The Death Penalty

[Cerberus]

Your posts, yours and Cerberus', speak volumes about each of you; incomplete perhaps, but still vo-o-olumes.

Perhaps. I'd be curious to hear what you think it says about me; assuming it would actually be an objective analysis instead of passive aggressive projecting.

From what we've both said, I reckon it makes you a bleeding-heart liberal, and me a right-wing nutter? The difference is that my dogma will get things done to resolve problems whereas yours won't. For instance, a dead paedophile will never violate another child. I get the impression you haven't taken that into consideration.

 

[dystopian]

The difference is that my dogma will get things done to resolve problems whereas yours won't.

Sick burn yo. Right on par with 'I'm right and you're not, nenenenenene'

For instance, a dead paedophile will never violate another child. I get the impression you haven't taken that into consideration.

I've already addressed essentially that same argument previously in the thread; so I get the impression you haven't actually bothered to read the thread.

 

[dystopian]

Perhaps. I'd be curious to hear what you think it says about me; assuming it would actually be an objective analysis instead of passive aggressive projecting.

Sorry. You could not afford my extortionate fee for my expert opinion and I suspect you would not value it, sufficiently enough to satisfy my unreasonable ego, if I made you a present of it,

I didn't realize my insurance wouldn't cover this. I'll have to take my business elsewhere.

 

[Togo]

But putting all that aside for a moment, how would you feel if your child were to be murdered or violated by an escaped or paroled prisoner?

Batshit crazy. I'd want to kill the person who did it, the people who didn't stop him, and burn down most of the district in which he lived. I wouldn't want to rest until my hands were drenched in blood.

Now, as I understand it, you're arguing that this desire for revenge killing is not only ok, but laudable, and socially useful, but that the government should have a monopoly on it. Can you possibly explain why? Surely everything you've written about the death penalty would apply equally well to revenge killing, family vendettas and crimes in the heat of passion. Am I actually entitled to shoot the cheating bitch? Assuming not, for what reason are you drawing a line.*

(*We could argue for ages about where to draw the line, but I'm more interested in why you feel the line should be drawn at a particular point.)

Is there not something hypocritical about asking people to refrain from killing each other when they feel they have good reason, but allowing the state to do exactly that?

 

[4321lynx]

6 to 21. Not many of us left Cerberus. But it helps that we are unquestionably right.

 

[Cerberus]

Sick burn yo. Right on par with 'I'm right and you're not, nenenenenene'

For instance, a dead paedophile will never violate another child. I get the impression you haven't taken that into consideration.

I've already addressed essentially that same argument previously in the thread; so I get the impression you haven't actually bothered to read the thread.

Well I did read it, but you addressed it by advocating the prison option, thereby risking murderers re-offending (and for the benefit of lynx4321, I'm talking psycho/mad dog murderers here - juries are for sorting out the various mitigating circumstances in individual instances), and paedophiles living another day to violate more children. My way ensures that will not/cannot happen.

 

[Togo]

The difference is that my dogma will get things done to resolve problems whereas yours won't. For instance, a dead paedophile will never violate another child. I get the impression you haven't taken that into consideration.

Hm.. Your way greatly increases the chances of the criminal not being convicted in the first place, reduces the chances of witnesses coming forward to help convict said criminal, makes it easier for said criminal to escape prosecution abroad, and generally reduces the chances of criminals being removed from society in the first place.

Or to put it in what might be more familiar terms for you, I have a problem with you putting your desire for revenge above the safety of children, and thus regard your position as immoral.

 

[Cerberus]

The difference is that my dogma will get things done to resolve problems whereas yours won't. For instance, a dead paedophile will never violate another child. I get the impression you haven't taken that into consideration.

Hm.. Your way greatly increases the chances of the criminal not being convicted in the first place, reduces the chances of witnesses coming forward to help convict said criminal, makes it easier for said criminal to escape prosecution abroad, and generally reduces the chances of criminals being removed from society in the first place.

Or to put it in what might be more familiar terms for you, I have a problem with you putting your desire for revenge above the safety of children, and thus regard your position as immoral.

So - have you any thoughts of your own which would justify the means to bring about the desired ends? It sounds to me as if you'd leave the criminals free to go on as they please. As to my 'desire for revenge' - if some psycho scumbag killed or abused into traumatisation one of my kids you can bet your bottom dollar I'd want revenge. Wouldn't you??

 

[dystopian]

Well I did read it, but you addressed it by advocating the prison option, thereby risking murderers re-offending (and for the benefit of lynx4321, I'm talking psycho/mad dog murderers here - juries are for sorting out the various mitigating circumstances in individual instances), and paedophiles living another day to violate more children. My way ensures that will not/cannot happen.

So long as one properly funds and maintains one's prisons and allows for true life sentences, the risk is minimal. It is easily small enough to tip the cost/benefit ratio to imprisonment over execution. Beyond that, it is not acceptable to kill people on the basis of what they *might* do; which is what you're advocating. Doing so presents an incredibly slippery slope; leading us to some very dark and dangerous places as a society. Once you've decided that it's okay to kill someone because they *might* kill or rape someone, it's only a small step to apply that same reasoning to people who have never committed any crimes whatsoever, or whose crimes are trivially small. Why not kill the person who talks about having certain fantasies with his psychologist, even though he has never acted on them? Why not kill the alcoholic because he might one day get behind the wheel and end up killing someone? There's no end in sight. If you're willing to kill one person based on the possibility of them causing harm in the future, you should be willing to kill everyone on that basis.

Fortunately, legal systems in the developed world do not allow us to punish people for crimes they haven't actually committed yet and might never commit at all.

 

[Togo]

Hm.. Your way greatly increases the chances of the criminal not being convicted in the first place, reduces the chances of witnesses coming forward to help convict said criminal, makes it easier for said criminal to escape prosecution abroad, and generally reduces the chances of criminals being removed from society in the first place.

Or to put it in what might be more familiar terms for you, I have a problem with you putting your desire for revenge above the safety of children, and thus regard your position as immoral.

So - have you any thoughts of your own which would justify the means to bring about the desired ends? It sounds to me as if you'd leave the criminals free to go on as they please.

The you haven't attempted to understand my position. What I'm saying is that your position leaves more criminals free to reoffend than the existing system, by depressing the arrest and conviction rate. You're the one who is advocating criminals going free.

As to my 'desire for revenge' - if some psycho scumbag killed or abused into traumatisation one of my kids you can bet your bottom dollar I'd want revenge. Wouldn't you??

Absolutely. I also regularly want revenge against traffic wardens, unhelpful call centre staff, and People Who Are Wrong On the Internet*. I wouldn't say no to a small quiet room with me, Justin Bieber and a baseball bat. Fortunately I live in a comparatively civilised society, where wanting something is in now way a justification for being given it.

A great many murders are committed for what seems like good reasons at the time. ~If your partner cheats on you, homicidal desires are quite common. I don't support the idea that people should able to shoot their girl/boyfriends because the cheating bitch/bastard deserved it. Do you? Assuming you wouldn't support that, how is wanting revenge on a criminal any different?

(*Yes, this is an XKCD reference)

 

[4321lynx]

Sick burn yo. Right on par with 'I'm right and you're not, nenenenenene'




I've already addressed essentially that same argument previously in the thread; so I get the impression you haven't actually bothered to read the thread.

Well I did read it, but you addressed it by advocating the prison option, thereby risking murderers re-offending (and for the benefit of lynx4321, I'm talking psycho/mad dog murderers here - juries are for sorting out the various mitigating circumstances in individual instances), and paedophiles living another day to violate more children. My way ensures that will not/cannot happen.

I am in agreement with you and was not being sarcastic. (see post 8 in this thread). I would impose the death penalty in cases of paedophiles raping minors and/or kidnapping without rape, only if these resulted in the child's death, in the hope it would encourage these revolting but unfortunate perverts to leave the child alive. (Unfortunate perverts in that they are incurable).
And, to forestall the usual picky-pickers on this forum and thread, no, I would not aloow the death penalty in cases of family kidnapping in custody disputes etc, unless those, too, resulted in the child's death.

 

[4321lynx]

Well I did read it, but you addressed it by advocating the prison option, thereby risking murderers re-offending (and for the benefit of lynx4321, I'm talking psycho/mad dog murderers here - juries are for sorting out the various mitigating circumstances in individual instances), and paedophiles living another day to violate more children. My way ensures that will not/cannot happen.

So long as one properly funds and maintains one's prisons and allows for true life sentences, the risk is minimal. It is easily small enough to tip the cost/benefit ratio to imprisonment over execution. Beyond that, it is not acceptable to kill people on the basis of what they *might* do; which is what you're advocating. Doing so presents an incredibly slippery slope; leading us to some very dark and dangerous places as a society. Once you've decided that it's okay to kill someone because they *might* kill or rape someone, it's only a small step to apply that same reasoning to people who have never committed any crimes whatsoever, or whose crimes are trivially small. Why not kill the person who talks about having certain fantasies with his psychologist, even though he has never acted on them? Why not kill the alcoholic because he might one day get behind the wheel and end up killing someone? There's no end in sight. If you're willing to kill one person based on the possibility of them causing harm in the future, you should be willing to kill everyone on that basis.

Fortunately, legal systems in the developed world do not allow us to punish people for crimes they haven't actually committed yet and might never commit at all.

The developed world has no, or little, problem with killing the religion-perverted repulsive madmen of Isis ,Al Queda, Taliban. And this even though at times it involves killing their women and children, and other luckless "collateral damage" innocent individuals. Morally this is a much worse result than executing incurably murderous child rapists IMO. Now I expect a lot of hot air from various individuals here about wars, "normal" or assymmetric, being completely different from the scenario here. To this I say BS. The ethical/moral result of dead humans is identical in both cases, and the moral result much worse in our struggle with the perverters of Islam.

Now bring on the picky-pickers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As to my 'desire for revenge' - if some psycho scumbag killed or abused into traumatisation one of my kids you can bet your bottom dollar I'd want revenge. Wouldn't you??

Would it be just as instructive to imagine that some psycho scumbag killed MY kid, and framed YOUR kid for the crime?
If your innocent child/brother/aunt/self was quite carefully framed, would you be as supportive of MY need for revenge?

 

[dystopian]

The developed world has no, or little, problem with killing the religion-perverted repulsive madmen of Isis ,Al Queda, Taliban.

Correction; *some* of the developed world has little problem with that.

And this even though at times it involves killing their women and children, and other luckless "collateral damage" innocent individuals. Morally this is a much worse result than executing incurably murderous child rapists IMO. Now I expect a lot of hot air from various individuals here about wars, "normal" or assymmetric, being completely different from the scenario here. To this I say BS. The ethical/moral result of dead humans is identical in both cases, and the moral result much worse in our struggle with the perverters of Islam.

I don't particularly disagree. I'm not sure why you're expecting me to defend wars and the collatoral damage they cause. I *am* puzzled however as to why this is at all relevant to the question of whether we should execute criminals.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[dystopian]

I also regularly want revenge against traffic wardens, unhelpful call centre staff, and People Who Are Wrong On the Internet*.

Man, fuck those guys.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Notwithstanding the point I made a few posts back (that with cctv and forensics it is possible to prove beyond any doubt the guilt of someone?), I submit that in the unlikely event there is the slightest doubt of guilt, then the death penalty should not be carried out. Trouble with the custodial option, though, is that a convicted offender could escape and kill, or rape a child, again. This makes me wonder: if it were possible to foresee it, would someone who's against capital punishment in all circumstances now change their mind knowing that this notional escapee is fated to commit an identical crime against a member of their own family?

The imperfections to the system are not necessarily limited to proving a person committed the deed, but it was already factored into my considerations that there are existent cases where I would not feel too conflicted about the death penalty. It's not a thing of malice, hatred or contempt so much as expedience. There is a certain bizarreness to keeping a human alive like a bird in a cage until they die. But as I stated, I don't think there is appreciable benefit to a large, industrialized country such as where I live. Is there hypothetical potential for a criminal to escape and reoffend? I suppose, but the number of people who would qualify for the death penalty would be rather low to begin with, and that same threshold could be used to set higher security restrictions on certain prisoners. That may already be (more or less) the case with certain prisoners in Canada who are not likely to ever see freedom again in their life times. Paul Bernardo, I believe, is an example of this.

This makes me wonder: if it were possible to foresee it, would someone who's against capital punishment in all circumstances now change their mind knowing that this notional escapee is fated to commit an identical crime against a member of their own family?

I would not. I might kill that person myself, but I'd expect to go to jail for it. While I place my family above all else, society is tasked with preserving social order as well as protecting its citizens. It's a balancing act. The extreme and emotionally motivated lengths I'd go to for my family are not a good basis for law. The state being permitted to execute people is of greater concern to me than a fringe event where a person who would have been executed for violent crimes escapes incarceration instead and reoffends. To be honest, I don't know if the death penalty really resolves that concern much. If it was me, I'd probably be more motivated to escape if I knew I was going to be executed; I supposed I'd just have years to do it rather than decades. But now I'm getting silly with speculation. It's enough to say this is not a pressing concern for me in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Cerberus]

As to my 'desire for revenge' - if some psycho scumbag killed or abused into traumatisation one of my kids you can bet your bottom dollar I'd want revenge. Wouldn't you??

Would it be just as instructive to imagine that some psycho scumbag killed MY kid, and framed YOUR kid for the crime?
If your innocent child/brother/aunt/self was quite carefully framed, would you be as supportive of MY need for revenge?

Well in that (highly unlikely - I mean seriously, what are the chances of that?? ) case there would be an element of doubt, wouldn't there, so I'm not quite sure what the salient point is?

 

[Cerberus]

[I am in agreement with you and was not being sarcastic. (see post 8 in this thread). I would impose the death penalty in cases of paedophiles raping minors and/or kidnapping without rape, only if these resulted in the child's death, in the hope it would encourage these revolting but unfortunate perverts to leave the child alive. (Unfortunate perverts in that they are incurable).
And, to forestall the usual picky-pickers on this forum and thread, no, I would not aloow the death penalty in cases of family kidnapping in custody disputes etc, unless those, too, resulted in the child's death.

Sorry lynx but your post viz. '6 to 21. Not many of us left Cerberus. But it helps that we are unquestionably right.' was so succinct I mistook it as being facetious. It happens on messageboards sometimes doesn't it.

 

[Togo]

Trouble with the custodial option, though, is that a convicted offender could escape and kill, or rape a child, again. This makes me wonder: if it were possible to foresee it, would someone who's against capital punishment in all circumstances now change their mind knowing that this notional escapee is fated to commit an identical crime against a member of their own family?

No, of course not. Because the notional escapee could as easily escape from Death Row as from Life Imprisonment. Given that the time spent on Death Row is measured in decades, the chances of escape are almost equal.

Now let's ask the same question the other way around. Let's say a guy who murdered someone. But during the trial the threat of the death penalty means that two witnesses don't come forward and the jury narrowly votes to acquit (because if you're killing someone, you want to be darned sure). So now he's free, because locking him up wasn't enough to satisfy your desire for revenge. If he was fated to kill a member of your family, would that enough to change your mind about the death penalty?

 

[Cerberus]

Trouble with the custodial option, though, is that a convicted offender could escape and kill, or rape a child, again. This makes me wonder: if it were possible to foresee it, would someone who's against capital punishment in all circumstances now change their mind knowing that this notional escapee is fated to commit an identical crime against a member of their own family?

No, of course not. Because the notional escapee could as easily escape from Death Row as from Life Imprisonment. Given that the time spent on Death Row is measured in decades, the chances of escape are almost equal.

Now let's ask the same question the other way around. Let's say a guy who murdered someone. But during the trial the threat of the death penalty means that two witnesses don't come forward and the jury narrowly votes to acquit (because if you're killing someone, you want to be darned sure). So now he's free, because locking him up wasn't enough to satisfy your desire for revenge. If he was fated to kill a member of your family, would that enough to change your mind about the death penalty?

If the jury wrongly or perversely acquits him then that's that. But with your logic he could be free to murder again anyway, whereas with mine he wouldn't be, therefore it doesn't alter my way of thinking.