The Death Penalty is a Good Thing

[Blind groper]

It leads to fewer murderers by that murderer, that much is certain.

So does putting the murderer behind bars for life.

Bearing in mind the whole sorry history of convicting murderers, and the large number of innocents that have been unjustly convicted, I find it hard to believe that we can magically change the system to stop this happening.

On emotional things like revenge, retribution, justice etc., I have to say that is why we must keep victims and victims families out of the decision making process with respect to criminals. If a person cannot make impartial judgments, or are influenced by emotion in making judgments, then they should not be permitted to influence the process.

[laklak]

I used to support capital punishment, and on an emotional level I still do. However, given that it costs somewhere between 5 and 10 million bucks to get thorough all the appeals and finally snuff some lowlife, it makes more economic sense to lock them up forever. Then there's the problem with innocent people on death row, which is morally indefensible.

[Jason]

I don't see the justification for founding an argument regarding justice on economics in any case. It's purely a moral issue governed by the determination of guilt or innocence. The moral issue being whether anyone has the right (I say right, not necessity) to end the life of another human being and the determination issue is predicated upon the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven.

No one, that includes the state, has the right to take the life of another human being - in my opinion - and the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven (objectively of course) is unreliable at best. That is why, in a nutshell, I oppose execution as a penalty.

[Seth]

It leads to fewer murderers by that murderer, that much is certain.

So does putting the murderer behind bars for life.

Except that they very often do not stay there for life. That's the whole problem. Too often they get out on a "technicality" and go on to kill someone else.

[Seth]

I don't see the justification for founding an argument regarding justice on economics in any case. It's purely a moral issue governed by the determination of guilt or innocence. The moral issue being whether anyone has the right (I say right, not necessity) to end the life of another human being and the determination issue is predicated upon the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven.

No one, that includes the state, has the right to take the life of another human being - in my opinion - and the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven (objectively of course) is unreliable at best. That is why, in a nutshell, I oppose execution as a penalty.

If you are threatening my life, or the life of my children, or for that matter another person's life in my presence, I have the absolute right to take your life if that's the best way to stop you from killing someone else.

[Blind groper]

Seth

My suggestion all along has been life imprisonment, with 'life' meaning until they are too old to threaten anyone. Not too many people over the age of 70 ever commit murders.

[Seth]

Seth

My suggestion all along has been life imprisonment, with 'life' meaning until they are too old to threaten anyone. Not too many people over the age of 70 ever commit murders.

The point is that 30 years down the road, some liberal judge can throw the case out and release the prisoner. Life almost never means life, which is why legislatures keep demanding "no parole" provisions for various crimes, because historically, long after the events of the crime, when everyone's forgotten how heinous the crime was, some bleeding-heart liberal attorney pleads for a new trial or parole hearing and sometimes a person sentenced to life gets set free on "compassionate" grounds.

If you execute them, there's none of those shenanigans down the road to be had.

[Tero]

I used to support capital punishment, and on an emotional level I still do. However, given that it costs somewhere between 5 and 10 million bucks to get thorough all the appeals and finally snuff some lowlife, it makes more economic sense to lock them up forever. Then there's the problem with innocent people on death row, which is morally indefensible.

Not my problem, let them rot in jail.

[Hermit]

It leads to fewer murderers by that murderer, that much is certain.

So does putting the murderer behind bars for life.

Except that they very often do not stay there for life. That's the whole problem. Too often they get out on a "technicality" and go on to kill someone else.

It is of course easy to dig up anecdotal evidence of murderers, who upon release commit more morder, but statistics show that of all criminals murderers have the lowest rate of recidivity. Sex offenders, by the way, have the next lowest.

[surreptitious57]

No one that includes the state has the right to take the life of another human being in my opinion and the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven ( objectively of course ) is unreliable at best That is why in a nutshell I oppose execution as a penalty

If you are threatening my life or the life of my children or for that matter another persons life in my presence I have the absolute right to take your life if thats the best way to stop you from killing someone else

These are two completely different things though : in a country like mine which does not have the death penalty there is
the legal right to take life : this is known as justifiable homicide and in countries that do have the death penalty this
is still legal too : everyone under English law has the right to defend themselves or anyone else whose life is being
threatened up to and including the taking of life itself though that is not the same as legalising state execution

Seth made the point that most murderers do not get automatic life but murder like all crimes is graded : some
are more severe than others and sentencing should reflect this : so cannot just lump them all together : now
for example a crime of passion committed in the heat of the moment is not the same as a spate of serial
killings : one who had committed the former has an excellent chance of rehabilitation whereas one who
had committed the latter evidently not : so you just cannot lock all murderers up for an equal amount
of time as their crimes are not of equal proportion : for if they were sentencing would be the same

[Jason]

I don't see the justification for founding an argument regarding justice on economics in any case. It's purely a moral issue governed by the determination of guilt or innocence. The moral issue being whether anyone has the right (I say right, not necessity) to end the life of another human being and the determination issue is predicated upon the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven.

No one, that includes the state, has the right to take the life of another human being - in my opinion - and the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven (objectively of course) is unreliable at best. That is why, in a nutshell, I oppose execution as a penalty.

If you are threatening my life, or the life of my children, or for that matter another person's life in my presence, I have the absolute right to take your life if that's the best way to stop you from killing someone else.

No you don't.

[Jason]

No one that includes the state has the right to take the life of another human being in my opinion and the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven ( objectively of course ) is unreliable at best That is why in a nutshell I oppose execution as a penalty

If you are threatening my life or the life of my children or for that matter another persons life in my presence I have the absolute right to take your life if thats the best way to stop you from killing someone else

These are two completely different things though : in a country like mine which does not have the death penalty there is
the legal right to take life : this is known as justifiable homicide and in countries that do have the death penalty this
is still legal too : everyone under English law has the right to defend themselves or anyone else whose life is being
threatened up to and including the taking of life itself though that is not the same as legalising state execution

Seth made the point that most murderers do not get automatic life but murder like all crimes is graded : some
are more severe than others and sentencing should reflect this : so cannot just lump them all together : now
for example a crime of passion committed in the heat of the moment is not the same as a spate of serial
killings : one who had committed the former has an excellent chance of rehabilitation whereas one who
had committed the latter evidently not : so you just cannot lock all murderers up for an equal amount
of time as their crimes are not of equal proportion : for if they were sentencing would be the same

I am talking of moral rights, not legal rights. You may find it necessary to take the life of another human being and in that case it is justifiable, but it is not morally right. The question of what qualifies as necessary will have varying answers - Seth's simple example would be one I would accept given that there was no other reasonable course of action available.

[Seth]

I don't see the justification for founding an argument regarding justice on economics in any case. It's purely a moral issue governed by the determination of guilt or innocence. The moral issue being whether anyone has the right (I say right, not necessity) to end the life of another human being and the determination issue is predicated upon the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven.

No one, that includes the state, has the right to take the life of another human being - in my opinion - and the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven (objectively of course) is unreliable at best. That is why, in a nutshell, I oppose execution as a penalty.

If you are threatening my life, or the life of my children, or for that matter another person's life in my presence, I have the absolute right to take your life if that's the best way to stop you from killing someone else.

No you don't.

Yes, I do.

[Jason]

I don't see the justification for founding an argument regarding justice on economics in any case. It's purely a moral issue governed by the determination of guilt or innocence. The moral issue being whether anyone has the right (I say right, not necessity) to end the life of another human being and the determination issue is predicated upon the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven.

No one, that includes the state, has the right to take the life of another human being - in my opinion - and the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven (objectively of course) is unreliable at best. That is why, in a nutshell, I oppose execution as a penalty.

If you are threatening my life, or the life of my children, or for that matter another person's life in my presence, I have the absolute right to take your life if that's the best way to stop you from killing someone else.

No you don't.

Yes, I do.

No, you do not.

[Seth]

I don't see the justification for founding an argument regarding justice on economics in any case. It's purely a moral issue governed by the determination of guilt or innocence. The moral issue being whether anyone has the right (I say right, not necessity) to end the life of another human being and the determination issue is predicated upon the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven.

No one, that includes the state, has the right to take the life of another human being - in my opinion - and the degree to which guilt can or cannot be proven (objectively of course) is unreliable at best. That is why, in a nutshell, I oppose execution as a penalty.

If you are threatening my life, or the life of my children, or for that matter another person's life in my presence, I have the absolute right to take your life if that's the best way to stop you from killing someone else.

No you don't.

Yes, I do.

No, you do not.

Yes, I do, and the law agrees. If you think I don't, try threatening my life and see what happens.