The death penalty

[thenexttodie]

Oh no! A JESUS face palm! Guess that completely refutes everything I said.

 

[thenexttodie]

What's everyone's opinion on the Death Penalty? Useless? Justified? Absurd?

I for one find it to be barbaric. If even one innocent man is given the death penalty, and we know many have been wrongfully executed, then it isn't worth it.

Jesus expected to be put to death and yet he confirmed the death penalty.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Oh no! A JESUS face palm! Guess that completely refutes everything I said.

 

[thenexttodie]

What's everyone's opinion on the Death Penalty? Useless? Justified? Absurd?

I for one find it to be barbaric. If even one innocent man is given the death penalty, and we know many have been wrongfully executed, then it isn't worth it.

The Bible supports the death penalty. Do you just pretend to be a Christian?

A real death penalty, where the sentence is carried out immediately, and certain criminals are put to death in a scary and painful manner.

 

[SpecialFrog]

The Bible supports the death penalty. Do you just pretend to be a Christian?

The Bible supports a lot of things that you don't appear to support. How do you know the death penalty is one of the important ones?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

The Bible supports the death penalty.

The old testament supports many things, such as an eye for an eye. Jesus flat out rejected that principle. An eye for an eye helped keep society at that time somewhat stable, but that didn't make it right.

Do you just pretend to be a Christian?

 

[Nesslig20]

My opinion about the death penalty is that it is:
1. Useless since It isn't a deterrent to crime. The countries/states that have the death penalty still have a higher crime rate (even if you exclusively look at the crimes that have death as the punishment).

2. And absurd since it is basically murder. Lawful murder. And the only reason it is done that is as a deterrent (which again doesn't work) and out of revenge. Eye for an Eye, tooth for a tooth. A barbaric motto I heavily disagree with.

Also I don't see prison much as a punishment, but more to remove people that are harmful to society to somewhere else where they can't harm others and also the ones that can should be rehabilitated (psychological help and maybe even an education if they are illiterate, etc) before going back to society. At least, that's what prisons should be in my opinion.

 

[thenexttodie]

My opinion about the death penalty is that it is:
1. Useless since It isn't a deterrent to crime.

Death is a major deterrent. The avoidance of death, has been a major motivational factor in every aspect of our lives throughout all generations of human history. It's the reason why we prefer using an elevator to take us to the ground floor, rather than jumping out an 8th story window.

It is in our nature to avoid that which causes our most immediate doom more so than that which may cause a distant and slowly impending doom. If the inhalation of a single cigarette resulted in death within 24 hours, not many people would smoke.

The countries/states that have the death penalty still have a higher crime rate (even if you exclusively look at the crimes that have death as the punishment).

What?

2. And absurd since it is basically murder. Lawful murder.

Murder. Because, you have no moral foundation. I can easily demonstrate you are not qualified to apply the term. Just by asking you a few simple questions.

During World War 2, When British soldiers had to shoot and kill Nazi's, in the heat of battle, was that murder? Explain.

If I cut down a tree, did I murder that tree?

If you kill an unborn baby for the purpose of killing it, is that murder?

 

[Steelmage99]

My opinion about the death penalty is that it is:
1. Useless since It isn't a deterrent to crime.

Death is a major deterrent.

In context he is clearly talking about how the threat of the death penalty isn't working as a deterrent to other people/would-be criminals.
While ending the life of an individual criminal certainly prevents that particular person from commiting further crimes that isn't really what we are talking about, is it?

We see no indications that the death penalty works as a deterrent. That is just the reality of things.
States with the death penalty DO NOT have lower crime rates when compared to states without.
Countries with the death penalty DO NOT have lower crime rates when compared to countries without.

What data can you present that argues for the death penalty being a deterrent to crime?

The countries/states that have the death penalty still have a higher crime rate (even if you exclusively look at the crimes that have death as the punishment).

What?

See above.
Are you suggesting that you actually thought that countries/states with the death penalty have lower crime rates?
Didn't it even once occur to you to check if that was actually the case?

Here is a suggestion of what to do in ALL cases and at ALL times:

NULLIUS IN VERBA

2. And absurd since it is basically murder. Lawful murder.

Murder. Because, you have no moral foundation.

Making moral decisions based on a desire to maximize human well-being and minimize human suffering IS a moral foundation.
What ISN'T a moral foundation is defaulting to a god or authority. It doesn't help you determing what is moral one bit.
A moral foundation should be able to help YOU (yes, you specifically) to determine what is moral without any outside input.

-----------------------------------------------

You display so many of the classical radical evangelical Christian "virtues" that it is almost a caricature.
An almost crippling fear of death, unwillingness to fact-check (especially the things you agree with), an overwhelming desire to submit to authority, a reluctance to question things of a certain nature and an inability to listen (as it might force you to change your mind).

 

[Nesslig20]

My opinion about the death penalty is that it is:
1. Useless since It isn't a deterrent to crime.

Death is a major deterrent. The avoidance of death, has been a major motivational factor in every aspect of our lives throughout all generations of human history. It's the reason why we prefer using an elevator to take us to the ground floor, rather than jumping out an 8th story window.
It is in our nature to avoid that which causes our most immediate doom more so than that which may cause a distant and slowly impending doom. If the inhalation of a single cigarette resulted in death within 24 hours, not many people would smoke.

In may be our natural instinct to fear death, however when someone commits a crime, he/she probably doesn't expect to be caught or at the time of the act, doesn't evaluate the risk of getting the death penalty.

To quote from deathpenaltycurriculum.org
"The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."

And I would also add the fact that death row inmates who mentioned their believe in an afterlife, more often they thought they would go to heaven then to hell. Because they believe that their acts are either justified or they have been forgiven our sweet lord of love and forgiveness. So the death penalty isn't such a deterrent if you believe death isn't such a bad thing.

The countries/states that have the death penalty still have a higher crime rate (even if you exclusively look at the crimes that have death as the punishment).

What?

Yes, look it up, almost every study done on this concludes that the death penalty is definitely not more deterrent then life in prison.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

If you compare countries like mine (The Netherlands) who have effectively abolished the death penalty, have one of the lowest crime rate of the world.
United States: crime rate is 3.8
Netherlands: crime rate is 0.9
Our prisons are getting so empty we are importing prisoners from other countries.
And there is such a strong correlation between countries that have the death penalty have higher crime rates (even when looking at the states of the US, those with the death penalty tend to have a higher crime rate), that some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

2. And absurd since it is basically murder. Lawful murder.

Murder. Because, you have no moral foundation.

My moral foundation is to put it as simple as possible maximizing well being of society. The death penalty doesn't do that and does quite the opposite.

I can easily demonstrate you are not qualified to apply the term. Just by asking you a few simple questions.
During World War 2, When British soldiers had to shoot and kill Nazi's, in the heat of battle, was that murder? Explain.
If I cut down a tree, did I murder that tree?
If you kill an unborn baby for the purpose of killing it, is that murder?

[/quote]

All these are red herrings:

The killing a nazi is committed out of defense and there is also a difference between
Criminal law and Military law.
And the tree is most absurd of all the three red herrings.
Murder:
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
And the third one is an obvious red herring toward abortion. But we are not talking about abortion.

 

[thenexttodie]

In context he is clearly talking about how the threat of the death penalty isn't working as a deterrent to other people/would-be criminals.
While ending the life of an individual criminal certainly prevents that particular person from commiting further crimes that isn't really what we are talking about, is it?

We see no indications that the death penalty works as a deterrent. That is just the reality of things.
States with the death penalty DO NOT have lower crime rates when compared to states without.
Countries with the death penalty DO NOT have lower crime rates when compared to countries without.

The US is the only country in the western world in which some states actually sentence people to death. I think there about 12 states in the US which do not. Of all the states in the US, Maine has the lowest rate of violent crime and Alaska has the highest. Both are non-death penalty states. You are correct that there is really nothing we have to show that the death penalty has positive effect in deterring crime. So what we know is that death is a deterrent but the death penalty in the US, is not.

It's really so unlikely one would ever actually be put to death for commiting a capital crime in the US, one could hardly expect it deterrent. There's about 16,000 murders a year the US and we have less than 3000 people on death row. The length of time an inmate spends on death row before being executed is 15 years, and even then, he still has a chance of having dying a natural death or having his sentence reduced. Meanwhile 240,000 people will be murdered. Men, Women and Childeren including some 6700 infants. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-homicide.

And this is just murder. There is also rape, child molestation. There is a plague of child molestations in the US and in the UK. And what do we do about it? In the US most of them probably only do about 5 years, then they get out and molest more kids. The lives of these kids are destroyed.

It's easy for you to claim a false moral high ground saying "Oh I would never support the death penalty! It's so barbaric and mean!" But there are bad people in the world. They should be put to death immediately, in a scary and painfull manner. Let murderers live? No. Burn them to death so they scream in pain while they die. Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent.

 

[MarsCydonia]

They should be put to death immediately, in a scary and painfull manner. Let murderers live? No. Burn them to death so they scream in pain while they die. Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent.

So does the "cruel and unusual punishment" part of the constitution bother you?

Do you value the lives of innocent so much that you would risk burning them to death, screaming in pain? Because the justice system is not error-proof.

 

[Nesslig20]

The US is the only country in the western world in which some states actually sentence people to death. I think there about 12 states in the US which do not. Of all the states in the US, Maine has the lowest rate of violent crime and Alaska has the highest. Both are non-death penalty states. You are correct that there is really nothing we have to show that the death penalty has positive effect in deterring crime. So what we know is that death is a deterrent but the death penalty in the US, is not.

Although you picked two extremes, a trend is made by the average crime rate of states with death penalty and average crime with of states without it and this is what you get:

It's really so unlikely one would ever actually be put to death for commiting a capital crime in the US, one could hardly expect it deterrent. There's about 16,000 murders a year the US and we have less than 3000 people on death row. The length of time an inmate spends on death row before being executed is 15 years, and even then, he still has a chance of having dying a natural death or having his sentence reduced. Meanwhile 240,000 people will be murdered. Men, Women and Childeren including some 6700 infants. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-homicide.

Wait wait wait, hold on.
You are saying that the fact that death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent and the fact that states with the death penalty still have a higher crime rate is because there isn't enough death sentences.

It's like saying:
I made a small house fire just to keep the temperature low and when the temperature doesn't go down, well that means I need bigger house fire to have the desired effect.

And this is just murder. There is also rape, child molestation. There is a plague of child molestations in the US and in the UK. And what do we do about it? In the US most of them probably only do about 5 years, then they get out and molest more kids. The lives of these kids are destroyed.

And the death penalty doesn't do anything whatsoever about it.

It's easy for you to claim a false moral high ground saying "Oh I would never support the death penalty! It's so barbaric and mean!" But there are bad people in the world. They should be put to death immediately, in a scary and painfull manner. Let murderers live? No. Burn them to death so they scream in pain while they die. Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent.

"Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent by killing criminals"

How does that fucking work? If they are arrested and in prison and they cannot hurt anyone, then why would killing them help the innocent?
And ever wondered about executed criminals later found out to be innocent?
Another huge failure of the death penalty that it supposedly protects the lives of the innocent.

 

[Visaki]

It's easy for you to claim a false moral high ground saying "Oh I would never support the death penalty! It's so barbaric and mean!" But there are bad people in the world. They should be put to death immediately, in a scary and painfull manner. Let murderers live? No. Burn them to death so they scream in pain while they die. Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent.

Olrighty!

First off we are talking about the death penalty, or in other words cases where the penalty is death. Not torture. Not pain filled public humiliation where death is a welcome relief. Death, ending of ones bodily functions, as punishment. If you want to take the justice system back to the 18th century be my guest but that is not what this thread is about.

Secondly I think that you underestimate the punishing power of life in prison, specially in the more harsh conditions. 50 years in solitary confiment where contact with other humans is minimal might sound like easier punishment than death but what it really is is long term entombment in anticipation of death.

One might also think the death penalty in a theological stance. What does it do? Why would we use it? After all why should we kill someone as punishment if there is an infinite punishment waiting for him after death? It's not like the infinity will be longer if he gets there a few decades earlier. Or if the person sentenced finds god and is forgiven and gets to go to heaven for eternal bliss how is sending him there a few decades sooner a punishment? All in all it only shows that people don't really believe that a god will punish wrongdoers after death. But even more than that it shows that they don't believe that their god can actually punish people while they are living, thus showing that they believe in a puny god, that Hulk, or Gnug, could smash in a heartbeat.

 

[Nesslig20]

One might also think the death penalty in a theological stance. What does it do? Why would we use it? After all why should we kill someone as punishment if there is an infinite punishment waiting for him after death? It's not like the infinity will be longer if he gets there a few decades earlier. Or if the person sentenced finds god and is forgiven and gets to go to heaven for eternal bliss how is sending him there a few decades sooner a punishment?.

Similar to my previous point.

And I would also add the fact that death row inmates who mentioned their believe in an afterlife, more often they thought they would go to heaven then to hell. Because they believe that their acts are either justified or they have been forgiven [by] our sweet lord of love and forgiveness. So the death penalty isn't such a deterrent if you believe death isn't such a bad thing.

 

[thenexttodie]

double post?

 

[thenexttodie]

The US is the only country in the western world in which some states actually sentence people to death. I think there about 12 states in the US which do not. Of all the states in the US, Maine has the lowest rate of violent crime and Alaska has the highest. Both are non-death penalty states. You are correct that there is really nothing we have to show that the death penalty has positive effect in deterring crime. So what we know is that death is a deterrent but the death penalty in the US, is not.

Although you picked two extremes, a trend is made by the average crime rate of states with death penalty and average crime with of states without it and this is what you get:

These are not very impressive statistics. They don't even show what you say they show. If anything, this only prove my point.

It's really so unlikely one would ever actually be put to death for commiting a capital crime in the US, one could hardly expect it deterrent. There's about 16,000 murders a year the US and we have less than 3000 people on death row. The length of time an inmate spends on death row before being executed is 15 years, and even then, he still has a chance of having dying a natural death or having his sentence reduced. Meanwhile 240,000 people will be murdered. Men, Women and Childeren including some 6700 infants. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-homicide.

Wait wait wait, hold on.
You are saying that the fact that death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent and the fact that states with the death penalty still have a higher crime rate..

Actually the state with the highest rate of violent crime(the sort of crimes where I believe the death penalty might be applied) is a non-death penalty state.

And this is just murder. There is also rape, child molestation. There is a plague of child molestations in the US and in the UK. And what do we do about it? In the US most of them probably only do about 5 years, then they get out and molest more kids. The lives of these kids are destroyed.

And the death penalty doesn't do anything whatsoever about it.

It's not being applied effectively. That's the problem. You have missed the whole point.

It's easy for you to claim a false moral high ground saying "Oh I would never support the death penalty! It's so barbaric and mean!" But there are bad people in the world. They should be put to death immediately, in a scary and painfull manner. Let murderers live? No. Burn them to death so they scream in pain while they die. Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent.

"Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent by killing criminals"

How does that fucking work? If they are arrested and in prison and they cannot hurt anyone-[/quote] When you are in prison you can still hurt and kill people. You can even hurt your victim or your victims families.

 

[thenexttodie]

It's easy for you to claim a false moral high ground saying "Oh I would never support the death penalty! It's so barbaric and mean!" But there are bad people in the world. They should be put to death immediately, in a scary and painfull manner. Let murderers live? No. Burn them to death so they scream in pain while they die. Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent.

First off we are talking about the death penalty, or in other words cases where the penalty is death. Not torture. Not pain filled public humiliation where death is a welcome relief. Death, ending of ones bodily functions, as punishment.

No, execution must be painful and immediate . The promise of a peaceful and painless, eventual death is laughable.

Secondly I think that you underestimate the punishing power of life in prison, specially in the more harsh conditions. 50 years in solitary confiment where contact with other humans is minimal might sound like easier punishment than death but what it really is is long term entombment in anticipation of death.

No. The purpose of a judicial system should be to prevent crime. Not to lock people up in little cages so that they go insane and then possibly, are released back out on the street. Which is exactly what we have today.

One might also think the death penalty in a theological stance. What does it do? Why would we use it? After all why should we kill someone as punishment if there is an infinite punishment waiting for him after death?

I find your comment somewhat ironic.

 

[Nesslig20]

The US is the only country in the western world in which some states actually sentence people to death. I think there about 12 states in the US which do not. Of all the states in the US, Maine has the lowest rate of violent crime and Alaska has the highest. Both are non-death penalty states. You are correct that there is really nothing we have to show that the death penalty has positive effect in deterring crime. So what we know is that death is a deterrent but the death penalty in the US, is not.

Although you picked two extremes, a trend is made by the average crime rate of states with death penalty and average crime with of states without it and this is what you get:

These are not very impressive statistics.

They don't even show what you say they show.

It shows the average crime rate of death penalty states over time and the same for non-death penalty states.

If anything, this only prove my point.

How does it prove your point? Oh yes, "if the death penalty does not work, then we should increase the amount of death sentences"
[sarcasm]Perfect logic.[/sarcasm]

It's really so unlikely one would ever actually be put to death for commiting a capital crime in the US, one could hardly expect it deterrent. There's about 16,000 murders a year the US and we have less than 3000 people on death row. The length of time an inmate spends on death row before being executed is 15 years, and even then, he still has a chance of having dying a natural death or having his sentence reduced. Meanwhile 240,000 people will be murdered. Men, Women and Childeren including some 6700 infants. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-homicide.

Wait wait wait, hold on.
You are saying that the fact that death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent and the fact that states with the death penalty still have a higher crime rate..

Actually the state with the highest rate of violent crime(the sort of crimes where I believe the death penalty might be applied) is a non-death penalty state.

That statement doesn't address this one by me. In your last statement you said that the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent is because you claimed that because there is not enough death sentences and I exposed that illogical statement by repeating what you said in different words.
But now you say the death penalty does work by saying that the state with the highest rate of violent crime is a non death penalty state. A sample size of one is not impressive statistics and that is not just my opinion. I already refuted that previously with the chart I showed.
And I can do that again, by pointing out that the country with the lowest crime rate in the world is Switzerland and in that country capitol punishment was abolished in federal criminal law since 1942 and in military law since 1992.

And this is just murder. There is also rape, child molestation. There is a plague of child molestations in the US and in the UK. And what do we do about it? In the US most of them probably only do about 5 years, then they get out and molest more kids. The lives of these kids are destroyed.

And the death penalty doesn't do anything whatsoever about it.

It's not being applied effectively. That's the problem. You have missed the whole point.

How can the death penalty be applied effectively? You've asserted that if we would increase death sentences or if we apply it effectively then it works, yet you have dick to back that up.

Unlike you, I've backed up my points with evidence, statistics which you dismissed as "not very impressive". Let me show something more that probably is "not very impressive" to you.
For example Amnesty International A global organization focussing on human rights have done research on the death penalty. It is quite a list, but the points that are especially relevant here are:
1. The death penalty is not a deterrent: FBI data shows that the 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.
2. Annual death sentences in the U.S. have dropped yet the crime has not risen instead it has dropped too.
Specifically against your statement "Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent by killing criminals"
3. Since 1973, 140 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence that they were wrongfully convicted. In 2009 alone (this was made in 2012), 9 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.
Examples of executed and later found out to be innocent.

These and other reasons are why 88% of criminologist reject the notion that the death penalty works.

To quote one about a report released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies based on a review of more than three decades of research concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed.
Criminologist Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon, said, “We recognize this conclusion will be controversial to some, but nobody is well served by unfounded claims about the death penalty. Nothing is known about how potential murderers actually perceive their risk of punishment."

It's easy for you to claim a false moral high ground saying "Oh I would never support the death penalty! It's so barbaric and mean!" But there are bad people in the world. They should be put to death immediately, in a scary and painfull manner. Let murderers live? No. Burn them to death so they scream in pain while they die. Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent.

"Make it clear we value the lives of the innocent by killing criminals"
How does that fucking work? If they are arrested and in prison and they cannot hurt anyone-

When you are in prison you can still hurt and kill people. You can even hurt your victim or your victims families.

In prison you are not able to hurt and kill their victims or their victims family. Well prisoners can kill other inmates, not as easily though, since they know they will be punished for certain, but you are not worried about the death of prisoners right.

 

[thenexttodie]

And this is just murder. There is also rape, child molestation. There is a plague of child molestations in the US and in the UK. And what do we do about it? In the US most of them probably only do about 5 years, then they get out and molest more kids. The lives of these kids are destroyed.

And the death penalty doesn't do anything whatsoever about it.

It's not being applied effectively. That's the problem. You have missed the whole point.

How can the death penalty be applied effectively? You've asserted that if we would increase death sentences or if we apply it effectively then it works, yet you have dick to back that up.
Unlike you, I've backed up my points with evidence, statistics which you dismissed as "not very impressive". Let me show something more that probably is "not very impressive" to you....

Nesslig20, let me again try make this clear, I agree with you, the death penalty in US is not working. OK. We both agree on that. So it's not really even neccesary for you to respond to me with posts about Amnesty USA or to give me statics which show that the death penalty is not working because I already agree with you.

Death is an obvious deterrent. Avoiding death is major motivational factor in our everyday lives. It's a fact which is impossible to ignore.

A certain and immediate death is of course more of a deterrent than more distant and less likely death. The promise of a distant and less likely deaths is not much of a deterrent. We launched a major ad campaign against smoking and we sued the tobacco companies and it was all on TV and we put pictures of human bodies aflected with various forms of cancer on the packs of cigarettes and now everyone one knows that, "If you smoke now, you might get cancer.......later" Millions and millions and millions of people in western world still smoke. 40,000,000 in the US alone. Almost everyone I know smokes.

So why is the death penalty not working in the US? Let me quote myself:

"It's really so unlikely one would ever actually be put to death for commiting a capital crime in the US, one could hardly expect it deterrent. There's about 16,000 murders a year the US and we have less than 3000 people on death row. The length of time an inmate spends on death row before being executed is 15 years, and even then, he still has a chance of having dying a natural death or having his sentence reduced. Meanwhile 240,000 people will be murdered. Men, Women and Childeren including some 6700 infants. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-homicide.

Take a minute to let these numbers sink in. Google it.

There is hardly any death at all in the "death penalty". Your chances of being caught, convicted, sentenced and executed are almost nil.

Their should be no mercy. No plea bargains. No giving a murderer 10, 20, or 30 years for his lawyer to find a way to have his sentenced reduced. No rehab for child rapists. Kill them in a horrific manner, the day of their conviction. Crush them. Pour gasoline on them and burn them to death. Show people what their burned lungs will look like if they ever commit a murder.