Are you pro-death penalty

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Do people still commit murder in those countries and those American states that still have the death penalty? They do? In that case, the death penalty doesn't seem much of a deterrent.

Using that logic, fines and jail-time are also not deterrents because people still get fined and jailed. And yet they are still implemented.

She shoots, she scores!!!

There's a lot of things in life where people know the possible consequences of their actions but they do it anyway....from hanging around in a flood zone during a hurricane to having unprotected sex with someone you just met. People are going to engage in criminal or risky behavior no matter what the repercussions. I go back to my original point: the death penalty is a deterrent, because once you execute that criminal, they are totally deterred from ever having the chance to re-offend. They can't escape and they can't offend in prison either. There's no bigger deterrent to committing crime than being dead.

I'm against it. Even if a majority of people would be for someone's death, I find something disturbing about society or the state playing God. The countries that have the death penalty have something else in common. They're not exactly places I'd want to live in.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I go back to my original point: the death penalty is a deterrent, because once you execute that criminal, they are totally deterred from ever having the chance to re-offend.

And also the chance to be rehabilitated. Yeah, yeah, I know - some people are so evil that rehab ain't no option. Okay. But explain to me why in that case they can't be imprisoned for life. Wouldn't that be as much of a deterrent to their committing future crimes as killing 'em?

And what do you mean by offending in prison? If they're offending in prison, surely they're by definition offending only against other cons, i.e. sticking shanks into each other? Why would you care about that as long as they weren't offending against law-abiding citizens on the outside (which they wouldn't be and couldn't be)?

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I go back to my original point: the death penalty is a deterrent, because once you execute that criminal, they are totally deterred from ever having the chance to re-offend.

And also the chance to be rehabilitated. Yeah, yeah, I know - some people are so evil that rehab ain't no option. Okay. But explain to me why in that case they can't be imprisoned for life. Wouldn't that be as much of a deterrent to their committing future crimes as killing 'em?

As long as they are alive theres always the possibility they'll escape and be able to commit more crimes. As for being rehabilitated....the two guys that raped and murdered the mother and her two daughters and burned them alive in their house in Connecticut a few years back...that's a great case FOR the death penalty. They simply are consuming resources (food, water, oxygen, medical supplies, legal assitance) that could be better spent by the government on citizens who haven't raped and murdered. I have no formal training in pulling the swtich, but I would gladly hang a killer, or put him/her in a gas chamber or electric chair. I would volunteer for such a job if it were made available.

Quote :

And what do you mean by offending in prison? If they're offending in prison, surely they're by definition offending only against other cons, i.e. sticking shanks into each other? Why would you care about that as long as they weren't offending against law-abiding citizens on the outside (which they wouldn't be and couldn't be)?

Correct. I could give a rat's ass whether they shank another convict in the shower, but some people do, and they can make a lot of noise to the media if the prisoners aren't treated humanely and fairly.

Speaking of "offending", is there anyway I can persuade you to change your avatar and not feature Sylvester Stallone? That picture is just so....................out there.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Speaking of "offending", is there anyway I can persuade you to change your avatar and not feature Sylvester Stallone? That picture is just so....................out there.

Well, since it's you, Grav, I'll change it. Can't promise you'll like my next avatar, but, hey, if the current one gets your goat then it's gone. :D

Do you object to Stallone avatars in general, or is it just that particular pic?

ETA: Okay, well, my new avatar (just in case you're curious) is the cover of one of my all-time favourite albums, "Screamadelica" by Primal Scream (1991) (I presume you don't know this, since Primal Scream never really had much exposure Stateside). Dunno whether this new image meets with your approval, but I trust you prefer it to that photo of Sly, and in any case I'll probably change it again in due course.

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Speaking of "offending", is there anyway I can persuade you to change your avatar and not feature Sylvester Stallone? That picture is just so....................out there.

Well, since it's you, Grav, I'll change it. Can't promise you'll like my next avatar, but, hey, if the current one gets your goat then it's gone. :D

Do you object to Stallone avatars in general, or is it just that particular pic?

ETA: Okay, well, my new avatar (just in case you're curious) is the cover of one of my all-time favourite albums, "Screamadelica" by Primal Scream (1991) (I presume you don't know this, since Primal Scream never really had much exposure Stateside). Dunno whether this new image meets with your approval, but I trust you prefer it to that photo of Sly, and in any case I'll probably change it again in due course.

I have no problem with Stallone avatars; it's just that that avatar of Stallone didn't seem to be his best picture. Nice to see you've replaced it with something less loud and ostentatious, and more sedate with calm, neutral, soothing colors.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I have no formal training in pulling the swtich, but I would gladly hang a killer, or put him/her in a gas chamber or electric chair. I would volunteer for such a job if it were made available.

