The Death Penalty is a Good Thing

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Casual dismissals aside, why would you warehouse murderers?

I assume this is directed at me and 'warehouse' means 'incarcerate'.

Because the death penalty is never administered fairly, it doesn't work, it is an act of barbarism that makes criminals of all of us, it always targets the weak, poor and vulnerable disproportionately, it is applied tribally and the only arguments I've ever heard equate to the 'he took a life, he loses his'. Well, congratulation, you can make a statement that is symmetrical. There is no argument there. It's just an ethical palindrome. I am of the opinion that the state should never have that power, nor should it mimic the crime in it's punishment, since the distinction between murder and execution as punishment for me is non-existent.

"Never"?

I have a different attitude about what's murder and what's putting a rabid dog down, I guess. Coffins are far less "porous" than a prison.

[Meekychuppet]

Casual dismissals aside, why would you warehouse murderers?

I assume this is directed at me and 'warehouse' means 'incarcerate'.

Because the death penalty is never administered fairly, it doesn't work, it is an act of barbarism that makes criminals of all of us, it always targets the weak, poor and vulnerable disproportionately, it is applied tribally and the only arguments I've ever heard equate to the 'he took a life, he loses his'. Well, congratulation, you can make a statement that is symmetrical. There is no argument there. It's just an ethical palindrome. I am of the opinion that the state should never have that power, nor should it mimic the crime in it's punishment, since the distinction between murder and execution as punishment for me is non-existent.

"Never"?

I have a different attitude about what's murder and what's putting a rabid dog down, I guess. Coffins are far less "porous" than a prison.

You're welcome to your attitude. That still does not translate in to an argument in favour. I am afraid your bloodlust and sense of justice is not good enough. The fact that you need to dehumanise a person to justify it is extremely telling.

[mistermack]

I think, if you have to have a death penalty, then the judge and jury should be executed, if it turns out they executed an innocent person.
Or in the case of false evidence, the person who lied under oath.
It might sharpen up the process, and reasonable doubt might be take seriously then.
.

Whilst this is a stupid thing to say, it does demonstrate another issue.

Don't they have jokes down your way?
However, it seems you got the point.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're welcome to your attitude. That still does not translate in to an argument in favour. I am afraid your bloodlust and sense of justice is not good enough. The fact that you need to dehumanise a person to justify it is extremely telling.

And your argument doesn't either.

"bloodlust"? Yet, I was baying at the moon to kill somebody right then and he happened to be handy, so I just killed him and left him in the street. Then I went to the orphanage with a chainsaw. It was all good.

[Meekychuppet]

I think, if you have to have a death penalty, then the judge and jury should be executed, if it turns out they executed an innocent person.
Or in the case of false evidence, the person who lied under oath.
It might sharpen up the process, and reasonable doubt might be take seriously then.
.

Whilst this is a stupid thing to say, it does demonstrate another issue.
Don't they have jokes down your way?
However, it seems you got the point.
.

Trust me. On this issue there is nothing so dumb that you can't find somebody who means it.

[stripes4]

If someone commits murder, they should be kept away from society in order that they don't murder or maim again. I don't think more killing is the answer. Even if it could be guaranteed that we had the right culprit, I still don't think it's right. I think killing people is wrong. Taking life in a calculated way is as wrong as taking it in anger or fury or passion or whatever. There ARE other ways of ensuring these people don't have the opportunity to kill again, and if it's vengeance we're after, a lifetime of losing one's freedom sounds like a biggy to me. Also, these people can work to create the resources to financially support themselves. I was joking about the bike - ish- but people in prison can still contribute by working, can't they?

[Meekychuppet]

You're welcome to your attitude. That still does not translate in to an argument in favour. I am afraid your bloodlust and sense of justice is not good enough. The fact that you need to dehumanise a person to justify it is extremely telling.

And your argument doesn't either.

"bloodlust"? Yet, I was baying at the moon to kill somebody right then and he happened to be handy, so I just killed him and left him in the street. Then I went to the orphanage with a chainsaw. It was all good.

My argument doesn't translate in to an argument? Right, I think I know what you mean, so, why doesn't it?

You're doing it again, invoking emotive language to justify something that doesn't hold up. You wish to kill humans you describe as rabid dogs, and you do so for purely emotional reasons. I stand by my description.

[Meekychuppet]

If someone commits murder, they should be kept away from society in order that they don't murder or maim again. I don't think more killing is the answer. Even if it could be guaranteed that we had the right culprit, I still don't think it's right. I think killing people is wrong. Taking life in a calculated way is as wrong as taking it in anger or fury or passion or whatever. There ARE other ways of ensuring these people don't have the opportunity to kill again, and if it's vengeance we're after, a lifetime of losing one's freedom sounds like a biggy to me. Also, these people can work to create the resources to financially support themselves. I was joking about the bike - ish- but people in prison can still contribute by working, can't they?

I think this is again too simplistic. You can't set rules. How many murderers re-offend? Crimes of passion, at least, I am willing to bet have a low recidivism rate. The problem with 'they might do it again' is that it extends to the point where your only solution is to punish everything with indefinite prison in case they do it again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're welcome to your attitude. That still does not translate in to an argument in favour. I am afraid your bloodlust and sense of justice is not good enough. The fact that you need to dehumanise a person to justify it is extremely telling.

And your argument doesn't either.

"bloodlust"? Yet, I was baying at the moon to kill somebody right then and he happened to be handy, so I just killed him and left him in the street. Then I went to the orphanage with a chainsaw. It was all good.

My argument doesn't translate in to an argument? Right, I think I know what you mean, so, why doesn't it?

You're doing it again, invoking emotive language to justify something that doesn't hold up. You wish to kill humans you describe as rabid dogs, and you do so for purely emotional reasons. I stand by my description.

Well, you have fun with that, Meeky.

[Trolldor]

Judging by research, having voluntary and legalised abortion coupled with stricter punishment of seemingly minor offences (vandalism etc.) actually seems to reduce the rates of crime across the board.

[Meekychuppet]

Judging by research, having voluntary and legalised abortion coupled with stricter punishment of seemingly minor offences (vandalism etc.) actually seems to reduce the rates of crime across the board.

Please tell me you're not arguing causation there.

[mistermack]

If there was only 1% wrongful convictions for murder, I would still rather 99 escaped the death penalty, than one innocent one got wrongfully executed.
Gawdzilla thinks it's worth killing innocent people, in order to kill the guilty.
That's totally immoral.
Imagine you're innocent, and on trial for your life. You could have a jury where ten of them actually voted for George Bush. What chance would you have of them seeing the truth?
.

[Hermit]

Casual dismissals aside, why would you warehouse murderers?

1. It's barbaric.
2. It stops innocent people being executed.

Reason one is enough for me, when argued properly and well. You don't need to invoke the 'just in case' argument.

I regard each on their own sufficient reason to reject state-sanctioned executions, but they remain worth mentioning, both.

Another one you actually mentioned, is the off-balance incidence of those executions. During Henry IIIV's reign something like 40-70,000 people (I can't find the reference for the estimate now) were hanged, basically for committing the crime of being poor and homeless. Things are not so bad today, of course, but statistically speaking, you are still much more likely to be executed in countries that do executions, if you are poor.

[Trolldor]

If the figures add up.
Just as increased police presence reduces incidents of crime across the board.

[Meekychuppet]

If the figures add up.
Just as increased police presence reduces incidents of crime across the board.

Oh dear.