The Capital Punishment Debate

[COBRA-6]

The U.S. Military does not forbid the execution of the mentally retarded or juvenile offenders, though its admission policies make such executions very unlikely. The Military does have a sentence of life without parole.
Current Method - Lethal injection

- http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/states/stats/usmilitary.htm

One would hope the US military does not enrole the mentaly retarded or juvenile offenders...

 

[Danjanou]

One would hope the US military does not enrole the mentaly retarded or juvenile offenders...

Nope they're all too busy running for Liberal seats in the House of Commons up here. 8)

 

[COBRA-6]

Nope they're all too busy running for Liberal seats in the House of Commons up here. 8)

Indeed! 

 

[a_himself]

I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people.  There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones.  It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them etc. etc.  The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge.

Plus we live in an imperfect justice system, I don't think you can justify executing even one innocent person so that you can feel good about yourself for killing a whole bunch of bad murderers.

Over a hundred people on death row in the states have been released after having their convictions overturned since the death penalty was reinstated.

 

[winchable]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Execution_methods


For anyone looking for a morbid bit of fun around this festive time of year,

My favourite has to be the brazen bull.

 

[Infanteer]

I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people.

Define modern and progressive.  We're fairly modern and progressive, but that didn't stop us from dropping bombs on Sarajevo a few years ago.

There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones.   It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them etc. etc.   The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge.

Read the thread on Capital punishment; there seems to be a perfectly logical reason for doing it, and it isn't deterrence.

Plus we live in an imperfect justice system, I don't think you can justify executing even one innocent person so that you can feel good about yourself for killing a whole bunch of bad murderers.

Over a hundred people on death row in the states have been released after having their convictions overturned since the death penalty was reinstated.

I think those were addressed as well; no matter what kind of plea to imperfectability you make, it doesn't change the fact that Paul Bernardo best deserved the noose....

 

[Deleted member 6930]

The death penalty should be used only if there is no doubt as to who committed the crime. (Bernardo, Homolka - They even taped their crimes - no one can argue with that evidence) I'm sure there are others who would fall into this category.

If there is any question at all.... the chance that an Innocent may be put to death is a risk I don't think we should be willing to take.

Just MHO.


Edited for Spelin'

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I totaly support bringing back the death penalty. But lets be honest here if it ever were to come back the only method that would be used is lethal injection. It is considered humane. In my own view I dont really think so and I would rather be shot but never the less that is the norm these days. I dont think any states still use the electric chair and im almost 100% sure none still use hanging. when was the last time you heard of someone being senteced to hang?

Electric chair is still on the books in at least one state, but has not been used in many years, AIUI.

 

[48Highlander]

I never said it was acceptable to kill civilians.... but it does happen. I'm pretty sure that efforts are made to avoid the mass killing of civilians.

But you are comparing apples and oranges; the intentional execution of a criminal, and the accidental death of a civilian in a warzone are completely different worlds...

He must be getting pretty aggrivated with you by now, so I'll try to explain what he means:


One of the arguments against capital punishment is that we may "execute an innocent person".  The argument goes that, unless we can bring that person back to life, we shouldn't execute anyone.

Now, a similar analogy is one of war.  You could also say that we should never kill anyone in war because we may accidentaly kill an innocent civilian.  Therefore, unless we can bring that civilian back to life, we shouldn't be shooting at the enemy either.


In other words, neither position makes logical sense.  Or, I suppose to the really messed-up tree-huggers, BOTH make perfect sense.  Either way, you can't oppose the death penalty on those grounds, while supporting a nations right to go to war.


You get it now?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I never said it was acceptable to kill civilians.... but it does happen. I'm pretty sure that efforts are made to avoid the mass killing of civilians.

The same way efforts are made not to send innocent men to death row.   

One of the arguments against capital punishment is that we may "execute an innocent person".   The argument goes that, unless we can bring that person back to life, we shouldn't execute anyone.

Now, a similar analogy is one of war.   You could also say that we should never kill anyone in war because we may accidentally kill an innocent civilian.   Therefore, unless we can bring that civilian back to life, we shouldn't be shooting at the enemy either.


In other words, neither position makes logical sense.   Or, I suppose to the really messed-up tree-huggers, BOTH make perfect sense.   Either way, you can't oppose the death penalty on those grounds, while supporting a nations right to go to war.

Thank you 48th Highlander. That's exactly what I was trying to say. (And I hope you don't mind me quoting that wording in the future?)

I support the war on terrorism which includes the unfortunate death of civilians. I also support the death penalty which includes the chance of killing an innocent man.
The latter sounds pretty heartless I know. It's a simple case of that quote kill one man and it's a tragedy, kill 100'000 and it's a statistic.

*IF* Your going to use the not killing an innocent man argument against capital punishment I find it hippocritical that you can turn around and support the war on terrorism which flat out DOES kill innocent men woman AND children.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

To Ms. Spears:  my point about statistics is dont get to ramped up by a number.  The facts behind the numbers and the big picture often are quite opposite to the indicated stat.  NOT an endorsement of teen pregancy.

Ghost and Highlander are bang on.  These days, with the way the legal system is only the most slam dunk on video tape murders would even reasonably be seeking the death penalty.  And I also agree that the guy who snaps and kills his wife over whatever and has NO other criminality and was an otherwise okay guy, he probably will be rehabilitatetd.  I actually know a guy just like that.  He got in a bar fight with another guy, gave him a single punch in the yap.  The guy fell backwards, drilled the back of his skull against the corner of a brick plant box and died instantly.  Should he be put to death for a stupid bar fight, of course not.  Pre meditation, circumstance and record should always play a part in sentancing.  It would just be nice to have the night-night option for these g-balls that will serve no other purpose than to cook up tax revenue. 
Remeber Clifford Olsen?  He uses his time in jail to write letters to the families of the kids he killed and brags about how much pain he caused them.  You cant tell me he doesnt deserve to get waxed.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people.   There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones.   It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them etc. etc.   The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge.

Plus we live in an imperfect justice system, I don't think you can justify executing even one innocent person so that you can feel good about yourself for killing a whole bunch of bad murderers.

Over a hundred people on death row in the states have been released after having their convictions overturned since the death penalty was reinstated.

And why exactly are we hung up on being seen as a "modern, progressive, civilized society"?  Who gives a crap.  How about we be seen as a "brutal attrocity ridden police state that devestates offenders".  Are we that concerned that our ambassadors have some sort of bragging rights at some uptight UN cocktail party that we should forego what is right?

If you have seen the other posts, most of us agree that deterence is not the issue.  As for there being no logical reason, how about simple economics?  Why pay to have someone in jail for that long if they no longer serve a purpose?  And again, as mentioned previously "executed convicts have an extremely low recidivism rate".  And most would agree that dead people make a terrible class to present a lesson plan to. 
I think you should be forfeiting a little more than you personal convenience when you take anothers life.

 

[Britney Spears]

To Ms. Spears:  my point about statistics is dont get to ramped up by a number.  The facts behind the numbers and the big picture often are quite opposite to the indicated stat.  NOT an endorsement of teen pregancy.

OK, so the stats indicate that teenage pregnancy rates are down, but what does that have to do with whether girls now engage in other forms of sexual behaviour? Does it matter whether teenagers are now more informed about safe sex, or whether they're just foregoing the activity all together and playing scrabble in their spare time? You've just brought up a completely irrelevent strawman to deflect attention from the fact (borne out by the statistic) that fewer teenagers are getting pregnant.  Your example proves exactly the opposite of your point: The numbers DON'T lie, only the people who mis-interprete them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty

Dead people don't kill again.  Note that I assume you understand the difference between habitual killers and non-habitual ones.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Okay.  I dont know how to type slowly, so read slowly.

My point has NOTHING to do with kids and sex.  I was trying to illustrate that statistics do not always show an accurate reflection of what is going on and can be manipulated.  The only reason I brought up ANY statistic was because a bunch of death penalty stats were being lobbed around. 

If you have a burning need to bring up teens and sex, start your own thread.  This is supposed to be about the death penalty.

I hope we can get back to our regularly scheduled topic now.

 

[48Highlander]

I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people.  There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones.  It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them etc. etc.  The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge.

You (unintentionaly) nailed it!  Think about it; why DOESN'T Canada have the death penalty?  Not because there's something wrong with it.  Not because it can be proven to be immoral, or damaging, or in any way "bad".  The only reason we don't have it is because so many of our people like to think of themselves ad "modern" and "progressive".  Just like the ass-hats who go protest in front of Moss Park armories - they don't really know anything about the issues, other than that "war is bad", and "progressive people don't do bad things".

I think the main reason we got rid of the death penalty was so we could feel superior to the US.

 

[rabbit]

i geuss so....

 

[Britney Spears]

I was trying to illustrate that statistics do not always show an accurate reflection of what is going on and can be manipulated.

...by giving an example that proves exactly the opposite?  ???

Do you need me to draw you a picture? You made the assertion that A) Statisitics indicate that rates of teen pregnancy are going down. and then B) teenagers are more often engaging in sex other than vaginal intercourse. You then claimed that B somehow invalidated A, when anyone over the age of 14 would know that B in fact has NOTHING to do with A. The quoted statisitic is completely accurate and no one could possibly reach the same conclusion that you did.

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29>

</a>

Of course this is unrelated to the death penalty, but the very fact that you brought up such a ridiculous example begs a closer examination of your reasoning from now on. 

If you have a burning need to bring up teens and sex, start your own thread.  This is supposed to be about the death penalty.

Indeed.  :

Okay.  I dont know how to type slowly, so read slowly.

I concurr.

 

[Jarnhamar]

>There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty

Dead people don't kill again.  Note that I assume you understand the difference between habitual killers and non-habitual ones.

Exactly
Whats so illogical about making sure a habitual killer does not kill more people.  Thats math. Can't get much more logical than math.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Exactly
Whats so illogical about making sure a habitual killer does not kill more people.   Thats math. Can't get much more logical than math.

It is a leap of logic to suggest that there is such a thing as a "habitual killer', I would suppose.  How do you define such?  I don't doubt they exist but how do you prove their existence?  It's hard to "prove" future actions based solely on past actions - there is not a moral certainty on the same order as predicting that an object will fall to the earth if dropped...