For or Against Capital Punishment?

The Parakeet · May 2, 2009

The big problem is...how does making it a life sentence help. A life sentence is just an inefficient death penalty.

That said, I think they are throwing it around a bit too much. It's supposed to be there for true sociopaths and animals.

As to the morality behind it, it's simple. Basic Locke. If one chooses to break the Law of Nature and kill another person for no justifiable reason, then they have chosen to abandon the idea of a peaceful society. They are nothing more than an animal in that sense. They have to be removed from society or killed.

curious · May 3, 2009

The Parakeet said:
The big problem is...how does making it a life sentence help.

Well, if someone is serving a life sentence, and we discover that person is innocent, we can release them. If they are dead, we can't resurrect them.

DodgeFB · May 4, 2009

curious said:
Well, if someone is serving a life sentence, and we discover that person is innocent, we can release them. If they are dead, we can't resurrect them.

True. But if they are guilty (some there is no doubt)and they are dead their "life of crime" is over. They will never kill a guard or get out and do it again. We have a big problem around here with people killing, raping and robbing while out on parole.

The Parakeet · May 4, 2009

Well, if someone is serving a life sentence, and we discover that person is innocent, we can release them. If they are dead, we can't resurrect them.

That's a big if though. We don't just throw them in and forget about them. I think it's standard for them to get 2-3 appeals. They also are almost guaranteed to have a pro-bono lawyer of decent caliber. If all of this can't prove their innocence, then they aren't getting out.

deanhills · May 5, 2009

The Parakeet said:
That's a big if though. We don't just throw them in and forget about them. I think it's standard for them to get 2-3 appeals. They also are almost guaranteed to have a pro-bono lawyer of decent caliber. If all of this can't prove their innocence, then they aren't getting out.

Agreed. But still, the justice system is not perfect enough for 100% accuracy. And once this person is dead, he IS dead.

The Parakeet · May 5, 2009

And if he dies in jail while serving a life sentence, he's dead.

deanhills · May 7, 2009

The Parakeet said:
And if he dies in jail while serving a life sentence, he's dead.

Good point except it is a little less final and in a way less traumatic to die serving a sentence than to die via capital punishment. Must be horrible to have a public execution by lethal injection.

Wonder whether the relatives can sue the Government in the instances, where someone has died after capital punishment and it has subsequetly been discovered he/she was innocent.

DodgeFB · May 7, 2009

deanhills said:
Good point except it is a little less final and in a way less traumatic to die serving a sentence than to die via capital punishment. Must be horrible to have a public execution by lethal injection. Wonder whether the relatives can sue the Government in the instances, where someone has died after capital punishment and it has subsequetly been discovered he/she was innocent.

There will not be a "public execution" here until they get the right "TV deal". I think public execution would do more to stop crime than doing it in the middle of the night behind prison walls. But I am just weird about some things. At least it would be out there for people to deal with what is being done. While I am "pro-death penalty" I am not for hiding it from the public like they were children. And just for the record I like the "chair" better. We have one in Kentucky that has served us well. There is always an argument about if the needle hurts or not.

curious · May 7, 2009

The problem is that there have been such a high percentage of wrongful convictions, even after the appeal process.

DodgeFB · May 8, 2009

curious said:
The problem is that there have been such a high percentage of wrongful convictions, even after the appeal process.

What about the ones with no doubt. The ones who fire their attorneys and stop all appeals?

The Parakeet · May 8, 2009

I think a lot of this can be fixed with what I said earlier. There doesn't seem to be a real benefit to executing every murdering or even a significant minority of murderers.

The death penalty is supposed to be special. It is there for those who just deserve death. Some states (*cough* Texas *cough*) have been a little gung ho with it.

My opinion was ultimately set by reading In Cold Blood. Perry Smith executed four people at point blank range and felt little to no remorse (he still looked like a sociopath, even with Capote's sympathetic telling). He deserved it. It didn't necessarily help anything, but it closed the chapter and took a bad person off the face of the Earth.

I believe that Ted Bundy is another good example. We locked him up. When he escaped, the first thing that he did was start killing again.

There are some people who are nothing more than animals. If there is no chance of rehabilitation, if we are willing to lock them up for life without parole, if we are saying that they can never again be trusted in society, then there is no reason to not use the death penalty as a means of punishment.
---
Also, just as a side note -

I'm fairly certain that we've never actually executed an innocent person. There was maybe one case where there was a bit of doubt. Besides, if we had then I'm pretty sure every humanitarian group would be screaming his name from the rooftops. All innocent people have been freed under the appeals system, just as if they had been sentenced to life in jail (if we were willing to give them the death penalty, then they would have still gotten life if it didn't exist).

Dirk · May 11, 2009

The Parakeet said:
I think a lot of this can be fixed with what I said earlier. There doesn't seem to be a real benefit to executing every murdering or even a significant minority of murderers.

The death penalty is supposed to be special. It is there for those who just deserve death. Some states (*cough* Texas *cough*) have been a little gung ho with it.

My opinion was ultimately set by reading In Cold Blood. Perry Smith executed four people at point blank range and felt little to no remorse (he still looked like a sociopath, even with Capote's sympathetic telling). He deserved it. It didn't necessarily help anything, but it closed the chapter and took a bad person off the face of the Earth.

I believe that Ted Bundy is another good example. We locked him up. When he escaped, the first thing that he did was start killing again.

