Why we should enforce the death penalty

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jinx
Oh, oh, I have one. How about if one innocent person is executed, then you'll agree to be executed too, to make it all better! Life for a life thing, you know?

Ok folks: I think that what Lady Sidhe is trying to say is that those who are 100% GUILTY...for instance, the horrible "person" that OnyxCougar mentioned that murdered Steven...he wasn't even sorry that he did what he did (if I have the story correct). So, it would be "wrong" to feel that that criminal should die a painful and horrible death??? WHY??? Not everyone who feels this way is destined to a life of horrible pain and suffering (just like not every woman who gets an abortion is so full of remorse and anguish). I say Let The Victim's Family/Friends Feel How They Want To Feel..my God, how RUDE would it be for someone to go up to a victim's loved one and say, "You are being irrational for feeling the way you do! Stop it now!" I'd be goddamned if someone came up in my face talking such mess!

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by sycamore
If you were savagely murdered, I would not want that person to receive the death penalty.

And that's fine and dandy: I notice that no one is telling YOU how to feel about THAT, but when it comes to feeling the opposite, then people want to say to NOT feel revenge, hate, etc. Why should feeling the way you do be any different from how I would feel if (God forbid) YOU were murdered??? I don't get it.

[Lady Sidhe]

This isn't a religious issue for me, and it's only a moral issue in that I believe that to place the value of the life of the murderer over the life of the victim or potential victims is immoral.

And to tell the truth, I don't see the death penalty as murder at all, and I'll tell you why.

I see "murder" as being perpertrated on an innocent person, for a reason such as: being hired to kill them, wanting their possessions, trying to eliminate a witness, etc.

Now, the death penalty is out there for the world to see. It says, "if you do THIS, we will--ostensibly-- execute you if you are found guilty." Big, flashing neon sign.

Therefore, if I decide to murder someone, and it isn't in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of property, I know the possible consequence. So when you look at it like that, it's a type of passive suicide.

It's like, you know that jumping off a building will kill you, but you're taking the chance that there's gonna be a trampoline there to catch you. You know the consequence. We're not obliged to place a trampoline beneath every window. If you're stupid enough, or uncaring enough, to jump out of that window, don't bitch because you go splat.


I agree with LadySyc in that wanting revenge and feeling hatred towards these predators is just how some people are, and they have the right to feel that way. I don't see murderers as worthy of sharing the title of "person" with me, because there should be standards one must meet to be considered a person. Being human doesn't make you a person, any more than being a feline makes a housecat a tiger. I'm offended to have them in the same category as me.

I feel that by not acting in a manner agreed to by the rest of society, murderers have thus separated themselves from society, and, once convicted, should have the rights given to a member of that society revoked. Why is it ok for a farmer to kill coyotes who prey on his stock, but it's not ok for the state to kill the less-than-animal creatures that prey on society? Why is it ok to put down a rabid animal that is a danger, but not put down a predatory human being that is a danger?

If someone killed a member of my family, you bet I'd pull the switch, drop the floor, inject the drugs, pull the trigger, whatever. Like LadySyc, I'm vengeful by nature. I'd want to look into their eyes when I did it, too. Why should they live when my loved one is dead? It may not bring them back, but it would be a start on the healing process for me.

And you know what? I'd sleep like a baby afterward.

Sidhe

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
The moral argument for the death penalty has nothing to do with revenge, or with deterrence, or hatred against the perpetrator of the crime. It is an issue of justice. Bear in mind that we are working in ideals here, not in realities.

The prime motivation in atonement justice is the reparation for the wrong done...

So what value do we place on a human life? When that life it taken with malice, with forethought, with intent, and with purposeful action, what manner of reparation is appropriate? It must be recompensed with something of equal value – a human life.-sm

The death penalty takes life with malice (note the anger displayed by some of its proponents), with forethought, with intent, and with purposeful action. No individual or entity can retain a stance of integrity by saying one thing and doing another. "Human life is sacred, killing is wrong. We will now kill you." The dissonance inherent in this action is staggering, as well as the hypocrisy. Governments and countries must stand by the same moral values as an individual. The results of governments doing otherwise can be seen in Buchenwald, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc., etc.

Originally posted by smoothmoniker


As with most crimes, it is not only the victim who receives reparation, but society as well. A violation of an individual’s rights is also a violation against the social well-being. In the case of murder, the victim cannot receive reparation of any kind, but that does not alter the just demand that it be paid. It is therefore received solely by society, in the form of the state.

Society harms itself by condoning acts of violence. If a government of a people sanctions violence, the individuals under that government will recieve the message, subconsciously at least, that violence is an acceptable response. The US alone among Western nations imposes the death penalty and also has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the Western World. I cannot help but wonder if our violent society is influenced by our violent government.

Originally posted by smoothmoniker


To argue against the ideal (again, not in practice but in theory) death penalty on moral grounds, you must either argue that justice makes no demand for equal reparation, or you must argue that a life lived out to it’s natural end in prison is equivocal with a life ended prematurely – that the value of any life is only in proportion to it’s freedom. To do the first is difficult, to do the second sets up a principle that, carried to its logical end, makes the con argument even more difficult.

-sm

To make the first argument is not difficult at all. Atonement justice begins with a false premise: the belief that all wrongs can be atoned for. The hard truth is that many crimes can never be made up for to the victim. Their is no atonement to be made to the child who looses her virginity at 14 through a brutal gang rape. Their is no atonement to be made to the boy who grew up battered on a daily basis by his drunken father. There is no atonement that can be made to the dead or the loved ones left behind.

Justice should serve as a deterrent to further criminal acts and as a vehicle to insure that the individual is held responsible for his actions and pays their consequences. In some cases it is possible to achieve deterrance through rehabilitation programs. In the case of a sociopathic murder, there is no possibility of rehabilitation that we have been able to find. Such individuals should be locked up permanently. Work can be found for them that will defray the cost of their up-keep. Since I do not accept the premise of atonement justice, I feel no need to argue about the value of a life in proportion to its freedom. On a personal level, I will say, that given the choice between death and life in prison, I would choose death, without hesitation.

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe



Neither of which have any bearing on any of this, really, even though I was also replying to the bible quote. This isn't a religious issue for me, and it's only a moral issue in that I believe that to place the value of the life of the murderer over the life of the victim or potential victims is immoral.


Therefore, if I decide to murder someone, and it isn't in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of property, I know the possible consequence. So when you look at it like that, it's a type of passive suicide.


Sidhe

In my philosophy there is no such thing as "ONLY a moral issue." I did not insert that quote to argue any special religous belief, but rather to argue moral belief. The laws of a society must be based on moral values, otherwise they are meaningless. As members of society, we have the obligation to act as morally as we are capable of doing. The life of an individual is built upon morality, just as the structure of a civilization depends upon morality. We codify our moral beliefs into a system of laws and punishments.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by marichiko
The death penalty takes life with malice (note the anger displayed by some of its proponents), with forethought, with intent, and with purposeful action. No individual or entity can retain a stance of integrity by saying one thing and doing another. "Human life is sacred, killing is wrong. We will now kill you." The dissonance inherent in this action is staggering, as well as the hypocrisy. Governments and countries must stand by the same moral values as an individual. The results of governments doing otherwise can be seen in Buchenwald, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc., etc.

Show me this malice. Sure there are certain people who would dance a jig over the grave of the killer of a loved one, but that doesn't mean that there is malice in the act of execution.

"Human life is sacred, killing is wrong. <important part you left out>And to prevent you from taking more lives</important part you left out>, we will now kill you."

The State should strive to the same ethics as the individual, but the state has responsibilities that we do not and must sometimes add corrallaries to those ethics to cover those situations. Otherwise it could not function in a way resembling it's goals.

Originally posted by marichiko

Society harms itself by condoning acts of violence. If a government of a people sanctions violence, the individuals under that government will recieve the message, subconsciously at least, that violence is an acceptable response. The US alone among Western nations imposes the death penalty and also has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the Western World. I cannot help but wonder if our violent society is influenced by our violent government.

I think that the lack of deterrent effect is due to the disparity between the ideal of capital punishment and its lack of proper implementation.

"The State should strive to the same ethics as the individual, but the state has responsibilities that we do not and must sometimes add corrallaries to those ethics to cover those situations. Otherwise it could not function in a way resembling it's goals."

Exactly, the State bears a heavy burden of responsibility to those it governs. All the more reason that its actions be ethical without resorting to the cop-out of situational ethics.

"I think that the lack of deterrent effect is due to the disparity between the ideal of capital punishment and its lack of proper implementation."

Then why do nations that do not embrace this "ideal" still have a lower murder rate per capita than we do?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. What I'm saying is that the antis' basic argument is that an innocent person might be executed; the pros' basic argument is that an executed murderer will never kill again.

They are basic arguments, but I don't think they're the basic arguments.

