Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[onlinebiker]

It used to be that the death penalty was a deterrent to the more sane criminal types. But with the soft methods we now use - lethal injection - it' s less so.

Now - the worst penalty is " being put to sleep" like a beloved pet.....


Crucifixion or disembowling on the other hand might actually make some people think twice about killing the neighbor...

You're probably correct, but, are there alternatives, like, gun control??

There's all sorts of alternatives.

Killing 99 % of all males would be one - seeing they commit most of the crimes...

Didn 't say it was a GOOD alternative.

Few are..

[The Grand Nudger]

Marginal deterrence has no real deterrent effect. In fact, marginal deterrence actually increases recidivism in every example studied. You're babbling about how we should more brutally effect an article of your faith. That the reason it doesn't work, is that we're killin em too softly.

Loon.

[onlinebiker]

Marginal deterrence has no real deterrent effect.  In fact, marginal deterrence actually increases recidivism in every example studied.  You're babbling about how we should more brutally effect an article of your faith. That the reason it doesn't work, is that we're killin em too softly.  

Loon.

You have an opinion on your side.


Not a fact.

Cunt.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have the internet. Should take you about five seconds.

[Aegon]

Pretty much every study on whether the death penalty is a deterrent are too methodologically flawed to draw conclusions one way or another. Especially because most states have not executed any prisoners in recent years. One cannot study the impact of executions when they are hardly ever imposed, and it is difficult to separate any impact of the death penalty from the large number of other factors that affect the amount and kinds of crime.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in the U.S. because, if there is even the slightest chance an innocent person is found guilty and sentenced to death, that's enough of a reason to axe the idea of the death penalty entirely.

Even for a war criminal, I generally don't believe an eye for an eye is the correct ethical approach. And what does it mean to be a war criminal in the 21st century? Every living president is a war criminal. Look up "Obama 90%." Most war crimes are done remotely these days.

[bennyboy]

The difference is that a life sentence represents reversible error, whereas execution involves irreversible error.  Decisions regarding irreversible error demand more resources, due to the irreversibility of getting it wrong.

No doubt. Execution COULD reduce crime and save money. It could (and at some point would) also allow an irreversible error-- i.e. an innocent man would be put to death.

With a recidivism rate of about 5/6 in the US, that's a LOT of additional rapes and murders that could have been avoided if eggregious offenders were executed rather than let out on parole after 20 years with no prospects and no meaningful job / financial aid.

People cry about executions of murderers. There's a lot of irony in that.

[bennyboy]

Pretty much every study on whether the death penalty is a deterrent are too methodologically flawed to draw conclusions one way or another. Especially because most states have not executed any prisoners in recent years. One cannot study the impact of executions when they are hardly ever imposed, and it is difficult to separate any impact of the death penalty from the large number of other factors that affect the amount and kinds of crime.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in the U.S. because, if there is even the slightest chance an innocent person is found guilty and sentenced to death, that's enough of a reason to axe the idea of the death penalty entirely.

Even for a war criminal, I generally don't believe an eye for an eye is the correct ethical approach. And what does it mean to be a war criminal in the 21st century? Every living president is a war criminal. Look up "Obama 90%." Most war crimes are done remotely these days.

For sure.

America: SHOCK AND AWE.  WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN.  YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US.
Also America: bombs weddings with drones, killing thousands of innocents

America has killed innocent brown people at a ratio of maybe 100:1 and still convinces its citizens that they're the good guys.

Also America: "It's not terrorism if you can't see them when you do it."

[Fireball]

Pretty much every study on whether the death penalty is a deterrent are too methodologically flawed to draw conclusions one way or another. Especially because most states have not executed any prisoners in recent years. One cannot study the impact of executions when they are hardly ever imposed, and it is difficult to separate any impact of the death penalty from the large number of other factors that affect the amount and kinds of crime.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in the U.S. because, if there is even the slightest chance an innocent person is found guilty and sentenced to death, that's enough of a reason to axe the idea of the death penalty entirely.

Even for a war criminal, I generally don't believe an eye for an eye is the correct ethical approach. And what does it mean to be a war criminal in the 21st century? Every living president is a war criminal. Look up "Obama 90%." Most war crimes are done remotely these days.

For sure.

America: SHOCK AND AWE.  WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN.  YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US.
Also America: bombs weddings with drones, killing thousands of innocents

America has killed innocent brown people at a ratio of maybe 100:1 and still convinces its citizens that they're the good guys.

Also America: "It's not terrorism if you can't see them when you do it."

Bolding mine. I want citations for this claim. Yes, the US has done some shit, but this claim is over the top.

[Jehanne]

Pretty much every study on whether the death penalty is a deterrent are too methodologically flawed to draw conclusions one way or another. Especially because most states have not executed any prisoners in recent years. One cannot study the impact of executions when they are hardly ever imposed, and it is difficult to separate any impact of the death penalty from the large number of other factors that affect the amount and kinds of crime.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in the U.S. because, if there is even the slightest chance an innocent person is found guilty and sentenced to death, that's enough of a reason to axe the idea of the death penalty entirely.

Even for a war criminal, I generally don't believe an eye for an eye is the correct ethical approach. And what does it mean to be a war criminal in the 21st century? Every living president is a war criminal. Look up "Obama 90%." Most war crimes are done remotely these days.

For sure.

America: SHOCK AND AWE.  WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN.  YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US.
Also America: bombs weddings with drones, killing thousands of innocents

America has killed innocent brown people at a ratio of maybe 100:1 and still convinces its citizens that they're the good guys.

Also America: "It's not terrorism if you can't see them when you do it."

The terrorists certainly deserve it, but, as I pointed out in my other thread, such ("getting even") is counterproductive to the survival of Humanity.

[arewethereyet]

While I am essentially against the death penalty in all it's forms...to me, when it comes to the Taliban...we have to cut the heads off the snakes.  It's not something that can be done at once, it's going to take time.  I don't have the issue with it that I do with the death penalty in general.

The list of people that I think the death penalty is the right thing for is quite limited.  But the heads of the Taliban are on that list.