Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2014, 08:48 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(28-05-2014 08:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:The anti-death penalty stance is one of the hardest ones to take.

No it's not. It's the easy argument to make...

Death penalty costs more, inmates are often left on death row for years, some end up with life imprisonment instead (making it all a waste of time) anyway, innocent people can be executed, the evidence is not there to prove it actually deters crime the moral crisis around executing mentally handicapped (which could be argued that anyone that goes around killing/raping people has something wrong with them in the brain.), eye for an eye is a bad philosophy, we have the means to keep them detained for life, the evidence behind the chemical they use and if it causes pain and suffering or not is not conclusive, botched executions, it's not widely accepted in the population, jury members of death penalty crimes are not aloud to be anti-death penalty (this may have changed), which defeats the whole purpose of a jury.

All pro-death penalty have is "revenge" which is a poor argument.

That is all true but the emotional argument is a hard one to argue against for most people. If you just look at the facts it is as one sided as the abortion debate.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 08:52 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(28-05-2014 08:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:The anti-death penalty stance is one of the hardest ones to take.

No it's not. It's the easy argument to make...

Death penalty costs more, inmates are often left on death row for years, some end up with life imprisonment instead (making it all a waste of time) anyway, innocent people can be executed, the evidence is not there to prove it actually deters crime the moral crisis around executing mentally handicapped (which could be argued that anyone that goes around killing/raping people has something wrong with them in the brain.), eye for an eye is a bad philosophy, we have the means to keep them detained for life, the evidence behind the chemical they use and if it causes pain and suffering or not is not conclusive, botched executions, it's not widely accepted in the population, jury members of death penalty crimes are not aloud to be anti-death penalty (this may have changed), which defeats the whole purpose of a jury.

All pro-death penalty have is "revenge" which is a poor argument.

If I really wanted revenge, I'd send someone into a place where their teeth would be punched out of their head right before they were face raped, repeatedly!
Death would be too easy for them! I'd want them to feel lots and lots and lots of pain!! But, then again, I'm not humane Undecided

Damn! That rhymed Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 09:01 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(28-05-2014 08:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 08:44 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No it's not. It's the easy argument to make...

Death penalty costs more, inmates are often left on death row for years, some end up with life imprisonment instead (making it all a waste of time) anyway, innocent people can be executed, the evidence is not there to prove it actually deters crime the moral crisis around executing mentally handicapped (which could be argued that anyone that goes around killing/raping people has something wrong with them in the brain.), eye for an eye is a bad philosophy, we have the means to keep them detained for life, the evidence behind the chemical they use and if it causes pain and suffering or not is not conclusive, botched executions, it's not widely accepted in the population, jury members of death penalty crimes are not aloud to be anti-death penalty (this may have changed), which defeats the whole purpose of a jury.

All pro-death penalty have is "revenge" which is a poor argument.

That is all true but the emotional argument is a hard one to argue against for most people. If you just look at the facts it is as one sided as the abortion debate.

No it's not. See previous post.
You're talking about what is best for a society and so the facts are what matter most. Cost, does it deter crime, what does it actually achieve, do the majority want it etc.. etc..

Revenge isn't going to undo the crime.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
28-05-2014, 10:23 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(28-05-2014 09:01 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 08:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  That is all true but the emotional argument is a hard one to argue against for most people. If you just look at the facts it is as one sided as the abortion debate.

No it's not. See previous post.
You're talking about what is best for a society and so the facts are what matter most. Cost, does it deter crime, what does it actually achieve, do the majority want it etc.. etc..

Revenge isn't going to undo the crime.

*groans*

But Revenge says it will feel SO good to know the serial killer was beaten to death rather than died peacefully on a gurney Dodgy Humane is always ruining the fun *pouty face*
Gasp Oh nvm Shy He will get his come up-ins Banana_zorro

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(28-05-2014 10:23 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 09:01 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No it's not. See previous post.
You're talking about what is best for a society and so the facts are what matter most. Cost, does it deter crime, what does it actually achieve, do the majority want it etc.. etc..

Revenge isn't going to undo the crime.

*groans*

But Revenge says it will feel SO good to know the serial killer was beaten to death rather than died peacefully on a gurney Dodgy Humane is always ruining the fun *pouty face*
Gasp Oh nvm Shy He will get his come up-ins Banana_zorro

Yeah but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 06:18 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
I assume most on here are talking about USA. In the UK when we had the death sentence, it was a short wait between conviction and hanging. Hanging is really cheap, wooden gallows, rope and counter balance sand bags are inexpensive. So at least in the UK, the cost of execution was considerably less than financially supporting a prisoner for life.

