The Death Penalty

[dystopian]

Of course the two are completely different, and life in the Maximum Security prison is/was not so terrible for a seasoned ruthless killer - look what we now know of that place in NY State. Hope never dies in the human breast, and the escape even from there was engineered, if only partly successful.

I know nothing of whatever case you happen to be talking about, so I'm not entirely certain what if any point its supposed to convey. If the point is that such a dangerous murders criminal escape, then I would simply reiterate that that is not an argument for the deathpenalty but an argument for better prison security.

Personally I am for giving the criminal just as much consideration as he (in the examples of crimes I gave it is almost always a he) gave to his victims.

That is no different than revenge, really; and therefore insufficiently convincing. An eye for an eye is not a civilized standard of justice; it lowers us, as society, to their level when we should in fact aspire to be better than them.

 

[credoconsolans]

I know nothing of whatever case you happen to be talking about, so I'm not entirely certain what if any point its supposed to convey. If the point is that such a dangerous murders criminal escape, then I would simply reiterate that that is not an argument for the deathpenalty but an argument for better prison security.

Personally I am for giving the criminal just as much consideration as he (in the examples of crimes I gave it is almost always a he) gave to his victims.

That is no different than revenge, really; and therefore insufficiently convincing. An eye for an eye is not a civilized standard of justice; it lowers us, as society, to their level when we should in fact aspire to be better than them.

Or you could consider it justice.

You could consider that heinous crimes are so rare and so horrible that society itself will set aside civility to take extreme measures to protect itself by removing the perpetrators from society permanently, otherwise we cheapen the lives of the victims by treating their murders as no more important than a property crime.

 

[dystopian]

Or you could consider it justice.

I already addressed this in an earlier post. It isn't justice. It's revenge. Calling it 'justice' is nothing more than an attempt to make it more palateable; but you're still killing people for no good reason other than that it 'feels right' to you. That's not what justice entails.

You could consider that heinous crimes are so rare and so horrible that society itself will set aside civility to take extreme measures to protect itself by removing the perpetrators from society permanently,

Which has also been addressed: removing them from society permanently does *not* require the deathpenalty. You can accomplish the same thing with an actual life-sentence and maintaining your prisons properly. The only reasons to weigh the deathpenalty as the better option of the two is that it doesn't feel as 'satisfying' to you personally (revenge), or that you think it's too hard to keep them from escaping... which is essentially saying that it's okay for society to start killing people because making it so that we don't have to is 'haaaard.'

otherwise we cheapen the lives of the victims by treating their murders as no more important than a property crime.

Right. Of course. If we don't kill people we're saying that murder is just as important as someone getting their purse stolen.

Except for the whole concept of variable prison sentences instead of a single duration that applies to all crimes, I guess.

 

[credoconsolans]

I already addressed this in an earlier post. It isn't justice. It's revenge. Calling it 'justice' is nothing more than an attempt to make it more palateable; but you're still killing people for no good reason other than that it 'feels right' to you. That's not what justice entails.

Or so you say. I don't buy that argument.

You could consider that heinous crimes are so rare and so horrible that society itself will set aside civility to take extreme measures to protect itself by removing the perpetrators from society permanently,

Which has also been addressed: removing them from society permanently does *not* require the deathpenalty. You can accomplish the same thing with an actual life-sentence and maintaining your prisons properly.

Uh, did you forget the prison personnel? The danger they're in from these criminals?

I didn't. I'm sorry you ignore the peril to their lives and discount them.

otherwise we cheapen the lives of the victims by treating their murders as no more important than a property crime.

Right. Of course. If we don't kill people we're saying that murder is just as important as someone getting their purse stolen.

Prison sentences are sometimes the same. How is that reflecting that the crime is more heinous than armed robbery?

 

[4321lynx]

I know nothing of whatever case you happen to be talking about, so I'm not entirely certain what if any point its supposed to convey. If the point is that such a dangerous murders criminal escape, then I would simply reiterate that that is not an argument for the deathpenalty but an argument for better prison security.

Personally I am for giving the criminal just as much consideration as he (in the examples of crimes I gave it is almost always a he) gave to his victims.

That is no different than revenge, really; and therefore insufficiently convincing. An eye for an eye is not a civilized standard of justice; it lowers us, as society, to their level when we should in fact aspire to be better than them.

I disagree with you. It all depends on your definition of civilised society. Also note that I am not advocating rape or torture of the criminal before execution in cases where this occured to their victims, so your statement that all it is, is the application of an "eye for an eye" principle, is strictly grossly inaccurate. How grossly, depends on the amount of terror and pain inflicted on the victim of the crime.
And anyway, whatever the definition, IMO civilised actions deserve civilised considerations, and uncivilised actions do not unless ameliorating circumstances exist in overwhelming measure. And mawkishness on the part of "civilised society" is not one of those circumstances.

 

[DrZoidberg]

By taking away their ability to choose, you are forcing *your* opinions on them: it is deciding that *your* opinion, not theirs, is the superior one. The very definition of arrogance. Which is a pretty big fucking deal when it results in someone's death.

How is you deciding that prison is less cruel any less arrogant? I can´t follow that line of argument.

The fact that a majority of people serving life sentences would rather chose to keep living doesn´t prove anything.

Uh, yes. Yes it does. If a majority of the people serving life sentences would rather choose to keep living; then that proves living in jail is more desirable than death, which completely destroys the notion that the death penalty and life imprisonment are equally harsh and therefore morally equivalent.

So to summarize:
"yes, it is"
"no, it isn´t"
"yes, it is"
"no, it isn´t"

Doesn´t prove shit other than that humans have an instinct to survive no matter how shitty life that would be.

 

[dystopian]

How is you deciding that prison is less cruel any less arrogant? I can´t follow that line of argument.

It isn't arrogant to decide for yourself that the death penalty is just as cruel. It *becomes* arrogant when you force someone to die because of it. One could argue the same about deciding that prison is less cruel; however, it isn't at an equivalent level because if we decide that someone must spend life in prison then that person is at least still alive to form their own opinions and experiences, whereas if we decide that they must die then we deny them even that. Besides that, *I* allowed for prisoners to make a choice for themselves to die or not die; and giving someone the power to choose for themselves can not, by definition, be arrogant.

So to summarize:
"yes, it is"
"no, it isn´t"
"yes, it is"
"no, it isn´t"

Doesn´t prove shit other than that humans have an instinct to survive no matter how shitty life that would be.

Which... again, yes, *does* disprove your claim that the death penalty and imprisonment are essentially the same. That's how basic logic works. You can not claim two states of being are equally undesirable and morally equivalent if 999 out of a 1000 people choose one over the other. That isn't a case of going back and forth with "yes, it is" and "no, it isn't"; that's just you making an unsupportable declaration and then insisting that all evidence to the contrary is just as good as your unsupported assertion.

 

[DBT]

It's the mentality of killing in order to solve problems, rid ourselves of societies rejects, satisfy 'justice' or retribution, that is the problem...that is not an indicator of a civilized society. We are too willing to kill, regardless of any righteous moral reasons for dressing up of the act in order to make killing someone appear like a good thing to do.

 

[dystopian]

Or so you say. I don't buy that argument.

Which would be relevant only if you could actually demonstrate that you're doing it for a valid reason instead of that it 'feels right' to you. I note that neither you, nor any other death penalty proponent in history, has actually managed to do so.

Uh, did you forget the prison personnel? The danger they're in from these criminals?

If you knew a thing or two about basic inmate/guard psychology and the way prisons are run, you'd know that the inmates are actually in greater danger from the guards than the other way around. That said, the supposed and/or actual danger that prison staff are in is not in fact a counter-argument to what I said. Note that I included the statement; "maintaining your prisons properly". Danger to prison staff can absolutely be minimized if a society designs and maintains its prisons properly. It could even be reduced to exactly zero if we were to take extreme measures of the sort we probably don't want to take but which would still be a better option than *killing* people because you're too worried about prison staff getting hurt.

