Against the Death Penalty

[southernhybrid]

I think there is a difference between killing someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would be close to impossible to be caught and imprisoned and killing someone who is in a prison that has lots of security. As a side note, I do think we need drastic prison reform, but that's a different topic. Some, or maybe most of those who have committed mass murders are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a mental illness, as a result of damage to the frontal cortex, which currently has no effective treatment, so I don't think we should kill someone just because they suffer from psychopathy, when we have the alternative of imprisoning them to protect society from them. I think I said much earlier in this thread that I would be fine with giving someone who is obviously guilty of a brutal murder, the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison, assuming I was guilty of the crime that I was prosecuted for.

I watched an interview of Timothy McVeigh, shortly before he was executed. He said that he'd rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. In my opinion, life in prison with no chance of parole is often perceived as being more cruel than death. That would certainly explain why some prisoners commit suicide. How to deal with dangerous members of society is complicated. Not everyone has the potential to be rehabilitated.

Yep. I am pretty conflicted about the death penalty, largely because of this. I sometimes think the death penalty is too easy of a way out for some of the more heinous criminals, so for those who argue the death penalty is too cruel and barbaric I ask if rotting in prison for the rest of your life is actually less cruel and barbaic. And letting them out on parole after a more moderate sentence seems to be a slap in the face to the victims' families and maybe lacks justice. Its kind of a no-win scenario.

I get what you're saying, which is why I said it's complicated. Still, like Tom, I don't like the idea of revenge, although lots of people do want revenge against anyone how has hurt them or someone they love. I understand why people feel that way, but I don't think that makes it right, especially if you accept the idea that none of us have absolute free will.

 

[TSwizzle]

The death penalty for the likes of Ariel Castro, Chris Watts or serial killers like Bundy and Dahmer is entirely appropriate.

 

[abaddon]

It's a sure bet innocent persons will die if the death penalty is kept around.

The number of people on death row who may be innocent if 4% of the total population was wrongly convicted: over 200.

But even one is too many.

IMV, no pro-death penalty argument holds any weight at all, NONE, when viewed in the light of someone being tortured and killed by bureaucrats in the name of "justice" or "making people safer".

Is society safer with the death penalty? Probably not, and even if so it's human sacrifice to be ok with a few accidental murders by the state in the name of "society".

It's hard to imagine a worst injustice than the state killing an innocent person in the name of justice. And that's inevitable, many times over, so long as the death penalty is around.

 

[TSwizzle]

Is it justice? It's hard to imagine a worst injustice than the state killing an innocent person in the name of justice. And that's inevitable, many times over, so long as the death penalty is around.

Do you think Castro, Watts, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy were possibly innocent?

In these cases the death penalty is entirely appropriate.

 

[TomC]

The death penalty for the likes of Ariel Castro, Chris Watts or serial killers like Bundy and Dahmer is entirely appropriate.

Why? Were any of those people capable of causing death and mayhem once they were incarcerated? I don't think so.

I was fine with Saddam Hussein's public execution. I am confident that his continued existence would inspire his violent supporters to kill many more innocents. The human race was better off when he was dead, and publicly executed.

I feel the same way about Donald Trump. I am confident that he will continue to inspire treasonous violence as long as he's alive. I'd be fine with him being helped into his afterlife, by whatever means necessary.
Tom

 

[abaddon]

Is it justice? It's hard to imagine a worst injustice than the state killing an innocent person in the name of justice. And that's inevitable, many times over, so long as the death penalty is around.

Do you think Castro, Watts, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy were possibly innocent?

No.

In these cases the death penalty is entirely appropriate.

I think they deserved death. Maybe lots of people do.

But then my point was that the legal system is bound to screw up sometimes. So, what about the people who get convicted but don't deserve death? Why ignore them when their deaths are every bit as tragic as any other innocent person's?

 

[TSwizzle]

Is it justice? It's hard to imagine a worst injustice than the state killing an innocent person in the name of justice. And that's inevitable, many times over, so long as the death penalty is around.

Do you think Castro, Watts, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy were possibly innocent?

No.

In these cases the death penalty is entirely appropriate.

I think they deserved death. Maybe lots of people do.

But then my post was about the people who get convicted but don't deserve death. Why ignore them when their deaths are every bit as tragic as any other innocent person's?

My point is that the death penalty should only be used in such cases as Castro, Watts, Bundy etc. The average murderer does not fall into this category and therefore the death penalty would not be appropriate.

 

[TomC]

My point is that the death penalty should only be used in such cases as Castro, Watts, Bundy etc. The average murderer does not fall into this category and therefore the death penalty would not be appropriate.

What is the distinction you are making here?
What little I can tell, none of those people were any danger to the public, once incarcerated.

What makes murdering* them "appropriate"?

*Murder is the word I use to describe killings I disapprove of, which is most all of them. YMMV.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

I think there is a difference between killing someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would be close to impossible to be caught and imprisoned and killing someone who is in a prison that has lots of security. As a side note, I do think we need drastic prison reform, but that's a different topic. Some, or maybe most of those who have committed mass murders are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a mental illness, as a result of damage to the frontal cortex, which currently has no effective treatment, so I don't think we should kill someone just because they suffer from psychopathy, when we have the alternative of imprisoning them to protect society from them. I think I said much earlier in this thread that I would be fine with giving someone who is obviously guilty of a brutal murder, the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison, assuming I was guilty of the crime that I was prosecuted for.

I watched an interview of Timothy McVeigh, shortly before he was executed. He said that he'd rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. In my opinion, life in prison with no chance of parole is often perceived as being more cruel than death. That would certainly explain why some prisoners commit suicide. How to deal with dangerous members of society is complicated. Not everyone has the potential to be rehabilitated.

Yep. I am pretty conflicted about the death penalty, largely because of this. I sometimes think the death penalty is too easy of a way out for some of the more heinous criminals, so for those who argue the death penalty is too cruel and barbaric I ask if rotting in prison for the rest of your life is actually less cruel and barbaic. And letting them out on parole after a more moderate sentence seems to be a slap in the face to the victims' families and maybe lacks justice. Its kind of a no-win scenario.

I get what you're saying, which is why I said it's complicated. Still, like Tom, I don't like the idea of revenge, although lots of people do want revenge against anyone how has hurt them or someone they love. I understand why people feel that way, but I don't think that makes it right, especially if you accept the idea that none of us have absolute free will.

Why do many posters it seems, immediately think of vengeance or revenge whenever talk of imprisonment or possible death penalty is mentioned?

 

[Tigers!]

*Murder is the word I use to describe killings I disapprove of, which is most all of them. YMMV.
Tom

There are some killings of which you approve?

 

[Tigers!]

It's a sure bet innocent persons will die if the death penalty is kept around.

And innocent people will suffer when killers/rapists etc. are released after 'serving their sentence'. But few seem to care about that.

 

[TomC]

*Murder is the word I use to describe killings I disapprove of, which is most all of them. YMMV.
Tom

There are some killings of which you approve?

Yes! I've said so over and over. In this thread, on one internet forum, alone:

*Murder is the word I use to describe killings I disapprove of, which is most all of them. YMMV.
Tom

There are some killings of which you approve?

Yes, definitely. I've said so over and over. Not just in this thread, but other threads, other forums, and in real life.
I said it in post #5.
I said it again

I was fine with Saddam Hussein's public execution. I am confident that his continued existence would inspire his violent supporters to kill many more innocents. The human race was better off when he was dead, and publicly executed.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that I put Trump into the category with Saddam Hussein. We are better off if he's publicly dead.


But none of those are vengeance murders. They're killings based on the best interests of the Human Family as a whole. Very few and far between. Nothing to do with vengeance, just an opinion about what will result in the least death and mayhem.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I think there is a difference between killing someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would be close to impossible to be caught and imprisoned and killing someone who is in a prison that has lots of security. As a side note, I do think we need drastic prison reform, but that's a different topic. Some, or maybe most of those who have committed mass murders are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a mental illness, as a result of damage to the frontal cortex, which currently has no effective treatment, so I don't think we should kill someone just because they suffer from psychopathy, when we have the alternative of imprisoning them to protect society from them. I think I said much earlier in this thread that I would be fine with giving someone who is obviously guilty of a brutal murder, the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison, assuming I was guilty of the crime that I was prosecuted for.

I watched an interview of Timothy McVeigh, shortly before he was executed. He said that he'd rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison. In my opinion, life in prison with no chance of parole is often perceived as being more cruel than death. That would certainly explain why some prisoners commit suicide. How to deal with dangerous members of society is complicated. Not everyone has the potential to be rehabilitated.

As comes to people making the decision to die, I think we should afford that as an open option to just about everyone, with the understanding that it is gated not behind legal hurdles but psychological ones designed to isolate those who are merely cyclic or depressed from those who actually understand that their future is fucked, looked at it maturely and without duress and made that decision with sound mind.

I don't have a problem with that, as long as they are offered every available treatment first. In another thread, I mentioned that I had an uncle who suffered from the most severe depression of anyone I ever knew. He was in and out of mental hospitals over the course of his life. He had every available treatment for depression at the time he was alive, including EST, antidepressants, and talk therapy. He wrote a book about the history of our family, which I had hoped would help him cope. I don't know if it was ever published, but I thought it was a positive thing for him to do some research and write. The last time I saw him, I think I was about 19 at my grandmother's funeral. We talked briefly. He seemed a little bit better. Soon afterwards, he committed suicide. Sometimes depression is impossible to treat and perhaps he should have been offered a more pleasant way to die, other than by hanging himself. Nobody knew that he planned this. I have other family members who suffered from depression but I don't think any of them ever seriously considered suicide. That includes my late father. I know some disagree with us about this, but I believe in bodily autonomy, which includes the right for an adult to end their life if that is their choice. But, I also believe that we have failed those who suffer from brain disorders and that should be our first priority.

Suffering from depression doesn't mean that someone isn't of sound mind. it's just an overwhelming feeling that life is hopeless and there is no reason to keep on living. I just added that because after reading your post again, I think I may have misunderstood you at first or you might misunderstand my post. Basically, I think we are on the same page.

Yeah. I'm dealing with some thoughts after finding out that my half-brother committed suicide; I'm not in the position he was insofar as I finished my degree and know how to actually carry through on at least some of the goals I set for myself, but it's still a lot to take in.

It would be far better for him to have been able to discuss his goals, the life he wanted vs the life he could achieve, and how that made him feel... that instead of traumatizing some poor lady with a forced vehicular homicide (albeit not charged) and a subsequent civil suit pressed by someone in denial about their son's depression, he might have died surrounded by family who would know the truth of his feelings before he left the world.

Its been heavy on my mind this last week or so.

 

[Rhea]

I get what you're saying, which is why I said it's complicated. Still, like Tom, I don't like the idea of revenge, although lots of people do want revenge against anyone how has hurt them or someone they love. I understand why people feel that way, but I don't think that makes it right, especially if you accept the idea that none of us have absolute free will.

Why do many posters it seems, immediately think of vengeance or revenge whenever talk of imprisonment or possible death penalty is mentioned?

In the case of my reply to you, it’s because you said:

Something I find curious is how many supposedly Pro-life Christians support state sanctioned revenge killings, AKA capital punishment.

I'll put my hand up. You called it revenge killings but I prefer the term justice.

Showing that you don’t understand at all what their point was by comparing it to:

Yet you are in favour of state sanctioned revenge gaoling.
The curse of definitions I suppose.

Which they very clearly and without any ambiguity said was a protective custody to keep the dangerous ones away from the innocents, not a form of “making them pay” or “seeing how they like it,” or any other thing that sounds like actual revenge.


and then you followed it up with:

There are a tiny number of people who could continue causing death and mayhem for innocents, even after being locked up. Drug lords and terrorist leaders come to mind. But people like that are few and far between.
Tom

Provided you or one you love is not a victim of the death and mayhem then that is ok I suppose.

Making it clear that you think this is predicated on having been harmed and wanting something to happen about it - which is revenge, as opposed to the clearly stated goal of incarceration to make sure it can’t happen again.



We say revenge when you or other people say they want the death penalty to serve some purpose other than removing the threat without drama. The threat is removed when they are in jail. You want somethiong more and that means it is not about preventing harm, it’s about something else. What? What other thing needs them to die, especially if “you or yours is the victim”?

Sounds exactly like revenge, doesn’t it?

That’s why we say that. Because you do.

 

[Rhea]

It's a sure bet innocent persons will die if the death penalty is kept around.

And innocent people will suffer when killers/rapists etc. are released after 'serving their sentence'. But few seem to care about that.

That is obviously a different topic. Why are you switching the topic?

The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison, for the assumption that they are not rehabilitatible.
I imagine that you and I are in exact agreement about non-rehabilitated criminals staying in jail.

Or… are you okay with executing someone who could have been rehabilitated? Is that where you and I differ?

 

[Tigers!]

Making it clear that you think this is predicated on having been harmed and wanting something to happen about it - which is revenge, as opposed to the clearly stated goal of incarceration to make sure it can’t happen again.

If the person is released after a time then you may have failed in your aim of making sure it does not happen again.

We say revenge when you or other people say they want the death penalty to serve some purpose other than removing the threat without drama.

What other purpose apart from removing a threat would the death penalty achieve?

The threat is removed when they are in jail.

Whilst they are in jail yes. But since murderers in Australia (just to use an example) rarely serve more than 20 odd years they are released and pose a possible continued threat.

You want somethiong more and that means it is not about preventing harm, it’s about something else. What? What other thing needs them to die, especially if “you or yours is the victim”?

I am not quite sure what you mean by something more ? It could be the acknowledgement that as a society that we are serious about protecting them from those who wish to kill/harm members of that society.

Sounds exactly like revenge, doesn’t it?

That’s why we say that. Because you do.

Justice. making sure that society is kept as safe as possible.

 

[Tigers!]

It's a sure bet innocent persons will die if the death penalty is kept around.

And innocent people will suffer when killers/rapists etc. are released after 'serving their sentence'. But few seem to care about that.

That is obviously a different topic. Why are you switching the topic?

If the criminal is executed they will never do it again. So no worry about then repeating their crimes.

The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison, for the assumption that they are not rehabilitatible.
I imagine that you and I are in exact agreement about non-rehabilitated criminals staying in jail.

If life meant life then certainly. Réhabilitation is often talked about and should be pursued where possible. But I am not do dewy eyed that i think that all criminals can be rehabilitated. Some will not be rehabilitated as will always be a menace.

Or… are you okay with executing someone who could have been rehabilitated? Is that where you and I differ?

It would be very hard to tell if they are truly rehabilitated. They could be very convincing, patient actors.
we would differ as to where the line between trying to rehabilitate or not is drawn.

 

[Rhea]

It would be very hard to tell if they are truly rehabilitated. They could be very convincing, patient actors.
we would differ as to where the line between trying to rehabilitate or not is drawn

Then advocate for no early release and no parole.
You still don’t need to kill them.

What other purpose apart from removing a threat would the death penalty achieve?

Revenge, Tigers. Retribution. “I’ll make them pay with their life” and “let’s see how they feel when it happens to them!”

Life sentence without parole does all you need to remove them from society. Killing them onloy adds revenge, not justice. And leaves you opne (demonstrably, as I kleep saying) to being willing to kill innocent people to get revenge.

 

[laughing dog]

I think there are people who if they disappeared from the planet, the world would be a better place. But I don't think it is the duty of the state to accomplish that outcome.

 

[Tigers!]

It would be very hard to tell if they are truly rehabilitated. They could be very convincing, patient actors.
we would differ as to where the line between trying to rehabilitate or not is drawn

Then advocate for no early release and no parole.
You still don’t need to kill them.

Its an option but not the only one.
I can advocate for no parole but that decision sadly is out of my hands.

What other purpose apart from removing a threat would the death penalty achieve?

Revenge, Tigers. Retribution. “I’ll make them pay with their life” and “let’s see how they feel when it happens to them!”

You never use the term justice for the injured, bereaved etc .
If you cannot see the difference between justice, revenge, retribution etc. then I cannot help that.
Why is life imprisonment better than executed? Is it more noble or merciful? If so, how or why?

Life sentence without parole does all you need to remove them from society.

How does the statement below follow from the statement above

And leaves you opne (demonstrably, as I kleep saying) to being willing to kill innocent people to get revenge.

Killing them onloy adds revenge, not justice.

We will have to disagree about that.