Capital Punishment

[solastalgia]

Quite a few studies have shown that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to the actual crime that would warrant capital punishment, i.e. murder. Killers are generally not thinking rationally when they kill someone - it's a rash and spontaneous act so is not affected greatly by any deterrent. Basically, murder rates haven't in the past gone down because of capital punishment.

So, why do we put capital punishment in place? It's more of a way to "get back" at a criminal. Revenge, an eye for an eye, the whole deal. When surveyed, the public seemed not to care that capital punishment wasn't effective at deterring murderers. They just wanted to see the criminals get what was coming from them. An additional benefit is the sense of safety the society gets when a murderer is eliminated - though in reality, there's always going to be another killer. It's a bit of a false safety.

Bit of food for thought. Myself, I don't know what to think about it. I go back and forth a lot. Although I DO feel that killing criminals to show that killing is wrong isn't doing very much good, I'm not going to pretend to be educated enough on the matter to form a complete and solid stance.

(Yay, sociology class!)

[Julieee]

Sickness needs to be cured, not eliminated!

Then again, wouldn't it be better if sickness was eliminated? For example, wouldn't it be better if we didn't need to look for a cure for HIV/AIDS instead of it existing? The list could go on and on and on.

But back on the topic.

For example, should other people suffer and lose their lives because someone is "sick". I mean, look at this from a different perspective. How would YOU feel if someone dear to you was killed by someone, who has psychological problems. Wouldn't you want that person in jail for life?

Not that I'm pro capital punishment. I'm just saying...

[Daedalus]

Sickness needs to be cured, not eliminated!

Then again, wouldn't it be better if sickness was eliminated? For example, wouldn't it be better if we didn't need to look for a cure for HIV/AIDS instead of it existing? The list could go on and on and on.

But back on the topic.

For example, should other people suffer and lose their lives because someone is "sick". I mean, look at this from a different perspective. How would YOU feel if someone dear to you was killed by someone, who has psychological problems. Wouldn't you want that person in jail for life?

Not that I'm pro capital punishment. I'm just saying...

Eliminated as in the person who is ill killed? Do you think solution to AIDS/HIV is to kill all the people who have it? Presumably this would stop its spread, and yet!

And the other people suffering? Well, don't we anyways? I'm not saying we shouldn't catch these people and take them off the streets. But putting them in jail forever? Imagine if you break into a house as an 18 year old, to steal something to pay for a new car, freak when somebody runs at you, and kill someone? It's immoral, you've done something terribly wrong that will never be undone, but is it right for you to linger in jail 20 years later? How about 40 years later? Or 60?

I mean, to put somebody in jail for the rest of their lives is to ignore the fact that people change. And like others have said, it's not a solution, it's a form of revenge. Same with execution. How can we measure the weight of an act and say okay, you killed 3 people, jail for you for a bit, you raped and killed 5 women, you get jail for life, you killed 8 people and you get executed? Its insane.

So rationally, what do we do with people who do messed up things? Not kill them, that's senseless. Put them away in jail for the rest of their lives (and have taxpayers pay 50,000 dollars for each one per year)? Equally senseless. How about cure them, help them, treat them, and release them - under controlled conditions? Even doing what we do now - putting them in jail for a while, then letting them go - is retarded. The passage of time is not going to solve these problems, does it make cancer go away?

[Julieee]

Eek, you got me all wrong. Maybe I didn't set myself too clear, so my fault, I apologize.

When I was saying HIV/AIDS should be eliminated I had no meaning whats-so-ever to kill the people who have it. I was just trying to make a point that it would be easier to get rid of the disease somehow instead of have to cure it (hopefully not killing the people, by any means, that's just cruel)

What was your first thought thinking of going into someone's house to steal something. You should know what you're getting into before doing such a thing and think of the consequences, not that the 18 year old doing it will have. But just because the person who's stealing is 18 and didn't have the intention of killing the person in the first place, does that make that person more alive? And yes, I guess it is a form of revenge, but it seems reasonable.

But then again not all people change... and at least if people are put in jail, maybe other people could "have a second thought" about the consequences of killing a person or two.

And how would you cure a person who's raped 5 women and murdered 8 people? How would you know that person is cured? Wouldn't it be MORE expensive to treat those people, cure them release them under controlled conditions?

For some people it is time to realize what they've done, but that is very individual. It may take one person 1 year, another 10, a third 20 years and some just don't ever realize it.

[Sandwich]

Everyone has a right to life.

Why? Just intrinsically human beings owe other humans the right to live? Did Hitler deserve to live after his crimes? Do braindead hospital patients who are a burden on their families and the state deserve to live? Are you against abortions?

IMO people don't automatically get the right to live.

Is the implication of this that saying "yes" to any of those is incorrect?

At least 2 of those examples overlook some very important additional issues -- like when does life become "life" and when does it stop being "life"? (The abortion and braindead examples respectively). As for the Hitler one, that's basically just whether you believe execution is justifiable "punishment"... and indeed whether eliminating somebody is equivalent to punishing them.

I personally don't see how any of these examples would necessarily persuade anybody to say that we don't all have a right to let each other live. I mean you could equally say: what makes you better than Hitler that you kill people to punish them or get them out the way? Is all of the justification in the motivation or is it also in the action? If you say it's also in the action, which I would personally concur with, I don't see any difference between killing somebody because they're Jewish etc. and killing somebody because they're any form of [X]. If you work on the assumption that the 'killing' is the wrong bit, none of it is ever justifiable. Not for Hitler and not for us.

I don't think it's relevant to say "everybody has a right to life" and "killing is unjustifiable, no matter what" and use these broad assumptions to base everything else on. Unless you have underlying religious beliefs, what meaning do such assertions hold?

On the other hand, I think it's barbaric that the way we treat people who are obviously mentally deranged is to inject them with lethal drugs. Even to admit the desire to kill other humans is evidence of some deeply seated psychological issue. Sickness needs to be cured, not eliminated!

Surely a position on an individual's right to life (incidentally a formal human right under all European legislation, I'm not sure about where else) is extremely relevant to a discussion about capital punishment?

Also, I object very strongly to the idea that you can't have moral values unless you're religious. Atheists are allowed to have right and wrong as well. The church are very keen on 'secular people have no morals' which is entirely incorrect. I don't know a secular person without some sort of morals.

Those morals don't have to be based on religion to 'count'. For instance the right to life is for me fundamental biologically speaking. Life is the concern of all of us, not just of people who think that God gave it to us. I'm allowed to meaningfully think that killing is wrong without the need for a Bible to back me up. The idea that what we think only means something if you can stick some religious text behind it is ridiculous quackery.

[Daedalus]

Everyone has a right to life.

Why? Just intrinsically human beings owe other humans the right to live? Did Hitler deserve to live after his crimes? Do braindead hospital patients who are a burden on their families and the state deserve to live? Are you against abortions?

IMO people don't automatically get the right to live.

Is the implication of this that saying "yes" to any of those is incorrect?

At least 2 of those examples overlook some very important additional issues -- like when does life become "life" and when does it stop being "life"? (The abortion and braindead examples respectively). As for the Hitler one, that's basically just whether you believe execution is justifiable "punishment"... and indeed whether eliminating somebody is equivalent to punishing them.

I personally don't see how any of these examples would necessarily persuade anybody to say that we don't all have a right to let each other live. I mean you could equally say: what makes you better than Hitler that you kill people to punish them or get them out the way? Is all of the justification in the motivation or is it also in the action? If you say it's also in the action, which I would personally concur with, I don't see any difference between killing somebody because they're Jewish etc. and killing somebody because they're any form of [X]. If you work on the assumption that the 'killing' is the wrong bit, none of it is ever justifiable. Not for Hitler and not for us.

I don't think it's relevant to say "everybody has a right to life" and "killing is unjustifiable, no matter what" and use these broad assumptions to base everything else on. Unless you have underlying religious beliefs, what meaning do such assertions hold?

On the other hand, I think it's barbaric that the way we treat people who are obviously mentally deranged is to inject them with lethal drugs. Even to admit the desire to kill other humans is evidence of some deeply seated psychological issue. Sickness needs to be cured, not eliminated!

Surely a position on an individual's right to life (incidentally a formal human right under all European legislation, I'm not sure about where else) is extremely relevant to a discussion about capital punishment?

Also, I object very strongly to the idea that you can't have moral values unless you're religious. Atheists are allowed to have right and wrong as well. The church are very keen on 'secular people have no morals' which is entirely incorrect. I don't know a secular person without some sort of morals.

Those morals don't have to be based on religion to 'count'. For instance the right to life is for me fundamental biologically speaking. Life is the concern of all of us, not just of people who think that God gave it to us. I'm allowed to meaningfully think that killing is wrong without the need for a Bible to back me up. The idea that what we think only means something if you can stick some religious text behind it is ridiculous quackery.

(gazes absent-mindedly at the series of embedded quotes and wonders why there are only three colours)

I don't think atheism excludes morality and I hope I didn't imply it... what I meant was the axiomatic understanding of the fundamental right to life seems to me irrelevant to a debate about capital punishment. Otherwise the debate just disintegrates to something like "Killing is wrong" ... "Not for killers" ... "Killing is always wrong" ... "Is it wrong to kill Hitler?" ... "Killing is wrong" etc. (I have seen this happen).

I mean it's odd we're all on the same side (in being against capital punishment) and yet we are still arguing, lol. I tend to take a nihilistic attitude to these things and work from there; my justification, then, for being against capital punishment (and indeed the prison system as it stands today) is that if depression and suicide can be considered illnesses and cured, so should misanthropy or serial-murder. This is not because I believe we should all get along and be nice to each other or anything, but because it seems like the only logical step for all of us to live successfully in a communal society. And I think poor social integration, random shocks and misfortunes, parental divorces, etc. could account for a large proportion of the violent crimes we observe.

And then this gets to be an odd debate.. where do you draw the line between sane and insane decisions (laundering money might be sane, killing people might be insane, so do we punish the first man and treat the second)? And stuff about the inherent value of life too can get complex.. I haven't really worked it all out yet. But I stick by the theory that the prison system as it is is just a sink-hole for taxpayers' money.

[Award Winning Boss]

Although this is an old thread i'll say something,

I disagree with capital punishment because it is barbaric and counter productive way of punishing and governing people.

Firstly, I don't understand how people can have so much confidence in their state that they are willing to give them the power to kill their own people. A power that can be abused so easily shouldn't be given to anyone.

Secondly, it isn't necessarily a cheap method. I think the misconception is that as soon as someone is sentenced they are just killed and the world carries on spinning. As much as supporters of the death penalty would like that to be the case, it can take upwards of 20 years for someone to finally be executed because they are entitled to a number of appeals (which is very expensive) which an unnecessary waste of funds.

Also the techniques used are inhumane. You are subjecting the person to torture then death.

For example, the lethal injection (which is the most common method now) isn't carried out by doctors due to the Hippocratic oath. This means that administering the injection doesn't always go as planned. I think you're meant to administer an injection towards the body (i'm not sure about that though) and there have been cases where something as small as that has gone wrong. Plus there are collapsing veins due to drug addiction which then results in cutting open their leg and administering it that way.

There's a lot wrong with the techniques.(the only one I see humane is gassing with nitrogen)

Oh and the ability to execute an innocent person isn't something to be taken lightly. Innocent people don't deserve death.