Death Penalty - Why or Why Not? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Publius · 05-19-2003, 11:41 PM

My two cents, not that most of you will care. As a philosopher, I can see that there are 3 strong arguments and 1 weak argument for the death penalty. Lets start with the weak one first as it is the most disturbing.
I have heard people argue that murders should be killed to save taxpayer money. As was previously stated in this thread, it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for 40+ years. Besides, I am a little uncomforable thinking about the value of anyones life, including that of a convicted murderer in terms of money spent or money saved. Weak argument, lets move on.

The classic argument for capital punishment is that it detours crime. However, almost 95% of all murders do not wake up in the morning knowing that they are about to kill someone. Furthermore, again as was already previously mentioned, there is no evidence that captial punishment detours crime in any way, some statistics even seem to point to the opposite.

Second, capitial punishment has been argued for on the basis that it is justice, eye for an eye and all that. But how can this be justice? Most capitial punishment today is done through lethal injection. How many murderers have you read about go around lethally injecting someone? or for that matter strap peps into electric chairs? NO ONE! (ok so there is a possible world in where someone does do this, but its not going to be a common place occurance.) So I ask how is this justice? I dont see it myself because the punishment does not fit the crime for many different reasons, most of which have already been covered so I wont repeat them here.

Lastly, and probably the best argument in my humble oppinion for CP is that it guaruntees that the offender never has the chance to escape prison (be released?) and commit further acts of crime against humanity. True, no doubt about it, once those SOB are dead they arent going to be coming back to kill anyone else. But then again, what happens if they were innocent? then what? cant say 'oops, man we screwed up? sorry about the 25,000 volts dude." If and only if we could guaruntee that each and every person on death role was guilty would this be a good argument, but as we cant, and because it isnt handed out evenly to all convicts, I don't think this one works either.

Personally, I am against CP in all but the most extreme cases. The rest of the time I think we should lock them up in an 6ft by 8ft cell, with one small window 10 feet up the wall, for 23 1/2 hours a day for the rest of their natural lives w/o the possibility of parole. For me, as an agnostic, this is way worse of a punishment that any supposed hell that may or may not be waiting for me on the other side. I think most of use would agree that if they had to choose between the death sentance or staying in the cell for the rest of our lives we would pick the death sentance, I know I would.

4thTimeLucky · 05-21-2003, 05:06 PM

Hello Publius,
Welcome to TFP and congrats on your first post.

I can't say, as a philosopher (though what one does to earn this title I don't know), that I agree with your analysis of the situation but you do come down on the right side of the argument

On a light hearted note, I can guarantee that CP does very little to deter the sorts of crimes that CP punishes.

More seriously, I don't think the 3 and 1 analysis grasps the pro-CP position. For a start life long imprisonment is almost as certain to prevent reoffending as CP - we all like to think of Shawshank like escapes, but they are very rare, especially from max security. Also, the "value" of human life will be a central, and hence strong, part of any utilitarian argument for or against CP. Finally, I do not think that there is necessarily any 'eye for eye' or religious connotations here. The driving force of the pro-CP position seems to be that some crimes are so serious and terrible in nature that only the most serious of punishments will match it.

What I most dislike about this debate is the pleasure which many people seem to take in revenge. Be it painful deaths or rotting away in prisons for 23 1/2 hours a day. Before being able to decide whether CP is right or not you must decide what the penal system is for. In my mind it is to prevent reoffending until the prisoner has been rehabilitated. No revenge, no 'eye for an eye', no cruelty, no death. Anything beyond this, I believe, is cruelty for the benefit of those on the outside and that is as barbarous as the crimes we are punsihing.

WhoaitsZ · 05-23-2003, 06:41 PM

the death penalty should exist and be praciced as needed.

i do not believe in torture. a bullet in the head is good enough.

the reason i say this........

in my maybe not so enlightened thoughts I see it simply. if you have three bad guys, two commit a crime and are killed as soon as evidence is prsented, the third guy may say 'i think that may be a bad idead.'

its like poaching. the worlds biggest illegal ways of money making, next to drugs, is poaching and animal smuggling. you can make millions off of smuggling animals, go to jail for two years, and come back home.

in my maybe primitive mind i think if we took a guy who did this, and slit his throat other people just might hesitate before doing it again.

i know a LOT of innocent people have been murdered in the name of law. but i also know that we are no in the DNA age and its getting easier to figure out who made the foul.

i worry about civilians lives, liberties and health care. I can't see wasting money on people who threw away their freedoms by killing or rape (just examples). they kkilled, they raped. their life is forfeit. take them out, give that money to some family on the verge of bankrupcy due to someone's illments.

4thTimeLucky · 05-24-2003, 01:30 AM

Your argument seems to go:

i) Capital Punishment of criminals deters crime.
ii) Crime is bad
i + ii) Execute criminals.

As you can see that means that anything from jay walking to genocide should be punished with CP.
But, you are aware of this apparent weakness. The problem is you don't tackle it. You merely say "killing or rape (just examples)" to try and narrow down the field of crimes.

What you need is a few more premises before you can jump to that conclusion. You need to say why rape forfeits life but not manslaughter, or why manslughter but not fatal negligence, or why torture but not GBH. A line must be drawn somewhere and it must be based upon reason, not "I feel that's about where it should be". Either rise to that challenge, or start frying those jay walkers.

WhoaitsZ · 05-24-2003, 10:18 AM

4thTimeLucky: nice post.

i definatly see your point above. let me make this up as i go along. Please note that these are an expression of my opinion and certainly not fool-proof. hell, i'm an idiot.
--
Any person above the age of 18 who murders, is proven to have tortured someone in a heinous way, raped, or poached/smuggled Protected Species of animal shall be put to death.
--

that certainly doesn't fit the criteria you gave me but i'm tired as all hell and am not willing to make the changes at the moment. if i had actual influence, though, i certainly would.

its just that there's way too much shit to deal wih and I find myself grinding my teeth when people who need a quick trial get put off for another 'no question' murder trial.

also, for sake of people who desperately needs funds for heatlhcare
and what not, it would be a way to save millions. i'm not saying these people are worthless scum, kill them.

i'm saying that, hey, they willingly went out of their way to cause serious harm of another life. they threw their freedom away for doing such and we shall NOT pay to keep this person alive when many citizens are dying for lack of funding. a clean, painless, cheap death is more than acceptable.

Krutch9 · 05-24-2003, 11:28 AM

I like the way Samarians handled it. Eye for and Eye. With some special exceptions like accidental.

4thTimeLucky · 05-25-2003, 07:29 AM

WhoaitsZ

I can't help but feel you have provided a "that feels about right" line, delineating crimes which are punishable by death from those which aren't.
What do murder, rape and poaching endangered species have in common that makes them special crimes?

Quote:

i'm saying that, hey, they willingly went out of their way to cause serious harm of another life.

The problem is that they may not have done. 1 in 7 people on death row are found to be innocent, using DNA evidence, after they have been convicted.
The sad state of US justice means that those condemned to death are ridiculously likely to be poor, black men who's defence has been pathetically incompetent and uninterested in seeing proper justice done. Until this can be changed we will always need a lengthy appeals process to protect the innocent. And if we need this process then it would be cheaper and better for society to simply scrap the death penalty altogether.

So... spend millions of dollars improving the defences of people accused of murder,
OR... spend millions of dollars on a necessarily lengthy and costly execution process,
OR... save millions of dollars - and fall in line with the moral concensus of the rest of the western world - by scrapping a cruel, unusual and discriminatory form of punishment.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

05-21-2003, 05:06 PM	#82 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Hello Publius, Welcome to TFP and congrats on your first post. I can't say, as a philosopher (though what one does to earn this title I don't know), that I agree with your analysis of the situation but you do come down on the right side of the argument On a light hearted note, I can guarantee that CP does very little to deter the sorts of crimes that CP punishes. More seriously, I don't think the 3 and 1 analysis grasps the pro-CP position. For a start life long imprisonment is almost as certain to prevent reoffending as CP - we all like to think of Shawshank like escapes, but they are very rare, especially from max security. Also, the "value" of human life will be a central, and hence strong, part of any utilitarian argument for or against CP. Finally, I do not think that there is necessarily any 'eye for eye' or religious connotations here. The driving force of the pro-CP position seems to be that some crimes are so serious and terrible in nature that only the most serious of punishments will match it. What I most dislike about this debate is the pleasure which many people seem to take in revenge. Be it painful deaths or rotting away in prisons for 23 1/2 hours a day. Before being able to decide whether CP is right or not you must decide what the penal system is for. In my mind it is to prevent reoffending until the prisoner has been rehabilitated. No revenge, no 'eye for an eye', no cruelty, no death. Anything beyond this, I believe, is cruelty for the benefit of those on the outside and that is as barbarous as the crimes we are punsihing. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-24-2003, 01:30 AM	#84 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Your argument seems to go: i) Capital Punishment of criminals deters crime. ii) Crime is bad i + ii) Execute criminals. As you can see that means that anything from jay walking to genocide should be punished with CP. But, you are aware of this apparent weakness. The problem is you don't tackle it. You merely say "killing or rape (just examples)" to try and narrow down the field of crimes. What you need is a few more premises before you can jump to that conclusion. You need to say why rape forfeits life but not manslaughter, or why manslughter but not fatal negligence, or why torture but not GBH. A line must be drawn somewhere and it must be based upon reason, not "I feel that's about where it should be". Either rise to that challenge, or start frying those jay walkers. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-19-2003, 11:41 PM	#81 (permalink)
Publius Crazy Location: Never Never Land	My two cents, not that most of you will care. As a philosopher, I can see that there are 3 strong arguments and 1 weak argument for the death penalty. Lets start with the weak one first as it is the most disturbing. I have heard people argue that murders should be killed to save taxpayer money. As was previously stated in this thread, it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for 40+ years. Besides, I am a little uncomforable thinking about the value of anyones life, including that of a convicted murderer in terms of money spent or money saved. Weak argument, lets move on. The classic argument for capital punishment is that it detours crime. However, almost 95% of all murders do not wake up in the morning knowing that they are about to kill someone. Furthermore, again as was already previously mentioned, there is no evidence that captial punishment detours crime in any way, some statistics even seem to point to the opposite. Second, capitial punishment has been argued for on the basis that it is justice, eye for an eye and all that. But how can this be justice? Most capitial punishment today is done through lethal injection. How many murderers have you read about go around lethally injecting someone? or for that matter strap peps into electric chairs? NO ONE! (ok so there is a possible world in where someone does do this, but its not going to be a common place occurance.) So I ask how is this justice? I dont see it myself because the punishment does not fit the crime for many different reasons, most of which have already been covered so I wont repeat them here. Lastly, and probably the best argument in my humble oppinion for CP is that it guaruntees that the offender never has the chance to escape prison (be released?) and commit further acts of crime against humanity. True, no doubt about it, once those SOB are dead they arent going to be coming back to kill anyone else. But then again, what happens if they were innocent? then what? cant say 'oops, man we screwed up? sorry about the 25,000 volts dude." If and only if we could guaruntee that each and every person on death role was guilty would this be a good argument, but as we cant, and because it isnt handed out evenly to all convicts, I don't think this one works either. Personally, I am against CP in all but the most extreme cases. The rest of the time I think we should lock them up in an 6ft by 8ft cell, with one small window 10 feet up the wall, for 23 1/2 hours a day for the rest of their natural lives w/o the possibility of parole. For me, as an agnostic, this is way worse of a punishment that any supposed hell that may or may not be waiting for me on the other side. I think most of use would agree that if they had to choose between the death sentance or staying in the cell for the rest of our lives we would pick the death sentance, I know I would.

05-23-2003, 06:41 PM	#83 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	the death penalty should exist and be praciced as needed. i do not believe in torture. a bullet in the head is good enough. the reason i say this........ in my maybe not so enlightened thoughts I see it simply. if you have three bad guys, two commit a crime and are killed as soon as evidence is prsented, the third guy may say 'i think that may be a bad idead.' its like poaching. the worlds biggest illegal ways of money making, next to drugs, is poaching and animal smuggling. you can make millions off of smuggling animals, go to jail for two years, and come back home. in my maybe primitive mind i think if we took a guy who did this, and slit his throat other people just might hesitate before doing it again. i know a LOT of innocent people have been murdered in the name of law. but i also know that we are no in the DNA age and its getting easier to figure out who made the foul. i worry about civilians lives, liberties and health care. I can't see wasting money on people who threw away their freedoms by killing or rape (just examples). they kkilled, they raped. their life is forfeit. take them out, give that money to some family on the verge of bankrupcy due to someone's illments.

05-24-2003, 10:18 AM	#85 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	4thTimeLucky: nice post. i definatly see your point above. let me make this up as i go along. Please note that these are an expression of my opinion and certainly not fool-proof. hell, i'm an idiot. -- Any person above the age of 18 who murders, is proven to have tortured someone in a heinous way, raped, or poached/smuggled Protected Species of animal shall be put to death. -- that certainly doesn't fit the criteria you gave me but i'm tired as all hell and am not willing to make the changes at the moment. if i had actual influence, though, i certainly would. its just that there's way too much shit to deal wih and I find myself grinding my teeth when people who need a quick trial get put off for another 'no question' murder trial. also, for sake of people who desperately needs funds for heatlhcare and what not, it would be a way to save millions. i'm not saying these people are worthless scum, kill them. i'm saying that, hey, they willingly went out of their way to cause serious harm of another life. they threw their freedom away for doing such and we shall NOT pay to keep this person alive when many citizens are dying for lack of funding. a clean, painless, cheap death is more than acceptable.

05-24-2003, 11:28 AM	#86 (permalink)
Krutch9 Upright	I like the way Samarians handled it. Eye for and Eye. With some special exceptions like accidental.