Where's the shit-throwing?

I could have sworn I made this clear...

Originally posted by sycamore at 2:42pm EDT
I enjoy debating a topic such as this, but when you blur the boundaries between opinion and fact then smear the opposition on top of it without provocation, a debate ceases being a debate. It becomes a shit-throwing festival.

Oh yeah...that's because I DID make it clear!

We've been through this before...you're a shitty debater. If you want to get off the emotional soapbox and chill with the finger-pointing, let me know. Until then, I'm going to discuss this issue with the more civilized folks here.

[Lady Sidhe]

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. Sorry if that's how you feel.

Besides, the death penalty DOES have an emotional aspect for me, as I'm pretty sure it has for everyone who's ever had to deal with the aftermath of a murder. Just because something is emotional doesn't make it wrong. If you consider being emotional, as well as making the point of what I believe to be the basic arguments between the pros and the cons, shit-throwing, I can't change that.


Everyone who has taken part in this debate (or almost everyone, anyway, with the exception of a few) have done so not only with what each believes as the facts but also with their emotions. Emotions always come up in debates like this. I don't expect anyone to act like a computer when it comes to people's lives. Perhaps some people can truly do that. I can't. It doesn't make me wrong.


My intentions, and your perception of my intentions, are apparantly not on the same wavelength.

So, in your all-knowing opinion, what ARE the basic arguments?


Sidhe

[Elspode]

This is a pretty interesting debate, so of course, I'd like to throw a big left turn into it...

Question for the antis...if you are being attacked, is it alright for you to kill in self-defense? I mean, what if the assailant is insane and not responsible for their actions, or perhaps they were motivated by extreme need or hunger or something else that society was ultimately responsible for?

When *is* killing for protection, either personal or societal, justified?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. Sorry if that's how you feel.

Sure, the rich may elude punishment more, but I think that's more of an axiom that the liberals have said so many times that everyone believes it without question.

Penance my butt...they don't get punished, and they don't get rehabilitated. They just learn how to be better criminals.

Oh, I am SO sick of this "innocent person being executed" argument. Anti-death penalty folks always fall back on that argument, much the same as they've accused us of falling back on the "an executed murderer will never kill again" argument.

In other words, you're a goddamned liar.

Besides, the death penalty DOES have an emotional aspect for me, as I'm pretty sure it has for everyone who's ever had to deal with the aftermath of a murder. Just because something is emotional doesn't make it wrong. If you consider being emotional as well as making the point of what I believe to be the basic arguments between the pros and the cons shit-throwing, oh well.

See above...you make broad generalizations and are insulting. We're having a civil discussion about the death penalty...give me a fucking break.

Everyone who has taken part in this debate (or almost everyone, anyway, with the exception of a few) have done so not only with what each believes as the facts as well as their emotions. Emotions always come up in debates like this. I don't expect anyone to act like a computer when it comes to people's lives. Perhaps some people can truly do that. I can't. It doesn't make me wrong.

Actually, it seems to me that most of the people that have been posting in this thread have been pretty mellow and civil.

There is nothing wrong with emotion per se...too much can make people sound or act irrational though.

So, in your all-knowing opinion, what ARE the basic arguments?

Among the basic arguments for the death penalty:

--"An eye for an eye"
--0% recidivism rate
--Closure for the family
--Saves the state/federal government money

Among the basic arguments against the death penalty:

--It is cruel and unusual punishment
--Having to live to remember those crimes is punishment enough for the murderer
--Killing the murderer doesn't bring back the victim

[Happy Monkey]

When in immediate danger, and the assailant is not under your control.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Elspode
Question for the antis...if you are being attacked, is it alright for you to kill in self-defense?

Hopefully, you would be able to flee or subdue your attacker, but worst-case scenario, absolutely.

I mean, what if the assailant is insane and not responsible for their actions, or perhaps they were motivated by extreme need or hunger or something else that society was ultimately responsible for?

I can't worry about the other person in that situation...if I am being attacked and my life in danger, it will suck to be that other person, no matter what their situation is.

When *is* killing for protection, either personal or societal, justified?

If there is an imminent threat to the community or a person...e.g. if you have killed 30 people and you have hostages and a sniper has a clean shot...sucks to be you.

[jaguar]

I'm with syc.

The problem with emotion and this issue is emotion has no place in deciding justice.

[Catwoman]

Lady Sidhe: “What about taking people to task for their actions? ... Plenty of people are poor. They aren't criminals. Plenty of people were abused as kids. They don't murder. People who murder have something missing. It's not the parents' fault, and it's not society's fault. It's all them. They make a choice. They should have to pay for that choice.”

The question of choice.
This is Nature vs Nurture. Is an individual consciously responsible for his actions; ruled by instinct? Or are these actions ultimately a product of environmental socialisation? One could argue that nurture does not come into it, not least because nurture can only ultimately arise from nature, and, like you say, people respond differently to a similar (never the same) social situation, hence not everyone who is poor/psychopathic/asymmetrical resorts to murder. Are we all born the same? Your argument predisposes that we are not; that a murderer is an anomaly – they have ‘something missing’ – and murder is executed (forgive the pun) with intent and rationality (nevertheless based on irrational emotional experience, e.g. abuse etc.). Your argument for capital punishment can only hold strength if you believe that WE ARE BORN DIFFERENT. That a person has a predisposition to murder, be it genetic or sociopathic, and there is NO CURE. If this is the case, how can you advocate punishment? It would serve no purpose, achieve no reparation and could not function as a deterrent. It is an incredible paradox.

"I suggest we work with criminals ... to establish the root of the crime and eliminate the cause, not its product."

Lady Sidhe: "And how do you suggest we do that?”

So little is known about the cause, or at least the dominant set of characteristics inherent in a murderer. We must use the symptoms (criminals) to establish the root (cause) of the phenomena, like any scientific experiment. Cause and effect: nothing just happens – life, while unpredictable, is not arbitrary – there is always a cause, always a reason. Ergo treating insanity (murder) with a punishment that assumes sanity (i.e. that the individual exerts choice) is ineffectual.

The ultimate objective is to eradicate the phenomenon of murder. Utopian maybe, but surely the purpose - the end result - is for murder (and other violent crime) to cease to exist. The only way this can be achieved is through ongoing scientific research to determine WHY murder exists. Once we know the cause, we can treat it, respond (not react) to it and finally obliterate it.

Logistically, I would retain perpetrators in a secure environment whereby detailed physiological and psychological study could take place. Life would mean life: that would also be the deterrent/punishment.

And tell me, how old were YOU when you realized the difference between right and wrong? Did it take you until after you were a teenager to figure that out? I doubt it.

This depends on whether my morals are inherent, or educated (see above). To answer that question with authority would be incredibly arrogant.


Happy Monkey: When a human life is taken, nobody gets it

Quite. You cannot refund or replace a life, therefore it should not be treated akin to material crime. Like for like only works with quanitifiable objects - life is not a possession, therefore the issue of reparation is a non-entity.

Happy Monkey: I don't consider economics to be relevant when discussing whether to kill someone.

Economics have become an issue because people have attempted to quantify life (see above). As this is impossible, the influence given to the means of financing the death or life of a criminal is deplorable.


Lady Sidhe: Course, we could send them all to Europe, and let you guys rehabilitate them....

Good ole' USA: you are innovators, instigators, creators. You create the problems: we (and our Middle Eastern/African/Asian compatriates) deal with the consequences.

(*PS. I refer more to Western values in general than America itself.)

Lady Sidhe: But if we KNOW someone is guilty, I say FRY 'EM.

Fry 'em. Fry them? I just cannot comprehend this brutal animality. It is vulgar, reprehensible and reduces everything you have said to the same level as these vile individuals you would so relish seeing 'fried'. You are as guilty and sadistical as them:

If someone killed a member of my family, you bet I'd pull the switch, drop the floor, inject the drugs, pull the trigger, whatever. Like LadySyc, I'm vengeful by nature. I'd want to look into their eyes when I did it, too. Why should they live when my loved one is dead? It may not bring them back, but it would be a start on the healing process for me.

And you know what? I'd sleep like a baby afterward.

Sidhe

Remorse and forgiveness - terrible burdens, eh?


Ladysycamore: So what then? Just make that person deny their true feelings for the sake of people who don't agree?

I would never advocate denial as therapeutic or antidotal. By all means experience these emotions, just don't act on them.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that some people are going to feel that way..period? Just because YOU wouldn't DARE feel that way, don't say that others don't have the right to do so.
"Your right doesn't make me wrong." (told to me by a very wise man)

Of course- no doubt I would feel just as much hatred, anger and desire for revenge as the next person, but emotions should not necessarily be translated into action. They are subjective and not a reflection of fact, or reality, and thus can only perpetuate the cycle of crime.


Lady Sidhe: I'm not pointing fingers at anyone

But you're quite happy to point guns?