Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Phantom]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by 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.

Not really wanted to, just straightening a medical fact about one such method, that's all. As to sticking to the idea of the thread you did ask which methods we thought were applicable in the original question. Since everyone put my opinion in front of a firing squad in the first place, I figured we might as well talk about methods used.

I know that in the real workd nothing is 100% certain, but a court of law is not the "real world" as I said they only care about the particulars of the crime being tried, not what is going on outside the court house. A court of law should be able to get as close as 95-100% sure that the charged is indeed guilty. If they are not 100% then that is what life is for. I'm not trying to wrap the world in nerf as was stated above, I know that is not a perfect place, but if there is the possiblity that one innocent person goes to the death chamber then the system has failed. Juries are not always right.

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?

</font>

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

[LCM]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by qerlin:
And it's the hardest freakin' thing you'll ever do.</font>

Qerlin was responding to my question about whether anyone involved in the discussion had had occasion to kill.

I find his response enlightening.

For him, the trauma of killing someone was sufficient to drive him from the force (if I'm reading his reply correctly). If the death penalty is on the books, does it slowly become less "the hardest freakin' thing" a society does... and slowly, by increments, easier, more viable, and finally, more convenient?

When it's an option, it's an option people will consider using. If we're trying to become a more evolved society, we should be looking for better options. I'll become a proponent of the death penalty when executions start bringing victims back to life, and not before.

[As an aside, I think anyone who uses the phrase "String 'em up" should be smacked on the back of the head.]

"Kill them all; God knows His own." - attributed to the Grand Master of the Knights Templar, on being informed that his forces couldn't differentiate between Albigensian heretics and "good" Catholics.

[LCM]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Steven A Cook:

Ideally and theoretically it's sound. (Well, except for the "right to bear arms" part, IMHO)</font>

Oh, boy. Here we go.

[Traska]

I'll become a proponent of the death penalty when executions start bringing victims back to life, and not before.

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

Actually, using that logic murder should be a crime that you can't be prosecuted for. Since no matter how one is sentenced, the murdered victim is still gone, then obviously no punishment fits.

Hey, if it means anything, I used to rant about the death penalty. But, as I've stated, I sat back and realized it's the best option we have. I just don't see the logic in locking someone up until they're dead.

Hey... technically, state execution is life without parole. We just shorten the life.

That's a JOKE son, ya missed it, it went right past ya!

But hey, I'm willing to listen to alternatives. What do you consider the ideal punishment for the worst offenders? Because I keep coming back to death, or life without parole, and LWP just doesn't make sense to me.



------------------
"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

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
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...
</font>

The same argument applies to any form of punishment. Incarceration by an evil government is OK, but execution by an evil government is not?

In both cases the problem is with the government, not the punishment.

If it is true that: "Evil governments execute people, therefore ALL execution is bad"

then it is also true that:

"Evil Governments incarcerate people, therefore all incarceration is bad"
"Evil governments tax people, therefore all taxation is bad"
"Evil governments set speed limits, therefore all speed limits are bad"
"Evil governments have bulding codes, therefore all building codes are bad"

All the arguments being made here (except one)are arguments against the system or government that imposes the penalty, rather than against the penalty itself.

The only valid argument that has been made so far is the finality of execution. It is true that you can let somebody out of prison to live what remains of their life if you later find that they are innocent.

However, I believe that the benefits of the death penalty in an efficient and properly run justice system outweigh the risks. Note that I am not arguing that we have such a system in the US now... but we need to fix the system, rather than throwing up our hands and quitting.



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

[Diamond]

>The only valid argument that has been made so far is the finality of execution.

Um, what about the fact that execution is more expensive? Even if you don't buy the moral reasons, what about the pragmatic ones? The moral reasons are important, but not everyone agrees. There is no practical benefit to the death penalty. There are some drawbacks.

>but we need to fix the system, rather than throwing up our hands and quitting.
The people against Execution are decidedly NOT throwing up their hands and quitting on trying to fix the justice system. Obviously it ould be ideal to have a perfect justice system. The people fighting the death penalty recognize that this is not (yet) the case.

Of course, many who are against the death penalty would like an efficient and properly run justice system without the death penalty. The death penalty is not necessary to a well run justice system, and even hurts society unnecessarily.

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Diamond:
>The only valid argument that has been made so far is the finality of execution.

Um, what about the fact that execution is more expensive? Even if you don't buy the moral reasons, what about the pragmatic ones? The moral reasons are important, but not everyone agrees. There is no practical benefit to the death penalty. There are some drawbacks.</font>

The expense of executions is another argument against the system, not against the penalty. It is very cheap to kill people. The expense comes from the endless appeals and lawyer's fees at the people's expense. Any convict should be allowed to appeal any point of his trial that may be an error of law... and then that should be it. Death sentences should be reviewed by a state or Federal supreme court, and by the executive (govenor/ President)... and that should be it.

Yes, mistakes will be made... but if the system worked as it is suppoed to, those would be few and far between. Our system is set up to let ten guilty go free rather than convict one innocent. I think it does a pretty good job of that now...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
>but we need to fix the system, rather than throwing up our hands and quitting.
The people against Execution are decidedly NOT throwing up their hands and quitting on trying to fix the justice system. Obviously it ould be ideal to have a perfect justice system. The people fighting the death penalty recognize that this is not (yet) the case.

Of course, many who are against the death penalty would like an efficient and properly run justice system without the death penalty. The death penalty is not necessary to a well run justice system, and even hurts society unnecessarily.</font>

I disagree that it hurts society to remove murderers from it permanently. I disagree that it hurts society to not have to pay for the food, shelter, and cable of child rapists and other sociopaths.

As someone else pointed out, a death sentence is really only life without parole.

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

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
You seem to have missed the point.

You said;
"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."

I was pointing out to you that your own definition is flawed...</font>

It's the legal definition, as used in California anyway.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
All it takes is a further definition over a good and bad government... As the rest of my post said.</font>

You missed my point. Murder is a legal term that is often used for it's emotional impact. If it is legal in some country for a police officer to shoot random passers-by in the head on a whim... then that is not murder. It is evil-bad-awful-icky... but not murder. A state does not have the right to commit murder... to violate it's own laws... but it does have the right to commit homicide within those laws.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
1 - If you plan on arguing a case think your arguements carefully.
2 - And if you plan on picking a sentence to critisize, please read the rest of the post top ensure you take it in context... Which takes you all the way back to 1.
</font>

I don't believe I took you out of context... if so I apologize. However, the argument as I understood it was that Germany had committed the Holocost as legally sanctioned homicides... therefore no state should be allowed to use homicide as an instrument of justice.

An interesting asside is that the Holocost actually WAS murder... no law was ever passed legalizing it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I quite agree, the system in place is flawed, even in the 'oh so perfect US of A', and that the alternatives are very limited, but just because the alternatives are crap doesn't give us the right to take a life.

Definatly vengence over justice...
</font>

Which brings us to the basic argument over whether homicide is ever justified and when.

I never stated that the US was perfect... quite the opposite. I will take it over anywhere else on the globe...

If it was vengeance, we'd be killing them the same way they killed their victims.

If it were revenge, we'd do worse.

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

[REG]

<font color="orange">An interesting asside is that the Holocost actually WAS murder... no law was ever passed legalizing it.</font>

Correct. The Holocaust incident actually came about as a military order. It was called the Final Solution or Hitler's Final Solution.

Because it was a military order and not a law passed by the government (even though Hitler was the leader of the Nazi German government), those involved in carrying out the military order including the person who issued the order can be tried for war crimes.

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

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
<font color="orange">An interesting asside is that the Holocost actually WAS murder... no law was ever passed legalizing it.</font>

Correct. The Holocaust incident actually came about as a military order. It was called the Final Solution or Hitler's Final Solution.

Because it was a military order and not a law passed by the government (even though Hitler was the leader of the Nazi German government), those involved in carrying out the military order including the person who issued the order can be tried for war crimes.

</font>

As I understand it those actually prosecuted for the Holocaust were prosecuted by the Allies under German law rather than the Law of Land Warfare.

The idea was to make the point that what the Germans had done was illegal even under their own law, and the trials were not simply a case of the victors persecuting the defeated enemy.

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

[This message has been edited by calguard66 (edited 07-25-2001).]

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by calguard66:
The same argument applies to any form of punishment. Incarceration by an evil government is OK, but execution by an evil government is not?

</font>

You seem to have missed the point.

You said;
"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."

I was pointing out to you that your own definition is flawed...

All it takes is a further definition over a good and bad government... As the rest of my post said.

1 - If you plan on arguing a case think your arguements carefully.
2 - And if you plan on picking a sentence to critisize, please read the rest of the post top ensure you take it in context... Which takes you all the way back to 1.

I quite agree, the system in place is flawed, even in the 'oh so perfect US of A', and that the alternatives are very limited, but just because the alternatives are crap doesn't give us the right to take a life.

Definatly vengence over justice...



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

[Phantom]

I have one question for you, where did the whole idea for this thread come from anyway?

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

[LCM]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Traska:
Actually, using that logic murder should be a crime that you can't be prosecuted for. Since no matter how one is sentenced, the murdered victim is still gone, then obviously no punishment fits.</font>

I thought it clear that this was a reference to the traditional "two wrongs don't make a right," and not necessarily an unassailable logical point.

Can you say reductio ad absurdum? I can.

Rhetoric doesn't have to be precisely logical, Traska... it has to be pithy.

[Cmd.Hentar]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The idea was to make the point that what the Germans had done was illegal even under their own law, and the trials were not simply a case of the victors persecuting the defeated enemy.</font>

Well, why the American was not persecute for the A-bomb ? And dont say that its just a powerful bomb, American launch A-bomb on Non-Strategic city, with only civil, only to prove they'd a superior weapon.

Killing civil, intentionally, IS a war crime.

[Phantom]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cmd.Hentar:
Well, why the American was not persecute for the A-bomb ? And dont say that its just a powerful bomb, American launch A-bomb on Non-Strategic city, with only civil, only to prove they'd a superior weapon.

Killing civil, intentionally, IS a war crime.

</font>

First Rule of History.

The winners make the history, and charge the losers with war crimes. Sometimes they are right, others not so much.



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