Author Topic: Death Penalty  (Read 9727 times)

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #45 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.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 01:45:28 PM by AllPurposeAtheist »
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2016, 02:47:06 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.
This sentence is a lie...

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2016, 03:12:11 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.
This sentence is a lie...

Offline aitm

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2016, 03:28:43 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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline aitm

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2016, 03:32:49 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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline aitm

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #50 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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline TomFoolery

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #51 on: February 04, 2016, 05:41:07 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?
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?

Offline Mermaid

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2016, 05:45:09 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.
We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch - we are going back from whence we came.

John F. Kennedy

Offline aitm

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2016, 05:48:57 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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline aitm

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2016, 05:50:03 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~
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Mermaid

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2016, 06:15:24 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.
We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch - we are going back from whence we came.

John F. Kennedy

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2016, 06:20:36 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.
This sentence is a lie...

Offline TomFoolery

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2016, 06:27:10 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:
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.

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?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 06:32:30 PM by TomFoolery »
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?

Offline aitm

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2016, 07:43:36 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.

Quote
Would 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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline stromboli

Re: Death Penalty
« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2016, 11:45:09 PM »
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.