Is It Right To Execute Others?

[Baron Max]

Why not make prisoners into slaves? At least then they can benefit the economy.

There's too many of them ...and they take the jobs that could mean the livelihood of many law-abiding citizens.

But why does a society need vicious, nasty, cruel murderers and rapists?? I mean, what good are they to a society??? Why keep people like that in society? Why, why, why???

Baron Max

 

[Oniw17]

But why does a society need vicious, nasty, cruel murderers and rapists?? I mean, what good are they to a society??? Why keep people like that in society? Why, why, why???

Their minds are very important.

 

[Baron Max]

Their minds are very important.

For what??? To teach others how to kill efficiently ...and perhaps how to not get caught??

The reason, the VERY reason, that they're in prison is precisely because their minds are fucked up ...yet youu want to keep them for the minds that have made the killed and rape others?? Surely you're joking, right?

Baron Max

 

[Oniw17]

No I'm not joking Mr. Baron, a murderer's mind is like a perfectly cut diamond.

 

[Baron Max]

No I'm not joking Mr. Baron, a murderer's mind is like a perfectly cut diamond.

Perfectly cut diamond?????? It's a flawed cut ....and to see it any other way is just ignorance and/or stupidity!

You are joking, Oniw, and doing it just to get a reaction in others (or me).

Baron Max

 

[Maxi]

But can't you see that by putting someone in prison for life is also punishing all of the innocent taxpayers who have to foot the bill? Why would you advocate that? How can you condone punishing innocent peope for what someone else has done?

Baron Max

you do know that in fact the trials and procedures of an execution (I assume we're talking death penalty cases here) is more expensive than a lifetime of prison.

The whole purpose of prison is for people to think of what they've done, to redeem themselves. Perhaps a lot of them don't, but if you can convert say just 20% of all prisoners into being better people, wouldn't that be worth it, even if say the remaining 80% goes out and steal some ipods etc and gets put back in?

I think the question is also, where do one draw the line as to if someone should be given the death penalty or not? Only by killing someone? Then should we kill the executioner? And so on and so forth...

There are crimes that some people could perhaps regard as being even more serious than taking the life of someone else.

I think it's hard to argue for death penalty, because firstly in many cases people are wrongly convicted. Then what? Should we go and say sorry to that person's family,friends and relatives and that's that? Also many of these people are wrongly accused because they can't afford a proper lawyer for their trial or appeal, so they don't stand much chance in court. Think I read somewhere that the majority of people who are in death row in the US are young black offenders. Coincidence?

Could death penalty ever be right? Who has the right to punish someone to death? The law? The victim's family?

 

[Baron Max]

you do know that in fact the trials and procedures of an execution (I assume we're talking death penalty cases here) is more expensive than a lifetime of prison.

That's because we don't CARRY OUT the sentence!! We wait around for years and years, and pay $$ in legal fees, etc. If we executed the convict immediately, the cost would be virtually nothing. In fact, if they brought him out and stood him against a wall, I'd shoot the bastard myself free of charge!

The whole purpose of prison is ...

PUNISHMENT!

I think it's hard to argue for death penalty, because firstly in many cases people are wrongly convicted.

So why have trials at all if we're not going to believe the verdicts? Let's just get rid of all courts and judges and attorneys? See? How ridiculous is that?

If we're going to go to the expense of trials and courts, then we must believe the verdicts and then carry out the sentences. If we LATER find out it was in error, we apologize and send the victim's family $10 and a Hallmark card.

But a few errors in the trial system shouldn't negate the entire process!

If we waited for everything in life to be absolutely perfect and without error before we acted, then nothing would ever get done.

I think the question is also, where do one draw the line as to if someone should be given the death penalty or not? Only by killing someone? Then should we kill the executioner? And so on and so forth...

That, of course, is so stupid that a response is to it would be even more stupid!

Could death penalty ever be right? Who has the right to punish someone to death? The law? The victim's family?

The society has been given that right in most states of the USA. The people have spoken! ...and the mamby-pamby, lilly-livered liberal doo-gooders are trying to take it away from the people!

Let me ask you a question: What does a society, any society, need with a psychopathic killer? Or a psychopathic, violent rapist? Why should a society spend more of it's resources on such a prisoner than it spends on the more unfortunate of the society?

Baron Max

 

[Syzygys]

Finally I agree with Baron, what a rare day!

That's because we don't CARRY OUT the sentence!!

Correct. A fair trial, a fair appeal and a fair and fast execution. Not longer than 2 years from the end of the first trial.

Prisons exist for more than just punishment::

1. Punishment.
2. Safety for society.
3. Deterrent.

 

[Syzygys]

I think it's hard to argue for death penalty, because firstly in many cases people are wrongly convicted.

This is one very stupid argument, because:

1. Obviously we should work on trying to execute the right person, instead of stop doing it.
2. People die in surgeries, nevertheless we don't stop doing surgeries.
3. What say you, when the accused is OBVIOUSLY, 110% guilty???

 

[Maxi]

This is one very stupid argument, because:

1. Obviously we should work on trying to execute the right person, instead of stop doing it.
2. People die in surgeries, nevertheless we don't stop doing surgeries.
3. What say you, when the accused is OBVIOUSLY, 110% guilty???

a) the error margin is about 1% and with currently about 3000 prisoners on death row you can easily do the maths.

b) people have the choice whether or not they want to have the surgery. A prisoner doesn't choose between death penalty and life time of incarceration.

c) the problem isn't for those of whom we know are 110% guilty as you say but rather those who we don't know

 

[Roman]

Perfectly cut diamond?????? It's a flawed cut ....and to see it any other way is just ignorance and/or stupidity!

You are joking, Oniw, and doing it just to get a reaction in others (or me).

Baron Max

Yet you get a chubby just thinking about using your handgun on some poor negro who's stealing your tv.

 

[leopold]

In my opinion, it is very right and very needed execution. Only if the person had commited a crime, of course.

would you really execute someone for stealing a candybar?

 

[leopold]

3. What say you, when the accused is OBVIOUSLY, 110% guilty???

accused and guilty are entirely different words with entirely different meanings.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Except vengeance is not justice.

On a sidenote, justice is vengeance that the law agrees with.

 

[swivel]

On a sidenote, justice is vengeance that the law agrees with.

Great quote. I'm having fun pondering this one. Not sure that I agree completely, but I still love the thought.

 

[Baron Max]

Great quote. I'm having fun pondering this one. Not sure that I agree completely, but I still love the thought.

As you think about it, consider that you're part of a small tribe or small town where you personally know each person. Then an outsider comes into town and kills one of the people you know and love/like.

Things take on a much different meaning/thought when one considers issues on a local, intimate level. It's easy for us to be sympathetic to a murderer 2,000 miles away in a town/city where we don't know anyone. But when the victim is a friend, ...?

Baron Max

 

[draqon]

In my opinion, it is very right and very needed execution. Only if the person had commited a crime, of course.

well execution is a sin, a killing commited by a person, no matter how people try to justify it. Really there are always ways to avoid execution, such as sending the person away or enslaving him, that way the judicial society of humans will not be stained with blood.

 

[Baron Max]

well execution is a sin,.... Really there are always ways to avoid execution, such as sending the person away or enslaving him,...

Huh? So enslaving someone is not a sin? Throwing someone into a miserable existence like prison is not a sin??

You have some strange ideas about sin!

Baron Max

 

[Syzygys]

well execution is a sin,

Not in my book. My part-time job is being an executioner. How can I sin when the state pays me to do it?
(although not much work nowadays)

Really there are always ways to avoid execution,

Like withdrawing food...

Anyway, just messing with you, because your first sentence wasn't a real argument...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

(From Fraggle): "I make an exception for a terrorist because his buddies will capture twelve of our people and demand that we trade him for them."

Well, if you can make exceptions, then so can others, right? And so I propose the "exception" that anyone convicted of murder should be executed. Or surely ye're not saying that only YOU can make exceptions, are you???

I'm not literally making the exception because I don't have the authority. I'm simply offering the opinion that this is one of the rare cases in which a civilized people can allow one person to kill another without weakening the structure of civilization itself. I know you have no respect for the concept of civilization (that's why you live in the backwoods of New Guinea with no car, computer or medicine) so I won't pester you with any further arguments on that subject which you will find pointless.

Others can also propose exceptions of course but only those with the authority to enact and enforce laws can make exceptions to them.

The rationale behind my suggestion is merely the practical application of situational ethics. I believe that civilization is best served by incarcerating even the most heinous criminals. The only reason to execute them instead is that we're unsure of our ability to keep them incarcerated and that the probability is too high that if they get loose they'll repeat their crime. With a member of a terrorist organization both of those conditions are met. They will take hostages and force us to release their buddy, and assuming he's the typical Muzzie Fundie he will commit further acts of terrorism. Or... We'll refuse to negotiate with terrorists like the Israelis and we'll succeed in keeping him in prison, but then his buddies will execute the hostages. Either way, we've damaged the structure of civilization by creating a situation in which further murders are virtually inevitable. The only way to avoid that is to kill the prisoner. As evil as that is, it is preferable to the greater evil that will follow from not killing him.

Situational ethics. The real world requires it. Religions can't accommodate it. One of the many reasons why religions are bullshit.

I see no rationale, situational ethics or otherwise, to justify the exception you propose. I do not believe that civilization will be better off if we allow the government to kill people in revenge. Furthermore I believe that it is impossible for the government to be 100% certain of a convict's guilt, therefore there is always a finite chance that they'd be executing an innocent man. It is a hallmark of civilization to believe that it truly is better to allow a hundred--a thousand--guilty men to live than to kill one innocent man, so long as those guilty men are not allowed to commit more murders. Perhaps if it gets up to ten thousand or a hundred thousand, then we can talk. At some point an innocent man will be more likely to be killed by a bee sting than an erroneous execution and situational ethics will have to kick in again.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I was back home in California, where the left-liberals are just as annoying to a Libertarian as you conservatives are.