Incidentally, this prison staff safety argument didn't fly the last time this thread came around given that someone pointed out that prison guards in the US are actually statistically *less* likely to get injured or murderered than the average American. Which kind of throws a huge fucking wrench in the argument.

Prison sentences are sometimes the same.

Yes. Now find me a murderer who gets the same sentence for someone who stole a purse. Go, fetch.

How is that reflecting that the crime is more heinous than armed robbery?

Which goes right back to that whole 'revenge' thing. Why does it matter if the sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime? The purpose of criminal sentencing is to protect society, not punish criminals. If it were genuinely the case that society is suitably protected by a murderer spending the same amount of time in jail as someone stealing a purse; then there is no purpose in extending jailtime beyond that. But nooo... that wouldn't feel right to you, would it?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It isn't arrogant to decide for yourself that the death penalty is just as cruel. It *becomes* arrogant when you force someone to die because of it. One could argue the same about deciding that prison is less cruel; however, it isn't at an equivalent level because if we decide that someone must spend life in prison then that person is at least still alive to form their own opinions and experiences, whereas if we decide that they must die then we deny them even that. Besides that, *I* allowed for prisoners to make a choice for themselves to die or not die; and giving someone the power to choose for themselves can not, by definition, be arrogant.

Ehe... you are deciding for everybody that they think that life in jail is less cruel than death. You also decided that if they are given a choice they will decide the way you decided for them to decide.

Life in jail is no life at all. I don´t want to have it on my conscious to lock people up in jail. Jail is torture. The people in jail are being tortured every day. You might be able to sleep at night with that on your conscience, but I have trouble doing that. I also have trouble with killing people. So if we have decided to remove people from the general population for good, then life in jail is as bad as death penalty IMHO.

I dislike the idea that life in jail is "the humane" option. It´s not. It´s just as barbarous as execution IMHO.

So to summarize:
"yes, it is"
"no, it isn´t"
"yes, it is"
"no, it isn´t"

Doesn´t prove shit other than that humans have an instinct to survive no matter how shitty life that would be.

Which... again, yes, *does* disprove your claim that the death penalty and imprisonment are essentially the same. That's how basic logic works. You can not claim two states of being are equally undesirable and morally equivalent if 999 out of a 1000 people choose one over the other. That isn't a case of going back and forth with "yes, it is" and "no, it isn't"; that's just you making an unsupportable declaration and then insisting that all evidence to the contrary is just as good as your unsupported assertion.

You´re exploiting the fact that even the hopeless have hope. That is just being cruel. So I´m going with "no it isn´t" again.

It doesn´t take many years for a person in jail to be an empty husk of a man. Just crushed with zero self esteem. That´s what jail does. It destroys self-esteem and sense of self worth. Some are more resilient than others. But it´s just a matter of time. That is torture. I´m not ok with torturing people.

 

[dystopian]

Ehe... you are deciding for everybody that they think that life in jail is less cruel than death. You also decided that if they are given a choice they will decide the way you decided for them to decide.

At no point have I decided the former; the latter is simple innate human psychology. Either way, it's irrelevant whether I "decided" either of these things, sincet I'm not forcing that decision on them the way you'd force yours on them by giving them the deathpenalty on the grounds that it's 'just as bad, really'.

Life in jail is no life at all.

Not only objectively incorrect (life is life... the quality of it is an entirely separate matter); but just your opinion and one that is irrelevant to whether or not people should be put to death. If you're concerned with the quality of life in prison, then the solution isn't to kill prisoners, but to make less awful prisons.

Jail is torture. The people in jail are being tortured every day.

Let's not be dramatic. If we're talking a western/northern-European prison, then inmates are most certainly NOT being tortured every day... or indeed any day. Our prisoners have their own rooms with television and game consoles. If you think that's torture, then you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you use the word.

You might be able to sleep at night with that on your conscience, but I have trouble doing that. I also have trouble with killing people. So if we have decided to remove people from the general population for good, then life in jail is as bad as death penalty IMHO.

Except for the part where you'd *force* death on someone who would rather go on living even if the rest of their lives are spent in prison. To exist is almost always better than to not exist. Even when life is nothing but pain with no hope of changing that, most people will still choose to keep living, because to not exist is worse. Contrary to your frankly baffling opinion, prison isn't torture. It isn't like "being constantly raped". Even prisoners laugh and experience joy. They don't have their freedom, and that's a sucky thing, but calling it torture is absurd. Unless you can guarantee (and you really, *really* can't) that a prisoner will never ever experience even one brief moment of happiness, you have no basis whatsoever to claim the death penalty is just as bad as life in jail.

You´re exploiting the fact that even the hopeless have hope. That is just being cruel. So I´m going with "no it isn´t" again.

No, I'm not. It has nothing to do with hope, and everything to do with most of us preferring to exist in whatever form we can get if the alternative is non-existence; even if we know with certainty that there is no hope for a bad situation to get any better. Even most of the hopeless will choose to keep on living.

It doesn´t take many years for a person in jail to be an empty husk of a man. Just crushed with zero self esteem.

Which isn't relevant to whether or not it's morally equivalent to just kill them. It isn't. Even someone with zero self esteem has a right to keep on living.

That´s what jail does. It destroys self-esteem and sense of self worth. Some are more resilient than others. But it´s just a matter of time.

And you know this how, exactly? There is no basis to declare this to be an absolute. Besides, once again, this is not an argument for the death penalty; it's an argument for building better prisons.

 

[TSwizzle]

Not sure if this one has been done already but what about the death penalty?

Who is in favour?

Why?

There are some cases (too many actually) where the death penalty is warranted so I'd be in favor of it. And quickly too. Stop fucking about and get the job done.

 

[credoconsolans]

Which would be relevant only if you could actually demonstrate that you're doing it for a valid reason instead of that it 'feels right' to you. I note that neither you, nor any other death penalty proponent in history, has actually managed to do so.

You claimed that my considering the death penalty justice was me making the sentence more 'palatable'. That sounds like what "feels right" to you.

Uh, did you forget the prison personnel? The danger they're in from these criminals?

If you knew a thing or two about basic inmate/guard psychology and the way prisons are run, you'd know that the inmates are actually in greater danger from the guards than the other way around. That said, the supposed and/or actual danger that prison staff are in is not in fact a counter-argument to what I said. Note that I included the statement; "maintaining your prisons properly". Danger to prison staff can absolutely be minimized if a society designs and maintains its prisons properly. It could even be reduced to exactly zero if we were to take extreme measures of the sort we probably don't want to take but which would still be a better option than *killing* people because you're too worried about prison staff getting hurt.

Actually my best friend's brother in law is a penal officer in Texas. I know quite a bit actually.

http://www.aca.org/ACA_PROD_IMIS/Do...Articles/November Articles/Research Notes.pdf

Prison sentences are sometimes the same.

Yes. Now find me a murderer who gets the same sentence for someone who stole a purse. Go, fetch.

As of 2010, Steven Russell, Texas Department of Criminal Justice #00760259,is located in the Polunsky Unit, on a 23-hour lockup, only having one free hour a day to shower and exercise to prevent him from escaping. His release date from prison is July 12, 2140.

That's 125 years in jail for fraud and prison breaks.

Compared with

On December 18, 2014, Bob Bashara was found guilty of the murder of his wife Jane with sentencing set for January 15, 2015. On January 15, 2015, Bob Bashara was sentenced to life without parole by Wayne County Circuit Court Judge, Vonda Evans. A few months later he returned on appeal and is now eligible for parole in 2019.

That's 5 years before he can be out on parole. For murder 1.

How is that reflecting that the crime is more heinous than armed robbery?

Which goes right back to that whole 'revenge' thing. Why does it matter if the sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime?

Why shouldn't it? Punishment should fit the crime shouldn't it? Or do you ground your teen for a month when s/he drops a cup but only give them a lecture when they vandalize the school and destroy $20,000 worth of property?

The purpose of criminal sentencing is to protect society, not punish criminals.

It's to do both, otherwise we'd be putting criminals up at the Hyatt Regency with room service.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

There is something to be said for retribution. Between it, rehabilitation, incapacity, and any of the other forms of dealing with criminals that have been tried, it's just as effective. It also gives society a certain visceral satisfaction and feeling of justice. And don't sell that short. It doesn't matter what society you live in, you do want a just society.

That said, I just can't favor it because it's so inefficient. If there were some way to know for sure, without any doubt, then fine; I'm for it. In striking a balance between the dignity of the killer and the dignity of the killed, the latter weighs far heavier. But we can't always know that. Of course, just like anyone else, the defendant is entitled to the appeals process. But once done, it shouldn't take so damn long.

So for now I'm against it. But if

1. We could know for sure; and if
2. It could be done relatively swiftly

Then I don't have much of a problem with it.

There's also the nagging feeling in the back of my mind that the death penalty makes for a more violent society, but I don't know how true that is. America is a violent fucking society in general and I don't think the abolishment of the death penalty would change anything.

 

[dystopian]

You claimed that my considering the death penalty justice was me making the sentence more 'palatable'. That sounds like what "feels right" to you.

You honestly think, that when we're talking about killing people; it's okay for you to respond to a demand for an objective reason to kill people, with a demand for an objective reason *not* to kill people? You think those are two equivalent demands? Really?

Actually my best friend's brother in law is a penal officer in Texas. I know quite a bit actually.

Oh yes, the "I know a guy who'se X so therefore I know what I'm talking about" argument. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. Arguments based on anecdotal evidence are useless.

http://www.aca.org/ACA_PROD_IMIS/Do...Articles/November Articles/Research Notes.pdf

Which doesn't actually run counter to anything I'm saying. According to a federally studied study from 2007 ( https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/220485.pdf ), the annual injury rate (including things like assault) for prison staff is a staggering 0.97 per 1000! Wait, that isn't staggering at all; that's actually well below average; which makes perfect sense when you consider the basic fact that prisons are highly controlled environments. You have a group of well-trained people, who are also armed and who exert almost absolute control over the people who are a 'threat' to them... *of course* they're going to be safer than the average individual who doesn't have the benefit of those factors protecting them.

Do correctional officers sometime die, sure? Is it a particularly dangerous job because of that? Hell no. It isn't. In 2004, there were a grand total of 5 deaths amongst correctional officers in the US. Which if we're going by fatalities, makes correctional officer a job just as lethal as: restaurant cooks, waitresses, barbers, fitness workers, and insurance agents; among others. ( http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi2004_a-3.pdf ) Oh yes, a truly dangerous occupation! Okay, so sure, 2004 was a particularly low number for prison staff fatalities, according to the list you gave. The highest though, was 19 fatalities in a year. Which is still well below regular private security guards at 67, groundskeepers at 37, housekeeping cleaners at 47, tree trimmers at 65, cashiers at 54, door to door salesmen at 22, carpenters at 111, and many other jobs. So really, not all that dangerous when you understand basic relative thinking.

As of 2010, Steven Russell, Texas Department of Criminal Justice #00760259,is located in the Polunsky Unit, on a 23-hour lockup, only having one free hour a day to shower and exercise to prevent him from escaping. His release date from prison is July 12, 2140.

That's 125 years in jail for fraud and prison breaks.

On December 18, 2014, Bob Bashara was found guilty of the murder of his wife Jane with sentencing set for January 15, 2015. On January 15, 2015, Bob Bashara was sentenced to life without parole by Wayne County Circuit Court Judge, Vonda Evans. A few months later he returned on appeal and is now eligible for parole in 2019.

That's 5 years before he can be out on parole. For murder 1.

First of all, I asked for someone getting the same sentence for stealing a *purse* as someone else does for murder... which this isnt. Secondly, I am honestly impressed that you would think finding someone getting a ridiculously high sentence for fraud and comparing it to someone who actually got a life sentence for murder but who'se eligible for parole after five years (One should note that being eligible for parole and GETTING parole are two different things, btw) is somehow an argument for the death penalty on the grounds that we're equating a heinous crime with a non-heinous crime...

...your original argument was that we cheapen the lives of victims by treating their murders as no more important than property crime. Which I rejected. You then returned with insisting on the same claim on the grounds that prison sentences are sometimes the same. Again, I rejected this. Now, instead of responding with an example of a murderer getting an extremely low sentence equivalent to that of snatching a purse... you respond with a con-artist getting an extremely high sentence, and then confuse the matter even more by listing the example of someone with a life sentence being eligible (which again, isn't the fucking same as actually getting it) for parole after a sentence that is by no means as short as that of snatching a purse. Con artists getting absurdly high sentences does not present an argument for the death penalty.

Why shouldn't it? Punishment should fit the crime shouldn't it?

See, there you go. "Punishment". Prison's purpose isn't to punish people. It's to protect people from criminals and revalidate them If you live in a society that treats prisons as a form of punishment, then you really don't get to complain about prisoners responding accordingly and they go right back to criminal enterprises when they get out.

It's to do both, otherwise we'd be putting criminals up at the Hyatt Regency with room service.

Nonsense. Prisons not being about punishment doesn't imply we should therefore put them up in a luxury hotel. Although I imagine you would characterize European prisons as exactly that.

 

[credoconsolans]

You honestly think, that when we're talking about killing people; it's okay for you to respond to a demand for an objective reason to kill people, with a demand for an objective reason *not* to kill people? You think those are two equivalent demands? Really?

Here's one word: warfare
Here's another one: self-defense

You were saying?

Actually my best friend's brother in law is a penal officer in Texas. I know quite a bit actually.

Oh yes, the "I know a guy who'se X so therefore I know what I'm talking about" argument. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. Arguments based on anecdotal evidence are useless.

Sorry, you said "If you knew a thing or two about basic inmate/guard psychology and the way prisons are run..." And I do. I actually know someone who works in the system and you don't. So my POV has some more real life experience. So you shouldn't be trying to discount what I say.

http://www.aca.org/ACA_PROD_IMIS/Do...Articles/November Articles/Research Notes.pdf

Which doesn't actually run counter to anything I'm saying.

Yeah it does. Basically, prisoners are a danger to their guards. Period.

Is it a particularly dangerous job because of that?

Don't deflect. That wasn't the argument.

As of 2010, Steven Russell, Texas Department of Criminal Justice #00760259,is located in the Polunsky Unit, on a 23-hour lockup, only having one free hour a day to shower and exercise to prevent him from escaping. His release date from prison is July 12, 2140.

That's 125 years in jail for fraud and prison breaks.

On December 18, 2014, Bob Bashara was found guilty of the murder of his wife Jane with sentencing set for January 15, 2015. On January 15, 2015, Bob Bashara was sentenced to life without parole by Wayne County Circuit Court Judge, Vonda Evans. A few months later he returned on appeal and is now eligible for parole in 2019.

That's 5 years before he can be out on parole. For murder 1.

First of all, I asked for someone getting the same sentence for stealing a *purse* as someone else does for murder...

Now, now, don't be mad because I blew your argument out of the water, just admit you were wrong.

...your original argument was that we cheapen the lives of victims by treating their murders as no more important than property crime. Which I rejected.

And I've just given you examples where a murdered woman's life is worth about 5 years in prison, compared to fraud and escape attempts which brought about a 125 year sentence.

Why shouldn't it? Punishment should fit the crime shouldn't it?

See, there you go. "Punishment". Prison's purpose isn't to punish people. It's to protect people from criminals and revalidate them If you live in a society that treats prisons as a form of punishment, then you really don't get to complain about prisoners responding accordingly and they go right back to criminal enterprises when they get out.

It's to do both, otherwise we'd be putting criminals up at the Hyatt Regency with room service.

Nonsense. Prisons not being about punishment doesn't imply we should therefore put them up in a luxury hotel. Although I imagine you would characterize European prisons as exactly that.

So you're FOR putting murderers up at fancy hotels? I mean, if it's not about punishment... right? Go ahead, agree, if you want to support your own claim that it's not about punishment.

I'm waiting.

 

[dystopian]

Here's one word: warfare

Which has fuck-all to do with what we're talking about.

Here's another one: self-defense

Which also, has fuck-all with what we're talking about.

Prisons aren't a field of war, and killing someone who'se already behind bars isn't self-defense.

Sorry, you said "If you knew a thing or two about basic inmate/guard psychology and the way prisons are run..." And I do.

No, you just think you do because you know a guy. Which is about as convincing as someone claiming to understand brain surgery because they know a surgeon.

I actually know someone who works in the system and you don't. So my POV has some more real life experience. So you shouldn't be trying to discount what I say.

First off, when did you establish I don't know someone who works in the system? I could know a dozen such people and you wouldn't have any way of knowing. Not that it matters whether I or you do; see point three below.

Secondly, *your* point of view does *not* have more real life experience; the point of view of the person you know does.

Thirdly, you're still trying to push anecdotal evidence, which doesn't impress anyone.

Yeah it does. Basically, prisoners are a danger to their guards. Period.

Except for the part where EVERY job has an element of danger. The link you provided does nothing to suggest that being a prison guard is inherently more dangerous than other jobs

Don't deflect. That wasn't the argument.

You made a pro-death penalty argument on the basis of prisoners being a danger to prison guards. You don't get to claim I'm "deflecting" when I point out that being a prison guard is statistically a lot safer than a fuck-tonne of other jobs. Any argument that is based on the dangers of a job falls apart when it's shown that said job is not, in fact, all that dangerous. You're asking us to be okay with killing people on the off-chance that they MIGHT hurt a prison guard: which wouldn't be a morally agreeable thing even if the chances of them doing so were almost a certainty; but in fact the chances of it happening are so low as to be statistically trivial. How about we *not* kill people on the basis of danger posed to prison guards when being a prison guard is about as likely to get you killed as being a fucking insurance agent?

Now, now, don't be mad because I blew your argument out of the water, just admit you were wrong.

You couldn't provide what I actually *asked* for; how exactly did you 'blow' *anything* out of the water? You presented something that in no shape or form represent even remotely what I asked for; and which isn't even an example of what you think it is.

And I've just given you examples where a murdered woman's life is worth about 5 years in prison, compared to fraud and escape attempts which brought about a 125 year sentence.

No, you didn't. You gave an example where someone was given a life sentence for murder, which you've somehow mentally reduced to five years on the sole basis of the murderer being eligible for parole after serving five years of said sentence. I already explained to you that being eligible for parole is not the fucking same as getting it. Even if he does actually get it, how does this demonstrate that not having the death penalty means society doesn't treat murder as more heinous as property crime? You just presented a comparison of a society *WITH* the deathpenalty not doing so. So... how exactly would repealing the death penalty change anything? You're shooting yourself in the foot with this argument.

Nonsense. Prisons not being about punishment doesn't imply we should therefore put them up in a luxury hotel. Although I imagine you would characterize European prisons as exactly that.

So you're FOR putting murderers up at fancy hotels?

So, I explicitly tell you that "prisons not being about punish doesn't imply we should therefore put them up in a luxury hotel.... and you somehow interpret this to mean that I'm for putting them up at fancy hotels?

How did your brain actually learn human language? I'm seriously curious.

 

[DrZoidberg]

At no point have I decided the former; the latter is simple innate human psychology. Either way, it's irrelevant whether I "decided" either of these things, sincet I'm not forcing that decision on them the way you'd force yours on them by giving them the deathpenalty on the grounds that it's 'just as bad, really'.

I apologise. It had completely slipped my mind that you are the grand authority on "innate human psychology". Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Life in jail is no life at all.

Not only objectively incorrect (life is life... the quality of it is an entirely separate matter); but just your opinion and one that is irrelevant to whether or not people should be put to death. If you're concerned with the quality of life in prison, then the solution isn't to kill prisoners, but to make less awful prisons.

I don´t think it´s possible. It´s the lack of freedom that kills the soul. Even if they´d get to sleep in bouncy castles with candid sugar for breakfast and and strippers every night it´s still not life. Humans need freedom to thrive. Not a lot of freedom. Just a little. Even if it´s just the option to say "fuck it" and walk away. But prisons give no freedom at all. It kills the soul and destroys what is human in the human.

Jail is torture. The people in jail are being tortured every day.

Let's not be dramatic. If we're talking a western/northern-European prison, then inmates are most certainly NOT being tortured every day... or indeed any day. Our prisoners have their own rooms with television and game consoles. If you think that's torture, then you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you use the word.

It´s torture. the lack of freedom destroys the mind and the soul. There´s no way to polish that turd enough to make it something other than torture. The fact that there are degrees of torture, doesn´t make this less torture. Prisons fosters the idea that a person is competely impotent in every way.

You might be able to sleep at night with that on your conscience, but I have trouble doing that. I also have trouble with killing people. So if we have decided to remove people from the general population for good, then life in jail is as bad as death penalty IMHO.

Except for the part where you'd *force* death on someone who would rather go on living even if the rest of their lives are spent in prison. To exist is almost always better than to not exist. Even when life is nothing but pain with no hope of changing that, most people will still choose to keep living, because to not exist is worse. Contrary to your frankly baffling opinion, prison isn't torture. It isn't like "being constantly raped". Even prisoners laugh and experience joy. They don't have their freedom, and that's a sucky thing, but calling it torture is absurd. Unless you can guarantee (and you really, *really* can't) that a prisoner will never ever experience even one brief moment of happiness, you have no basis whatsoever to claim the death penalty is just as bad as life in jail.

Ok, fine, then I´m absurd. As if people who are dead don´t suffer any more, is an argument for anything. What annoys me is that prison is seen as "the humane option". It´s just as fucking barbarous as execution, and I´ll have none of it. At least the death penalty wastes peoples time minimally.

Let´s agree to disagree.

You´re exploiting the fact that even the hopeless have hope. That is just being cruel. So I´m going with "no it isn´t" again.

No, I'm not. It has nothing to do with hope, and everything to do with most of us preferring to exist in whatever form we can get if the alternative is non-existence; even if we know with certainty that there is no hope for a bad situation to get any better. Even most of the hopeless will choose to keep on living.

There´s a time and place to get all philosophical. This aint´t one of them. We´re talking about psychological impacts here. There´s nothing rational about human feelings. Philosophy is not going to help you understand this situation.

It doesn´t take many years for a person in jail to be an empty husk of a man. Just crushed with zero self esteem.

Which isn't relevant to whether or not it's morally equivalent to just kill them. It isn't. Even someone with zero self esteem has a right to keep on living.

You´re talking like a guy who just poured acid all over a woman who rejected him "hey, I spared her life. Now I´m the bad guy here?" It´s nuts.

That´s what jail does. It destroys self-esteem and sense of self worth. Some are more resilient than others. But it´s just a matter of time.

And you know this how, exactly? There is no basis to declare this to be an absolute. Besides, once again, this is not an argument for the death penalty; it's an argument for building better prisons.

I´ve had the opportunity to learn.

 

[Tigers!]

I'm for it.

The problems with mistakes should be covered in my opinion by long appeals processes which I am also in favor of.

I don't see it as a deterrent. It's basically to take someone guilty of heinous crimes out of society. Permanently.

+1

 

[Cerberus]

Provided the evidence is incontrovertible - and with cctv evidence and today's forensics it's perfectly possible to arrive at that conclusion - then I have no problem with it at all. In fact where convicted paedophiles are concerned I'd do the deed myself, because it's the one and only way to ensure they'll never ever violate another child. On the other hand, I'd be willing to compromise by confining convicted killers/child abusers in solitary on a basic diet, and a cyanide tablet always within reach so they can repent in their own time and by their own hand.