Atheist and the Death penalty

[Minimalist]

That's because we don't pay any attention to yhwh the bloody-handed.

[strawdawg]

I'll check it out, thanks.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I think killing another human is wrong, no matter who's doing it.

If that's true then why are cops allowed to kill suspects in States that don't have the death penalty?

[rexbeccarox]

I think the death penalty is wrong, except in the case where the convicted (whatever) chooses it over a life prison sentence or similar. Approximately 4% of death row inmates in the US are innocent.

IMO, 0.000000000000001% would be too many.

[Alex K]

but:

But in all cases, the majority of people are in favor of it, whether you're looking at religious service attendance or religious preference.  Those who favor the death penalty outweigh those who do not by a healthy margin across the board.

So it seems... Though these numbers are for the US of course.

[Cephus]

But in all cases, the majority of people are in favor of it, whether you're looking at religious service attendance or religious preference.  Those who favor the death penalty outweigh those who do not by a healthy margin across the board.

So it seems... Though these numbers are for the US of course.

Of course, which shows that the majority of atheists are in favor of the death penalty.  Not sure why this is a question at all.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Well, we know that cops lie and frame people by planting evidence and coercing snitches. We know that DAs withhold evidence that's favorable to the defendant. We know that DAs will lie, cheat, and steal to get re-elected and that they tend to go all out to rack up convictions prior to the election. We know that jurors are prejudiced against minority defendants and therefore they tend to disregard the idea that the defendant is being framed. We also know that the DAs and jurors will rarely sentence a white person to death for killing a dozen people in a theater.

We know that Americans generally love to kill people who piss them off. So when a minority person is charged with a capital crime his outlook is bleak indeed. He's definitely looking at the lake of fire instead of the golden cube.

[abaris]

Of course, which shows that the majority of atheists are in favor of the death penalty.  Not sure why this is a question at all.

First, this statistic is about the US. Do it in any other country and you get different results. Second, even in the US less people with "no religious preference" (mind that it doesn't say atheist), are in favor of capital punishment than religious people - protestants as well as catholics.

And a pew research poll from this year claims that the overall support dropped to an all time low in the US.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/16/l...democrats/

[Javaman]

I think killing another human is wrong, no matter who's doing it.

If that's true then why are cops allowed to kill suspects in States that don't have the death penalty?

It may be that my sarcasm detector is in need of a tune-up, but in which states are cops "allowed" to kill suspects?

Are you referring to situations where police officers shot and killed a suspect because they thought he/she posed a threat to themselves and/or others? Or are you offering up a commentary on abuse of power by the police?

Sorry, but I'm genuinely curious.

[Ravenshire]

The functionalist side of me says: murders and rapists and the sort are drains on society, they are dangerous and they cost money and resources to keep alive and locked up. But I seem to remember hearing that the death penality actually cost more to carry out than the average lifetime in prison. But surely a bullet to the head or the guillotine would be just as effective and a lot cheaper? I don't think that would be more cruel than lethal injections, if more medieval, but if the aim is to reduce stress leading up to the execution and to take the life as painlessly as possible I think they are just as effective as lethal injections. Handing out the death penalty more liberally would help with prison overcrowding I would think but then that reduces jobs, less men to guard means less guards. And there is always a risk when trying to rehabilitate someone. It's not an exact science and everyone who approves the release of say, a 'rehabilitated' rapist, puts their necks on the line, what if they go out and rape someone else? Not saying that it's not worth trying rehabilitation.

And then another side of me says, the death penalty isn't really a punishment for the criminal. Life behind bars is a punishment, but I think the death penalty punishes the criminals loved ones more than them. But.....watching a loved one rot in prison must be difficult too? So would it be worse to let the criminal live out their life in prison, much to the distress of their loved ones, or to end their lives and their 'suffering'?

I am really conflicted and confused about the issue and I'm not sure if either perspectives are exactly what I think about the death penalty.

The method of execution is irrelevant to the expense of a death row inmate. The appeals process is what's so costly. So, unless you're advocating a reduction in the appeals process which would ultimately lead to more people being killed for crimes they didn't commit than there are now...