Capital punishment?
I know the Christian right thinks that the right to life starts at conception and ends at birth but how do we feel about it?
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
21 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Too many cases of miscarriages of justice have been exposed to ever consider it again. I am British and we abolished it in 1965.....!
Marionville
Level 10
Nov 13, 2018
4
Speaking as someone who has sat on juries twice, and therefore had first hand experience of the legal system without being involved in it. I have to say that anyone who thinks that the courts, of even the most civil and best run nations can truely separate the guilty from the innocent, is living in cloud cuckoo land. It is, as common sense will tell anyone, quite impossible to begin with, and far from possible in fact. It may be a needful myth which the state creates in order to make its people content that they are being protected, but it is no more a truth than fairies at the bottom of the garden.
It doesn't work as a deterrent, it's expensive and innocent people die. The death penalty just doesn't work.
MrBeelzeebubbles
Level 7
Nov 13, 2018
3
I think state murder is wrong. I think all murder is wrong. I think some people cannot be trusted to return to society. I think keeping those people alive is expensive, and in some cases more than they deserve. But, I completely support treating all humans humanely. I really just kind of wish people wouldn't do horrible things. (So, yeah, don't elect me to shit...)
Minta79
Level 7
Nov 13, 2018
2
A death penalty should NEVER be imposed by a civilized society. However, a prisoner should have the right to demand death in lieu of serving the remainder of his/her sentence. The death should be by nitrogen asphyxiation, painless and simple to administer.
PBuck0145
Level 7
Nov 13, 2018
1
Life is an incredibly rare and irreplaceable thing. We must do all we can to protect the innocent. But once any life is taken it is gone forever -- it can never be brought back.
I look at it as a variation of the last part of the Wiccan Rede: "does no harm, do what you will". Even when you are doing unpleasant things like dispensing justice, the rule must be to minimize harm -- especially harm that cannot be undone.
RichCC
Level 8
Nov 13, 2018
2
We've already killed and almost killed too many innocent people. And it's stupid. It's stupid in that we pretend not to know how imperfect and how susceptible it is to abuse. I also believe it is dumb to imprison people with no chance of parole.
AtheistReader
Level 7
Nov 13, 2018
1
As some others have said, I don't believe the state should decide who to kill. I do believe that there are humans on this Earth that do not deserve to remain here. But, if the state can kill at its discretion what if: what if it decides to kill witches (Saudi Arabia) or drug users (The Philippines) or political prisoners (too large a list) or, in another tact, opts to use executed people's organs for transplant and expedites the executions with less oversight (China). Is that what we want, as a nation.
From a financial point, in most states, the imposed oversight actually makes the implementation of the death penalty more costly (court costs, etc) than life imprisonment. Yes, that oversight could be eliminated, but how many statistical errors of innocent people being killed are you willing to accept.
Beowulfsfriend
Level 9
Nov 13, 2018
1
Goes against human rights.
The most modern view about the penal system is that the state don't avenge the population. The state promote human rights. And the human rights are so important that the state should restrain any human right the minimum possible to keep the society working and progressing.
So jail and other freedom restrictions, happens to avoid more crimes to happen, not to punish the criminal.
Thinking this way, death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless in open rebellion on the proportions of a civil war, where it is impossible to stop the violence with non lethal force.
If the guy is in jail already neutralized, killing a human being that is completely submitted is pure revenge and the state cannot have "feelings" like that.
And see, human rights is for all, even the worst monsters, because in the moment you can draw a line on who deserves and who nor deserves human rights, this line can be moved fast and shit can hit the fan very fast! So it is a question of or all of us have their rights guaranteed or all of us are in risk to be considered not deserving of them.
And if you come with an argument like "but if your daughter gets raped and killed, would you want to kill the guy?"
The answer is yes, with my own hands, and deal with the consequences after. But no, I don't want the state to fulfill my revenge while I pretend my hands are clean.
It is not about cost, not about deserve, not about budget. Go to the basics, they are humans, they deserve human rights, the state should protect the society, with the minimum possible of human rights restriction. So killing becomes inaceptable as the guy in jail is already neutralized and cannot cause harm anymore. Killing him is taking the right of life without any improvement for the society other than personal revenge, and revenge is not a human right.
Pedrohbds
Level 7
Nov 13, 2018
2
A well written and thought out argument. I do not disagree but can I put this to you? What if a murderer kills again in prison as so often happens? He has not been neutralised, he will spend the rest of his days there, albeit with severer restrictions. What deterrent is there to stop him killing again?
What is the goal? It doesn't save money, as inmates on death row cost the state more. Is it punishment? Maybe it's just me, but lengthy incarceration seems more punative to the convict than ceasing their existence and the act of taking a life, in itself, taxes one's psyche (or should). I don't see a purpose, besides satiating the rage of some.
chalupacabre
Level 8
Nov 13, 2018
2
Ideally its OK in extreme cases but that isn't how it is used. Our justice system isn't known for being accurate. It's most often applied to people who don't have the money to defend themselves properly making it more likely to be inaccurate, and not really going to the worst offenders anyway. It costs more money than a life sentance, brings more drama and attention to whatever tragedy they did, and might make them a sort martyr.
MsAl
Level 8
Nov 13, 2018
1
It should be taken into consideration for each and every case where it is warranted. One major factor is that innocent people have been executed. That means the justice system itself committed murder. Not acceptable.
As far as Christian thinking and abortion, it is a decision between the mother and father. The Holy Ghost needs to keep out of it. By the way, I've heard a number of Christians argue that even birth control as in, a condom or birth control pills is murder. How do you communicate with that level of stupid? Bash a coconut over their heads?
chucklesIII
Level 7
Nov 13, 2018
1
As it stands now, without the death penalty, an inmate can do anything they want to in prison. Kill other inmates, kill guards etc. with no additional punishment if they're already doing, say, life in prison or any substantial prison time. Capital punishment would stand as a deterrent in those situations. For those who say it's not a deterrent at all, we have lighthouses supposedly designed to stop ships from colliding, we don't know how many ships we keep from colliding but we don't get rid of lighthouses. There's no way to know if capital punishment is a deterrent or not but it makes sense that it is.
lerlo
Level 8
Nov 13, 2018
0
I believe your argument in favour is weak and the analogy you have used rather pathetic as a reason for state sponsored murder.
I think you can look at the statistics and say that counties or states that do not have the death penalty have lower or comparable murder rates
@Marionville not surprising coming from you
As it stands now, even WITH the death penalty, an inmate can do anything they want to in prison, and they do. The Death Penalty is no deterrent there.
Repeated studies have neither proved, nor disproved, that the Death Penalty is a deterrent. The facts, however, have repeatedly proved that innocent people are falsely convicted, have been wrongly sentenced to death, and have been exonerated after it's too late.
The Death Penalty is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder.
It really deters nothing. As long as the criminal justice system is still making mistakes, it makes sense to suspend the practice of putting people to death.
WTF. Pretty much your entire argument has been refuted by scientific research. Any prisoner not following the rules spends days, weeks, years in solitary confinement. Sometimes that is the correct for only course of action and at other times it is used to shut someone up, to stop a peaceful protest, or to manage a mentally ill inmate (quite common).
2 things that are moving off topic: what about the way the system is now being privatized and such a moneymaker that it gives incentives for a greater amont of incarceration?
Or, how about an old Carson routine: want to stop drugs, etc, then execute some bankers who launder the money.
@KKGator The point was that there should be some punishment for people who do whatever they want in prison because otherwise there is no sanction. It sounds like you're ok with that because there is slight chance that person was wrongly convicted. If you're ok with an innocent guard being killed by a possibly wrongly convicted person, and there being no additional penalty, then whatever let's you sleep at night.
@Beowulfsfriend I welcome links to that scientific research and how it addresses letting prisoners who have nothing to lose kill guards and receive no additional punishment
@lerlo Wow. You have extrapolated my comments to the most absurd "conclusion". You can't refute any of what I had to say, so you come up with something incredibly ridiculous to defend your position?
Why are you arguing so hard to retain a practice that has no demonstrable "benefits", and attacking anyone who dares dispute you with false assumptions? I didn't personally attack you. Is that your go-to whenever anyone makes a counter argument?
@KKGator maybe you don't read what you type...The Death Penalty is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder.
It really deters nothing. As long as the criminal justice system is still making mistakes, it makes sense to suspend the practice of putting people to death."
and like most people here--can't deal with the logical conclusion of your argument
@lerlo no. Won't do your work as you obviously won't look or have a branded mind set. You can not give any examples of guards killed, especially in mass, with no further punishment. Simply look up solitary confinement. People who kill in prison and get caught seldom do it again because they are alone 24/7. And I won't argue against that. I can give examples of inmates who kill who have received the death penalty and many who have been put into solitary. I have never seen any not punished. I will look. I highly doubt it exists. Check Snopes.
@lerlo I take that as a compliment.
There have been so many innocent people executed. That's inexcusable.
JenBeberstein
Level 8
Nov 20, 2018
0
The questions are loaded. What if a person opposes capital punishment for practical reasons? There’s nothing to check.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Nov 13, 2018
0
What practical reasons might they be?
I know that in hindsight I should have put an option saying "I oppose the death penalty as the chances of a miscarriage of justice are too great"
Is that the option you are looking for?
@273kelvin I was undecided, but now am leaning toward opposition to the death penalty. I wouldn’t want to be an executioner and it seems hypocritical to expect someone else to bear that brutal, depressing burden.
I don’t think of capital punishment as murder and I don’t see it as morally wrong, but it does have an adverse affect on society IMO.
I am undecided, however, for me it is not a moral issue—it is a question of what works best.
From one perspective, we are not our bodies—we were not born and we do not die. We have responsible control of bodies though. It is unsociable to harm a person’s body or other property, such as their car. If someone is deliberately using their car to smash up other people’s cars, it seems prudent to either impound their car or destroy it. Same with their body.
Despite all precautions there will sometimes be miscarriages of justice, but that IMO is not reason to eliminate the death penalty. Occasionally someone will be walking in the woods and a tree will fall on them. I know that, yet I walk in the woods anyway because from an overall perspective the benefits outweigh the costs. If we are going to demand perfection then we should refrain from locking people up, on the slight chance they might be innocent.
It costs a lot to keep bodies in prison. If we are going to keep them there they should do useful work if possible so as not to be a burden. If the decision is to kill them, we should do that promptly and efficiently without pussyfooting around. Do it boldly without regret or guilt or don’t do it at all.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Nov 13, 2018
0
If you walk in the woods and a tree falls on you? That is for want of a better term an act of god. If that tree was cut by a lumberjack at the time? That is an act of negligence. If it was willful and easily prevented then its criminal negligence or manslaughter. If it was deliberate then its murder. If the state kills an innocent person but then says sorry but we thought that they deserved it at the time? How can it justify punishing other murderers? "Hey I only killed one guy and he was a gang banger. Youve killed 5 innocent guys in the last 2 years"
The difference between prison and a death sentence is you can release an innocent person from jail and although they will never get that time back. They can be monetarily compensated and they get to live the rest of their lives in freedom. You cannot un-inject a corpse.
@273kelvin Yes, but those categories are artificial. If someone has a habit of deliberately cutting down trees on people it is in the interest of society to stop their dangerous behavior. If it was an accident the best interest of society might be to do nothing. That’s why I said it’s not a moral question—we should try for the best outcome and stop thinking of our response as punishment. Who are we to be punishing people?
My position is based on the idea that we are not our bodies and that an individual body is not worth much. If you accidentally execute the wrong person it’s really no big deal. Millions of new ones are born every day. Of course if it were my personal body that was to be wrongfully executed I’d tend to be a bit resentful I suppose.
After thinking about this issue I have now decided that I will henceforth oppose capital punishment. The reason is that I do not want to be an executioner and it seems unfair to expect someone else to do a job for which I have no stomach. It must be a brutal and disturbing occupation—something like being a soldier during war. Sometimes a war might be unavoidable. Sometimes an out-of-control human body might need killing. In both cases it might be a duty to be performed, and if so I would step up, but with reluctance.
@WilliamFleming Much as I respect your view on bodies etc. It is not and cannot be the states view, in respect of separation of church and state. It makes no odds if you think a murderer will be reincarnated as an ant. The taking of a human life is the taking of a human life.
To continue the tree analogy. If the lumberjack repeatedly fells trees on top of people however innocently. The state would have a duty to revoke his logging license. Just as if you were to continue to have car accidents due to errors in judgement. It would make no difference how many miles that you drove without incident. The state would curtail your right to drive. If the state kills 200 guilty people but also 3 innocent ones. Then it too must have its 00 status removed, As it no longer can be trusted with a licence to kill
I basically agree with what you are saying. Of course the government governs in a world of human bodies and must act for the overall best interest of the bodies of the citizens.
All I am saying is that there’s no need to bring morality into the equation. If capital punishment is “murder” then murder has been the accepted norm around the world throughout human evolution, and the results of those murders have not been too horrible to bear.
I prefer to simply observe how the world operates and not make moral judgments if possible.
If there must be a death penalty it must only be used in the worst cases. The cases with the most unapologetic monsters, the kind of person who even after being incarcerated is a danger to their fellow inmates and the guards because they have no regard for human life. Those are the only people I think should be executed.
GrantSmith
Level 6
Nov 13, 2018
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.