Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 1:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2016 at 1:55 pm by robvalue.)
You could as a *cough* "compromise" only execute where there is absolutely no doubt, and the evidence is too overwhelming for there to possibly have been a mistake. (Or at least, an incredibly small chance.) If I was going to bring it in, I'd do it just for murder, and just in that case. But I'm not saying I would.
I wonder, how do the statistics of murderers escaping/being released and then going on to murder another person compare to those falsely executed? I suppose you're never going to have completely accurate numbers on the second one so it will be hard to say.
Posts: 9176
Threads: 76
Joined: November 21, 2013
Reputation:
40
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 2:01 pm
In america I think the prison system is bad enough that someone who gets let out is more likely to go back to breaking the law, than they are to start being constructive. That's a flaw in the system, though, not because many people are inherrently bad.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 2:07 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2016 at 2:07 pm by robvalue.)
I saw a program a while ago about the prison system in some run-down place, where the town was so rough that being in prison was actually preferable. As soon as people got let out, they just keep doing crimes until they got put back in.
I have also heard a lot about prison ruining people, who go in perhaps misguided and naive but come out with a hardened criminal mindset. If so, that's about exactly the opposite of what I would hope. I have heard cases of it being just the time-out someone needs though. I suppose it depends on what the particular prison system is like.
Posts: 28352
Threads: 114
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 2:36 pm
(January 20, 2016 at 1:54 pm)robvalue Wrote: You could as a *cough* "compromise" only execute where there is absolutely no doubt, and the evidence is too overwhelming for there to possibly have been a mistake. (Or at least, an incredibly small chance.) If I was going to bring it in, I'd do it just for murder, and just in that case. But I'm not saying I would.
And how would you determine if the evidence in any particular case is "overwhelming"? Families would push for this standard in cases that don't meet it. Perpetrators would push back. All this would do is add another layer of appeals to an already lengthy and expensive process.
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm
No, I'm not in favor of the death penalty.
Posts: 3628
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm
I voted never.
Civilized societies should not have state sponsored killing. For any reason.
While I admit, that from an emotional standpoint, there are cases where the more ancient, less than rational part of my brain may feel some sense of satisfaction by the thought of ending the life of a murderer, my higher brain is able to override it.
But even if I was in favor of capital punishment from a philosophical standpoint, I could never condone it from a practical standpoint. Way too many people have been released from prison when new evidence comes to light. Not to mention, that as good as the justice system is, it makes mistakes.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 4:07 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2016 at 4:10 pm by robvalue.)
(January 20, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: (January 20, 2016 at 1:54 pm)robvalue Wrote: You could as a *cough* "compromise" only execute where there is absolutely no doubt, and the evidence is too overwhelming for there to possibly have been a mistake. (Or at least, an incredibly small chance.) If I was going to bring it in, I'd do it just for murder, and just in that case. But I'm not saying I would.
And how would you determine if the evidence in any particular case is "overwhelming"? Families would push for this standard in cases that don't meet it. Perpetrators would push back. All this would do is add another layer of appeals to an already lengthy and expensive process.
You're right, it would be very problematic. Probably wouldn't work. Bad idea!
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 5:45 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2016 at 5:50 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
I'm not an atheist, so I didn't vote. But my answer wouldn't be up there anyway.
From the Catechism:
Quote:Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
So basically, the death penalty is only ok if that is the ONLY way to keep society safe from a killer. But if we are able to lock someone up for life, we no longer need to use the death penalty. Nowadays, we have the means of doing this, so a death sentence is no longer necessary and should not be used.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 5:53 pm
Actually the issue has been rendered fairly pointless by events.
Quote: 1,204.
That's the newly revised number of people killed by American police in 2015.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.2503236
Meanwhile
Quote:Twenty-eight offenders were executed in the United States in 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_of...es_in_2015
BTW, none of those 28 were executed north of Virginia or west of Missouri which makes state murder a "southern thang."
Why bother with all those trials and appeals when the cops can just shoot whoever the fuck they want?
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 20, 2016 at 6:00 pm
If the cop is acting on immediate self defense, or defense of another person, the killing is justified.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
|