Pro-Death?

[billhilly]

So you're against the death penalty then?

In all but a VERY few cases.  (Most of which are moot, since the intended victim already imposed the death penalty on the attacker.)

That is interesting.  I think I agree with you if I'm understanding your point.  I don't have an issue with the death penalty in principle.  It's the inevitable application process that hangs me up.  A guy who is beaten to death with a fireplace poker while attempting to rape and murder someone seems about right to me.  Are we in the same ballpark here?

[Colanth]

Pretty much.  A guy who beats someone to death on the street, in front of a dozen witnesses, who saw the attack start for no reason, and who claims that he killed the victim to see what killing someone feels like (actual case from a few decades ago), is a prime candidate for the death penalty.

Someone who almost certainly committed a murder for no good reason isn't.  It's the "almost" that makes the difference to me.  No matter how certain we can be, unless it's absolute certainty, the fact that the death sentence is final makes it wrong IMO.

[Colanth]

we should actually talk about post-death. that is what they religious do. but unfortunately it's untalkable. nobody has gone there have not yet turn back : )

Not completely true.  There have been a few confirmed cases of people coming back from clinical death.  But no reports of anything there.

[billhilly]

Pretty much.  A guy who beats someone to death on the street, in front of a dozen witnesses, who saw the attack start for no reason, and who claims that he killed the victim to see what killing someone feels like (actual case from a few decades ago), is a prime candidate for the death penalty.

Someone who almost certainly committed a murder for no good reason isn't.  It's the "almost" that makes the difference to me.  No matter how certain we can be, unless it's absolute certainty, the fact that the death sentence is final makes it wrong IMO.

I'm not sure we can ever devise a system that ensures absolute certainty every time.  We certainly don't have one now.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Reasonable doubt determined all to often by unreasonable people devoid of reasonable knowledge of events around them... Sense some silliness there?

[PickelledEggs]

I wonder about this sometimes.

Years ago, when my grandpa had a house in the woods of PA, there was a summer where all the deer died because of over population. They eventually made a recovery, but that year that they died was because of too many deer and not enough food.

Sometimes I wonder if the human population will fizzle out like that. The number of people rises exponentially every year.

Today the world population is about 6,800,000,000 almost 1 billion more than ten years ago
And in 1950 the world pop was approx 2.55 billion

I hope we can figure out how to be resourceful otherwise we are going to have a shit-storm of famine.

[Plu]

Billion. Not Trillion. But other than that; yeah. We used to have one or two great purging events per generation (mostly wars and the like) but that seems to have stopped. But unless we learn to stop breeding like rabbits, we'll have another one on our hands at some point in the future.

[PickelledEggs]

Billion. Not Trillion.

Fixed it.

And yea. I HATE war and violence. It gives me nausea. I do not want to witness that.

I can't imagine having to deal with knowing the detail of something like that going on. (although there are genocides going on right now, or at least recently) One of the reasons I am skiddish to turn on the news...

The Crusades and the Nazi Holocaust eliminated about 10% of the human population. Each. I don't even feel like getting my self sick thinking about today's population (literally) decimated from something like that.  680,000,000 people. obliterated. Fuck that.

[Colanth]

Pretty much.  A guy who beats someone to death on the street, in front of a dozen witnesses, who saw the attack start for no reason, and who claims that he killed the victim to see what killing someone feels like (actual case from a few decades ago), is a prime candidate for the death penalty.

Someone who almost certainly committed a murder for no good reason isn't.  It's the "almost" that makes the difference to me.  No matter how certain we can be, unless it's absolute certainty, the fact that the death sentence is final makes it wrong IMO.

I'm not sure we can ever devise a system that ensures absolute certainty every time.  We certainly don't have one now.

Which is why I'm almost never in favor of the death penalty.  When mind-reading is acceptable evidence, we can be more comfortable about using it.

[Colanth]

I hope we can figure out how to be resourceful otherwise we are going to have a shit-storm of famine.

We already do in many places.  And people die in large numbers.  There's no need to wait for the future to see what's going to happen - it's happening now.

[Colanth]

Death penalty is no good. As an atheist, I do not support the death penalty, because it can be abused, used to kill scape goats, and has inconsistent cases.

So if a law can be misapplied, it should never be applied?  That would eliminate all laws.

[billhilly]

The death penalty is a punishment for breaking a law and yes, it should never be applied.

[GSOgymrat]

What about the death penalty for people like Anders Behring Breivik or Timothy McVeigh who, with no doubt, intentionally murdered large numbers of people?

[Triple Nine]

Pro-Death, you act as if that's a bad thing. Life is suffering. Why must you force people into a life of suffering?

[Plu]

They are probably better off in a research lab than a box in the ground. Their minds might have valuable clues towards detecting and fixing these problems in the future.