death penalty - yes or no

[Jaster Mereel]

All individuals have, or should have, the same political power to get defend themselves if on trial. The state should have no more. If you mean if someone is suspected of trouble and runs from the state, that the state can come get them and put them through a fair trial, yes, but no one is more powerful than another. We are all equal, or should be. I am quick to defend against a quick to kill attitude. God forbid, it could be your innocent life up there in court one of these days and let's hope you would get a fair trial and a judge who values life, without having a quick to kill attitude or making hasty decisions on a life he thinks is cheap.

You don't understand at all what I am saying. The fact that you are even on trial in a courtroom means that the state has political supremacy over you because the state is deciding your guilt or innocence with respect to something that the state has defined as prohibited. The jury is acting in the capacity of the state when deciding your guilt or innocence, and the judge is acting in the capacity of the state when deciding what punishment should be handed down. Rethink your position when you understand what I am trying to say.

 

[usp8riot]

Yes, I understood. That's only if you're breaking the law or suspected to. Otherwise, I'm just as supreme as the law. Give unto caesar what is his, but if I don't owe him, I am not under his power. If I take an item in the store, I am under authority to pay before I get out. So if I do not take or owe the state, so am I not under it's power. I am under God's power though. He is the ultimate authority. No one can be subjected to giving to someone they don't owe. We are equal until we have broken the law, aka, owe the govt a debt for disobeying it.

 

[Ophiolite]

You have not understood Jaster at all. The state has decided what the law is. Not you. You have very little say in determining that law, or how it is implemented. This is not an arrangement of equals. The state is practically supreme. The individual is subsumed. The checks and balances of the legal system serve only to modify that power in minor ways, not to control it.

 

[usp8riot]

Yes, I understand, but it's the individuals who make the law that make up the state. I have little say in the law? Then what's the use of voting. How do you know I'm not a senator? They are individuals. I see it from your point of view also, that the state is composed of individuals. This is my point of view. Others may see a state, some may see individuals, but all in all, we're all equal. You can walk up to a figure of the state and tremble in your shoes if you like because of their 'supreme' power, I don't though, I just see another individual of society.

 

[przyk]

You vote because the state allows you to vote.

 

[Silkworm]

Yes, I am in favor of the death penalty but only in cases of 2 murders at different times. This concept of the death penalty being a deterrent is bogus, and as being a punishment for gruesome crimes, it's weak. But to murder someone who murders people to solve problems or get kicks, which is to be certain if he/she is a multiple offender, is the responsibility of the state to protect others from being harmed by the offender in the future (the concept being you can't murder anyone else if you're dead).

No exceptions on the demographic of the offender.

As an atheist I place immense value in life, and so I do not like the death penalty, but it is necessary for a safer world.

 

[przyk]

*Sigh* The death penalty isn't the only way of keeping people safe.

Arguably, it makes criminals more dangerous: If they see the police coming to arrest them, and they know they're facing the death penalty, they're likely to feel they have nothing to lose.

 

[mountainhare]

At least we know that those we execute will not murder and/or rape ever again...

 

[przyk]

At least we know that speeders, once executed, will never drive dangerously again.

I propose we execute anyone caught driving over the speed limit. Society must learn that speeding is simply not acceptable.

 

[Silkworm]

There's a difference between intentionally killing someone and speeding. Speeding is reckless endangerment, but if you don't kill anyone you don't kill anyone. However, if you kill someone by speeding twice you should be executed to keep others safe.

I do agree with przyk that it is not the only way to keep people safe, but it is the sure way. And who's to say the "nothing to lose" mentallity would increase more or less as it is? There is the death penalty in many states, and has it become more frequent since reinstitution of the death penalty? I'd like to see some data on that.

Anyone who get's killed by a convicted murderer, and I mean anyone, the state has killed that person themselves by neglect.

 

[przyk]

There's a difference between intentionally killing someone and speeding. Speeding is reckless endangerment, but if you don't kill anyone you don't kill anyone.

I know perfectly well that "murder" and "speeding" are not synonyms. I was just pointing out that simplistic attitudes like "kill anyone that endangers society" rarely work, if ever.

However, if you kill someone by speeding twice you should be executed to keep others safe.

I'd prefer it if the state focused on a person's intent, rather than actions. There's different kinds of killings: first degree, manslaughter, accidental, self-defence, etc. You wouldn't treat them all (blindly) the same way, would you?

I do agree with przyk that it is not the only way to keep people safe, but it is the sure way.

Even more sure would be to lock every single human on the planet in their own isolated cell. That way no-one could hurt anyone. Starting with the assumption that every individual is "safe" until they prove otherwise will permit and inevitably result in violence. Maybe some things are more important than maximizing everyone's safety.

And who's to say the "nothing to lose" mentallity would increase more or less as it is? There is the death penalty in many states, and has it become more frequent since reinstitution of the death penalty? I'd like to see some data on that.

I'm talking about criminals being more dangerous to arrest, after they've already committed a murder. I haven't seen any statistics, but I would expect someone to be more desperate knowing they're facing the death penalty than if they were facing life imprisonment.

Anyone who get's killed by a convicted murderer, and I mean anyone, the state has killed that person themselves by neglect.

Personally, I'd blame the murderer. You can't expect the state or justice system to be foolproof.

And while were here:

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

- J. R. R. Tolkien (via Gandalf, Lord of the Rings)​

 

[Silkworm]

Wait, did you just quote Gandolf?

I'm not saying that murderers don't deserve their day in court, and intent as well is a bit overrated and sticky. If you're someone who just has an accidental knack for killing people, you should be dealt with the same. This is not about punishment, it's about protection, and killing anyone in self defense is not murder, it's self defense. The point of doing it is to protect people so they can leave their isolated cells without fear.

The point about being more dangerous should be examinable, as the death penalty was not around in the US for awhile then reinstituted.

And you'd have to blame the state. One of a government's funamental purposes is to protect it's citizens, and I don't think it's too bizarre to expect that people who kill those citizens should be put to death to insure it will not happen in the future, especially since citizens are not empowered to do so themselves until attacked, which gives a major advantage to the attacker.

 

[draqon]

Bullet in your ass. yes or no? I suppose thats a no.
Those of you who answered yes to: death penalty, yes or no? Are happy to get a bullet in their ass.

 

[przyk]

Wait, did you just quote Gandolf?

Yep.

I'm not saying that murderers don't deserve their day in court, and intent as well is a bit overrated and sticky. If you're someone who just has an accidental knack for killing people, you should be dealt with the same. This is not about punishment, it's about protection, and killing anyone in self defense is not murder, it's self defense.

Wait, you'd execute someone for being clumsy??????????

What's with these extreme views on ensuring safety, Silkworm? Are you afraid of being murdered or something? I think your idea of "kill anyone that's a threat" and "2 strikes and you're out" is a bit of an overkill.

The point of doing it is to protect people so they can leave their isolated cells without fear.

But they do have reason to fear. All forms of justice give the sentence after the crime. The crime has already happened, and cannot be undone. Do you really think a zero-tolerance policy combined with the death penalty will wipe out murders? I can tell you that the "justice" system during the middle ages was even tougher than what you have in mind - would you have felt safer back then?

The point about being more dangerous should be examinable, as the death penalty was not around in the US for awhile then reinstituted.

It was a guess at a possibility. You can do the research if you want; I'm too lazy.

And you'd have to blame the state. One of a government's funamental purposes is to protect it's citizens,

Yes, it provides a police force, legal justice system, military, what more do you want? Crime is not a result of the state's negligence. You could just as easily blame the voters.

and I don't think it's too bizarre to expect that people who kill those citizens should be put to death to insure it will not happen in the future,

As I said already, I think its going a bit far. There are other, more reversible ways of dealing with convicted killers.

especially since citizens are not empowered to do so themselves until attacked, which gives a major advantage to the attacker.

And what will an execution 15 years later change?

 

[Silkworm]

Law enforcement wasn't back then what it was today, and who's to say it was or was not more safe in the middle ages anyway?

The burden of proof is on you to do the research, I didn't make the statement and I'm too lazy as well.

In a democratic nation the voters are ultimately responsible for the actions of its government. So every time a murderer escapes, or kills someone in prison, etc, I'm partially to blame for it. I agree.

 

[przyk]

Law enforcement wasn't back then what it was today, and who's to say it was or was not more safe in the middle ages anyway?

Um, you could get burned at the stake for being a catholic, hung for theft...

The burden of proof is on you to do the research, I didn't make the statement and I'm too lazy as well.

It was a statement based on my intuition. You are not required to agree with my intuition, so ignore it if you don't think it carries any weight.

In a democratic nation the voters are ultimately responsible for the actions of its government. So every time a murderer escapes, or kills someone in prison, etc, I'm partially to blame for it. I agree.

I think you're being a little hard on yourself. "Security for all" is a nice ideal, but that doesn't mean it's practical or even attainable.

 

[Silkworm]

przyk: Um, you could get burned at the stake for being a catholic, hung for theft...

The point I was trying to make that investigations have gotten a lot more sophisticated as of late. Back then, if you weren't caught red handed, how would you ever be caught if you didn't take and keep and object that would trace it back?

And I never said that more death penalty = a better criminal justice system. Just that if someone solves his problems or gets his kicks or habitually behaves recklessly enough that they have a body count of 2 or greater, they must be put to death in order to protect innocent people. That's all I'm saying.

I do not support the death penalty as a form of punishment or a deterant, that's ridiculous, but I do support it as protection. What better protection can one person have?

 

[przyk]

I suggested a better prtoection system: isolate every person on the planet in their own individual cell - prevent everyone from interacting with everyone else. This will prevent people from murdering others, rather than having the murderer dealt with when its already too late.

 

[thedevilsreject]

I suggested a better prtoection system: isolate every person on the planet in their own individual cell - prevent everyone from interacting with everyone else. This will prevent people from murdering others, rather than having the murderer dealt with when its already too late.

just release a whole load of ricin into the air

 

[Darth Terent 666]

Yeah, but isolating everyone will just make them kill THEMSELVES because of sheer boredom-lol


I think the death penalty is right. Why should murderers and stuff live "freely" in prison? Many don't realize this, but prison isn't some place where you're completely isolated (unless it's a supermax); there are times when you can play, and if you have a good prison record, you get freedoms around the prison.

So, why should child molesters, murderers, and Michael Jackson go free?
They shouldn't.
They should be punished with true justice. If you commit crime, society doesn't want you. Death to Criminals!