Should there be a death penalty?

[ARealConservative]

Should I just leave then? I can not have a voice? Here we are talking about executions and the mention of God becomes anathema? Lord have mercy!

I'm not going to ask you to leave, but I will simply point out that I asked for proof of something, and scripture isn't even close to proof.

 

[AxisMundi]

Should I just leave then? I can not have a voice? Here we are talking about executions and the mention of God becomes anathema? Lord have mercy!

We are not a theodemocracy, theonomy, or outright theocracy, so once you take your god and your religion out of the realm of personal opinions and attempt to apply your religious beliefs to US Law your religion and your god simply do not apply.

 

[mtj458]

Used to be very against it, I'm undecided now though.

I'm against the execution itself. The death penalty also deters murders and those lives are just as important, so it's ethically ambiguous to me. There's something to be said that I'd rather a murderer be killed than an innocent person and that I'd prefer one death to two or three.

It's more expensive in the US to execute than life in prison is thanks to the methods we use for execution, so that's a utilitarian argument against it.

And yes, we might kill innocent people. We might also kill innocent people from driving, but I'm not ready to make that illegal based on the same cost-benefit analysis. Again on the same lines, we may convict innocent people for life in prison, but that doesn't mean we should have no jails (and yes, I know some here are against jails. I'm not). An innocent person with a life term could potentially be released, but its very unlikely. It should definitely be a states issue, but I have no huge problem with either decision and I'm not ready to say for sure yet.

 

[Bman]

There's a big difference. If you give someone the death penalty, and they end up being innocent, the blood is on your hands because you made a decision based upon events that had already happened. If a man serves 50 years in prison for third-degree murder, and he gets out and kills again, the blood is not on your hands because you could not foresee this person's future actions, and they paid their dues. One cannot take away rights or give punishment based on what this person MIGHT do again. It isn't fair to kill a man who doesn't deserve to die by reasoning that this person might violate someone else's rights again. This is basically sacrificing freedom for safety. Benjamin Franklin once said that, "those who are willing to trade freedom for safety will lose both and deserve neither." You cannot punish a person beyond what they deserve for safety reasons. Doing such things is simply tyrannical and has a lot of ties with neoconservatism.

I'm nor so sure I'd say it's that simple. Take for instance Jeffrey Dhamer. Is it really a question of "if he MIGHT have done it again?" It may be fair to say a first time murderer is exempt of being charged with a death penalty, but 2 or more would seem to be a trend.

 

[AxisMundi]

Used to be very against it, I'm undecided now though.

I'm against the execution itself. The death penalty also deters murders and those lives are just as important, so it's ethically ambiguous to me. There's something to be said that I'd rather a murderer be killed than an innocent person and that I'd prefer one death to two or three.

It's more expensive in the US to execute than life in prison is thanks to the methods we use for execution, so that's a utilitarian argument against it.

And yes, we might kill innocent people. We might also kill innocent people from driving, but I'm not ready to make that illegal based on the same cost-benefit analysis. Again on the same lines, we may convict innocent people for life in prison, but that doesn't mean we should have no jails (and yes, I know some here are against jails. I'm not). An innocent person with a life term could potentially be released, but its very unlikely. It should definitely be a states issue, but I have no huge problem with either decision and I'm not ready to say for sure yet.

There are no statistics which show that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

When you think about it, it is obvious why. A murderer isn't likely to kill someone and then, since murder is against the law, walk into a police station and tell the cops what he just did. Murders, like other criminals, don't expect to be caught.

 

[TER]

I do not buy into your religion, so it is not "gloating".

You also demonstrate you don't have an ounce of mercy.

 

[TER]

We are not a theodemocracy, theonomy, or outright theocracy, so once you take your god and your religion out of the realm of personal opinions and attempt to apply your religious beliefs to US Law your religion and your god simply do not apply.

Yes, you rather a society of merciless animals.

 

[AxisMundi]

Yes, you rather a society of merciless animals.

Any other ad hominem fallacies you'd like to add?

You also demonstrate you don't have an ounce of mercy.

Since when is murder, whether carried out by a citizen or the state, mercy?

 

[Bman]

Yes, you rather a society of merciless animals.

I'd rather a society of enlightened animals. How ever one achieves enlightenment I care not.

 

[guitarlifter]

While I respect your position, a criminal is a criminal for breaking criminal laws in this Nation, not for breaking your god's commandments. Being "saved" simply matter not, especially for the victims.

That said, I do not agree with the death penalty for a number of reasons. Among them...

1. We have gone from a Nation of "innocent until proven guilty..." to a country of "guilty until proven to have the better lawyer".

2. Death is no punishment, it is over too quickly.

I advocate a complete restructuring of our entire penal system. Rehabilitation has proven itself to be a failed system. Inmates become institutionalized and some commit crimes soon after being released, either unchanged by said rehabilitation, or as a means to get back in on purpose.

Quite simply, prison needs to become a punishment once more.

Besides a restructuring of our prison system, we must restructure our laws as well. Examples? Eliminate pot/coke possession as a crime. Increase punishment for crimes against a person, ie murder and/or rape. ATM, a convict can get more years for grand larceny than murder under certain circumstances.

Super-max style prisons across the board is what I suggest. One person per cell, no contact with other inmates, and hour of shower and sunshine a day. No cable TV, no weights, no congenial visits, none of that.

Let a murder stew in his own juices in such a prison for the rest of his life and slowly go insane.

I never said that a person is a criminal for breaking God's commandments. My political ideology is almost 100% perfectly inline with libertarianism, and this belief of mine is actually backed by Christian theology. I don't believe that anything that doesn't have a victim should be a crime even if a lot of those actions are sinful, according to my beliefs. I was only saying that the death penalty kills the chance of their salvation (unless they get saved before execution). Like I said, I've seen murderers become truly saved after entering prison. Secondly, there are plenty of people out there who, if they were victimized, would care about their aggressor's salvation. If my whole family was raped, then murdered, I would still care about the aggressor's salvation enough to not warrant the death penalty because this person could still change, even if they had no chance of ever getting out of prison. No matter the circumstances, I would always still care enough about a person's salvation to not give them the death penalty. I'm sure plenty of others feel the same way. To me, the means justify the ends, for that is God's way.

Aside from theological arguments that many nonbelievers dismiss, I do agree with some of your points. Today's society has created a lot of misconvictions, and that alone is killing a lot of innocent people, and that alone could warrant the dismissal of the death penalty. On top of this, the cost of carrying out the death penalty is too high. However, your proposed position on punishment is too harsh. These people cannot get better in situations like that. I'm not saying to make it like Peewee's playhouse, but to your extent is not helpful or just.

 

[mtj458]

There are no statistics which show that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

When you think about it, it is obvious why. A murderer isn't likely to kill someone and then, since murder is against the law, walk into a police station and tell the cops what he just did. Murders, like other criminals, don't expect to be caught.

This seems to me like you haven't followed the research on the subject. http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm keeps a pretty good list of academic studies on the subject and most of the ones there find at least some deterrence, some approaching saving 20 lives per execution. There's no clear way to get a perfect answer but the consensus seems to be at least some deterring effect.

 

[guitarlifter]

I'm nor so sure I'd say it's that simple. Take for instance Jeffrey Dhamer. Is it really a question of "if he MIGHT have done it again?" It may be fair to say a first time murderer is exempt of being charged with a death penalty, but 2 or more would seem to be a trend.

If someone gets out of jail twice from murdering on two separate occasions, then I think that we need to reevaluate the incarceration length here. After two murders, I'd say that life in prison without parole is okay, and it would surely stop a third murder from happening, so problem solved.

 

[Bman]

If someone gets out of jail twice from murdering on two separate occasions, then I think that we need to reevaluate the incarceration length here. After two murders, I'd say that life in prison is okay.

To me in such a case I don't want to pay for the person to be in jail. As horrible as murder is I think at some point if someone is not deemed safe enough to be part of society for actions against others it is far more reasonable to be rid of them at the lowest remaining cost to the rest of society.

