I've always believed the death penalty was morally necesary as the only just punishment for taking a life. Now a couple economists have shown that each time a convicted murderer is executed, 18 innocent lives are saved.

The most dramatic finding comes from Joanna Shepherd and a team at Emory University in Atlanta. They have taken advantage of the fact that some parts of the US don't execute murderers, and only a handful of states execute them consistently. (One of those states, Texas, accounts for more than one-third of the executions in the US since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on capital punishment in 1976.)

After taking account of other regional variations thought likely to influence murder rates - among them the mix of races and the resources devoted to policing - they found that executions explained most of what was left.

As they starkly report their central finding: each execution results in an average of 18 fewer murders. http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/death-penalty-analysis-is-a-real-lifesaver/2005/12/06/1133829595609.html

So there we are. Refuse to impose the just sentence upon convicted murderers, and condemn 18 innocents to death. Now who's uncivilized?

Did you read the whole article or just the first page?
Wolfers re-examines the data used by the team from Emory University and finds that when it is treated correctly it no longer shows that each execution saves about 18 lives. Instead it shows that each execution brings about an extra 18 deaths!

It is a result that Wolfers himself does not take seriously, just as he does not take seriously the initial claim that the death penalty saves lives. His broader conclusion is that the data is so difficult to interpret as to make it impossible to say with any certainty what effect the death penalty has. He says it is not reasonable to build an entire moral case around an effect that cannot be shown to exist.
Refuse to impose the just sentence upon convicted murderers, and condemn 18 innocents to death.
Bullshit...
Now who's uncivilized?
Yeah, I wonder...

I think killing, in general, is morally necessary.

Try convincing a moron that you are right.
You can’t.
All you can do is shoot him before he reproduces.

Did you read the whole article or just the first page?

Of course I read the whole article. I figured you wouldn't. Nevertheless, the point of the article was that the tide is turning. Your quote is basically a "dissenting opinion" by one guy. It seems intuitively obvious that the death penalty should have some deterent effect, and the majority opinion was that it does.

Of course I read the whole article. I figured you wouldn't.
I'm not suprised. I had read the article before you even posted your link, the SMH is my first stop for news.
Nevertheless, the point of the article was that the tide is turning. Your quote is basically a "dissenting opinion" by one guy.
What tide? You still only have one report claiming that 18 lives are saved it remains just as much an opinion as the one I quoted.
It seems intuitively obvious that the death penalty should have some deterent effect, and the majority opinion was that it does.
Seems, being the operative word and what majority are you talking about?

Well, I agree with the death penalty. But also I keep wondering and pondering why any society would want to keep vicious murderers and violent criminals within their midst? ...even if in prisons? Why does any society need those kinds of proven criminals?

Baron Max

So there we are. Refuse to impose the just sentence upon convicted murderers, and condemn 18 innocents to death. Now who's uncivilized?

Must murders are 1 time affairs. I fail to see how the 18 extra people will die?

Moreover the murder rate is much lower in countries without death penalty. I would like to see some explanation of that.

Well, I agree with the death penalty. But also I keep wondering and pondering why any society would want to keep vicious murderers and violent criminals within their midst? ...even if in prisons? Why does any society need those kinds of proven criminals?

Baron Max

from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

"Since 1973, 122 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence"

As of April 2005
these are the states and how many people have been exonerated in each one.

Florida
21

Massachusetts
3

Illinois
18

Missouri
3

Louisiana
8

Indiana
2

Texas
8

So. Carolina 2

Arizona
8

Idaho
1

Oklahoma
7

Kentucky
1

Alabama
5

Maryland
1

Georgia
5

Mississippi
2

No. Carolina
5

Nebraska
1

Pennsylvania
6

Nevada
1

Ohio
5

Virginia
1

New Mexico 4

Washington
1

California
3


thats 122 people who were innocent that would have been killed by the death penalty. so what exactly is your definition of a proven criminal, and how long should they be held before they are killed in pursuance of a death penalty statute? maybe 1 or 2 days? none of these innocent people would be alive without the appeals process. sometimes it takes years for crucial evidence to come to light. now that dna evidence is being used regularly they are finding that a lot of people have been executed who probably werent actual criminals. what about that? thesystem is set up the way it is because human error is certain. people who are convicted may very well be innocent, and society has an interest in at least keeping them around for long enough to find out whether there has been a mistake or not. other than that, i think people who are serving life sentences in prison should be forced to work in a way that is productive to society instead of sitting around throwing buckets of urine and AIDS blood at guards, watching cable tv, and getting free college educations. what happened to labor camps?

Must murders are 1 time affairs. I fail to see how the 18 extra people will die?

Hmmm? Is that true? Is that true in the USA? I believe I've read/heard that most convicted and/or suspected murderers are repeat offenders. Do you have any evidence of either of those assertions? And, no, I don't know!

Moreover the murder rate is much lower in countries without death penalty. I would like to see some explanation of that.

Number of people pressed into smaller areas? Vast population differences? Ethnic mixes being different? Class separations? Wealth distribution differences? Median age of the population? .... The type of car they drive? The favorite color of car? .... ;=)

Hey, shouldn't we also ask why, for example, there is less violent crime in Mayberry, RFD than in, say, Detroit or New York City?

In the USA, if a town has only, say, 2,500 people, will the violent crime rates be the same as those of a city of, say, 2,500,000? If not, why not?

Baron Max

...so what exactly is your definition of a proven criminal, ...

In accordance with out justice system, a person is guilty when proven guilty by a jury of his peers in a valid court of law.

If that doesn't fit your ideas of justice, then why do we even bother with courts? Why not just let everyone go free and do anything that they want to do ...including murder and rape and violent assualt?

Sure the system is not perfect, but neither is anything else in life. Accidents happen every single day, people die of accidents daily, all the time, and you accept those without much question. Yet an "accident" happens in the justice system and you go all bonkers! Why? Is the accidental auto death so different to the accidental death in state-sanctioned execution? Aren't they both dead?

...people who are convicted may very well be innocent, and society has an interest in at least keeping them around for long enough to find out whether there has been a mistake or not.

Why? If our justice system finds them guilty, then they're guilty! That's how it works in our system ...and until we can find a "perfect" system, then we have to live with what we have.

i think people who are serving life sentences in prison should be forced to work in a way that is productive to society instead of sitting around throwing buckets of urine and AIDS blood at guards, watching cable tv, and getting free college educations.

But, wait ....what if they, too, are all innocent??? You'd make them suffer while the state/activists/etc. attempt to prove them innocent?

what happened to labor camps?

Labor camps are for the guilty. But you've already expressed the doubt of guilt of any of those people ...so why are you now suggesting that they be made to suffer? You aren't being consistent in your argument.

Baron Max

Is the accidental auto death so different to the accidental death in state-sanctioned execution?
Would you still have that attitude if the State accidently executed your closest relative, an accident is an accident is it not?

If our justice system finds them guilty, then they're guilty!
If the justice system says the sky is purple does that make it so?

But you've already expressed the doubt of guilt of any of those people
Charles never implied any such thing, you truly are a world class troll :rolleyes:

Would you still have that attitude if the State accidently executed your closest relative, an accident is an accident is it not?

Putting the personal spin on something like this is asinine! Even if my closest relative were the world's worst serial rapist and killer, I'd probably be against his incarceration, much less his execution. But that's not how one views such issues ...or if they do, they're idiots!!

If rationality can't be used to discuss these issues, and personal bullshit keep coming into play, then nothing will ever be solved ...including the issue of the death penalty.

If the justice system says the sky is purple does that make it so?

?????

..., you truly are a world class troll :rolleyes:

So ...is that all you have to say with regard to my last posts? That's it? Only personal attacks? Of course, when one can think of nothing else with which to debate, personal attacks seem to be the thing on sciforums.

Baron Max

It seems intuitively obvious that the death penalty should have some deterent effect, and the majority opinion was that it does.

Majority of who?

There are more Americans incarcerated for murder today than ever before. This suggests to me that the death penalty is no deterrent.

It could also suggest that there is today a greater motivation to kill. Who do you want to kill, Toady?

I think the deterrent argument begs these two questions first: Is killing ever justified? Under what specific circumstances? Because remember, we are in the case of legally-sanctioned executions applying a government killing in response to a civilian one. If applying the most extreme of responses possible, then in a society under the law the very same standards should apply equally then to each party.

There's the rub.

There are more Americans incarcerated for murder today than ever before. This suggests to me that the death penalty is no deterrent.

James, you may not be aware of it, but there have been several changes in the death penalty in the USA and many states refused to execute anyone. The death penalty is a state issue, for the most part, unless the Supreme Court makes another blunder! But there are numerous studies that show that the death penalty, when actually APPLIED, is a deterrent to violent crime. The biggest problem is that the death penalty is not actually APPLIED, even when that't the sentence of the court. The lawyers and judges hold up the executions for years and years ...sometimes commuting sentences and sometimes for so damnd long that the convict dies of old age before he can be executed!

So ...with all that in mind, finding any truly conclusive documentation on the effects of the death penalty is pretty damned difficult. But if it were used properly, then, if nothing else, there would be less repeat offenders ....don't you agree? So if nothing else, it would help that one issue ...and many violent criminals do, in fact, repeat their violent crimes.

But I still wonder .....why does any society want to keep such violent criminals in their midst ...even if their "midst" is, in fact, in cages? Why does any society need them? Why does any society want them?

Baron Max

In the USA, if a town has only, say, 2,500 people, will the violent crime rates be the same as those of a city of, say, 2,500,000? If not, why not?

Baron Max

Why would there be so much less murders in for instance Amsterdam, where some drugs are legal, where there is a cultural diversity that easily matches any american city? And owning a gun is rare and frowned upon

Makes you think doesn't it?

Why would there be so much less murders in for instance Amsterdam, where some drugs are legal, where there is a cultural diversity that easily matches any american city? And owning a gun is rare and frowned upon. Makes you think doesn't it?

Well, sure it makes one think a bit, but it's not comparing the same things in the same/similar environments/conditions, so the comparison is sorta' like comparing apples and oranges ....you can do it, but does it tell you anything?

I would love to see precise and accurate stats comparing two very similar cities ...one with the right to have/carry guns, and the other without. And with enough time to provide some meaningful stats. As it is now, if I happen to want to "prove" that guns are great, I can go to a "great gun" site for all the "facts" I need. And vice versa for the opposing view. And it's really not meaningful ...not in any good, scientific way.

One thing that I find highly interesting is the gun issue that's going on in England (London?) these days. There are more and more people applying for a permit to carry concealed handguns.

But as it stands right now, only the ....ahh, elite, wealthy, high-class, influential, ..., people have been given that right. But more and more cops are asking for the right to carry guns for their own personal and family protection ...they deal with "bad guys" who might wish to do them or they're family harm.

There was an article in the Dallas Morning News about it just this morning. One cop is becoming pissed off that the authorities won't let him carry a gun ...even while his own supervisor carries one and is in little or no danger!

Baron Max

Why is it the government's place to exercise moral authority?

It is the government's place to exercise all authority formally and legally granted by the public. Nothing more, and nothing less.

It is the public's place to establish and safeguard deliberate limits on the authority of government.

The absence of either of these components of the relationship results in avoidable but unjustifiable killings.

Putting the personal spin on something like this is asinine!
Bullshit.
Even if my closest relative were the world's worst serial rapist and killer, I'd probably be against his incarceration, much less his execution. But that's not how one views such issues ...or if they do, they're idiots!!
If my brother, for arguments sake does the crime I'll have no sympathy for him when he does the time. Even though I'm generally against the death penalty and particulary so for drugs I'd still have no sympathy for him if he was in this guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Tuong_Van) shoes. So you'd support your serial rapist and murdering relative being free to keep it up. :rolleyes:

If rationality can't be used to discuss these issues...
Now thats funny...

So ...is that all you have to say with regard to my last posts? That's it? Only personal attacks?
If I had something else to add to my post above in regards to the post in question it would've been there. Personal attack, if you say so. You've just implied that I am an unintelligent idiot, so if you're going complain, refrain from doing it yourself.
But if it were used properly, then, if nothing else, there would be less repeat offenders ....don't you agree?
You accuse me of being asinine then make a comment like this. Without the question tagged on the end the statement stands on it's own, of course a dead person isn't going to re-offend yet you go on to ask if james agrees with your redundant statement. This is another of my reasons for believing you to be a troll. Were you a car salesman at some point?

Baron:

James, you may not be aware of it, but there have been several changes in the death penalty in the USA and many states refused to execute anyone.

I know. It's those darned Democrat voting states, isn't it?

But there are numerous studies that show that the death penalty, when actually APPLIED, is a deterrent to violent crime.

I doubt it.

The biggest problem is that the death penalty is not actually APPLIED, even when that't the sentence of the court. The lawyers and judges hold up the executions for years and years ...sometimes commuting sentences and sometimes for so damnd long that the convict dies of old age before he can be executed!

Yes. It costs far more to execute somebody in America then to hold them in jail for a life sentence. The death penalty, as well as being barbaric and stupid, is also uneconomical.

So ...with all that in mind, finding any truly conclusive documentation on the effects of the death penalty is pretty damned difficult. But if it were used properly, then, if nothing else, there would be less repeat offenders ....don't you agree?

Of course. Maybe we should just execute jay walkers and shop lifters too. Have you ever driven above the speed limit? Grounds for execution, if you ask me.

So if nothing else, it would help that one issue ...and many violent criminals do, in fact, repeat their violent crimes.

Not if they are in jail. And people can change, Baron.

The point is that the anti-death penalty people can no longer claim to have science on their side. For years the argument has been that no study shows a deterent effect, that's no longer the case. When one commits murder, when one wrongly takes the life of another, the only reasonable punishment is death. Anything else is a slap on the wrist. Throwing hardened criminals in prison is like throwing Briar Rabbit in the Briar patch. They are in their element.
Did anyone see the videos Richard Speck made while in prison for murdering eight student nurses? His crimes were horrendous, yet his punishment was, nothing. After his death in the nineties, home videos of Mr. Speck surfaced. They showed that he apparently had breast implants or hormone treatments, was doing drugs, and generally having a great time while in prison supposedly paying for his crimes.
In 1996, five years after Speck's death, television journalist Bill Kurtis uncovered a bizarre 1980s home video of Speck, which was shot in his prison cell at Statesville Correctional Institute. On the video, Speck is donning a pair of woman’s breasts -- apparently a result of hormone treatments -- wearing panties and having sex with another inmate. Some segments also showed Speck indulging in drugs and bragging of his crimes.
All because his death sentence was overturned when the idiotic supreme court decided it was unconstitutional. So instead of being executed in the sixties, he got to party his whole life while being supported by the taxpayers. Meanwhile, his victims were rotting in their graves. That is, those of his victims lucky enough to have been buried. Our prisons are country clubs. The only just punishment for murderers is DEATH. And the sentences should be carried out much more quickly. Give them maybe a year to prove there was some error, then it's the chair.

This is a good summary of Mr. Specks crimes and is the source of the quote above:
http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardspeck,0820.htm

I would prefer slavery over the death penalty.

Chinese communism: "You must hate the crime, not the person"

The pursuit of thousands of social workers and corrective behavior psychologists reflect this statement.

Obviously if you would turn your country into a police state which is tightly controlled by repressive measure such as death penalty and torture on a grand scale you will see that some people will become more careful with what they do.

Put a tracking collar around everybody's wrist. Tale regular drug testing for every citizen. etc etc.

Let's say it in a popular way what just happened:

You just turned to the dark side.

And why would a murderer not shoot the police officer who tries to arrest him. He knows he is going to fry anyway. And the police officer knows he will be a target. The police officer shoots to kill, will shoot anyone who seems a threat. Anyone calculate these effects?

People will not turn themselves in anymore. People won't go to the police for help. Police will become the enemy. People need to get guns to protect themselves because they fear their fellow citizens. Guns blow away the brains of a little boy playing with daddy's gun. Angry wife grabs for gun and shoots husband. Depressed father grabs gun and kills family and co-workers. Anyone calculate these effects?

Oh, my god, Spurious, with a fantasy tale like THAT, perhaps we should do away with the police all together .....I'd hate for such a world to exist!

But I have to ask you, how and where did you get such horrendous social results from the idea of the death penalty? I mean, how did you, could you dream up such a horrid tale from something like a discussion on the death penalty? ..LOL!

Are you a fantasy writer, perhaps? ...with an over-active imagination? :)

Baron Max

It costs far more to execute somebody in America then to hold them in jail for a life sentence.

That's only because we don't actually execute the sonuvabitch! We give them years and years of FREE legal services, plus tie up the legal system with numerous appeals and bullshit. If we'd just convict the man, give him one year to appeal on VALID legal grounds, then shoot the bastard, it wouldn't cost nearly so much.

So see, the liberal, whining, crying, doo-gooders are the cause of the enormous cost, NOT the death penalty itself!!

And people can change, Baron.

And does that bring back the person or persons that he killed? How does his changing into a "better person" change any of the facts of his crime?

Is that similar to the Catholic faith, where one can be a prick all his life, but right at the moment of death, if he asks god for forgiveness, then everything he's ever done is forgiven??? Hmm?

Baron Max

Now a couple economists have shown that each time a convicted murderer is executed, 18 innocent lives are saved. Economists. :rolleyes:
I see why you are called madanthonywayne

Economists. :rolleyes:
I see why you are called madanthonywayne

I don't understand? Are you actually trying to refute the claims of the economists by attacking the poster? Does that negate the study?

Baron Max

When did you ever know an economist to get anything right, other than by blind luck? I did not call m.a.wayne mad; he called himself mad - he does it every time he posts. Seeking to provide an explanation for that self assessment can hardly be characterised as 'attacking the poster'.

When did you ever know an economist to get anything right, other than by blind luck?

Yes, I have! And certainly many, many more times than a damned politician!

Baron Max

Baron, please quote your economists who have researched and confirmed your premise that killing prisoners saves lives.

Baron, please quote your economists who have researched and confirmed your premise that killing prisoners saves lives.

...LOL! Where on Earth did you get that from my posts?? ...LOL!

Read the posts, then the replies, Hype, then perhaps, just perhaps, you'll see the connections ...then again, probably not. Because you see only what you want to see.

Baron Max

Here is what I see, Baron:

"there are numerous studies that show that the death penalty, when actually APPLIED, is a deterrent to violent crime."

"...the liberal, whining, crying, doo-gooders are the cause of the enormous cost, NOT the death penalty itself!!"

[(edit) madanthonywane]: "Now a couple economists have shown that each time a convicted murderer is executed, 18 innocent lives are saved."

If the third quote was never posted, then I yield to the Baron. Otherwise please explain, I'm lost.

[edit: the 3rd quote was not from BaronMax, my mistake]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite: "When did you ever know an economist to get anything right, other than by blind luck?”

To which I answered: Yes, I have! And certainly many, many more times than a damned politician!

Then Hypewaders asked: "Baron, please quote your economists who have researched and confirmed your premise that killing prisoners saves lives."

Now look at the above sequence of posts, read the words and don't put in any of your own words or thoughts .....just read the words!! Now .....where in any of that did I say/iimply that I knew of economists such as you've asked about???? How did you possibly get that from my post? Where does it say that? Where does it even imply that?

Baron Max

You are correct- the 3rd quote I made was not originally by you but instead by ophiolite. I was simply interested in that statistic, and you did not introduce it then. Thanks.

Okay ....back on the subject; Tell me, Hype, why any society on Earth should want violent killers and rapists in their midst? ....even if kept in cages. Why should any rational, empathetic human want or need such people in their society (or any other society, for that matter)?

Baron Max

Hypewaders, you still have it wrong. The third quote was not by me. I was decrying this research because it came from economists.

Baron, the fact that economists may get it right more than politicians has bugger all to do with the argument. Let's make all crimes capital offences. That will solve so many problems, very rapidly. What is your objection to that Baron?

It could also suggest that there is today a greater motivation to kill. Who do you want to kill, Toady?

I think the deterrent argument begs these two questions first: Is killing ever justified? Under what specific circumstances? Because remember, we are in the case of legally-sanctioned executions applying a government killing in response to a civilian one. If applying the most extreme of responses possible, then in a society under the law the very same standards should apply equally then to each party.

There's the rub.

are we not led by a civilian government...as opposed to say ...a military dictatorship

"Tell me, Hype, why any society on Earth should want violent killers and rapists in their midst?"

We are all that because we are human. I have known many killers, all living respectable lives. I probably have met sexually abusive people too, but I can't be sure. I'm obviously still missing the point.

Two economists > one article > one opinion: big deal. The question is, "Is it morally necessary." The answer is, "No."

Sure, we would save tens of thousands of dollars by executing them rather than publicly paying for their life imprisonment, but is it "morally" necessary? "Necessary"? The final definitive answer is "No." It is certainly not "necessary."

Baron Max:

And does that bring back the person or persons that he killed? How does his changing into a "better person" change any of the facts of his crime?

Please tell me what you think is the purpose or purposes of prisons, Baron.

Sure, we would save tens of thousands of dollars by executing them rather than publicly paying for their life imprisonment, but is it "morally" necessary? "Necessary"? The final definitive answer is "No." It is certainly not "necessary."

On average it costs 3 times more to have someone on death row than life in prison.

That depends on the state. And how long that state keeps them on death row. But the question is the "Death Penalty Morally Necessary"? The answer is a definitive "No"!

Okay ....back on the subject; Tell me, Hype, why any society on Earth should want violent killers and rapists in their midst? ....even if kept in cages. Why should any rational, empathetic human want or need such people in their society (or any other society, for that matter)? Baron MaxBecause the only thing constant in our world is change: people change. They can be rehabilitated to be useful, productive, helpfull, and beneficial assets to our society. Aside from this, there have been countless criminals that were prosecuted under false accusations and later proven to be innocent, particuarly now through DNA evidence. Other cases have been prosecuted by questionable jury bias, which continues today: due to what society assumes that a law-abiding citizen aught to behave like - whether it is law-abiding or not. Only their subjective opinion within a historical context.

..., there have been countless criminals that were prosecuted under false accusations and later proven to be innocent, particuarly now through DNA evidence. Other cases have been prosecuted by questionable jury bias, which continues today: due to what society assumes that a law-abiding citizen aught to behave like - whether it is law-abiding or not. Only their subjective opinion within a historical context.

So your argument seems to be against the system of justice, rather than the death penalty, right? I.e., if the justice system were "perfect", then you'd have no problem with the state-sanctioned execution of certain violent criminals?

On the other hand, you seem perfectly content to put a man in prison for life using the same justice system, even tho' there's a chance, however slim, that he's innocent. I'm not following that logic very well?

And another thing ....if the justice system is so fucked up, why should we hold ANY trials at all? ...and worse, use it to put people in prison? Why don't we just let everyone walk around free to do whatever they want ....'cause they just MIGHT be innocent!

Baron Max

Please tell me what you think is the purpose or purposes of prisons, Baron.

Punishment for crimes against the society as designated by that society.

Any other purpose that's touted is what I'd call purely psycho-babble, liberal bullshit!

Baron Max

On average it costs 3 times more to have someone on death row than life in prison.

That's ONLY true if they don't carry out the execution! If the person were convicted and sentenced, then taken out behind the court house and shot, the cost would be only the bullets used to kill him!

But our system doesn't do that ....we convict him and sentence him to death, yet we don't carry out that sentence. Why not? ...on the chance that he might be innocent? ....well, if there's a chance he's innocent, then he shouldn't have been convicted in the first place!!

Baron Max

....well, if there's a chance he's innocent, then he shouldn't have been convicted in the first place!!
Congratulations Baron, it appears you've worked it out although I'm sure you'll disagree :p

Because the only thing constant in our world is change: people change. They can be rehabilitated to be useful, productive, helpfull, and beneficial assets to our society. Aside from this, there have been countless criminals that were prosecuted under false accusations and later proven to be innocent, particuarly now through DNA evidence
I don't care if they have changed. What about their victim? Will they have the luxery of changing? They wrongfully and maliciously took someone's life, their life is forfeit. If there is any DNA to test, test it. Then shoot the bastards.

....well, if there's a chance he's innocent, then he shouldn't have been convicted in the first place!!

Well people who are innocent have been killed via the death penalty. 10 years ago there might have been lots of evidence that this person did murder someone and nothing to contradict it. But through technological advances these people that were murdered by the death penalty were proven innocent. How would you like to be murdered for something you DIDN'T do. Or better yet, how about they just take a bullet to your head considering "IT'S CHEAPER!"

On average it costs 3 times more to have someone on death row than life in prison.
I don't think that the monetary cost of execution or incarceration is relevant anyway. Of course economics will influence our judicial system, but I would hope that an issue as grave as this transcends material matters: we have no choice but to pay the price of the most morally acceptable course of action.

Personally (and probably naively), I think that incarceration should primarily serve the purposes of rehabilitation and deterrent. Those who cannot be rehabilitated should be kept humanely (though not luxuriously) away from the public. I do not think that prisons should exist for revenge. I am strongly opposed to capital punishment for some obvious and tangible reasons (doubt of guilt, hypocrisy), and for moral reasons which are subjective and less easily expressed.

It is probably important to state that neither myself nor any of my immediate circle have been victims of any crime more grievous than burglary.

Congratulations Baron, it appears you've worked it out although I'm sure you'll disagree :p

No, I won't disagree ....we should never convict anyone of anything, because we might be wrong. So we should eliminate all of the court systems and the police and just let people do whatever they want to whomever they want.

Yeah, good system! Great system ...I've got my guns to protect myself, how 'bout you?

Baron Max

How would you like to be murdered for something you DIDN'T do. Or better yet, how about they just take a bullet to your head considering "IT'S CHEAPER!"

When one tries to make any logical decision based on some contrived personal involvement, then logic is thrown out the window in favor of personal emotions and hysteria.

If we made all such decisions in that way, we'd never ever drive a car, would we? Or for that matter, we'd never cross a street or walk on a sidewalk.

Baron Max

Baron Max:

Please tell me what you think is the purpose or purposes of prisons, Baron.

Punishment for crimes against the society as designated by that society.

Any other purpose that's touted is what I'd call purely psycho-babble, liberal bullshit!

If punishment is the only aim, why bother with prisons? Why not just whip people, or cut off a few fingers, or give all criminals the death penalty?

Confine them to this thread for one year. Their only human interaction. There is a hell. (just kidding, mates)

hell in a hand basket i tell ya

Baron Max: If punishment is the only aim, why bother with prisons? Why not just whip people, or cut off a few fingers, or give all criminals the death penalty?

Well, I don't know ....but if you check the crime statistics in other nations that do such things, you'd find the crime rates considerably lower. So perhaps you have a good idea there, James.

Check the crime rates in Singapore ...where they whip/cane people for many offenses. Check the crime rates in Saudia Arabia ...where they cut the hand off of thieves and behead murderers and violent criminals. How do those crime rates stack up to the crime rates in other, liberal nations of the world?

The idea, for exampe, that Stookie Williams of California is now a changed man and doesn't deserve to be executed is ridiculous! He's been in prison all this time, what kind of crimes could he commit? How bad could he have been in prison ...where there are jail bars and armed guards? Of course the sonuvabitch is a changed man ....it's because he could be anything else!! Fry the bastard!

Baron Max

No, I won't disagree ....we should never convict anyone of anything, because we might be wrong. So we should eliminate all of the court systems and the police and just let people do whatever they want to whomever they want.
Oh how very perceptive of you, you got all that from my little statement. Hmmm... So we should execute all people of accused of any crime, yeah, great system!
...I've got my guns to protect myself, how 'bout you?
A gun will not protect you Baron and yes indeed I do :cool:

I'm struggling to follow this ethics and morality thread gone to seed. Through this effort, I can only add my clear impression that my gun is bigger than both of you have.

In accordance with out justice system, a person is guilty when proven guilty by a jury of his peers in a valid court of law.

yeah but trial and conviction in a court of law is only one facet of the criminal justice process. the appeals process is another part of it, and exists, arguably as a check against inevitible human error, bias, or ignorance of relevant evidence and its effect on a verdict of guilt or innocence. the system is designed knowing that just because a jury says that someone is guilty doesnt mean they actually are. i would say that when it comes to sending someone to jail for a period of time it is acceptable to accept that a margin of error exists in the criminal justice system, because once proven innocent, they can be let out and resume their life to some extent. people cant do that if they are proved innocent after they have been killed.


If that doesn't fit your ideas of justice, then why do we even bother with courts? Why not just let everyone go free and do anything that they want to do ...including murder and rape and violent assualt?

i didnt say it didnt fit in to my idea of justice, i was pointing out that its a shame that human life hangs in the balance of a deeply flawed system. i accept certain parts of that system as necessary and concerned with the maintenance of law and justice in society, but just because i agree that some crimes should be crimes and that people should be tried for them when they have been committed doesnt mean that i agree with the kind of penalties imposed on the criminals or the means by which they are handled after conviction. two seperate issues buddy.

Sure the system is not perfect, but neither is anything else in life. Accidents happen every single day, people die of accidents daily, all the time, and you accept those without much question. Yet an "accident" happens in the justice system and you go all bonkers! Why? Is the accidental auto death so different to the accidental death in state-sanctioned execution? Aren't they both dead?

so because accidents happen, we shouldnt try to improve conditions in order to avoid them? because the system isnt perfect we should just accept it as is and not admit that its flaws should be fixed? what exactly are you arguing in favor of, blatant acceptance of things that are wrong even though we know theyre wrong rationalized with a line of thought like "well things are wrong with the world all the time, you dont get mad when a baby is born with a birth defect, why be concerned with this?" absurd.



Labor camps are for the guilty. But you've already expressed the doubt of guilt of any of those people ...so why are you now suggesting that they be made to suffer? You aren't being consistent in your argument.


i never said i thought we should throw away our system of determining guilt or innocence. what i was saying is that since we know that that system is not totally accurate, we shouldnt kill people based on its decisions. people serving some time in jail and being released if they are proven innocent still gives them an opportunity to continue on with their life in some fashion. dead innocent people just stay dead. i am being consistent, you just need to pay attention to what im saying.

I'm struggling to follow this ethics and morality thread gone to seed. Through this effort, I can only add my clear impression that my gun is bigger than both of you have.
Did you bring your tape measure :p

Baron Max:

If punishment is the only aim, why bother with prisons? Why not just whip people, or cut off a few fingers, or give all criminals the death penalty?

Well, I don't know ...

So think. What else could prisons possible be good for, apart from punishment?

So far, you've identified one aim of sentencing criminals. Criminologists can point to at least five or six.

...but if you check the crime statistics in other nations that do such things, you'd find the crime rates considerably lower.

Do you think crime statistics reflect actual crime rates? I'm sure you do. Now consider how crime statistics are collected and publicised. Any new ideas?

The idea, for exampe, that Stookie Williams of California is now a changed man and doesn't deserve to be executed is ridiculous!

Do you know him? What do you know about him? Who are you to judge?

You assume far too much, Baron, which is why your conclusions are so simplistic.

Do you know him? What do you know about him? Who are you to judge?
You assume far too much, Baron, which is why your conclusions are so simplistic.
He murdered four people and is unrepentant. Anything beyond that is irrelevant.

What else could prisons possible be good for, apart from punishment?

Well, they could be a source of "slave labor". But the mamby-pamby liberals of the nation wouldn't stand for it ....so all-in-all, punishment is it!

So far, you've identified one aim of sentencing criminals. Criminologists can point to at least five or six.

Sure ...but they're all mamby-pamby, wimpy, doo-gooder liberals ....who actually think that violent criminals can be "rehabilitated". So what if a few people think such crap ....it's still crap, ain't it?

You assume far too much, Baron, which is why your conclusions are so simplistic.

Hmm, is that the ONLY reason my conclusions are simplistic?

And perhaps that's where we lost it ...thinking that too much of this psycho-babble bullshit is meaningful, instead of it being just plain ol' psycho-babble bullshit.

Perhaps simplistic is the way to go? Or do you think that the more bullshit that's thrown at an issue, the easier it'll be to solve the problems?

Baron Max

He (Tookie Williams) murdered four people and is unrepentant. Anything beyond that is irrelevant.

Well, he wrote several childrens books ...so perhaps the mamby-pamby, wimpy liberals feel that that's justification for commuting his 24-yr old sentence?

I mean, just think of it ....whenever a violent, murderous criminal doesn't want to die, he just writes a few children's books and ...POOF... the liberals let him back into society and give the fucker a Nobel prize!! :)

But not to worry .....Tookie Williams is gone to the great and happy place in the sky where he can happily murder as many people as he wants, every day, all day, and suffer no consequences for his actions ....heaven for murderous, vicious criminals! :)

Baron Max

Baron, a house fire kills your girlfriend/wife. You have a motive but there is no guarunteed proof that you even started the fire, yet you find yourself of death row from nothing but circumstancial evidence.

Would you still be championing capital punishment?

Baron, a house fire kills your girlfriend/wife. You have a motive but there is no guarunteed proof that you even started the fire, yet you find yourself of death row from nothing but circumstancial evidence.

Would you still be championing capital punishment?

Whenever one uses emotions and hysteria to determine ones decisions on rational and logical issues, one is lost anyway, so no matter what's decided is worthless in a discussion or argument.

Baron Max

Good point. Best ignore the possability of innocents being murdered by the government. See no evil hear no evil etc.

I certainly wouldn't want to be a citizen of a country with a death penalty and someone I know dies in suspicious circumstances, and I have a motive...

Whenever one uses emotions and hysteria to determine ones decisions on rational and logical issues...
You've pointed out elsewhere that you fear murderers, is that not your basis for supporting the death penalty and could you explain how that is not based on emotions and hysteria? The death penalty only exists because of emotions and hysteria...
And how is making a decision on this issue based on your emotional feelings not valid? If we all could remain emotionally detatched what point is a death penalty? I'm sure Spock wouldn't support it ;)

The death penalty only exists because of emotions and hysteria...
And how is making a decision on this issue based on your emotional feelings not valid? If we all could remain emotionally detatched what point is a death penalty? I'm sure Spock wouldn't support it ;)
One of mankinds oldest legal concepts is: a eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The point is, the punishment should fit the crime. No other punishment is equal in severity to the magnitude of the crime of murder. I would not advocate the death penalty for jay-walking or speeding. But for murder, it is the only just penalty. Especially given the country club nature of our prisons,

One of mankinds oldest legal concepts is: a eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...
What do we do when we run out of eyes and teeth :bugeye:
You haven't answered my question in way shape or form. How is that concept not based on emotions?
Especially given the country club nature of our prisons
And you know that from personal experience I take it?

You haven't answered my question in way shape or form. How is that concept not based on emotions?
First of all, you shouldn't be asking this question given your earlier statement:
And how is making a decision on this issue based on your emotional feelings not valid?
But putting that aside, it's a question of proportional response. There should be a certain symetry between the crime and the punishment. Surely you wouldn't believe an appropriate punishment for the rape and murder of a child would be a ten dollar fine? How about twenty dollars? Should it be ten years in prison? How about life in prison? Consider the nature of the crime. The victim has suffered a complete loss. All his potential, all his pleasures, all his joys. How is it just that the person responsible for this loss should be allowed a chance at "redemption". There is no redemption for the victim. He will never again know the pleasure of a good meal, or the fellowship of his fellow man. He will never know the pleasures of sex. If the victim was a child, he will never know the pleasures of parenting, of watching his children grow and become adults. All the future generations that might have come from him are now gone. The damage inflicted by a murderer can not be reversed, but it is only just that the criminal should pay the ultimate penalty. He should pay with his life. He most certainly should not be allowed to continue to enjoy the pleasures of life while his victim rots in his grave.
And you know that from personal experience I take it?
No, but reports are rampent of the ridiculous conditions extant in our prisons:
In 1996, five years after Speck's death, television journalist Bill Kurtis uncovered a bizarre 1980s home video of Speck, which was shot in his prison cell at Statesville Correctional Institute. On the video, Speck is donning a pair of woman’s breasts -- apparently a result of hormone treatments -- wearing panties and having sex with another inmate. Some segments also showed Speck indulging in drugs and bragging of his crimes.http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardspeck,0820.htm
Any attempt to reign in this situation is met with ACLU a-holes crying about "cruel and unusual punishment".

The death penalty is necessary.
It's easy, if you don't want to die then don't kill anyone! That's all there is too it.

First of all, you shouldn't be asking this question given your earlier statement:
No I shouldn't have, I already know it's based on emotions.
There should be a certain symetry between the crime and the punishment.
Can you explain why without using any argument based on some emotion? This symetry is\would be open to interpretation and any given persons interpretation is going to be influenced by their emotions among other things.

Surely you wouldn't believe an appropriate punishment for the rape and murder of a child would be a ten dollar fine? ...
Have I implied somewhere that I would believe that to be appropriate?
I think you've taken my posts out of context. It is because of my emotional attatchment to my children that I can imagine being the parent of a such a victim. So of course I support the punishment being proportional to the crime. Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty basing your position on your emotional feelings towards a hypothetical situation is valid, Baron says that is wrong. Of course he isn't going to answer my question because his support of the death penalty is based on the same reasoning.

Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty basing your position on your emotional feelings towards a hypothetical situation is valid, Baron says that is wrong.

No, that's NOT what I said, nor is it what I meant. One can use hypothetical examples in order to illustrate situations or conditions of ones argument. But to use as that example ones OWN family or friends and expect a rational, logical response IS invalid. I.e., ye're just playing on the someone sympathy in order to show that they're argument isn't valid.

For example, since I'm a supporter of the death penalty, someone will always ask "Yeah, but what if it was your own brother who was convicted?!" See? You can't and shouldn't expect someone to answer THAT question with logic and rationality ...humans just ain't built that way.

It is because of my emotional attatchment to my children that I can imagine being the parent of a such a victim.

And the more empathy you have in such cases or situations, the less ye're able to make rational, logical decisions. Do you not think that judges and juries also have that problem? And would you like it if THEY were to convict or acquit based on their empathy and emotions? No, I don't think you would ....and that's the reason why emotional outbursts, etc. are not permitted in a court of law. Emotions fuck up everything!

Of course he isn't going to answer my question because his support of the death penalty is based on the same reasoning.

Nope, it's not based on emotions ....it's based on the simple fact that no society of humans needs violent, murderous rapists in their midst ...even if kept in a cage. The society, no society needs such people ...period!

Baron Max

You've pointed out elsewhere that you fear murderers, is that not your basis for supporting the death penalty and could you explain how that is not based on emotions and hysteria?

It's not emotions and hysteria when the murderer has already done the deed. Emotions and hysteria would be like banning something in fear of it MIGHT happening. The murderer already killed the person so any consequences that happen afterwards to that murderer is just for an act already committed, not fear of the unknown.

- N

But if it were used properly, then, if nothing else, there would be less repeat offenders ....don't you agree?

No, I don't. Recidivism is rediculously rare among murderers, and
in most cases all murders occured before they were caught the first
time. These repeat offenders of yours would amount to one or two
deaths a century, and are not worth mentioning when compared to
the high percentage of false kills we've had on death-row.

I'd also like two seperate discussions, if we could.

First, there's a moral question, where I as a Christian know that God
does not allow me to condone murder of even the most foul people.

Second, there's societal issues, where it has been found that
societies with the death penalty are more violent than societies
without, with no other change.

It is only in muddling these two together incoherently that the choice
seems difficult, and so for accuracy and clarity it is best to seperate
them.

...there's societal issues, where it has been found that
societies with the death penalty are more violent than societies
without, with no other change.

Where? What societies? And remember now, you said "..., with no other change", so the size must be the same, the type of government, the type of society, the education levels, the levels of freedom, etc.

If the societies are NOT the same, then how can you compare them with any degree of accuracy or validity?

Baron Max

First, there's a moral question, where I as a Christian know that God
does not allow me to condone murder of even the most foul people.

Now that's ridiculous. The bible commands the death penalty for a variety of crimes, some rather trivial. Many people are confused by the commandment: thou shalt not murder. Note the word should be translated as MURDER. Not KILL. God has no problem with killing. He ordered a father to kill his own son. He ordered the isrealites to kill an entire village because one of its members impregnated a Jew. Are you saying God is a hyopcrite?

But to use as that example ones OWN family or friends and expect a rational, logical response IS invalid.

I can only say that I disagree.

I.e., ye're just playing on the someone sympathy in order to show that they're argument isn't valid.

I used it to try and show another point of view not to prove anyones argument wrong, I do see your point with KennyJCs post :(

For example, since I'm a supporter of the death penalty, someone will always ask "Yeah, but what if it was your own brother who was convicted?!" See? You can't and shouldn't expect someone to answer THAT question with logic and rationality ...humans just ain't built that way.

Your implying all humans. I've already pointed out I wouldn't have any sympathy for my own brother if he was caught in Singapore with drugs and sentenced to death. I would only expect he get a fair and proper trial.

And the more empathy you have in such cases or situations, the less ye're able to make rational, logical decisions.

Again my point was to use empathy to show both sides of the coin and not as the sole basis for a decision.

Do you not think that judges and juries also have that problem? And would you like it if THEY were to convict or acquit based on their empathy and emotions?

By your own logic that is not a valid question :bugeye:
I would bet that juries in particular already do and again it would generally not be the sole basis for their decisions only that their emotional feelings towards various issues influence their ultimate decision.

Nope, it's not based on emotions ....it's based on the simple fact that no society of humans needs violent, murderous rapists in their midst ...even if kept in a cage. The society, no society needs such people ...period!
That's your argument, that they're not needed, no society needs thieves maybe we should execute them too. You obviously support the death penalty for rape, is that where you draw the line or are there other crimes for which you'd support it?
The murderer already killed the person so any consequences that happen afterwards to that murderer is just for an act already committed, not fear of the unknown.
Any consequences?

Anyone want to try explaining how death is a punishment?

Anyone want to try explaining how death is a punishment?

Hmm, you don't know the answer to that question??

Baron Max

Hmm, you don't know the answer to that question?
Hmm... is that what I said?

Anyone want to try explaining how death is a punishment?

Uh, by no longer being able to live?

Even when in prison, there's still lots to do. Hell, for those poor slaves to society that work, watch tv, sleep, rinse and repeat, it's much like prison. They sit in their cell, watch TV, eat candy, fuck each other, play video games, read, work out, you name it. Sure, it's not as much fun as more "free" civilians, but it's a lot better than doing nothing in death. Even something small such as being outside, they love it. And that'll never change cause we have to be nicey nicey with inmates, boohoo, wah wah. Death will get rid of all those little things they love that we take for granted.

- N

Uh, by no longer being able to live?
Once they're dead how do they determine that they are in fact no longer living :bugeye:
Sure, it's not as much fun as more "free" civilians, but it's a lot better than doing nothing in death.
How do you know, been suffering a little death lately?
Death will get rid of all those little things they love that we take for granted.
Including their perception that they're being punished. It is my opinion that it is the family of the executed that is punished the most, they suffer a similar loss to that of the murdered victim's family.

Once they're dead how do they determine that they are in fact no longer living

How do you know, been suffering a little death lately?

Huh? Uh, let's just say that science precedes religion in this case.

Including their perception that they're being punished.

Lol, the current prison system isn't a punishment! It's just a mini ghetto which, those during hard time from the ghetto, have no problem living in.


It is my opinion that it is the family of the executed that is punished the most, they suffer a similar loss to that of the murdered victim's family.

Yeah right. Most disown em. And those that continue to care for their child, they're idiots for caring for such a ruthless person, regardless of it being their child. I say put their parents to death to for continuing to love such a bad person. I mean hey, I can say I love Stalin, Pol Pot, or Adolf Hitler and you wouldn't like me, would you? You'd tell me to grow some balls too and live with it without a care for me. Same for them. And their parents suffering started the moment they were in prison. After 20 years, they'd feel relieved for their child finally being put out of misery.

The person did a bad deed and they gotta deal with the consequences. I FRIGGIN HATE idiotic liberals that try and make criminals look good and the justice system as bad. Uh, we're not the ones doing these crimes. It's not as if those being put to death are doing minor crimes. These are RUTHLESS MURDERERS killing in cold blood with no rhyme or reason! You'd have a point if people were being put to death for stealing bread or a car, but c'mon, gimme a break. The moment you start sympathizing with those killers, you make yourself look bad and no better than them. Go argue for soldiers that we're at war with. You'd have better, and a more logical argument as they're actually fighting for something than trying to defend cold-blooded killers.

- N

Yeah right. Most disown em.
Statistics?
And those that continue to care for their child, they're idiots for caring for such a ruthless person, regardless of it being their child. I say put their parents to death to for continuing to love such a bad person.
:rolleyes:
After 20 years, they'd feel relieved for their child finally being put out of misery.
Would they and I take it you would have some evidence that shows that is generally the case.
The person did a bad deed and they gotta deal with the consequences.
I've already pointed that out myself.
I FRIGGIN HATE idiotic liberals that try and make criminals look good and the justice system as bad.
Are you accusing me of being an idiotic liberal? Oh and by the way I FRIGGIN HATE morons...
Uh, we're not the ones doing these crimes.
Did someone imply you were and who are we?

It's not as if those being put to death are doing minor crimes. These are RUTHLESS MURDERERS killing in cold blood with no rhyme or reason! You'd have a point if people were being put to death for stealing bread or a car, but c'mon, gimme a break.
Are you talking about some specific group of people or are you implying that all murderers do so without any reason? I'm asking questions and made the opinion that the executed persons family suffers more so than the executed and if that gets you riled up all the more fun for me ;)

The moment you start sympathizing with those killers, you make yourself look bad and no better than them.
I haven't implied anywhere that I have any sympathy for those that face the death penalty so I'll pass on your attempt at educating me.
Go argue for soldiers that we're at war with. You'd have better, and a more logical argument as they're actually fighting for something than trying to defend cold-blooded killers.
Go back to school your reading comprehension might improve the second time around. Can you quote where I've defended cold-blooded killers. By opinioning that the death penalty does not always have the desired effect means I'm arguing that cold-blooded killers should be free to roam society and murder as they please :rolleyes:

I think killing, in general, is morally necessary.

Try convincing a moron that you are right.
You can’t.
All you can do is shoot him before he reproduces.
Hmmm....that's an interesting way to put it. :p

Are you accusing me of being an idiotic liberal? Oh and by the way I FRIGGIN HATE morons...

Sorry, no, I'm not. I kind of went off on a rant. I just hate when they try and weasel their way to make law enforcement look worse than criminals and making the criminals out to be the victims. It's sickening.

And cool, you friggin hate morons too. :p

Did someone imply you were and who are we?

Civilians; and I guess it would be those that are for executing criminals that are on death row. Yet we look like the monsters and the criminal is the innocent one. Again, not targetted towards you.

Are you talking about some specific group of people or are you implying that all murderers do so without any reason? I'm asking questions and made the opinion that the executed persons family suffers more so than the executed and if that gets you riled up all the more fun for me

Well, I'm not referring to those that kill in self-defense or even a spouse that kills in the heat of passion. You know, people like Tookie Williams, perhaps? Or those worse than him? And that's where I kind of went on a rant, with the ridiculous Hollywood liberals trying to defend him and make him out to be some saint.

As for the family suffering more than the murderer being put to death, well obviously they're gonna suffer more than them as a killer doesn't have much feelings. And if they do, they sure had none when they did the deed that wound them up on death row so now they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. In other words, so? And just what about the victim's family? What the killer's family feels should be the last of anyone's concerns, second to the feelings of the person that's being put under. Are you trying to say that what the killer's family feels is reason enough to not have the death penalty or something? That's what I got from your words which is another reason why I mixed you up with my liberal rant.

I haven't implied anywhere that I have any sympathy for those that face the death penalty so I'll pass on your attempt at educating me.

Well you seem to have sympathy for their family which seems to be a strong enough reason to keep them from being put to death. At least it seems so as that's one of the things you're talking about especially since you seem to be against the death penalty, unless you're playing devil's advocate here.

Go back to school your reading comprehension might improve the second time around. Can you quote where I've defended cold-blooded killers. By opinioning that the death penalty does not always have the desired effect means I'm arguing that cold-blooded killers should be free to roam society and murder as they please

Sorry, that again, was a comment referring to crazy liberals that make criminals out to be victims in my rant I went on. You just kinda got thrown in the mix since I was referring to your post.

- N

Anyone want to try explaining how death is a punishment?
I first assumed you were kidding, but judging by your subsequent posts, you honestly believe death is not a punishment! As you are somehow incapable of understanding something intiutively obvious to humans since the dawn of time, consider the evidence. Consider how just about every person sentenced to death fights it tooth and nail. Consider how many plea bargins result from taking the death penalty off the table. Consider the morons protesting the execution of every murderer which they clearly wouldn't be doing if he was, in fact, excaping punishment.

God has no problem with killing.

And when God commands me to kill or condone a killing
then I shall. The US government is no God.

Eye for an eye is a maximal punishment, meaning
that I should take no more than one of your eyes when
you take one of mine. Nowhere does the bible give minimal
punishments, Jesus speaks of forgiveness. Consequences
for crime must be ethical deterents, not moral punishments.
Society has no moral authority to punish, vengeance belongs
solely to the Lord.

And on the topic of the death penalty reducing crime, I'll
admit I have no statistics currently. I have read a study
that looked at crime rates in states that had the death
penalty and then didn't, and vice versa. They found a
consistantly higher rate of violence when the death penalty
was in effect.

I use the analogy of children of abusive parent being more prone to abuse.

Since I don't have numbers, you may reject this out-of-hand.
However, please also reject the claim that it somehow deters
crime, since we have never seen a scientific study to support
that. At best the death penalty does not effect crime rates.

The necessity of capital punishment lies not in morality but in practicality. Legal sanctions find their validity in vengeance, punishment, and deterrence. The former two applied towards the actual perpetrator the latter hopefully successfully implemented in the context of decreasing similar acts in the society involved.

Much hand wringing occurs when faced with the prospect of the execution of prospective innocent death row inmates, but this fact mitigates little against the execution of the convicted. Simply put, a legal system that allows for the defense, perhaps paid for by the very state that prosecutes, appellate review, and even the reexamination and overturning of the conviction really doesn't get much better and should be allowed, at some point, to come to a final decision. Final decisions are extremely important to victims and work against cruel and unusual punishment for the convicted. Remember this is the same legal system that finds accused murders not guilty. Would those that argue against the legal system that finds people innocent of murder throw this system out with the bath water merely because the other side of the coin demands justice for wrongs committed against those members of society it protects when their lives are brutally taken from them? This said, I would argue for more liberal treatment of real evidence, such as DNA, that could be considered exculpatory, but not much since this can easily be abused. (Many regard the appeals process-- as long as twelve years--, as cruel and unusual for both the convicted and the family of his victim(s) but, given the Law’s ultimate resolution of murder cases, this is necessary to help guard against the execution of the innocent.)

I must confess that I did not visit the article cited, but if morality is to be applied anywhere, it is against the economists’ argument towards saving lives by the extinction of a particular life. How does this work if, initially, the guilty party is incarcerated and then eliminated entirely from society? Deterrence might be cited but, looking at the majority of individual cases, would not apply since passion, perceived disrespect, or unknown psychopathic origins serve as causative agents in the cases in question. Economic arguments to this question always come up wanting. Consider the argument that it is more economic to summarily execute the condemned than to pussy foot around with pesky legal appeals and evidential reexamination.

The American legal system is sound. Capital punishment is practical. Both are morally informed by the experience of the members of society. Regrets? We have a few, but these are based on hindsight which is only useful regarding further decisions and not condemnation of individuals for past decisions.

Respectfully,

JM

What the killer's family feels should be the last of anyone's concerns, second to the feelings of the person that's being put under. Are you trying to say that what the killer's family feels is reason enough to not have the death penalty or something?
I'm only pointing out that in executing someone we're continuing the cycle of pain and suffering.

Well you seem to have sympathy for their family which seems to be a strong enough reason to keep them from being put to death. At least it seems so as that's one of the things you're talking about especially since you seem to be against the death penalty, unless you're playing devil's advocate here.
No and sort of, I'm trying to see as many points to the issue as possible so I can refine my own position on the death penalty. I am generally against the death penalty particulary so for non-violent crimes like drug possession. However there have been executions I agree with like Timothy McVeigh for example. So in my opinion some deserve to be executed and some deserve a second chance wether or not that means letting them out of jail at some point is a whole other issue though.

Sorry, that again, was a comment referring to crazy liberals that make criminals out to be victims in my rant I went on. You just kinda got thrown in the mix since I was referring to your post.
Ok, I'll apologise for getting a little hotheaded myself. I hope we're clear now :cool:
I first assumed you were kidding, but judging by your subsequent posts, you honestly believe death is not a punishment! As you are somehow incapable of understanding something intiutively obvious to humans since the dawn of time...
Neildo, this is the sort of person I was talking about in my previous post, you see how it's all very black & white for some when of course, it's rarely that simple ;)

I am generally against the death penalty particulary so for non-violent crimes like drug possession. However there have been executions I agree with like Timothy McVeigh for example. So in my opinion some deserve to be executed and some deserve a second chance wether or not that means letting them out of jail at some point is a whole other issue though.

Well I don't know of a single pro-death advocate that thinks any different from the above. Those that are pro-death, they don't wanna put to death every single person who commits a crime. Punishments have to fit the crime. Usually only those that commit murder, or mass murder, in cold-blood, are the ones we want to see put to death.

But have no fear, for the execution system is a joke. You're lucky (or unlucky) to have one person put to death a year in the states that actually do carry it out whereas there's literally thousands of people on death row. Most are going to die in prison of old age before they get executed, heh. So in that regards, I guess it's somewhat of a compromise between those that are for or against the death penalty.

- N

If you look at this from a religious point of view, God would be the only judge of who deserves to die...
But if someone killed a member of my family I'd probably want them dead. Isn't America the only place in the world that has capital punishment?

No, Japan and Britain still have it, as well as pretty much all African nations.
Also, don't all countries have the death penalty for treason?

If you look at this from a religious point of view, God would be the only judge of who deserves to die...

You mean a Christian point of view. Or better yet, a MAN's point of view as the Bible is the work of man and his philosophy on the God of which we know absolutely nothing about.

It seems that the men who wrote our laws are more powerful than the men who wrote those religious ones. Where is your God?

- N

Hapsburg

no australia has NO death penelty at all

Mot even for treason? WTF! What kind of pussy country doesn't even have death penalty for treason?

one that belives the worst penelty should be life without the possability

one that belives the worst penelty should be life without the possability (of parole?)

So what ye're saying is that in punishing a violent criminal, we should also punish the entire society by making them pay for that criminal's necessary needs ...including guards, housing, food, entertainment, clothing, legal assistance, healthcare, etc??? ...for the rest of his life, with no benefits to that society?

Baron Max

did i say that they shouldnt work?
no i said they shouldnt DIE

hell make them make number plates and t-shirts for all i care for 12 hrs a day

as for the rest YES there legal costs should be paid and if they cant then the state should and YES same with health care (we have a system that says health care is for all not the ritch rember)

as for entertainment who said anything about that?
a 4x4 cell with a bed and a box of tissues is all the entertainment they should be provided

It's of no concern that they "work", Asguard, the society is still punished by having to provide that land and the utilities and that big building where they all live! Ye're punishing all of society for their crimes. You can whitewash it all you want, but that's exactly what ye're doing ...punishing all of society for the crimes of those few people. And it's a lot more $$ than you think it is ....something like $500,000 per year per criminal. That's a lot of money, ain't it?

Baron Max

thats bull it costs alot more to exicute someone than it does to keep them in jail

thats bull it costs alot more to exicute someone than it does to keep them in jail

No, it doesn't!! The reason for the additional, exhorbitant cost is that we DON'T execute them ...we keep them in prison, on death row, for decades INSTEAD of carrying out the court's sentence! The cost is NOT in the execution, but in the bullshit that keeps us FROM executing the bastards!!!

Baron Max

you mean thinks like the right to due prosses in order to make sure we have the RIGHT person? yea right

you mean thinks like the right to due prosses in order to make sure we have the RIGHT person? yea right

So ....it takes decades for the due process?

And if our juries and courts can't be relied upon to reach a verdict, then why do we even have them? Why don't we just let the "suspects" go free? I mean, they won't kill or rape too many more people, and we won't have to worry about executing the wrong person!!

In fact, if we can't ever be absolutely positive, then we shouldn't put ANYONE in prison either.

Baron Max

And if our juries and courts can't be relied upon to reach a verdict, then why do we even have them? Why don't we just let the "suspects" go free? I mean, they won't kill or rape too many more people, and we won't have to worry about executing the wrong person!!

Why don't we just keep them in jail? It's a heck of a lot cheaper than executing people, and that decade long-due "process" apparantly isn't long enough. The cost of killing one innocent person is unacceptable. I don't know wheter or not you condone murder, baron, but i sure don't!

The cost of killing one innocent person is unacceptable.

Well, perhaps to you, but that's obviously not true of everyone. You have a right to that opinion, and you have a right to vote that way. But those of us who feel differently also have a voice and a vote.

I don't know wheter or not you condone murder, baron, but i sure don't!

See? You don't even know the difference between "execution" and "murder", yet ye're trying to voice your uninformed opinion. That's sad.

Baron Max

[QUOTE=Hapsburg]No, Japan and Britain still have it, as well as pretty much all African nations.QUOTE]

I don't think so.

one that belives the worst penelty should be life without the possability

that's so wise.

it's worse then dieing, I think.

See? You don't even know the difference between "execution" and "murder", yet ye're trying to voice your uninformed opinion. That's sad.

I'm talking about the people that were executed that were later proven innocent. That's not execution, that's murder.

I just wish we didn't even need capital punishment. Why can't people just not kill people?

Why can't people just not kill people?
Because we're people. It's what our species does best.

I'm talking about the people that were executed that were later proven innocent. That's not execution, that's murder.

No, it's called "wrongful death" ...certainly NOT murder! If you can't get the definitions right, how can you discuss this issue?? Or are you just ranting out your opinion ...even without any facts or substantiation?

Baron Max

Why can't people just not kill people?

Because some people actually LIKE to kill other people!! And I need to ask you: Why can't you see that? Don't you watch the news? Don't you watch television crime shows and such? I mean, seriously, do you know that little about humans and human history?

I just wish we didn't even need capital punishment.

Well, an old Texas saying is an appropriate response to that: "Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first!"

Baron Max

No, it's called "wrongful death" ...certainly NOT murder! If you can't get the definitions right, how can you discuss this issue?? Or are you just ranting out your opinion ...even without any facts or substantiation?

A "wrongful death"! LOL! The "U.S government" can't murder anyone so is that why it's a wrongful death. Killing someone that's totally innocent isn't only wrong, it's murder.

can you imagine going to the electric chair for a crime you did not commit?
put that in your pro death penalty pipe and smoke it.

can you imagine going to the electric chair for a crime you did not commit?
put that in your pro death penalty pipe and smoke it.

if the person who framed me did it good enough to convince the DA, several Judges, 12 jurors, and three apellate courts, not to mention several governers and presidents, then i guess it was my time to go.

can you imagine going to the electric chair for a crime you did not commit? put that in your pro death penalty pipe and smoke it.

Leopold, every single day, people climb into their cars and go out on the highway with a gazillion other drivers ...and every siingle day, thousands of innocent drivers are killed by other drivers being careless or wreckless or drunk or impaired or whatever.

It's not justified, it's not right, it's not the way it should be, it's not the way it oughta' be, ....the people are innocent, yet they die by the thousands, but keep doing it anyway.

But again, people who use your argument are appealling to the emotions, and one should NOT make important decisions based on emotional attachment to the issue. If it were me, I they were going to execute me, I sure wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't change my mind on the death penalty ...just like it doesn't when we discover that we executed the wrong person for a crime. Shit happens, but we can't stop living and working until we've fixed all the problems!

Baron Max

Why not kill all criminals then?

it was a thought baron no need to get your panties in a bunch
i see the value of the death penalty, i do, but i am against it.

Why not kill all criminals then?

If we did that, then crime would drop so much that we'd have to fire a bunch of cops, attorneys, court judges, etc ....and the economy would collapse!! Millions and millions of people make their living fuckin' with criminals in all phases of our economy, from the legal/lawmaking end, to the cops who capture them, to the judges and courts who convict them, to the jailers who guard them, to the contractors who supply the needs of the prisons. Yeah, we NEED criminals ....the whole fuckin' economy depends on them.

Hell, perhaps we should have "National Criminals Day" to honor them for their efforts in securiing our economy!! :)

Baron Max

It's not justified, it's not right, it's not the way it should be, it's not the way it oughta' be, ....the people are innocent, yet they die by the thousands, but keep doing it anyway.

Innocent people die by the thousands all the time. Over 5,000 die a year from the flu, does that mean we should build an airtight, germ free box in which to live? No! But does people dying from the flu and in car accidents justify us killing innocent people? No it doesn't.

After a death penalty murder there are usually 17 extra murders.

A death penalty costs more to us taxpayers than it does for life in jail.

Most people say they fear life in jail more than the death penalty.

And the death penalty kills innocent people all the time. Two wrongs don't make something right.

A death penalty costs more to us taxpayers than it does for life in jail.

Not if they went ahead and carried out the sentence! As it is, they spend decades on death row, and the state spends millions in legal, appeals bullshit. If they just took 'em out behind the courthouse and shot 'em, it'd cost almost nothing!!

But does people dying from the flu and in car accidents justify us killing innocent people? No it doesn't.

But from your own arguments, we should cancel all driving on the highways and streets ....it would eliminate any and all auto accidental deaths. That's exactly what ye're trying to prevent by eliminating the death penalty ...so it's the same, exact argument.

After a death penalty murder there are usually 17 extra murders.

How could anyone know that?? How could anyone know what WOULD have been in the future? Because without knowing what WOULD have been, you can't compare to what did happen!

Most people say they fear life in jail more than the death penalty.

What?! So now we give the fuckin' criminals their choices??

And the death penalty kills innocent people all the time. Two wrongs don't make something right.

Driving accidents kill lots, lots more innocent people ...yet we allow driving by all kinds of people! What's the difference? ...other than one activity kills MORE people which is permitted to continue?

I will also ask again ......what does any society need with vicious, violent murderers and rapists? Why should any society want to keep them? Even in cages??? I don't get it.

Baron Max

Most people say they fear life in jail more than the death penalty.

And since Liberals seem to wanna be more humane to prisoners, grantly them the death penalty to put them out of their misery seems the way to go! ;)

- N

Yeah, but since liberals seem to think that they know what's best for everyone, they're perfectly willing to FORCE the convicted criminals to do things the liberal way!! ....LOL! :)

Baron Max

And hey, aren't liberals all for euthanasia -- putting people out of their misery? Weird, but they're against the death penalty because it's inhumane. Gotta love how they continue to contradict themselves, no?

I mean hey, I'm all for euthanasia, but I'm also all for the death penalty. I agree with lots of the liberal laws as I believe everyone should be free. That's also the die-hard lover of the Constitution in me. I agree with both sides on many issues. But damn, c'mon, I hate when both parties make asses of themselves contradicting each other left and right like that.

- N

I will try to explain the difference:

Leftie:
Euthanasia - the choice to end your OWN life.

Rightie:
Death Penalty - the choice to end someone ELSE his life

As you can see it is not the liberals or lefties who try to impose their morals on others. It is the other way around.

Well, the way I always hear it, death, regardless of who it's to, is horrible. Kinda amusing how when it comes to extreme Liberals and extreme Conservatives, they both have the same views. Little prissy hippies thinking all death is bad and then the religious people saying the same thing as God should be the only judge. :rolleyes:

- N

Leftie: Euthanasia - the choice to end your OWN life.
Rightie: Death Penalty - the choice to end someone ELSE his life

As you can see it is not the liberals or lefties who try to impose their morals on others. It is the other way around.

No, that's not quite right. The criminal, by choosing to commit the crime, made his choice that, IF he got caught, he'd be sentenced to death. The criminal consciously made the choice to take his own life. The legal system simply carried out his initial wishes!

Baron Max

Not really. The criminal usually assumes he's going to NOT get caught and get away. If they know they'd get cauge, as in the case of the columbine maniacs, they'd kill themselves, and that is a rough from of euthanasia. However, simply commiting a crime isn't always a deathwish, because a criminal assumes he's gonna get away, normally...though he often doesn't, by mistake.

Not really. The criminal usually assumes he's going to NOT get caught and get away. If they know they'd get cauge, as in the case of the columbine maniacs, they'd kill themselves, and that is a rough from of euthanasia.

But suicide is a one-way ticket to Hell with no ifs, ands, or buts. At least with committing murder, you're still going to be tried by God so you have a chance of not going to Hell. And with the death system, it's not suicide as someone else is executing them. ;)

- N

Not really. The criminal usually assumes he's going to NOT get caught and get away. If they know they'd get cauge, as in the case of the columbine maniacs, they'd kill themselves, and that is a rough from of euthanasia. However, simply commiting a crime isn't always a deathwish, because a criminal assumes he's gonna get away, normally...though he often doesn't, by mistake.
i disagree. a crimenal doesn't think at all
if they did they usually do not commit the crime.