Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Traska]

I'd like to ask a question of all of you who oppose the death penalty, because until I asked myself this very question I was in -fervent- opposition to it myself.

Do you feel that life in prison without parole is a good, just, and proper sentence?

If not, then what would you dole out in its place that is more morally and ethicaly palatable than a painless execution?

I sat down one day and realized that some crimes are so terrible that we simply can't expose society to these people ever again. McVeigh falls into that category, as did Dahmer.

I then thought about life in prison without parole. 40, 50, 60 years we store them, in warehouses built more quickly than ever before. We place them with criminals we're trying to rehabilitate, and we're surprised when these criminals aren't?

Anyway, that's what made me a supporter. Without invasive mind-altering techniques (morally and ethically questionable in their own right) I can't see how we'll ever get away from the necessity of state executions, sadly enough. I'd love nothing more than to be able to do away with them.

I doubt you'll find a single supporter here who -wants- anybody to die.

But sometimes, you have to do things you're opposed to, to avoid things you're more opposed to.



------------------
"You got your Star Trek Trek in my roleplaying game!"
"You got your roleplaying game in my Star Trek!"
LUGTrek, two great tastes that taste great together

[mactavish]

The biggest problem is that there is not a better solution.

I think that warehousing criminals is not good, but I also believe that it is morally reprehensible to take a human life, regardless the cause.

As a teacher, I had numerous students whose parents told them, "if somebody hits you, you hit them back." The death penalty is an extension of this. If Billy McGuire beat the crap out of you every day in grade four and stole your lunch money, are you justified to have a larger, stronger entity come in and beat the crap out of him? No. Beating the crap out of Billy McGuire might keep him from victimizing YOU again, but a habitual offender like Billy will just move on to someone else.

What do you do? Do you institutionalize Billy? Do you kill Billy? No.

Billy should be treated for his aggressive behavior and taught alternatives to beating the crap out of people.

In a perfect world, the Billy McGuires would all be rehabilitated, but that takes more time and money than Americans are willing to spend. The easiest solution is the construction of more prisons and the indefinite incarceration of more criminals.

In the United States, many people are so selfish and self-centered that they think only of their own safety, welfare, and comfort (including their family members and possibly their friends) rather than the betterment of society. If people spent a fraction of their time and money - whatever they could contribute - then society would eventually improve to the point that incarceration and/or execution would rarely (if ever) be necessary.

I would like to live in a world that doesn't involve everyone trying to screw everyone else (literally and metaphorically). I would like to live in a world where the uneducated masses do not make up the majority and where intelligent, educated, civilized people could work together for the improvement of themselves, their neighbors, and their society.

I work and I try to do my part to make this a reality, but when there are people willing to murder based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, and so on, what the Hell is one man supposed to do?

Killing is not the solution, state sanctioned or otherwise.

mactavish out.

[Liquidator Queeg]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by calguard66:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus by another human being. State-sanctioned execution is not murder, because it is lawful. Neither is abortion.</font>

A semantical argument. Try it on those who were executed by the lawful governments this century in such nations as China, Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia, and so many other "third-world" countries the list would need its own thread.

Politically, I'm pro choice, so I won't disagree about a woman's right to get an abortion. I'd rather see women have safe access to abortions--I am a utilitarian after all. On a moral personal level, however, I find it abhorrent.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A police officer or citizen is justified in killing in self defense or defense of others. Given due process, if agents of the state or citizens are justified in killing to PREVENT a murder or PROTECT a life, why wouldn't they be justified after the fact? Is the criminal protected by the fact that he was successful?

</font>

Murdering someone in self-defense is still morally wrong, IMHO. It may be the only choice you have given the circumstances, but that doesn't make it morally "right."

No, people who murder aren't protected by the fact that they are successful. If convicted, then they are criminals, and then they go to jail. In a perfect world, for the rest of their natural lives. No parole. End of story.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If a state is justified in killing to protect itself from external threats, why wouldn't it be justified in killing to defent itself from internal threats?

</font>

Because there's another option. Life in prison. There's no need to kill those who are internal threats, unless your talking about well-armed militias or psychotic individuals who won't give up 'till their guns are "pried from their cold, dead hands." In these cases, murder is often an unfortunate necessity. However, any means by which you can arrest these individuals (or groups) without resorting to murder should be utilized, IMHO.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you don't believe killing of any sort is justified, how do you propose that a state or individual defend against others (like me, Saddam and Bin Ladden) who disagree?

</font>

Actually, I don't think any sort of killing is justified. I may be called a bleeding-heart liberal, but that's what I think. But I live in the real world, too. Killing during war is unavoidable. Killing criminals (and no one is a criminal until "convicted"), which is what this thread is about, is avoidable. Quite easily, in fact.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Leviathan should not punish the innocent, however it cannot allow fear of punishing the innocent to paralize it and prevent it from protecting it's populace.

</font>

If innocent people are being punished, then there's a serious problem with the "system."

