death penalty

[nampigai]

'Innocent people are thrown in jail for the rest of their life under your system. Sometimes evidence may never turn up, in this case they rot away. You ruin their lives- they might as well be dead. In my eyes that is torture.'

ok so we should also kill the people living under life standards in the thirdworld? They are also best of dead don't you think?

I would rather have murderes working in camps, that way IF you convict an innocent man he could be compensated.

[emprworm]

"ok so we should also kill the people living under life standards in the thirdworld? They are also best of dead don't you think?"

I never said to kill any innocent person. lol. I think you skipped what I wrote.

[Anathema]

It is relevant because I don't think that any random murderer deserves death. He may have a good reason why he did it. Perhaps not sufficient reason, but that doesn't mean he should be killed.

[emprworm]

he has every reason to be killed if he murders. in your hypothetical, a man breaking into my home alone is grounds to be shot. When you break into a persons home, you put yourself in grave danger, knowingly understanding that you could be killed- you do it anyway. Then you see my gun and grab it before I can. You load the gun and prepare to shoot me in the head in cold blood. Then my wife runs down the stairs with a loaded pistol and kills you with a head shot before you can kill me.

Moral and Lawful Result of Hypothetical: No crime committed by my wife. Your death = justifiable. You forfeited your right to live.

[nampigai]

then what do you mean with this:

'Innocent people are thrown in jail for the rest of their life under your system. Sometimes evidence may never turn up, in this case they rot away. You ruin their lives- they might as well be dead. In my eyes that is torture'

I interpret this as better to kill an innocent man than to throw him to jail, but maybe I'm mistaken.

[Anathema]

If that's your concept of morality, then I might as well stop my part in this discussion right here, because apparently any crime (like burglary) is enough reason to deserve death by your standards.

If I stand in front of a man, about to send me to a life in jail for the sole reason I wanted my wife and children to survive, while he lives in opulence knowing that people starve because he exploits them, then I would pull the trigger.

[emprworm]

"I interpret this as better to kill an innocent man than to throw him to jail, but maybe I'm mistaken. "

I would rather interpret it as "throwing an innocent man in jail for the rest of his life may or may not be better than killing him, depending upon that individual's view- not NaMpIgAi's view.

When you throw an innocent man in jail for the rest of his life, taken away from his family and children, to many that is worse than death. NaMpIgAi thinks that death is worse than innocent imprisonment in a maximum security prison for life. But NaMpIgAi cannot speak for all people. Many people would welcome death over such a life. NaMpIgAi tries to argue the "but what about innocent people" argument as grounds to discredit the death penalty, but that argument fails because NaMpIgAi's world is also ruining people's lives- some of them worse than death itself.

the question for NaMpIgAi, therefore, is not whether the death penalty is morally justified, but its implementation. You see, regardless of death or not, innocents being convicted of crime is intolerable- death penalty or not.

[emprworm]

If that's your concept of morality, then I might as well stop my part in this discussion right here,

then you should. because if a man breaks into my home, points a gun at my head, and my wife shoots him dead before he can kill me, no crime has been committed- except by the dead burgler. (as I said earlier)

[Caid Ivik]

of course you have the right to die. if you really want to die, you can forfeit those rights.

You have a right to live freely. You can forfeit those rights as well. Commit crime, and your rights are forfeit. The fallacy with most of the people arguing the death penalty is that they are saying the STATE is making the decision to remove their right to live. This is illogical. When a person robs a store and assaults someone, they just forfeited their rights to live freely. When the state puts them in prison, it is not the state "choosing" to take away their rights. THeir rights were lost when, of their own free-will, they decided to forfeit them.

But for some reason, the people in here think the right to live is some kind of magical exception. They think someone can forfeit all rights but that one! They make a magical exception but with no real rational basis. My logic is consistent....the rights that a human being posesses can be forfeited by that persons own choices. The right to live is not a mystical exception.

