So my state (Georgia) is set to kill a man in a few minutes.
I don't know his case, so I won't pass judgement on his alleged crime.
He apparently murdered a gas station manager during a robbery, for those of you interested.
My query is if anyone of you support the death penalty?
For me, in this current system? No.
We're better just putting them in prison for life. Under the current system too many innocent people for die. I'd rather a thousand murderers live than one innocent die. That's why I was pleased with the Aurora shooter got life.
Sent from Hell
Absolutely not, for a few reasons.
This is a tough one for me, because I actually think life in prison is a life not worth living.
In theory, yes, but in practice, no. I think there are some people who are just bad. They were born that way with psychoses that can't be cured or really treated, they don't want to be cured or treated, and they don't think there's anything wrong with the fact that they commit awful crimes like the rape and murder of children. It might not be their fault that they are that way and I'll be the first to say that I think very few criminals are beyond redemption, but I really do believe that a few are.
I don't think eliminating those individuals from our population is the worst thing we could do. The problem is that we don't execute people like that when they commit truly heinous crimes: in practice the majority of people we execute are poor, poorly educated, black, and male.
The problem is how to apply such a punishment. Like I said, the amount of people I think are worthy of actually being executed is probably really, really small, but I imagine everyone has their own standard of what it is that makes a person "bad." I can't expect everyone to agree with my personal line of decency regarding making society a better place by removing a few disgusting individuals from it, therefore, I don't know that I could ever realistically support the death penalty in practice because it has too great a potential for abuse.
Some people simply need to die! That said, I cannot support the death penalty as the US applies it. There are too many cases that later show up to have been in error. That is unacceptable. Charles Manson did not deserve to live; especially as he was housed in prison. He should have been put into a cell with a bed and toilet and that's it. Anyway, no death penalty.
We are erratic in how we apply the death penalty from state to state. I read somewhere it was actually cheaper to give someone life in prison versus the death penalty, but I don't know how that would work. My opinion is that yes, there are some people that ought to die like Ted Bundy or Gary Ridgway the Green River Killer, or John Wayne Gacy. But only if there is no doubt beyond question that they have committed the deeds.
If there is ever any doubt or even the remotest possibility at some point the decision could be reversed, no.
Everyone gets the death penalty one way or another. The question is should there be a State, and what powers should it have. For myself I support the State, because I support criminality. We are only talking here of the largest gang eliminating members of smaller gangs or lone thugs. But my feelings are mixed ... not all criminal activity is created equal, some is better than others.
Perfect the methodology of conviction and I am all for it. There are indeed some pieces of shit that if I was allowed would indeed be allowed to live. But I would render them a blob with a perfectly good mind, all alone in the quiet, no sound, no smell, no sight, no taste, just blackness and a perfect mind….
Quote from: aitm on February 02, 2016, 07:47:42 PM
Perfect the methodology of conviction and I am all for it. There are indeed some pieces of shit that if I was allowed would indeed be allowed to live. But I would render them a blob with a perfectly good mind, all alone in the quiet, no sound, no smell, no sight, no taste, just blackness and a perfect mind….
I saw a movie once, where if you isolate yourself in an isolation tank too long, you de-evolve into a cave man ;-)
Quote from: stromboli on February 02, 2016, 07:42:02 PM
If there is ever any doubt or even the remotest possibility at some point the decision could be reversed, no.
I feel like short of a confession, video evidence from multiple angles, 10,000 eyewitnesses and an airtight sequence of events, there will always be
some doubt.
Even when we base evidence on science which is supposedly believed foolproof we can get it wrong. We've had cases that prove that fingerprints aren't all that unique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield), and chimeras prove that even DNA evidence can be faulty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)#Humans).
What is the death penalty for? Is it to remove dangers to society? Imprisonment does that. Is it about revenge? That's just morally wrong, IMO.
Killing someone for killing someone, what the hell? We are savages, a violent species.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 02, 2016, 08:12:10 PM
What is the death penalty for? Is it to remove dangers to society? Imprisonment does that.
But I feel like imprisoning people the way we do isn't very humane either: we just warehouse them until we feel like they've fixed themselves. If they didn't commit a very severe crime, they get out in a a few years usually the worse for wear. The people who really do deserve to be in prison for the rest of their lives are kind of a unique population within the prison system. A lot of what we do to people in prison or at the very least, allow to happen to them in prison is akin to torture in my opinion.
Quote from: aitm on February 02, 2016, 07:47:42 PM
Perfect the methodology of conviction and I am all for it. There are indeed some pieces of shit that if I was allowed would indeed be allowed to live. But I would render them a blob with a perfectly good mind, all alone in the quiet, no sound, no smell, no sight, no taste, just blackness and a perfect mind….
Wow--and I thought I was harsh! :)) Actually, I think I like it. :)))
Quote from: Mermaid on February 02, 2016, 08:12:10 PM
What is the death penalty for? Is it to remove dangers to society? Imprisonment does that.
and yet twice in the last two years 5 extremely violent killers escaped prison……….surely you at least follow the news don't you?
Quote from: aitm on February 02, 2016, 08:36:07 PM
and yet twice in the last two years 5 extremely violent killers escaped prison……….surely you at least follow the news don't you?
Uh, yeah I follow the news. No need to talk down to me.
Sure, prisoners escape. How common is that? And before someone is put to death, they're in prison sometimes for decades. Killing them is not going to change that. I think this is a fallacious argument.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 02, 2016, 08:29:17 PM
Wow--and I thought I was harsh! :)) Actually, I think I like it. :)))
I've never been one for torture of any kind personally. The problem with torturing is that in order to exact it, you generally have to find someone that's at least as bad or worse than the person you're trying to punish.
I really hate it when people say something like, "pedophiles need to be brutally raped with a spiky dildo" or something to that effect? Where the fuck to you find someone to do something like that? How does one go about putting an ad on Indeed.com for a position that requires a sadomasochist with no ethical quandaries available on a flexible schedule?
Quote from: Mermaid on February 02, 2016, 08:43:12 PM
No need to talk down to me.
Killing them is not going to change that. I think this is a fallacious argument.
Well, lets be honest here. It was YOU that stated point blank:
QuoteIs it to remove dangers to society? Imprisonment does that.
And I pointed out quite clearly that you are wrong.
So how is this a fallacious argument?
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 02, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
How does one go about putting an ad on Indeed.com for a position that requires a sadomasochist with no ethical quandaries available on a flexible schedule?
I would say it is incredibly easy to find tens of thousand willing to do the deed. I think you could find even in your town, dozens of parents whose child has been raped or worse raped and murdered who would have no problem with the duty.
Quote from: aitm on February 02, 2016, 08:58:34 PM
I would say it is incredibly easy to find tens of thousand willing to do the deed. I think you could find even in your town, dozens of parents whose child has been raped or worse raped and murdered who would have no problem with the duty.
Are you suggesting human beings are capable of unimaginable cruelty on demand? I imagine there are lots of people who
think they might be capable, people that probably even have a good motivation to as you said, but when push came to shove I don't think they could. I feel the reason torture is counterproductive is because I don't think you can take away someone else's humanity without sacrificing your own. The idea that lots of people could easily torture someone else sort of suggests these people would be doing it anyway if it weren't against the law, and isn't that what we make fun of religious people for? If you need laws and religion to tell you to be a good person, you're probably not a good person?
I get that most people are probably capable of killing someone in self-defense or acting brutally in the heat of the moment, but I doubt very seriously there's a large contingent out there who could accept such a job, calmly walk into a room and proceed to sodomize someone with a spiky dildo until they died and remain entirely free of emotions like guilt or empathy. It seems as though you're suggesting the people could not only do it and not feel empathy for the person, but they'd actually derive pleasure from it. I doubt there are many people who could do that who don't have preexisting psychological problems. If they didn't before, they certainly would after.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 02, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
I've never been one for torture of any kind personally. The problem with torturing is that in order to exact it, you generally have to find someone that's at least as bad or worse than the person you're trying to punish.
I really hate it when people say something like, "pedophiles need to be brutally raped with a spiky dildo" or something to that effect? Where the fuck to you find someone to do something like that? How does one go about putting an ad on Indeed.com for a position that requires a sadomasochist with no ethical quandaries available on a flexible schedule?
I am sure you could find one or more US presidential candidates willing to do it for the publicity ;-(
Nazis had to hire people already psychotic, but capable of following demented orders ... not average folks.
But the posts here ... by average human beings ... reinforce what I said elsewhere ... criminal punishment is about one group of people being sadists to another group of people, not necessarily worse, and who can be self righteous about it. Society has done this for millennia.
I don't support the death penalty.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 02, 2016, 09:20:24 PM
Are you suggesting human beings are capable of unimaginable cruelty on demand?
Nope, but I think an awful lot of them would have absolutely no issue with pulling the switch, pushing the button or kicking a bucket over.
I don't think there is always an absolute right and wrong in decisions because circumstances often dictate the outcome of a crime. To me the issue is deliberation. If someone is killed in a bank robbery, for example, the intent was not initially to kill, but deadly force was implied by the threat of weapons. If someone sets out specifically to murder specific individuals as with the Menendez brothers, or the death was particularly heinous, then the death penalty should be considered.
I am definitely for the death penalty. If you murder someone you don't deserve a chance at redemption because your victim didn't get one.
That being said, our legal system what it is, this is not a realistic philosophy for America as it is. Trials in this country are a mockery of "justice", lawyers being trained how to effectively argue, not how to get to the truth. Neither side in a court case gives a shit about the truth, just the argument. And if you have lots of money you can use it to game the hell out of the system, even to the point where you make your legal troubles simply go away with money and legal tricks. And mounting an effective legal defense generally requires a lot of money. If a corporation sues you, you had better settle because you simply can't afford to not settle. All of this means that the death penalty is reserved pretty much exclusively for the poor and underprivileged, who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting a fair shake if the system singles them out for some reason, be it to hurriedly close a case, they just don't like you or they're convinced, lack of evidence be damned, that you did it. AND THEN you throw onto this giant pile of shit the fact that we have a for-profit legal and prison system and the entire thing just reeks of fuckery. There is no way, given the shit system we have, the death penalty is in any way fair or fairly applied, especially in states like Texas where it is applied liberally.
So, the death penalty as a fair and just punishment for horrible crimes? Sure. I'm for that. Useless people should be thrown away without remorse or compassion. But the death penalty in the corrupt for-profit system we have in America which can't even decide if it's a system of punishment or reform, trying to be both and failing miserably on both fronts? Fuck no! There is no way in hell to justify allowing a corrupt system to dictate who lives and dies.
I oppose the death penalty. It's barbaric and has no place in civilized society.
If they manage to change the law, we might get death penalty soon. Abhorrent. Useless. *Spit
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 03, 2016, 02:05:49 PM
If they manage to change the law, we might get death penalty soon. Abhorrent. Useless. *Spit
I honestly didn't know that Turkey didn't have capital punishment.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 02, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
I've never been one for torture of any kind personally. The problem with torturing is that in order to exact it, you generally have to find someone that's at least as bad or worse than the person you're trying to punish.
I really hate it when people say something like, "pedophiles need to be brutally raped with a spiky dildo" or something to that effect? Where the fuck to you find someone to do something like that? How does one go about putting an ad on Indeed.com for a position that requires a sadomasochist with no ethical quandaries available on a flexible schedule?
TomFoolery, I was being a bit facetious. I think aitm was, as well. I learned long ago that personal revenge does not produce a good feeling or a desired outcome. I think the same for society. Revenge just really does not work well. But that does not mean that a situation may need to be remedied. If some one causes me harm, I seek to have that harm repaired. Beyond that I don't go. I don't need revenge.
Using torture for anything doesn't work.
Really if the death penalty was up to me, at some "time" inmate x would have his dinner spiked and go to sleep and wake up dead. Real real easy, and very tidy.
Quote from: aitm on February 03, 2016, 03:17:34 PM
Really if the death penalty was up to me, at some "time" inmate x would have his dinner spiked and go to sleep and wake up dead. Real real easy, and very tidy.
If we have to have the death penalty, my preferred method would be nitrogen asphyxiation. As an inert gas, nitrogen doesn't trigger the sensors that you're dying, you just knock out and die. It's quite literally the most painless way to kill someone. As an added bonus, you don't need any medical expertise to do it. Put them in a room, turn on the nitrogen, and they're dead.
Quote from: aitm on February 02, 2016, 07:47:42 PM
Perfect the methodology of conviction and I am all for it. There are indeed some pieces of shit that if I was allowed would indeed be allowed to live. But I would render them a blob with a perfectly good mind, all alone in the quiet, no sound, no smell, no sight, no taste, just blackness and a perfect mind….
I have no mouth, and I must scream.
Quote from: aitm on February 02, 2016, 07:47:42 PM
Perfect the methodology of conviction and I am all for it. There are indeed some pieces of shit that if I was allowed would indeed be allowed to live. But I would render them a blob with a perfectly good mind, all alone in the quiet, no sound, no smell, no sight, no taste, just blackness and a perfect mind….
You mean kind of like how Wesley was going to leave Prince Humperdinck?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoSHmVkjmuA
For me, the death penalty is not about revenge or closure. It's simply about throwing out garbage. If someone is a useless piece of shit then why should a society be expected to squirrel them away at the expense of taxpayers for a good, long life? What is the purpose of lifetime imprisonment? Is it punishment? Is it mercy? Whatever it is, it's pointless. As long as the person lives they pose a risk to others. Prisoners escape, are accidentally let out or attack guards or other prisoners. Frankly I think anyone who is an unredeamable piece of shit should just be flushed like a turd. Not for "justice" or revenge, but simply because if something is broken and irreparable it is stupid to keep it on a shelf until it turns to dust of its own accord. Likewise, if a person has crossed the line and become a monster I see no point in coddling them for the next 50 years, give or take, making sure they get 3 square meals, clean clothes, a bed and a roof while so many more deserving people go without one or more of those things every day.
When you imprison someone for life you agree to take care of their every need until they die. A murderer doesn't deserve that. Violent offenders don't deserve that. They are useless garbage, societal vampires, and that doesn't end when you give them free room and board for life. If something is useless and will always be useless you throw it out. The ONLY exception I could see to this is if you could get some use out of them. If, for instance, they were willing to provide some service or labor which ordinary people did not want to do or which is too high risk to expect "decent" people to do it. I certainly wouldn't be for forced labor, but a choice between becoming in some way useful to society or going out with the garbage, combined with some sort of "one strike and we shoot you on the spot" to prevent violent offenses or escape attempts, I would be okay with that. But feeding, clothing and housing murderers and other violent jackasses for life while children starve? I'm never going to be for that.
Now, probably I don't see death like most people do, to be fair. I don't see it as something to be avoided at any cost, nor do I, personally, want to live absolutely as long as possible. When my quality of life is gone, I want to be done. It's going to happen anyway, so I'd like to go out when I'm thinking life is okay, not after 10 or 20 years of being unable to control my bladder or remember my children. I don't see life as this thing we should hold onto for the sake of being alive, but for the sake of truly living. To take a life, I see that as pretty serious, of course. But assisted suicide, I'm okay with that, as well as suicide in general, although I would prefer it didn't happen for mostly mental cases such as depression. I don't see life as something "precious" just because it's life, but rather precious if the one living it feels it is. And frankly, I don't care how a murder "feels" about his or any other life, so his life is in no way precious to me and he is not deserving of my tax dollars to house and feed him and give him free medical care for life.
If you're against the death penalty, yeah, many people are. I am not, if our criminal system weren't broken. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with taking a murderer straight out of the courthouse and into the street to put a bullet in his head on the spot, so long as there is absolute, irrefutable proof he is guilty. I just don't have a problem with that. If you do have a problem with it, that's okay by me, but I don't. But don't make the claim that no "civilized society" would ever do such a thing because it's a no true Scottsman argument. You can no more get a group of random people to agree what is "civilized" and what is not than to get them to agree what is "moral" and what is not. And nobody is suggesting that the executioner go all baby seal on their asses like it was the zombie apocalypse or anything. You flip a switch, push a button, pull a trigger... In many case there is more than one executioner and some of them aren't actually participating, but none of them know which ones are "live" and which ones are dummies. If you're asking someone to brutally murder a brutal murderer, you'll have very few people who could stomach that. But if you're asking someone to push the button that does the dead as humanely as we know how, it wouldn't be difficult to find volunteers any more than it's difficult to find people willing to sign up for military service during wartime, and that killing actually IS brutal.
I think the death penalty is a barbarism best left to such dastards as DAESH. Too many innocents convicted on flimsy evidence, once they're dead it's too late to make amends.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on February 03, 2016, 02:25:40 PM
I honestly didn't know that Turkey didn't have capital punishment.
If I am not mistaken since around '80s. (
E: Official since 2004, bodily since 1984.) It was mostly used with high treason. We had a prime minister (1950-60) who was executed after a coup. I think JFK has sent a plea for his pardon, along with Elizabeth II and a few others.
Quote from: aitm on February 03, 2016, 03:17:34 PM
Really if the death penalty was up to me, at some "time" inmate x would have his dinner spiked and go to sleep and wake up dead. Real real easy, and very tidy.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on February 03, 2016, 04:17:45 PM
If we have to have the death penalty, my preferred method would be nitrogen asphyxiation. As an inert gas, nitrogen doesn't trigger the sensors that you're dying, you just knock out and die. It's quite literally the most painless way to kill someone. As an added bonus, you don't need any medical expertise to do it. Put them in a room, turn on the nitrogen, and they're dead.
Yes. It always amazed me how governments manage to find either really gruesome or really farcical, drawn-out methods of knocking someone off when there are simpler alternatives.
FWIW I think the death penalty is a bad idea due to the potential for miscarriages of justice in the legal system. But, like others have said, I would agree that there are people on the planet that we would be better off without.
Quote from: aitm on February 02, 2016, 08:54:40 PM
Well, lets be honest here. It was YOU that stated point blank: And I pointed out quite clearly that you are wrong.
So how is this a fallacious argument?
Because prison escapes are a rare anomaly.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 03, 2016, 07:44:07 PM
Because prison escapes are a rare anomaly.
You know, they argued and fought over killing the cab driver. One guy was fully invested into killing him. Exactly how many fathers or brothers or sisters or mothers are you willing to let be murdered because it doesn't involve your family?
Quote from: aitm on February 03, 2016, 08:04:01 PM
You know, they argued and fought over killing the cab driver. One guy was fully invested into killing him. Exactly how many fathers or brothers or sisters or mothers are you willing to let be murdered because it doesn't involve your family?
Yeah, that is a factor, isn't it?? Your loved ones................If my wife were hurt on purpose, my daughter, my grandchildren, my dogs---well, I'm not too sure I'd not simply off them given the chance. I am convinced that if someone enters my house with bad intentions, they are history if I can manage it. If Charles Manson had killed my mother, I am positive I would not want him sitting around watching TV, giving interviews, smoking cigs--or doing anything but dying. I really hope I never get tested in this area.
Quote from: aitm on February 03, 2016, 08:04:01 PM
You know, they argued and fought over killing the cab driver. One guy was fully invested into killing him. Exactly how many fathers or brothers or sisters or mothers are you willing to let be murdered because it doesn't involve your family?
That's the best argument you can come up with? An appeal to safety and security in the face of some trumped up serious threat? What is the average murder rate for escaped prisoners annually? It absolutely fucking pales in comparison to practically everything else. More people are probably accidentally strangled by neckties than prisoners who escaped from prison.
Quote from: aitm on February 03, 2016, 08:04:01 PM
You know, they argued and fought over killing the cab driver. One guy was fully invested into killing him. Exactly how many fathers or brothers or sisters or mothers are you willing to let be murdered because it doesn't involve your family?
I've seen this sort of argument before in a discussion about traffic safety. If we dropped the speed limit by just 5 mph, some people would live who might otherwise die. If you don't do just that, you're responsible for someone dying who otherwise might not die. How would you tell the grieving families you let their son/daughter/father/mother die?
So basically, we should just keep dropping the speed limit until absolutely no one is at risk. We have to have some sort of perfect solution or else we're tearfully giving condolences to some hypothetical stranger. I forget what it's called, but I'm pretty sure this is a logical fallacy of some kind.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2016, 10:01:12 PM
We have to have some sort of perfect solution or else we're tearfully giving condolences to some hypothetical stranger. I forget what it's called, but I'm pretty sure this is a logical fallacy of some kind.
You actually had it on accident. It's the
perfect solution fallacy, also sometimes referred to as the Nirvana fallacy. I'm not trying to be a know-it-all, but I looked it up today in reference to a discussion about welfare distribution and abuse.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 03, 2016, 09:48:42 PM
That's the best argument you can come up with? An appeal to safety and security in the face of some trumped up serious threat? What is the average murder rate for escaped prisoners annually? It absolutely fucking pales in comparison to practically everything else. More people are probably accidentally strangled by neckties than prisoners who escaped from prison.
Simply marvelous! A bunch of bohemians is so much more interesting company than normal people. Quite as exciting as the Tatooine alien bar in the first Star Wars movie. Yes, neckties are part of the most subtle plans of Darth Vader. Then he can telepathically strangle victims leaving plausible evidence that it was self inflicted!
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 03, 2016, 04:42:18 PM
I think the death penalty is a barbarism best left to such dastards as DAESH. Too many innocents convicted on flimsy evidence, once they're dead it's too late to make amends.
Of course I'm not for it in our current system, as I've said. But comparing a modern execution of a convicted, violent criminal where we at least try to carry it out as painlessly and peacefully as possible to the brutal, public beheading of someone who disagrees with you isn't exactly a fair comparison.
Quote from: widdershins on February 04, 2016, 11:55:03 AM
Of course I'm not for it in our current system, as I've said. But comparing a modern execution of a convicted, violent criminal where we at least try to carry it out as painlessly and peacefully as possible to the brutal, public beheading of someone who disagrees with you isn't exactly a fair comparison.
Why should the execution be peaceful or private? If one of the purposes of capital punishment is deterrence an execution that is both public and painful would be more effective. I think a televised extraction of the condemned's organs for donation without anesthesia would be efficient, impactful and educational.
Of course I am being facetious but if the execution of criminals by government is necessary or good why shouldn't it be public?
I think it's pretty simple..If you want the option to kill people in the name of the state then fine. Make it the option of every inmate who has no chance of being released. I suspect that most people sentenced to life in prison at some point will decide to get it over with and want to die.
At sentencing just leave it up to the convicted person. We can lock you up in a box for the next 40-60 years where your life won't be worth a handful of spit or we can just get it over with and end it right here and now..
I imagine that a very large number of people convicted of crimes like that would go ahead and opt for death and leave it as an open ended option where at any time during their incarceration they can elect to get it over and die instead of the never ending 4 walls.
We have all kinds of stupid laws on the books designed for keeping people from killing themselves and indeed if you are sick and go to the hospital with no insurance coverage there's a good chance they'll wheel you out to the parking lot and wish you well, but tell them that you're suicidal and they'll sell a wing of the hospital to fix you right on up. You're not allowed to kill yourself in that case. That's the hospitals job. I found out the hard way how that loophole works. Years ago I had a severe case of pacreatitis that nearly killed me. I was refused treatment for months until the pain got so bad that I wanted to die. It wasn't until I actually attempted to kill myself over it that they finally decided to treat it. That one little word 'suicide' triggers a mandatory response.. I'd probably be dead now if I hadn't tried to die over an easily treatable condition.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 04, 2016, 12:50:31 PM
Why should the execution be peaceful or private? If one of the purposes of capital punishment is deterrence an execution that is both public and painful would be more effective. I think a televised extraction of the condemned's organs for donation without anesthesia would be efficient, impactful and educational.
Of course I am being facetious but if the execution of criminals by government is necessary or good why shouldn't it be public?
My only point was that it wasn't a fair comparison. Obviously there are so crimes so heinous that you want the person to suffer, but what kind of person would carry out an execution like that? I suppose it might get some serial killers off the streets if they had a place to go to do bad things to bad people legally, but beside the point. I wouldn't be for doing any worse to criminals than they did to their victims, nor would I want it to be particularly brutal or unnecessarily humiliating any more than I want to humiliate the garbage in the can I took to the curb last night. I don't necessarily care if it's a punishment, or even a deterrent, just that useless people be disposed of properly. I do like your idea about recycling, though.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 04, 2016, 01:32:10 PM
I think it's pretty simple..If you want the option to kill people in the name of the state then fine. Make it the option of every inmate who has no chance of being released. I suspect that most people sentenced to life in prison at some point will decide to get it over with and want to die.
At sentencing just leave it up to the convicted person. We can lock you up in a box for the next 40-60 years where your life won't be worth a handful of spit or we can just get it over with and end it right here and now..
I imagine that a very large number of people convicted of crimes like that would go ahead and opt for death and leave it as an open ended option where at any time during their incarceration they can elect to get it over and die instead of the never ending 4 walls.
We have all kinds of stupid laws on the books designed for keeping people from killing themselves and indeed if you are sick and go to the hospital with no insurance coverage there's a good chance they'll wheel you out to the parking lot and wish you well, but tell them that you're suicidal and they'll sell a wing of the hospital to fix you right on up. You're not allowed to kill yourself in that case. That's the hospitals job. I found out the hard way how that loophole works. Years ago I had a severe case of pacreatitis that nearly killed me. I was refused treatment for months until the pain got so bad that I wanted to die. It wasn't until I actually attempted to kill myself over it that they finally decided to treat it. That one little word 'suicide' triggers a mandatory response.. I'd probably be dead now if I hadn't tried to die over an easily treatable condition.
I don't think criminals should get a choice in their punishment. I think some crimes should just carry the death penalty. If you take a life willingly and purposely, you owe a life.
And most death row inmates fight for decades to stay alive as long as possible, so I highly doubt there would be a lot of takers for the "end it" option.
And yes, we do have a ton of stupid laws on the books, including mandatory sentencing for victimless crimes like prostitution and drug use.
Of course many would say those crimes are not "victimless", but they would be wrong. Because a pimp enslaves a prostitute does not mean the John, seeking a willing prostitute, is responsible for that crime. And because drug money goes to evil people does not mean the user is responsible for the evils perpetrated by those people. If that were truly the case all the clothes you buy from Wal Mart would make you a slaver in violation of child labor and other laws internationally. We'd all be criminals for everything someone else did. Because you purchase and smoke a joint does not make you responsible for the murders committed by the guy 30 people down the chain.
And the medical system is all screwed up. There are just some things which the government should do. Those things include defense, of course, education, the legal system, including the prisons and medical care, in my opinion. None of these things should be privatized or use private contractors. The example you gave is kind of caused by this idea that life is sacred, but only if it's not going to end unnaturally. Republicans hate abortion and go out of their way to stop women from getting them, or at least punish them for getting an abortion. But once the baby is born, they'd rather have it starve to death than spend a few dollars a year extra in taxes to keep it alive. And your example is even better. If you're going to die a horrible, painful death because you aren't rich, well, that's God's plan. But if you're going to commit suicide, wait a minute! God hates that! NOW we have to fix it.
I would like to see a day where everyone in this or some better country is simply entitled to food, clean water, shelter including heat, electricity and sewage service, clothing and equal (equal in quality and wait times to those with money to throw around) medical treatment including dental and optical, ideally; All the things a person needs to survive in a modern world. If you want more, work for it. If you don't want to eat Ramen 3 times a day, work for something better. If you don't want to wear the same bland clothes everyone without money is wearing, work for it. If you want your own place instead of a dorm, work for it. Right now the system is so damned broken that I don't know that it can ever be fixed. I've had friends tell me that they know people with bad teeth who, once a month, go to the emergency room for pain to get Oxycontin, I think, then sell those pills for extra cash throughout the month. And they supposedly do this once a month. Well, if they had dental the doctor could just fix the problem once and for all the first time and they couldn't game the system at the expense of taxpayers.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 03, 2016, 09:48:42 PM
That's the best argument you can come up with? An appeal to safety and security in the face of some trumped up serious threat?
Now hold on.
A, the point was made that imprisoning people provided protection from them, I showed it did not.
Then it as suggested that because prison escapes are a rarity it should not even be considered in the argument. Well, when they go off and kill people then it IS in the argument because that is the whole of the thing.
If you cannot guarantee safety by imprisonment then the only guarantee is getting rid of the threat. So in light of the discussion, I do not consider it trumped up at all, and frankly the idea that because it happens rarely, it should be considered frivolous in light of who dies I find rather disturbing as well. I have no problem executing a pos murdered to make sure he does not kill anyone again, even if if you think that the possibility of the death of an innocent person is merely "trumped up". To that I am sure the family of the man they almost killed would like to have a few words with you.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2016, 10:01:12 PM
I've seen this sort of argument before in a discussion about traffic safety. If we dropped the speed limit by just 5 mph, some people would live who might otherwise die.
The masses rejected the speed limit outright. Just like they rejected seat belts for 40 years. I fail to see the comparison, but I suppose if we allowed someone to drive 120 and slam into other cars killing people and kept letting them do that then I supposed you may draw some type of correlation to this discussion...somehow....in your mind I suppose, but hey, you welcome to.
Non-the-less, we have had this discussion several times in the past. The long and short of it is pretty simply.
Side A thinks it is wrong to kill murderers because the chance of them killing again is small.
Side B thinks is is okay to kill murderers because there is a small chance they may kill again.
The argument that killing killers somehow degrades humanity seems, by history, to be false as we seem, as a whole, to be getting better at being humane.
Quote from: aitm on February 04, 2016, 05:35:10 PM
The argument that killing killers somehow degrades humanity seems, by history, to be false as we seem, as a whole, to be getting better at being humane.
Yes, we kill and torture people less on the state level and we're becoming more humane. Gone are the days when we draw and quarter people in the town square. Isn't that what you were arguing
against?
Quote from: aitm on February 04, 2016, 05:35:10 PM
Non-the-less, we have had this discussion several times in the past. The long and short of it is pretty simply.
Side A thinks it is wrong to kill murderers because the chance of them killing again is small.
Side B thinks is is okay to kill murderers because there is a small chance they may kill again.
The argument that killing killers somehow degrades humanity seems, by history, to be false as we seem, as a whole, to be getting better at being humane.
I would be a side A, but that's why I think it's wrong.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 04, 2016, 05:41:07 PM
Yes, we kill and torture people less on the state level and we're becoming more humane. Gone are the days when we draw and quarter people in the town square. Isn't that what you were arguing against?
I am pretty sure I have never agreed to the "drawn and quartered", in fact I pretty much with the idea of slipping a micky in their food and they can wake up dead, all nice and peaceful and no camera's. My one post about leaving them in a black box after I mutilate them is only if they were to kill one of my family members. You are free to coddle your families murderer all you want.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 04, 2016, 05:45:09 PM
I would be a side A, but that's why I think it's wrong.
And I am side B, so we got that straightened out we don't have to bicker for days eh? :P~
Quote from: aitm on February 04, 2016, 05:50:03 PM
And I am side B, so we got that straightened out we don't have to bicker for days eh? :P~
Actually, I wasn't bickering, you were. So there.
Quote from: aitm on February 04, 2016, 05:35:10 PM
Non-the-less, we have had this discussion several times in the past. The long and short of it is pretty simply.
Side A thinks it is wrong to kill murderers because the chance of them killing again is small.
Side B thinks is is okay to kill murderers because there is a small chance they may kill again.
The argument that killing killers somehow degrades humanity seems, by history, to be false as we seem, as a whole, to be getting better at being humane.
I'm more a "side C" kind of guy. I don't care if they will or will not kill again. They took a life, they don't deserve to have their own. And I wouldn't reserve the death penalty for murders alone, either. Violent people, in general (I'm not talking a bar brawl or something, more along the lines of people asking for "protection money" or pimps that slap the girls around...pieced of shit, not situational violence) should be removed from society. Rapists, for sure. Pretty much any severe sort of violence or control.
Quote from: aitm on February 04, 2016, 05:48:57 PM
I am pretty sure I have never agreed to the "drawn and quartered", in fact I pretty much with the idea of slipping a micky in their food and they can wake up dead, all nice and peaceful and no camera's.
I wasn't saying you agreed to draw and quarter people, I was responding to your historical argument. After all, you said:
Quote from: aitm on February 04, 2016, 05:35:10 PM
The argument that killing killers somehow degrades humanity seems, by history, to be false as we seem, as a whole, to be getting better at being humane.
Your argument was that we became more humane and then we stopped torturing people. My argument is that we stopped torturing people, and then we became more humane. It's a chicken and egg argument.
Quote from: aitm on February 04, 2016, 05:48:57 PM
You are free to coddle your families murderer all you want.
Would you stop it with the grandiose emotional appeals and straw man arguments already?
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 04, 2016, 06:27:10 PM
Your argument was that we became more humane and then we stopped torturing people. My argument is that we stopped torturing people, and then we became more humane.
No, my argument was we have been executing people for centuries and apparently have not become moral-less over time, we have in fact become more civilized.
QuoteWould you stop it with the grandiose emotional appeals and straw man arguments already?
But, you said you don't mind if someone escapes from prison and kills your family because the odds are pretty high against it, so……you know…..chicken and eggs kinda.
As far as giving choices to live or die, virtually everyone on death row- with very few exceptions- has fought to the end to avoid the death penalty. I believe it takes something like 5 years minimum between first conviction to eventual execution, and I can think of only 1 person- Gary Gilmore- who ultimately opted to die rather than live in prison. So it is likely that, given a choice, they would choose life in prison.
But I reiterate, the only reason (to me) to take a human life is someone so egregious like the Green River killer or Ted Bundy where there is no chance of redemption in any form. At my age I would probably pick death over life in prison, because there is no meaningful reason to live without freedom to do as I choose. If I were convicted of murder I would seek to take my own life rather than live in prison.
If, along with life in prison, a murderer were given some opportunity for redemption in terms of doing some work to help those who had chosen a bad path in life, for example, it would be a useful solution, at least in part. But there are some people who are simply beyond redemption and I see no reason to allow them to exist.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 02, 2016, 07:26:46 PM
Some people simply need to die! That said, I cannot support the death penalty as the US applies it. There are too many cases that later show up to have been in error. That is unacceptable. Charles Manson did not deserve to live; especially as he was housed in prison. He should have been put into a cell with a bed and toilet and that's it. Anyway, no death penalty.
And imagine the horror and what must be complete disbelief of a wrongly convicted inmate being strapped in - proclaiming as most do, their innocence - right to the very end.
I'm against it. It's a very simplified reason for me. I couldn't flip the switch, push the button, pull the lever, or plunge the needle myself, so i can't expect that it be done by somebody else.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 03, 2016, 09:47:19 PM
Yeah, that is a factor, isn't it?? Your loved ones................If my wife were hurt on purpose, my daughter, my grandchildren, my dogs---well, I'm not too sure I'd not simply off them given the chance. I am convinced that if someone enters my house with bad intentions, they are history if I can manage it. If Charles Manson had killed my mother, I am positive I would not want him sitting around watching TV, giving interviews, smoking cigs--or doing anything but dying. I really hope I never get tested in this area.
I think few would argue that there is a huge difference between killing in self defence vs the death penalty. If your aim is to kill others, it'll need to be over my own dead body.
I'm perplexed by the need for complexity and quality control in executions. Why the need for three chemical ingredients administered in the proper order, a procedure that if bungled by the technician can result in unnecessary suffering? Killing something quickly is not that difficult. My dog was given a simple overdose of barbiturates and was gone in 5 seconds, seemingly without any pain or discomfort.
But the use of mechanical devices used in execution make them seem like Rube Goldberg contraptions designed to be unique, but still horrifying enough to get the point across that we are killing this guy, as if this has something to do with being humane. There is no need for the theatrics of caring after he's been sitting in his cell for months where he can do nothing but lose hope and come to terms with his own death.
Stalin would take some guy into a small courtyard and shoot him in the back of the head so that they wouldn't get blood all over Stalin's office. No need for a big production.
I've often assumed that the use of multiple drugs or machinery and technology was sort of a weak attempt to remove the executioner from the act and make the death "tidier" so that it doesn't seem as barbaric. You can flip the switch of an electric chair or a gas chamber or delivery of a drug cocktail at a distance, whereas beheading someone is kind of messy and up close and personal.
Even Helium. When a certain "date" range for execution is met he is moved to a air tight room and on any given night the room is pumped with Helium. Cheap and easy.
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2016, 11:00:27 AM
Even Helium. When a certain "date" range for execution is met he is moved to a air tight room and on any given night the room is pumped with Helium. Cheap and easy.
That's why I admire you, aitm. Clever solutions mixed with a kind and gentle heart. :03:
H. H. Holmes, America's first famous serial killer (1890s) would use natural gas (without the stink additive). Y'all are such bloodthirsty folks ... brings tears to my cruel eyes, sniff ;-)
The idea of, in order to punish a murderer we have to murder them, is insane.
It's an eye for an eye, a completely barbaric and idiotic way of thinking about the judicial system.
If this mindset is justifiable if someone cuts off someones dick should the punishment be we cut off their genitalia?
Code of Hammurabi to be exact, pre-Biblical ... in Babylon. Yes, you would get an organ removed. If an eye doctor, causes an eye to be lost, because of malpractice, the law required his eye to be removed. No messy fines. I agree that punishment is crap ... but so is rewarding crime, like we do now ... if done by a certain upper class of assholes. Life isn't fair, law or no law. The law is always for the upper class assholes, the police are there to protect them from you (and get a little legal crime for themselves).
The Code of Hammurabi was an improvement. Before that it was Hatfields vs McCoys. If a doctor messed up, the patient's family could exact unlimited revenge against him and his family, forever. The purpose of all law, is to selectively put society into two parts, the self-righteous assholes, and those who are just assholes. The upper class assholes are a subset of the self-righteous ones. They can blend into their fellow travelers, those who think they might be upper class some day. Middle class assholes.
I'm against the death penalty because there are serious problems in the legal system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L30_hfuZoQ8
Agreed ... the death penalty is a political act, and I HATE politics.
I have no problem with the death penalty There are plenty of people that deserve it. Getting to the decision for that is my problem. Meeting it out, is my problem. Give me the reins....ima fix it for you.
Quote from: aitm on May 02, 2020, 11:20:46 AM
I have no problem with the death penalty There are plenty of people that deserve it. Getting to the decision for that is my problem. Meeting it out, is my problem. Give me the reins....ima fix it for you.
My feeling exactly. Genocidal results ... aren't my damn fault.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 02, 2020, 08:10:30 AM
I'm against the death penalty because there are serious problems in the legal system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L30_hfuZoQ8
This is my main concern with the death penalty.
I am not opposed to killing murderers, but the problem is there are way too many instances of innocent people being killed because... well, because of either their skin colour or their economic status. That is simply unacceptable, and if innocent people have to die so that the guilty can be put down as well... I'm not comfortable with that trade.
I am fully in favour of the self-proclaimed Nazis in our country being round up and shot though. Hard to get that one wrong when they are literally out there admitting their guilt.
I want all communist revolutionaries shot, for treason. Do you think this is fair?
Or maybe we should check our self-righteousness, and embrace humanity with humility rather than Hitler/Stalin?
Quote from: Shiranu on May 02, 2020, 12:25:38 PM
This is my main concern with the death penalty.
I am not opposed to killing murderers, but the problem is there are way too many instances of innocent people being killed because... well, because of either their skin colour or their economic status. That is simply unacceptable, and if innocent people have to die so that the guilty can be put down as well... I'm not comfortable with that trade.
I am fully in favour of the self-proclaimed Nazis in our country being round up and shot though. Hard to get that one wrong when they are literally out there admitting their guilt.
My thoughts exactly! The manson's of the world need to die. And sprinkling in some Nazi's would not hurt, either.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 02, 2020, 12:38:25 PM
My thoughts exactly! The manson's of the world need to die. And sprinkling in some Nazi's would not hurt, either.
I guess you are headed for the Gulag too ;-(
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 02, 2020, 08:10:30 AM
I'm against the death penalty because there are serious problems in the legal system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L30_hfuZoQ8
Necro'd