What are your feelings on the death penalty?

[WitchSabrina]

I am pro death penalty (federal jurisdiction, not each state having its own rules), but I think it's just weird the various ways we have come up with to execute people. Complicated and expensive. Gas chamber? It takes hours to recover the actual chamber back to readiness for the next execution. Electric chair? There's something kind of sinister about it. Somebody must have really enjoyed coming up with that kind of apparatus to kill. In Belarus, it is simply a bullet to the back of the head. Simple. Cheap. Probably painless, but frightening to think about.

All that said, even though I am pro-dp, I would reserve it for murder and for rape, and never mandatory in either case.

This^
thanks - I feel less crazy now.

[Plu]

The problem with bullet to the back of the head is that you need a sane person to pull the trigger. Those tend to be hard to come by. Especially keeping them sane after the first few. It's why firing squads often had half the men fire blanks and half live, without telling them who got which. It was the only way to keep them somewhat sane through the proces.

Hell, even the nazi's came up with the concept of gas chambers because even their most devout troops broke down after executing people in the 'bullet to the head' way. It really fucks with your mind.

[Aroura33]

The problem with bullet to the back of the head is that you need a sane person to pull the trigger. Those tend to be hard to come by. Especially keeping them sane after the first few. It's why firing squads often had half the men fire blanks and half live, without telling them who got which. It was the only way to keep them somewhat sane through the proces.

Hell, even the nazi's came up with the concept of gas chambers because even their most devout troops broke down after executing people in the 'bullet to the head' way. It really fucks with your mind.

This is true.  One of the main reasons lethal injection has become more common isn't because it is actually more humane for the person being put to death (studies show many people are still awake and alert when they get the heart attack, and they cannot breath, suffocating while in agony but unable to show it basically), but because it is easier on the executioner.  It is not as violent, and there are no outward signs or feelings of death.  Hell, they look like they just fell asleep, so there are less psychological issues for those who have to do the killing.

To often , we seem to think like the excecuted people will just drop over dead on their own.  You have to a realize a sane, non murderer (often a doctor who has taken oaths not to harm) has to kill another human being.  That should be taken into account as well.

[Aroura33]

[quote author="commonsense822"

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

Isn't killing a person the ultimate way of altering their brain chemistry so they don't kill again?  

Also, we alter people's "natural" brain chemistry all the time to heal or treat illness or disease.  I mean, ASPIRIN alters your "natural" brain chemistry.  Do you think aspirin is bad? If we view criminal behavior as disease, then it is no different.

In the "ultimate sense" no, it would be to fix it and to program them to do good for the rest of their days. Most of us don't just go off and murder people, there is major brain chemistry flaws in the minds of serial killers, rapists and other people who generally don't care for others. I suppose if you have a pessimistic point of view, sure, killing them is your only answer if you don't care to fix the problem.[/quote]
No, I'm all for altering brain chemistry to fix criminals.  I think you misunderstood me.  I was trying to point out to those who thought it was Orwellian to do so that killing people certainly alters their brain chemistry....permanently.

[quote="Thumpalumpacus"]

Where is the justice in holding someone responsible for an outcome that was arrived at deterministically?  Inherent in the idea of crime and punishment is the idea that the punishment is used to help teach the criminal to not choose the same path again -- in other words, inherent in the idea of punishment is the idea that the crime was a choice.
[/quote] Justice is an outdated, barbaric, and biblical a notion as revenge. I think seeking justice, in the tradition sense, is totally the wrong way to go about things.

And if punishment is really supposed to help teach the criminal not to commit crimes in the future, it sure isn't working, and never has. Recidivism rates for those incarcerated and later released are VERY high, between 70% and 80%, depending on the type of crime.  Punishment fails as a mechanism of deterrent.
Prisons and punishment do not exist to reach people not to commit again, they are their for victims to take their revenge, and to keep dangerous people who might re-offend off the streets (which they also often fail at).
 

When a plane crashes because the engine due to metal fatigue, we don't charge the pilot with murder even though some passengers were killed, and the reason why is beacuse while something happened, the pilot didn't choose to cause the engine to fail.

Correct.  We look to see what went wrong and then we fix it.  It should be the same way with criminal behavior.  We should do our best to rehabilitate them, and those who cannot be rehabilitated should be locked up until we can, if ever.  They should still be charged with a crime, because that is part of identifying the problem, but punishment alone solves nothing.
If we put all of the resources we currently use into just locking people up into finding real ways to fix problems, I'm sure we could do much much better.  Already there exist many programs that actually work towards turning ex-criminals into functional people, instead of turning the into even worse criminals (which is what prison/punishment does).

Oh, I'm not angry ... I just think you, and he, are wrong.

I think if you reject the death penalty because the criminal could not help but commit his crime due to the deterministic nature of reality, then you must, necessarily, reject all punishments for all crimes on the same grounds, or you will yourself be perpetrating injustice.  Indeed, logically, determinism is incompatible with morality at all, because the essential premise of morality is that one chooses to be moral or immoral.

You are using the outdated ideas of justice and punishment, so none of this actually applies to what I believe.  
I do reject the notion of punishment for the sake of punishment alone, for all crimes.  As a society, we must of course do our best to keep people safe, so dangerous criminals who cannot be rehabilitated should be locked up, humanely, and those who can be rehabilitated should be.

The REAL injustice is that biblical ideas of revenge and punishment still rule our justice system.  Victims and survivors should be rehabilitated as well, because they have obviously been damaged by the harm done to them.  The fact that our justice currently includes helping victims only by giving them a sense of revenge IS barbaric, and it doe NOT heal their wounds or losses mental or physical.  It is completely an eye for an eye system, and it does not work for anyone, victim or criminal.

If you did find time to watch the Sam Harris video, you'll have heard his much more eloquent response to these exact arguments.  Of course we must continue to deal with criminals, even when we realize they are also victims of circumstance, illness, or whatever.  Our duty to society only changes for the better, we don't abandon it.

It is a similar argument, to me, that theists often make that without god there can be no morality.  Obviously, that isn't true.  The same holds with free-will.  Without free will, there would still exist morality, and there would also exist more understanding and compassion for victims as well as criminals, instead of guilt, blame, and revenge.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Justice is an outdated, barbaric, and biblical a notion as revenge. I think seeking justice, in the tradition sense, is totally the wrong way to go about things.

Yep, we definitely disagree.

And if punishment is really supposed to help teach the criminal not to commit crimes in the future, it sure isn't working, and never has. Recidivism rates for those incarcerated and later released are VERY high, between 70% and 80%, depending on the type of crime.  Punishment fails as a mechanism of deterrent.
Prisons and punishment do not exist to reach people not to commit again, they are their for victims to take their revenge, and to keep dangerous people who might re-offend off the streets (which they also often fail at).

However, punishment does sequester convicts away from law-abiding citizens.
 

Correct.  We look to see what went wrong and then we fix it.  It should be the same way with criminal behavior.  We should do our best to rehabilitate them, and those who cannot be rehabilitated should be locked up until we can, if ever.  They should still be charged with a crime, because that is part of identifying the problem, but punishment alone solves nothing.

How would you suggest going about rehabilitating convicts?

If we put all of the resources we currently use into just locking people up into finding real ways to fix problems, I'm sure we could do much much better.  Already there exist many programs that actually work towards turning ex-criminals into functional people, instead of turning the into even worse criminals (which is what prison/punishment does).

How effective are those programs?  Do you have recidivism numbers from them?

You are using the outdated ideas of justice and punishment, so none of this actually applies to what I believe.  

I don't believe that they're "outdated"; that is just you imposing your subjective values upon this discussion, and as such, I reject it, unless you can demonstrate that a better methodology has arrived to make this approach purely obsolete.  Don't forget to bring your data.

I do reject the notion of punishment for the sake of punishment alone, for all crimes.  As a society, we must of course do our best to keep people safe, so dangerous criminals who cannot be rehabilitated should be locked up, humanely, and those who can be rehabilitated should be.

The REAL injustice is that biblical ideas of revenge and punishment still rule our justice system.  Victims and survivors should be rehabilitated as well, because they have obviously been damaged by the harm done to them.  The fact that our justice currently includes helping victims only by giving them a sense of revenge IS barbaric, and it doe NOT heal their wounds or losses mental or physical.  It is completely an eye for an eye system, and it does not work for anyone, victim or criminal.

This is really a discussion about the role of government, then.  I don't believe it is the role of government to assuage the hurt of every citizen no matter the cause.  I believe it is the role of the government to separate dangerous citizens from those who abide the laws which govern our conduct.

If you did find time to watch the Sam Harris video, you'll have heard his much more eloquent response to these exact arguments.  Of course we must continue to deal with criminals, even when we realize they are also victims of circumstance, illness, or whatever.  Our duty to society only changes for the better, we don't abandon it.

It is a similar argument, to me, that theists often make that without god there can be no morality.  Obviously, that isn't true.  The same holds with free-will.  Without free will, there would still exist morality, and there would also exist more understanding and compassion for victims as well as criminals, instead of guilt, blame, and revenge.

I'll admit -- it completely slipped my mind to go back and watch it.  My apologies for that oversight.

I admit also that I don't see why a fallacious argument on the part of theists should make my point incorrect, though.  I'm not talking about any supernatural construct.

[Aroura33]

I'll go ahead and let you have the last word, I have said my piece, and honestly, everyone in my house is sick again, (damn it), and I haven't got time to type up more counter arguments for a bit.

I would like to thank you for having a very civil debate though.  :) Too often I see disagreements on this forum turn to insults or nitpicking over fallacious details or semantics, and it was nice to have a discussion with you, you are very thoughtful and rational.  Thank you for the conversation.

I'm off to buy some more Dayquil and also childrens tylonol.  And then make everyone take a nap so I can have 15 minutes of quiet!  lol

Quick note:  The theist thing I said does not make your argument fallacious at all, I didn't mean to insinuate that.  It just reminds me of it, honestly, it was just a loose comparison.

[The Non Prophet]

If were going to kill criminals outright then we've got to at least put it on TV and make betting odds like the concept of that Stone Cold Steve Austin Movie where criminals fight on an island for freedom or whatever. Ratings would be through the roof.



















edit; someone wrote 30 seconds after me

[Thumpalumpacus]

I appreciate your kindness as well.  It's refreshing to meet with people who can disagree without being disagreeable.

I'll watch the video later.  Hope y'all get to feeling better.

[Alaric I]

Electric chair? There's something kind of sinister about it. Somebody must have really enjoyed coming up with that kind of apparatus to kill

The elctric chair was thought up to discredit AC current.

[commonsense822]

I believe Science will one day cure and prevent most criminal activity. So I believe the death penalty is actually giving them a way out of atoning their ways and fixing their faulty brain chemistry. Even Hitler could have been turned around with the right Science which I admit is not available yet but he would have been kept around long enough to repair what he damaged or at least a lot of damage instead of just killing him quickly or without repercussion (like he probably wanted).

So all in all, no, do not believe in the eye for an eye logic unless I am under attack, the only person who should have revenge is the dead person the murderer killed but since that isn't possible we need to use criminals the best we can for research and hopefully repair them so they can do good with the new lease on life they may get.

I understand the desire to alter brain chemistry to fix criminals, but I am ultimately very wary of anything that would alter the behavior of a person's natural state.  Ever watch Equilibrium before?

It's not a natural state, that's the point, have you ever seen how different the brain structures of a serial killer are? There are often abnormalities and now in days we can see the parts of the brain that produce compassion are not firing properly, all brain problems can be fixed with Neurology, at least someday. The writers of a movie hardly have all the facts on brain chemistry.

Look again I understand the reason for wanting to condition someones brain to to make it "morally correct" in an effort to deter crime, but it sets a dangerous precedent.  One of the main arguments that I see for modifying someone's brain seems to be that it is for the greater good of the whole society.  But how far are we willing to take that argument?  Some may say that going over the posted speed limits poses a danger to other drivers on the road and pedestrians walking in public.  Should we then modify brain behavior for drivers to have an aversion to high speeds?  

Who gets to set the rules for what can be modified to an individuals brain and will they be subject to change depending on who is in power?  This is especially important in matters where morality falls into the grey area.  Abortion for example is one of those morally grey areas, no matter where your position on it is.  If the appropriate executive and congressional members were anti-abortion because they considered the rights to life of the fetus trumped those personal rights of the mother, could our brains be modified to make us reject abortion by making us feel like it is an immoral act?  

What laws will we ingrain?  It seems obvious to say only serious laws like murder or rape, but as I mentioned before with the speed limit, where do we decide that the benefit towards society outweighs the individual?  Obesity causes higher health care costs amongst us all, should we then also program the brain to encourage people to eat healthier or less?  Or does someone have the right to be fat?

[Zatoichi]

The death penalty is society's way of throwing up their hands in defeat and saying, "Well shit... we don't know how else to deal with people who misbehave and hurt or kill other people, so let's just kill them so we don't have to deal with it."

When I think of how much could have been learned from people like Ted Bundy... the insights that might have been gained by studying his particular psychosis, I think, what a loss.

After all, when a plane crashes we don't throw out the wreckage , we keep it around to study in hopes of learning more about what went wrong. And often, they house that wreckage indefinitely as a learning tool for future investigators.

It's worth the cost of keeping them alive, but there is a wealth of opportunity to learn about human nature and deviant behavior sitting in our prisons right now. I don't see why they don't set up research in every single prison and make an intensive study of criminals. It's not like they're going anywhere or have any choice. A potential wellspring of knowledge completely untapped, and we'd be getting something of value (knowledge) to society for the expense.

In any case, we can hardly call ourselves a civilized society if we punish murder by murdering the murderer. It's simply sweeping the dirt under the rug.

[Shiranu]

It costs more to execute people than keep than in jail, so I think its a bad idea.

(From a strictly economic view... I disagree with it morally as well.)

[BarkAtTheMoon]

The death penalty is society's way of throwing up their hands in defeat and saying, "Well shit... we don't know how else to deal with people who misbehave and hurt or kill other people, so let's just kill them so we don't have to deal with it."

When I think of how much could have been learned from people like Ted Bundy... the insights that might have been gained by studying his particular psychosis, I think, what a loss.

After all, when a plane crashes we don't throw out the wreckage , we keep it around to study in hopes of learning more about what went wrong. And often, they house that wreckage indefinitely as a learning tool for future investigators.

It's worth the cost of keeping them alive, but there is a wealth of opportunity to learn about human nature and deviant behavior sitting in our prisons right now. I don't see why they don't set up research in every single prison and make an intensive study of criminals. It's not like they're going anywhere or have any choice. A potential wellspring of knowledge completely untapped, and we'd be getting something of value (knowledge) to society for the expense.

In any case, we can hardly call ourselves a civilized society if we punish murder by murdering the murderer. It's simply sweeping the dirt under the rug.

I always thought Bundy would've been a guy to keep around for this very purpose, and I've thought the same thing about the Aurora Joker guy cause it's so rare a mass shooter is captured alive. But Bundy's also a good example why it ultimately wouldn't work near as well as one might think, and also why rehabilitation doesn't tend to work both with criminal and substance abuse. People need to want to help, seek help, or be helped.

Bundy was smart and quite cocky. He thought he could out smart everyone during his trial. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him give the shrinks studying him either what they wanted to hear or completely wrong info just to fuck with them. Have we really learned anything substantial from keeping Charlie Manson alive the past 40 years? For all the interesting information you might get out of these guys, you're also going to get a lot of bullshit data that sets the whole program back even more. Most sociopaths with zero empathy probably aren't going to be all that cooperative.

[invisibleandpink]

Personally, I don't like it.

[Plu]

I must say that Aurora gives a lot of interesting views, and I really need to take some time somewhere to listen to that Sam Harris video. When I finally have time again, that is.

I never realised before how outdated I considered the concept of justice to be. It's so ingrained into most people that you don't even realise it until someone points it out.