Why the Death Penalty is a Good Thing

[Goshin]

The only right, proper and fitting consequence to the crime of murder, where it was premeditated and without any shred of justification, is the death penalty.

As a person who lost a loved one to a senseless murder, I will tell you plainly that since his murderers have been put to death, I feel a sense of closure and finality that I would not feel if they were still alive in prison.

Sympathy for a murderer is an insult to his victims.



Deterrent be damned, I care not. At least I know he will never murder another innocent person.

 

[Bodi]

I've heard everything you've tried to say. You selling a bill of goods. You're trying to say that through the death penalty you are affirming the high value of human life. But that is a complete BS line. You cannot affirm the high value of life by devaluing other humans and taking their lives. Which is in essence what you do when you use State power and granted authority to kill other people. You argue a consequence argument, which is 100% in line with "eye for an eye". What's ironic is many supporters of "eye for an eye" have no idea the historical context under which that law came to be. It was a LIMITER to force used against criminals. But this whole "we're affirming the high value of human life" crap is a BS argument not supported by reality. The "we're affirming the high value of human life" line does not logically nor morally support the death penalty. While you may claim a certain logic...maybe even a weird morality to your argument, it does not come from the affirmation claim. That claim is at odds with the functional use of the death penalty. That's it, that's all there is to that one. You're trying to claim a morality and logic which is not supported by the hypothesis nor the argument.

I understand the historical context of an eye for an eye, and that is why I disagreed with you. As to the rest, I am sorry that you don't understand or agree with what I am saying. Being for and/or against the Death Penalty neither limits nor negates the validity of the position. There are logical reasons to be against it, but I have yet to meet a person that admits that there are logical reasons to be for it, other than those that claim that the logic is twisted or immoral, some sort of negative that helps them feel superior.

 

[Bodi]

I tore you down with a word, :doublethink: You've got an ego thats rooted deep in your brain.

Also, you completely missed the point of what I said when you were quoting heinlin, apparently youre absolutely concerted this great author thinks like you. You take what he said as a support for violence. Which is not apparent from this quote alone. To state that violence has solved disputes does not entail a support for violence. But you missed that and youre just some sortof internet forum he man and im sure youre just totally owning us. Especially with all the research in your .25 second google search. Accuse me of an 'ad hom' when you commit an error of logic and start screaming in caps how its 'quite logical'. You impress no one.

I did miss that... you're right. As to the rest, we are debating. I am nowhere near your typical internet nerd, in fact, I hardly post here anymore since I continually get the attitudes that are exampled in this very thread.

My saying you don't have **** was not an insult, just a fun way of saying you don't have anything... but your comments here certainly seem intent on being rude. If that is true then have a nice day...

 

[Bodi]

Fair enough thats not the point of the thread, take my jabs at you lightly, it is the internet.

Cool, disregard the above post then. That is how I roll too... just funnin'.

I thought that I started this thread, am I now missing my own point?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Well, dont leave. If people are giving you attitude you merely need to be more tactful. Youre idea isnt a bad one its just philosophically polarizing and heavily debatable.

 

[Bodi]

Well, dont leave. If people are giving you attitude you merely need to be more tactful. Youre idea isnt a bad one its just philosophically polarizing and heavily debatable.

I didn't leave due to that, I spoke unclearly if that was what was conveyed. I just enjoy playing with my kids more than these debates in general, I am just having a couple of really slow days at work.
My tact is by design, and it is vey effective for what I hope to achieve and that is not to always be accepted, for one thing. The poloraizing and debatable aspects of this debate are by design... I started four threads today, check out the two in Sports about basketball if interested.

Still, my position in this debate is strong... disliked or misunderstood perhaps, not thought highly of even, but still sound.

All that being said, I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Ikari]

I understand the historical context of an eye for an eye, and that is why I disagreed with you. As to the rest, I am sorry that you don't understand or agree with what I am saying. Being for and/or against the Death Penalty neither limits nor negates the validity of the position. There are logical reasons to be against it, but I have yet to meet a person that admits that there are logical reasons to be for it, other than those that claim that the logic is twisted or immoral, some sort of negative that helps them feel superior.

I never said one couldn't make a logical argument for the death penalty. I said that affirmation of the high value of human life does not logically or morally follow from the use of the death penalty. And it doesn't. No matter how much you want to be, it's not true. Affirmation of the high value of human life would mean that we protect all life and cherish it, even the lives of those whom have acted against others. To affirm the high value of human life, emphasis would be placed on rehabilitation and counseling, not death. There are many reasons why some people could still support the death penalty, and some may even construct a logical sort of argument for such. However, affirmation of the high value of human life is not one of the things which logically flows from the use of the death penalty. It is in fact counter to the very act.

 

[Orion]

The only right, proper and fitting consequence to the crime of murder, where it was premeditated and without any shred of justification, is the death penalty.

Then you pay for it. I want no part of such vengeance.

 

[Goshin]

Then you pay for it. I want no part of such vengeance.

Then I don't have to pay for welfare and food stamps. :mrgreen:

 

[the makeout hobo]

The only right, proper and fitting consequence to the crime of murder, where it was premeditated and without any shred of justification, is the death penalty.

As a person who lost a loved one to a senseless murder, I will tell you plainly that since his murderers have been put to death, I feel a sense of closure and finality that I would not feel if they were still alive in prison.

Sympathy for a murderer is an insult to his victims.



Deterrent be damned, I care not. At least I know he will never murder another innocent person.

Understand that I mean no disrespect and have nothing but sympathy for your loss, but why should the feelings of the victim's families have legal weight? It's horrible that they have to endure that, but Justice is always depicted as blind for good reason. Criminal law, as I understand it, only effects those personally involved- if there was no physical or economic harm done to you, you can't push a criminal case against me in most circumstances. While my heart goes out to the victims, I don't see why that should be a reason for the death penalty.

Additionally, he could be locked up in solitary in prison and never kill again.

 

[Orion]

Then I don't have to pay for welfare and food stamps. :mrgreen:

Then I think you should be executed for disloyalty. :mrgreen:

 

[Ikari]

As a person who lost a loved one to a senseless murder, I will tell you plainly that since his murderers have been put to death, I feel a sense of closure and finality that I would not feel if they were still alive in prison.

Sympathy for a murderer is an insult to his victims.

Emotionalized rhetoric and diatribe is poor argument for policy.

 

[Glinda]

The only right, proper and fitting consequence to the crime of murder, where it was premeditated and without any shred of justification, is the death penalty.

Sympathy for a murderer is an insult to his victims.

Deterrent be damned, I care not. At least I know he will never murder another innocent person.

That's good enough for me. I agree with you and with Bohdi.

 

[Ikari]

That's good enough for me. I agree with you and with Bohdi.

Excessively punishing someone for possible crimes they may commit in the future is also makes for very bad policy. Emotion should not enter the fray when talking of proper government actions against the rights and liberties of the individual.

 

[Glinda]

Excessively punishing someone for possible crimes they may commit in the future is also makes for very bad policy. Emotion should not enter the fray when talking of proper government actions against the rights and liberties of the individual.

Uh... what?

How is invoking the death penalty against someone that is a proven murderer (I'm talking beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt, verifiable video/photographic/fingerprint documentation, incontrovertible DNA evidence, etc.), "excessively punishing someone for possible crimes they may commit in the future?"

How is invoking the death penalty against someone that is a proven murderer (I'm talking beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt, verifiable video/photographic/fingerprint documentation, incontrovertible DNA evidence, etc.), based on emotion?

:screwy

 

[Ikari]

Uh... what?

How is invoking the death penalty against someone that is a proven murderer (I'm talking beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt, verifiable video/photographic/fingerprint documentation, incontrovertible DNA evidence, etc.), "excessively punishing someone for possible crimes they may commit in the future?"

How is invoking the death penalty against someone that is a proven murderer (I'm talking beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt, verifiable video/photographic/fingerprint documentation, incontrovertible DNA evidence, etc.), based on emotion?

:screwy

Maybe if you took the time to read, you'd see. The original post, to which you agree with, was a personal recount. The wish to seek the death penalty was sought on emotion. Furthermore saying that at least that guy won't kill again is using possible future crimes to excuse the granted punishments.

So before you try to get smarmy over there, perhaps you should take the time to read posts before running your mouth and looking like the fool.

 

[Glinda]

Maybe if you took the time to read, you'd see.

The original post, to which you agree with, was a personal recount. The wish to seek the death penalty was sought on emotion.

I'm afraid you're terribly incorrect. The original post by Bodhisattva, with which I agree:

The Death Penalty is a consequence. End of story.

Those that commit murder and rape and such forfeit their lives as a matter of fact, not as an emotional vengeance or anything else, their life is not worth anything, so it is ended. Done.

The fact is, that by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life we are affirming the highest value of human life.

No "personal recount." No "emotion."

FAIL​

Furthermore, Goshin's post SANS THE "EMOTIONAL" ASPECT as quoted by me, and with which I agree:

The only right, proper and fitting consequence to the crime of murder, where it was premeditated and without any shred of justification, is the death penalty.

Sympathy for a murderer is an insult to his victims.

Deterrent be damned, I care not. At least I know he will never murder another innocent person.

FAIL​

Furthermore saying that at least that guy won't kill again is using possible future crimes to excuse the granted punishments.

Incorrect yet again. It is a statement of fact.

A dead murderer murders no more. (It's clear you're oblivious to the murder/assault rate inside US prisons, which, when added to the number of proven murderers that escape (yes, even from death row), plus their recidivism rates when paroled (it's 30% in my state; how about yours?), plus the ability for even those in supermax prisons to have murders/assaults/illegal activities undertaken in their behalf on the outside, is as amazing as it is disturbing. :doh )

FAIL​

So before you try to get smarmy over there, perhaps you should take the time to read posts before running your mouth and looking like the fool.

MASSIVE BUCKET O' FAIL

:2wave: :lamo​

 

[Mell]

I think, the important thing is, that murders, rapists... are kept away from society, so they cant do further harm. I dont see why it would be important to kill them.

 

[Ikari]

I'm afraid you're terribly incorrect. The original post by Bodhisattva, with which I agree:

Too bad the post you quoted which you said you agreed with was Goshin's post, not Bodhisattva. How about trying a bit of the ol' intellectual honesty when answering posts instead of making things up. You'll find it works much better in the end. So again, all those smarmy remarks you tried to make, epic fail since you lied about which post you were referring to.

 

[Goshin]

Call it what you like. There are some things for which the right and proper punishment, the only punishment that fits the crime, is death. I'm glad that most of the states in my nation recognize this fact and haven't given in to this PC crap.

 

[Glinda]

Too bad the post you quoted which you said you agreed with was Goshin's post

Too bad for you I purposely did not quote the "emotional" portion of Goshin's post, and agreed with the portion I did quote as clearly seen here.

Please stop lying about this; it's all there for the entire board to see. Pretending I included Goshin's "emotional" comments and then agreed with them is your psychosis; too bad the facts do not back up your easily disproved assertion.

not Bodhisattva.

Too bad for you that Bodhi's comments, with which I agree, contain no appeal to emotion and are based on simple, factual reality. Bodhi's comments are there for the entire board to see. Pretending he's said something other than he did just makes you look even more ignorant and foolish than before.

How about trying a bit of the ol' intellectual honesty when answering posts instead of making things up, hmmm?

:2wave:

Other pertinent facts you've failed to address (failed to even consider, apparently) include:

• the murder/assault rate inside US prisons (convicted murderers DO murder again, often within prison walls; dead ones don't)
• the number of convicted murderers that escape (yes, even from death row; dead ones don't)
• paroled murderer recidivism rates (it's 30% in my state; how about yours? The recidivism rate for executed murderers = 0)
• the ability for even those in supermax prisons to have murders/assaults/illegal activities undertaken in their behalf both inside and outside prison walls (this ability disappears when a murderer is executed, as do the crimes they commit while lounging in their cells, enjoying all the basic creature comforts that I pay for)

But all of those easily documented facts would be too damaging to your hilarious, invented argument that my support for the death penalty is based on "emotions," so it's best to pretend they don't exist in your foolishly simple, strictly black and white world, and just keep calling me a liar, right?

:roll:

 

[the makeout hobo]

Call it what you like. There are some things for which the right and proper punishment, the only punishment that fits the crime, is death. I'm glad that most of the states in my nation recognize this fact and haven't given in to this PC crap.

I'm still curious your thoughts on my post, if you'd like to reply.

 

[Goshin]

I'm still curious your thoughts on my post, if you'd like to reply.

I assume you mean this one?

Understand that I mean no disrespect and have nothing but sympathy for your loss, but why should the feelings of the victim's families have legal weight? It's horrible that they have to endure that, but Justice is always depicted as blind for good reason. Criminal law, as I understand it, only effects those personally involved- if there was no physical or economic harm done to you, you can't push a criminal case against me in most circumstances. While my heart goes out to the victims, I don't see why that should be a reason for the death penalty.

Additionally, he could be locked up in solitary in prison and never kill again.

It's something like this:

If a man steals your car, that car can be replaced. It represents an investment of money, which is the product of time and effort. His punishment for unlawfully taking the product of your time and effort is to spend a chunk of his time and effort in an unpleasant place: prison.

While I don't necessarily consider this the best way to handle crimes against property, the punishment fits the crime: the victim lost something that cost him considerable time and effort, the perpetrator loses time and effort spent in prison. There is a certain balance there.

Now let's consider murder: particularly, 1st degree murder, premeditated and without any slightest shred of justification: for instance, murdering someone during a robbery in order to remove a witness to the crime. In this case the perp has taken something that is not replaceable: he has taken someone's life. He has taken, from that person, all that they presently have in this world or ever would have had. A life is something you cannot put a dollar value on, or equate to a certain number of years in prison.

Not only has the victim lost his life, but a parent has lost a child; perhaps a child has lost a parent, also; a brother has lost a sister; many people have lost a friend. The suffering spreads out to include many people, much like ripples in a pond.

The effects of this are incalculable. Will someone commit suicide in despair over the loss of their loved one? Will someone's life change in its course for the worse due to this loss?

I'm not just talking ivory-tower theory here, I have seen these things happen.

A life is potentially of infinite value; the perp must repay for what he has taken. The only thing he has that is of comparable value is, his own life.

Yes, I know some will say that locking him up forever is the same thing. It isn't.

He still gets to exchange letters, phone calls and visits with his loved ones. The loved ones of his victims have no such privilege. He is still breathing; he can still read books and watch TV, yes even make friends with other people. All of that has been taken from his victim.

The closest equivalent that doesn't involve the death penalty would be to lock him forever in a small cell with no light and nothing but a drain hole at the bottom. Once a day a bowl of bland food and a jug of water are put in the cell; no one speaks to him. He gets no letters and sends none, speaks to no one, sees no one, has nothing to do but sit and stare at the walls and think until he dies. That would be as close to an equivalent payment as you could get without execution, but it would not be permitted as it would be deemed "inhumane".

Have I answered your question?

 

[the makeout hobo]

No you haven't. While I appreciated your answer, my question was essentially, "why should the victim's family's wish matter, legally? They don't matter in any other instance of the law".

 

[Goshin]

No you haven't. While I appreciated your answer, my question was essentially, "why should the victim's family's wish matter, legally? They don't matter in any other instance of the law".

Okay. I was expanding on my reasons for supporting the death penalty, and included in that were some thoughts on how it affects others, including the family. If you wish specifically to discuss why the family's wishes should matter, it can be summed up thus: the victim can no longer speak for himself; his family is the closest we can come to asking his thoughts on the matter.

In almost any other crime, the victim gets to tell their side of the story: what happened, how terrified they were, what a horrible experience it was.

A murder victim cannot speak for himself, his family speaks for him as they have suffered the greatest loss of anyone who is able to be present.

I was at a murder trial where the perp's father was allowed to speak for him as a character witness. The aforementioned father was quite theatrical in praising his son; he lamented that his son faced the death penalty and wept on the stand begging that his son's life would be spared.

(Since the facts were not in question, I thought it rather hypocritical of him, but given that he was the murderer's father I allowed as how he was unlikely to act otherwise.)

If we allow that, how can we not consider the loss and pain of the family of the victim, and give them "equal time"? How can we not consider the suffering of the victim and the victim's loved one's in considering what is a suitable punishment for a heinous crime?

It is not "justice" to ignore the suffering inflicted by a selfish murdering bastard.