Do you believe in Capital Punishment? Whether you do or don't, what are your views on this quote? Is acceptance of the death penalty also acceptance of killing innocent people?

"If you are for the death penalty you have to say we are going to lose innocent lives but it is worth it." (Richard Dieter, Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington DC.

I am against it

We have discussed this ad nauseum. I support the death penalty for anyone proven guilty of hurting children, murder (ALL kinds except self-defense), terrorism, planned terrorism, traitors/treasonists, and for people with more than 3 strikes. There is NO good reason to let anyone continue to live in the USA who can't behave. They need to get the hell out or fry.

Enforce that and watch the liberal POS start behaving like human beings for a change.

For the OP, please look up the similar thread ended a few weeks ago in the Ethics section. Anti-CP people's asses were beaten so hard that they are still recovering. All your questions and possible arguments were addressed there...

The fundamental principle that civilization depends on for its survival is that no one may kill another person except in self defense against a direct threat of violence. To kill someone as "punishment" for a misdeed--any misdeed--is wrong for many reasons.It's revenge, which is a Stone Age emotion that we have to outgrow (like religion). It does not punish the perpetrator, who is now dead and has no feelings, but merely punishes those who loved him. This often escalates into an endless cycle of revenge like the one that virtually defines the Middle East: "Your great-great-granddaddy killed my great-great-granddaddy so I'm going to destroy your entire village." In fact this is how wars start. It allows for no error correction. We're finding an alarming number of innocent people on Death Row now that DNA analysis has been invented. How many of them have we killed in error?There are no absolutes in life (including this one) so occasional exceptions must be granted. The obvious one today is a member of a terrorist organization. If you put him in prison his buddies will capture twenty of your people and threaten to kill them if you don't let him out. So you have to execute organized terrorists quickly, before their buddies can start taking hostages.

Other than that, it does more good to keep criminals in prison. Their children (and everyone else) have a constant reminder of what happens to a person who breaks the fundamental rule of civilization. If you kill them, all those children remember is that you're the bastard who killed their daddy. And everybody else gets the lesson that killing for revenge can be justified, so the rules of civilization are mutable. Bad lesson.

Sandy's example is bogus. If you want an illustration of what happens to a society when people in power assume the right to kill those who have wronged them, take a good look at Iraq. Civilization has for all practical purposes broken down and the country is back in the Stone Age.

Capital punishment is revenge and revenge has no place in a civilized society. Notice that the arguments for it are emotional and the arguments against it are rational. Little more need be said.

It's revenge, which is a Stone Age emotion that we have to outgrow (like religion).

You can't be serious. Revenge is an emotion that is going to be with man until the end of time. If you do harm to another, it is a natural, primal instinct for them to even the score with you. Trying to "remove" revenge is like trying to remove happiness, sadness, etc.

It does not punish the perpetrator, who is now dead and has no feelings, but merely punishes those who loved him. This often escalates into an endless cycle of revenge like the one that virtually defines the Middle East: "Your great-great-granddaddy killed my great-great-granddaddy so I'm going to destroy your entire village." In fact this is how wars starts.

On the contrary, most of the cowards who commit crimes bad enough to warrant the capital punishment fear for their worthless life. It is the greatest punishment imaginable to have your life taken from you. What could be more valuable?

It allows for no error correction. We're finding an alarming number of innocent people on Death Row now that DNA analysis has been invented. How many of them have we killed in error?

Who knows? This is precisely why you don't exercise the death penalty unless it falls under these categories: proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt (especially if caught on tape); a major event wherein plenty of eye-witnesses acclaim to the crime; a confession. If you follow these rigid rules, then the mistake count is going to become negligible.

We have discussed this ad nauseum. I support the death penalty for anyone proven guilty of hurting children, murder (ALL kinds except self-defense), terrorism, planned terrorism, traitors/treasonists, and for people with more than 3 strikes. There is NO good reason to let anyone continue to live in the USA who can't behave. They need to get the hell out or fry.

Enforce that and watch the liberal POS start behaving like human beings for a change.

So you don't support killing people as a preventative measure ? Or do you count that as self-defense ?

You probably should look up the already mentioned thread.

To kill someone as "punishment" for a misdeed--any misdeed--is wrong for many reasons.

Says who? Interestingly, I have found NONE of your reasons adequate. Says me. Objectively speaking there is NO good argument against CP.

It's revenge, which is a Stone Age emotion

So is hunger. Revenge is just a word, you should know, you are the linguistic expert. If you don't like it, use payback, you will fell more comfortable with it. Just like you expect to be paid for a work, criminals should expect to be paid for crimes. Equal pay for equal work, equal pay for equal crimes. Agree? Thanks...

See? We are already on the same side!!

It allows for no error correction.

You know what else does the same? Killing victims!! Yes, imagine that! Nobody brought back dead people so far, not even Jesus!!

Here is a better argument: I assume you don't advocate to give up cars. Every year 50 K (no shit!!!) people DIE in the USA, because our unwillingness to give up the automobile!!!

So if society can live with 50K innocent victims of the modern age annually, a few innocently executed is really nothing in the name of justice. I could have used modern medicine as another example, but you got the point...

OK, so since you are a reasonable fellow and you saw the logic in my arguments, I will take you as a person strongly in FAVOUR of CP!!!

Thanks for joining the dark side! :)

You can't be serious. Revenge is an emotion that is going to be with man until the end of time.So are a lot of emotions. That doesn't mean that we have to give into them. Do you indulge yourself in lust at the expense of violating your marriage vows? Do you eat until you weigh 700 pounds and can't get out the door to buy more food? Civilization has been a twelve-thousand year struggle to overcome our primitive emotions with learned and reasoned behavior. Homo sapiens is capable of doing this because of our uniquely large forebrain. It actually has the power to override instincts and emotions. We do it all the time. It's what distinguishes us from all the other animals. (Except dogs, to whom we have succeeded in imparting a modicum of this civilized morality, illustrating just how much the two species have in common.)

The two primitive emotions that have not been totally conquered which are causing civilization the most trouble today are revenge and religion. Since they are generally a package deal and religious people as a demographic believe in revenge more strongly than the rest of us, eliminating them together is a worthy goal and will make a quantum improvement in civilization.If you do harm to another, it is a natural, primal instinct for them to even the score with you. Trying to "remove" revenge is like trying to remove happiness, sadness, etc.That's the "reasoning" of a four-year-old. "He took my truck so I had to hit him." Fortunately most of us grow up and develop civilized behaviors like deferred gratification and cost-benefit analysis, so the world is not run by people with the morality of four-year-olds. With a few regrettable exceptions.On the contrary, most of the cowards who commit crimes bad enough to warrant the capital punishment fear for their worthless life.You obviously have not put a great deal of thought and study into this. Most murders, for example, are crimes of passion. The murderer is overcome with emotion and cannot think beyond the satisfaction of seeing his victim dead. Thoughts of consequences are far from his mind.It is the greatest punishment imaginable to have your life taken from you. What could be more valuable?Once again you make it clear that you're not much of an expert on this subject. Every parent reading this is about to jump up and proclaim that the greatest punishment imaginable is to have his children taken away, harmed or killed. Even those of us like myself who have no children have such a strong instinct for this that we'll sacrifice our lives to save someone else's child. To a slightly lesser extent, other family members fall into the same category. You would, I'm sure, step forward and plead with a robber, mafioso, terrorist or other scumbag to take your life in exchange for allowing your wife to live.

Terrorists base their activities on this principle. We feel outrage and indignation if they kill our soldiers or our political leaders. But if they kill our children, other family, and friends, they know that they can work us into an irrational frenzy. This can play right into their hands, as 9/11 caused America to irrationally destroy Iraq and motivate the world's one billion Muslims to hate us.

No, my friend, losing your life is by no means the ultimate punishment. It's the ones you have to live with that are the worst. To take this to its ugliest extreme, the best way to punish criminals would in fact be to kill their children! I have no doubt that there have been societies in human history who did just that.Who knows? This is precisely why you don't exercise the death penalty unless it falls under these categories: proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt.The standard of our legal system is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and that is damn difficult to establish. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is impossible.(especially if caught on tape)You're joking. This is a science website, surely you understand how easy it is to falsify technology if you have enough money. The government has oodles of money; if they wanted to they could phony up evidence proving that you shot JFK.a major event wherein plenty of eye-witnesses acclaim to the crime;Have you never in your life served on a jury? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. People see what they expect to see.a confession.I get it, this is a big joke. People falsely confess to crimes for many reasons. Common ones are desire for notoriety, saving a loved one, or being one enchilada short of a combination plate in the cranial department. If you follow these rigid rules, then the mistake count is going to become negligible.Even if we assume that is a true statement for the sake of the argument, it is still better to keep the perps in prison than to kill them. It diminishes us all and makes each of us a little bit less civilized to indulge ourselves in the primitive satisfaction of revenge. Furthermore, every time the perp's children come to visit him they'll be reminded that their daddy was a bad man and went to prison for it, and it will help them understand right and wrong. If you kill their daddy they will be overcome with grief and the only lesson they will take into adulthood is that you're the bastard who killed their daddy.

You will have punished those children--who are probably innocent--in the worst possible way: by killing someone they love! It brings you down to the level of a terrorist, punishing the wrong people.

Again, I point out that the arguments against capital punishment are civilized and based on reason. The arguments for capital punishment are based on either emotion or, at best, woefully inadequate study and analysis of the issues involved.

People like to feel that justice has been done even if it hasn't.

I used to be pro death penalty. But study after study have shown that it does not act as a deterrent. If it is not a deterrent to crime, then vengeance is all that is left. A criminal justice system based on vengeance will fail, at least if the honest goal is to reduce crime, and to mitigate harm from the crime that will inevitably occur.

In the aftermath of WW-1, the desire for vengeance led to the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The reparations forced on Germany, and the crippling economic consequences of them, are generally agreed to have led to the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise to power. With this in mind, post WW-2 Germany was treated much differently, with much better results. The same lessons that we have learned when dealing with vanquished nations could often be applied on an individual basis. Though we seem to have learned better than to give in to our urge for revenge when it comes to foreign policy, we haven't when it comes to criminal justice.

And as I have pointed out in threads relating to capital punishment for child molesters, this incredibly short sighted thinking would give those who molest children a perverse incentive to kill their victims rather than letting them go. Dead children tell no tales.

And if you look at the statistics of the Innocence Project, (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) you quickly lose confidence in the ability of prosecutors to separate the guilty from the innocent.

This thread is already boring and we are still just on the first page!!! Same old, same old. I wish I could just hear 1 (oh, please, just one) argument that I haven't refuted!!!

Well, I guess I won't hold my breath....

Revenge is an emotion that is going to be with man until the end of time.


Revenge is not an emotion, it is an act. Until we as a species learn to express our emotions instead of turning them into violence, we are in for the messes we have today. And you're saying that revenge will always be with us is propaganda that makes it more likely for revenge to last. You really have no idea if that is true or not.

I stand by my post. I don't want to pay for POS trash that won't behave civilly.
There should be a special place for all the losers of the world who won't be good members of society. Like Iran maybe. We can send all the people who have 3 strikes against them over there. Teach them a lesson.

I don't want my taxes from my hard-earned money going to pay for losers who are the scum of society. I'm tired of them and their bs. Fry 'em. Save us the money it costs to house/feed/medicate/take care of them/pay their dental/medical care etc...

People have to be responsible for themselves and quit expecting the government/society to take care of them.

Moderator note:

1. This is not the religion forum.

2. Address the topic not the poster.

Any breach will result in a one day ban for trolling or flaming, this is a warning.

-Sam

So are a lot of emotions. That doesn't mean that we have to give into them. Do you indulge yourself in lust at the expense of violating your marriage vows? Do you eat until you weigh 700 pounds and can't get out the door to buy more food? Civilization has been a twelve-thousand year struggle to overcome our primitive emotions with learned and reasoned behavior. Homo sapiens is capable of doing this because of our uniquely large forebrain. It actually has the power to override instincts and emotions. We do it all the time. It's what distinguishes us from all the other animals. (Except dogs, to whom we have succeeded in imparting a modicum of this civilized morality, illustrating just how much the two species have in common.)

I suppose I will alter my definition of “revenge” to suit sowhatifit’sdark’s suggestion. Revenge is not exactly an “emotion“, but rather an action, which is what defines it in the first place. More often than not, you’ll find this action is avoided on most levels by the majority of people. However, there most certainly are certain crimes that transgress all levels of tolerability; crimes that warrant no forgiveness or self-control of emotions in the pursuit of extracting revenge. What I’m saying is, of course we can control our urges to attain revenge, but a better question is, “why should we?” If the criminal didn’t control him or herself upon committing the crime, why should anyone feel obliged to have the courtesy in restraining themselves? Of course, keep in mind we are discussing the worst of crimes (rape, murder, etc).

The two primitive emotions that have not been totally conquered which are causing civilization the most trouble today are revenge and religion. Since they are generally a package deal and religious people as a demographic believe in revenge more strongly than the rest of us, eliminating them together is a worthy goal and will make a quantum improvement in civilization.

I have a few problems with your sentiments here. Religion is not an emotion, and I truly have difficult comprehending as to what led to you believe it was. Next, why do you consider religion such a cumbersome burden? Are you so naïve as to believe that civilization’s difficulties today are rooted in religion? I personally think you’re too smart for something of that calibre, Fraggle. If you ask me, greediness and selfishness are the biggest obstacles to the quantum improvement in civilization that you envision.

That's the "reasoning" of a four-year-old. "He took my truck so I had to hit him." Fortunately most of us grow up and develop civilized behaviors like deferred gratification and cost-benefit analysis, so the world is not run by people with the morality of four-year-olds. With a few regrettable exceptions.

You are misconstruing my reasoning. Working off your arbitrary example, my reaction to “he took my truck” would be “I’m taking it back”. Is this not justified? Also, would you be courteous enough to refrain from these subtle, tongue-in-cheek remarks on my behalf? Please show me the respect I’m showing you. If you truly consider my reasoning and intellect to resemble that of a four-year old, then it doesn’t speak much of yourself, seeing as you reply with lengthy posts to my comments.

You obviously have not put a great deal of thought and study into this. Most murders, for example, are crimes of passion. The murderer is overcome with emotion and cannot think beyond the satisfaction of seeing his victim dead. Thoughts of consequences are far from his mind.

It is the criminals fault for not taking the time to rationally select what options he had before him when dealing with whatever nuisance was on his mind. Why should somebody suffer the fate of death for the stupidity and irresponsibility of a criminal? They shouldn’t. If the criminal didn’t have the humanity in him to avoid pulling the trigger, then why should he expect better from those who intend to bring him to justice? Not punishing a criminal to full extent because they were not thinking of the “consequences” at the time is ridiculous, in my mind.

Once again you make it clear that you're not much of an expert on this subject. Every parent reading this is about to jump up and proclaim that the greatest punishment imaginable is to have his children taken away, harmed or killed. Even those of us like myself who have no children have such a strong instinct for this that we'll sacrifice our lives to save someone else's child. To a slightly lesser extent, other family members fall into the same category. You would, I'm sure, step forward and plead with a robber, mafioso, terrorist or other scumbag to take your life in exchange for allowing your wife to live.

I’m a little confused here. Are you implying that killing the criminal’s kids would be more punishing to the criminal than actually killing him or her? Well, that may be true, but you’re going off topic with this. I’m strictly speaking about the direct punishment the criminal suffers - you’re diverging to something totally different, which I will not get into. The worst justifiable punishment a criminal him/herself can suffer is having their life taken way.

Terrorists base their activities on this principle. We feel outrage and indignation if they kill our soldiers or our political leaders. But if they kill our children, other family, and friends, they know that they can work us into an irrational frenzy. This can play right into their hands, as 9/11 caused America to irrationally destroy Iraq and motivate the world's one billion Muslims to hate us.

