Death Penalty Poll

[xelabale]

What if someone in your family is killed, but was innocent?

[Burrito]

Well now you are making it personal. i am sure that my opinions would be different if the situation directly affected me. However, that would be an emotional response, and should have no place in an intellectual discussion.
I wonder if those people on this forum are truly against the idea of the death penalty, or simply against the flaws in the current system? So I ask you whether or not you believe that someone who is undeniably guilty of a serious crime i.e. rape, murder, etc. should be allowed to live, disregarding the current system for doing so?

[Symmetry]

So, wait, you're arguing that we need the death penalty in order to control population growth? How many people do you believe we need to cull to maintain our standard of living?

Did you know that if all the aborted babies of the 1980's had lived, they would be working now..... social security secure..... their taxes could almost pay for the ginormous bailouts of the last two administrations? (Don't know if this is actually true but it's something to think about)

Freakonomics is a really thought provoking book which touches on that. The writers make a fairly persuasive argument based on statistics (the main author is a journalist who's writing up work by a statistician) that most major drops in crime rates come in areas where abortion had been made more easily accessible 16-18 years earlier.

They actually make a big deal out of whether that makes it morally right or not. Arguing that if you believe that abortion is murder, then crime rates decreasing later is still hugely immoral. And I believe there's been a fair bit of criticism about the argument.

Still, I don't think it's quite right that all those abortions, had they been born into families that couldn't cope with them, often with severe birth defects, complications that would have taken their mother's life, results of rape or incest, single mothers, born to very young mothers, born to mothers who would have to give up their careers, (etc.) would have produced the tax payers to bail out society. Even if, say, they had all been born and had no extra problems, they'd presumably just be as average as all of us. That means that they wouldn't all be working now.

[xelabale]

It's always personal to someone. If it doesn't happen to you, it will happen to someone. Should they have to go through that? Should that innocent person die? I say no, we have no right to take that risk as a society. Sometimes economics are not enough. Are you a human, or a dollar amount?

[jonesthecurl]

I wonder, if you liberals had your way, if you managed to stop all "unnatural" forms of death i.e. war, crime, punishment, etc., what kind of world would we face? A planet where the population grows explosively, as it has done in recent history? We would end up with a planet in which there is a serious overpopulation of humans because we have overcome many of the natural ways to keep a population in check i,e, the food cycle, competition, etc. it would bring far more misery to far more people, the poor all over the world who would be like the population in Africa, dying from lack of basic care because frankly, there would be far to many people to take care of and not enough resources to go around. the simple fact is that humans as a species need death to continue on living in some modicum of peace and comfort.

Well, by that logic, we should just kill off a random few people each year - in fact, we should give state grants to murderers, and pay their removal expeses to the most heavily-populated places.

"A mathematician could sove the population problem in jig time - just shoot every other person" - R.A.H.

[Symmetry]

Well now you are making it personal. i am sure that my opinions would be different if the situation directly affected me. However, that would be an emotional response, and should have no place in an intellectual discussion.
I wonder if those people on this forum are truly against the idea of the death penalty, or simply against the flaws in the current system? So I ask you whether or not you believe that someone who is undeniably guilty of a serious crime i.e. rape, murder, etc. should be allowed to live, disregarding the current system for doing so?

I would still be against it. You're, in some ways right, that there should be a strong intellectual element to these decisions, and emotional responses should be downplayed. I had no particular wish to say this, but yes, I have had a close member of my family murdered. I believe that the death penalty is wrong partly because of my experiences, and partly inspite of them.

I don't feel I have the right to allow people to live. I think you've made an assumption, however slight, that I think rapists and murderers are just like the rest of us. I don't believe that. There's punishment, and then there's treating other people like objects. All the talk of "they gave up their rights", that's making a person an object. It's easy to kill an object. Less easy to kill a person.

Your final point- I'm not sure where guilt is really undeniable. I think this is often used as an excuse when really there are a huge number of reasons why somebody does something. There are plenty of shades of grey between black and white. Not to weasel out of it, so I don't believe that even in a theoretical case of undeniable murder the condemned should die.

[AAFitz]

I think being pragmatic is the best way to approach this subject.

The goal, should be to stop crime, and in this case, the worst of them.

The death penalty really does not affect this on any grand scale.

It takes away resources to actually prevent crime, ie court costs.

The death penalty, is essentially based on revenge, and not prevention. Prevention is only the justification for the revenge.
It further justifies killing, which makes it fundamentally more difficult to argue the morality of murder. It argues that as long as a lot of time and energy is put into the decision, and if the guilty person did something wrong, than murder is morally justified.
Its a contradictory argument to the crime in the first place.

If the real goal is to save lives, which of course is what it should be, since that would best serve society, than all states should immediately drop the death penalty. They should invest the money in law enforcement, which would have the effect of saving more lives, and making society safer, immeasurably as compared to the expense of killing one person.

There is no doubt, that many people deserve the death penalty. That doesnt mean that we as a society have to implement it. Certainly, we should not let our desire for revenge, outweigh the overall goal of making society safer and better.

[Symmetry]

I think being pragmatic is the best way to approach this subject.

The goal, should be to stop crime, and in this case, the worst of them.

The death penalty really does not affect this on any grand scale.

It takes away resources to actually prevent crime, ie court costs.

The death penalty, is essentially based on revenge, and not prevention. Prevention is only the justification for the revenge.
It further justifies killing, which makes it fundamentally more difficult to argue the morality of murder. It argues that as long as a lot of time and energy is put into the decision, and if the guilty person did something wrong, than murder is morally justified.
Its a contradictory argument to the crime in the first place.

If the real goal is to save lives, which of course is what it should be, since that would best serve society, than all states should immediately drop the death penalty. They should invest the money in law enforcement, which would have the effect of saving more lives, and making society safer, immeasurably as compared to the expense of killing one person.

There is no doubt, that many people deserve the death penalty. That doesnt mean that we as a society have to implement it. Certainly, we should not let our desire for revenge, outweigh the overall goal of making society safer and better.

I agree, although not all prevention involves policing. Some of it needs to be in the legal system which typically regards, for example, less expensive illegal drugs as being worthy of higher sentences. Middle class drug dealers get minimum security prisons if they get caught at all. Lower classes get shot or go to high security. Partly it has to do with disproportionate sentencing for minorities too.

Then, and here I go scary liberal, it's a good idea to look at the backgrounds of criminals. Improving the way of life among poor communities, and increasing opportunities. Well, that helps. There is no solution, just a lot of things that can work together.

[xelabale]

You mean by improving society we can deal with the root causes of problems such as murder, so that less happen and it becomes less of a problem, making the society a better place for everyone and, incidentally, ultimately saving the country millions of dollars?

Bloody socialists.

[jay_a2j]

4,000(# of abortions per day in the US) x 365 = 1,460,000 (abortions per year) x 10 (a decade, lets say the 80's) = 14,600,000.




That's 14 million 600 thousand abortions in the 1980's. Do you realize the revenue the IRS could have generated from these people?

[Symmetry]

You mean by improving society we can deal with the root causes of problems such as murder, so that less happen and it becomes less of a problem, making the society a better place for everyone and, incidentally, ultimately saving the country millions of dollars?

Bloody socialists.

It's okay- it's all just the first step in my communist plan to eventually murder everyone.

[Burrito]

It's always personal to someone. If it doesn't happen to you, it will happen to someone. Should they have to go through that? Should that innocent person die? I say no, we have no right to take that risk as a society. Sometimes economics are not enough. Are you a human, or a dollar amount?

I try to look at everything logically. When you let your emotions interfere with your cool, rational thinking, that is where most problems arise. The minuscule amount of of people who were on death row and have now been exonerated ( I think it is around 136 i the last 35 years) and the small amount of pain that inflicts, compared to the massive costs that life in prison inflicts, I would choose to support their deaths. No, that is not the right words. I would find their death acceptable. I don't believe in their deaths, I think that the system in place should prevent this scenario from ever playing out, but it might occasionally happen, and if that is the cost for an effective prison system, I am willing to pay it.

I would also ask that you answer my question from the previous post xelabale.

I don't feel I have the right to allow people to live. I think you've made an assumption, however slight, that I think rapists and murderers are just like the rest of us. I don't believe that. There's punishment, and then there's treating other people like objects. All the talk of "they gave up their rights", that's making a person an object. It's easy to kill an object. Less easy to kill a person.

Your final point- I'm not sure where guilt is really undeniable. I think this is often used as an excuse when really there are a huge number of reasons why somebody does something. There are plenty of shades of grey between black and white. Not to weasel out of it, so I don't believe that even in a theoretical case of undeniable murder the condemned should die.

Death is the proper way to deal with some situations. they made a choice, knew very well what the consequences could potentially be, yet they still continues on with whatever they did. Once they made that choice to do something that they knew was wrong, they gave up their ability to choose what would happen to them, and put it in the hands of the law. If you think about it, what is worse? Life in a cell block with nothing to do but read books and lift weights (and believe me, death row inmates don't get their kicks off reading books) , compared to a quick and painless death.

There may be shades of gray in murder, even some cases where I would agree with the murderer. However, they knew that they shouldn't have done what they did, and that there were established practices to deal with conflicts, yet they still did it. There are no shades of gray in rape. There is absolutely no reason to do something like that, and anyone who did such an act should be killed, once it was proven that they did so.

I think being pragmatic is the best way to approach this subject.

The goal, should be to stop crime, and in this case, the worst of them.

The death penalty really does not affect this on any grand scale.

It takes away resources to actually prevent crime, ie court costs.

The death penalty, is essentially based on revenge, and not prevention. Prevention is only the justification for the revenge.
It further justifies killing, which makes it fundamentally more difficult to argue the morality of murder. It argues that as long as a lot of time and energy is put into the decision, and if the guilty person did something wrong, than murder is morally justified.
Its a contradictory argument to the crime in the first place.

If the real goal is to save lives, which of course is what it should be, since that would best serve society, than all states should immediately drop the death penalty. They should invest the money in law enforcement, which would have the effect of saving more lives, and making society safer, immeasurably as compared to the expense of killing one person.

There is no doubt, that many people deserve the death penalty. That doesnt mean that we as a society have to implement it. Certainly, we should not let our desire for revenge, outweigh the overall goal of making society safer and better.

Well, on purely economic terms, a properly done execution would save tons of money that could then be put towards crime prevention.

Execution after due process of law is not the same as a street murder. It is a response to an action, an action which the perpetrator knew the consequences to. That is like claiming the killing invading, pillaging armies do is the same as the killing the defending soldiers do. All killing is not the same.

4,000(# of abortions per day in the US) x 365 = 1,460,000 (abortions per year) x 10 (a decade, lets say the 80's) = 14,600,000.




That's 14 million 600 thousand abortions in the 1980's. Do you realize the revenue the IRS could have generated from these people?

Where did you get that number?

[xelabale]

You mean by improving society we can deal with the root causes of problems such as murder, so that less happen and it becomes less of a problem, making the society a better place for everyone and, incidentally, ultimately saving the country millions of dollars?

Bloody socialists.

It's okay- it's all just the first step in my communist plan to eventually murder everyone.

Damn those commie bastards, I thought we had em licked. If it's truly a commie plan, you'll have to murder yourself too, of course.

[Symmetry]

4,000(# of abortions per day in the US) x 365 = 1,460,000 (abortions per year) x 10 (a decade, lets say the 80's) = 14,600,000.

That's 14 million 600 thousand abortions in the 1980's. Do you realize the revenue the IRS could have generated from these people?

And those are all abortions that would have survived to term? And of those that would have, none would have severe problems and died early? And of those that survived early childhood, none would have had severe disabilities? And of those, none would have had learning difficulties? And of those, none would have been born into deprived families and had limited access to education/ healthcare/ family? And of those, none would have taken a tax-paying mother who had to quit job their job?

Still, let's say that they have none of those problems, in spite of those being more likely as reasons for abortion. Why do you believe that they would all have been net tax payers, rather than representing an average cross section of the population, some requiring money, some being very sick, some being criminals?

[xelabale]

So I ask you whether or not you believe that someone who is undeniably guilty of a serious crime i.e. rape, murder, etc. should be allowed to live, disregarding the current system for doing so?

You mean this question I guess?

Yes, they should. You, me, no-one has the right to take another human's life. It's that simple. If that means incarcerating murderers for life, that's fine. It is a moral judgement, not a financial one. The money saved is not worth the 136 (your figure) inncocent lives - nowhere near. If you think it is, answer me this question:

How much, in dollar terms, is one life worth?

[jay_a2j]

4,000(# of abortions per day in the US) x 365 = 1,460,000 (abortions per year) x 10 (a decade, lets say the 80's) = 14,600,000.

That's 14 million 600 thousand abortions in the 1980's. Do you realize the revenue the IRS could have generated from these people?

And those are all abortions that would have survived to term? And of those that would have, none would have severe problems and died early? And of those that survived early childhood, none would have had severe disabilities? And of those, none would have had learning difficulties? And of those, none would have been born into deprived families and had limited access to education/ healthcare/ family? And of those, none would have taken a tax-paying mother who had to quit job their job?

Still, let's say that they have none of those problems, in spite of those being more likely as reasons for abortion. Why do you believe that they would all have been net tax payers, rather than representing an average cross section of the population, some requiring money, some being very sick, some being criminals?

I should have realized a liberal was going to jump on this. Do you use the same asinine argument.... "Well, they are better off aborted than put into abusive homes"........ There is absolutely NO CIRCUMSTANCES where DEAD is the better of the two options!



Yeah no doubt some of those aborted babies would have turned out to be Democrats (on welfare) but at least they'd be alive.

[alex951]

i think it saves money, how much does a little electricity or a syringe cost compared to the life time of free stuff we have to supply them with.

save the earth!!!!

[jay_a2j]

4,000(# of abortions per day in the US) x 365 = 1,460,000 (abortions per year) x 10 (a decade, lets say the 80's) = 14,600,000.




That's 14 million 600 thousand abortions in the 1980's. Do you realize the revenue the IRS could have generated from these people?

Where did you get that number?

The 4,000 per day in the US came from college research in the mid-90's I did for a speech for speech class.


BTW even though my professor was liberal I got an A on that speech. She said it was well researched.

[notyou2]

4,000(# of abortions per day in the US) x 365 = 1,460,000 (abortions per year) x 10 (a decade, lets say the 80's) = 14,600,000.

That's 14 million 600 thousand abortions in the 1980's. Do you realize the revenue the IRS could have generated from these people?

And those are all abortions that would have survived to term? And of those that would have, none would have severe problems and died early? And of those that survived early childhood, none would have had severe disabilities? And of those, none would have had learning difficulties? And of those, none would have been born into deprived families and had limited access to education/ healthcare/ family? And of those, none would have taken a tax-paying mother who had to quit job their job?

Still, let's say that they have none of those problems, in spite of those being more likely as reasons for abortion. Why do you believe that they would all have been net tax payers, rather than representing an average cross section of the population, some requiring money, some being very sick, some being criminals?

I should have realized a liberal was going to jump on this. Do you use the same asinine argument.... "Well, they are better off aborted than put into abusive homes"........ There is absolutely NO CIRCUMSTANCES where DEAD is the better of the two options!



Yeah no doubt some of those aborted babies would have turned out to be Democrats (on welfare) but at least they'd be alive.

Are you arguing for capital punishment and against abortion?

[notyou2]

5. There is no possible way that a properly done execution would be cheaper than paying for food, clothing, medical, etc. for the rest of a convicts life.

Except that there is. It is the case right now!

If you thoroughly read my post, you would see that I meant that the current way executions are carried out are not the most efficient way to do things. the key word in that sentence is properly.

*edit for spelling and to say-
It is not the actual execution that is so expensive, but the appeal process.

Until we get rid of Habeas corpus (again) expensive and lengthy appeals are going to be the rule for death-penalty cases. Anyways, don't you want to be extra-extra sure before you kill somebody?

The idea of multiple trials to convict a criminal is ridiculous. There should be only one trial to determine guilt or innocence. the right of Habeas corpus should be to secure another trial when the first is obviously and seriously biased i.e. a black man in the early 20th century South, or if advances in forensic science i.e. DNA matching brings the original evidence into question.

I agree, a few innocent people might die if the death penalty is continued. However, in the face of the massive amount of money that is spent caring for prison inmates for life, is the minuscule chance that someone innocent might die to much of a price to pay?

So basically you have a dollar value for every human life on the planet?

[Symmetry]

4,000(# of abortions per day in the US) x 365 = 1,460,000 (abortions per year) x 10 (a decade, lets say the 80's) = 14,600,000.

That's 14 million 600 thousand abortions in the 1980's. Do you realize the revenue the IRS could have generated from these people?

And those are all abortions that would have survived to term? And of those that would have, none would have severe problems and died early? And of those that survived early childhood, none would have had severe disabilities? And of those, none would have had learning difficulties? And of those, none would have been born into deprived families and had limited access to education/ healthcare/ family? And of those, none would have taken a tax-paying mother who had to quit job their job?

Still, let's say that they have none of those problems, in spite of those being more likely as reasons for abortion. Why do you believe that they would all have been net tax payers, rather than representing an average cross section of the population, some requiring money, some being very sick, some being criminals?

I should have realized a liberal was going to jump on this. Do you use the same asinine argument.... "Well, they are better off aborted than put into abusive homes"........ There is absolutely NO CIRCUMSTANCES where DEAD is the better of the two options!



Yeah no doubt some of those aborted babies would have turned out to be Democrats (on welfare) but at least they'd be alive.

You know what, please put this in a different thread. I've given you an example of why abortion might reduce crime rates, and I've said that it's just a statistical thing and has moral qualms. I even said that there was controversy around the theory. I'll argue this other stuff with you there.

[jay_a2j]

Are you arguing for capital punishment and against abortion?

No. I am pro-life. From cradle to grave. Call it maybe a "consistent conservative" if you will. Life is just as precious on death row as it is in the womb.

[Snorri1234]

So basically you have a dollar value for every human life on the planet?

Does that depend on where the particular person lives and when?

[Burrito]

Yes, every person has an approximate dollar value, based on many factors, including level of education, age, chosen profession, etc. However, that is not my point. my point is that it is an economically sound idea to execute criminals instead of pay fro their incarceration.

[xelabale]

Yes, every person has an approximate dollar value, based on many factors, including level of education, age, chosen profession, etc. However, that is not my point. my point is that it is an economically sound idea to execute criminals instead of pay fro their incarceration.

Ain't economics just great?

It's not economically sound for you to go on holiday, but I bet you still do it. It's not economically sound to make art, yet people do it. It's not economically sound to rape the planet as sooner or later it will run out of resources, yet we still do it. The world does not revolve around money - there is a principle at stake here, that one innocent life is not worth the supposed financial gain of killing people. It's not about the money.