Capital Punishment

[mediumaevum]

I think it is most scaring when I ask people wether or not they are pro-DP and they answer:
"No, because we could kill innocent people".

- so it's alright to kill, if one is guilty of a crime?

[Jason78]

I always wonder about "lawful" executions and capital punishment in general. We do not have it here which may be why I find it hard to wrap my head around it.

Do people see it as moral or ethical? I have heard reports of communities in the US celebrating over how many people have been executed under capital punishment laws. This seems a risky way to carry out justice in my point of view. If you make a mistake and execute an innocent party, you cannot undo it. How is that right? And who decides which crimes are punishable by death?

It's only really risky to the accused.  If a judge passes a sentence condemning an innocent man, there's no risk of the judge being arrested for murder.


I don't see capital punishment in its current form as moral or ethical.   It's not even cost effective!  It's not even really a punishment, because a dead man feels nothing.  


What I think the US should do in the cases where people are safely convicted of a crime that attracts the death penalty is to take the prisoner and study them.  If we could learn more about these people and what makes them tick and what drives them to commit the crimes that they do, maybe we could actually save lives.

[Atheon]

I'm 100% against capital punishment.

Besides being a moral outrage and something that no civilized society should engage in, it's also ineffective as a deterrent, more expensive than incarceration for life, and prone to error.

[aitm]

It's researched and documented many times that it doesn't deter any crime.

Nonsense, it is an absolute fact that the dead will not, do not and cannot commit any more crimes, whereas, those who have murdered and who manage to escape have killed again or are willing to kill again. Case in point in Florida just last week,  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/21/2- ... thorities/
 now if those escaped murderers were in your neighborhood the howls we would hear. Odd how some scream about any particular "thing" being fixed because it might save ONE life, but eliminating a proven killing machine is somehow more evil than allowing it to live and giving it a chance to kill again.

People who are in favor of allowing people who butcher other humans to live should be willing to sign a list with their address so these pieces of shit can find shelter at their house.

[Plu]

That's not what deterring crime means. At least not in the reasonable meaning of the word, like the way other people use it.

[Solitary]

It's not always a black and white issue---or is it? Solitary

[Plu]

For most people, everything is a black and white issue it seems :(

[aitm]

See, they escaped, because we didn't murder them.

absolutely. It has happened before. I doubt any of you would not change your mind if a butcherer escaped and carved up your loved one and left them stuffed in a barrel.

One doesn't even need to see the whole carcass to change one's mind, just a 12" little arm sticking out of the mud should do it.

[Plu]

Hey look, this is exactly what drunkenshoe was talking about when she made the whole "not thinking rationally" post.

"You wouldn't think the same if it happened to you" is like the defining line for "when you stop thinking rationally, you'll agree with me."

[aitm]

So it is rational to allow people who have absolutely no qualms about butchering other humans an opportunity to do it again? Hmm. Strange rational indeed.

[Plu]

Interestingly, that argument is blanket enough to be one for killing all soldiers the day they come home from their assignments.

So perhaps you should look for something with a little more nuance.

[aitm]

Interestingly, that argument is blanket enough blah blah blah.

.

no, it's not for thinking people.

[Plu]

What isn't? I'm missing a lot of context with a response that short.

[Solitary]

This is all fascinating and based on emotion and value judgments with a little logic. It's true that letting people out to commit crimes again can't if they are executed, but this assumes they really did it in the first place and that a jury and police always gets it right as well as eye witnesses, and the law is correct to protect society. People do get out that did heinous crimes but who allows that? The way the law is written and "Lawyers" that's who. Why was a pedophile who raped and cut the arms off of a little girl allowed to be let out? Because he served his time and psychiatrist said he was no longer a threat. Right! How many people that have never harmed anyone are in prison because of our stupid drug laws that want to punish instead of protect society?

This is the problem: the legal system has become a system of punishment and money instead of to protect society. Why is there parole, or serving a short time spent in jail or prison, for offenders that are a threat to society? And why are "psychiatrist" allowed to say someone is rehabilitated in "their" opinion and let out when it is so obvious that pedophiles, and killers are a threat to society or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. Truman Capote who wrote: In Cold Blood, said that we are too concerned with protecting innocent people that we let go too many of those who are guilty of major crimes. Solitary

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm back and forth on the death penalty mainly because there are people who clearly have no business walking or breathing much less taking up jail space, but we split the baby and lock some away in dungeons forever while others walk free then snuff yet others out.
What if Ted Cruz murdered a hundred kids just for shits and giggles? DP opponents might be screaming for his head..