9/11 did nothing to influence the wagers of war, the head honchos, and general elite of the U.S.; they had this whole ordeal preplanned before the average American knew who OBL was. If you’re talking about the public that supported these aggressive actions, then I will agree that it was motivated wholeheartedly by 9/11. However, you’re speaking too broadly on this topic. Let’s minimize down to the individual level of the criminal. Due to the fact that they kill daughters, sons, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, etc, they deserve to have done to them what they did to others. Is this not the most ideal of systems? Why should anyone radiate sympathy for you, when you did something so far from the realm of humanity?

No, my friend, losing your life is by no means the ultimate punishment. It's the ones you have to live with that are the worst. To take this to its ugliest extreme, the best way to punish criminals would in fact be to kill their children! I have no doubt that there have been societies in human history who did just that.

Okay, well, based off basic morals and intuition, I can safely say that killing a criminal’s child is not a reasonable punishment. Killing a criminal who killed another person is the most common perception of justice. Tit for tat, as they say? Besides, even if the criminal isn’t executed, how will his or her family benefit when he or she is in prison until death? They won’t. No matter what happens to the criminal, other than forgiveness, the family is going to suffer. I suppose that is simply the misfortune that inevitably follows with being related to a deranged criminal.

The standard of our legal system is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and that is damn difficult to establish. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is impossible.

Whatever is the closest to it, I would have employed. You cannot execute a criminal on the basis of shaky evidence.

You're joking. This is a science website, surely you understand how easy it is to falsify technology if you have enough money. The government has oodles of money; if they wanted to they could phony up evidence proving that you shot JFK.

That seems a little farfetched. Besides, I’m not talking about “hey-look-at-my-cell-phone-picture-of-a-UFO” type of graphical evidence.

Have you never in your life served on a jury? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. People see what they expect to see.

Which is why the criminal is not murdered if the eyewitnesses report significantly different accounts of the story. This part is common sense. However, if a wide variety of people report a similar scenario, in addition to different bodies of supporting evidence, then in all likelihood, you have captured the right person.

I get it, this is a big joke. People falsely confess to crimes for many reasons. Common ones are desire for notoriety, saving a loved one, or being one enchilada short of a combination plate in the cranial department.

Two points I will raise on this: 1) How often does this happen, statistically? 2) If a person is confessing, but never actually committed a crime, then how does the evidence somehow shift to convict him? If Johnny here raped and killed his victim, but the sperm found is not of his, then maybe something’s up with Johnny, right? What I’m saying is, investigations should not be halted simply because of confession. Merely, it should be taken into account when the final ruling is established.

Even if we assume that is a true statement for the sake of the argument, it is still better to keep the perps in prison than to kill them. It diminishes us all and makes each of us a little bit less civilized to indulge ourselves in the primitive satisfaction of revenge. Furthermore, every time the perp's children come to visit him they'll be reminded that their daddy was a bad man and went to prison for it, and it will help them understand right and wrong. If you kill their daddy they will be overcome with grief and the only lesson they will take into adulthood is that you're the bastard who killed their daddy.

Here’s where the wheels fall off for your argument. How can you possibly use the words “prison” and “civilized” in the same phrase? You think it’s “civilized” to keep somebody imprisoned like an animal until they rot? Wow, how “civilized”! No, prisons are not a good solution - in fact, they’re an outright awful solution. The only difference between prison and somebody who is executed (after completely proven guilty) is that they must spend decades in a closet-sized room for the rest of their life, thinking about what they’ve done, how they will never be freed, how their family and friends are doing, etc.

You will have punished those children--who are probably innocent--in the worst possible way: by killing someone they love! It brings you down to the level of a terrorist, punishing the wrong people.

And taking their father away, only to send back his dead body thirty years later is better? Give me a break! Imprisoning a criminal until death is just as bad for his or her family as execution would be. In fact, it may be a little worse, knowing that your loved one is alive, but you’ll never be able to live your life with him or her. You’re trying to convince me your method is civilized, but I truly cannot embrace the civility in taking away a man’s freedom until the moment he dies.

Again, I point out that the arguments against capital punishment are civilized and based on reason. The arguments for capital punishment are based on either emotion or, at best, woefully inadequate study and analysis of the issues involved.

The feeling’s mutual.

You can't be serious. Revenge is an emotion that is going to be with man until the end of time. If you do harm to another, it is a natural, primal instinct for them to even the score with you. That's no excuse for involving the government in one's primal instincts.

The government takes no revenge - it acts in cold blood, in the interests of the state. If you allow the government to kill its citizens, it will kill them in its own interests.

That's no excuse for involving the government in one's primal instincts.

The government takes no revenge - it acts in cold blood, in the interests of the state. If you allow the government to kill its citizens, it will kill them in its own interests.

If the citizens didn't kill each other, the government wouldn't be involved.

I support the death penalty if it can be proven that those being executed are indeed the criminals

If one is a murderer, why should he be able to go free and live out the remainder of his life?
If one is a child rapist.......well, that's simple enough to figure out.

Those people are animals who deserve only death.

Revenge? This is about PUNISHMENT. And the only true punishment for murder and rape is death.

The punishment should fit the crime. The only punishment adequate to address the crime of murder is death. Anything less is a slap on the wrist.

Precisely.

punishment is yet another crime.

punishment is yet another crime.

How?

How?

it is a killing of a person.

Do you believe in Capital Punishment? Whether you do or don't, what are your views on this quote? Is acceptance of the death penalty also acceptance of killing innocent people?

"If you are for the death penalty you have to say we are going to lose innocent lives but it is worth it." (Richard Dieter, Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington DC.

I cannot believe that anyone could say that publicly. That's my problem with the death penalty, and I will go further and say that it was invented for the purpose of killing innocent people. Morals crimes are largely for the purpose of hurting and killing innocent people and dissidents.

If the citizens didn't kill each other, the government wouldn't be involved. If the citizens allow their government to kill them, the government will eventually kill them in its own interest.

Killing is easy and cheap, for governments - much less trouble than imprisonment, etc.

And it both represents and fosters brutality in a society.
The punishment should fit the crime. The only punishment adequate to address the crime of murder is death. Anything less is a slap on the wrist. As a Christian, you are specifically forbidden to employ that reasoning personally. As a citizen of a country, you should know better than to allow your government to make those kinds of judgments.

No government has the wisdom - or even the legitimate authority - to kill its citizens. You embody your fantasies of punishment and revenge in a government at your peril, and to your confusion.

So half the time we get barrages of posts about the barbaric jihadists and their sharia law, and then all of a sudden the self described "small government" "libertarians" are sounding like Islamic theocrats. "Punish" indeed. We should have the "punishment fit the crime", as if the governemnt were some kind of parent or deity dispensing karmic and cosmic just deserts ?

Since there are a few incredibly bad arguments here for me for breakfast, I will enjoy killing them:

If the citizens allow their government to kill them, the government will eventually kill them in its own interest.

And you came to this conclusion by what? History? Never heard of checks and balances? Hey, I have bad news for you. If the government wants to kill people they will, no matter what kind of right you give them, so this point is MOOT at best....

Killing is easy and cheap, for governments - much less trouble than imprisonment, etc.

That is actually a good utiliarian argument, thanks. And actually it isn't even true in the USA, because a CP is way more hassle and costs more. So check your facts first. But in principle, you are right.

And it both represents and fosters brutality in a society.

Why should always just criminals have the right to be brutal? Where is the EQUALITY???

As a Christian, you are specifically forbidden

Since I am not and this argument is not objective, I will file it in under MOOT....

Wait! I have a better argument: As a Christian, you have the right to follow your BIBLE's advice: An eye for a fucking eye!!

As a citizen of a country, you should know better than to allow your government to make those kinds of judgments.

Now you are making overgeneralizations based on YOUR bad experiences with your government. If I show you a dozen countries with responsible use of CP, would that change your mind??

No government has the wisdom - or even the legitimate authority - to kill its citizens.

OK, at this point your argumentative disability reached such a high level, that we have to stop. Since the government is making the LAW they make their on legitimacy, thus saying that they don't have such is just STUPID.

OK, that was a rather light breakfast, anybody else wants to try???

Moderator note:

Reposting moderated material is a bannable offense. Consider this a warning.

Dear Iceaura, learn first how to make a logical argument before you start deleteing my posts. Thanks for your cooperation! :)

Closed