Do you agree with capital punishment?

[Frud11]

A man who tortured others is tortured forever

That's something you've said that many might see a chink in: Someone who is haunted by their own guilt, right?

You aren't actually advocating that a state carry out some ritual (of gruesome, painful and bloody punishment, like in medieval times) in the name of "retributive" justice...? The idea there being that the knowledge of death being the wages of "sin", is then sufficient unto the day, for the deterrence thereof? (A long disproved, but obviously not discarded theory)

P.S. The modern "corrective" paradigm asserts that inmates aren't in jail to be punished (with punishing punishments), the fact they're in jail is the punishment: so it's about dealing with loss of freedom (but not much else).

 

[Syzygys]

Just checking back, I don't see any new arguments...

Death is not a punishment to anyone but the family of the dead.

OK, so there is no problem with CP, since it is not a punishment. What an idiot...

By the way, if Defiant is what you called him, than you have been just beaten by a newbie asshole in a debate! Now, that is funny...

 

[Syzygys]

British murderer walks after 21 years, that's why we need/have CP:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0741898420080107

And he was on death row!!!!

 

[superluminal]

OK, so there is no problem with CP, since it is not a punishment. What an idiot...

Look, little boy. What is the purpose of a punishment? To teach the perpetrator some kind of lesson, right? If not, then what is it other than vengeful retribution? Is that what the criminal justice system is about? Vengeful retribution? It may give some kind of closure to the family of the victim, but a punishment? To the perp? That's just stupid.

It's been shown for decades that capital punishment is not a deterrent. And that the US is one of the few developed (depraved) nations that still does it.

You're probably the same kind of kid that would just love to go to some public hangings.

By the way, if Defiant is what you called him, than you have been just beaten by a newbie asshole in a debate! Now, that is funny...

Funny, a 13yo kid thinks he's hot shit... Ha!

 

[S.A.M.]

Here is my take on it. Has anyone read Albert Camus' Reflections on the Guillotine?


“For years I have been unable to see anything in capital punishment but a penalty the imagination could not endure and a lazy disorder that my reason condemned.”

Reflections on the Guillotine with an anecdote about his father’s excitement over the prospect of attending the execution of a man guilty of a particularly heinous crime in which he slaughtered a family of farmers, including children. Camus’s father believed that the guillotine was too mild a punishment for one who was guilty of such a bloodthirsty crime, but still, he dutifully set out in the dark to go to the designated place of execution at the other end of town where a great crowd had gathered.

And what was the point of the anecdote? Quite simply that when Camus’s father returned home, he didn’t say anything about what he’d seen, but instead, lay down and suddenly began to vomit.

“When the extreme penalty simply causes vomiting on the part of the respectable citizen it is supposed to protect, how can anyone maintain that it is likely, as it ought to be, to bring more peace and order into the community?” Camus writes. “Rather, it is obviously no less repulsive than the crime, and this new murder, far from making amends for harm done to the social body, adds a new blot to the first one.”

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=118

I think if the objective of capital punishment is to be exemplary, let it be televised, live. Hold it in public, invite the people, let people come in large numbers to see it done. Otherwise, dump it.

 

[Syzygys]

Look, little boy.!

Go kucf yourself idiot, you are on ignore...

Edit: I selfmoderated, because I know moderators are not fair. This self proclaimed idiot can call others in names instead of an argument, but we have to take it up in our ass?? I guess it is the same fairness what anti-CPs apply to victims. There is no victims' rights, just criminals' rights...

 

[Syzygys]

I think if the objective of capital punishment is to be exemplary, let it be televised, live.

I agree. A nice, pay-per-view Friday night special that can be rented 3 months later!
By the way let's look at numbers: back in 1987 (that's when I have numbers from) there were 18K murders in the USA and 25 executions!!!

That means any killer (of course only those who got caught) had a 1 in only 720 chance of not getting the chair! Of course it is not a deterrent when it is used so seldom. Let's say we fry every other one, sure we would see a little drop in murders.