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The current US system needs to be re-balanced and applied fairly. However, the underlying ideals and theory are sound.

</font>

Absolutely. Ideally and theoretically it's sound. (Well, except for the "right to bear arms" part, IMHO) Unfortunately, sometimes the practical application of theories and ideals need to be re-evaluated to make them work effectively.

Steve



[This message has been edited by Steven A Cook (edited 07-24-2001).]

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by LCM:
I'm curious. Has anyone involved in this discussion:

1) Killed someone in anger?

2) Killed someone under orders (e.g., in a military confrontation)?

3) Killed someone protecting someone else directly?
</font>

I missed this post the first time around.

My answer is yes, under 2. A a tanker during the Gulf War I was partially responsible for 30 deaths... my tank crew destroyed 10 Iraqi tanks, each of which holds a crew of 3. As each was moving or firing at the time it was hit, I assume they were fully crewed.

I was wholey responsible for 1 death... an Iraqi who poped out of a hole with an RPG, too close to the tank for the machineguns to hit. I drove over him.

Each of those men was a soldier, just like I was... doing his duty, just like I was.

I respect and honor them for doing their duty against overwelming odds... and I would kill them again just the same... because that was MY duty.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[calguard66]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by calguard66:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus by another human being. State-sanctioned execution is not murder, because it is lawful. Neither is abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A semantical argument. Try it on those who were executed by the lawful governments this century in such nations as China, Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia, and so many other "third-world" countries the list would need its own thread.

>>>> That's a system and government that needs fixing, not a punishment. Many more people were incarcerated by those governments than were executed. Logically, your argument would conclude that we should do away with incarceration as well.

Politically, I'm pro choice, so I won't disagree about a woman's right to get an abortion. I'd rather see women have safe access to abortions--I am a utilitarian after all. On a moral personal level, however, I find it abhorrent.

>>>>>>> I agree on this one, as I don't have a womb, I find it difficult to tell someone what to do with theirs.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A police officer or citizen is justified in killing in self defense or defense of others. Given due process, if agents of the state or citizens are justified in killing to PREVENT a murder or PROTECT a life, why wouldn't they be justified after the fact? Is the criminal protected by the fact that he was successful?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Murdering someone in self-defense is still morally wrong, IMHO. It may be the only choice you have given the circumstances, but that doesn't make it morally "right."

>>>>>>>Murder is an emotional buzzword. Homicide is, IMO, morally justifiable.

No, people who murder aren't protected by the fact that they are successful. If convicted, then they are criminals, and then they go to jail. In a perfect world, for the rest of their natural lives. No parole. End of story.

>>>>>>>>>>But before they were successful it would be OK to kill them to prevent the act. Afterwards, if they succeed, it is (by your argument) not.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a state is justified in killing to protect itself from external threats, why wouldn't it be justified in killing to defent itself from internal threats?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because there's another option. Life in prison. There's no need to kill those who are internal threats, unless your talking about well-armed militias or psychotic individuals who won't give up 'till their guns are "pried from their cold, dead hands." In these cases, murder is often an unfortunate necessity. However, any means by which you can arrest these individuals (or groups) without resorting to murder should be utilized, IMHO.

>>>>>>>>>>>Why should my hard earned tax dollars pay for food, shelter, and medical care for a murderer... or anyone else... who is not contributing to society?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't believe killing of any sort is justified, how do you propose that a state or individual defend against others (like me, Saddam and Bin Ladden) who disagree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I don't think any sort of killing is justified. I may be called a bleeding-heart liberal, but that's what I think. But I live in the real world, too. Killing during war is unavoidable. Killing criminals (and no one is a criminal until "convicted"), which is what this thread is about, is avoidable. Quite easily, in fact.


>>>>>>>>>Is something moral because it is unavoidable? Killing in war is avoidable... the individual refuses the order, the nation refuses to go to war, or surrenders. The results of that may be worse than the war, however.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leviathan should not punish the innocent, however it cannot allow fear of punishing the innocent to paralize it and prevent it from protecting it's populace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If innocent people are being punished, then there's a serious problem with the "system."

>>>>>>>>>Illogical. No human institution is 100% perfect. Statistically SOME innocent people are going to be convicted, whether for a speeding ticket or murder... whether there is a death penalty or not. Likewise, some guilty persons will go free.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current US system needs to be re-balanced and applied fairly. However, the underlying ideals and theory are sound.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely. Ideally and theoretically it's sound. (Well, except for the "right to bear arms" part, IMHO) Unfortunately, sometimes the practical application of theories and ideals need to be re-evaluated to make them work effectively.

Steve

>>>>>>>>>>Naturally, I agree again... except I would KEEP the bear arms part...

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Desslok]

An interesting news story on this:

http://www.channel4news.co.uk/home/20010724/Story05.htm

and:

http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0%2C159...412%2C00.shtml


------------------
"This battlestation is now the ultimate power in...who's hailing us? I don't care who these 'Borg' are, THEY CAN WAIT!!!"
Admiral Motti, now Eighth Of Eight

[This message has been edited by Desslok (edited 07-24-2001).]

[KlingonZ]

Phatom and qerlin, you are both wrong! In a Judicial firing squad there are six rifles and ONE is leaded with a blank. The rifles are positioned in a vice like device so there is no aiming on the part of the shooter. If you have any remource you can imagine that you fired the blank. Five 30 caliber rifle rounds hitting a person in the 10 ring in about 1/8 of a second would be about as painless as you can get.

And you may ask who pulls the trigger in the US states that still use the firing squad. Police Officers from the state submit there names and they are picked in a private rafel, there names are never released. all selected get to keep the rifle they use as there only payment.

I have had to take one life in the performance of my duties during the LA Riots. Did not like it! But it was him or me. Would I do it again. Without hesitation.

[Phantom]

Ok, perhaps things have changed, or maybe we ran friing squads differently in Canada. It sounds like your were police officer and know a little on the subject, so I will take your word.

As to the guillotine, I have heard these arguements about the head living afterwards for 2 minutes, most recently in a Star Trek ep. Personally I don't agree, once the spinal cord is cut death is, for the most part, instaneous. All the shocked looks on the deceased can be chalked up autonomic responses, the same reason that a chicken might run around for a while after having its head taken off, you don't consider it to be alive at that point, do you? The look of screaming can be chalked up to an overimaginative audience, never understood why executions were so popular to watch in history...Guess it was a way of saying "my life's not so bad, at least I'm not that poor slob."

Although I hope I don't have the opportunity to prove you wrong.

------------------
In the Praetors Name!

[Phantom]

My, isn't this taking a morbid turn?

------------------
In the Praetors Name!

[Liquidator Queeg]

Indeed it is. You're making me hungry for that chicken I have in the freezer.

Steve

[Phantom]

Speaking of Dead things, I wonder when this thread will expire. When I was writing the post about heads not living after forceful removal, I began to think this is getting way too serious.

This is too dark for me.

------------------
In the Praetors Name!

[Max-Q]

If a person is brought to trial what is the percentage that he or she might be innocent? Reading some of these posts, you people make seem that our government has a 50% chance of bringing the right person to trail. That simply is not the case. If you are arrested and sent to trail, there is a very good chance you did it.

Capital punishment may not be the best solution, but locking up the criminal is not economical feasible

1. It can cost upwards to $44,000 a year per inmate in some states. This is according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

2. Prisons don’t rehabilitate, they are used to make examples of the criminals. For every 7 so called rehabilitated inmates released, 6 end back up in prison. Usually within 24 hours.

3. Overcrowding is also problem with today’s prison system. Since no new prisons are being constructed because the average taxpayer doesn’t want to shell of the capital to construct new facilities.

I know our prison and judicial systems are not perfect, but from what I have read here, it doesn’t look like we have the answers.

No, locking people up for the rest of their lives is not the answer.

------------------
Fate protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise.

[This message has been edited by Max-Q (edited 07-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Max-Q (edited 07-24-2001).]

[Desslok]

Has anyone on this board been touched by murder? By having either family or friends murdered?

Yes.

Despite these experiences, I reaffirm my opposition to the death Penalty.



------------------
"This battlestation is now the ultimate power in...who's hailing us? I don't care who these 'Borg' are, THEY CAN WAIT!!!"
Admiral Motti, now Eighth Of Eight

[REG]

Well, Phantom, you wanted to talk about the methods of execution and its effectiveness.

I'm glad most of the participating posters here stuck to the topic about capital punishment being an option to punish criminal(s) of a serious crime.

Here's another log to throw into the fire: Would you be comfortable to allow the jury to recommend the sentence to a crime that has capital punishment as one of the options?

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by calguard66:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by calguard66:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus by another human being. State-sanctioned execution is not murder, because it is lawful. Neither is abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A semantical argument. Try it on those who were executed by the lawful governments this century in such nations as China, Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia, and so many other "third-world" countries the list would need its own thread.

>>>> That's a system and government that needs fixing, not a punishment. Many more people were incarcerated by those governments than were executed. Logically, your argument would conclude that we should do away with incarceration as well.
</font>

Another state sanctioned execution.

The Holocaust.

Your quite right Calguard. The government system WAS flawed. But your arguement stated that Government sanctioned executions were OK, NOT Government Sanctioned Executions, but only from Good governments...

Sorta the whole point of this thread.

Just because a government or politician is bad, Does NOT stop them getting into power, so what is there to protect the innocent and how do you define a good government especially when the differences are blurred.

Sure the USA doesn't slaughter people en masse, and gives them a chance to prove their innocence in an appeal process.

But death is final, and you cant apologise and set things right if new evidence comes forward and prove the system failed.

And to think I wasn't going to touch this one with a 6 foot bargepole...


------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk