Time To Get Rid Of The Death Penalty, Worldwide

[Wiploc]

I find it shocking that some countries still implement the death penalty. These are my reasons for objecting to it-

1) It's barbaric.

2) It's uncivilised.

3) The state should never have the power of life or death over it citizens.

4) It gives perpetrators of crime no actual punishment, ie, 30 years in a prison with a tough regime and time to reflect on what they have done.

7) Humans should have enough empathy with and compassion for another human being that would make killing one unthinkable.

8) In the US relatives of the victim watch on as the perpetrator is put to death. Whats that about? Its just nauseating.

In my view the death penalty shows a real lack of compassion and humanity in a society.

The above arguments do not move me.

6) It's just revenge.

I'm sympathetic to this, but it isn't quite true. The four purposes of punishment are rehabilitation (so you won't choose to do the crime again after release), isolation (so you can't do the crime again while being punished), deterrence (so others will refrain from crime because you are punished), and revenge.

The first three are proper goals, even if rehabilitation and deterrence arguably don't work in practice.

Revenge is not a proper use of government.

Execution isn't just revenge. It is also isolation. The dead cannot commit more crimes.

5) Miscarriages of justice will happen.

This is dispositive. A trial is a coin flip.

To the extent that justice comes out of the courts, it comes in this form: People who don't do many bad things probably wont get arrested again, even if they are falsely convicted this time. People who do lots of bad things probably will be arrested again, even if they are wrongly acquitted this time.

That tendency to eventual justice cannot work out if we execute people.

I've seen too many bad judges to think that the courts should have the big gun.

 

[gmbteach]

Are.prisoners given the.choice? Spending the rest of your life in solitary confinement or death.... I bet some would prefer death.

I see someone didn't read the thread. Even if some prefer death over solitary confinement; it doesn't *matter* since there's absolutely no reason why solitary confinement is necessary to begin with. There are plenty of ways to physically isolate a prisoner (to prevent harm) without solitary confinement and the psychological damage that does. So the whole "maybe some would prefer death over solitary confinement" thing is a complete non-argument.

So you are condoning putting a violent man, who is possibly addicted to killing, into a system where he is allowed to roam free amongst others and to be allowed to kill again and again, and still not be permanently removed from his peers?

- - - Updated - - -

To which I would add, prisoners should have the option to commit suicide just like everybody else. Nothing about opposing the death penalty means we have to keep people from killing themselves.

So what about those people who choose to accept the death penalty? Technically, aren't they committing suicide by the hands of another?

I take it you are opposed to euthanasia as well then.

 

[gmbteach]

Much of the reason prisoners do to like being I prisoner is the retributivist attitude that we must make it suck to be a criminal.

Of course we make it suck to be a criminal. Otherwise we would have people doing whatever they wanted with no retribution.

Punishment doesn't serve any public interest other than as one tool among many in the correction of bad behavior.

It is a deterrent.

If the behavior can't be corrected, it should be up to them as to whether they want to leave our country,

and be someone else's problem?

die,

execution or euthanasia?

be experimented on (to find ways to correct it),

I like this one

or be interned in an 'alternative community' where they present a danger only to other such persons but are provided an acceptable ability to have a reasonably high standard of living.

isn't that prison, which you call a punishment?

If they reject those perfectly reasonable options, then why shouldn't we execute them?

FINALLY!!!

 

[gmbteach]

If you're talking about assisting somebody who wants to die, I have no problem with that. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're saying. There is no positive benefit to killing criminals over incarcerating them. In some cases, there is no downside to killing them. Common sense says we should pick the option with the least risk of harming innocent people.

But you don't want to remove them permanently? Allowing them to live, even in prison, allows them the opportunity to commit a crime - even in prison.

 

[gmbteach]

The death penalty is not expensive because of how we kill people (thus putting the lie to Jarhyn's ignorant "gram of heroin" suggestion). The death penalty is expensive because we take an insane amount of precautions to be sure we're not doing something very, very bad. Even given those measures, we still occasionally do something very, very bad.

How would you suggest we make it the cheaper option?

Assume you don't know ahead of time that the person is 100% guilty and utterly incapable of rehabilitation. What's the bargain method for making that judgement?

Instead of using it as punishment, use it as toxic waste disposal. Generally that means someone chooses it themselves, through consent or action which is clearly communicated as being consent at the far end of an escalation of force. Choose how you want to be treated: rehabilitation through education? Exile to a separate community where you will have a roof, and food and are expected to do what work you can find there? Asylum in a foreign country? Rehabilitation through chemical or surgical means? Or death? If we can't educate you, choose again! If you are tired of exile, retry education! If it still doesn't work, see if anyone else wants you, or see if we can go under the hood to fix the problem. And if you try to circimvent the walls, or the system, then you choose death. No long waits, no appeals. Just disposal.

You're not actually advocating the death penalty, then. You're just saying, we're going to lock you up and give you the chance for rehabilitation, but if you try to escape, you'll be shot. We do that anyway!

Actually, he is not, he is making the same point I made, which is, once all other options are exhausted, then execution is an answer.

 

[fast]

Edited out

 

[Wiploc]

I would want revenge, but revenge is mine; the state applies justice which is quite different. It is not for the state to dispense revenge on my behalf.

Bingo!

 

[Jarhyn]

make no mistake that I think you are retributivist scum.
As Is any 'justice', retributionist or revngeist piece of shit.

If you can't connect an intended action from an intended outcome, you shouldn't suggest Any such action. Ever.

 

[DBT]

Are.prisoners given the.choice? Spending the rest of your life in solitary confinement or death.... I bet some would prefer death.

That's their decision to make. Suicide is an option. It's not what the offender has done, or what is likely to do, but how we conduct ourselves. If it is considered unethical for the individual to execute someone because of what they've done, it cannot be considered ethical for the state to carry out an act of execution.

 

[dystopian]

It is a deterrent.

No, it isn't. The statistics of death-penalty states/countries and their murder rates versus those of states/countries without the death-penalty demonstrates that the death penalty does NOT serve as a sufficient deterrence. We find a similar outcome with harsh penalties for lesser crimes; the severity of the potential punishment in no way serves to deter would-be criminals. People's guts tell them that it'd be a good deterrence, but the facts suggest otherwise.

be experimented on (to find ways to correct it),

I like this one

Holy shit. You realize that experimenting on prisoners is one of the worst violations of universal human rights possible, right? It's considered a crime against humanity to experiment on people without their informed consent, especially so on people who have no means to resist or refuse, and have a reduced capacity to protest (such as prisoners). You should realize that when you say you 'like' the idea of experimenting on prisoners, you find yourself in the company of guys like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK-ULTRA

In other words: fuck the hell off and take your barbaric ideas back to the past.

 

[dystopian]

So you are condoning putting a violent man, who is possibly addicted to killing, into a system where he is allowed to roam free amongst others and to be allowed to kill again and again, and still not be permanently removed from his peers?

Learn to fucking read. I said: There are plenty of ways to physically isolate a prisoner (to prevent harm) without solitary confinement. How the hell do you go from me saying there are ways to physically isolate someone to assuming I condone letting him roam free among others?

 

[gmbteach]

So you are condoning putting a violent man, who is possibly addicted to killing, into a system where he is allowed to roam free amongst others and to be allowed to kill again and again, and still not be permanently removed from his peers?

Learn to fucking read. I said: There are plenty of ways to physically isolate a prisoner (to prevent harm) without solitary confinement. How the hell do you go from me saying there are ways to physically isolate someone to assuming I condone letting him roam free among others?

I would be really interested to learn how you could 'physically isolate a prisoner without solitary confinement'. Please enlighten me.

 

[gmbteach]

Holy shit. You realize that experimenting on prisoners is one of the worst violations of universal human rights possible, right? It's considered a crime against humanity to experiment on people without their informed consent, especially so on people who have no means to resist or refuse, and have a reduced capacity to protest (such as prisoners). You should realize that when you say you 'like' the idea of experimenting on prisoners, you find yourself in the company of guys like these:

In other words: fuck the hell off and take your barbaric ideas back to the past.

I have highlighted very important words here.

Yes, to experiment on humans without consent is barbaric. You have taken what I said out of context and without full knowledge of my complete thought. I certainly didn't say the prisoner would not have any choice in the manner. My mistake, I didn't expand fully on my opinion.

However, say a prisoner was in for the term of his natural life and suffered from something such as diabetes. Why couldn't they volunteer to assist in medical research, provided they gave consent, of course.

To call me a barbarian? Sir, you do not know me and you are making that assumption based on a snippet of a remark to a comment made.

 

[dystopian]

I would be really interested to learn how you could 'physically isolate a prisoner without solitary confinement'. Please enlighten me.

You really can't come up with a way to do this yourself? There's a wide range of ways to do it.

For example; put them in a clear unbreakable plexiglass cell that allows for verbal communication with those outside of it. To give them privacy, treat the cell with a smartglass layer that allows for prisoner controlled manipulation of the cell's transparency. This physically isolates the prisoner without depriving him of social interaction with other people.

Another way to do it is to, like with solitary confinement, keep him in a cell 24/7; but allow him phone/internet access while within the cell. Now that VR technology is finally becoming viable, you can even give him access to that and interact with others through a virtual environment.

These are just off the top of my head; you could've easily come up with these solutions yourself if you'd given it a few minutes of thought.

I have highlighted very important words here.

Yes, to experiment on humans without consent is barbaric. You have taken what I said out of context and without full knowledge of my complete thought. I certainly didn't say the prisoner would not have any choice in the manner. My mistake, I didn't expand fully on my opinion.

However, say a prisoner was in for the term of his natural life and suffered from something such as diabetes. Why couldn't they volunteer to assist in medical research, provided they gave consent, of course.

In theory they could; in practice however, the potential for abuse and undue pressure on prisoners to 'volunteer' is too great without extreme safeguards in place to prevent that.

Consent means nothing when it is gained by depriving a prisoner of privileges that are only restored the moment they volunteer, for instance. And that would almost certainly happen the moment the prison benefits from the research done (such as say, a fat corporate check based on the number of 'volunteers' the prison provides for their product testing)

To call me a barbarian? Sir, you do not know me and you are making that assumption based on a snippet of a remark to a comment made.

First of all, I called your *ideas* barbaric, not you personally. However, you *do* support the death penalty, which really ought to be enough.

 

[gmbteach]

You really can't come up with a way to do this yourself? There's a wide range of ways to do it.

For example; put them in a clear unbreakable plexiglass cell that allows for verbal communication with those outside of it. To give them privacy, treat the cell with a smartglass layer that allows for prisoner controlled manipulation of the cell's transparency. This physically isolates the prisoner without depriving him of social interaction with other people.

Another way to do it is to, like with solitary confinement, keep him in a cell 24/7; but allow him phone/internet access while within the cell. Now that VR technology is finally becoming viable, you can even give him access to that and interact with others through a virtual environment.

These are just off the top of my head; you could've easily come up with these solutions yourself if you'd given it a few minutes of thought.

I have highlighted very important words here.

Yes, to experiment on humans without consent is barbaric. You have taken what I said out of context and without full knowledge of my complete thought. I certainly didn't say the prisoner would not have any choice in the manner. My mistake, I didn't expand fully on my opinion.

However, say a prisoner was in for the term of his natural life and suffered from something such as diabetes. Why couldn't they volunteer to assist in medical research, provided they gave consent, of course.

In theory they could; in practice however, the potential for abuse and undue pressure on prisoners to 'volunteer' is too great without extreme safeguards in place to prevent that.

Consent means nothing when it is gained by depriving a prisoner of privileges that are only restored the moment they volunteer, for instance. And that would almost certainly happen the moment the prison benefits from the research done (such as say, a fat corporate check based on the number of 'volunteers' the prison provides for their product testing)

To call me a barbarian? Sir, you do not know me and you are making that assumption based on a snippet of a remark to a comment made.

First of all, I called your *ideas* barbaric, not you personally. However, you *do* support the death penalty, which really ought to be enough.

Thank you for your thoughts, and thank you for your ideas. To me, those ideas you suggested are still 'solitary confinement to me. There are a number of studies on the emotional and psychological damage being denied human contact can cause. That, to me, is barbaric. Still, you did present some valid ideas.

Your thoughts on consent have also been considered and yes, it is possible to 'withhold privileges' until consent is given.

And yes, I do support the death penalty, that does not make me a barbarian or to have barbaric thoughts. I don't agree that a man should undergo a trial one day, and executed the next. That does not allow for appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that the right perpetrator has been caught. However, once all avenues are exhausted and he is proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, or if the prisoner is aware of their guilt and wants to die, then I don't see a problem with it.

 

[dystopian]

Thank you for your thoughts, and thank you for your ideas. To me, those ideas you suggested are still 'solitary confinement to me. There are a number of studies on the emotional and psychological damage being denied human contact can cause. That, to me, is barbaric.

Except; in my examples there IS human contact. Those studies you mention are in regards to being deprived of *social interaction*; not physical contact. So your argument doesn't apply; neither of my examples constitute 'solitary confinement' in the sense that we use it today.

Besides, you're not going to find many people; prisoners or otherwise; who would seriously choose death over spending the rest of their life in a glass box that still allows them to interact with the outside world in a variety of ways. Some people might say, when it's not an actual choice they're faced with, that they might prefer death; but those people are full of shit; if it was an actual choice they had to make, the vast majority of them would choose to continue living. That's just how humans are wired.

And yes, I do support the death penalty, that does not make me a barbarian or to have barbaric thoughts.

It does according to the citizens of most countries on this planet.

I don't agree that a man should undergo a trial one day, and executed the next. That does not allow for appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that the right perpetrator has been caught. However, once all avenues are exhausted and he is proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, or if the prisoner is aware of their guilt and wants to die, then I don't see a problem with it.

And that, is what makes your opinion barbaric. The fact that you 'don't see a problem' with ending a life. It is a pointless revenge driven mechanic that is both cruel and unnecessary. For a society to kill people when doing so isn't needed *is* barbaric, and so is the support thereof.

 

[credoconsolans]

Except; in my examples there IS human contact. Those studies you mention are in regards to being deprived of *social interaction*; not physical contact. So your argument doesn't apply; neither of my examples constitute 'solitary confinement' in the sense that we use it today.

If there is human contact, then you are risking the lives of the guards who care for this henious killer.

And yes, I do support the death penalty, that does not make me a barbarian or to have barbaric thoughts.

It does according to the citizens of most countries on this planet.

Most citizens used to believe the earth was flat. You're not falling to fallacy here, are you?

I don't agree that a man should undergo a trial one day, and executed the next. That does not allow for appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that the right perpetrator has been caught. However, once all avenues are exhausted and he is proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, or if the prisoner is aware of their guilt and wants to die, then I don't see a problem with it.

And that, is what makes your opinion barbaric. The fact that you 'don't see a problem' with ending a life. It is a pointless revenge driven mechanic that is both cruel and unnecessary. For a society to kill people when doing so isn't needed *is* barbaric, and so is the support thereof.

Do you consider people who kill others in self defense also barbaric?

The death penalty is society defending itself.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Do you consider people who kill others in self defense also barbaric?

The death penalty is society defending itself.

I am not sure how anyone can equate the following :

1) The law recognizes the use of lethal force as justified when an individual faces an imminent threat of harm or death.

2) An incarcerated convicted criminal is certainly not in any position to present an imminent threat of death or harm to society.


Once removed from society by the very condition of being incarcerated, what imminent threat of death or harm do you envision that incarcerated convicted criminal is to society to equate the death penalty to an act of self defense from society under the same justification the law relies on?

To also quote DBT's remarks :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...enalty-Worldwide&p=29952&viewfull=1#post29952

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

Any comments about this point?

A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society

 

[dystopian]

If there is human contact, then you are risking the lives of the guards who care for this henious killer.

Sigh; you didn't *read* the posts I made, DID you?

Human contact does NOT equal *physical* contact. Looking at someone through unbreakable glass and talking with them constitutes human contact in the form of social interaction.

Most citizens used to believe the earth was flat. You're not falling to fallacy here, are you?

You *do* realize that your argument is itself, a fallacy right?

Yes, most people used to believe the earth was flat... then they got access to education and stopped being ignorant.

Similarly, most people used to believe the death penalty was just... then we had all this wonderful social progress that led to a change in collective morality.

The argument that the collective opinion of society at large; or indeed the human race itself; is irrelevant on account of the fact that people used to believe the world was flat and therefore people can be wrong doesn't work when we've already established that the death penalty is NOT necessary to safeguard society (your inability to properly read my posts not withstanding). It therefore becomes a purely moral and not a practical question, and thus it is not a fallacy to point to the collective moral opinion of the human race, since it's pretty fucking relevant when we're discussing what is and is not moral.

Do you consider people who kill others in self defense also barbaric?

The death penalty is society defending itself.

I see you haven't bothered to pay any attention to this thread. No, the death penalty is NOT society 'defending itself'. We've already firmly established that society can defend itself just as easily through the life imprisonment of these people; and we've also established that this can be done both without causing additional risk to those who guard these individuals or share a prison with them and without committing what amounts to the psychological torture of these prisoners. It therefore CEASES to be a matter of society defending itself and becomes a matter of society taking REVENGE.

If I kill someone who is about to kill me, it's self defense.

If I kill someone who killed someone 10 years ago, it's murder.

 

[credoconsolans]

Sigh; you didn't *read* the posts I made, DID you?

Human contact does NOT equal *physical* contact. Looking at someone through unbreakable glass and talking with them constitutes human contact in the form of social interaction.

So, how does he get outside for exercise? How does he shower? He's just allowed to walk by himself? How is he examined for health checkups or when he's sick?

Most citizens used to believe the earth was flat. You're not falling to fallacy here, are you?

You *do* realize that your argument is itself, a fallacy right?

You do realize your response of "It does according to the citizens of most countries on this planet" was specious, right?

Yes, most people used to believe the earth was flat... then they got access to education and stopped being ignorant.

The point being, what "everyone" thought, was wrong.

Similarly, most people used to believe the death penalty was just... then we had all this wonderful social progress that led to a change in collective morality.

Some of us still do. You still haven't proven why you're right and everyone else is wrong except for an appeal to the majority.

Do you consider people who kill others in self defense also barbaric?

The death penalty is society defending itself.

I see you haven't bothered to pay any attention to this thread. No, the death penalty is NOT society 'defending itself'. We've already firmly established that society can defend itself just as easily through the life imprisonment of these people

No, you haven't established that. You just ignored the guards and caretakers who care for these people, then when I brought it up, you had to invent an entirely new way of housing these heinous killers to try to pretend to address the issue.

If I kill someone who is about to kill me, it's self defense.

If I kill someone who killed someone 10 years ago, it's murder.

Except of course, the only reason this heinous killer is not currently killing you is because you have guns on him and he's in chains.

Put yourself in a dark alley, alone with him and ask yourself if you still feel that he's perfectly harmless.