Death Penalty

[Catholic_Lady]

Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing is wrong? 


Mind = Blown.

I have no idea... 

"Each of us is called to respect the life and dignity of every human being. Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity." - US Conference of Catholic Bishops 

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/h...enalty.cfm

[Chad32]

What percentage of batshit crazy people in the world do you find acceptable? It's a loaded question. I'd rather not have anything less than perfection, but I don't want to throw out a system because occasionally something bad happens.

When a system results in such an unrepairable error, it should not be in place. Injustice is inevitably corrosive to our system of justice, and what is more unjust than killing an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit?

Shit, we're here on an atheist forum, and that is one of our arguments against a good God -- that he killed the innocent in order to deliver "justice" -- and you're here allowing that that isn't really that bad?

Perhaps were it you awaiting your own unjust execution, would that modify your views?

Purposefully killing an innocent person is murder. Accidentally killing someone is manslaughter. We don't like Yahweh killing innocent people because the most common reason he kills people is "they're not worshiping me enough". Killing someone you don't know is innocent is bad, but it doesn't make you evil.

If I was the one on death row, about to be killed for a crime I didn't commit, I'd be sad that I was killed unfairly, and worried about what the real killer is going to do. I wouldn't suddenly change my stance on the death penalty itsself.

That quote from a bishop loses a bit of its meaning when the guy's ideas come from a book where killing people is the most common punishment for anyone who steps out of line.

[AFTT47]

I think the biggest problem with the death penalty is that too many mistakes are made in the criminal justice system.  If a mistake is discovered and the person is in prison, the person can be set free.  If they were executed, then even partial restitution is impossible.

Basically, with the death penalty, innocent people will be killed by the state, because there will always be mistakes made.  How do you feel about supporting a policy which guarantees that the state will kill innocent people?

In the U.S., it is also unfairly and inconsistently imposed, and that is another reason to be against it here, at least as presently practiced.

We do have a big imprisonment problem, and part of that is the for-profit prison systems and the war on drugs. however, only about 4% of executions are mistakes, and that number is likely to go down over time. 4% is still a lot of people, but it would be even lower is they only killed people in the most extreme cases.

Chad, ONE innocent murdered (oh sorry, executed) by the state is one too many. We're talking about an an innocent person being told they are going to die, when they are going to die, strapped down and then killed in cold blood. What if that was YOU. It could happen. When we could have imprisoned them for life and made sure they never hurt anyone again. C'mon man, it's indefensible! It's barbaric!

[Ravenshire]

Killing someone you don't know is innocent is bad, but it doesn't make you evil.

It does, when there is absolutely no compelling evidence that the death penalty actually serves as a deterrent to the crimes it is put in place to deter, especially when there is another method proven equally effective at deterring crime that is actually reversible if you're wrong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What percentage of batshit crazy people in the world do you find acceptable? It's a loaded question. I'd rather not have anything less than perfection, but I don't want to throw out a system because occasionally something bad happens.

First off, is isn't in any way a loaded question.  You intimated earlier that as long as the number of wrongfully executed people continues to decrease, you're OK with it.

I readily grant that people killed by the State is more often in accord with the law than not.  But so what?  As long as ANY innocent people are executed, the system is horribly, horribly flawed, and MUST be thrown out.  The 'occasionally something bad happens' isn't like getting shortchanged at the grocer's or having your car recalled, it is the taking of a human life.

But it's actually very easy to 'not have anything less than perfection'.  Simply stop executing people.  If you don't execute anyone, you'll never execute an innocent person.  A lot of countries have done this, and it seems to work.

Boru

Addendum:  What Snake said.  If you lock someone up unjustly, you can make amends.  You can apologize, you can give them back their freedom, you can pay them large sums of money.  How do you make amends for killing someone you shouldn't have?

[bennyboy]

Nobody has mentioned money yet.

Why should the state feel compelled to support a mass murderer for maybe 50 or 60 years, at a cost of many hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of dollars, when a blindfold and $10 worth of bullets could eliminate the problem in about 10 seconds?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Perhaps you should read the thread. The primary objection voiced is that the death penalty is flawed due to the deaths of innocent people.

What you've just suggested is that we reduce the value of a potentially innocent human life to the cost of a blindfold and a handful of bullets.

That aside, spending the great walloping wads of cash you mentioned seems like pretty good insurance to keep the State from killing the wrong people.

Boru

[Chad32]

What percentage of batshit crazy people in the world do you find acceptable? It's a loaded question. I'd rather not have anything less than perfection, but I don't want to throw out a system because occasionally something bad happens.

First off, is isn't in any way a loaded question.  You intimated earlier that as long as the number of wrongfully executed people continues to decrease, you're OK with it.

I readily grant that people killed by the State is more often in accord with the law than not.  But so what?  As long as ANY innocent people are executed, the system is horribly, horribly flawed, and MUST be thrown out.  The 'occasionally something bad happens' isn't like getting shortchanged at the grocer's or having your car recalled, it is the taking of a human life.

But it's actually very easy to 'not have anything less than perfection'.  Simply stop executing people.  If you don't execute anyone, you'll never execute an innocent person.  A lot of countries have done this, and it seems to work.

Boru

Addendum:  What Snake said.  If you lock someone up unjustly, you can make amends.  You can apologize, you can give them back their freedom, you can pay them large sums of money.  How do you make amends for killing someone you shouldn't have?

If you never jail anyone, you'll never jail an innocent person. But we must do something to people who break the law, and sometimes we get it wrong. If someone spends the rest of their life in jail, and we find out they were innocent, but they're too old to do anything with it anymore, how is that better than killing them? You can give them money, but you can't give them time.

[bennyboy]

Perhaps you should read the thread.  The primary objection voiced is that the death penalty is flawed due to the deaths of innocent people.  

What you've just suggested is that we reduce the value of a potentially innocent human life to the cost of a blindfold and a handful of bullets.

That aside, spending the great walloping wads of cash you mentioned seems like pretty good insurance to keep the State from killing the wrong people.

Boru

I myself have already voiced my dislike for the death penalty, for that same reason.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you never jail anyone, you'll never jail an innocent person. But we must do something to people who break the law, and sometimes we get it wrong. If someone spends the rest of their life in jail, and we find out they were innocent, but they're too old to do anything with it anymore, how is that better than killing them? You can give them money, but you can't give them time.

You can't be serious. How is releasing a wrongly jailed 90 years old matter better than wrongly executing a 90 year old man? It is better because you didn't kill him. Fuxxake, what a stupid question.

Boru