Do You Support the Death Penalty?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-10-2017, 09:00 AM
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
(09-10-2017 10:50 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  That's Atheism for you. We may agree there is no god, but otherwise it's open season on what people think about anything else.

I'm personally against the death penalty, as killing somebody else for a crime they have committed, doesn't solve/rectify the issue. Incarceration for life, not in solitary confinement, but a secure prison seems to be the most logical thing to do, in my opinion at least. Plus you have all the stats about people being wrongly executed etc, and how it doesn't really seem to "deter" anybody from committing any sort of serious crime, as either A) they want to do it or B) they are insane.

I agree, atheists are more diverse than people make it. Also, thanks for the response. It makes sense to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 09:14 AM
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
(08-10-2017 06:21 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

No. Since there is no way to undo a wrong verdict.

If a person is 'Irredeemable' ? Then bring back the 'Convict' system. Thumbsup

No, because the taking of life whether by murder or government sanction is the same thing; a person dies. Also, as previously mentioned, verdicts can be wrong. We can never be 100% certain of guilt, even if the defendant admits it. I think we have all heard of how people confess to things they didn't do, or confess under pressure when they really didn't do it.

However, I do appreciate a situation where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and there's enough to convince a judge or a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But even in those circumstances the death penalty should not be used because the taking of life, no matter the reason, is still morally wrong. We should not have that placed upon our shoulders.

Instead, lock them up in solitary confinement for life, for 23 hours a day, with absolutely no human contact whatsoever. They have a choice; they can stay in solitary confinement for life, or they can take their own lives through assisted suicide.

Make them decide whether they live or die, not us.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 10:37 AM
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
(15-10-2017 09:14 AM)Free Wrote:  Instead, lock them up in solitary confinement for life, for 23 hours a day, with absolutely no human contact whatsoever. They have a choice; they can stay in solitary confinement for life, or they can take their own lives through assisted suicide.

Make them decide whether they live or die, not us.

Cutting a person off from any social contact constitutes torture. Letting a person *choose* between a life-long torture and death is like god putting the proverbial gun at believers´ heads and telling them "love me or burn in hell for ever".

Your choice isnt a choice, at least not a fair one. What you are basically trying to cover up is that you want them killed but dont have the balls to take the responsibility. Sounds rather cowardly to me. Sorry, but this had to be said.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
15-10-2017, 10:44 AM
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
(15-10-2017 10:37 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(15-10-2017 09:14 AM)Free Wrote:  Instead, lock them up in solitary confinement for life, for 23 hours a day, with absolutely no human contact whatsoever. They have a choice; they can stay in solitary confinement for life, or they can take their own lives through assisted suicide.

Make them decide whether they live or die, not us.

Cutting a person off from any social contact constitutes torture. Letting a person *choose* between a life-long torture and death is like god putting the proverbial gun at believers´ heads and telling them "love me or burn in hell for ever".

Your choice isnt a choice, at least not a fair one. What you are basically trying to cover up is that you want them killed but dont have the balls to take the responsibility. Sounds rather cowardly to me. Sorry, but this had to be said.
Indiana used to have an option for a family member of a murdered person to "flip the switch" and execute the murderer. The law allowed them to choose a person to do this for them. When asked, I had no more qualms than I would have at putting down a rabid down. I don't know if the twin seven year old girls would have approved, but it wasn't hard at all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2017 12:30 PM by Free.)
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
(15-10-2017 10:37 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(15-10-2017 09:14 AM)Free Wrote:  Instead, lock them up in solitary confinement for life, for 23 hours a day, with absolutely no human contact whatsoever. They have a choice; they can stay in solitary confinement for life, or they can take their own lives through assisted suicide.

Make them decide whether they live or die, not us.

Cutting a person off from any social contact constitutes torture. Letting a person *choose* between a life-long torture and death is like god putting the proverbial gun at believers´ heads and telling them "love me or burn in hell for ever".

Your choice isnt a choice, at least not a fair one. What you are basically trying to cover up is that you want them killed but dont have the balls to take the responsibility. Sounds rather cowardly to me. Sorry, but this had to be said.

If the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of guilt, and there is no death penalty, then the harshest available penalty should be imposed.

If that means cutting, for example, a child murderer off from physical social contact then that punishment is justified in my opinion. I am not saying the prisoner sits in a cell with absolutely nothing to do for the rest of his life. He can watch television, read books, play video games, etc. But his punishment for such a heinous crime should be the harshest available.

