Death penalty - Your opinion

[Katzndogz]

That's justifiable. It's called taking out the trash. A public service.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's justifiable. It's called taking out the trash. A public service.

Actually not. It’s called contempt for the rule of law, common to most on the social right.

 

[bianco]

The chambers of death are gonna be busy killing human beings in April.
Premeditated, cold-blooded killing by the states.

April 2014 Executions

 

[Statistikhengst]

The chambers of death are gonna be busy killing human beings in April.
Premeditated, cold-blooded killing by the states.

April 2014 Executions

The first person named on that list killed TWENTY FIVE people.

 

[Pogo]

The chambers of death are gonna be busy killing human beings in April.
Premeditated, cold-blooded killing by the states.

April 2014 Executions

The first person named on that list killed TWENTY FIVE people.

Question is, how many does the State get to kill?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The chambers of death are gonna be busy killing human beings in April.
Premeditated, cold-blooded killing by the states.

April 2014 Executions

The first person named on that list killed TWENTY FIVE people.

Question is, how many does the State get to kill?

I do not know. I don't think it's a matter of "get to".

 

[Meathead]

The chambers of death are gonna be busy killing human beings in April.
Premeditated, cold-blooded killing by the states.

April 2014 Executions

Providing a list to argue against the death penalty that starts with Tommy Lynn Sells is not going to get you much traction. In fact, it's downright goofy:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohi_-rExJag]Serial Killer Tommy Lynn Sells talks to Martin Bashir - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

The first person named on that list killed TWENTY FIVE people.

Question is, how many does the State get to kill?

I do not know. I don't think it's a matter of "get to".

I think it's completely about that. "Get to" as in "have the right to". What we and a few of the most primitive states in the world do in effect is have the State declare "killing is illegal" and then proceed to violate its own directive.

I have yet to see an argument for the death penalty that isn't based on emotion (revenge). That's a problem.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Question is, how many does the State get to kill?

I do not know. I don't think it's a matter of "get to".

I think it's completely about that. "Get to" as in "have the right to". What we and a few of the most primitive states in the world do in effect is have the State declare "killing is illegal" and then proceed to violate its own directive.

I have yet to see an argument for the death penalty that isn't based on emotion (revenge). That's a problem.

I believe it's supposed to be about justice. Justice for the victims of such henious crimes.

 

[Pogo]

I do not know. I don't think it's a matter of "get to".

I think it's completely about that. "Get to" as in "have the right to". What we and a few of the most primitive states in the world do in effect is have the State declare "killing is illegal" and then proceed to violate its own directive.

I have yet to see an argument for the death penalty that isn't based on emotion (revenge). That's a problem.

I believe it's supposed to be about justice. Justice for the victims of such henious crimes.

That's what I just said, dressed up in lexicographical finery ("justice" as euphemism) so we can pretend it's not based on emotion. But it is. Indeed you've leaked a telltale clue to that with the word "heinous".

Actual "justice" would be undoing the murder and bringing the victim back. Short of that, justice is just not in the realm of our capability. So we eliminate the perpetrator from our midst -- but in doing so we flout our own principles, the very same principles we accuse the perpetrator of flouting. "Do as I say, not as I do".

How hypocritical is that?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think it's completely about that. "Get to" as in "have the right to". What we and a few of the most primitive states in the world do in effect is have the State declare "killing is illegal" and then proceed to violate its own directive.

I have yet to see an argument for the death penalty that isn't based on emotion (revenge). That's a problem.

I believe it's supposed to be about justice. Justice for the victims of such henious crimes.

That's what I just said, dressed up in lexicographical finery ("justice" as euphemism) so we can pretend it's not based on emotion. But it is. Indeed you've leaked a telltale clue to that with the word "heinous".

Actual "justice" would be undoing the murder and bringing the victim back. Short of that, justice is just not in the realm of our capability. So we eliminate the perpetrator from our midst -- but in doing so we flout our own principles, the very same principles we accuse the perpetrator of flouting. "Do as I say, not as I do".

How hypocritical is that?

The word heinious is merely a descriptor, but I find some merit in your argument.

However, there are some crimes that I think indeed merit the death penalty, even if that penalty itself does not bring the dead back from the grave:

rape of a child
mass murder
genocide

would be three crimes that come to mind.

I find it oversimplified to say that countries without the death penalty are somehow more civilized than countries that have the death penalty.

There is one more element in this worth consideration: Abschreckung (German: deterrence).

If the death of one mass murderer keeps even one more innocent person from being murdered by a copycat murderer like the one who just received the death penalty, then perhaps it is worth it.

Is the death penalty revenge? Good question.

Is jail time therefore also revenge? Must be considered.

I will, however, weigh your words.

As I wrote near the beginning of this thread a long time ago, this is a subject where I am extremely conflicted. I see both sides.

 

[Pogo]

I believe it's supposed to be about justice. Justice for the victims of such henious crimes.

That's what I just said, dressed up in lexicographical finery ("justice" as euphemism) so we can pretend it's not based on emotion. But it is. Indeed you've leaked a telltale clue to that with the word "heinous".

Actual "justice" would be undoing the murder and bringing the victim back. Short of that, justice is just not in the realm of our capability. So we eliminate the perpetrator from our midst -- but in doing so we flout our own principles, the very same principles we accuse the perpetrator of flouting. "Do as I say, not as I do".

How hypocritical is that?

The word heinious is merely a descriptor, but I find some merit in your argument.

However, there are some crimes that I think indeed merit the death penalty, even if that penalty itself does not bring the dead back from the grave:

rape of a child
mass murder
genocide

would be three crimes that come to mind.

I find it oversimplified to say that countries without the death penalty are somehow more civilized than countries that have the death penalty.

There is one more element in this worth consideration: Abschreckung (German: deterrence).

If the death of one mass murder keeps even one more innocent person from being murdered by a copycat murderer like the one who just received the death penalty, then perhaps it is worth it.

Is the death penalty revenge? Good question.

Is jail time therefore also revenge? Must be considered.

I will, however, weigh your words.

As I wrote near the beginning of this thread a long time ago, this is a subject where I am extremely conflicted. I see both sides.

Well put.

The problem with the descriptor "heinous" (as well as the others listed) is that it qualifies the crime with emotional content. We swell up with more emotion at the murder of an innocent child than at the execution of a rival gangster, but either way it's a murder, and murder, like anything, should be either an affront to society or not.

One problem with that approach:
If we put greater degrees of wrong on the case of the child, then we correspondingly put less of that degree on the case of the gangster. But the taking of a life is the same act in both. Ultimately this means degrees of wrong, that a gangster killing another gangster is "not as bad". And that begs the question, what do we intend in making murder illegal -- do we intend to deter the practice of murder, or do we intend to set up a spectrum of how wrong it might be? Is the idea that 'you don't murder people' or is the idea that 'all murders are created equal but some are more equal than others'?

Of course this is just one aspect-- we haven't even touched either the question of "does the State have the right to take life" nor the vital issue of its executing the innocent, both by accident (faulty conviction) and by design (abuse of the system), both of which are known to exist.

 

[Statistikhengst]

That's what I just said, dressed up in lexicographical finery ("justice" as euphemism) so we can pretend it's not based on emotion. But it is. Indeed you've leaked a telltale clue to that with the word "heinous".

Actual "justice" would be undoing the murder and bringing the victim back. Short of that, justice is just not in the realm of our capability. So we eliminate the perpetrator from our midst -- but in doing so we flout our own principles, the very same principles we accuse the perpetrator of flouting. "Do as I say, not as I do".

How hypocritical is that?

The word heinious is merely a descriptor, but I find some merit in your argument.

However, there are some crimes that I think indeed merit the death penalty, even if that penalty itself does not bring the dead back from the grave:

rape of a child
mass murder
genocide

would be three crimes that come to mind.

I find it oversimplified to say that countries without the death penalty are somehow more civilized than countries that have the death penalty.

There is one more element in this worth consideration: Abschreckung (German: deterrence).

If the death of one mass murder keeps even one more innocent person from being murdered by a copycat murderer like the one who just received the death penalty, then perhaps it is worth it.

Is the death penalty revenge? Good question.

Is jail time therefore also revenge? Must be considered.

I will, however, weigh your words.

As I wrote near the beginning of this thread a long time ago, this is a subject where I am extremely conflicted. I see both sides.

Well put.

The problem with the descriptor "heinous" (as well as the others listed) is that it qualifies the crime with emotional content. We swell up with more emotion at the murder of an innocent child than at the execution of a rival gangster, but either way it's a murder, and murder, like anything, should be either an affront to society or not.

One problem with that approach:
If we put greater degrees of wrong on the case of the child, then we correspondingly put less of that degree on the case of the gangster. But the taking of a life is the same act in both. Ultimately this means degrees of wrong, that a gangster killing another gangster is "not as bad". And that begs the question, what do we intend in making murder illegal -- do we intend to deter the practice of murder, or do we intend to set up a spectrum of how wrong it might be? Is the idea that 'you don't murder people' or is the idea that 'all murders are created equal but some are more equal than others'?

Of course this is just one aspect-- we haven't even touched either the question of "does the State have the right to take life" nor the vital issue of its executing the innocent, both by accident (faulty conviction) and by design (abuse of the system), both of which are known to exist.

Easy to say that there are no degrees of crime. But alone the existence of a criminal justice system indicates that there are degrees.

Murder is indeed murder. But the taking of the life of a child, one who is totally defenseless in our society, is even more evil than a gang murder.

Perhaps it should not be that way, but in my eyes, it is that way.

Now, to the question as to whether the state should be empowered to punish criminals in this way or not - that is indeed a big question.

 

[bianco]

Providing a list to argue against the death penalty that starts with Tommy Lynn Sells is not going to get you much traction. In fact, it's downright goofy:

Nah.
It's all about the killings the states are doing...Sells is just another on the heinous list.

It's time.
Time the states were banned from killing human beings.

 

[Pogo]

Providing a list to argue against the death penalty that starts with Tommy Lynn Sells is not going to get you much traction. In fact, it's downright goofy:

Nah.
It's all about the killings the states are doing...Sells is just another on the heinous list.

It's time.
Time the states were banned from killing human beings.

Indeed. For one thing (another angle) it means allowing the State greater power than its own citizens.

Somebody defend that.

 

[Pogo]

The word heinious is merely a descriptor, but I find some merit in your argument.

However, there are some crimes that I think indeed merit the death penalty, even if that penalty itself does not bring the dead back from the grave:

rape of a child
mass murder
genocide

would be three crimes that come to mind.

I find it oversimplified to say that countries without the death penalty are somehow more civilized than countries that have the death penalty.

There is one more element in this worth consideration: Abschreckung (German: deterrence).

If the death of one mass murder keeps even one more innocent person from being murdered by a copycat murderer like the one who just received the death penalty, then perhaps it is worth it.

Is the death penalty revenge? Good question.

Is jail time therefore also revenge? Must be considered.

I will, however, weigh your words.

As I wrote near the beginning of this thread a long time ago, this is a subject where I am extremely conflicted. I see both sides.

Well put.

The problem with the descriptor "heinous" (as well as the others listed) is that it qualifies the crime with emotional content. We swell up with more emotion at the murder of an innocent child than at the execution of a rival gangster, but either way it's a murder, and murder, like anything, should be either an affront to society or not.

One problem with that approach:
If we put greater degrees of wrong on the case of the child, then we correspondingly put less of that degree on the case of the gangster. But the taking of a life is the same act in both. Ultimately this means degrees of wrong, that a gangster killing another gangster is "not as bad". And that begs the question, what do we intend in making murder illegal -- do we intend to deter the practice of murder, or do we intend to set up a spectrum of how wrong it might be? Is the idea that 'you don't murder people' or is the idea that 'all murders are created equal but some are more equal than others'?

Of course this is just one aspect-- we haven't even touched either the question of "does the State have the right to take life" nor the vital issue of its executing the innocent, both by accident (faulty conviction) and by design (abuse of the system), both of which are known to exist.

Easy to say that there are no degrees of crime. But alone the existence of a criminal justice system indicates that there are degrees.

Murder is indeed murder. But the taking of the life of a child, one who is totally defenseless in our society, is even more evil than a gang murder.

Perhaps it should not be that way, but in my eyes, it is that way.

Now, to the question as to whether the state should be empowered to punish criminals in this way or not - that is indeed a big question.

And there again you've returned to emotion with "even more evil" -- not to mention the concept of evil itself, which is problematic and may need to be resolved first.

It still comes down to setting up a hierarchy of human life: 'this one' is worth more than 'that one'. And that value judgment seems as presumptuous as the rationalization that the State has the right to take life in the first place.

Now if the State had created that life, and by that measure owns it, it's another question. But it didn't.

 

[Meathead]

Providing a list to argue against the death penalty that starts with Tommy Lynn Sells is not going to get you much traction. In fact, it's downright goofy:

Nah.
It's all about the killings the states are doing...Sells is just another on the heinous list.

It's time.
Time the states were banned from killing human beings.

Indeed. For one thing (another angle) it means allowing the State greater power than its own citizens.

Somebody defend that.

No, in Europe popular opinion is very often in favor of the death penalty. It is the US system which gives greater power to the will of the people rather than rule of the elite.

Surprisingly, public opinion polls show that the death penalty is still popular in many of the countries where it is illegal. Support ranges from very low in Scandinavia to 65 percent in Britain. But supporters do not hold their views strongly. The death penalty is not a subject of ongoing political debate, in part because European nations do not elect judges or prosecutors. So most officials who administer the legal system are not subject to campaign pressures or fears of being depicted in television ads as soft on crime.

Europe's View of the Death Penalty - NYTimes.com

 

[Pogo]

Nah.
It's all about the killings the states are doing...Sells is just another on the heinous list.

It's time.
Time the states were banned from killing human beings.

Indeed. For one thing (another angle) it means allowing the State greater power than its own citizens.

Somebody defend that.

No, in Europe popular opinion is very often in favor of the death penalty. It is the US system which gives greater power to the will of the people rather than rule of the elite.

Surprisingly, public opinion polls show that the death penalty is still popular in many of the countries where it is illegal. Support ranges from very low in Scandinavia to 65 percent in Britain. But supporters do not hold their views strongly. The death penalty is not a subject of ongoing political debate, in part because European nations do not elect judges or prosecutors. So most officials who administer the legal system are not subject to campaign pressures or fears of being depicted in television ads as soft on crime.

Europe's View of the Death Penalty - NYTimes.com

Europe?? Wtf does that post have to do with Europe?

The question was philosophical, to wit: "on what basis does a State award itself a right it denies to its own citizens"?

That's got nothing in the world to do with "Europe".

 

[Indofred]

The death penalty is often seen as revenge; I do not agree.
I see it as talking out the trash.

One has to ask, if someone has committed a crime vile enough to warrant such a harsh punishment, do we really want him or her sharing the planet with us?

In my opinion, the answer is , no.
In Europe, the EU human rights act prevents this cheap and effective removal of even the worst of our criminals, even such as Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Brady, but I believe this is a major error.
Michael Adebolajo is another prime example of people the world would be far better off without, but Britain can't remove him because of the rather silly human rights ideals.

I look at it this way - people such as Adebolajo have proven they are less than human so, in my opinion, they forfeit such rights.

 

[Meathead]

Indeed. For one thing (another angle) it means allowing the State greater power than its own citizens.

Somebody defend that.

No, in Europe popular opinion is very often in favor of the death penalty. It is the US system which gives greater power to the will of the people rather than rule of the elite.

Surprisingly, public opinion polls show that the death penalty is still popular in many of the countries where it is illegal. Support ranges from very low in Scandinavia to 65 percent in Britain. But supporters do not hold their views strongly. The death penalty is not a subject of ongoing political debate, in part because European nations do not elect judges or prosecutors. So most officials who administer the legal system are not subject to campaign pressures or fears of being depicted in television ads as soft on crime.

Europe's View of the Death Penalty - NYTimes.com

Europe?? Wtf does that post have to do with Europe?

The question was philosophical, to wit: "on what basis does a State award itself a right it denies to its own citizens"?

That's got nothing in the world to do with "Europe".

Stop being such a ditz Indoboy.