
5. Capital Murder - Premeditated murder with mitigating circumstances

The primary reason that I am against the death penalty is our flawed "Criminal Justice System". Execution may have a place in a "Victim's Justice System", but the institutionalized acceptance of murder speaks more of revenge than justice.

The cost of keeping prisoners alive has been mentioned in this thread. This is the cost of putting inmates to daeth. We don't have a right answer yet, nor do we have a good way of ensuring accuracy and consistency. Until we do, the death penalty is an outmoded form of punishment.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Can I has this thread when you're done with it plz?

Death penalty? Ineffective as a deterrent, not cheap, and pretty much a modern day bloodsport that sells the lie of an efficient and just-to-a-fault government to the masses. Glorifies vindictiveness, not restorative justice or forgiveness.

Plus, I think prison for life is much more of a punishment than execution.

 

[That_Guy]

ok, no prob