So, what are your thoughts on the death penalty?

In what context?

In the contexts of killing a person who has commited a crime....

Make your own context if you want.

I am completely and wholly against the death penatly. All life is sacred. No matter what.
There is no context needed. No man deserves to die for his crimes.

I have no qualm about excecuting murderers.

I don't think I'd much mind if we started executing rapists, and some of the more brutal assaulters either.

Do you think it is moral to kill a human being, LP?

They are doing nothing to help society by dying.
Why not make them work for their crimes? Make them go out and help better society (under the watchful eye of multiple officers, obviously). They are useless dead. Alive, however, they can help.

In some circumstances.

But they are harming it by living.

More expensive than killing them. Approximately 4.9% of the eligible American labor force is unemployed at the moment, most of them do not have jobs. Convict labor is uneconomic.

They can also hurt, which is why they are convicts in the first place.

Morals for certain situations eh? I'd be interested in seeing your definition of morals.

It costs the state more to kill them than...say keep them in prison. If you aren't looking at the fact that this is a human life, and we are looking at money, it still isn't a good point.

How is taking their lives better than say, sending them to prison for life?

It's not terribly complex. Murder is bad. Executing a murderer is not.

Or would you not agree that those are different circumstances?

Because of poor resource management. Prisoners are afforded far too many comforts, and the legal system is a horribly decrepit part of the economy. Providing men with food, shelter, and security systems is more expensive than a bullet needed to kill him.

What's the point of keeping someone alive forever, isolated from the rest of society? It's a waste of time and money, and it doesn't permanently eliminate the threat of that individual.

How?

Hardly.
As Delta said, it costs more to kill them than to let them stay in prison for the rest of their lives.
And I never said to give them those kinds of jobs. I meant more as in helping clean the environent sort of stuff. Something constructive that no one else wants to do.

Once again, I ask you how.

Okay, where this thread is leading is scaring me. Talking about the ramifications of killing off people because it's cheaper than their imprisonment? Hope y'all don't go to killin' off the unemployed or below-minimum wage labourers next. :)

{jus jokin'}

But do keep it civil, whatever the arguement. I'm just scared what y'all might end up deciding. Hehehe.

I already pointed that out too.

Not really different, no. You are taking a human life. That about sums it up.

It would be optimal if we could rehabilitate offenders. But we are not allocating our resources to do that.

There are a lot of good things about the death penalty (if it were to be carried out swiftly and efficiently, as LP pointed out), but of course I agree with the idea that it's still killing.

I'm in a strange place with my own feelings on killing and on non-violence. I would like to see a non-violent world, but I do not feel personally prepared to live out a non-violent life.

So for example, I'd be willing to fight if there was a draft, but I am not comfortable with the death penalty.

It's a contradiction in logic, of course, but the contradiction stems not becuase I'm overlooking logic but because there are simply contradictions in myself.

Talkinga bout murderers here, not random people picked up off the street.

And I've already explained why that is the case, and why it doesn't need to be.

And I say again, 4.9% of Americans are unemployed, and most of them aren't murderers. Let them do those jobs, as long as you're spending public money on them.

Are you having a problem understanding why murder is bad for society?

No it doesn't. All humans are individuals, different people who behave in different ways. Some of those individuals have pointlessly killed other, law-abiding positive citizens. I see no need for such people to live.

Reguardless what they do with life, they are still human beings. I don't think Kitar has a problem understanding is bad for soceity. I know that I have a problem with murdering someone, and accordingly cannot back the death penalty.

It doesn't work for anything.

The death penalty is issued in a very bais manner.

It is only seeked in certain instances, mostly those reguarding race of the victim and the accused:

It is unequal treatment, unfair "justice".

Look at who else does it, I mean, nearly 98% of all exicution come from either:
China
Iran
Veitnam
The United States

We kill children and retarded people. I mean, we are one of 5 nations that do that. And guess who else does it:
China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, and Pakistan.
13 of the 21 exicutions of children have been done in the United States.



We don't always get it right:

Oops, guess we could have killed the wrong people? Now doesn't that suck, you just sponsered taking an innocent human life.

It doesn't deter people.