On the ethics of causing the prisoner pain etc: again, I have no problem with that. It really doesn't bother me, especially weighed against the cost. Once that person has crossed the line, their rights are forfeit as far as I'm concerned. ... I think that giving people inalienable rights just because they're human is counter productive to society. ... I don't know if I am missing something here but I just don't see a problem with hanging a killer or a child rapist. People keep talking about rehabilitation, how can you know someone is rehabilitated whilst they're in prison? You don't know if a killer is rehabilitated until they're out on the streets unsupervised, you don't know if a pedophile is rehabilitated until they're once again around children. I think that these people should be permanently and cheaply removed from society. This whole argument from emotion thing bugs me a bit too. If I have a loved one killed, why can't I have justice? If someone raped and killed my 5 year old nephew, why should they get to live?

This whole two wrongs don't make a right thing, makes no sense.

Killing a child for sexual pleasure (for example) ... wrong
Killing a guy who has forfeited his rights by killing said child ... right

The more I read this thread and the more I think about it, the more pro death penalty I am to be honest.

It's possible I am experiencing a disconnect somewhere but I just can't see any problem whatsoever with hanging murderers, rapists and pedophiles! Nor do I care if they suffer in the process. If the death penalty was on the cards, they knew the risks when they did the crime.

I don't get how 'rising above it' makes me a better person? I think removing these people from the world would be the right thing to do.

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
29-05-2014, 06:24 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(29-05-2014 06:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I assume most on here are talking about USA. In the UK when we had the death sentence, it was a short wait between conviction and hanging. Hanging is really cheap, wooden gallows, rope and counter balance sand bags are inexpensive. So at least in the UK, the cost of execution was considerably less than financially supporting a prisoner for life.

On the ethics of causing the prisoner pain etc: again, I have no problem with that. It really doesn't bother me, especially weighed against the cost. Once that person has crossed the line, their rights are forfeit as far as I'm concerned. ... I think that giving people inalienable rights just because they're human is counter productive to society. ... I don't know if I am missing something here but I just don't see a problem with hanging a killer or a child rapist. People keep talking about rehabilitation, how can you know someone is rehabilitated whilst they're in prison? You don't know if a killer is rehabilitated until they're out on the streets unsupervised, you don't know if a pedophile is rehabilitated until they're once again around children. I think that these people should be permanently and cheaply removed from society. This whole argument from emotion thing bugs me a bit too. If I have a loved one killed, why can't I have justice? If someone raped and killed my 5 year old nephew, why should they get to live?

This whole two wrongs don't make a right thing, makes no sense.

Killing a child for sexual pleasure (for example) ... wrong
Killing a guy who has forfeited his rights by killing said child ... right

The more I read this thread and the more I think about it, the more pro death penalty I am to be honest.

It's possible I am experiencing a disconnect somewhere but I just can't see any problem whatsoever with hanging murderers, rapists and pedophiles! Nor do I care if they suffer in the process. If the death penalty was on the cards, they knew the risks when they did the crime.

I don't get how 'rising above it' makes me a better person? I think removing these people from the world would be the right thing to do.

That is basically a wholly emotional argument based not in reason or fact but in feels. Sorry can't help you there.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 06:35 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(29-05-2014 06:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I assume most on here are talking about USA. In the UK when we had the death sentence, it was a short wait between conviction and hanging. Hanging is really cheap, wooden gallows, rope and counter balance sand bags are inexpensive. So at least in the UK, the cost of execution was considerably less than financially supporting a prisoner for life.

As has been pointed out, it is primarily the cost of legal complications which accounts for the difference - the mechanism is a trivial expense. And this has risen far faster than the cost of incarceration in nations which have retained capital punishment. The last execution in the UK was in 1964; well, once upon a time it was cheaper to execute in the US, too - but that hasn't been the case for decades.

(29-05-2014 06:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  On the ethics of causing the prisoner pain etc: again, I have no problem with that. It really doesn't bother me, especially weighed against the cost. Once that person has crossed the line, their rights are forfeit as far as I'm concerned. ... I think that giving people inalienable rights just because they're human is counter productive to society. ... I don't know if I am missing something here but I just don't see a problem with hanging a killer or a child rapist. People keep talking about rehabilitation, how can you know someone is rehabilitated whilst they're in prison? You don't know if a killer is rehabilitated until they're out on the streets unsupervised, you don't know if a pedophile is rehabilitated until they're once again around children. I think that these people should be permanently and cheaply removed from society.

Except the whole "permanently removed from society" thing is more cheaply done through life sentences... Also, who are you to arbitrarily decide what's beyond rehabilitation?

Although it's certainly true that punitive justice is highly incompatible with the sort of psychological assessment and treatment that might actually help.

(29-05-2014 06:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  This whole argument from emotion thing bugs me a bit too. If I have a loved one killed, why can't I have justice? If someone raped and killed my 5 year old nephew, why should they get to live?

This whole two wrongs don't make a right thing, makes no sense.

Killing a child for sexual pleasure (for example) ... wrong
Killing a guy who has forfeited his rights by killing said child ... right

The more I read this thread and the more I think about it, the more pro death penalty I am to be honest.

It's possible I am experiencing a disconnect somewhere but I just can't see any problem whatsoever with hanging murderers, rapists and pedophiles! Nor do I care if they suffer in the process. If the death penalty was on the cards, they knew the risks when they did the crime.

I don't get how 'rising above it' makes me a better person? I think removing these people from the world would be the right thing to do.

That's simply statistics at work. There is innate and inevitable statistical variation in moral precepts. The desire for vengeance (as an example) exists, for different people, somewhere on a scale from "not present" to "all-consuming".

There's nothing wrong with any such variation (well, the latter might go a bit far), but it's the role of any society to establish a workable common ground.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(29-05-2014 04:46 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 10:23 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  *groans*

But Revenge says it will feel SO good to know the serial killer was beaten to death rather than died peacefully on a gurney Dodgy Humane is always ruining the fun *pouty face*
Gasp Oh nvm Shy He will get his come up-ins Banana_zorro

Yeah but two wrongs don't make a right.

Personally, I couldn't care less what happens to a person who's committed murder! I'm not the furthest thing from a proponent of the humane treatment of violent criminals you'll find, but close enough so as to make no difference. But I'm not masquerading as a Saint, either.

Sending someone into an environment where it is highly likely that they will be raped to death is less "wrong" than bringing about an end to their life in a painless fashion!

So when someone says they are against all forms of torture, no matter who what where when or how, yet will condemn a prisoner to a life time's worth of a fate far worse than death, I'm calling bullshit, and won't let it go until they admit they are at least just as "awful" as I am for proposing the humane execution of serial murderers, if not more so, for their willingness to send other humans into hellish conditions from which they might only be able to escape through a grizzly death!

Obviously, the death penalty should be reserved for those who've committed the most outrageous of heinous acts, but to get rid of it all together before FIRST fixing the penal system into which you're sending the damned is as ridiculous as getting rid of guns, and then lamenting that people are still killing each other with knives.

I'll accept the zero tolerance rule in allowing innocents to die, but I'll have to hold the same zero tolerance rule for those who are against torture. Torture that can only be circumvented by, as painlessly as possible, executing someone who's committed heinous acts before you throw them in the midst of fiends who would love nothing more than to tear them to bits with their bare hands!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
29-05-2014, 07:06 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(29-05-2014 06:56 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 04:46 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Yeah but two wrongs don't make a right.

Personally, I couldn't care less what happens to a person who's committed murder! I'm not the furthest thing from a proponent of the humane treatment of violent criminals you'll find, but close enough so as to make no difference. But I'm not masquerading as a Saint, either.

Sending someone into an environment where it is highly likely that they will be raped to death is less "wrong" than bringing about an end to their life in a painless fashion!

So when someone says they are against all forms of torture, no matter who what where when or how, yet will condemn a prisoner to a life time's worth of a fate far worse than death, I'm calling bullshit, and won't let it go until they admit they are at least just as "awful" as I am for proposing the humane execution of serial murderers, if not more so, for their willingness to send other humans into hellish conditions from which they might only be able to escape through a grizzly death!

Obviously, the death penalty should be reserved for those who've committed the most outrageous of heinous acts, but to get rid of it all together before FIRST fixing the penal system into which you're sending the damned is as ridiculous as getting rid of guns, and then lamenting that people are still killing each other with knives.

I'll accept the zero tolerance rule in allowing innocents to die, but I'll have to hold the same zero tolerance rule for those who are against torture. Torture that can only be circumvented by, as painlessly as possible, executing someone who's committed heinous acts before you throw them in the midst of fiends who would love nothing more than to tear them to bits with their bare hands!

This is a much better one Gule, I can agree with this.

[Image: Popof+thumbs+2.jpg]

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: