The Death Penalty - A Necessary Evil?

[difiCa]

But then you are simply a murderer yourself then. Unless you are in an extreme circumstance where you cannot provide for everyone else and this inmate or accused person is consuming very scarce resources, how is it at all morally justified? You by killing don;t avenge or reverse their crime, let them rot into old age in a dismal cell and let them think of their crimes. Its a far worse punishment than death, some would probably want to die.

In my personal view, I believe protecting the scarce resources of a society should take priority over accommodating convicted, extremely violent and sadistic criminals in a system where they are convicted to become resource consumers for the rest of their lives with a zero possibility of them ever being released and becoming productive members of society (due to life imprisonment and/or mental issues beyond repair). Unless society is at a level where nobody is worse off when someone is consuming resources, there is an opportunity cost to it, and I believe that this opportunity cost is not justified economically and also has a moral implication - by housing prisoners, the correctional system is consuming resources that could be used to benefit others.

Also, in terms of moral justification, one could argue that a punishment which the criminals themselves will see as worse than execution would not be morally justified either - the amount of suffering for the convicted prisoner and potentially others (in the form of assault, harassment and other crimes happening in prison) due to life imprisonment would be greater than that caused to the executed and the executioner through execution.

[Luka Petrovic]

But then you are simply a murderer yourself then. Unless you are in an extreme circumstance where you cannot provide for everyone else and this inmate or accused person is consuming very scarce resources, how is it at all morally justified? You by killing don;t avenge or reverse their crime, let them rot into old age in a dismal cell and let them think of their crimes. Its a far worse punishment than death, some would probably want to die.

In my personal view, I believe protecting the scarce resources of a society should take priority over accommodating convicted, extremely violent and sadistic criminals in a system where they are convicted to become resource consumers for the rest of their lives with a zero possibility of them ever being released and becoming productive members of society (due to life imprisonment and/or mental issues beyond repair). Unless society is at a level where nobody is worse off when someone is consuming resources, there is an opportunity cost to it, and I believe that this opportunity cost is not justified economically and also has a moral implication - by housing prisoners, the correctional system is consuming resources that could be used to benefit others.

Also, in terms of moral justification, one could argue that a punishment which the criminals themselves will see as worse than execution would not be morally justified either - the amount of suffering for the convicted prisoner and potentially others (in the form of assault, harassment and other crimes happening in prison) due to life imprisonment would be greater than that caused to the executed and the executioner through execution.

So now you are merciful giving them a quick death? I thought they were not worthy of mercy and compassion. These people are incurably sick and death won,t deter them. When I say scarce I don't mean it in the economic sense, I mean you literally cannot hand out welfare checks as a government or you cannot feed your company as a military officer. If you can house them, house if you cannot well priorities. Also the death penalty is some countries is just as costly as keeping them in prison for life. An interesting prison in Sweden however spends little money as it requires the inmates to provide for themselves, they live on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean with no way of getting off. They grow their own food, and yeah live off their sentence. This is good for three reasons. One it seperates them from society, the ultimate goal with these sick people. Two they live off their sentence in a restricted world where they only have what they need to survive and three it is cost effective. More death and killing is never the answer...

[Aegle]

I completely support death penalty and it is completely necessary to reduce crimes. Also I don't know how much of you will agree with this, for hardcore criminals, terrorists etc must be given a horrible death penalty. The first question is that whether death penalty is ethical? I completely think so. Second thus the criminals deserve harsh way of executions like ( impaling, brazen bull, or rat torture). Of course these are one of the most horrible way of executions but for today's world where crimes have become a total menace in the society such sort of punishments must be given so that the crime rates can be curbed completely. ( Of course not for all criminals but for those who have committed worst form of crime.)

The existence of a death penalty is unlikely to reduce crimes or curb crime completely as the number of crimes being committed is actually lower and reducing, on average, in areas that do not have the death penalty in comparison to those that do.

In my opinion, "impaling, brazen bull, or rat torture" is completely abhorrent and inhumane even when somebody has committed a heinous crime, and should not be practiced by anybody, let alone a government or legal system.

[Matsu]

In general, support the death penalty. If you wanna live in our society, you gotta play by the rules. This is generally fair as most of our rules and laws are there to prevent you from being a complete ****** and letting everyone get screwed over. I think there are some things that simply aren't forgivable such as raping and murdering little kids. These are things that must be punished commensurably, and I don't think letting these dirtbags rot in a cell is even close to commensurable. I'm not quite sure of my stance yet on this next part yet, but I think for the more messed up criminals, even cruel and unusual punishment might be justified. I also think it is appropriate in the sense that it is the best way and only surefire way to prevent criminal recidivism. If they have the moral capacity to do things like this, who's to say that they will not do them again. It is something that is irresponsible and downright silly to risk. Also, in many cases, I do think it's a pretty good deterrent (at least for most sane people), and honestly, spending taxpayers money to keep scum alive is a waste of money. Money that would better be allocated to things like education or eradicating poverty (which incidentally, also prevents crime).

TLDR; Yes, we become killers by doing this, but at least we are safe killers. It's a moral blow we need to take in order to truly be a safe society.

[Luka Petrovic]

In general, support the death penalty. If you wanna live in our society, you gotta play by the rules. This is generally fair as most of our rules and laws are there to prevent you from being a complete ****** and letting everyone get screwed over. I think there are some things that simply aren't forgivable such as raping and murdering little kids. These are things that must be punished commensurably, and I don't think letting these dirtbags rot in a cell is even close to commensurable. I'm not quite sure of my stance yet on this next part yet, but I think for the more messed up criminals, even cruel and unusual punishment might be justified. I also think it is appropriate in the sense that it is the best way and only surefire way to prevent criminal recidivism. If they have the moral capacity to do things like this, who's to say that they will not do them again. It is something that is irresponsible and downright silly to risk. Also, in many cases, I do think it's a pretty good deterrent (at least for most sane people), and honestly, spending taxpayers money to keep scum alive is a waste of money. Money that would better be allocated to things like education or eradicating poverty (which incidentally, also prevents crime).

TLDR; Yes, we become killers by doing this, but at least we are safe killers. It's a moral blow we need to take in order to truly be a safe society.

