Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(18-05-2015 08:53 PM)KUSA Wrote:  What is so hard to accept about a guilty murderer needing to be put down?

I think that for the most part, it's the easy way out for the criminal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
19-05-2015, 01:48 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(19-05-2015 12:37 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 08:53 PM)KUSA Wrote:  What is so hard to accept about a guilty murderer needing to be put down?

I think that for the most part, it's the easy way out for the criminal.
It appears to me you are implying that the criminal ought to endure some form of torture?
Is that your objection to the death penalty?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
19-05-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
There's no moral clarity for a death penalty, neither the expense nor the effect of deterrent has ever been shown to be justifiable.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-05-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(19-05-2015 01:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 12:37 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I think that for the most part, it's the easy way out for the criminal.
It appears to me you are implying that the criminal ought to endure some form of torture?

Where did you get "torture" from my post? Do you think imprisonment is torture? Do you protest against it as such?

Sitting someone in a cell and making him reflect on his crime is both more cost-effective and less hypocritical than killing someone for the crime of killing someone. What, exactly, is your problem with those benefits?

It appears to me that you're playing with rhetoric, rather than earnestly communicating.

Quote:Is that your objection to the death penalty?

No. Any further questions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
19-05-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
<double post deleted>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 09:40 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(19-05-2015 07:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 01:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It appears to me you are implying that the criminal ought to endure some form of torture?

Where did you get "torture" from my post? Do you think imprisonment is torture?
In context with your statement "I think that for the most part, it's the easy way out for the criminal."
What is it that you mean by "easy way out"?
Certainly, I would personally consider losing my freedoms by being incarcerated for a number of years (or even a life time) as a form of torture. Death in my opinion could be considered a way out of such an enduring torturous situation.
(19-05-2015 07:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Sitting someone in a cell and making him reflect on his crime is both more cost-effective and less hypocritical than killing someone for the crime of killing someone. What, exactly, is your problem with those benefits?
If we could make death penalty cheaper than a life sentence then I would be all for it.
I see no personal or society value in having a criminal reflect on their own crime in prison as opposed to termination of their life and hence financial burdon on society.
I don't think in terms of justice. I don't think that we kill someone as justice for the crime of killing someone. I think we kill someone in order to remove the threat that person presents on society. In order to make society safer rather than more just.
Your a pro-gun person right? Surely you don't consider shooting someone in self defence to be an act of justice but instead an act of self preservation.
(19-05-2015 07:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  It appears to me that you're playing with rhetoric, rather than earnestly communicating.
Just trying to understand your point of view. It wasn't clear to me so I addressed it.
(19-05-2015 07:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
Quote:Is that your objection to the death penalty?

No. Any further questions?
Can you please elaborate on the obvious next question rather than merely answer "No"
What is your objection to the death penalty?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
20-05-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(19-05-2015 01:59 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  There's no moral clarity for a death penalty, neither the expense nor the effect of deterrent has ever been shown to be justifiable.

The death penalty should not be considered a deterrent. It should be a means of removing a person from society who would otherwise continue to do great harm to other people. They would have violated the social code to the extent that they are never trusted to participate in the society again.

If there still existed a wilderness to which they could be exiled to live out the rest of their days with no risk to and no help from the society that they harmed then that would be fine with me. Otherwise, they should be locked away from society with only the basic necessities of life or offered a quick death as an alternative should they prefer it.

I just wanted to let you know that I love you even though you aren't naked right now. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TurkeyBurner's post
20-05-2015, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2015 02:28 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(19-05-2015 09:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In context with your statement "I think that for the most part, it's the easy way out for the criminal."
What is it that you mean by "easy way out"?

A dead man cannot regret at leisure. He cannot torment himself with his own questions, his own remorse.

And if he feels no remorse, he ought to at least be locked away forever so he cannot recidivate.

Quote:Certainly, I would personally consider losing my freedoms by being incarcerated for a number of years (or even a life time) as a form of torture. Death in my opinion could be considered a way out of such an enduring torturous situation.

And yet others are terrified of death, and spend decades filing appeals attempting to avoid the sentence. I agree with you, I'd much rather be dead than suffer life imprisonment; and that's something I'd arrange for myself were I ever in that position. But it doesn't follow that the state should be the killing agency, for reasons I'll address below.

Quote:If we could make death penalty cheaper than a life sentence then I would be all for it.
I see no personal or society value in having a criminal reflect on their own crime in prison as opposed to termination of their life and hence financial burdon on society.

Yet even you implicitly admit that the death penalty is a greater financial burden.

Quote:I don't think in terms of justice. I don't think that we kill someone as justice for the crime of killing someone. I think we kill someone in order to remove the threat that person presents on society. In order to make society safer rather than more just.

And exactly how does life imprisonment without parole fail in that regard? The miniscule chance of escape? The opportunity to murder an inmate?

Quote:Your a pro-gun person right? Surely you don't consider shooting someone in self defence to be an act of justice but instead an act of self preservation.

This is a fallacious comparison. An intruder in my home would be at large, and most likely armed. A prisoner in a cell is obviously not at large, and almost always unarmed. The potential for harm emanating from the two different scenarios is clearly so different as to render this comparison irrelevant.

Quote:Just trying to understand your point of view. It wasn't clear to me so I addressed it.

That's cool. Sorry if I get a little truculent sometimes.

Quote:Can you please elaborate on the obvious next question rather than merely answer "No"
What is your objection to the death penalty?

1) In the event of error, it cannot be undone or compensated.
2) It is too expensive, and the only way to cut its cost is to expose more innocent people to unjust killing.
3) It doesn't deliver the advertised benefits except for cutting recidivism, and that can be accomplished in a more efficient and yes, just manner.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
20-05-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  A dead man cannot regret at leisure. He cannot torment himself with his own questions, his own remorse.
What would I care if the person has regret or not. My only interest is my safety and where my tax money goes.

(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  And if he feels no remorse, he ought to at least be locked away forever so he cannot recidivate.
A dead person cannot recidivate, so there are two ways we can achieve that goal.

(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Yet even you implicitly admit that the death penalty is a greater financial burden.
Yes, I am aware of the cost. My position is to make executions cheaper than life imprisonment, otherwise there would be no point in executions.

(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  And exactly how does life imprisonment without parole fail in that regard? The miniscule chance of escape? The opportunity to murder an inmate?
We have to give them a life times supply of food, heat, shelter, and imprisonment. A bullet is cheaper than that.

(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
Quote:Your a pro-gun person right? Surely you don't consider shooting someone in self defence to be an act of justice but instead an act of self preservation.

This is a fallacious comparison. An intruder in my home would be at large, and most likely armed. A prisoner in a cell is obviously not at large, and almost always unarmed. The potential for harm emanating from the two different scenarios is clearly so different as to render this comparison irrelevant.
Merely pointing out that the common goal is to remove the threat from society rather than to dish out "justice". This was my response to your claim that killing a person for killing persons doesn't make sense from a justice perspective.

So, removing the threat is the goal. We could acheive this with life imprisonment or with execution. If we can make execution much cheaper than life imprisonment then I am all for saving money.


(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  2) It is too expensive, and the only way to cut its cost is to expose more innocent people to unjust killing.
Are you suggesting that we already cut legal costs regarding determining the guilt of a person that we lock up for a life time?

By my reckoning, if we are so sure that a person is guilty such that we will lock them up until they die, then we have already done our due diligence. The next matter is a matter of cost savings, ether the cost of a bullet or a life time supply of food and accommodation. I'd rather give a lifetime supply of food to the victim than to the criminal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2015 03:33 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  By my reckoning, if we are so sure that a person is guilty such that we will lock them up until they die, then we have already done our due diligence. The next matter is a matter of cost savings, ether the cost of a bullet or a life time supply of food and accommodation. I'd rather give a lifetime supply of food to the victim than to the criminal.

The victim is likely dead so the cost of a lifetime food supply is $0. The cost of the execution itself and for that matter the cost of housing and feeding them is nothing compared to the millions of dollars the State will spend on the legal cost of appeals. And the State covers the legal costs of both sides in the appeal.

You want an efficient death penalty? Put them in genpop and let the ecosystem sort 'em out. Dahmer only lasted a couple of years.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: