Death penalty - Your opinion

[Pogo]

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.

Then what you're talking about is equivalent to genocide. Selective genocide at best.

And notably the phrase "taking out the trash" requires regarding some human life as "trash".
That's a biological hierarchy. Does the State have a right to establish a biological hierarchy?

And then there's this:
One day I happened to tear up an envelope and throw it in the trash. Because it was "trash".
After I had done that I realized the envelope had contained a four-figure paycheck.

Get my drift here?

Unlike a human life, a paycheck can be replaced. Come up with a way to do that with a human and I'm on board.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Why do you call me "Indoboy"?
And again, how in the wide world of sport does my point allude in any way to Europe?

 

[Indofred]

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

And notably the phrase "taking out the trash" requires regarding some human life as "trash".
.

That is correct.
I see people of the type I mentioned as sub human.
Their actions prove this.
themYou don't keep the old food wrappings in the house because they used to have food in it - you toss it in the bin before rats take over your house.

 

[Indofred]

Stop being such a ditz Indoboy.

Why do you call me "Indoboy"?

He's very confused.

 

[Meathead]

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

Sorry, don't be such a ditz Pogo. Better now?

 

[Pogo]

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

Sorry, don't be such a ditz Pogo. Better now?

So you're completely illiterate -- and that's somehow my fault. Alrighty then.

Get someone who can write in English to explain how the philosophical question of whether a State can assume a right it denies its own citizens somehow relates to the concept of "Europe". Or to public polls about laws.

 

[MaryL]

We need to fix the justice system , then proceed from there. I would have to grudgingly support the death penalty. Given the rather arcane justice system with it's flaws, I cringe at supporting it (the death penalty) . But there are clear instances where the crime is so heinous and vile, that there is nothing we do can do to answer it but to end the perpetrator’s life. One could say abortion is, for much the same reasons as the death penalty, as barbaric. But here we are. How civilized are we? And we have entire industry devoted to slaughtering innocent animals to devour their flesh for our pleasure, we hunt or euthenize animals at the drop of a hat, for lesser reasons.

 

[Crystalclear]

I support the death penalty, but it should be reformed. Less people should get the punishment, except real dangers such as (serial) killers and (serial) rapers. Only the ones who surely committed the crime (this rule just leaves a few convicts) should get it. Less death row and such. The death penalty is there for justice, but also to be a more efficient amd cheaper punishment than life sentence. But because of paroles death row imprisonment is just a more expensice life sentence.
So, it must be sure that someone committed the crime and then parole and long death rows will be over and will the death punishment be a good and efficient way to punish.

 

[Pogo]

We need to fix the justice system , then proceed from there. I would have to grudgingly support the death penalty. Given the rather arcane justice system with it's flaws, I cringe at supporting it (the death penalty) . But there are clear instances where the crime is so heinous and vile, that there is nothing we do can do to answer it but to end the perpetrator’s life. One could say abortion is, for much the same reasons the death penalty, as barbaric. But here we are. How civilized are we? And we have entire industry devoted to slaughtering innocent animals to devour their flesh for our pleasure, we hunt or euthenize animals at the drop of a hat, for lesser reasons.

That's a good observation. We are a culture of death that likes to sanitize or sweep that death under the rug. As the zoo in Denmark pointed out, many of the people protesting its giraffe slaughter stopped at the supermarket that day for a slice of dead cow or pig or fowl without the same sense of outrage at all.

That culture of death makes it easier to install capital punishment. As long as it's away where we don't have to watch it of course.

 

[Granny]

The death penalty. I am not against the death penalty. I've been on this earth a pretty long time and it seems to me that today's criminals are glorified moreso than reviled. It seems that at all costs their lives should be spared - and many arguments are used to support that opinion. I get a bit rankled when so many of those who demand the life of those who have already proven in no uncertain ways that their lives are not worth saving ... are the SAME people who promote, protect and defend rampant abortion of the life of those who have - and never will have - the opportunity of proving what wonderful, productive, amazing human beings they might have been had they been allowed to live.

Another argument is the (oh, woe!) COST of a single execution. I'm not real good at math, but somehow it seems to me that the cost per annum of housing, feeding, clothing, providing medical procedures (including the costs of sex changes and anything else an incarcerated person has his or her heart set on) over a term of 20, 30 or more years would far exceed the cost of a half-hour process that just brought the whole matter to an end. Well, hang the cost - we've got this endless forest of money trees called taxpayers.

It's cruel and unusual punishment, not to mention painful. Really? Oh, that's right - the victim(s) who were savagely slaughtered for whatever reason or by way of whatever means didn't suffer one tiny little pang of mental, emotional or physical pain as their life was snuffed out either quickly or at the end of some merciless period of heinous torture. Neither did their parents, siblings, spouses, or children suffer. My answer: if these people need a painless execution after what they did to someone else ... give them a morphine drip and then pull the switch, inject the needle, turn on the gas or whatever - problem solved.

These are strange and pathetic times we live in these days.

 

[rightwinger]

Only barbarians still use the death penalty

 

[Pogo]

The death penalty. I am not against the death penalty. I've been on this earth a pretty long time and it seems to me that today's criminals are glorified moreso than reviled. It seems that at all costs their lives should be spared - and many arguments are used to support that opinion. I get a bit rankled when so many of those who demand the life of those who have already proven in no uncertain ways that their lives are not worth saving ... are the SAME people who promote, protect and defend rampant abortion of the life of those who have - and never will have - the opportunity of proving what wonderful, productive, amazing human beings they might have been had they been allowed to live.

Another argument is the (oh, woe!) COST of a single execution. I'm not real good at math, but somehow it seems to me that the cost per annum of housing, feeding, clothing, providing medical procedures (including the costs of sex changes and anything else an incarcerated person has his or her heart set on) over a term of 20, 30 or more years would far exceed the cost of a half-hour process that just brought the whole matter to an end. Well, hang the cost - we've got this endless forest of money trees called taxpayers.

It's cruel and unusual punishment, not to mention painful. Really? Oh, that's right - the victim(s) who were savagely slaughtered for whatever reason or by way of whatever means didn't suffer one tiny little pang of mental, emotional or physical pain as their life was snuffed out either quickly or at the end of some merciless period of heinous torture. Neither did their parents, siblings, spouses, or children suffer. My answer: if these people need a painless execution after what they did to someone else ... give them a morphine drip and then pull the switch, inject the needle, turn on the gas or whatever - problem solved.

These are strange and pathetic times we live in these days.

So you've just reconfirmed what I said about emotional arguments.

Thanks for that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm not so sure that having emotional arguments as part of the mix is such a bad idea.

The whole idea of ethics is that bad things evoke horror and disgust in us. Those are emotions, but they spur us to more noble deeds.

Like I already wrote, I am very conflicted on this.

Principally, I am against the death penalty in most cases, but I see times where the application of said is probably the best punishment for the crime at hand. In other words, there are acceptable exceptions in my eyes.

Had Hitler not blown his brains out and had he been captured, I can imagine that his execution would have been seen as absolutely correct in the eyes of hundreds of millions of human beings. Likewise for Joseph Stalin.

If we agree that part of the criminal justice system is also designed to be a deterrent to further crime, then we must accept that there is also an emotion component in that wave of thinking as well.


After all, we are not machines. We are homo sapiens.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not so sure that having emotional arguments as part of the mix is such a bad idea.

The whole idea of ethics is that bad things evoke horror and disgust in us. Those are emotions, but they spur us to more noble deeds.

Like I already wrote, I am very conflicted on this.

Principally, I am against the death penalty in most cases, but I see times where the application of said is probably the best punishment for the crime at hand. In other words, there are acceptable exceptions in my eyes.

Had Hitler not blown his brains out and had he been captured, I can imagine that his execution would have been seen as absolutely correct in the eyes of hundreds of millions of human beings. Likewise for Joseph Stalin.

If we agree that part of the criminal justice system is also designed to be a deterrent to further crime, then we must accept that there is also an emotion component in that wave of thinking as well.


After all, we are not machines. We are homo sapiens.

The problem with basing decisions on emotions, particularly decisions that have no point of return, is that emotions can sway in the moment over logic. Hitler is actually a good example, as his power depended on the emotion of mob mentality. Had logic prevailed in popular thinking, such a madman would have been relegated to the fringe where he'd be harmless and kept there. Emotion fueled Nazi Germany just as it fueled the Inquisition, any war we'd like to pick, and rage in general.

Execution is final; there is no bringing the Todd Willinghams back.

We are human, and by definition fallible.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm not so sure that having emotional arguments as part of the mix is such a bad idea.

The whole idea of ethics is that bad things evoke horror and disgust in us. Those are emotions, but they spur us to more noble deeds.

Like I already wrote, I am very conflicted on this.

Principally, I am against the death penalty in most cases, but I see times where the application of said is probably the best punishment for the crime at hand. In other words, there are acceptable exceptions in my eyes.

Had Hitler not blown his brains out and had he been captured, I can imagine that his execution would have been seen as absolutely correct in the eyes of hundreds of millions of human beings. Likewise for Joseph Stalin.

If we agree that part of the criminal justice system is also designed to be a deterrent to further crime, then we must accept that there is also an emotion component in that wave of thinking as well.


After all, we are not machines. We are homo sapiens.

The problem with basing decisions on emotions, particularly decisions that have no point of return, is that emotions can sway in the moment over logic. Hitler is actually a good example, as his power depended on the emotion of mob mentality. Had logic prevailed in popular thinking, such a madman would have been relegated to the fringe where he'd be harmless and kept there. Emotion fueled Nazi Germany just as it fueled the Inquisition, any war we'd like to pick, and rage in general.

Execution is final; there is no bringing the Todd Willinghams back.

We are human, and by definition fallible.

Point well made. But fallible does not necessarily mean wrong.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not so sure that having emotional arguments as part of the mix is such a bad idea.

The whole idea of ethics is that bad things evoke horror and disgust in us. Those are emotions, but they spur us to more noble deeds.

Like I already wrote, I am very conflicted on this.

Principally, I am against the death penalty in most cases, but I see times where the application of said is probably the best punishment for the crime at hand. In other words, there are acceptable exceptions in my eyes.

Had Hitler not blown his brains out and had he been captured, I can imagine that his execution would have been seen as absolutely correct in the eyes of hundreds of millions of human beings. Likewise for Joseph Stalin.

If we agree that part of the criminal justice system is also designed to be a deterrent to further crime, then we must accept that there is also an emotion component in that wave of thinking as well.


After all, we are not machines. We are homo sapiens.

The problem with basing decisions on emotions, particularly decisions that have no point of return, is that emotions can sway in the moment over logic. Hitler is actually a good example, as his power depended on the emotion of mob mentality. Had logic prevailed in popular thinking, such a madman would have been relegated to the fringe where he'd be harmless and kept there. Emotion fueled Nazi Germany just as it fueled the Inquisition, any war we'd like to pick, and rage in general.

Execution is final; there is no bringing the Todd Willinghams back.

We are human, and by definition fallible.

Point well made. But fallible does not necessarily mean wrong.

But it does mean fallible, which means every so often you have a Todd Willingham. And there is no way to undo that.
Are you willing to pay that price?
I'm not. Because you or I could be next. Who then will bring us back?

Again, somebody come up with either a way to be infallible, or a way to undo executions, and the argument can be made.
Far as I know neither of those exist.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There are crimes for which death is not bad enough but the death penalty doesn't accomplish anything. Its expensive and, as others have pointed out, we've killed innocent people.

We need to make our system fair. We need to get away from profit-driven "justice". As it is now, a small number of millionaires make big bucks locking people up and that fact has shaped our society. Blacks suffer more than any other group - just to make money for the wealthy.

Vote Dem and demand our system be completely revamped. If you vote Repub, you're voting for more corruption.

 

[Politico]

There should be a penalty and I should be able to administer it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm not so sure that having emotional arguments as part of the mix is such a bad idea.

The whole idea of ethics is that bad things evoke horror and disgust in us. Those are emotions, but they spur us to more noble deeds.

Like I already wrote, I am very conflicted on this.

Principally, I am against the death penalty in most cases, but I see times where the application of said is probably the best punishment for the crime at hand. In other words, there are acceptable exceptions in my eyes.

Had Hitler not blown his brains out and had he been captured, I can imagine that his execution would have been seen as absolutely correct in the eyes of hundreds of millions of human beings. Likewise for Joseph Stalin.

If we agree that part of the criminal justice system is also designed to be a deterrent to further crime, then we must accept that there is also an emotion component in that wave of thinking as well.


After all, we are not machines. We are homo sapiens.

The problem with basing decisions on emotions, particularly decisions that have no point of return, is that emotions can sway in the moment over logic. Hitler is actually a good example, as his power depended on the emotion of mob mentality. Had logic prevailed in popular thinking, such a madman would have been relegated to the fringe where he'd be harmless and kept there. Emotion fueled Nazi Germany just as it fueled the Inquisition, any war we'd like to pick, and rage in general.

Execution is final; there is no bringing the Todd Willinghams back.

We are human, and by definition fallible.

Actually, no, for the bolded, I must disagree with you [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] - that whizzed past my eyes the first time.

Perhaps Hitler came to power on a wave of emotion, but he REMAINED in power through terror and brute force, so that is not an apt comparision to the workings of any criminal justice system in the 1st world that I know of.

Just my two Eurocents.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I want to point out that part of the huge disparity - and cause of massive disagreement on many levels - is that capital punishment in the USA is an issue subordinate to federalism - since capital punishment is not spelled out in the US Constitution, then each state gets to decide how to deal with it.

But as Pogo has argued, and quite elegantly, I will add, is not every heinious murder supposed to be equally bad? Why should a mass murdered get a cushy life sentence in California, but the death sentence in Texas?

If there were to be capital punishment, should it not be adjudicated universally and according to exactly the same criteria in all of the USA?

And should capital punishment be made illegal, who is going to pay for all of those mass murderers? I don't want to.

Perhaps we should take a japanese idea, use our trash to create a huge island somewhere in the Pacific, dropped all convicted mass murderers and child rapists off on that Island, thousands of miles away from anything, and let them tear each other apart. It would solve some of our trash problem and some of our incarceration problem all at the same time.

Just a thought.