Death is only the solutions for lazy governments who can't think of ways to use these people. No death is not a deterrent because sane people don;t do these things. People who do these things don't give a damn about the rules of society, to them there is no such thing. So yes they must be removed, but that doesn't necessitate death for cost-effective solution. And in fact in the United States at least, the Death penalty is costlier than a life sentence because of all the red tape surrounding it, ensuring the person in question is not innocent. You get rid of this lengthly process, make it snappy. Well you have the potential to kill innocent people, talk about repercussions.

But these guys to work, have them build something for society, so then its not a waste of tax payers money.

Some people say "Oh well they are taking away perfectly fine jobs from people" No you're being a pure capitalist. What they are doing are taking away the jobs people are over qualified for and that no free citizen should do to make a living. Better yet put them in a remote place where they can't escape and have to grow their own food, make it hard for them and make it less costly to the pubic. They have a debt to society to pay back. By killing them you let them evade their debt to society, they don't care about dying or living.

Mind you this is not a perfect solution either as the government benefitting from this system could purposefully detain more people by making laws stricter or another similar measure. So there are two sides to every coin, but death is really never the answer in a functioning society.

[Aegle]

In general, support the death penalty. If you wanna live in our society, you gotta play by the rules. This is generally fair as most of our rules and laws are there to prevent you from being a complete ****** and letting everyone get screwed over. I think there are some things that simply aren't forgivable such as raping and murdering little kids. These are things that must be punished commensurably, and I don't think letting these dirtbags rot in a cell is even close to commensurable. I'm not quite sure of my stance yet on this next part yet, but I think for the more messed up criminals, even cruel and unusual punishment might be justified. I also think it is appropriate in the sense that it is the best way and only surefire way to prevent criminal recidivism. If they have the moral capacity to do things like this, who's to say that they will not do them again. It is something that is irresponsible and downright silly to risk. Also, in many cases, I do think it's a pretty good deterrent (at least for most sane people), and honestly, spending taxpayers money to keep scum alive is a waste of money. Money that would better be allocated to things like education or eradicating poverty (which incidentally, also prevents crime).

TLDR; Yes, we become killers by doing this, but at least we are safe killers. It's a moral blow we need to take in order to truly be a safe society.

It's actually more expensive for taxpayers to pay for the death penalty (in western countries) than to keep someone in jail for the rest of their natural life, so less money would be able to be allocated to things like education or eradicating poverty. There is also possible emotional damage to the executioner(s).

Furthermore, I don't think the death penalty is a good deterrent as criminal activity actually occurs at higher rates in places with the death penalty, and removing the death penalty has not prompted an increase in criminal activity. Why do crimes occur, anyway? People committed crimes at the risk of being sent to Australia (which is a lovely place. Yay, Australia! ).

Also, there have been cases of people on death row who have been found to be not guilty...

[Bougieman]

In one word, yes.

The death penalty is necessary as, roughly put, but the people who usually receive the treatment are evil themselves. Justice is defined as rightfulness, Let's say we have a serial killer or repeated rapist or a pedophile. What are we meant to do with these people? Do we let them 'rot' in jail? 'Rot': have lunch hours and work out sessions and a TV and books and 3 square meals a day. No, such a person, using the term 'person' loosely, does not deserve to live, most of all to consolidate the family or friends of the victim. A part of justice is revenge and anybody who denies that is kidding themselves. Otherwise, if revenge wasn't incorporated into the judicial system, how else are people supposed to get on with their lives. Deserved justice is just another word for revenge. The point I'm trying to make with this is that such offenders or repeated offenders do not deserve the opportunity to atone for their crimes, unless they can bring that little boy back to his parents, or not traumatize that young girl for the rest of her life. I'm using these extreme examples to portray the scenarios in which I believe it is acceptable to use the death penalty. It is unacceptable that any Tom, **** and Harry are shoved into that chair, especially when their crimes are not as significant. Again, human life is sacred however, if someone commits such an act in cold blood or for some petty reason, they desecrate that sanctity. In my opinion, there are two main reasons to use the death penalty. 1. Revenge which I've already discussed. 2. Safety; who's to say they won't do it again? Such criminals are a menace to society, how can they be treated equally or addressed as such. They committed acts so horrendous, that the act was in line with the extreme requirements for a death penalty treatment. How can you look at a person like that out in the open and feel safe. They say rehabilitation is going to help, well, as I said before, bring back that honeymooner on a trip with her new husband before her ex-boyfriend threw her off a cliff for leaving him. that should rehabilitate her family and loved ones. To conclude, I really think nowadays we focus too much sympathy to the perpetrator of the crime instead of the victim themselves. Socially, not so much, but in the court room.... Of course, in order to utilize the death penalty, it should only be used after two things are absolutely certain; 1. the reason behind the crime, 2. the guilt of the defendant. If there is reasonable doubt or circumstantial evidence then it should not be carried out. However if both are proven, it is a necessary, I wouldn't even call it evil, it's more of a necessary preventative measure. Extreme actions deserve extreme consequences.

[Bougieman]

In general, support the death penalty. If you wanna live in our society, you gotta play by the rules. This is generally fair as most of our rules and laws are there to prevent you from being a complete ****** and letting everyone get screwed over. I think there are some things that simply aren't forgivable such as raping and murdering little kids. These are things that must be punished commensurably, and I don't think letting these dirtbags rot in a cell is even close to commensurable. I'm not quite sure of my stance yet on this next part yet, but I think for the more messed up criminals, even cruel and unusual punishment might be justified. I also think it is appropriate in the sense that it is the best way and only surefire way to prevent criminal recidivism. If they have the moral capacity to do things like this, who's to say that they will not do them again. It is something that is irresponsible and downright silly to risk. Also, in many cases, I do think it's a pretty good deterrent (at least for most sane people)%www.ibsurvival.comy, spending taxpayers money to keep scum alive is a waste of money. Money that would better be allocated to things like education or eradicating poverty (which incidentally, also prevents crime).

TLDR; Yes, we become killers by doing this, but at least we are safe killers. It's a moral blow we need to take in order to truly be a safe society.

It's actually more expensive for taxpayers to pay for the death penalty (in western countries) than to keep someone in jail for the rest of their natural life, so less money would be able to be allocated to things like education or eradicating poverty. There is also possible emotional damage to the executioner(s).

Furthermore, I don't think the death penalty is a good deterrent as criminal activity actually occurs at higher rates in places with the death penalty, and removing the death penalty has not prompted an increase in criminal activity. Why do crimes occur, anyway? People committed crimes at the risk of being sent to Australia (which is a lovely place. Yay, Australia! ).

Also, there have been cases of people on death row who have been found to be not guilty...

Okay, let's say that you're correct in assuming that it is more expensive (which I would like to see a source to as it makes no sense), it still doesn't explain the victims perspective. If the victim does not want the death penalty, then ok that makes sense. Otherwise, just because an action is expensive, does not mean it is not necessary. Following that same logic we should shut down schools because, hey, they're pretty expensive. Or we could just shut off the space program and use that money to fund schools! The 2 points I want to make; 1. Even if it is expensive to execute someone humanely, it would not even compare, in terms of cost, to other aspects of the judicial system. 2. Again, assuming you're right, which one would you rather have (honestly); revenge or money? If worst came to worst you could ask the victims family to foot the entire or a fixed portion of the bill if they're that intent on the death penalty, which would serve as a deterrent for the death penalty to ensure on the severe cases apply it. There is always around the issue of money to be honest, you can't really focus on that aspect. And this is all going along with your theory that it is more expensive to apply the death penalty then it is to build, maintain and employ billion dollar prison facilities.

P.S. *high-five* Australia

[Bougieman]

No.

I've been against the death penalty for quite sometime now. I see no value in it.

Moving aside the fact that it's very expensive when you factor in things like appeals and whatnot... it's barbaric. No civilised country needs the power to kill their own citizens. It doesn't even deter people from doing crime! If you wanted the justice system to be of deterrence then we'd be better off putting the death penalty for every crime or even adopt parts of Sharia law. How many people would steal if they knew they'd be killed if they were found out for it?

Moving on, telling people not to kill by killing people isn't really a great example. If retribution (the eye for an eye type) or revenge was a model for justice then we'd have a problem. It'd just be at the mercy of a lot of angry people saying 'x should be killed because he killed a cat!'. (exaggerated but you get the point).

Lastly, the simple risk that an innocent person could die because of it is good enough reason in itself to be against it. You can jail someone accidentally but you can't give them back anything if they're killed.

I'd rather a system that isn't at the mercy of angry people, doesn't have the risk of killing innocent people and isn't so morally hypocritical. I understand why people want those who commit heinous crimes dead, but I don't trust humans (and can't) enough to make this an implementable system. These people are better enough in jail for the rest of their lives than a person being killed for a crime he didn't commit.

And you, don't talk about Sharia law if you don't know the rulings. Speak with knowledge, this is an educated debate, not according to your assumptions. Also, your exaggerated point was exactly that; exaggerated. You can't compare apples to oranges. I doubt you will find a single person who wants the death penalty dealt out for such a small and insignificant reason. Also in your second paragraph you said that civilized countries do not kill their own citizens. Well, America did just that multiple times over the last few years. Look it up. Nobody said the death penalty should be applied for every crime. That's a stupid (yet again) assumption that you made and used it as a basis for your argument. Expensive because of appeals... Hmmm.... YOU CAN'T MAKE AN APPEAL IF YOU'RE DEAD. Terminology mixed with (yet again) assumptions. In addition, you never explained why it is barbaric. You just kinda said it and hoped we'd go along. Please elaborate. Killing a person who killed a little girl in cold blood isn't barbaric? As I said in my response a little later on, extreme actions deserve extreme consequences.

Third paragraph: eye for an eye (not that I'm agreeing with it) does NOT mean that we kill a man because he killed my cat. That's like an tooth for a lung. You just said it's important to make a deterrence but killing people who killed isn't a deterrence? That really makes no sense. You're telling me you wouldn't think twice if that could be you on that chair? Also again, people keep doing this, they don't factor in the family or loved ones of the victim. Death penalty is only to be used in extreme cases, only after either a confession or without a glimmer of a doubt.

I'm going to ignore that grammatical massacre of a last paragraph because I can't really understand what's being said. If you have any issues, please respond, I'd be happy to go a few rounds.

[Award Winning Boss]

And you, don't talk about Sharia law if you don't know the rulings. Speak with knowledge, this is an educated debate, not according to your assumptions. Also, your exaggerated point was exactly that; exaggerated. You can't compare apples to oranges. I doubt you will find a single person who wants the death penalty dealt out for such a small and insignificant reason. Also in your second paragraph you said that civilized countries do not kill their own citizens. Well, America did just that multiple times over the last few years. Look it up. Nobody said the death penalty should be applied for every crime. That's a stupid (yet again) assumption that you made and used it as a basis for your argument. Expensive because of appeals... Hmmm.... YOU CAN'T MAKE AN APPEAL IF YOU'RE DEAD. Terminology mixed with (yet again) assumptions. In addition, you never explained why it is barbaric. You just kinda said it and hoped we'd go along. Please elaborate. Killing a person who killed a little girl in cold blood isn't barbaric? As I said in my response a little later on, extreme actions deserve extreme consequences.

Third paragraph: eye for an eye (not that I'm agreeing with it) does NOT mean that we kill a man because he killed my cat. That's like an tooth for a lung. You just said it's important to make a deterrence but killing people who killed isn't a deterrence? That really makes no sense. You're telling me you wouldn't think twice if that could be you on that chair? Also again, people keep doing this, they don't factor in the family or loved ones of the victim. Death penalty is only to be used in extreme cases, only after either a confession or without a glimmer of a doubt.

I'm going to ignore that grammatical massacre of a last paragraph because I can't really understand what's being said. If you have any issues, please respond, I'd be happy to go a few rounds.

Firstly, where did you get the impression I have no knowledge about sharia law? I never said anything about various punishments that are implemented or how the punishments are decided. All you've done is seen me mention 'sharia law' and automatically assumed I know nothing about it. It's pretty rich coming from someone who's complained I've made unfounded assumptions.

My point about applying the death penalty for every crime was to illustrate the use of deterrence as the system for punishments instead of anything else. After all, death is going to be the biggest deterrent going.

Do you honestly think I don't know about death sentences in America? Really? If you read my post properly you'd see that I said "no civilised country needs the power to kill their own citizens". I did not say that they don't. I do not think America needs the death penalty to up hold a valuable justice system. Furthermore, you should read my second post on this issue. I showed that it is expensive because of appeals. Once you're sentenced to death (in America at least) you get an automatic appeal. No one is killed within years of their conviction. It can take up to twenty years in fact. To illustrate this further, in 2000 the average time on death row was ~11 years. In 2010 it was ~15. You can read more here, here and here (pg 14 is what you're looking for).

I can explain why it is barbaric. You've illustrated it in your own point. You said killing a girl in cold blood is barbaric, and the state completing killings against these people isn't? What happens when an innocent person is killed? Or is that not barbaric to you because the state should be allowed to do such things? Punishment should be based on a system of revenge since it simply shows lack of control and ends up being unnecessarily expensive. The rates of re offending go up when people are released since they aren't valuable members of society anymore.

People always use the argument that the death penalty should only be used in 'the most extreme cases' when that never happens. If someone is forced into a confession in the hope of getting a lighter jail sentence then you'll have a problem if they're killed. Humans will always make errors so it'd be better if we didn't make mistakes that are a matter of life and death.

Lastly, calm down. You've called me stupid and accused me of making unfounded assumptions. It's uncalled for. The main impression i received from you is that you hadn't even read what I wrote properly or any of the posts in this thread. If you had, you wouldn't have made some of the points you did.

[Ezak]

According to my own views the juridical system should not be in place to avenge the victims, it should not even have that very objective. The juridical system should exist so that criminals can be made so that they do not err again. This is no impossible task, espicially as most crimes stem from other things than being evil such as poverty, lack of other choices and so on. With the few (the truly evil) they can be locked up, not so to please the victims, but to make society safe from the possible actions of these individuals. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. By killing off undesired members of society you just fuel the hate of those who have lost someone. What they need is therapy, not revenge.

[Luka Petrovic]

In one word, yes.

The death penalty is necessary as, roughly put, but the people who usually receive the treatment are evil themselves. Justice is defined as rightfulness, Let's say we have a serial killer or repeated rapist or a pedophile. What are we meant to do with these people? Do we let them 'rot' in jail? 'Rot': have lunch hours and work out sessions and a TV and books and 3 square meals a day. No, such a person, using the term 'person' loosely, does not deserve to live, most of all to consolidate the family or friends of the victim. A part of justice is revenge and anybody who denies that is kidding themselves. Otherwise, if revenge wasn't incorporated into the judicial system, how else are people supposed to get on with their lives. Deserved justice is just another word for revenge. The point I'm trying to make with this is that such offenders or repeated offenders do not deserve the opportunity to atone for their crimes, unless they can bring that little boy back to his parents, or not traumatize that young girl for the rest of her life. I'm using these extreme examples to portray the scenarios in which I believe it is acceptable to use the death penalty. It is unacceptable that any Tom, **** and Harry are shoved into that chair, especially when their crimes are not as significant. Again, human life is sacred however, if someone commits such an act in cold blood or for some petty reason, they desecrate that sanctity. In my opinion, there are two main reasons to use the death penalty. 1. Revenge which I've already discussed. 2. Safety; who's to say they won't do it again? Such criminals are a menace to society, how can they be treated equally or addressed as such. They committed acts so horrendous, that the act was in line with the extreme requirements for a death penalty treatment. How can you look at a person like that out in the open and feel safe. They say rehabilitation is going to help, well, as I said before, bring back that honeymooner on a trip with her new husband before her ex-boyfriend threw her off a cliff for leaving him. that should rehabilitate her family and loved ones. To conclude, I really think nowadays we focus too much sympathy to the perpetrator of the crime instead of the victim themselves. Socially, not so much, but in the court room.... Of course, in order to utilize the death penalty, it should only be used after two things are absolutely certain; 1. the reason behind the crime, 2. the guilt of the defendant. If there is reasonable doubt or circumstantial evidence then it should not be carried out. However if both are proven, it is a necessary, I wouldn't even call it evil, it's more of a necessary preventative measure. Extreme actions deserve extreme consequences.

You seem just as blood thirsty to me as a murderer Bougleman. You make it sound like going to jail is a vacation. That may be the case in some countries and I don’t agree with it for life long convictions either, but in a lot of countries it is getting worse and it is no fun being locked away just looked up “Chornie Delphin” or “Black Dolphin” in Russia. Its designed to be a living hell and is far worse a fate than being given peace being put to death. You speak of desecrating sanctity yet you want to desecrate it yourself. Two wrongs don’t make a right and stealing from a thief doesn’t make you righteous. You have the morals of a Bronze Age Tribesman to be blunt. You judge these people and wish to believe them as less than human. In your thirst for revenge you try to twist what justice is.

Trust me I come from place where Montenegrins and Albanians start blood feuds for killed son, brothers, etc. An there is no closure or justice its just an endless cycle of killing. It is never enough until you realize there are no more males to carry the family names or until you are cooped up in your courtyard. Killing unless in self-defense is in no way righteous. Killing an inmate is not self-defense as you have his or her life in your hands.

You say people focus too much on sympathy, which is an emotion. I say you focus far too much on anger and revenge, other emotions. So if you think you are any more right than the hug a thugs, you are sorely mistaken. Yes it is true, mass murders, serial rapists, and others who commit heinous crimes cannot be released back into society. They don’t care about society, its rules or the wellbeing of others. Chiefly because they don’t care about themselves (which is again why the death penalty is a false punishment. They don’t care if they die). These kind of people should be locked up and actually be used to repay at least a fraction of the debt they owe to society through labor Or be denied any luxuries beyond a newspaper and a pack of cigarettes as they are in “Chornie Delphin.” With the death Penalty, what are you solving exactly other than quenching your thirst for revenge and blood?

Btw, not all criminals are inherently bad people, just grew up in a though neighborhood and had bad role models. If they were kept in a correctional facility that actually corrected them; gave them and education, gave them some sort of skills they would likely go back to a normal way of life, but this is just for petty crimes not serial murderers.

But seriously, an eye for an eye was invented 4,000 years ago when people kept slaves with no moral qualms and slaughtered whole nations, just read the Old testament and ask yourself if you want to have view aligned with those who invented ‘an eye for an eye.” Oh and if the British killed their criminals what was once considered a god-forsaken island never would have been colonized and become Australia.

[Bougieman]

And you, don't talk about Sharia law if you don't know the rulings. Speak with knowledge, this is an educated debate, not according to your assumptions. Also, your exaggerated point was exactly that; exaggerated. You can't compare apples to oranges. I doubt you will find a single person who wants the death penalty dealt out for such a small and insignificant reason. Also in your second paragraph you said that civilized countries do not kill their own citizens. Well, America did just that multiple times over the last few years. Look it up. Nobody said the death penalty should be applied for every crime. That's a stupid (yet again) assumption that you made and used it as a basis for your argument. Expensive because of appeals... Hmmm.... YOU CAN'T MAKE AN APPEAL IF YOU'RE DEAD. Terminology mixed with (yet again) assumptions. In addition, you never explained why it is barbaric. You just kinda said it and hoped we'd go along. Please elaborate. Killing a person who killed a little girl in cold blood isn't barbaric? As I said in my response a little later on, extreme actions deserve extreme consequences.

Third paragraph: eye for an eye (not that I'm agreeing with it) does NOT mean that we kill a man because he killed my cat. That's like an tooth for a lung. You just said it's important to make a deterrence but killing people who killed isn't a deterrence? That really makes no sense. You're telling me you wouldn't think twice if that could be you on that chair? Also again, people keep doing this, they don't factor in the family or loved ones of the victim. Death penalty is only to be used in extreme cases, only after either a confession or without a glimmer of a doubt.

I'm going to ignore that grammatical massacre of a last paragraph because I can't really understand what's being said. If you have any issues, please respond, I'd be happy to go a few rounds.

Firstly, where did you get the impression I have no knowledge about sharia law? I never said anything about various punishments that are implemented or how the punishments are decided. All you've done is seen me mention 'sharia law' and automatically assumed I know nothing about it. It's pretty rich coming from someone who's complained I've made unfounded assumptions.

My point about applying the death penalty for every crime was to illustrate the use of deterrence as the system for punishments instead of anything else. After all, death is going to be the biggest deterrent going.

Do you honestly think I don't know about death sentences in America? Really? If you read my post properly you'd see that I said "no civilised country needs the power to kill their own citizens". I did not say that they don't. I do not think America needs the death penalty to up hold a valuable justice system. Furthermore, you should read my second post on this issue. I showed that it is expensive because of appeals. Once you're sentenced to death (in America at least) you get an automatic appeal. No one is killed within years of their conviction. It can take up to twenty years in fact. To illustrate this further, in 2000 the average time on death row was ~11 years. In 2010 it was ~15. You can read more here, here and here (pg 14 is what you're looking for).

I can explain why it is barbaric. You've illustrated it in your own point. You said killing a girl in cold blood is barbaric, and the state completing killings against these people isn't? What happens when an innocent person is killed? Or is that not barbaric to you because the state should be allowed to do such things? Punishment should be based on a system of revenge since it simply shows lack of control and ends up being unnecessarily expensive. The rates of re offending go up when people are released since they aren't valuable members of society anymore.

People always use the argument that the death penalty should only be used in 'the most extreme cases' when that never happens. If someone is forced into a confession in the hope of getting a lighter jail sentence then you'll have a problem if they're killed. Humans will always make errors so it'd be better if we didn't make mistakes that are a matter of life and death.

Lastly, calm down. You've called me stupid and accused me of making unfounded assumptions. It's uncalled for. The main impression i received from you is that you hadn't even read what I wrote properly or any of the posts in this thread. If you had, you wouldn't have made some of the points you did.

This is going to be fun! First of all, I did not call you stupid, which shows the point that you did not read my post as well as you could have (didnt say should because you have no obligation to remain in this debate and who am I to try and 'enforce' that?). I said you assumption was stupid. Trust me, I have read you post quite thoroughly, and if I made a mistake it was probably as a result of me either misinterpreting or forgetting a certain point you made, and for that I apologize. Though I will say, I am quite calm. I have no problem with you mate, I have a problem with your opinion. I also have a problem with how you misrepresented sharia law. I know you have no knowledge of sharia law because you just gave inaccurate information. I'm a Muslim for background information. You insinuated that stealing is punishable by death under Sharia law while also referencing Sharia law under negative connotations. The actual punishment is the cutting off of the hand, plus the person must be proven guilty without a doubt and on top of that it does not happen to every person who steals. Thats why I say you are ignorant in the matter. Moving on.

Exaggerated statements are not a reasonable way to convince others that your opinion is correct. As I said, comparing apples to oranges. I could say that for example lets say we released one of this convicted inmates on deathrow and they snuck into a family's house and killed everyone there. Therefore we should not let them out. See? Youre probably thinking that that is way out of context and is exaggerated. Same concept. I cant use it to defend my point or attack yours, nor can you use it to agree or disagree with me. Also youre contradicting yourself, quote from you, "It doesn't even deter people from doing crime!" unquote. Well, the use of a deterrent is so that we can deter others from repeating the same thing. So that second paragraph, if you could reiterate it, that would be great, because (im not joking or anything) its a bit confusing, so I cant really argue to the full about it.

Ok, that was a (stupid) assumption made on my part, the only one I made and was close to the truth. It was as a result of my mistake and I apologize for it, and should have researched it before speaking. However, the point you are trying to make throughout your whole argument is that the death penalty is inhumane and barbaric (like Sharia law as you also implied), correct? So keeping them in a prison with multiple appeals as said by Michael Selsor, "With the death penalty sentence I'm entitled to more appeals - the government's gonna pay for it. I don't have to do it myself if I don't have the money for a lawyer which I don't have. Instead I'm relying on public defenders to do my appeals." They have more of a chance of overruling their conviction, if for example they got a life sentence, they would not have had that opportunity. More time to make sure they made the right decision.You were also assuming that Im a full blown govermentalist or something. The state has no right to execute wrongly, which is why they take preventative measures. You do know the state is made up of PEOPLE. Theyre not exactly demons with human skins on the outside. So of course theyre going to take every possible measure to ensure that they are correct, hence the long time kept on death row. You think they couldnt just line em up like sheep and just kill them all? Of course they could! But they dont because, we, as humans, have a moral sense of conscientious. Youre also saying how expensive it is to have them on death row because of appeals. Would you rather they kill them and save the money? Or set them free into real prison or even back into society? Youre saying how terrible it is to keep them there because of money, but youre not willing to provide any solutions.

In terms of being barabric, the fact is that the state is much more capable of recognizing whether or not a criminal is guilty. Its not every Tom, **** and Harry that gets the chair. There are judges, judges for the judges, lawyers, juries, evidence, etc. Its not "oh yeah he/she did it so kill him/her" You never even admitted that killing a little girl is barbaric and evil, and if you say that it is, then the person who committed the crime is therefore also defined as barbaric and evil. Are you telling me that such people deserve to live under the same roof as a 19 yo who robbed a supermarket, or the 30 year old who assaulted somebody, instead of killing them? Revenge is expensive? What about all those tax payers dollars people fork out to pay for other criminals in jail? Or should we just release those guys too because, hey, they dont deserve it. Btw, im not saying that you said that we should release them, Im saying that youre providing no other realistic alternatives or arguments besides that its wrong and expensive. Anyway, who said revenge is not controlled? If a guy steals my stapler, I go steal his. I dont kick his car window in. Thats what Im trying to say, the judicial system is made up of people much wiser then both you and I. Im not saying theyre always right but they certainly do seem to have more knowledge then you or I.

You say theyre not accepted into society as if its a bad thing. Really? If i understood that correctly thats terrifying. You also never mentioned the victim or their families. Dont they have a right to revenge and justice? How would you help them? By throwing the guy into a normal jail where he can do pretty much anything he wants thats not leaving the jail? In one of my other posts, I suggested how to fix the expensive problem and that would also be a solution here in terms of keeping them in deathrow using the same method,

No evidence to that, assumptions as usual. Killing someone isnt something the killer took lightly, therefore we should not take him/her lightly. Actions have consequences, thats my main point. The punishment must fit the crime.

PS Dont take offence to anything I say here, Im quite a passionate debater. I dont agree with you and I dont like the way you instituted Sharia law into your argument. Other then that, Im pretty sure youre a swell guy/gal. So if I do say something that offended you, please let me know and Ill try to cut back on it unless its relevant to my or your argument.

[Bougieman]

In one word, yes.

The death penalty is necessary as, roughly put, but the people who usually receive the treatment are evil themselves. Justice is defined as rightfulness, Let's say we have a serial killer or repeated rapist or a pedophile. What are we meant to do with these people? Do we let them 'rot' in jail? 'Rot': have lunch hours and work out sessions and a TV and books and 3 square meals a day. No, such a person, using the term 'person' loosely, does not deserve to live, most of all to consolidate the family or friends of the victim. A part of justice is revenge and anybody who denies that is kidding themselves. Otherwise, if revenge wasn't incorporated into the judicial system, how else are people supposed to get on with their lives. Deserved justice is just another word for revenge. The point I'm trying to make with this is that such offenders or repeated offenders do not deserve the opportunity to atone for their crimes, unless they can bring that little boy back to his parents, or not traumatize that young girl for the rest of her life. I'm using these extreme examples to portray the scenarios in which I believe it is acceptable to use the death penalty. It is unacceptable that any Tom, **** and Harry are shoved into that chair, especially when their crimes are not as significant. Again, human life is sacred however, if someone commits such an act in cold blood or for some petty reason, they desecrate that sanctity. In my opinion, there are two main reasons to use the death penalty. 1. Revenge which I've already discussed. 2. Safety; who's to say they won't do it again? Such criminals are a menace to society, how can they be treated equally or addressed as such. They committed acts so horrendous, that the act was in line with the extreme requirements for a death penalty treatment. How can you look at a person like that out in the open and feel safe. They say rehabilitation is going to help, well, as I said before, bring back that honeymooner on a trip with her new husband before her ex-boyfriend threw her off a cliff for leaving him. that should rehabilitate her family and loved ones. To conclude, I really think nowadays we focus too much sympathy to the perpetrator of the crime instead of the victim themselves. Socially, not so much, but in the court room.... Of course, in order to utilize the death penalty, it should only be used after two things are absolutely certain; 1. the reason behind the crime, 2. the guilt of the defendant. If there is reasonable doubt or circumstantial evidence then it should not be carried out. However if both are proven, it is a necessary, I wouldn't even call it evil, it's more of a necessary preventative measure. Extreme actions deserve extreme consequences.

You seem just as blood thirsty to me as a murderer Bougleman. You make it sound like going to jail is a vacation. That may be the case in some countries and I don’t agree with it for life long convictions either, but in a lot of countries it is getting worse and it is no fun being locked away just looked up “Chornie Delphin” or “Black Dolphin” in Russia. Its designed to be a living hell and is far worse a fate than being given peace being put to death. You speak of desecrating sanctity yet you want to desecrate it yourself. Two wrongs don’t make a right and stealing from a thief doesn’t make you righteous. You have the morals of a Bronze Age Tribesman to be blunt. You judge these people and wish to believe them as less than human. In your thirst for revenge you try to twist what justice is.

Trust me I come from place where Montenegrins and Albanians start blood feuds for killed son, brothers, etc. An there is no closure or justice its just an endless cycle of killing. It is never enough until you realize there are no more males to carry the family names or until you are cooped up in your courtyard. Killing unless in self-defense is in no way righteous. Killing an inmate is not self-defense as you have his or her life in your hands.

You say people focus too much on sympathy, which is an emotion. I say you focus far too much on anger and revenge, other emotions. So if you think you are any more right than the hug a thugs, you are sorely mistaken. Yes it is true, mass murders, serial rapists, and others who commit heinous crimes cannot be released back into society. They don’t care about society, its rules or the wellbeing of others. Chiefly because they don’t care about themselves (which is again why the death penalty is a false punishment. They don’t care if they die). These kind of people should be locked up and actually be used to repay at least a fraction of the debt they owe to society through labor Or be denied any luxuries beyond a newspaper and a pack of cigarettes as they are in “Chornie Delphin.” With the death Penalty, what are you solving exactly other than quenching your thirst for revenge and blood?

Btw, not all criminals are inherently bad people, just grew up in a though neighborhood and had bad role models. If they were kept in a correctional facility that actually corrected them; gave them and education, gave them some sort of skills they would likely go back to a normal way of life, but this is just for petty crimes not serial murderers.

But seriously, an eye for an eye was invented 4,000 years ago when people kept slaves with no moral qualms and slaughtered whole nations, just read the Old testament and ask yourself if you want to have view aligned with those who invented ‘an eye for an eye.” Oh and if the British killed their criminals what was once considered a god-forsaken island never would have been colonized and become Australia.

I like you. Straight to the point. Unfortunately I have my ToK essay due soon so Ill have to postpone this argument till either tmrw or the day after that.

[Award Winning Boss]

This is going to be fun! First of all, I did not call you stupid, which shows the point that you did not read my post as well as you could have (didnt say should because you have no obligation to remain in this debate and who am I to try and 'enforce' that?). I said you assumption was stupid. Trust me, I have read you post quite thoroughly, and if I made a mistake it was probably as a result of me either misinterpreting or forgetting a certain point you made, and for that I apologize. Though I will say, I am quite calm. I have no problem with you mate, I have a problem with your opinion. I also have a problem with how you misrepresented sharia law. I know you have no knowledge of sharia law because you just gave inaccurate information. I'm a Muslim for background information. You insinuated that stealing is punishable by death under Sharia law while also referencing Sharia law under negative connotations. The actual punishment is the cutting off of the hand, plus the person must be proven guilty without a doubt and on top of that it does not happen to every person who steals. Thats why I say you are ignorant in the matter. Moving on.

Exaggerated statements are not a reasonable way to convince others that your opinion is correct. As I said, comparing apples to oranges. I could say that for example lets say we released one of this convicted inmates on deathrow and they snuck into a family's house and killed everyone there. Therefore we should not let them out. See? Youre probably thinking that that is way out of context and is exaggerated. Same concept. I cant use it to defend my point or attack yours, nor can you use it to agree or disagree with me. Also youre contradicting yourself, quote from you, "It doesn't even deter people from doing crime!" unquote. Well, the use of a deterrent is so that we can deter others from repeating the same thing. So that second paragraph, if you could reiterate it, that would be great, because (im not joking or anything) its a bit confusing, so I cant really argue to the full about it.

Ok, that was a (stupid) assumption made on my part, the only one I made and was close to the truth. It was as a result of my mistake and I apologize for it, and should have researched it before speaking. However, the point you are trying to make throughout your whole argument is that the death penalty is inhumane and barbaric (like Sharia law as you also implied), correct? So keeping them in a prison with multiple appeals as said by Michael Selsor, "With the death penalty sentence I'm entitled to more appeals - the government's gonna pay for it. I don't have to do it myself if I don't have the money for a lawyer which I don't have. Instead I'm relying on public defenders to do my appeals." They have more of a chance of overruling their conviction, if for example they got a life sentence, they would not have had that opportunity. More time to make sure they made the right decision.You were also assuming that Im a full blown govermentalist or something. The state has no right to execute wrongly, which is why they take preventative measures. You do know the state is made up of PEOPLE. Theyre not exactly demons with human skins on the outside. So of course theyre going to take every possible measure to ensure that they are correct, hence the long time kept on death row. You think they couldnt just line em up like sheep and just kill them all? Of course they could! But they dont because, we, as humans, have a moral sense of conscientious. Youre also saying how expensive it is to have them on death row because of appeals. Would you rather they kill them and save the money? Or set them free into real prison or even back into society? Youre saying how terrible it is to keep them there because of money, but youre not willing to provide any solutions.

In terms of being barabric, the fact is that the state is much more capable of recognizing whether or not a criminal is guilty. Its not every Tom, **** and Harry that gets the chair. There are judges, judges for the judges, lawyers, juries, evidence, etc. Its not "oh yeah he/she did it so kill him/her" You never even admitted that killing a little girl is barbaric and evil, and if you say that it is, then the person who committed the crime is therefore also defined as barbaric and evil. Are you telling me that such people deserve to live under the same roof as a 19 yo who robbed a supermarket, or the 30 year old who assaulted somebody, instead of killing them? Revenge is expensive? What about all those tax payers dollars people fork out to pay for other criminals in jail? Or should we just release those guys too because, hey, they dont deserve it. Btw, im not saying that you said that we should release them, Im saying that youre providing no other realistic alternatives or arguments besides that its wrong and expensive. Anyway, who said revenge is not controlled? If a guy steals my stapler, I go steal his. I dont kick his car window in. Thats what Im trying to say, the judicial system is made up of people much wiser then both you and I. Im not saying theyre always right but they certainly do seem to have more knowledge then you or I.

You say theyre not accepted into society as if its a bad thing. Really? If i understood that correctly thats terrifying. You also never mentioned the victim or their families. Dont they have a right to revenge and justice? How would you help them? By throwing the guy into a normal jail where he can do pretty much anything he wants thats not leaving the jail? In one of my other posts, I suggested how to fix the expensive problem and that would also be a solution here in terms of keeping them in deathrow using the same method,

No evidence to that, assumptions as usual. Killing someone isnt something the killer took lightly, therefore we should not take him/her lightly. Actions have consequences, thats my main point. The punishment must fit the crime.

PS Dont take offence to anything I say here, Im quite a passionate debater. I dont agree with you and I dont like the way you instituted Sharia law into your argument. Other then that, Im pretty sure youre a swell guy/gal. So if I do say something that offended you, please let me know and Ill try to cut back on it unless its relevant to my or your argument.

My point about Sharia law wasn't to imply that stealing results in death. I spoke about adopting parts of Sharia law and adding the death penalty as a punishment for every crime. So no, I wouldn't say I'm that ignorant about sharia. It doesn't matter, I don't like system since I don't believe it has any foundation so we'll move on. It's becoming irrelevant.

Your second point makes no sense to me. My point about the death penalty not being an effective deterrent is to show that the arguments that claim it is aren't true. There's little evidence to show that the existence of the death penalty means people are less likely to offend.

Erm, yes. There's nothing wrong with it. You're acting like those on death row can dance with 17 year olds that have stolen from the local corner shop. You may think they deserve death but it isn't a feasible concept. While the state is definitely capable of determining whether someone is guilty, there's still doubt and it's not worth accidentally killing someone when that whole ordeal could have been avoided.

So what if I didn't mention the victim? I'd rather have a person that's corrected their mistakes and no longer commits crimes than have a person that still knows no better. Or would you prefer people who can't improve themselves, make money through legal means or have any incentive to care about people around them? They have the right to justice, not revenge. Having the right to revenge would be ridiculous and knowing some people it'd lead to more calls for death for smaller crimes. Do you really want to general public to take that amount of the law into their own hands?

There are better ways to look at justice than the eye for an eye system imo. You're just asserting that the punishment must fit the crime for no good reason.

Okay, let's say that you're correct in assuming that it is more expensive (which I would like to see a source to as it makes no sense),

I told you to read my second post. I've posted 2 links about the cost of the death penalty.

[Luka Petrovic]

It makes perfect sense that the death penalty is more expensive, all the stakes are raised, to fight it in court takes longer, to appeal it takes longer ( It also makes more money for lawyers, probably why they would want to keep it) as well there is so much government red tape surrounding it because you are murdering someone, breaking a law to make the law essentially. Also to run the facilities is a big cost, we're talking medical teams, special equipment, etc. The only time the death penalty isn;t costly is when you do it in a kangaroo court with a firing squad in the back court yard. If thats your idea of justice you will find a good friend in Kim Jong Un.

[Guest Positron]

I'm not going to repeat the things I've already said in this thread, so I'll just tackle some claims made by Bougieman.

No, such a person, using the term 'person' loosely, does not deserve to live, most of all to consolidate the family or friends of the victim.

You seem to have a very strange idea of the judicial system. You claim that consolidating the victim's family/friends is what, above all, justifies the death penalty. Just a question: how are the victim's friends and family involved in it, from a legal standpoint? They were not involved in the crime, thus they are not involved in the case, period. If the basis of our justice system stemmed from that kind of considerations, you could just as well reverse your argument. With the same logic you could say that the death penalty (along with any other penalty) is wrong, because it would cause suffering to the friends and family of the criminal. They're just as innocent of any wrongdoing as the friends and family of the victim, so why would their suffering be any more justified? To put it simply, consolidating third parties cannot be a consideration in the court of law, let alone reasoning for the death penalty.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons to use the death penalty. 1. Revenge which I've already discussed. 2. Safety; who's to say they won't do it again?

1. Revenge - I already discussed this from the perspective of the friends and family, so let's look at it from the victims perspective.

Most of the victims of crimes that would warrant the death penalty are dead, because the death penalty is usually reserved for the worst of the worst. That commonly includes serial murderers, for example. With this in mind, I take the liberty to assume that these victims don't really care anymore

In the rarer cases where the victim is still alive, I doubt the death penalty would help him or her in any way. Granted, I've never been in that situation, and cannot not know how victims of these crimes feel. Of course some victims might want the criminal dead, but I don't think it's the function of the judicial system to facilitate such wishes.

2. Safety - well, I'm pretty sure no one's going to be a serious threat from behind the bars. It's also possible to, you know, put people in prison instead of killing them.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Positron

[Luka Petrovic]

I'm not going to repeat the things I've already said in this thread, so I'll just tackle some claims made by Bougieman.

No, such a person, using the term 'person' loosely, does not deserve to live, most of all to consolidate the family or friends of the victim.

You seem to have a very strange idea of the judicial system. You claim that consolidating the victim's family/friends is what, above all, justifies the death penalty. Just a question: how are the victim's friends and family involved in it, from a legal standpoint? They were not involved in the crime, thus they are not involved in the case, period. If the basis of our justice system stemmed from that kind of considerations, you could just as well reverse your argument. With the same logic you could say that the death penalty (along with any other penalty) is wrong, because it would cause suffering to the friends and family of the criminal. They're just as innocent of any wrongdoing as the friends and family of the victim, so why would their suffering be any more justified? To put it simply, consolidating third parties cannot be a consideration in the court of law, let alone reasoning for the death penalty.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons to use the death penalty. 1. Revenge which I've already discussed. 2. Safety; who's to say they won't do it again?

1. Revenge - I already discussed this from the perspective of the friends and family, so let's look at it from the victims perspective.

Most of the victims of crimes that would warrant the death penalty are dead, because the death penalty is usually reserved for the worst of the worst. That commonly includes serial murderers, for example. With this in mind, I take the liberty to assume that these victims don't really care anymore

In the rarer cases where the victim is still alive, I doubt the death penalty would help him or her in any way. Granted, I've never been in that situation, and cannot not know how victims of these crimes feel. Of course some victims might want the criminal dead, but I don't think it's the function of the judicial system to facilitate such wishes.

2. Safety - well, I'm pretty sure no one's going to be a serious threat from behind the bars. It's also possible to, you know, put people in prison instead of killing them.

I second that motion! Put'em behind bars, put'em to work and let they pay their debt back to society by force, they don't care about anything, not even death so might as well squeeze what little use you have out of them, let them pay their dues back to society, like mandatory volunteer hours...

[Arrowhead]

For all those who opposed the death penalty. What do you think about this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24078339

[Luka Petrovic]

For all those who opposed the death penalty. What do you think about this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24078339

What they did was disgusting, primitive and cruel... Interestingly enough I would describe the death penalty with those same words. How could you possibly cheer at someones death? No matter how evil they are... Killing in self defence is just. Killing someone with their life in your hands is murderer, simply because you have some official government papers from some authority set up in a given society doesn't make it passable morally.

This is not anything near justice, the rape was not undone. They still have an outstanding debt to society, let them pay it off with some sort of labour based reparation living in survivable, but surely not comfortable accommodations. Why let good citizens do extremely dangerous or hard work when those who have a lifetimes worth of wrong doings and debts to a country either sit comfortably or escape even being held in a cell by freeing them of this reality ( aka execution).

The Death penalty is something that should stay in the past alongside slavery and a variety of other practices we have decided are primitive and/ or wrong. Its only really justified when the cost of feeding and clothing a prisoner means the survival of a good citizen (which is in fact quite rare). Otherwise its off limits.

It survives today as it gets conservative leaders votes, making them look "tough on crime" and it provides some sort of blood thirsty, revenge based satisfaction, a human character that I would say is not one we should foster.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Luka Petrovic