There are some people who are nothing more than animals. If there is no chance of rehabilitation, if we are willing to lock them up for life without parole, if we are saying that they can never again be trusted in society, then there is no reason to not use the death penalty as a means of punishment.
---
Also, just as a side note -

I'm fairly certain that we've never actually executed an innocent person. There was maybe one case where there was a bit of doubt. Besides, if we had then I'm pretty sure every humanitarian group would be screaming his name from the rooftops. All innocent people have been freed under the appeals system, just as if they had been sentenced to life in jail (if we were willing to give them the death penalty, then they would have still gotten life if it didn't exist).

The point is that it's only a matter of time before an innocent person is executed. Who are we to decide who cannot be treated for their mental defects - e.g. psychosis? You can't expect to enforce that in civilised society. To kill a fellow human being is just wrong. An eye for an eye is not morally justifiable.

Delta · May 11, 2009

Dirk said:
To kill a fellow human being is just wrong. An eye for an eye is not morally justifiable.

So I take it you are against war of any sort as well then?

Capital punishment is no different than war. You are defending your own civilians by eliminating others. And yes, there is a chance of innocent casualties... much less likely with capital punishment than a widespread war though.

DodgeFB · May 12, 2009

Dirk said:
The point is that it's only a matter of time before an innocent person is executed. Who are we to decide who cannot be treated for their mental defects - e.g. psychosis? You can't expect to enforce that in civilised society. To kill a fellow human being is just wrong. An eye for an eye is not morally justifiable.

I have less respect for so called "civilized society" everyday. It is just another word for liberal agenda or progressive BS in my opinion.

Dirk · May 13, 2009

Delta said:
So I take it you are against war of any sort as well then?

Capital punishment is no different than war. You are defending your own civilians by eliminating others. And yes, there is a chance of innocent casualties... much less likely with capital punishment than a widespread war though.

Woah woah, backtrack... yes, i am against war of any sort. War is a product of imperialism, expansionism and capitalism. War is two-way. I belie that the best form of defence is offence. It is not necessary. And the same applies anyway - when there are alternatives, i would try to work with them. If you can negotiate peace, why have war? If a criminal can be rehabilitated/permanently incarcerated, why kill them? Yes, it MAY be more expensive, but i'd pay that price for my conscience, thanks.

Dirk · May 13, 2009

DodgeFB said:
I have less respect for so called "civilized society" everyday. It is just another word for liberal agenda or progressive BS in my opinion.

As a progressive anti-capitalist humanitarian libertarian anarcho-socialist/utopian socialist/communitarian anarchist liberal, i resent your statement.

DodgeFB · May 13, 2009

Dirk said:
As a progressive anti-capitalist humanitarian libertarian anarcho-socialist/utopian socialist/communitarian anarchist liberal, i resent your statement.

I thought you would.

That's okay, I like you anyway.

deanhills · May 14, 2009

Dirk said:
As a progressive anti-capitalist humanitarian libertarian anarcho-socialist/utopian socialist/communitarian anarchist liberal, i resent your statement.

Wow! My eyes crossed over when I read this! Sounds quite heavy to me. How can one be a libertarian and anti-capitalist at the same time? What is an anarcho-socialist in your definition? I like the "communitarian anarchist liberal" and can identify it in your writings. I also can identify the "progressive" in your writings.

Dirk · May 14, 2009

deanhills said:
Wow! My eyes crossed over when I read this! Sounds quite heavy to me. How can one be a libertarian and anti-capitalist at the same time? What is an anarcho-socialist in your definition? I like the "communitarian anarchist liberal" and can identify it in your writings. I also can identify the "progressive" in your writings.

Heh heh, i just decided to put as many of my political ideals in at a time.

The social and economic scale are separate. Libertarian-Authoritarian is the social scale. Socialism-Neoliberalism is another scale entirely. I've known both libertarian socialists (for example, me, my mother, and most of my other comrades) and there can be libertarian neoliberals as well (for example, Milton Friedman). HOWEVER, while they're technically interdependent, there are a thousand alternatives to socialism and capitalism. Also, you'll usually find that:

1) Most anarchists are anticapitalists
2) Most socialists are at least libertarian
3) Neoliberalism is split 50-50 between libertarians and authoritarians
4) Most capitalists are authoritian

Here's how i know:

1) The punk movement was anticapitalist and anarchists view capitalism as a tool of the establishment
2) My own personal experience - i've yet to meet an authoritarian socialist/communist, although most people SEEM authoritarian next to me.
3) Something i've noticed. There's no discernible correlation and i understand how both of them link the two.
4) Tony Blair, Margeret Thatcher, Gordon Brown, Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagan, to name but a few.

I'd say an anarcho-socialist is a utopian socialist basically. No establishment, equality and freedom.

curious · May 16, 2009

Dirk said:
The point is that it's only a matter of time before an innocent person is executed. .

I'm sure there have been.

For or Against Capital Punishment?

For or Against Capital Punishment?

For

Against

Undecided/No Comment

The Parakeet

curious

DodgeFB

The Parakeet

deanhills

The Parakeet

deanhills

DodgeFB

curious

DodgeFB

The Parakeet

Dirk

Delta

DodgeFB

Dirk

Dirk

DodgeFB

deanhills

Dirk

curious

Similar threads