We are talking about a human life being taken. I have no clue how one can say that by taking a human life, we somehow do soceity a justice. I could defer to Kant for the ethics of it (which I might do later) but I think I'll end with J.R.R. Tolkien for one of the best quotes on taking life:
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.

After thinking more about the death penalty, I have come to the belief that it is wrong.

So what? The people they killed were humans as well.

The rest of us are better off with some people dead.

Those aren't coherent thoughts. Let's hear a reason for something.

This is why I like automatic capital sentences for murderers. It is a problem when the harshness of a sentence correlates to race. All murderers are equally bad, and should all be executed just the same.

So what? Guilt by association arguments are fallacies.

The primary object is not to deter people. The primary object is to get rid of the criminals.

And you can't make the conclusion that the NYT did based upon their data. The death penalty doesn't make murder more likely, nor does non-death penalty sentencing make murder less likely in a state. There are other factors involved there.

That's because "justice" is one of those vague terms without any real definition. By executing murderers, we are permanently removing problem individuals from society.

Problem individuals are not born in a vacuum. They come from a confluence of problematic situations and problematic psycho-social development. Getting rid of problem individuals does not solve the problem, though it might temporarily mitigate it.

However, I again think that we have a fundamental disconnect here. Lorpius is looking logically at society in a cost-benefit analytic way, and others here refuse to do that. As such, I do not think that quoting statistics on either side will be able to convince the other that the death penalty should be upheld or abolished.

I've never claimed it does. Death penalty doesn't stop crime, neither do life sentences. Death penalty, however, is a more expedient way to solve the problem of individual criminals.

Its not only about stopping crimes. It is call the "corrections system" for some reason, one that we need to build upon.

You a probably right. I would imangine that people would look at the human aspect of killing other humans. It shouldn't all be boiled down to economic "logic".

So the whole "Two wrongs make a right" applies here, huh?

I provided it.

Of course they are, if you don't mind being grouped in with totalitarin gov'ts. We don't live in our own little universe on this earth, and when you step outside your nation and see how other nations conduct business, and see what company you are in, prehaps you should review your actions.

Then supports have to say that. If your objection is to kill people, LP, you can do that just fine. I think (again) that the corrections system, the justice system, should do more to prevent crimes.

Which is why we can aruge this, LP, it is a vauge term. Where you see killing people as 'justice" I don't.

And slighty off topic, I really would like to see your version of morals. You say "Killing people is alright' but don't expand. It would be interesting, they seem conflicting to me.

It's called that because we like our euphamisms. Locking people up doesn't "correct" anything. The problem remains. Execution just gets rid of the problem altogether.

Why not?

You've yet to tell me why an execution is wrong.

Then explain it again because you weren't clear the first time.

It all depends on what your criteria are for the grouping. You can associate anything if you try hard enough.

If you want to prevent crimes, work on improving our ability to catch criminals, and then convict them. The punishment has little bearing on the decision to commit a crime, it's almost wholly about the knowledge that there will be a punishment.

I'm not going to argue "justice", because it's not something definable.

I like the death penalty not because it's "just", but because it gets rid of people I don't want in this society.

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Random and senseless killing is wrong, it serves no purpose but to hurt people. Killing the random and senseless killers, however, is not wrong, because it ends the threat that they present.

Rehablitating people and education of them, along with giving them a leg up and out of their situation does correct somthing.

Because we are humans, and it is senseless to look at anything (even economics) from a purely monetary standpoint.

Because it takes a human life.

Read the quotes in my post. They provide why it is bais. As for how it is a bad idea, thats all I've been talking about, I have no clue what you aren't understanding.

Well guess what? I've stated my criteria in this case, injustice against human life, and associated. And it works.

I disagree, but don't have the time right now to go into a crimminology class lesson at the moment. Preahps I can expand later on.

I don't think I'll requote the Tolkein quote, but it fits perfectly here.

Do you have morals? If so, I can't really see any. I see cost/benifit analysis and "look out for number 1" metallity.
Gah, that would be another topic anyways, I think called "morals" in philosophy.

Educating them... yes... apparently they never learned that there's something wrong with killing people...

Sorry, I just don't buy into that.

And "giving them a leg up" is another euphamism; you're suggesting we pay people for committing murder, and then hope they won't want to kill people again. I hate to use the term, but you're mixing some messages there, Delta.

Economics is not the study of money, believe it or not. It is the study of rational decision making in societies.

Thank you for that bit of circular logic. Your goal here should be to tell me why "taking a human life" is wrong in such circumstances.

Was more referring to the bit about:

"I don't think Kitar has a problem understanding is bad for soceity. I know that I have a problem with murdering someone, and accordingly cannot back the death penalty.

It doesn't work for anything."

I've responded to your statement that there is bias in sentencing.

Uh oh, time for you to define "injustice" and tell me why it's bad.

I certainly hope so.

Witty comments aren't worth anything. Give me logic, give me reason, give me something other than "I believe this because Tolkien believes it, and he's a good author."

If you want to define "morals" to exclude me then, no, I guess I don't have any.

Over simplifcation of the issues. Same thing you did with affirmitive action, there is more to the action that the actual carrying it out, there is a reason as to why it happened, and we should try to prevent that reason rather than kill people when it happens.

Yes, LP, I read the first page of my Economics book too.

Because it is wrong is all circumstances.

In justice is somthing that is wholely ungood for a person and/or soceity. The state killing people is "ungood".

It wasn't meant to be witty, merely to point out the obvious rut that his statement covers.
"Only the wittless see wit where wit is without" :rolleyes:
I merely inculded the phrase because it explains my views pretty well too.

Quit reminding me that I have to go back and respond. I know it.

When you manage to prevent it from happening, then you don't have any more people to execute. But the executions aren't causing murders.

Then quit making points like you haven't.

Why?

Again, why? It gets rid of people who have done certain and significant harm to that society by his killings. Society cannot function if murderers are allowed to roam free throughout it. Now tell me why society is harmed by killing such people.

It may state your views, but it is not a reason for them. You're expecting people to for truth without any rational basis behind it.

Let's keep the discussion clean. It's understandable that it'll get heated, because we are talking about issues of morality and killing, but please keep it civil.

In a significant break with the traditional left, I have no moral problem with the death penalty. However, the way it's executed (no pun intended, hah!) here is somewhat sloppy and unprofessional.

Agreed.

For my highschool newspaper I wrote an opinion piece on the death penalty quoting facts and arguing, I thought, fairly coherently and orderly for the abolishment of the death penalty.

My Latin teacher read it, and being a die-hard liberal was impressed with it. But she told me she disagreed with me. And that while it was well written and articulated I would never convince her because she is a mother. And as a mother she knew if anyone harmed her children, she would want that person dead.

I think we have a similar situation here.

I think the death penalty should only be used as a last resort.

I'm not going to say I'm really for it, I'm saying I'm just not against it.

I really don't think it is something that should be abolished. It's easier to say it's not reasonable for a specific case. If it's abolished though, they don't have the option when one is needed.

Cases for this from what I understand usually end up being death or life in prison, and since most aren't able deal with society they'll just be waiting in a prison to die the rest of their life(which might cause problems with too many prisoners).

Say someone did a crime at 20, they get life in prison, they die at 70. That's 50 years. Would you feel better about yourself for sticking them in a box for 50 years until they eventually perish?

Which do you see as worse on them, and which is worse on society?

Then which do you see might possibly be easier and more immediate for them, and maybe easier on society and prisons?

I was speaking of the same people.
My question stays the same. How are they harming society by being incarcerated within the prison system?

And how would this work? Once they are found guilty you take them out back and put a bullet to the brain?
Explain this idea, please.

No, actually, I am not.
I understand perfectly that killing a person is bad.
Yet, I believe that we are no better than the criminal who took a life by taking his life in return.
Taking any life is wrong.
And that is where I stand.

Here.
Let me take a moment to state my views on life, and then you can understand where I am coming from.
Life is irreplacable. It is beautiful and priceless. It cannot be measured by monetary values, nor by any other means.
As well, one life does not equal life. One life being taken does not mean that the first life is avenged, it means that two lives are lost instead of one. -1-1=-2, not 0.

And you blame Delta for going in circles?
Life is priceless. Nothing one does merits his own extinction.
And I will not budge on that idea.

After incarceration, they are hopefully not harming society. But they remain a threat to it, a risk, because they still exist. They are also a burden on society when society has no interest in supporting them.

That is the quickest and most humane way to kill someone.

And I ask again: why?

I don't see any "beauty" in murderers.

I agree, the death penalty should not be about vengeance.

Now you're quantifying lives, you said they were priceless. :rolleyes:

Tell me why a murderer's life is just as valuable as that of his victim.

But will you tell me your rationale for it?

"Why?" is not circular reasoning, it is a request for the reason behind a claim. "Why?" is not an argument of any kind, but a question that, if answered, allows further argument. We won't get anywhere until you answer that question.

No, that's not what I was asking.
When would we kill someone? The instant after they are found guilty?
How would the court process go?
Explain that all to me.

I've said why. Many times.
Taking life is wrong for the simple reason that no one deserves death.

I do.

Vengeance used in the name of justice is still vengeance.

You get what I meant.
By taking one life in the name of another does not mean that the wrongdoing of the first life is nullified.
Two lives are lost instead of one.

Because they are both living, breathing entities. They have just as much a right to live.
Taking away another's right to that life does not merit that we take away your life too.

Because I see it as wrong to take any life, whatsoever.
I believe in forgiveness.
I believe that all killing is wrong, even if it is done in the name of "justice."
The love of humanity is what guides my philosophies. I will not stop loving a man because he cannot love another and, in turn, takes away another's life.

No, I expect it would be politically impossible to carry out sentence immediately after the verdict. But I do believe the way the appeals are handled in most cases is unacceptable.

At the same time, it is too easy to convict someone of, not just murder, but any crime. The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing doesn't seem to get enough emphasis. For cases as serious as murder, as well, I believe it would be prudent to have extra-large juries requiring unanimity for a guilty verdict.

After that, perhaps a single appeal a few years later with similarly stringent requirements. And after that, yes, carry the convict to a little room and shoot him.

No, you haven't. Because the question is why can no one deserve death? Please don't come back saying "taking any life is wrong".

Can you explain? I find the killing of innocent people, and those that do it, to be completely repugnant.

This isn't about "justice", as I've mentioned previously that's not a word with any clear definition.

This is about getting rid of negative forces in society, namely murderers.

Never claimed any kind of "nullification".

Yes, but you've yet to tell me why I should attach any value to the second one.

Why?

And I'd say that it absolutely does. For the safety and security of the rest of society, we want to be rid of those people that would do us harm.

You will excuse me if I do not share your love of such people.

That sounds fair enough.
Were I to agree with the death penalty, I would share that idea.

And yet, I can not give you any better answer than that.
My logic differs quite greatly from your own. What seems a logical and valid answer to me is entirely oppisite to you.

And I do not?
It is not our view of murder that differs.

Explain to me what a negaive force is.
Not that I don't already have an idea, but I want to hear your opinion on this.

It can be inferred. Those who kill are to be killed. Thus, the threat is nullified.

I have told you why.
It is life.

Because all life is sacred. I can not give you any reason that will seem logical in your world.

I still disagree. Neither of our beliefs are going to change.

It is not my love of such people. It is my love of all people.

We will get nowhere with this since our views on the worth of life differ so much. I see no more need to argue this. I will let you respond to my questions, but I won't post much more on this topic after that.

Yet you find "beauty" in murderers.

These people have not the restraint to prevent themselves from senselessly killing their fellow human beings. They are a disruption to the peaceful order of society, and they prevent others from enjoying the benefits of that society.

The threat, yes. It does not "make up" for the previous loss of life, which is what you seemed to be talking about.

Fair enough.

I find beauty in all living things.

Do you believe that there is ever a legitimate reason to kill a human being? I'm not talking about war or execution. I mean down on the streets. Is there ever a legitimate reason for a man to kill another man?
If there is, should he be tried just the same as any other murderer?

And that was my point. It doesn't make up for the previous loss of life.

Oh I certainly believe there are legitimate reasons (self-defense, protection of others). The purpose of a trial is to make a determination of whether such a killing is murder. So, yes, if there is any doubt as to whether it was a murder, of course I believe such a person should be tried, as the purpose of a trial is to figure out guilt or innocence.

We agree on that point, then.

LP, what of the 118 or so people who were tried and found guilty, then found later than they were innocent? Would you care at all if they were killed instead? Is that just an "oops, system failure" for you, or does the human life have anymore meaning?

That's a problem with the trial process, not the death penalty.