The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[chatpilot]

I support the death penalty only when the case involved is an open and shut case and there is no shadow of the doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime. An example would be Colin Ferguson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Fergu...urderer%29

[Faith No More]

For those that are saying innocent people will be executed, what do you have to say about only using the death penalty in cases where DNA has proven guilt?

[Minimalist]

We can error on the side of caution or recklessness, but we will error.

But then an innocent person is not killed by the state.

That makes a difference how?

An innocent man does not end up dead. Assuming you care about such trivialities?

[Autumnlicious]

How is one controllable and not the other?

You cannot, by definition, control another independent thinking being. You cannot predict their actions.

However, you can control yourself. And by definition, society is the aggregate of a population (assume you are a member of that populace).

Ergo, a society does have control over itself, to a loose degree. That is demonstrated by our laws and policies, which we use to enforce our collective control.

Therefore, while an individual other than self is uncontrollable, the collective actions taken upon and acted through are controllable and blessed by its populace.

Which is why committing an innocent to the gallows is murder most foul, collectively blessed by society. And also why such events are so distasteful to a great many -- because each member, by proxy, has participated in the death of an innocent.

I see accountability going both ways. And a society that does not hold itself accountable for the injustices it carries out has no business in justice, it merely is criminal.

Those societies are usually destroyed, one way or another.

---

For those that are saying innocent people will be executed, what do you have to say about only using the death penalty in cases where DNA has proven guilt?

Because DNA does not "prove" anything. It is up to those involved to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And DNA evidence has been known to be misleading before. It doesn't take a genius to misrepresent, contaminate such evidence. Incompetence and laziness can do that on its own.

I ask you, FaithNoMore, what is the purpose of punishments like the death penalty in the first place? Is it to reform? Serve as an example? Is it merely to prevent waste? After all, a man who is clearly guilty of great crimes must be worth less, in some form to warrant executing them well after they've been contained, isolated.

It chills me most of all to think that a human being could be considered a form of "waste", criminal, dissident or otherwise. And it speaks volumes of the humanity a man holds for his fellows when others become "garbage" to him.

[Faith No More]

Because DNA does not "prove" anything. It is up to those involved to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And DNA evidence has been known to be misleading before. It doesn't take a genius to misrepresent, contaminate such evidence. Incompetence and laziness can do that on its own.

This is a good point as I had yet to take in consideration of purposeful dishonesty. Recently there was a case of a medical examiner who was proven to have falsified evidence in dozens of cases. I am for the death penalty in theory, but it's application is another matter entirely.

I ask you, FaithNoMore, what is the purpose of punishments like the death penalty in the first place? Is it to reform? Serve as an example? Is it merely to prevent waste? After all, a man who is clearly guilty of great crimes must be worth less, in some form to warrant executing them well after they've been contained, isolated.

It's a form of punishment that makes the statement that if you commit heinous crimes, you pay with your life.

It chills me most of all to think that a human being could be considered a form of "waste", criminal, dissident or otherwise. And it speaks volumes of the humanity a man holds for his fellows when others become "garbage" to him.

It's not that I see them as waste, it's just that I firmly believe that by committing certain crimes against your fellow man, you have shown that you do not respect human life, and you forfeit the right to your own. I have respect for all human life, as long as that respect is mutual. Let me ask you this, are you upset that several Nazi's at Nuremberg were executed? What would you do with someone with such a disregard for basic human rights, and why should they be afforded rights they are unwilling to give to others?

ETA: To me, sustaining someone's life after they have shown all disregard for their fellow humans conveys a message of tolerance society cannot afford.

[Autumnlicious]

It's a form of punishment that makes the statement that if you commit heinous crimes, you pay with your life.

Yet it does little to convince criminals from committing crimes. So who really benefits from such, other than those who feel emotional over it?

It's not that I see them as waste, it's just that I firmly believe that by committing certain crimes against your fellow man, you have shown that you do not respect human life, and you forfeit the right to your own.

Your small world view aside, the death penalty does not prevent/deter crimes. It doesn't do anything but commit state-sanctioned murder of a being that we have captured, tried, convicted and isolated.

How often must I restate that as a policy it is useless?

I have respect for all human life, as long as that respect is mutual.

Then you have no respect for human life. By placing conditions on it, you make sure that only life that placates your emotional centers deserves your consideration, and devil take the rest. What kind of bastardized respect is that?

Since you choose to bring the Third Reich into this discussion, as noted below, then I shall return with a response using the very same context as below.

I have respect for all human life, as long as they aren't Jews

I understand that you might object, perhaps taking issue with the latter half of that sentence. However,

as long as that respect is mutual

is equivalent to

as long as the respect offered by the other is not unmutual

which breaks down into

as long as the other does not fit into a certain set or grouping

.

Perhaps you might not want to Godwin this discussion after all?

Let me ask you this, are you upset that several Nazi's at Nuremberg were executed? What would you do with someone with such a disregard for basic human rights, and why should they be afforded rights they are unwilling to give to others?

I am not upset. Does that invalidate my position? Does the content of my arguments lose out utterly if I personally take the demise of perceived enemies with any emotion? No. Henceforth, the first statement is merely a canard and will be treated as such.

To think that you are advocating inhumanity to those who have committed inhumanity, no matter the degree, to others leaves me speechless. I would like to point out an old adage, "I have met the enemy and he is me."

ETA: To me, sustaining someone's life after they have shown all disregard for their fellow humans conveys a message of tolerance society cannot afford.

You just made the waste argument perfectly, devaluing another thinking being like yourself. I see little difference between the above and the justifications used by tyrants to purify and liquidate their perceived internal and external enemies.

[Faith No More]

---

It's a form of punishment that makes the statement that if you commit heinous crimes, you pay with your life.

Yet it does little to convince criminals from committing crimes. So who really benefits from such, other than those who feel emotional over it?

It's not that I see them as waste, it's just that I firmly believe that by committing certain crimes against your fellow man, you have shown that you do not respect human life, and you forfeit the right to your own.

Your small world view aside, the death penalty does not prevent/deter crimes. It doesn't do anything but commit state-sanctioned murder of a being that we have captured, tried, convicted and isolated.

How often must I restate that as a policy it is useless?

I have respect for all human life, as long as that respect is mutual.

Then you have no respect for human life. By placing conditions on it, you make sure that only life that placates your emotional centers deserves your consideration, and devil take the rest. What kind of bastardized respect is that?

Since you choose to bring the Third Reich into this discussion, as noted below, then I shall return with a response using the very same context as below.

I have respect for all human life, as long as they aren't Jews

I understand that you might object, perhaps taking issue with the latter half of that sentence. However,

as long as that respect is mutual

is equivalent to

as long as the respect offered by the other is not unmutual

which breaks down into

as long as the other does not fit into a certain set or grouping

.

Perhaps you might not want to Godwin this discussion after all?

Let me ask you this, are you upset that several Nazi's at Nuremberg were executed? What would you do with someone with such a disregard for basic human rights, and why should they be afforded rights they are unwilling to give to others?

I am not upset. Does that invalidate my position? Does the content of my arguments lose out utterly if I personally take the demise of perceived enemies with any emotion? No. Henceforth, the first statement is merely a canard and will be treated as such.

To think that you are advocating inhumanity to those who have committed inhumanity, no matter the degree, to others leaves me speechless. I would like to point out an old adage, "I have met the enemy and he is me."

ETA: To me, sustaining someone's life after they have shown all disregard for their fellow humans conveys a message of tolerance society cannot afford.

You just made the waste argument perfectly, devaluing another thinking being like yourself. I see little difference between the above and the justifications used by tyrants to purify and liquidate their perceived internal and external enemies.

---

Hmm...I see this has touched a nerve. I was just trying to debate the issue, there is no need for insults like calling my worldview small. You do see the hypocrisy of calling me inhumane for my beliefs, but then having no problem with certain people being executed, don't you? Try and keep in mind that I'm only saying it's a fair punishment for people who commit extreme crimes like Nazis, which you have no problem with.

Oh, and I didn't mean to Godwin this thread, would you prefer Timothy McVeigh instead?

[Violet]

You just made the waste argument perfectly, devaluing another thinking being like yourself.

Is it also devaluing to consider another carbon-based being like myself to be my food?

---

Hmm...I see this has touched a nerve. I was just trying to debate the issue, there is no need for insults like calling my worldview small.

It must be smaller than accurately considering the point of view of anyone backed into the corner. The death 'penalty' is not a deterrent: it is easy. It doesn't make good use of a body, and it is far more appealing to many poor people than to live in that state.

Criminals are fascinating, really. Perhaps you should speak to some of them.

Try and keep in mind that I'm only saying it's a fair punishment for people who commit extreme crimes like Nazis, which you have no problem with.

And yet you think the Nazis committed crimes. Extreme at that. Hah.

Really... what is fair? What is deserved? This is a value, and as so very many are: subjective. I consider the likes of the Holocaust to be somewhat brutal and unnecessary. I do not consider it to be a crime.

[Autumnlicious]

Unfortunately, a primary point exemplified in Sae's post will no doubt be missed by others incensed at the Holocaust not being labeled a 'crime'. However, it should be stated by another that the 'values' discussed here are indeed subjective.

---

Hmm...I see this has touched a nerve. I was just trying to debate the issue, there is no need for insults like calling my worldview small. You do see the hypocrisy of calling me inhumane for my beliefs, but then having no problem with certain people being executed, don't you? Try and keep in mind that I'm only saying it's a fair punishment for people who commit extreme crimes like Nazis, which you have no problem with.

So you conflate emotion and belief together? I was honest about my emotions and stated my arguments. Why don't you be a little honest and keep track of which is which.

And I think others can deal with the "turnabout is fair play" statement in matters of justice a little more efficiently than I can.

Oh, and I didn't mean to Godwin this thread, would you prefer Timothy McVeigh instead?

Actually, I'd rather you answer my points, suppositions and assumptions instead of supposing about my nerves, mental health or emotional desires.

[WiffGiff]

I am sorry to just jump in when people have a discussion, but I want to answer the title of this thread. I can in some cases see it to be useful and reasonible to do. But to have a deathpenalty also creates the risk of exectuing someone who is innocent, which have happen too often in USA. Therefore I oppose it. Although pedophiles and such, which is human waste, deserve to be erased since it only would cost to keep them in jail. In some cases is it the right thing to exectute someone, but practical is not the best thing to do.