 

[AxisMundi]

I never said that a person is a criminal for breaking God's commandments. I don't believe that anything that doesn't have a victim should be a crime even if a lot of those actions are sinful, according to my beliefs. I was only saying that the death penalty kills the chance of their salvation (unless they get saved before execution). Like I said, I've seen murderers become truly saved after entering prison. Secondly, there are plenty of people out there who, if they were victimized, would care about their aggressor's salvation. If my whole family was raped, then murdered, I would still care about the aggressor's salvation enough to not warrant the death penalty because this person could still change, even if they had no chance of ever getting out of prison. No matter the circumstances, I would always still care enough about a person's salvation to not give them the death penalty. I'm sure plenty of others feel the same way. To me, the means justify the ends, for that is God's way.

Aside from theological arguments that many nonbelievers dismiss, I do agree with some of your points. Today's society has created a lot of misconvictions, and that alone is killing a lot of innocent people, and that alone could warrant the dismissal of the death penalty. On top of this, the cost of carrying out the death penalty is too high. However, your proposed position on punishment is too harsh. These people cannot get better in situations like that. I'm not saying to make it like Peewee's playhouse, but to your extent is not helpful or just.

Thank you for clarifying.

However, it does not change my comment.

Salvation is not part of the US criminal law system, nor should it be a consideration in that system either.

 

[AxisMundi]

This seems to me like you haven't followed the research on the subject. http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm keeps a pretty good list of academic studies on the subject and most of the ones there find at least some deterrence, some approaching saving 20 lives per execution. There's no clear way to get a perfect answer but the consensus seems to be at least some deterring effect.

And there are studies sowing the opposite as well, so I agree there is no clear answers.

The difficulty lies in there not being an independent source for such studies. They are either generated and/or supported by the pro side or the anti side.

So we also must take into consideration such facts as innocent men released from jail (for whatever charges) and financial considerations as well.

 

[mtj458]

I brought this up earlier but I'm curious if anyone has a good answer.

Some people have made the argument that we shouldn't have a death penalty because we might kill an innocent person. We also might kill an innocent person by driving our car or losing control of a camp fire. How do you make the distinction of when you can use this argument? I have trouble seeing how you could solve this other than arbitrarily deciding on a probability that makes potentially killing people okay.

 

[guitarlifter]

Thank you for clarifying.

However, it does not change my comment.

Salvation is not part of the US criminal law system, nor should it be a consideration in that system either.

No, it shouldn't, but I could and did still argue against the death penalty by other means by which pretty much everyone can agree. Another poster earlier made a bullet list that hit a lot of good points against the death penalty that I would fully support.

 

[cindy25]

when one might emotionally want the death penalty for certain crimes, its more rational to have life in prison without parole even for the worst of the worst ; even Michael Vick should not have been executed, despite what Tucker Carlson said. life would have been enough.

 

[guitarlifter]

I brought this up earlier but I'm curious if anyone has a good answer.

Some people have made the argument that we shouldn't have a death penalty because we might kill an innocent person. We also might kill an innocent person by driving our car or losing control of a camp fire. How do you make the distinction of when you can use this argument? I have trouble seeing how you could solve this other than arbitrarily deciding on a probability that makes potentially killing people okay.

It is because we don't go out intentionally trying to kill guilty people. I don't play superman with my SUV by trying to run over guilty people even if they deserved it because, what if I hit someone who was simply running? The difference is the intent to bring justice. Killing an innocent person is not justifying at all, which defeats the purpose of justice. Killing someone accidentally while not trying to bring justice to any particular situation is morally regrettable, but one is not morally held responsible (which is different from legally responsible). It has to do with deliberately killing someone versus just an accident. A person is not morally guilty for accidentally killing someone, but, if they try to kill someone who is innocent, then they are morally guilty for it. They should have confirmed the truth beforehand.

 

[guitarlifter]

when one might emotionally want the death penalty for certain crimes, its more rational to have life in prison without parole even for the worst of the worst ; even Michael Vick should not have been executed, despite what Tucker Carlson said. life would have been enough.

A single penny taken out of Michael Vick's pocket by government hands would've been too much. The only party who had a right to punish Michael Vick was the NFL, who he had agreed by contract to uphold moral behavior. The government is not the moral police. Animals have no rights. Good night.