Do you agree with capital punishment?

[Shangorilla]

Not even if they murdered twenty people, tortured countless others, and raped innocent children?

Of course, execution alone isn't enough punishment; death is more of an escape to alot of criminals. I would say, give them what they gave to others. Not torture, but what they did to others.

Well then companies like Blackwater and Haliburton should be put to trial. There was a story recently about a woman working for haliburton was gang raped by her co-workers and what about the Blackwater incident. They firebombed innocent people. A child was fused to its mother from the heat. Do they, the company, not also deserve to be put to death. What about Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the corporate puppets that got us into this war? Do they also, through transitive property, deserve to be put to death for starting these wars?

 

[Shangorilla]

Okay........what about slavery? Criminals of course. If they murdered and raped......they deserve to be stripped of their freedom. By the Lord, you're a Genius! Let's help them contribute to society by giving them the nastiest, most labor-intensive jobs existing, and not paying them a dime! Give them the worst, I say, but let them live through it. Pure genius, Dragon! It's that Russian in you.....

We're already doing that. Many prisons have inmates working in sweatshops making barely anything. At least my jeans are hand made by rapists and larsonists.

 

[spidergoat]

The instances of a person being truly innocent are very few and very far between. They system is not flawless. Nothing is. I would not support keeping 10,000 death row inmates alive just in case one is innocent. Sorry, but no.
Life in prison is no deterrent to crime. It empowers and emboldens criminals who know they will get their free vacation for life when they kill/torture someone.
Taxpayers are tired and fed up with paying for criminals.

As I demonstrated, the death penalty is more expensive for the state than life in prison. It is also not a deterrent.

John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers examined recent statistical studies that claimed to show a deterrent effect from the death penalty. The authors conclude that the estimates claiming that the death penalty saves numerous lives "are simply not credible."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2374

 

[Norsefire]

Is the death penalty punishment? Yes, therefore it's main purpose is to punish, not stop.



Depends with those mercenary groups. Obviously the entire group can't, and shouldn't, be put to trial, but only those responsible and involved in the incident. Those who ordered it, for instance, and those who carried it out KNOWING that it was cruel and criminal.

 

[Syzygys]

Oh, I see I was banned. Probably I made too much sense...

As I demonstrated, the death penalty is more expensive for the state than life in prison.[/url][/I]

As I demonstrated already, this is a really stupid argument and was already refuted.

1. Why should we save money on justice?
2. If you really want to save money, let's close down the prison system.

Now 10 pages and still not one good argument from the anti-CP side. On the other hand they keep quiet when I/we score points in this deabte. You see, I don't have a problem acknowledging if there is a good argument against CP, but except the emotional one (against your beliefs, don't like it) there is NONE.

I even went to Wikipedia (because the debaters are incredibly weak here) and read arguments there against CP, and I have to happily report back, that I haven't found any good ones there either.

So I guess we can close this debate on the side of CP. Hang them high! Fair trial, even fairer retrial and a quick execution....

 

[Tiassa]

Why should we save money on justice?

Honestly, Syz, have you not been paying attention? For most who oppose the death penalty in the U.S., the financial cost is not much of an issue, except that people complain about spending money keeping people in prison. In fact, if you read Spidergoat's post more carefully, you'll see that part of what he is responding to is Sandy's repetition of the idea that, "Taxpayers are tired and fed up with paying for criminals".

If taxpayers are tired and fed up with how much money they put into the justice system, one of the solutions is to go with the lower-cost route, e.g., life imprisonment.

Now 10 pages and still not one good argument from the anti-CP side. On the other hand they keep quiet when I/we score points in this deabte. You see, I don't have a problem acknowledging if there is a good argument against CP, but except the emotional one (against your beliefs, don't like it) there is NONE.

Simply repeating that there are no good arguments against your position does not help your position. You have yet to make any convincing argument in favor of your position and, furthermore, discredit yourself even more with your hilarious point about Wikipedia:

I even went to Wikipedia (because the debaters are incredibly weak here) and read arguments there against CP, and I have to happily report back, that I haven't found any good ones there either.

In other words, you went someplace you thought you would find weak debate, and are happy to report that you found weak debate, and that settles the issue?

Perhaps you could help me figure something out, Syz: Why is it that, despite the many slings and arrows cast at conservative politics, it is those who assert conservative viewpoints that most effectively defame conservatism?

So I guess we can close this debate on the side of CP. Hang them high! Fair trial, even fairer retrial and a quick execution.

A history teacher at my Jesuit high school related the story of a female Iranian exchange student who attended the school at the time of the Revolution. When the government recalled all the students, she dutifully returned to Iran. Before she went, though, someone asked her what would happen to the Shah. She replied that "He will be given a fair trial and then shot."

In Reza Pahlavi's case, it's hard to see how he could have been acquitted. But still, that's what your statement reminds me of.

And there was an occasion when then-Governor Bush sent an innocent man to his death. His office was in possession of direct evidence that the man was not guilty, but he chose to not intervene because he felt it was not within his mandate to do so. Yet, in later years, as a presidential candidate, Bush would talk about how his role as Governor was a vital part of the state's efforts against crime. Which serves as a reminder that for so many people in favor of the death penalty, it's not actually about justice but rather the satisfaction of killing someone.

 

[Norsefire]

No, no, it's about justice. What satisfaction can be had when you have no relations with the criminal? The only satisfaction would go to the victim's friends and family.

Executioners, they are indifferent. They do not know or hold feelings toward the executed, so no satisfaction can be had.

As a method of punishment, the death sentence IS justice for some crimes. Or is justice a bunch of leisure time? A life, where others have lost theirs?

 

[Tiassa]

Or is justice a bunch of leisure time?

As long as your argument is intended solely to appeal to emotion, it's hard to take it seriously.

 

[madanthonywayne]

As long as your argument is intended solely to appeal to emotion, it's hard to take it seriously.

In other words, he doesn't agree with you. Now read this horrific story:

Xmas killers murder 6 family members
8:29AM Saturday December 29, 2007

SEATTLE - A woman and her partner have been charged with aggravated first-degree murder for the Christmas Eve shootings of six of her family members.

Joseph Thomas McEnroe and Michelle K Anderson, both 29, have admitted to detectives killing her parents, her brother and his wife.

McEnroe also killed Anderson's brother's two young children, according to a separate affidavit filed in the Washington State court.

King County prosecutor Dan Satterberg told Associated Press that the motivation for the killings.

He is yet to decide whether to seek the death penalty.

- NZ HERALD STAFF

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10484624&ref=rss
Tell me those bastards don't deserve the death penalty! They've confessed. There's no doubt they did it. They killed 6 people, including 2 children on Christmas Eve!

 

[Tiassa]

Two cents

Tell me those bastards don't deserve the death penalty!

I'll stick my nose in to tell you instead that there's no good reason to execute them. It won't bring back the dead. It won't do any good except make a few people somewhere feel a brief moment of satisfaction derived from the act of homicide.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I'll stick my nose in to tell you instead that there's no good reason to execute them. It won't bring back the dead. It won't do any good except make a few people somewhere feel a brief moment of satisfaction derived from the act of homicide.

The punishment should fit the crime. They took six lives unjustly and in cold blood. They deserve death. Nothing more, nothing less.

What would you suggest? A firm talking to? Perhaps a $50 fine? Or a stay at one of our facilities where they'll be given free food, housing, and health care at taxpayer expense while their victims rot in their graves? That's justice to you?

 

[Bells]

The punishment should fit the crime. They took six lives unjustly and in cold blood. They deserve death. Nothing more, nothing less.

What would you suggest? A firm talking to? Perhaps a $50 fine? Or a stay at one of our facilities where they'll be given free food, housing, and health care at taxpayer expense while their victims rot in their graves? That's justice to you?

No, but it is humane.

By killing them, the State lowers itself to the killer's level and become murderers themselves.

 

[Norsefire]

As long as your argument is intended solely to appeal to emotion, it's hard to take it seriously.

Does it appeal to emotion? Say you were a robot, then, what is more justice, a bunch of leisure time or death penalty?

 

[Norsefire]

No, but it is humane.

By killing them, the State lowers itself to the killer's level and become murderers themselves.

No, because it isn't murder. It is justice. Murder is killing in cold blood. Execution is to put down criminals.

By killing them, the state guarantees that their filth never disgraces their streets again.

 

[Norsefire]

I'll stick my nose in to tell you instead that there's no good reason to execute them. It won't bring back the dead. It won't do any good except make a few people somewhere feel a brief moment of satisfaction derived from the act of homicide.

Imprisonment won't bring back the dead, it won't do much good either, and what it will do is satisfy the criminal: "Hey, I tortured and murdered countless people, but now I can have a life vacation! Yippy!"

 

[Norsefire]

No, but it is humane.

By killing them, the State lowers itself to the killer's level and become murderers themselves.

As one of our members said, a quote which I like, "You do not treat the uncivilized with civility"

You do not treat the inhumane with humanity. Is murder and torture humane? No, so don't treat the criminals, who torture and murder and rape, with humanity.

 

[Tiassa]

Norsefire, Madanthonywayne

Does it appeal to emotion? Say you were a robot, then, what is more justice, a bunch of leisure time or death penalty?

Depends on the programming. Since you would describe the relationship between homicide, prison, and justice to include the relationships as—

homicide = justice
prison = reward​

—it's quite clear what the robot would do.

But a rationally-programmed robot properly considering the factors would recognize that there is no justice in the homicide outcome and sentence the convicted to prison.

And then, of course, it would spit out a report detailing its recommendations for reducing the number of crimes in the first place. Just about everyone would be able to find something to complain about in that. Especially the pro-gun folks, the anti-public education folks, the ardent capitalists, and xenophobes.

Crime and punishment is not a cycle removed from the rest of society. While we can never make crime go away entirely until the extinction of cooperative civilization, there is a lot we can do to reduce the amount of crimes taking place. Any sufficiently-powerful computer, programmed with adequate factors to consider the benefit of the human endeavor would remind that, as there is an abstract statistical projection for extraneous crime, the species owes it to itself to reduce the projected number. And we can read report after report describing criminal trends as related to socioeconomic and environmental motivators, but unless we do something about those factors, the only thing those reports are good for is mitigating guilt after the fact.

• • •​

The punishment should fit the crime. They took six lives unjustly and in cold blood. They deserve death. Nothing more, nothing less.

And who the hell are you to decide who deserves what?

To be fair, though, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Appealing to emotions on crimes that happen to be local to me only reduces whatever chance the snowball has in Hell that I will suddenly reverse my stance.

In the meantime, prosecutors will decide within the next month whether to attempt to put either of these two down. According to Jack Broom of the Seattle Times:

No woman has been sentenced to die in Washington state. Of the 3,300 inmates on death row in the U.S. in the last complete count, only 49 were women — less than 1.5 percent ....

.... Family disputes are the most common motive behind multiple killings, said criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University in Boston, who has studied mass murders for 25 years.

Fox said women commit about 10 percent of the killings in the United States, but only 5 percent of the multiple slayings.

(Broom)

And Sara Jean Green opted for the cynical route in her report for the Times:

Within hours of learning he could face the death penalty if he's found guilty of killing three generations of the same family on Christmas Eve, Joseph McEnroe said Friday he has new respect for life.

"You never really realize what life is worth until something like this happens," he said.

During a 15-minute interview at the King County Jail, McEnroe said he's sorry six members of the Anderson family are dead and that he regretted cutting contact with his own family ....

.... "I'm sorry that they're gone. They were my family, too, you know?" McEnroe, 29, said of the victims. "I hope wherever they're at, they're at peace. That's all I'm going to say about them."

(Green)

To be fair, Green does note that McEnroe has been on suicide watch, and has also decided that, "no matter how this turns out, I'm going to try and hold on".

Criminologist Fox noted, in Broom's article, that accomplices can encourage atypical behavior: "Frequently people do things with the assistance of others they would never go through with on their own."

And Richard Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Center, said, "It's like there's something more valuable about women's lives ... Women are also treated differently when they're victims." This matches up with Snohomish County Deputy Prosecutor Chris Dickinson's suggestion that jurors, "in general, would have a tougher time imposing the death penalty on a woman".

More than anything, the questions of capital punishment are intriguing in this case. Will Prosecutor Satterberg actually go for the death penalty? Given that we still have it in Washington State, it will be a tough argument if he does not at least try for it. Will juries condemn these two people? I'm expecting, since they have confessed, Anderson and McEnroe will probably plead guilty. Given a guilty plea and, depending on Michele Anderson's state of mind at her sentencing hearing, will the jury buckle? Will a jury spare McEnroe if Anderson is given life in prison? Or will prosecutors carry the day by deviating from mutual responsibility, arguing that McEnroe's crime is more heinous because he pulled the trigger against the children?

In the end, if they are sent to their deaths, about the only thing to say will be, "I hope you all feel better for this."

We have the killers. We have a confession. There is no specific outcome that will bring complete justice. Executing them will simply acknowledge our frustration at that truth. And then, I suppose, some of my neighbors can puff their chests and strut with chins high, taking comfort from two more homicides.

The chances are slim, of course, that, given their lives to reflect, either Anderson or McEnroe will ever produce for us a key to understanding what happened and why. In putting them down, we will affirm that we don't really care about understanding, and reduce those chances to zero.

And, yes. If that is the case, I hope someone, somewhere, will feel better about life. And who knows? Maybe that person can someday tell us why homicide is so central to people's self-esteem. But I doubt it. We generally don't oblige people outside prison walls to such considerations, and it's not one people tend to take on willingly.
_____________________

Notes:

Broom, Jack. "Death penalty rare for women". SeattleTimes.com. December 30, 2007. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004099282_murders30m.html

Green, Sara Jean. "Accused killer: 'I'm sorry they're gone'". SeattleTimes.com. December 29, 2007. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004098104_mcenroe29m.html

 

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

yes i do agree with capital punishment.

peoples arguments against it often center around "but maybe thats what they want"

this assummes that punishment (prison or death) is for the puposes of revenge? i personally thought that the point of criminal punishment (mainly) is to stop them from repeating a crime - death is perfect for this task - you could also lock them up but it takes a lot more money on average than a quick injection

a lot of people also say that they dont want innocent people being killed - so it doesnt matter if they get locked up for 25 years+ as long as theyre not killed? if you want to stop innocent people being punished then improve that law system not the punishment.

 

[madanthonywayne]

And who the hell are you to decide who deserves what?

Same to you, bud. Who are you to say they don't deserve to be executed?

To be fair, Green does note that McEnroe has been on suicide watch, and has also decided that, "no matter how this turns out, I'm going to try and hold on".

Suicide watch. LOL. They ought to leave a rope in the cell and let nature take its course. It would save us a lot of trouble and expense.

Criminologist Fox noted, in Broom's article, that accomplices can encourage atypical behavior: "Frequently people do things with the assistance of others they would never go through with on their own."

Of course. Good old peer pressure. Who hasn't done something when part of a group that they would never have done otherwise. For most people, it's something like doing a beer bong or running thru campus naked. For others, it's wiping out three generations of a family on Christmas Eve.

And Richard Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Center, said, "It's like there's something more valuable about women's lives ... Women are also treated differently when they're victims." This matches up with Snohomish County Deputy Prosecutor Chris Dickinson's suggestion that jurors, "in general, would have a tougher time imposing the death penalty on a woman".

Very true. The jury will probably blame the man involved and assume that he pushed the poor innocent woman into the crime. So he'll get death, she'll get some much lesser sentence.

I suppose, some of my neighbors can puff their chests and strut with chins high, taking comfort from two more homicides.

It's interesting the way you equate cold blooded murder with the execution of those same cold blooded murderers.

The chances are slim, of course, that, given their lives to reflect, either Anderson or McEnroe will ever produce for us a key to understanding what happened and why. In putting them down, we will affirm that we don't really care about understanding, and reduce those chances to zero.

You're right. I couldn't care less about why these scumbags chose to murder those six innocent people. The minute they did that, their lives were forfeit.

People have free will. Murder is rarely motivated by any of your BS socioeconomic causes. Something pissed off these contemptable slime balls and they chose to take out their anger by exterminating six innocent people.

I can understand, to some extent, murdering a person that's wronged you. You catch your wife with some guy, your business partner steals from you, whatever. But when someone goes so far as to murder children, that just pisses me off at a level so basic that there is nothing that would ever redeem those killers in my eyes.

 

[spidergoat]

The punishment should fit the crime....

So what if someone does a murder because they are seeking justice on another person that did a horrible crime, but for whatever reason can't be convicted? In other words, what sort of leeway would you give for a criminal who's motivations and ideals matched yours, i.e., to deliver the ultimate punishment to someone that deserved it.