• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Death Penalty

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,650
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Of course there are. Some should never be released. Executing them sets up a double standard; it's not ok to kill, unless in self defense/ it's ok the kill bad guys because they are not fit for civilized society even when they are confined and cannot harm anyone.
well, i'd agree it's a double standard *if* you adhere to a strict moral position of "life, at any cost, regardless of circumstances" - but IMO that's a distinctly vile and repulsive attitude to take and to force on other people.

death is almost incalculably more kind, humane, and moral than subjecting a consciousness to a life lived inside the US prison system.
so i'd personally find it MORE morally questionable to posit that it's not OK to kill (ie, simply release a consciousness from dealing with any of this shit anymore) but it's OK to torture a conscious mind for literal decades and deny it any shred of hope of release or escape.

Not at any cost. Self defense is not excluded. Nor is suicide if life becomes unbearable. Suicide may be a problem if it hurts loved ones.
so, by that logic, it could be argued that killing someone is more moral than incarcerating them for life, is that not correct?
i mean, assuming that as you stated 'if life becomes unbearable' is a scenario wherein 'life, at any cost' can be mitigated.


Life can become unbearable for anyone for any number of reasons, incarcerated or not.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
So it is a moral issue, in that deciding they are guilty would make you feel bad? Or is the thought that the court and lawyers and so forth will see that you refused to serve on the jury and call off the trial, having suddenly realized that it is immoral? The wellbeing of the defendant seems centered in your thoughts on why the trial is wrong, but you aren't doing anything to prevent the trial or improve the fate of the defendant, only your personal degree of connection to those things.
...

It is a moral issue for me, because I honestly would not vote to convict, given the outcome. I have a conscience, and I will not have someone's death on my conscience. I also swear to tell the truth for voir dire, and you would have me violate my oath? What if I voted to convict and the defendant ends up being tortured to death in a botched execution or one (like the electric chair, hanging, or poison gas) that is essentially a torture-killing?
...
You guys are having a kind of bizarre argument -- you seem to both be assuming convicting someone of capital murder means sentencing him to death. In the U.S. there are two trials, the first for guilt and then a second trial for sentencing if the first ends in conviction. A juror can convict and then veto* execution.

(* Except in Alabama.)
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,990
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
People tend to survive prison alive
Except for the 4,000 each year who do not, and the rate is rapidly increasing in recent years.

and relatively intact
Dubious. The average US prisoner spends ~two years imprisoned. 13% of prison inmates report serious injuries while in prison. 30-60% of incarcerated men experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; this is often connected to the experiences that put them there, but the limited or non-existent access to mental healthcare for current or former inmates exacerbates the issue. Being imprisoned is also associated with a life of poverty, stigma, and continued trauma once the inmate is released.

and I don't honestly know what a better alternative would be to incarcerating people who commit serious crimes.
Incarcerating under humane conditions and taking active steps to rehabilitate them into society if safe and possible. Murder or torture are not our only options.
Yes. Our prisons have become disgusting and inhumane, yet most of the people who have been given the death sentence, spend years trying to have it appealed. I guess most people would rather be in prison than dead. We desperately need prison reform, but that has nothing to do with the OP.

I wouldn't object to giving a person who was found guilty, the option of life in prison or death. If one chooses death, that would be a suicide. Some states and countries already have assisted suicide. I can see that as an option, but I doubt many would chose it, since most humans have a strong desire for survival at most any cost.

Going back to jury selection, I doubt anyone who opposes the death sentence would be chosen for a jury that might end in a death sentence, and I can give an example why I believe this. I mentioned in another thread that I was almost chosen to be on a jury that convicted two young men for possession with intent to sell cocaine. Prior to jury selection, we were all asked if we thought that recreational drugs should be legalized. I raised my hand to show that I agreed with the question. I wasn't chosen to be on that jury.

Later I found out the one of the jurors was totally devastated as the two young men were given 20 and 30 year prison sentences. I would not have been able to serve on that jury, as it would put me in a position where I would be forced to compromise my strong beliefs that it's immoral to imprison someone for drug possession. The man that got 20 years was simply charged as an accomplice. The juror who was devastated had no idea that such a sentence might be given and according to his wife, he didn't sleep for weeks, feeling a great sense of guilt and despair.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,221
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
People tend to survive prison alive
Except for the 4,000 each year who do not, and the rate is rapidly increasing in recent years.

and relatively intact
Dubious. The average US prisoner spends ~two years imprisoned. 13% of prison inmates report serious injuries while in prison. 30-60% of incarcerated men experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; this is often connected to the experiences that put them there, but the limited or non-existent access to mental healthcare for current or former inmates exacerbates the issue. Being imprisoned is also associated with a life of poverty, stigma, and continued trauma once the inmate is released.

and I don't honestly know what a better alternative would be to incarcerating people who commit serious crimes.
Incarcerating under humane conditions and taking active steps to rehabilitate them into society if safe and possible. Murder or torture are not our only options.

