Death Penalty

[oatmeal fetish....]

I could swear that we've already done this one, but I'm a recent convert to being against it so lets have an ol' fashion mud sling (sans AJ and aeg finally).

Again, I'm against the death penalty in all cases. I'm not going to type up all my reasons unless someone else wants to throw down with me (Flyntz I'm looking at you you ol cock knocker) so don't be shy!

[Cowboyninja]

I also am anti death penalty. It's mostly a moral issue for me. I don't think you slove anything by killing the guilty, you just make the victims feel better for a brief period of time. However, the pain of the initial crime will always be there.

Also, Mr. Miller (many of you know from Henderson Highschool) explained how it's less cost effective to put inmates to death then to imprison them for life. How straight are his facts? I dunno. However, he is a pretty truthful teacher so I'll take his word for it.

[oatmeal fetish....]

The man speaks the truth -

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

Not entirely why I'm against it though.

[الله أكبر]

I've always wavered a bit on this subject, but on the whole, I'd say I disagree with the death penalty. I think it all breaks down to the severity of the crime committed. Some people say to each his own...in other words, if someone commits murder, then they should be killed in turn. I don't agree, as it is possible for a person, even a murderer, to be positively re-integrated into society.

[Smiff]

I don't particularly care either way; I place no real value on human life, especially when the alternative is life imprisonment.  I thought that the death penalty was more cost effective, but it ends up costing the taxpayers just as much in appeals etc. Plus we have a very messed up death row, where the mentally handicapped and financially poor-off have a much higher chance of death, even when they're innocent.

So I would be for it in an ideal system, where everyone who was equally guilty of whatever the requirements are would be put to death, but that isn't the case and will hardly ever be.  

So...meh. I don't know, or much care. Our penal system is fucked up and not very effective. I think those problems should be addressed before we think of killing anyone.

I am against the electric chair and lethal injection: both said to be excruciatingly painful.  Bring back the guillotine!

[Shire Le Buff]

The idea behind the death penalty is that one human has the right to decide whether or not another should live or not.   I've never been able to get behind this belief.   So basically I'm against the death penalty as well.

Infact, I don't really think anyone here is FOR the death penalty.

[The Ocean]

I am against the death penalty in almost every single case. I do understand however that there are some people in this world who are just too dangerous to be kept alive.... wait... nevermind, I'm thinking of Magneto in X-men 2. Okay. I'm against the death penalty.

[Smiff]

Of course, my opinion on abortion and the death penalty, once you get down to it, are both related to my opinion that the world is overpopulated with humans and we're going to destroy this beautiful planet.


So I don't mind it when people bite it, although human burial is another huge ecosystem destroyer (at least in this country where we fill our dead with chemicals before we stick them in the ground).  Please, for the love of the human race and the entire world, STOP HAVING BABIES goddamnit.

That said, looking at it from a moral standpoint, it's barbaric.

[Larry Flyntz]

The goal of the criminal justice system is to achieve justice. I think that in cases of particularly revolting crimes, justice is achieved by either life in prison or the death penalty. In both cases, the criminal is kept away from society for the rest of his life, and really, that is the main goal. I have no preference between the two, however. I actually think that criminals should be able to choose which they would prefer. People will probably say "That isn't justice! They should suffer!" Well, maybe. Certainly, I think child molesters and rapists ought to suffer, but those may not be completely rational thoughts, at least when it comes to legal matters. I don't think judges and/or juries ought to be able to "play God." Determining the difference between life in prison and the death penalty is not something that meets the strict logical requirements of the law because it is essentially an irrational emotional endeavor. Given that, I think judges and juries should apply life sentences as a default, but criminals should be able to choose death if they so wish. Either way, justice is achieved.

I wish I could come up with a good argument for the death penalty so that this debate would actually be a debate, but as I mentioned, I think the imposition of the death penalty is fundamentally based on irrational moral judgments that have no real business in a court. I do not, however, think that the death penalty is fundamentally immoral. This may seem to go against what I said earlier when I said judges and juries shouldn't "play God." I said this because the role of the judiciary should not be meddling in moral affairs unless there is statutory or constitutional backing for said meddling (i.e. the courts can get involved in the gay-marriage debate because the Constitution provides for equal protection of the laws, etc.) So, I think judges and juries are exceeding their roles by applying the death penalty. If their job is to administer justice, that can be done by life imprisonment.

So, with that in mind, I do not think it is fundamentally immoral to "play God." Let's say someone rapes a man's wife. If that man kills the rapist, I would not call that immoral even though he is "playing God." So, playing God is not immoral, but it is un-characteristic of an "impartial judiciary."

Here's hoping that made some sense.

And the world isn't overpopulated, you goddamned tree-hugger.

[Smiff]

Let's just fill the earth to its full capacity with homo sapeins sapiens and the species needed to propogate it and kill off everything else. It's our GOD GIVEN RIGHT.

 

[Larry Flyntz]

Let's just fill the earth to its full capacity with homo sapeins sapiens and the species needed to propogate it and kill off everything else. It's our GOD GIVEN RIGHT.

 

Considering how much open space is left on the Earth, suggesting that the Earth is at or near its full capacity is just plain stupid. And considering the very low number of species that die out per year, suggesting that humans are "killing off everything else" is also just plain stupid.

[oatmeal fetish....]

For the first time Flyntz, I think you and I are completely in agreement.

Edit: And I'd like to add that really, a big part of my whole thing is the chance that people we condemn to death aren't really guilty. We free prisoners from prison all the time based on new evidence that surfaces which shows that they are innocent, and every once in a while we've freed people from death row. Some day its going to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone the state has put to death was innocent. And hey, that makes everyone who pays taxes a murderer.

[Smiff]

So it's not murder if they were guilty?  

[oatmeal fetish....]

mur‧der  /ˈmɜrdər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mur-der]
–noun
1.   Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

[Larry Flyntz]

So, then, putting someone to death improperly wouldn't be murder. After all, presumably the judge, the jury, the lawyers, etc. all followed the law. Mistakes can happen even when the law is strictly followed. So, because the law is (presumably) followed, there is no way putting an innocent man to death can be murder since murder denotes an illegal action. Certainly, you may argue that taxpayers have thus supported immoral killing, but that isn't the same as murder.

[oatmeal fetish....]

So, then, putting someone to death improperly wouldn't be murder. After all, presumably the judge, the jury, the lawyers, etc. all followed the law. Mistakes can happen even when the law is strictly followed. So, because the law is (presumably) followed, there is no way putting an innocent man to death can be murder since murder denotes an illegal action. Certainly, you may argue that taxpayers have thus supported immoral killing, but that isn't the same as murder.

Point taken.

However, this doesn't change my main point, as I don't think that changes the unsettling nature of the idea that if the state puts an innocent man to death, it means that every tax payer killed an innocent person.

[Larry Flyntz]

I still disagree. Here's why.

Let's say you are a landlord and you hired some guy to do some painting or some landscaping for one of your properties. You pay this guy $500 for his fantastic work. He buys a gun. He kills a man. Did you kill that man? No, the guy did.

This is exactly how far removed tax payers are from killing convicts. We pay the government for services rendered. The government purchases the necessary equipment for execution. The government kills the convict.

[Rhino......................]

But we're also paying for the act. When you pay an employee, the employee is free to use the money for whatever, and it is none of your business to ask. But the government tells us what we're paying for, and of course we don't have a choice. If the same guy came up to the same person and said, "I need this job so I can buy a gun and kill somebody," chances are the person would be a little less inclined to hire him.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Dammit, I was about to post that exact same thing, but then I was on the phone arguing about it and didn't get a chance to.

Flyntz, like Dave said, your analogy is false - it breaks down in that we know the government is killing people. If you hired a painter and he requested some gun money for shootin folks, and you gave it to him, you'd be morally responsible for their deaths.

[Larry Flyntz]

Fair enough. But, the point remains that funding something and doing something are two entirely different things.

And as Dave pointed out, we don't have a choice. If we choose to object by not paying taxes, the government will take our stuff and/or send us to jail. So, I think the fact that we are forced to pay taxes frees us of any moral responsibility. So, your take on the painter analogy is also false because the landlord has the option of simply saying "No, I'll hire someone else." We, as taxpayers, don't have any other option.