Atheism & the Death Penalty.

[robvalue]

You could as a *cough* "compromise" only execute where there is absolutely no doubt, and the evidence is too overwhelming for there to possibly have been a mistake. (Or at least, an incredibly small chance.) If I was going to bring it in, I'd do it just for murder, and just in that case. But I'm not saying I would.

I wonder, how do the statistics of murderers escaping/being released and then going on to murder another person compare to those falsely executed? I suppose you're never going to have completely accurate numbers on the second one so it will be hard to say.

[Chad32]

In america I think the prison system is bad enough that someone who gets let out is more likely to go back to breaking the law, than they are to start being constructive. That's a flaw in the system, though, not because many people are inherrently bad.

[robvalue]

I saw a program a while ago about the prison system in some run-down place, where the town was so rough that being in prison was actually preferable. As soon as people got let out, they just keep doing crimes until they got put back in.

I have also heard a lot about prison ruining people, who go in perhaps misguided and naive but come out with a hardened criminal mindset. If so, that's about exactly the opposite of what I would hope. I have heard cases of it being just the time-out someone needs though. I suppose it depends on what the particular prison system is like.

[Angrboda]

You could as a *cough* "compromise" only execute where there is absolutely no doubt, and the evidence is too overwhelming for there to possibly have been a mistake. (Or at least, an incredibly small chance.) If I was going to bring it in, I'd do it just for murder, and just in that case. But I'm not saying I would.

And how would you determine if the evidence in any particular case is "overwhelming"? Families would push for this standard in cases that don't meet it. Perpetrators would push back. All this would do is add another layer of appeals to an already lengthy and expensive process.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No, I'm not in favor of the death penalty.

[Simon Moon]

I voted never.

Civilized societies should not have state sponsored killing. For any reason.

While I admit, that from an emotional standpoint, there are cases where the more ancient, less than rational part of my brain may feel some sense of satisfaction by the thought of ending the life of a murderer, my higher brain is able to override it.

But even if I was in favor of capital punishment from a philosophical standpoint, I could never condone it from a practical standpoint. Way too many people have been released from prison when new evidence comes to light. Not to mention, that as good as the justice system is, it makes mistakes.

[robvalue]

You could as a *cough* "compromise" only execute where there is absolutely no doubt, and the evidence is too overwhelming for there to possibly have been a mistake. (Or at least, an incredibly small chance.) If I was going to bring it in, I'd do it just for murder, and just in that case. But I'm not saying I would.

And how would you determine if the evidence in any particular case is "overwhelming"?  Families would push for this standard in cases that don't meet it.  Perpetrators would push back.  All this would do is add another layer of appeals to an already lengthy and expensive process.

You're right, it would be very problematic. Probably wouldn't work. Bad idea!

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm not an atheist, so I didn't vote. But my answer wouldn't be up there anyway. 

From the Catechism: 

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

So basically, the death penalty is only ok if that is the ONLY way to keep society safe from a killer. But if we are able to lock someone up for life, we no longer need to use the death penalty. Nowadays, we have the means of doing this, so a death sentence is no longer necessary and should not be used.

[Minimalist]

Actually the issue has been rendered fairly pointless by events.

1,204.

That's the newly revised number of people killed by American police in 2015.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.2503236

Meanwhile

Twenty-eight offenders were executed in the United States in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_of...es_in_2015

BTW, none of those 28 were executed north of Virginia or west of Missouri which makes state murder a "southern thang."


Why bother with all those trials and appeals when the cops can just shoot whoever the fuck they want?

[Catholic_Lady]

If the cop is acting on immediate self defense, or defense of another person, the killing is justified.