Then, after a year in isolation, he can be given the availability to make a choice, a choice he can make at any point during the rest of his life. He can chose to remain in isolation, or he can terminate his own miserable life. He can either make his bed and lie in it, or make his grave and lie in that.

In my opinion, with the penal system the way it is today, it is inhumane to not offer prisoners who are serving a life sentence with no chance of parole the right to terminate their own life.

It is no different than someone who is suffering being denied the right to assisted suicide. Whether they are suffering from mental anguish in a prison, or suffering physically in a hospice, both should be given that right.

It is not cowardly to be humane.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 05:26 PM
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  
(15-10-2017 10:37 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Cutting a person off from any social contact constitutes torture. Letting a person *choose* between a life-long torture and death is like god putting the proverbial gun at believers´ heads and telling them "love me or burn in hell for ever".

Your choice isnt a choice, at least not a fair one. What you are basically trying to cover up is that you want them killed but dont have the balls to take the responsibility. Sounds rather cowardly to me. Sorry, but this had to be said.

If the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of guilt, and there is no death penalty, then the harshest available penalty should be imposed.
If you would have added "for the worst crime we have according to our lawbook", then i would have 100% agreed.

(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  If that means cutting, for example, a child murderer off from physical social contact then that punishment is justified in my opinion.
Your justification is?
The problem with cutting people off from social contact and locking them up in tiny cells 23/7 is that it is already established that their mental condition is deteriorating, they are developing mental problems. In the end, they are becoming even greater risks to other inmates and wardens than they already were. whats the reson to put other inmates or wardens at an additional risk of being injured or killed?
How do you justify or rationally argue giving people who often already have mental conditions (child murderers) additional mental problems? Whats your rationale for that? Revenge? Imho revenge is a sign of barbarism rather than being civilized. Not that i feel the urge to be alone with a child murderer, a pair of pliers and a blowtorch at times but i know this feeling i have is the Marcellus in me.





Dont get me wrong, i hate that scum too, to the bone. But (needless) revenge is...needless. I think its a a sign of civilisation to not have to succumb to our barbaric heritage of revenge but to keep up values we learned during the enlightenment. I think it is of value to suppress our desire to (unnecessarily) hurt a child murderer and respect his right to life and health, these are the least values we can keep up i think. For me its not about the child murderer himself, he can stay where we put him for ever so he can never harm anyone again, but i think we have to stay true to our principles.

(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  I am not saying the prisoner sits in a cell with absolutely nothing to do for the rest of his life. He can watch television, read books, play video games, etc. But his punishment for such a heinous crime should be the harshest available.
Why not torture him....just a little bit? Hes a child murderer. He should be treated worse than genuine murderers.
*sarcasm off*


(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  Then, after a year in isolation, he can be given the availability to make a choice, a choice he can make at any point during the rest of his life. He can chose to remain in isolation, or he can terminate his own miserable life. He can either make his bed and lie in it, or make his grave and lie in that.
I said it again, but will repeat it for you. What is your rationale for first psychologically torturing someone and then giving them the choice to continue torture or choose death? Why torture him first anyway?

(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  In my opinion, with the penal system the way it is today, it is inhumane to not offer prisoners who are serving a life sentence with no chance of parole the right to terminate their own life.
In my opinion its inhumane to treat inmates inhumane (in the US at least, other countries´ penal systems´ mileage may vary) in the first place.
We need (too) much space, effort and $ to properly and humanely confine them, some may say? I agree, but being cheap or not having a good enough idea yet of how to is imho not a good excuse for mental torture. But i concede that point to you, from a todays starting point i would give them the choice to die. Personally i would accept that offer. At one point in my life i was seriously threatened with up to 7 years in prison, and during the trial i was thinking the whole thing through. I came to the point (and believe me, i was very calm at this point) after realizing the gravity of the situation and the possible consequences. Thats about as much details i am going to give as of now.
So, please trust me i know what i am talking about when i claim to already have made that choice once.


(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  It is no different than someone who is suffering being denied the right to assisted suicide. Whether they are suffering from mental anguish in a prison, or suffering physically in a hospice, both should be given that right.
The problem with your comparison is that we purposefully cause this suffering in the first place, and that puts us in the place of god holding a gun to someones head (with the pliers and blowtorch in the other).

(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  It is not cowardly to be humane.
Agreed, but i think our preception of what being humane is differs slightly.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
15-10-2017, 06:26 PM
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
(09-10-2017 01:57 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:07 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  That's pretty interesting I have to say, but 18 years? Maybe this is irrational, but that scares me a little bit. Do you recommend a source that I could check out on Sweden's policies?

Here is a translation of the Swedish penal code and here is an abridged Wiki version for crimes of life or death. Eighteen years is reserved for extremely violent crimes, such as murder. Their prisons do not have armed guards and are designed to correct inmates, as opposed to exclusively punishing them. In addition, there are political debates held in the prisons during elections, where they are then allowed to vote.
Thank you! I will check it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2017 07:02 PM by Free.)
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
(15-10-2017 05:26 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  If that means cutting, for example, a child murderer off from physical social contact then that punishment is justified in my opinion.
Your justification is?

The problem with cutting people off from social contact and locking them up in tiny cells 23/7 is that it is already established that their mental condition is deteriorating, they are developing mental problems. In the end, they are becoming even greater risks to other inmates and wardens than they already were. 1. whats the reason to put other inmates or wardens at an additional risk of being injured or killed?

2. How do you justify or rationally argue giving people who often already have mental conditions (child murderers) additional mental problems? Whats your rationale for that? Revenge? Imho revenge is a sign of barbarism rather than being civilized

I have put in bold, and numbered your two points above.

In regards to your first one, anyone who has murdered someone is already extremely dangerous. You cannot get more dangerous than that, than someone who is, in fact, a murderer. His metal state is already murderous, therefore everyone whom he is in contact with is already in danger. If he did it once, he can do it again. His mental state has already been pushed over the edge to the point of murder, so how much worse can it get?

Therefore, if he was locked up as i have stated, with absolutely no physical contact whatsoever, he cannot ever murder anyone again. Whatever mental state he gets from this type of lockup will have no bearing whatsoever because even if he becomes more dangerous he cannot have access to anyone physically.

So how can he be more dangerous to anyone if he has no access to anyone? He cannot, and therefore with my scenario, he is of no danger to anyone.

In regards to your # 2 point above, it can be justified many ways.

1. He cannot ever murder anyone again.
2. It's a determent to others.
3. The victim's family gets justice, and justice should not be confused with revenge. In this case justice is severe punishment, and such crimes should not go unpunished severely.

The murderer has taken the life of another person. He has taken everything from that victim, and you are concerned with his mental state?

Taking his freedom away cannot be compared to him taking everything away from the victim.



Quote:
(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  Then, after a year in isolation, he can be given the availability to make a choice, a choice he can make at any point during the rest of his life. He can chose to remain in isolation, or he can terminate his own miserable life. He can either make his bed and lie in it, or make his grave and lie in that.
I said it again, but will repeat it for you. What is your rationale for first psychologically torturing someone and then giving them the choice to continue torture or choose death? Why torture him first anyway?

Answered above.

Quote:
(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  In my opinion, with the penal system the way it is today, it is inhumane to not offer prisoners who are serving a life sentence with no chance of parole the right to terminate their own life.
In my opinion its inhumane to treat inmates inhumane (in the US at least, other countries´ penal systems´ mileage may vary) in the first place.
We need (too) much space, effort and $ to properly and humanely confine them, some may say? I agree, but being cheap or not having a good enough idea yet of how to is imho not a good excuse for mental torture. But i concede that point to you, from a todays starting point i would give them the choice to die. Personally i would accept that offer. At one point in my life i was seriously threatened with up to 7 years in prison, and during the trial i was thinking the whole thing through. I came to the point (and believe me, i was very calm at this point) after realizing the gravity of the situation and the possible consequences. Thats about as much details i am going to give as of now.
So, please trust me i know what i am talking about when i claim to already have made that choice once.

I am glad you see the wisdom of it.


Quote:
(15-10-2017 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  It is no different than someone who is suffering being denied the right to assisted suicide. Whether they are suffering from mental anguish in a prison, or suffering physically in a hospice, both should be given that right.
The problem with your comparison is that we purposefully cause this suffering in the first place, and that puts us in the place of god holding a gun to someones head (with the pliers and blowtorch in the other).

Even under the current penal system in which we have prisoners who face life in prison with no chance of parole, we have them wishing they were dead. Many do commit suicide in prison via crude means.

But many others become so bitter that they become even more violent and either severely injure other inmates or guards, or kill them.

Are we not already holding a gun to their heads? And, are we also not holding a gun to the heads of other inmates and guards whom are in danger of these murderers?

Not matter how you look at it, a gun is indeed being held to the head of somebody under the current penal system, but with my scenario then that gun is only being held to the head of the murderer, and it's up to him whether or not he pulls the trigger.

Nobody else has to die.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 11:08 PM
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
It is curious to me that no one has brought up the fact that a disproportionate number of people sent to death row are minorities. I am not going to do all the analyses that may explain that but I would suggest that income disparity and access to good legal counsel has a great deal to do with it. Underrepesentation of minorities on juries almost certainly plays into it.

This is not only a problem in death penalty cases but in the whole "justice" system in the US. It is a cultural problem that must be squarely faced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2017, 02:31 AM
RE: Do You Support the Death Penalty?
Quote:In regards to your first one, anyone who has murdered someone is already extremely dangerous. You cannot get more dangerous than that, than someone who is, in fact, a murderer. His metal state is already murderous, therefore everyone whom he is in contact with is already in danger. If he did it once, he can do it again. His mental state has already been pushed over the edge to the point of murder, so how much worse can it get?
A child murderer who gets put in isolation and is becoming a danger to everyone, not only children is something worse....unless you keep him in perfect isolation.

Quote:Therefore, if he was locked up as i have stated, with absolutely no physical contact whatsoever, he cannot ever murder anyone again.
Yeah, with your view you are stuck with this application of torture once you start using it.
As soon as you start to torture someone with isolation, you need to do it in the *best way*, since if its not perfect you have only put innocent people in danger. I think we can up with something better (in every sense) than this.

Quote:1. He cannot ever murder anyone again.
I am sure we can deal with the situation without unnecessary torture

Quote:2. It's a determent to others.
It never was and never will be. That has been thoroughly demonstrated. I am surprised you bring up this draconian argument
François Ravaillac, convicted of regicide in 1610.
Quote:On May 27, he was taken to the Place de Grève in Paris and was tortured one last time before being pulled apart by four horses, a method of execution reserved for regicides. Alistair Horne describes the torture Ravaillac suffered: "Before being drawn and quartered... he was scalded with burning sulphur, molten lead and boiling oil and resin, his flesh then being torn by pincers." Following his execution, Ravaillac's parents were forced into exile, and the rest of his family was ordered never to use the name "Ravaillac" again.
Robert François Damiens, convicted of (attempted) regicide in 1757.
Quote:He was first subjected to a torture in which his legs were painfully compressed by devices called "boots". He was then tortured with red-hot pincers; the hand with which he had held the knife during the attempted assassination was burned using sulphur; molten wax, molten lead, and boiling oil were poured into his wounds. He was then remanded to the royal executioner, Charles Henri Sanson, who harnessed horses to his arms and legs to be dismembered. But Damiens' limbs did not separate easily: the officiants ordered Sanson to cut Damiens' tendons, and once that was done the horses were able to perform the dismemberment. Once Damiens was dismembered, to the applause of the crowd, his reportedly still-living torso was burnt at the stake. (Some accounts say he died when his last remaining arm was removed.)

After his death, the remains of Damiens' corpse were reduced to ashes and scattered in the wind. His house was razed, his brothers and sisters were forced to change their names, and his father, wife, and daughter were banished from France.
If that deterrent didnt work, then, please, tell me which one would have worked.


Quote:3. The victim's family gets justice, and justice should not be confused with revenge. In this case justice is severe punishment, and such crimes should not go unpunished severely.
How is torture part of justice? Particularly unnecessary torture (see 1.).
I think we have to define what constitutes justice and revenge, we seem to be in disagreement here.

Quote:The murderer has taken the life of another person. He has taken everything from that victim, and you are concerned with his mental state?
Yes, he is a human being. As a humanist i am against useless torture of murderers. I dont like them at all, but they are humans, terrible ones, but still. This is about honoring my values, not about a petty murderer.
Additional to that i think i already said that i am arguing from practical reasons. Making a more dangerous murderer out of an already dangerous murderer is also risky for everybody else (unless you lock him up and throw away the key, your be all end all solution).
But my main point is, as i already stated (bolded iirc) that we need to stick to our principles. Torturing people to keep other people safe (knowing that as soon as we start torturing we are creating an even bigger risk, so we have to double down on our torture) does not support my values and it seems thats what we are arguing all about.

Quote:Taking his freedom away cannot be compared to him taking everything away from the victim.
And torturing a murderer doesnt make the victim alive again.

I am wondering we are having this discussion anyhow when i think of the state of the US penal system, particularly the high security facilites and the fact that the UN thinks too that solitary confinement/isolation constitutes torture.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: