(July 7, 2015 at 8:26 am)Nope Wrote: Intellectually, I do not believe in the death penalty but there is a dark place in me that understands the need to hurt someone who has hurt me.  I don't like that part of my personality but it is there.

No doubt there are other dark places buried in your mind. Intellect keeps them buried, where they belong. That's what makes us different than the lower animals. That's what gives us the right to call ourselves, "civilized." We recognize when our own base emotions are undesirable and we master them with intellect.

How is the death penalty considered revenge but life in prison is not?

(July 7, 2015 at 12:54 pm)KUSA Wrote: How is the death penalty considered revenge but life in prison is not?

Neither are revenge. Both are forms of retributive justice.

(July 7, 2015 at 12:54 pm)KUSA Wrote: How is the death penalty considered revenge but life in prison is not?

Life in prison is needed to keep the rest of society safe. We can't have murderers walking around amongst us because it is dangerous, so we need to do what is necessary for the good of the people.

There is no need for the death penalty when life in prison is all it takes to keep dangerous people from hurting others. I see no reason for the death penalty other than revenge, which is something we should all try to avoid.

(July 7, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(July 7, 2015 at 12:54 pm)KUSA Wrote: How is the death penalty considered revenge but life in prison is not?

Life in prison is needed to keep the rest of society safe. We can't have murderers walking around amongst us because it is dangerous, so we need to do what is necessary for the good of the people.

There is no need for the death penalty when life in prison is all it takes to keep dangerous people from hurting others. I see no reason for the death penalty other than revenge, which is something we should all try to avoid.

You didn't actually answer my question but rather gave me reasons why you prefer one over the other.

But in response to protecting society from the dangerous people, dead men don't hurt anyone but living ones can escape and kill again. They also hurt other inmates when they are incarcerated.

(July 7, 2015 at 9:11 am)loganonekenobi Wrote: In a science fiction called Babylone 5  instead  of a  death penalty they rewrote the persons brain thus killing the offending personality be keeping the life.  Once that tech is in place then my vote would change.  Of course once the tech is in place the question (vote) would really be a moot point.

That Babylon 5 thing is exactly the same as the death penalty. The person is wiped out. The only "life" remaining is a mindless body with all the self-awareness of a carrot. Then they rewire the brain with a new personality. It's a new person in the body of the offender but the original person is dead. No difference at all from killing them.

(July 7, 2015 at 1:54 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(July 7, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Life in prison is needed to keep the rest of society safe. We can't have murderers walking around amongst us because it is dangerous, so we need to do what is necessary for the good of the people.

There is no need for the death penalty when life in prison is all it takes to keep dangerous people from hurting others. I see no reason for the death penalty other than revenge, which is something we should all try to avoid.

You didn't actually answer my question but rather gave me reasons why you prefer one over the other.

But in response to protecting society from the dangerous people, dead men don't hurt anyone but living ones can escape and kill again. They also hurt other inmates when they are incarcerated.

Killing them is revenge because it isn't necessary. Very few prisoners escape and kill again but plenty of innocents are executed. Plus it costs more. There is nothing to be gained by killing offenders. It has no utility.

(July 7, 2015 at 1:54 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(July 7, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Life in prison is needed to keep the rest of society safe. We can't have murderers walking around amongst us because it is dangerous, so we need to do what is necessary for the good of the people.

There is no need for the death penalty when life in prison is all it takes to keep dangerous people from hurting others. I see no reason for the death penalty other than revenge, which is something we should all try to avoid.

You didn't actually answer my question but rather gave me reasons why you prefer one over the other.

But in response to protecting society from the dangerous people, dead men don't hurt anyone but living ones can escape and kill again. They also hurt other inmates when they are incarcerated.

The answer is life in prison is done for the purpose of keeping society safe from dangerous people. It is not done for the purpose of revenge.

If you read previous posts, multiple people talk about how the chances of a murderer facing life in prison to escape and kill more people are very rare. Dead men don't hurt the rest of society, but neither do men behind bars. Life is sacred. It is best to preserve human life when possible.

(July 7, 2015 at 12:54 pm)KUSA Wrote: How is the death penalty considered revenge but life in prison is not?

Capital punishment doesn't have to be considered revenge - It depends on how you apply it. If the reason we execute people is to please the victim, to satisfy people's desire to see blood being shed or out of anger towards the criminal - Then it's revenge. If we execute someone merely because we believe it is the best punishment to be applied regardless of what victims think, then it is not based on revenge.

The issue in this case is that a lot of death penalty supporters ask the question "what if it was your family?" and that shows clearly that there's a lot of revenge involved - Not only that, but punishment/retribution itself is less valuable than prevention because the former merely consists in inflicting some kind of suffering or deprivation (like prison) as an end itself - Basically, the retributive theory of justice says punishment is an end itself - You do shit, you get punished, and that's it, it's the justice imperative... For prevention legal theories punishment should be a means to reach a higher good trough intimidating the individual, rehabilitation, deterrence and so on - Essentially retributive conceptions don't care about preventing future crimes, all that matters is proportionally punishing the criminal according to the crime committed  - Prevention ideas have a more pragmatic and useful finality for punishment.

Since we can't legally deny the existence of free will because it's none of the State's business, we assume it exists in criminal law at least as a useful fiction to help us determine how harsh someone will be punished (and if they should be punished at all) - The issue is not retribution itself, because some degree of retribution always exists, it is when people believe the only purpose of the sentence is to hurt and avenge society that it becomes a problem - That seems to be common among some death penalty supporters.

Obviously life in jail is not comparable because western societies have been progressively supporting and implementing human rights trough various international regulations and consensus between societies and governments - One of the most fundamental human rights' is the right to your own life and to never be deprived of it unless someone acts on self-defense or fulfillment of duties (like serving in the military) - Obviously the tendency is towards abolishing the death penalty because it is considered inefficient as a deterrent and susceptible to wrongful conviction - Not to mention there's clearly biases so in the end the most convicted criminals are the poorest less wealthy ones - I can guarantee you'll never see a corrupt politician or wealthy person being sentenced to death, at least not very often.

If it helps, I think life in prison is useful because the criminal can work to repay his/her debt and probably the staying in prison - Additionally parole could be granted in cases when the person really demonstrates full rehabilitation.

I'm a proponent of a mixed penal system - No death penalty and no life in jail (abstractly) - The maximum jail time would be something like 20 or 25 years - However, after every criminal finishes serving time they would be evaluated by a psychiatrist and if the latter determined dangerous behavior and tendencies still existed then they would have to stay for a few more years - Obviously a minority of criminals would end up rotting there, but what can we do? It seems to be the German system and also present in Finland, Sweden, etc. I'm heavily influenced by German jurisprudence and legal doctrine (as a law student)

(July 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Life is sacred.

How about this life? Is it sacred?