Capital Punishment: Killing the Innocent

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am against it

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

You probably should look up the already mentioned thread.

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

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

See? We are already on the same side!!

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

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

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

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

Thanks for joining the dark side!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

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

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

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

And if you look at the statistics of the Innocence Project, you quickly lose confidence in the ability of prosecutors to separate the guilty from the innocent.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Moderator note:

1. This is not the religion forum.

2. Address the topic not the poster.

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

-Sam

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The feeling’s mutual.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Those people are animals who deserve only death.

 

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