1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Rationalizing the Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by rogue49, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. Plan9 FORMAT C:

    Location:
    This Island Earth
    I concur. Drug laws in the US are largely responsible for the overpopulation of US penitentiaries. Over half the short stint people in the cage are petty druggies. Here's the problem: How are you going to sell the exorbitant cost of literally hand-holding individuals on a case-by-case versus simply putting them in a box? It's easier to put them in a box. It's cheaper, too. Killing them is unethical and too expensive given the US legal system.

    We need to start up some Running Man competitions. It's time the inmates gave back to society. In entertainment value.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2012
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Strange Famous

    Strange Famous it depends on who is looking...

    Location:
    Ipswich, UK
    I'd be happy with shooting as a method of killing (again, on the basis that I would rather we do not kill anyone), but its heavy work for the one who has to pull the trigger. Takes a certain sort of person.

    I looked up online the average time on death row between being found guilty and being killed, and in 2010 it was 178 months. So I think my "20 years" was not so out of touch with reality.
     
  3. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    First, let me make this clear.
    I'm not dehumanzing criminals as animals.
    I'm pro animal, we are ALL animals.
    Criminals are the same as us and them.

    Not all criminals are killers. Not all killers are the same either.
    The difference is one of intent, repeated acting on those intentions of killing.

    Second, for me, it's not revenge, I don't believe in revenge.
    I believe in removing someone who shouldn't be living in society.
    Jail is another society, one for punishment and rehabilitation.
    Mass murderers, serial murders and "maybe" spree murders are on a whole different level.
    They aren't safe in society, really why be in prison forever? Isn't that cruel?

    I'm not lumping all murderers together.
    There are different types of killers.
    I'm not talking about drug deals gone bad.
    Or someone going postal.
    Or someone who was protecting themselves.
    etc, etc, etc.

    Anything circumstantial is not an option.
    Anything beyond any doubt is not an option.

    You are expanding my criteria, than the strict principals I stated for myself.

    And yes, this does mean I'd have the death penalty for some and not others. All killings are not alike.
    The requirement for a death penalty should be a very high bar.

    And I haven't said that those assigned to death are ready to die.
    No, like most beings, they want to live, even in prison.
    And if given the choice, they would like to out of prison.
    And if given the choice, I'm sure they would kill again.
    Choice is an irrelevant argument.
    Choice is out of their hands. They have been caught.
    Just like they took it out of the hands of their victims forever, repeatedly.
    This is not fantasy, this is reality.

    Again, those people arguing against the death penalty here
    are at times expanding the criteria I stated to make a point.
    Skilling, was not a mass murderer. No death penalty.
    Those people he hurt, still live...life moves on for them.
    Besides, there were still questions as to his involvement.
    Again, this would eliminate him from being considered.
    It has to be foolproof, no questions.

    I did review the Ruth Ellis case.
    There were tons of bad evidence, circumstantial, bad protocol, etc.
    Under the criteria I stated, she wouldn't even get close to the death penalty.

    A woman who brutally tortures, rapes and kills children
    and you have proof of it, thru video tape.
    Yes, that's someone to be considered.

    Let's stick to the argument.
    Let's not get personal.
    And let's not expand it to make a point.
    I'm talking reasoning discussion, not hyperbole.

    ---------

    Here's a question.
    Jeffrey Dahmer or this guy in the article I started all this with for an example.
    How would you feel about them being down the street from you?
    Being near your kids or loved ones?
    Paying for their meals, comfort and life for all of their lives out of your taxes?

    I've had many open-minded, good-hearted individuals making the same arguments you have.
    Then I mention, what would you do if they went after your child?
    I can't tell you how fast the words, "I'd kill them" come out of their mouths.

    Here, I'm not talking about emotion. Reaction. Vengence.
    I'm talking about making a rational logical decision, to remove an unnecessary individual from the burdens of society...including jail.

    You know what the guy in the article did...it is described there.
    Jeffrey Dahmer for reference, his murders involved rape, dismemberment, necrophilia and cannibalism. Proven, and then some...
    Dahmer is dead, BTW. Killed by his fellow inmates.
    Is this any more fair?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2012
  4. Strange Famous

    Strange Famous it depends on who is looking...

    Location:
    Ipswich, UK
    if we both agree that not every murder is a hanging crime (which I think we do) that brings me to the question of how do you decide how is hanged

    It is easy to pick the worst cases - Fred and Rose West or Jeffrey Dahmer... because it is very hard to feel any human sympathy for such monsters... but there is a lot of ground between Ruth Ellis and Jeffrey Dahmer.

    I think anyone would agree that a monster like Breivik or Dahmer must never be allowed to be free (and although I believe in Norway there is no legal precedent for a life sentence, I guarantee he will never be a free man again)... they are simply to dangerous.

    But I come back to, how do you decide who are the ones to be killed, the murderers of the worst and most sickening kind? Against the ones who only get life. Is it multiple victims over time? Is it a sexual motive? I just dont see any sound method of judging who is hanged. Would I trust a jury? Not really but I suppose it is the best method we have.
     
  5. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    I read your first sentence and like most of it, so I decided to like your comment... but my action was premature.
     
  6. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    You understand I'm clearly stating they "lose their right on that subject (whether they are incarcerated or executed)" not that they lose all their "human rights"... right?
     
  7. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    Internet hunting coming to Texas -- Engadget

    Just charge people or have an auction on-line to be the one who pulls the trigger. You know there are some people out there who would pay. Probably not the healthiest of people, but still.

    It is a easy way out though. Even though I approve of the death penalty for the worst of the worst, I think there are worst ways to make criminals pay...
     
  8. Strange Famous

    Strange Famous it depends on who is looking...

    Location:
    Ipswich, UK
    Isnt the right to end your own life if you want to a fundamental human right that cannot be alienated without someone's human rights in general being breached?
    --- merged: Apr 18, 2012 at 4:28 AM ---
    A part of me hopes that this is satire, but the other part fears that it is not... (the remote controlled shooting of deer through a website...)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2012
  9. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    I would never want to make a game out of this. (or business, this is a conflict of interest)

    Nor do I want to make any criminal, even mass murderers, "pay"
    This is not about extracting a price, a pain...not to make them suffer.
    It is about removing a known and proven cancer from the world.
     
  10. mixedmedia

    mixedmedia ...

    Location:
    Florida
    that assumes that the 'cancer' is not metastasizing to the rest of us.
    there is no such thing as a 'clean killing.'
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Calling someone a cancer is also dehumanizing. Does this make them easier to kill?
     
  12. mixedmedia

    mixedmedia ...

    Location:
    Florida
    Of course it does. Just like all of the other rationalizations made to support the death penalty make it easier to keep swimming in the greater sea of brutality that humanity has been drowning in since time immemorial without compromising one's first world, 21st century mien.
     
  13. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    At least we seem to have moved from the medieval demonstrative towards (misguided) utilitarianism.

    This thread makes me want to reread Foucault. How crazy is that?
     
  14. Strange Famous

    Strange Famous it depends on who is looking...

    Location:
    Ipswich, UK
    of course, someone has to be placed outside of society for society to kill them. "outside the law" I think they used to say in the National Convention?
     
  15. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    What are you talking about? With your logic putting someone in jail, basically a cage, is alienating a fundamental human right. Unless of course they want to be put in the cage.

    I can't figure out if you're being daft or sarcastic or ??? Either I've stated my position on this topic and will be moving on to other threads I find more interesting.
     
  16. Strange Famous

    Strange Famous it depends on who is looking...

    Location:
    Ipswich, UK
    I dont think free movement is an inalienable human right. I think it can be curtailed justifiably in some circumstances.

    I do believe that the right to end one's life is a basic human right, but the bigger problem is perhaps that prison is so miserable for many people that they are driven to suicide.

    I dont think people should go to prison to have fun, but I also do not think people should be treated so harshly that they cannot face life. As I said in earlier threads, people should be encouraged to work, and to do meaningful work that gives them self respect and helps them learn skills and pay back to society.

    There will always be a small proportion of people who are just cheats, and in any system they will take whatever spells in prison they get as a hazard of the job... but many people could have their lives turned away from crime by putting more money into the rehabilitation aspect and so saving costs on the number of prisons we need.

    In terms of the worst kinds of serial killers, in these cases they cannot be rehabilitated and they must just be locked up forever, but it is still not necessary to torment them.
     
  17. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Again, for some reason we are moving towards the words, "torture" and "dehumanize" and "animal".
    Excuse me for using the word, cancer as a metaphor...I shall endevour to be more literal in the future.

    I oppose torture and suffering, period.
    Execution should be fast & efficient, with as little pain as possible.

    Again, I am fully cognizant what a human is, their present, past and future self.
    I'm also aware of what an animal is, and they are at times more worth than many humans.

    I've seen both sides of life, the implications of tragedy.
    Birth, baby death, death from pain, unnecessary death, and more. (LIVE, up front, personal)
    Please do NOT tell me I dehumanize.

    You have no idea of my compassion and how much I consider others.
    I'm known for this compassion, this consideration. Many think I'm too liberal.

    So tell me, other than calling me names...a debating tactic to dismiss or undermine your opponent.
    Do you have anything to convince me otherwise?

    I accept the fact that you don't like the Death Penalty, so be it.
    But you haven't convinced me that your way is more fair and less torturing, than mine. (for heinous multi-murderers, that is)

    hmm...spend the rest of your life, in prison...behind bars.
    I've seen pictures of the Manson family...after all these years...no, decades...in prison. (First assigned to death, then to life, because of CA law changes)
    They look like living death...drawn, wane, worthless, life-less.
    They aren't getting out...they get the joy of having joke parole hearings. (Let's have a formal hearing, then deny, deny, deny...forever)
    Gee, that sounds SO MUCH more fair, less cruel.

    And they are doing SO MUCH for society being there. Giving back, participating. And they obviously will do so also in the future...
    I think not.

    We often put animals to sleep so they won't experience long-term unrecovering pain.
    Or even so they won't always have to live their lives in a cramped cage.
    Why?

    But humans...I hear people, many of your non-death supporters want their fellow humans in there, as punishment,
    to make them continue to pay...to make them suffer like those they wronged.
    The reasons to do prison are varied...from benign to malevolent...
    So even this is debatable.

    And certainly one that you plan on keeping, "preserved" in the human equivalent of a chicken hen house UNTIL DEATH. (oops, a metaphor)
    Don't tell me you are being more "humane".
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2012
  18. Lindy

    Lindy Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Nebraska
    I think that it is worth pointing out that there were ~3200 people on death row in the USA, vs. 43 executions actually carried out in 2011 (13 so far in 2012)
    Statistically that's a death rate of about 135 per 100,000 per year. The death rate for the US population as a whole is about 84/100,000 Canada is about 77/100,000.
    Interminable appeals, (with the state paying for the expenses of both prosecution and defense, in most cases, no wonder it's expensive) appeals almost exclusively based on legal technicalities or matters of procedure, with no real question of guilt vs. innocence remaining. Just an expensive legal jousting match.
    Odds of a death sentence being actually carried out in a timely manner (or at all, for that matter) are so infinitesimally small that of course it is not a deterrent.
    So for all practical purposes we don't have an actual death penalty.

    Instead, we have this intense and expensive Death Penalty Theater™ in its place.

    Lindy
     
  19. mixedmedia

    mixedmedia ...

    Location:
    Florida
    Listen, rogue. 1. I don't even know who you're actually talking to here. You should try and be more specific about that. 2. No one is trying to convince you of anything. We're all just voicing our opinions. If you're under the assumption that you are here to change the mind of a person like me or, really, anyone else who opposes the death penalty then you're just spinning your wheels. Personally, I don't need to know that you are moral, upstanding person who doesn't kick old ladies or torture animals for fun. I usually assume that of people until I know better. For a person who opposes the death penalty the mandate is obvious. The human race, with all of its flaws and foibles and hiccups, has been evolving away from the concept of 'death is the answer' for the last couple of centuries. And unless the US indeed takes the dramatic turn toward neo-fascism that is threatening to take hold at this time, then I believe it is only a matter of time before the death penalty is abolished here like it has been in other countries. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but eventually. Making arguments that support it sort of like, as my dad would put it, a fart in a whirlwind. Whether we like it or not, 'these people' are us. They are a product of our society, our cities, our neighborhoods, our people. I don't think it's a simple 'us vs. them' problem. I think compartmentalizing 'them' as phenomena that happens outside of 'us' is a defensive technique that allows us to abdicate responsibility. Lastly, and quite frankly, your conviction that you are somehow advocating for a humane solution to this problem is revolting.

    oh, and 3. who the hell has called you any names?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico

    For but 43 people that's very true.