The DEATH Penalty

[Cinjin]

I was referring purely to a Sadean, republican, anti-clerical & radical revolution.

Yes or no, answer his question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I was referring purely to a Sadean, republican, anti-clerical & radical revolution.

So, in effect, you support only the execution of those counter-revolutionaries whose goals don't coincide with your own, is that right?

Boru

[FlyingNarwhal]

The death penalty is always wrong, for several reasons:

1. If it is not moral for an individual to take the life of a criminal, it can never be moral for the State to do so.

It would not be moral for an individual to imprison a criminal either, but we allow the state to do so.

2. Given the number of death sentences commuted or vacated since the advent of DNA testing, there is never 100% certainty that the proper person is being executed.

I agree that the current system we have for the death penalty is bad, but I don't believe that just because the current system is bad that a better one cannot be put in place. Right now the qualifications to be put on death row is being found guilty of a heinous crime. Personally I believe that the death sentence should only be used for when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against the defendant. Right now as long as a prosecutor can get a guilty verdict by the skin of their teeth the death penalty is viable, which I disagree with. For example the Aurora theater shooter, we all know he did it. He should die.

3. The death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent to crime.

It doesn't need to be. Is prison even a deterrent to crime? If people wish to commit a crime they will do so without taking into context the consequences of their actions. The death penalty shouldn't have to be a deterrent to crime, all it should be is the extermination of those who commit horrible acts against other people so that they are no longer a burden upon the taxpayers.

4. Corollary to #3: If someone commits a capital crime and isn't apprehended immediately, there is nothing to stop them from repeating the crime (you can only kill them once).

Again same thing with imprisonment.

5. The whole point of punishing criminals (in a practical sense) is to remove them from society, thus preventing further harm. This can be accomplished as efficiently and as cost-effectively by life imprisonment.

In the current system yes, life imprisonment is actually more cost effective than the death penalty. But that is not an indictment of the death penalty rather than the system it abides by. We all know that a bullet is cheaper than life imprisonment, but because prisoners spend 15 years with higher security it ends up costing more. Like I've mentioned before we need more stringent rules to make it to death row, and then afterwards a streamlined process.

6. Since the death penalty is effectively vengeance and not justice, killing offenders makes no sense. If you kill a criminal you end all possibility for punishment - the dead don't suffer.

Again isn't imprisonment vengeance? Otherwise we could give everyone house arrest. I agree with you in the sense that I would much rather see a prisoner rot away in prison and suffer than I would see them easily killed. But even though I would rather see them suffer, I don't want them to be a further burden to the taxpayer.

[EgoRaptor]

I was referring purely to a Sadean, republican, anti-clerical & radical revolution.

So, in effect, you support only the execution of those counter-revolutionaries whose goals don't coincide with your own, is that right?

Boru

Yes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The death penalty is always wrong, for several reasons:

1. If it is not moral for an individual to take the life of a criminal, it can never be moral for the State to do so.

It would not be moral for an individual to imprison a criminal either, but we allow the state to do so.

2. Given the number of death sentences commuted or vacated since the advent of DNA testing, there is never 100% certainty that the proper person is being executed.

I agree that the current system we have for the death penalty is bad, but I don't believe that just because the current system is bad that a better one cannot be put in place. Right now the qualifications to be put on death row is being found guilty of a heinous crime. Personally I believe that the death sentence should only be used for when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against the defendant. Right now as long as a prosecutor can get a guilty verdict by the skin of their teeth the death penalty is viable, which I disagree with. For example the Aurora theater shooter, we all know he did it. He should die.

3. The death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent to crime.

It doesn't need to be. Is prison even a deterrent to crime? If people wish to commit a crime they will do so without taking into context the consequences of their actions. The death penalty shouldn't have to be a deterrent to crime, all it should be is the extermination of those who commit horrible acts against other people so that they are no longer a burden upon the taxpayers.

4. Corollary to #3: If someone commits a capital crime and isn't apprehended immediately, there is nothing to stop them from repeating the crime (you can only kill them once).

Again same thing with imprisonment.

5. The whole point of punishing criminals (in a practical sense) is to remove them from society, thus preventing further harm. This can be accomplished as efficiently and as cost-effectively by life imprisonment.

In the current system yes, life imprisonment is actually more cost effective than the death penalty. But that is not an indictment of the death penalty rather than the system it abides by. We all know that a bullet is cheaper than life imprisonment, but because prisoners spend 15 years with higher security it ends up costing more. Like I've mentioned before we need more stringent rules to make it to death row, and then afterwards a streamlined process.

6. Since the death penalty is effectively vengeance and not justice, killing offenders makes no sense. If you kill a criminal you end all possibility for punishment - the dead don't suffer.

Again isn't imprisonment vengeance? Otherwise we could give everyone house arrest. I agree with you in the sense that I would much rather see a prisoner rot away in prison and suffer than I would see them easily killed. But even though I would rather see them suffer, I don't want them to be a further burden to the taxpayer.

1. The case can be (and I think, has been) made that it is a moral imperative for a private citizen to stop a crime if it is in his power to do so. An individual may legally restrain a wrong-doer, for example. But for an individual to exact the ultimate penalty is generally termed 'vigilante justice.'

2. I'm unconvinced that even in the face of overwhelming evidence (such as multiple corroborative witness or a confession) that the death penalty is a good idea. As for the Aurora shooter, the case can be made that the mentally ill are not normally put to death for their actions.

3. I agree that prison sentences, even hefty ones, are no more a deterrent to crime than is the death penalty. I was simply answering a point often brought up by death-penalty supporters. And, honestly, how much of a burden are life-time inmates to the taxpayers? Isn't it worth the little bit it costs to keep them locked up and away from other people, especially when the very real alternative is executing an innocent person?

4. Same answer, with the caveat that you can't exonerate a dead man.

5. I suppose I'm simply not as willing as you are to put a price on human life.

6. I think of imprisonment as segregation rather than vengeance. I speak of someone who was falsely imprisoned for a number of months.

Boru

---

So, in effect, you support only the execution of those counter-revolutionaries whose goals don't coincide with your own, is that right?

Boru

Yes.

Your answer gives two clear implications:

1. People who disagree with your goals deserve death.

2. You don't support the right of people to live under a system of government of their own choosing.

Boru

[Angrboda]

So, in effect, you support only the execution of those counter-revolutionaries whose goals don't coincide with your own, is that right?

Boru

Yes.

I haven't been following this, but it would seem this view leads to stagnation, corruption, and decay.

If only those that agree with orthodoxy get life, only those who agree with orthodoxy will live. If there are no opponents of orthodoxy, how will it evolve; where goeth the revolution without a source of new goals? It breeds corruption because if only the orthodox are granted life, some that are not orthodox will choose life over dissent, and carry on a false face while secretly pursuing their own interests. It breeds corruption because stagnation in any living organism such as a state gives the vermin plenty to feed upon.

[KUSA]

Why are several of you arguing with a 16 year old child? Why are children allowed on here? Maybe we need an adolescent sub forum.

[Chad32]

Maybe we don't care what age you are as long as your posts are coherent. Maybe I think it's weird that you believe the views of a teenager aren't worth listening to. What would you have us do? Ignore him? Tell him his thoughts and feelings don't matter until he's old enough to vote?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why are several of you arguing with a 16 year old child? Why are children allowed on here? Maybe we need an adolescent sub forum.

If we don't instruct the young, how are they to learn?

Boru

[EgoRaptor]

It would not be moral for an individual to imprison a criminal either, but we allow the state to do so.


I agree that the current system we have for the death penalty is bad, but I don't believe that just because the current system is bad that a better one cannot be put in place. Right now the qualifications to be put on death row is being found guilty of a heinous crime. Personally I believe that the death sentence should only be used for when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against the defendant. Right now as long as a prosecutor can get a guilty verdict by the skin of their teeth the death penalty is viable, which I disagree with. For example the Aurora theater shooter, we all know he did it. He should die.


It doesn't need to be. Is prison even a deterrent to crime? If people wish to commit a crime they will do so without taking into context the consequences of their actions. The death penalty shouldn't have to be a deterrent to crime, all it should be is the extermination of those who commit horrible acts against other people so that they are no longer a burden upon the taxpayers.


Again same thing with imprisonment.


In the current system yes, life imprisonment is actually more cost effective than the death penalty. But that is not an indictment of the death penalty rather than the system it abides by. We all know that a bullet is cheaper than life imprisonment, but because prisoners spend 15 years with higher security it ends up costing more. Like I've mentioned before we need more stringent rules to make it to death row, and then afterwards a streamlined process.


Again isn't imprisonment vengeance? Otherwise we could give everyone house arrest. I agree with you in the sense that I would much rather see a prisoner rot away in prison and suffer than I would see them easily killed. But even though I would rather see them suffer, I don't want them to be a further burden to the taxpayer.

1. The case can be (and I think, has been) made that it is a moral imperative for a private citizen to stop a crime if it is in his power to do so. An individual may legally restrain a wrong-doer, for example. But for an individual to exact the ultimate penalty is generally termed 'vigilante justice.'

2. I'm unconvinced that even in the face of overwhelming evidence (such as multiple corroborative witness or a confession) that the death penalty is a good idea. As for the Aurora shooter, the case can be made that the mentally ill are not normally put to death for their actions.

3. I agree that prison sentences, even hefty ones, are no more a deterrent to crime than is the death penalty. I was simply answering a point often brought up by death-penalty supporters. And, honestly, how much of a burden are life-time inmates to the taxpayers? Isn't it worth the little bit it costs to keep them locked up and away from other people, especially when the very real alternative is executing an innocent person?

4. Same answer, with the caveat that you can't exonerate a dead man.

5. I suppose I'm simply not as willing as you are to put a price on human life.

6. I think of imprisonment as segregation rather than vengeance. I speak of someone who was falsely imprisoned for a number of months.

Boru

---

Yes.

Your answer gives two clear implications:

1. People who disagree with your goals deserve death.

2. You don't support the right of people to live under a system of government of their own choosing.

Boru

Yes.

I haven't been following this, but it would seem this view leads to stagnation, corruption, and decay.

If only those that agree with orthodoxy get life, only those who agree with orthodoxy will live. If there are no opponents of orthodoxy, how will it evolve; where goeth the revolution without a source of new goals? It breeds corruption because if only the orthodox are granted life, some that are not orthodox will choose life over dissent, and carry on a false face while secretly pursuing their own interests. It breeds corruption because stagnation in any living organism such as a state gives the vermin plenty to feed upon.

You wouldn't just kill those who disagree, but only those who participate in active counterrevolutionary activity. Freedom of the press & speech will remain, but Revolutionary Guards must be established to put down any who would take up arms against the revolution. Everyone must be armed so that the popular revolution can suppress any uprising. Of course, all this is merely a temporary measure in the building of a Anarchistic Republic. When the republic has been created the death penalty will be abolished.