I think that Sohy nailed it. I'm also strongly in favor of prison reform in the US. I don't disagree with your points, but this is a thread on the death penalty, not prison reform. Like Sohy, I also have a problem with using prison as a method for reforming recreational drug users and would likely not be chosen to sit on such juries. Prosecutors and defense lawyers tend to weed out those who have objections to their desired verdict outcomes. What I won't do is commit perjury to get onto a jury so that I can help a defendant avoid a punishment that I happen to disagree with. That doesn't do anything to solve any of these problems.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,221
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
So it is a moral issue, in that deciding they are guilty would make you feel bad? Or is the thought that the court and lawyers and so forth will see that you refused to serve on the jury and call off the trial, having suddenly realized that it is immoral? The wellbeing of the defendant seems centered in your thoughts on why the trial is wrong, but you aren't doing anything to prevent the trial or improve the fate of the defendant, only your personal degree of connection to those things.
...

It is a moral issue for me, because I honestly would not vote to convict, given the outcome. I have a conscience, and I will not have someone's death on my conscience. I also swear to tell the truth for voir dire, and you would have me violate my oath? What if I voted to convict and the defendant ends up being tortured to death in a botched execution or one (like the electric chair, hanging, or poison gas) that is essentially a torture-killing?
...
You guys are having a kind of bizarre argument -- you seem to both be assuming convicting someone of capital murder means sentencing him to death. In the U.S. there are two trials, the first for guilt and then a second trial for sentencing if the first ends in conviction. A juror can convict and then veto* execution.

(* Except in Alabama.)

When you finished this comment, you seemed to be realizing that "in the US" meant "in some states in the US". Murder is usually a state crime, and each state passes its own laws for those crimes. As Poli correctly pointed out, you can't really decline to sit on a jury. You can only truthfully state your opinions about matters bearing on the litigation and circumstances that affect whether you are chosen to sit. People can also lie to get themselves disqualified. We aren't having a "bizarre argument" so much as you not really following the progress of the argument. As usual, Poli is testing and challenging some of our claims and assumptions, so the discussion becomes a bit more nuanced.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
It is a moral issue for me, because I honestly would not vote to convict, given the outcome. I have a conscience, and I will not have someone's death on my conscience. I also swear to tell the truth for voir dire, and you would have me violate my oath? What if I voted to convict and the defendant ends up being tortured to death in a botched execution or one (like the electric chair, hanging, or poison gas) that is essentially a torture-killing?
...
You guys are having a kind of bizarre argument -- you seem to both be assuming convicting someone of capital murder means sentencing him to death. In the U.S. there are two trials, the first for guilt and then a second trial for sentencing if the first ends in conviction. A juror can convict and then veto* execution.

(* Except in Alabama.)

When you finished this comment, you seemed to be realizing that "in the US" meant "in some states in the US". Murder is usually a state crime, and each state passes its own laws for those crimes. As Poli correctly pointed out, you can't really decline to sit on a jury. You can only truthfully state your opinions about matters bearing on the litigation and circumstances that affect whether you are chosen to sit. People can also lie to get themselves disqualified. We aren't having a "bizarre argument" so much as you not really following the progress of the argument. As usual, Poli is testing and challenging some of our claims and assumptions, so the discussion becomes a bit more nuanced.
No, it means "in the US": even in Alabama there are two trials, as I said. It's just that Alabama doesn't require a unanimous jury in the sentencing phase so a juror can't guarantee the defendant won't be executed. In any event, you're not in Alabama. Outside of Alabama, "I have a conscience, and I will not have someone's death on my conscience" is not a good reason for "I honestly would not vote to convict, given the outcome". You'd have control over the outcome.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I mentioned in another thread that I was almost chosen to be on a jury that convicted two young men for possession with intent to sell cocaine. Prior to jury selection, we were all asked if we thought that recreational drugs should be legalized. I raised my hand to show that I agreed with the question. I wasn't chosen to be on that jury.

Later I found out the one of the jurors was totally devastated as the two young men were given 20 and 30 year prison sentences. ...
[rant]
That sort of thing happens all the time. The procedure for deciding guilt and sentencing is a systematic web of lies from top to bottom. Judges and lawyers deliberately withhold information jurors would find highly relevant, and even lie to jurors outright, and are required to do it. Jurors who let slip that they know they're being lied to will be removed from juries, and may even be punished for allegedly "tampering" with the other jurors. The campaign to suppress the knowledge that jury nullification is legal is never-ending. The biggest lie in the system is probably plea bargaining, where prosecutors coerce confessions with the threat of worse sentences, and then judges require prisoners to lie and claim not to have been threatened in order for their coerced pleas to be accepted, the judges knowing perfectly well they are suborning perjury, while making sure 90+% of prosecutions succeed without ever being subjected to uncaptured quality control. And it all happens because the courts are run by professionals but the law gives all the power to amateurs, and the professionals hate that, so they do the best they can to keep the amateurs from using their power.[/rant]
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,221
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
It is a moral issue for me, because I honestly would not vote to convict, given the outcome. I have a conscience, and I will not have someone's death on my conscience. I also swear to tell the truth for voir dire, and you would have me violate my oath? What if I voted to convict and the defendant ends up being tortured to death in a botched execution or one (like the electric chair, hanging, or poison gas) that is essentially a torture-killing?
...
You guys are having a kind of bizarre argument -- you seem to both be assuming convicting someone of capital murder means sentencing him to death. In the U.S. there are two trials, the first for guilt and then a second trial for sentencing if the first ends in conviction. A juror can convict and then veto* execution.

(* Except in Alabama.)

When you finished this comment, you seemed to be realizing that "in the US" meant "in some states in the US". Murder is usually a state crime, and each state passes its own laws for those crimes. As Poli correctly pointed out, you can't really decline to sit on a jury. You can only truthfully state your opinions about matters bearing on the litigation and circumstances that affect whether you are chosen to sit. People can also lie to get themselves disqualified. We aren't having a "bizarre argument" so much as you not really following the progress of the argument. As usual, Poli is testing and challenging some of our claims and assumptions, so the discussion becomes a bit more nuanced.
No, it means "in the US": even in Alabama there are two trials, as I said. It's just that Alabama doesn't require a unanimous jury in the sentencing phase so a juror can't guarantee the defendant won't be executed. In any event, you're not in Alabama. Outside of Alabama, "I have a conscience, and I will not have someone's death on my conscience" is not a good reason for "I honestly would not vote to convict, given the outcome". You'd have control over the outcome.

Actually, no. I wouldn't necessarily be in control of the outcome, since the method of achieving the outcome varies by state. A prosecutor would still dismiss me for cause, because the prosecutor would want me to be able to approve a death penalty option. In some states, the second jury trial only carries the recommendation of the jury to a judge. The judge makes the ultimate decision. Look, your objection here is a quibble. My objection is not to being part of the decision to mete out the type of punishment but to sitting on a jury in which the death penalty could be imposed as the result of a guilty verdict. My objecting to that penalty in principle would not necessarily matter. Since my own state of Washington no longer even has a death penalty, that wouldn't even apply here, but Poli's other point about the brutality of prison conditions seems more relevant than your quibble. Your hairsplitting goes nowhere.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Never mind the mixed message. It's not moral to kill unless defending against a threat to life....but its ok for the state to execute prisoners because they deserve killing.

Which conveys the message that killing people is a suitable solution. If it's good for the judicial system and society to kill its problematic members, it's acceptable as a solution in principle.
Well, that ship has sailed -- once you've accepted "defending against a threat to life" as a sufficient reason to kill, you have accepted that killing people is a suitable solution in principle. The rest is just haggling over details.

A double standard of ethics is clearly implied. As described several times.
It's not implied at all. There's no mixed message being sent; there's only a mixed message you're constructing yourself by the way you choose to "read between the lines." The state never says "it's not ok to kill, unless in self defense"; the state says it's not okay to kill unless in accordance with the law. Then the law lists circumstances where it allows people to kill. One of them is self-defense, yes; but another is obeying a lawful order to kill an enemy combatant; another is carrying out a lawful sentence of death after due process; and so forth. The circumstance that you find one item on the state's list worthier than the rest has no power to cause the state to have a double standard or to have sent a mixed message. "It's not ok to kill, unless in self defense." is your premise, and your message, not theirs.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,650
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Never mind the mixed message. It's not moral to kill unless defending against a threat to life....but its ok for the state to execute prisoners because they deserve killing.

Which conveys the message that killing people is a suitable solution. If it's good for the judicial system and society to kill its problematic members, it's acceptable as a solution in principle.
Well, that ship has sailed -- once you've accepted "defending against a threat to life" as a sufficient reason to kill, you have accepted that killing people is a suitable solution in principle. The rest is just haggling over details.

A double standard of ethics is clearly implied. As described several times.
It's not implied at all. There's no mixed message being sent; there's only a mixed message you're constructing yourself by the way you choose to "read between the lines." The state never says "it's not ok to kill, unless in self defense"; the state says it's not okay to kill unless in accordance with the law. Then the law lists circumstances where it allows people to kill. One of them is self-defense, yes; but another is obeying a lawful order to kill an enemy combatant; another is carrying out a lawful sentence of death after due process; and so forth. The circumstance that you find one item on the state's list worthier than the rest has no power to cause the state to have a double standard or to have sent a mixed message. "It's not ok to kill, unless in self defense." is your premise, and your message, not theirs.

Laws are related to moral standards. The moral standards of a society may vary, and its laws set accordingly. If something is not seen as wrong, right or wrong being a moral standard, there is no reason to have a law against it.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,221
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Laws are related to moral standards. The moral standards of a society may vary, and its laws set accordingly. If something is not seen as wrong, right or wrong being a moral standard, there is no reason to have a law against it.

There is a relationship, but there is a big difference between moral standards and legal standards, especially in the US. Generally speaking, US laws have to have some kind of civil grounding or justification in order for them to be constitutionally sanctioned. So a certain standard of dress or behavior may be considered immoral, but it can't really be criminalized on that basis, at least in principle. I'm not going to pretend that legislatures don't pass such laws and courts allow them in practice, but such laws are often stricken from the books. Murder and theft aren't illegal because they are immoral. They are illegal because they present an obvious danger to the public.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,082
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Adult consensual oral sex gay or straight used to be illeg even if marriedl, along with fornication. Moral Laws. I grew up mostly in Connecticut in the 50s - 60s with what were called religion based Blue Laws in New England. Major stores and busness had to close on Sunday. Alcohol could be seed in bars and restaurants on Sunday, but could not be sold in stores.

Relatives of one of the peple murdered in the case I posted on camera were outraged at the thought of the guy being paroled. They called it justice for their loss to keep him in prison.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,650
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Laws are related to moral standards. The moral standards of a society may vary, and its laws set accordingly. If something is not seen as wrong, right or wrong being a moral standard, there is no reason to have a law against it.

There is a relationship, but there is a big difference between moral standards and legal standards, especially in the US. Generally speaking, US laws have to have some kind of civil grounding or justification in order for them to be constitutionally sanctioned. So a certain standard of dress or behavior may be considered immoral, but it can't really be criminalized on that basis, at least in principle. I'm not going to pretend that legislatures don't pass such laws and courts allow them in practice, but such laws are often stricken from the books. Murder and theft aren't illegal because they are immoral. They are illegal because they present an obvious danger to the public.

What is a danger to the public may have moral implications. Someone running a red light to save a few minutes is breaking the law, putting others in danger, which is also an act that has moral implications. The needs and wants of the self in relation to others.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,221
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...
What is a danger to the public may have moral implications. Someone running a red light to save a few minutes is breaking the law, putting others in danger, which is also an act that has moral implications. The needs and wants of the self in relation to others.

That's true. A law may or may not have moral implications, but it always runs into the ninth and tenth amendments, which allow for the protection of rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. So the government is really supposed to only pass laws in which there is a compelling state interest. Moral codes are quite often about forms of behavior that the state has no compelling interest in regulating.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,082
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Morlity and civil law are not exactly black and white.. Laws and punishments aaginst racism are a moral statement.

I would call traffic laws more about maintaining order. Same with theft.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,650
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Morlity and civil law are not exactly black and white.. Laws and punishments aaginst racism are a moral statement.

I would call traffic laws more about maintaining order. Same with theft.

Maintaining order has moral implications. Breaking laws designed to maintain order may have moral implications, putting your own needs before others, etc.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,650
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
...
What is a danger to the public may have moral implications. Someone running a red light to save a few minutes is breaking the law, putting others in danger, which is also an act that has moral implications. The needs and wants of the self in relation to others.

That's true. A law may or may not have moral implications, but it always runs into the ninth and tenth amendments, which allow for the protection of rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. So the government is really supposed to only pass laws in which there is a compelling state interest. Moral codes are quite often about forms of behavior that the state has no compelling interest in regulating.

Yet that killing in self defense is lawful has moral implications. It tells us what is acceptable in both legal and moral terms. We are judged accordingly. Self defense is seen as justified, murder is not. Execution is not considered moral or legal for citizens....so the state may reserve the right to execute criminals but this doesn't alter the moral terms of the act of execution, only the legality of the act.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.
How so? Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law is necessary. Unless the system is equally applied to all people, the death penalty is morally wrong in its application. All mass killers get death or not.

And mass killings where the killer is known is about as simple a case as it gets. Once we get into nuanced situations of conviction without certainty, that makes things much harder to deal with.
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,963
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.
How so? Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law is necessary. Unless the system is equally applied to all people, the death penalty is morally wrong in its application. All mass killers get death or not.
How so, because he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable. It's a practical solution, morals be damned when dealing with such specimens.

And mass killings where the killer is known is about as simple a case as it gets. Once we get into nuanced situations of conviction without certainty, that makes things much harder to deal with.
Yes, that is why I said execution would have been appropriate, we know he did it.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.
How so? Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law is necessary. Unless the system is equally applied to all people, the death penalty is morally wrong in its application. All mass killers get death or not.
How so, because he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable. It's a practical solution, morals be damned when dealing with such specimens.
Equal protection means equal protection.
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,963
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Had Salvador Ramos been captured alive, execution would have been appropriate.
How so? Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law is necessary. Unless the system is equally applied to all people, the death penalty is morally wrong in its application. All mass killers get death or not.
How so, because he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable. It's a practical solution, morals be damned when dealing with such specimens.
Equal protection means equal protection.

And in certain situations, like Ramos, equal protection will not apply. Exception to the rule and all that.
 

ramoss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Northeast USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Jewish
A major topic, the death penalty. Is it cruel and unusual punishment? I doubt the founders would have thought so.

Here in Washington in 1980. a man killed 3 people and tortured two. One person was shot in the head while bound. One was stragled. He was semteced to three life terms. Recently a parole board recommended parole saying he was rehabilitatedv and npt a danger to society. Public outcry resulted in the governor overdring the decison.

H e was caught and admitted to it and was dismissive of the victims. There is no issue of the man not being guilty.

Should such a person forfeit his life for having taken three lives?

My objection to the death penalty is irreversible error, an innocent man being executed. That does not apply in this case.

Would oiu have voted for parole?
If yu were on a jury would you vote for the death penalty?


No. My main reason is that no matter what. I do not want the state to have the power to make that decision, over anyone. I would approve of assisted suicide for any person who is serving life imprisonment, because that would be their choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,774
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
he was mass murdering defective human being, unfixable.
How long did you spend with him, one on one, before arriving at this conclusion?

What are your psychiatric or psychological credentials?

Or would it be fair to say that you are neither qualified nor informed enough to make that claim, and are calling for someone to be killed based on a set of glib assumptions about them that you have made zero attempt to verify?

Because the latter would be pretty fucking evil. And my unqualified and poorly informed opinion is that your evil cannot be fixed, and that you should be executed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,274
Location
On the wing, waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
The thing about threads like this that always bothers me is the way that the victim(s), their family/friends are quickly forgotten about. It all becomes about the criminal.
We rarely consider the life sentence without parole or reduction of sentence for them and to them.
And that is most unkind and callous.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The thing about threads like this that always bothers me is the way that the victim(s), their family/friends are quickly forgotten about. It all becomes about the criminal.
No, not in America. Whether you get the death penalty matters heavily, not on the identity of the criminal, but the identity of the victim(s). Kill a white person, more likely to die. Kill a white women... they string up a noose in the courtroom. That isn't to say the families of white women get a larger say, but it indicates that the identity of the victim does carry a heavy weight. In Canada, if you are an indigenous female... they don't even care to investigate.
We rarely consider the life sentence without parole or reduction of sentence for them and to them.
And that is most unkind and callous.
We are a society, and rules regarding law and judgement need to be based on a level playing field. A person should suffer the same fate for the same crime, regardless.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
There are certain crimes so heinous that, given the opportunity, I would gladly pull that lever over and over and over again, until my arm could pull no more.

This is one of the reasons that I oppose the death penalty.
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,400
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A major topic, the death penalty. Is it cruel and unusual punishment? I doubt the founders would have thought so.

Here in Washington in 1980. a man killed 3 people and tortured two. One person was shot in the head while bound. One was stragled. He was semteced to three life terms. Recently a parole board recommended parole saying he was rehabilitatedv and npt a danger to society. Public outcry resulted in the governor overdring the decison.

H e was caught and admitted to it and was dismissive of the victims. There is no issue of the man not being guilty.

Should such a person forfeit his life for having taken three lives?

My objection to the death penalty is irreversible error, an innocent man being executed. That does not apply in this case.

Would oiu have voted for parole?
If yu were on a jury would you vote for the death penalty?


While I'm not a fan of human suffering for anyone, even someone as reprehensible as this, one can take value in the idea that death for someone like this is an easy way out. In a way, spending the rest of one's life in prison, wasting their entire existence could also be viewed as appropriate punishment.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The thing is, is "life in prison" punishment enough? We have created these large box stores of prisoners where they endure inhumane conditions... and we are saying that is punishment. It costs money, a good deal of money, to think "wasting their entire existence" is a benefit for the crime(s) the people have committed. We don't want to make prisoners better, we want them to suffer. But while wasting away, do they care about what they did (merely cause they were caught?). Society gets nothing out of it.

The death penalty is just revenge... and in some egregious cases, it is probably valid.

In the end, neither solution is particularly great and that is mostly because of the harm they did to get us to this point in the first place. But with things as they stand, people should have to pay the same prices for the same crimes, and that is not what our system does either.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,774
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Prison is a fairly new idea. It has the sole benefit of not being quite as corrosive to law and order as its predecessor, which was a mixture of corporal punishment and the death penalty, with death being the sole option for a wide range of fairly minor crimes.

We could probably do much better; But nobody wants to be seen to not be horrible to criminals. Despite the observation that being horrible to criminals doesn’t seem to be a very effective way to reduce crime, or to prevent people from joining the ranks of the criminal.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The thing about threads like this that always bothers me is the way that the victim(s), their family/friends are quickly forgotten about. It all becomes about the criminal.
No, not in America. Whether you get the death penalty matters heavily, not on the identity of the criminal, but the identity of the victim(s). Kill a white person, more likely to die. Kill a white women... they string up a noose in the courtroom. That isn't to say the families of white women get a larger say, but it indicates that the identity of the victim does carry a heavy weight. In Canada, if you are an indigenous female... they don't even care to investigate.
We rarely consider the life sentence without parole or reduction of sentence for them and to them.
And that is most unkind and callous.
We are a society, and rules regarding law and judgement need to be based on a level playing field. A person should suffer the same fate for the same crime, regardless.
I don't think it's so much about race as social status. The higher the social class of your victim the the more the hammer comes down on you.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,071
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
There are certain crimes so heinous that, given the opportunity, I would gladly pull that lever over and over and over again, until my arm could pull no more.

This is one of the reasons that I oppose the death penalty.
Brilliant!
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,274
Location
On the wing, waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
There are certain crimes so heinous that, given the opportunity, I would gladly pull that lever over and over and over again, until my arm could pull no more.

This is one of the reasons that I oppose the death penalty.
I was the last telephone technician at the notorious Pentridge prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Pentridge) in Melbourne, Australia. The last governor, Mr Groves, once made the comment that if he put an ad in the papers for a hangman the queue the next morning would have stretching in both directions along Sydney Rd, Coburg. There would have had been no shortage of applicants. This was in the early 90s.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,274
Location
On the wing, waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
There are certain crimes so heinous that, given the opportunity, I would gladly slam that cell door over and over and over again, until my arm could slam no more.

This is one of the reasons that I support the death penalty.
FIFY
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
There are certain crimes so heinous that, given the opportunity, I would gladly slam that cell door over and over and over again, until my arm could slam no more.

This is one of the reasons that I support the death penalty.
FIFY
But you did not ‘fix’ anything. I meant what I wrote. Still do.

I am extremely well acquainted with my reaction to certain crimes, the outrage, the horror, the nausea and disgust. The anger. The hatred. Execution seems like the very best way to rid society of such a creature ( see how I’ve already dehumanized them?) as could commit such a crime. Or crimes. And, of course, to allow me to discharge MY feelings.

Licking someone up for life without any chance for parole is really very nearly the same thing. The life let’s are removed from the possibility of re-offending, at least against innocent or ‘innocent’ victims. To punish them and to protect us.

But really, they are locked up forever so we dont have to think about them any more.

And to give us a release—closure—for our feelings of anger and outrage. And grief.

To make us feel safe and secure.

The dead do not need us to punish anyone. If the dead require anything of us, surely it is to learn something—about them, about the circumstances of their death, and the causes and just how those responsible got to the point where committing their crimes seemed reasonable or even inevitable.

I think that it is rarely the correct thing to do to execute someone.

I think it is only somewhat less rarely the right thing to do to sentence someone to life imprisonment.

I also think that a sentence of death or life imprisonment is lazy. It lets us off the hook for having to think too hard about rehabilitation for those we might otherwise allow to walk among us, after they have served their sentences.

I feel differently, of course.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
There are certain crimes so heinous that, given the opportunity, I would gladly pull that lever over and over and over again, until my arm could pull no more.

This is one of the reasons that I oppose the death penalty.
*nods* Rotator Cuff issues. ;)
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,963
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But you did not ‘fix’ anything. I meant what I wrote. Still do.

I am extremely well acquainted with my reaction to certain crimes, the outrage, the horror, the nausea and disgust. The anger. The hatred. Execution seems like the very best way to rid society of such a creature ( see how I’ve already dehumanized them?) as could commit such a crime. Or crimes. And, of course, to allow me to discharge MY feelings.

Licking someone up for life without any chance for parole is really very nearly the same thing. The life let’s are removed from the possibility of re-offending, at least against innocent or ‘innocent’ victims. To punish them and to protect us.

But really, they are locked up forever so we dont have to think about them any more.

And to give us a release—closure—for our feelings of anger and outrage. And grief.

To make us feel safe and secure.

The dead do not need us to punish anyone. If the dead require anything of us, surely it is to learn something—about them, about the circumstances of their death, and the causes and just how those responsible got to the point where committing their crimes seemed reasonable or even inevitable.

I think that it is rarely the correct thing to do to execute someone.

I think it is only somewhat less rarely the right thing to do to sentence someone to life imprisonment.

I also think that a sentence of death or life imprisonment is lazy. It lets us off the hook for having to think too hard about rehabilitation for those we might otherwise allow to walk among us, after they have served their sentences.

I feel differently, of course.

Some of your sentiments I agree with but the idea that certain people can be rehabilitated and let loose if we just try a bit harder is just silly. Mass murdering psychopaths can't be rehabilitated, their brain is busted. Far better for society and the mass murdering psychopath to be euthanized.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
But you did not ‘fix’ anything. I meant what I wrote. Still do.

I am extremely well acquainted with my reaction to certain crimes, the outrage, the horror, the nausea and disgust. The anger. The hatred. Execution seems like the very best way to rid society of such a creature ( see how I’ve already dehumanized them?) as could commit such a crime. Or crimes. And, of course, to allow me to discharge MY feelings.

Licking someone up for life without any chance for parole is really very nearly the same thing. The life let’s are removed from the possibility of re-offending, at least against innocent or ‘innocent’ victims. To punish them and to protect us.

But really, they are locked up forever so we dont have to think about them any more.

And to give us a release—closure—for our feelings of anger and outrage. And grief.

To make us feel safe and secure.

The dead do not need us to punish anyone. If the dead require anything of us, surely it is to learn something—about them, about the circumstances of their death, and the causes and just how those responsible got to the point where committing their crimes seemed reasonable or even inevitable.

I think that it is rarely the correct thing to do to execute someone.

I think it is only somewhat less rarely the right thing to do to sentence someone to life imprisonment.

I also think that a sentence of death or life imprisonment is lazy. It lets us off the hook for having to think too hard about rehabilitation for those we might otherwise allow to walk among us, after they have served their sentences.

I feel differently, of course.

Some of your sentiments I agree with but the idea that certain people can be rehabilitated and let loose if we just try a bit harder is just silly. Mass murdering psychopaths can't be rehabilitated, their brain is busted. Far better for society and the mass murdering psychopath to be euthanized.
Oh, I don’t disagree except for the extermination part. They are people. We have to face that and accept it.. There certainly are those who should be locked up forever—the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world leap to mind. But I think far too often we cry lock him up and throw away the key! I’m thinking those third strike offenses that land you permanently in jail. But it is incredibly more difficult to really try to determine who can be rehabilitated and returned to society and who should be rehabilitated and remain incarcerated. And then, of course, the rehabilitation itself. We don’t do enough of that or enough to figure out what drives people to do the usually stupid things they do or how to help them heal enough to give themselves better chances. Some people really are born without much of a shot at life.
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,963
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Oh, I don’t disagree except for the extermination part. They are people. We have to face that and accept it..
So what if they are people? That's not an argument for anything.

There certainly are those who should be locked up forever—the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world leap to mind. But I think far too often we cry lock him up and throw away the key! I’m thinking those third strike offenses that land you permanently in jail.
Yeah but I'm not thinking about that. I am specifically thinking about the Jeffrey Dahmers, just off them. They can't be fixed.

But it is incredibly more difficult to really try to determine who can be rehabilitated and returned to society and who should be rehabilitated and remain incarcerated.
Not really.

And then, of course, the rehabilitation itself. We don’t do enough of that or enough to figure out what drives people to do the usually stupid things they do or how to help them heal enough to give themselves better chances. Some people really are born without much of a shot at life.
I'm not advocating executing stupid or unlucky people.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Oh, I don’t disagree except for the extermination part. They are people. We have to face that and accept it..
So what if they are people? That's not an argument for anything.

There certainly are those who should be locked up forever—the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world leap to mind. But I think far too often we cry lock him up and throw away the key! I’m thinking those third strike offenses that land you permanently in jail.
Yeah but I'm not thinking about that. I am specifically thinking about the Jeffrey Dahmers, just off them. They can't be fixed.
I've seen a bunch of people that "can't be fixed". We killing all of them? Or are we taking advantage of a crime committed to exterminate an invalid?
But it is incredibly more difficult to really try to determine who can be rehabilitated and returned to society and who should be rehabilitated and remain incarcerated.
Not really.
It is when sticking a needle in someone. There is a finality to it that requires a level of clinical certainty that is hard to actually obtain.
And then, of course, the rehabilitation itself. We don’t do enough of that or enough to figure out what drives people to do the usually stupid things they do or how to help them heal enough to give themselves better chances. Some people really are born without much of a shot at life.
I'm not advocating executing stupid or unlucky people.
No, just the mentally ill.

I mean you talk about it like mental illness is something that is easy to just conclude on. You talk like a person who has nothing more than a "gut" level understanding of psychology.

Heck, we going to put a needle in a psychopath, but let the guy who murdered his wife so he could pork someone half his age live in the prison until he can get parole? At least the mentally unwell person might have not actually known better. The Menendez Brothers who murdered their parents and tried to cover it via lies of abuse live in prison while we kill the mentally ill. It'd almost seem like it should be the other way around.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
So what if they are people? That's not an argument for anything.
To me it is.
An important argument.

The premise that some human beings are entitled to choose death for other human beings doesn't work for me. That premise is one of the worst assumptions humans make. The biggest cause of degradation to the human situation.

To me, that's the meaning of "immoral". People feeling entitled to degrade the human situation. From war to environmental destruction, from abortion to capital punishment, it's all immoral.

People choosing death for other people is the root of all evil.
Tom
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,650
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Oh, I don’t disagree except for the extermination part. They are people. We have to face that and accept it..
So what if they are people? That's not an argument for anything.

There certainly are those who should be locked up forever—the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world leap to mind. But I think far too often we cry lock him up and throw away the key! I’m thinking those third strike offenses that land you permanently in jail.
Yeah but I'm not thinking about that. I am specifically thinking about the Jeffrey Dahmers, just off them. They can't be fixed.

But it is incredibly more difficult to really try to determine who can be rehabilitated and returned to society and who should be rehabilitated and remain incarcerated.
Not really.

And then, of course, the rehabilitation itself. We don’t do enough of that or enough to figure out what drives people to do the usually stupid things they do or how to help them heal enough to give themselves better chances. Some people really are born without much of a shot at life.
I'm not advocating executing stupid or unlucky people.

But you are arguing for expediency.
 

Coleman Smith

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
296
Location
Center of the Universe
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I oppose the death penalty because the cops make mistakes, judges make mistakes, jurors make mistakes, and appeal judges make mistakes.

My opposition is also based on my experience handling claims for insurnace companies that insured police departments.

All large employs bodies have some things in common.


Most people are honest, competent and hard working and some are not.

The claims I handled involving police departments included every thing from simple automobile accidents to bad changes ending in death and destruction to uniformed officers operating burgulary rings out of their patrol cars.

I suggest that every one go to U-tube and enter a query "cops planting evidence" and look at the Reponses.
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,963
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I oppose the death penalty because the cops make mistakes, judges make mistakes, jurors make mistakes, and appeal judges make mistakes.
How about Jeffrey Dahmer. Do you think there were any mistakes made in his conviction and he was possibly innocent?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I oppose the death penalty because the cops make mistakes, judges make mistakes, jurors make mistakes, and appeal judges make mistakes.
How about Jeffrey Dahmer. Do you think there were any mistakes made in his conviction and he was possibly innocent?
Jeffrey Dahmer was not sentenced to death but sentenced to life imprisonment for 17 murders. Should he have instead been committed to an institution for the criminally insane? Perhaps. I find it difficult to muster any sympathy for Dahmer’s death at the hands of a fellow prisoner.

Do I think he should have been executed by the state? My emotional response is that I would gladly pull that lever over and over and over again. My rational response is that he should have been sentenced to life, without any chance of parole, my only concern for him being in the general population being for the safety of his fellow prisoners and everyone who came into contact with him.

When the state decides to execute someone, it is making every citizen a party to the taking of another human being’s life. If it is wrong for a person to kill another person, except in limited circumstances such as self defense, or through accident, then it is even more wrong for the state to execute a prisoner, even when there is no possibility that the prisoner is innocent of the charges for which they’ve been convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Licking someone up for life without any chance for parole is really very nearly the same thing. The life let’s are removed from the possibility of re-offending, at least against innocent or ‘innocent’ victims.
That's ridiculous. People serving life sentences have every opportunity to reoffend -- against other prisoners. And since the criminal justice system is imperfect and makes mistakes, some of those other prisoners are innocent. And since we routinely coerce confessions, even some of the other prisoners who pled guilty are innocent.

To punish them and to protect us.
Exactly. To protect us. Once we convict somebody he becomes them, so we stop caring about protecting him. That's why the "removed from the possibility of re-offending" meme keeps getting propagated.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The premise that some human beings are entitled to choose death for other human beings doesn't work for me. That premise is one of the worst assumptions humans make. The biggest cause of degradation to the human situation.

To me, that's the meaning of "immoral". People feeling entitled to degrade the human situation. From war to environmental destruction, from abortion to capital punishment, it's all immoral.

People choosing death for other people is the root of all evil.
Tom
Or in other words, "I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."

It's worth keeping in mind, though, that the reason Gandhi was able to save India with nonviolence was that the people oppressing India were good people. Gandhi recommended to his country's British oppressors that they likewise save their own country from their own oppressor with nonviolence too. Are any of us in any doubt about how that would have worked out?
 
Top Bottom