But here is another argument. Let's say I don't even care about CP being a deterrent. But we could use executed people's organs for society's good. let's say executing a good 5000 a year we could easily help 20-30000 people who could use the criminals' organs. After all, they don't need it, do they?

If you ever heard how long the waiting list is for kidney, hearts, anything, you might want to consider this idea....

By the way I brought up this current event because anti-CP wussies keep saying that we can lock them up forever. As this case shows, forever doesn't mean shit....

 

[sandy]

Fry 'em all. Every last one of 'em. They were given the dealth penalty for a reason. They were sentenced to fry for a reason. Enforce the damned verdict!

 

[Frud11]

Fry 'em all. Every last one of 'em.

Every one of them, so there is no "every last"...?
What if one of "them" (say the last one) was your son or daughter? Or your father?
Would you be so retributive and "all-seeing" about this punishment thing then?

And as others have pointed out, any verdict or judgement can mean a wrongful imprisonment--there are such things as innocent people too.

 

[Syzygys]

Here is the second oldest dude executed, justice can be never too late:

"Clarence Ray Allen (January 16, 1930 – January 17, 2006) was an American prison inmate who was executed by lethal injection on January 17, 2006 at San Quentin State Prison in California for the murders of three people. He became the second oldest inmate to be executed in the United States since 1976 (John B. Nixon of Mississippi was executed in December 2005 at age 77). While in prison, Allen claimed Choctaw heritage. He was born in Blair, Oklahoma.

Pro-death penalty activists cite Allen's actions as a reason to support capital punishment in the United States. He was already serving a life sentence for one murder when he was convicted of organizing the killing of three more people."

So another good argument for CP: even when the lifesentenced person can not kill, he can still ORDER to kill....

Seriously, has ever been a valid argument against death penalty??? I mean we are at page 15 and I already refuted all of them by page 6...

 

[sandy]

Every one of them, so there is no "every last"...?
What if one of "them" (say the last one) was your son or daughter? Or your father?
Would you be so retributive and "all-seeing" about this punishment thing then?
And as others have pointed out, any verdict or judgement can mean a wrongful imprisonment--there are such things as innocent people too.

First of all, none of my relatives would EVER be in that position. We are law-abiding, cream of the crop Americans. IF a relative ever deserved it, then yes, absolutely I would say fry them too.

 

[Syzygys]

-there are such things as innocent people too.

Yes, they are usually called VICTIMS!!!

Every one of them, so there is no "every last"...?
What if one of "them" (say the last one) was your son or daughter? Or your father?

Yes, yes and yes. Why do you think, I would feel differently?? I am a fair and objective person...

Let me turn that around, although I already did (got banned for it). What if one, or 2-3 of your closest relatives were the victims of a VERY HEINOUS crime??? Of course you wouldn't blink at all if the criminal were watching Jerry Springer in prison for 20 years and maybe even write a book about it in prison??? If he was young he could even get conjugal visits!!! (because not being able to spread his seeds is a cruel and unusal punishment) Hey, rock and roll!!!

 

[madanthonywayne]

The deeper point here is not whether to punish, but at what level the punishment becomes ineffective. Death is not a punishment to anyone but the family of the dead.

Not a punishment? Ask a guy being strapped to an electric chair with pads over his eyes so they don't explode and fly out of his skull if he feels like he's getting off without punishment. Or the guy trying to hold his breath in a futile attempt to avoid the poisoness gas that has filed the room. Or even the guy being strapped to a gurney with a needle in his arm, knowing he'll never wake up again.

And given the irretrievable nature of death, why wouldn't the issue of "mistakes" become of paramount importance?

Should a doctor ever prescribe a medication when he knows that there's always the chance that the medication could induce anaphalactic shock and kill the patient? Or should he wait until the infection gets to the point that the patient will die without treatment to avoid the possibility that his treatment would ever cause a death in someone that wouldn't have died anyway?

Should treatment could ever be offered for non-fatal illnesses since an error could occur that could result in the death of an innocent person?

Clearly that's absurd. Ethics does not require perfection. It does not require inaction. It requires that you make your best effort to avoid an error. Especially one that results in death.

Since the leading cause of death on death row is often old age, I'd say we're being pretty careful.

 

[mountainhare]

I just think I'll chip in with this observation:

Anti-CP's often respond to pro-CP's with "Well, languishing in prison for life is far more horrendous than getting executed. So if you want to punish criminals, anti-CP is the way to go."

If that's true, then isn't CP preferable on the wrongfully convicted? After all, wouldn't a wrongfully convicted man suffer LESS if he were executed instead of imprisoned for life? So from a purely humanitarian aspect, capital punishment is more humane! That's if you consider life imprisonment more cruel than a quick death.

I also wonder if anti-CP's take into account how many wrongfully convicted criminals die in jail, either from old age, disease, getting bashed/knifed, etc.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I just think I'll chip in with this observation:

Anti-CP's often respond to pro-CP's with "Well, languishing in prison for life is far more horrendous than getting executed. So if you want to punish criminals, anti-CP is the way to go."

If that's true, then isn't CP preferable on the wrongfully convicted? After all, wouldn't a wrongfully convicted man suffer LESS if he were executed instead of imprisoned for life? So from a purely humanitarian aspect, capital punishment is more humane! That's if you consider life imprisonment more cruel than a quick death.

I also wonder if anti-CP's take into account how many wrongfully convicted criminals die in jail, either from old age, disease, getting bashed/knifed, etc.

Good point. I've always thought throwing hardened criminals into prison is like throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. They're in their element, they can survive and even enjoy themselves in prison. But if you put a normal innocent person there, it's hell. He doesn't know how to survive. He's completely out of his element.

Did you ever see OZ? It was a show on HBO. The main character was a lawyer sent to prison for vehicular manslaughter. He's raped repeatedly, has a swastika tattooed on his ass, has all his possessions stolen, his wife if murdered, his son is murdered, on and on. Eventually he snaps and, in one of the best vengence scenes I've ever seen on film, beats the crap out of his primary tormentor. Then he literally takes a crap on the guys face in front of a cheering crowd of inmates.

From that point on he's a force to be reckoned with in the prison. But he had to become a psycho, to descend to their level, in order to survive. If you're already a psycho, you have no such difficulty.

 

[S.A.M.]

Simple question: if you were wrongfully convicted of murder would you prefer

1. a life sentence
2. an execution?

Vote here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76041

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

First of all, none of my relatives would EVER be in that position. We are law-abiding, cream of the crop Americans. IF a relative ever deserved it, then yes, absolutely I would say fry them too.

She's right: law abiding citizens are never convicted of crimes they did not commit. All this recent DNA proof of innocence stuff notwithstanding. And of course no one believes the lies of their relatives.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm against CP, but in favor of your right to kill yourself. I'll comprimise with you supporters of CP and suggest that convicted murderers have the option to chose between death or life in prison with the option to kill themselves in a humane fashion at any time, medically supervised.

 

[sandy]

She's right: law abiding citizens are never convicted of crimes they did not commit. All this recent DNA proof of innocence stuff notwithstanding. And of course no one believes the lies of their relatives.

Innocent people with no criminal history of any kind are almost never wrongly convicted of anything. They don't put themselves in situations like that.

 

[Tiassa]

Edit: I selfmoderated, because I know moderators are not fair. This self proclaimed idiot can call others in names instead of an argument, but we have to take it up in our ass?? I guess it is the same fairness what anti-CPs apply to victims. There is no victims' rights, just criminals' rights

Whatever. It's rather hard to take the state-homicide advocates seriously when their arguments are nothing more than word games and complaining that wrongfully-convicted people eventually walk free.