For free live we have something called morale. And morale is stronger than logic - must be if we want to ensure our culture's survival. Sadly, I must say we aren't lords over nature, also we can't rule over our own body. You can raise your hand, but not grow third one. Body was given you as "feudum" and you have a responsibility over it. Also it's a part of nature, so if you'll hurt yourself, you will hurt WHOLE nature, not saying about social effects of suicide. What is difference between us and animals is that we must take care of people around us. You can't forfeit - you can only surrender, but that means your peace treaty will be more painful...

[SurlyPIG]

Your arguement is logical, emprworm. If you deny someone else's right to live, why should you maintain the same right? The problem I see with the death penalty is the uncertainty factor and the unreliability of juries. Did you know it's statistically proven that better looking people are more likely to get a better verdict and a more lenient sentence? Also, I don't like the idea of killing those who are mentally ill, for example the woman from texas who killed her children several months ago. I don't believe it's moral for mentally normal people to subject normal laws on those they cannot understand by their very nature.

[Timenn]

Sometimes innocent people are released after 20 years in prison. They are 40-50 maybe. They can life a good life then. And they will if they got through everything. If they were killed they would be dead and dead. Murdered for no reason.

You are telling me now that they should have been killed, and you decide for them that they prefer to die above an imprisoment?

And why would the death penalty help in reducing murders?

The Netherlands have no death penalty. USA has. The Netherlands have less murders per million people per year then USA...

[emprworm]

Your arguement is logical, emprworm. If you deny someone else's right to live, why should you maintain the same right? The problem I see with the death penalty is the uncertainty factor and the unreliability of juries. Did you know it's statistically proven that better looking people are more likely to get a better verdict and a more lenient sentence? Also, I don't like the idea of killing those who are mentally ill, for example the woman from texas who killed her children several months ago. I don't believe it's moral for mentally normal people to subject normal laws on those they cannot understand by their very nature.

I agree with the premise of your rebuttal, Ace, as I have said earlier. But this does not equivocate to being against the death penalty. They are two totally seperate issues. Here, let me draw out of people their true stance because I keep hearing this "but you kill innocent people" argument. Its time to weed out what you all really think about the death penalty

GIVEN: A system with 100% certainty that no innocent person would ever be put to death- only those who have empirically murderered someone in cold blood, premeditated and through conscious act, would you be FOR or AGAINST the death penalty?

I ask this question to Ace

I ask this question to NaMpIgAi

I ask this question to Earthnuker

I ask this question to EdricO

I ask this question to all who use the "but innocent people will die" argument to refute capital punishment.

[nemafakei]

How do empirically murder someone?

(and my answer is yes, provided they are still going to be a danger to society, as I have said).

[emprworm]

perhaps I should have worded:

"who empirically have murdered"

and i know you said yes already, which is why i didnt ask you ;)

[nemafakei]

Do you mean are empirically proven to have murdered someone? I don't se how the adverb empirically can apply to murder... 'I murder based on observation'?

Sorry to be a pain, but it just sounds really odd.

[emprworm]

the term "empirically have" simply means that the event in question is scientific, in this case murder.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22empirically+have%22

[Acriku]

The government grants the right for the citizens to live. Since when do we have inherited rights to live? Sure we WANT to live, but we don't have the RIGHT to live inheritedly. Our government gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They take away that right to live if seen fit to the according crime. Why do people think they have the right to live inheritedly? Oh yeah the theists, well I can see where they come from.

[Edric O]

GIVEN: A system with 100% certainty that no innocent person would ever be put to death- only those who have empirically murderered someone in cold blood, premeditated and through conscious act, would you be FOR or AGAINST the death penalty?

AGAINST. I'm always against such an act of barbarism. The only crime that would warrant capital punishment, IMO, is genocide.

[emprworm]

"Our government gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "

Acriku, were you quoting this document?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

i like the part about governments being instituted among men to secure the already existing rights of people.

If government grants rights, then a government endorsing slavery is perfectly acceptable. A pure democracy could "vote in" that all atheists are subhuman and should be imprisoned, and such would be morally "right".

But I am glad that kind of moral relativism was not what our government was founded upon.

[SurlyPIG]

GIVEN: A system with 100% certainty that no innocent person would ever be put to death- only those who have empirically murderered someone in cold blood, premeditated and through conscious act, would you be FOR or AGAINST the death penalty?

Yes. For extreme circumstances, (ie Osama bin Laden), abso-friggin-lutely. I wouldn't execute a remorseful drunk guy who got in a bar fight and killed someone. It was stupid. But he doesn't need to die for it.

The trouble with the death penatly is that it doesn't work. It clearly doesn't discourage people from killing. In civilized judicial societies, it is in fact found that states which adopt the death penalty most often have higher murder rates than those that don't.

[nampigai]

If you can show a system that is 110% that no innocent EVER was executed then yes, in extreme circumstances I would say yes. But the problem is that right now we can't be certain so I'm very much against.

[Anathema]

If that's your concept of morality, then I might as well stop my part in this discussion right here,

then you should. because if a man breaks into my home, points a gun at my head, and my wife shoots him dead before he can kill me, no crime has been committed- except by the dead burgler. (as I said earlier)

I like your new color :P

You said that breaking in alone is enough reason to be shot.

GIVEN: A system with 100% certainty that no innocent person would ever be put to death- only those who have empirically murderered someone in cold blood, premeditated and through conscious act, would you be FOR or AGAINST the death penalty?

I'd still be against it, as I stated multiple times earlier. But no such perfect system exists.

And why do you suddenly say murderers only? A while back you said that burglary alone is reason enough to deserve death.

[Timenn]

And why would the death penalty help in reducing murders?

The Netherlands have no death penalty. USA has. The Netherlands have less murders per million people per year then USA...

Did you read this one, empr?

The death penalty doesn't help in reducing crimes.

penalties are meant for a couple of things:

1. To scare of other people from committing crimes

2. To punish the one who commited the crime

3. To educate the criminal, to behave correctly, when the punishment is over.

With the death penalty:

1. That doesn't work. I like to show you more countries where there is death penalty. And those countries have no visible lower crime rate then countries without

2. That's a matter or opinion. IMO I think it's better to let someone suffer (suffer, I don't mean torture and such stuff) for years in prison, then to kill them straightly. So it's all over in a week. Others think that death is a very nasty punishment.

3. No education to bring criminals on the right path when you kill them. Although this one is most time forgotten when people think about penalties. This one is important to learn the criminal to behave correctly when he/she is free again. I don't want to hear stories about people who were released, but kept commiting crimes because they met some people in prison who encouraged them to continue to misebehave. I know those stories enough.

But what is forgotten, is that there are also many people who learned from their punishment and that they won't commit any crime anymore

[Caid Ivik]

Death penalty was created by tyrans which tried to get rid of their opposition. Much bigger punishment is to leave deliquent to live with his sin still bluring his soul. Good state should try to find how to bring bad to good back, not to just erase deviants from world. That education should be for whole sentence not only after it ends. There is still possibility of recidivism, but when someone lasted 50 years for brutal murder, rational one won't risk next 50m because chance of surviving it is VERY small.

[emprworm]

"I wouldn't execute a remorseful drunk guy who got in a bar fight and killed someone."

Neither would I. That would not be first degree (premeditated) murder. That is what I am talking about. Like the D.C. Sniper- who justly should be executed.

"The death penalty doesn't help in reducing crimes."

You cannot prove this. Where humans exist, so does crime no matter what. The only reason why lethal crime is lower in other places is because the populace does not have any gun ownership rights. Secondly, the death penalty in the US is a mess- it can take decades to be carried out, which reduces the deterrent effect to almost nil. It should be carried out swiftly- within a year tops (after the convict has carried out his rights to appeal, which are processed immediately and not sitting on a judges desk for 6 years).

penalties are meant for a couple of things:

1. To scare of other people from committing crimes

2. To punish the one who commited the crime

3. To educate the criminal, to behave correctly, when the punishment is over.

I would put #2 before #1, as far as priorities go. You kill someone in cold blood, your right to live has been forfeit. That is justice. Deterrence is not the primary factor here. If it was, then we would torture people and cut off their hands for stealing (as is practiced in middle eastern countries). Did you know that stealing is much lower in those countries? But that kind of punishment is barbaric, even though its deterrent effect is extraordinary. Yet deterrence is not the primary consideration in dealing with crime.