That concerns me.

While whoever is being sentenced to death is likely a right bastard we shouldn't have our excutioneers taking joy from it either or being glad. You are still taking a human life after all. That shouldn't be treated lightly regardless of who the person is or what they have done. It is serious buisness.

I've stated in this thread I'm not pro-death penalty. While I hear of some crimes being comitted which leave me feel disgusted I would prefer for them to be locked up for life than killed.

General Gogol wrote:

I'm against it. Even if a majority of people would be for someone's death, I find something disturbing about society or the state playing God. The countries that have the death penalty have something else in common. They're not exactly places I'd want to live in.

Exactly.

Quote :

The 8 year old boy who was kidnapped, raped and dismembered up in Brooklyn earlier in the summer....his killer ought to be dismembered in the same way. I think if we had more people being sentenced to die in the manner in which they killed their victims, we might deter a few killings from ever occurring.

Really?

Because could you really truly do that someone - if you could once again I would feel very concerned. If the death penalty must be used than lethal injection. That at least doesn't descend us to their level. When we go that far I tihnk we lose what makes us the 'good guys'. That is when the death penalty becomes truly barbaric.

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Speaking of "offending", is there anyway I can persuade you to change your avatar and not feature Sylvester Stallone? That picture is just so....................out there.

Well, since it's you, Grav, I'll change it. Can't promise you'll like my next avatar, but, hey, if the current one gets your goat then it's gone. :D

Do you object to Stallone avatars in general, or is it just that particular pic?

ETA: Okay, well, my new avatar (just in case you're curious) is the cover of one of my all-time favourite albums, "Screamadelica" by Primal Scream (1991) (I presume you don't know this, since Primal Scream never really had much exposure Stateside). Dunno whether this new image meets with your approval, but I trust you prefer it to that photo of Sly, and in any case I'll probably change it again in due course.

I love the new one but I also liked the other one. It was just soooo... Loomis.

Loomis wrote:

But, yes, I'm against barbarism, and I say that the death penalty is barbaric because murder is barbaric. The death penalty is nothing less than murder by the state.

Firstly, I wouldn't consider the act of giving someone a lethal injection to be any more primitive or uncivilised than locking them up for life. Using strict definitions of the word 'barbaric', I don't see how the death penalty is any more barbaric than imprisonment.

Secondly, if the death penalty is 'nothing less than murder by the state', isn't life imprisonment nothing less than, well, imprisonment by the state? You seem to oppose the death penalty because it is unsavoury for a private citizen to murder another, but isn't it also unsavoury for a private citizen to imprison another? You allow yourself to make a distinction between the rights of a private citizen and the rights of a state when it comes to imprisonment, but not when it comes to execution.

Loomis wrote:

Do people still commit murder in those countries and those American states that still have the death penalty? They do? In that case, the death penalty doesn't seem much of a deterrent.

All that means is that is isn't a perfect deterrent. Can you name me anything that is?

No I don't support the death penalty ie state executions.
That said though, life in prison needs to mean life, and that is a real problem in our liberal democracies, convincing liberals that sentencing is primarily about punishment, not rehab.

Killing in war or espionage is another matter entirely though, but capital punishment as part of a criminal justice system, I don't agree with.

@harmsway the Christian tradition, (the Catholic tradition at least) is clear.
Ie an allowance for capital punishment is only made when killing the person, is necessary to protect the lives of others. I am not going to quote the chatechism as that would require much work on my part but it is clearly spelled out.
Basically if there is no way to contain the threat, and if the threat is a genuine threat to kill others, than executing the person is morally justified. It’s really an extension of the moral justification for killing in self defence.

HJackson wrote:

Secondly, if the death penalty is 'nothing less than murder by the state', isn't life imprisonment nothing less than, well, imprisonment by the state? You seem to oppose the death penalty because it is unsavoury for a private citizen to murder another, but isn't it also unsavoury for a private citizen to imprison another? You allow yourself to make a distinction between the rights of a private citizen and the rights of a state when it comes to imprisonment, but not when it comes to execution.

But I'm not saying that a private citizen should be able to imprison another. Private citizens shouldn't be able to tax each other, either. I'm not saying that the state should only be empowered to do things that private citizens are already free to do to each other - what, in that case, would be the point of the state?

I don't oppose the death penalty because I find the idea of regular people killing each other "unsavoury" - I find the idea of the state doing it unsavoury! (To put it mildly.) And perhaps even more so. I also find it unnecessary. It seems to me that all of the things that death penalty supporters seem to want can also be achieved by life sentences. Grav's point about lifers always having the possibility of escape (and thus the opportunity to commit further crimes) seems a bit of a stretch - yep, on paper there's the possibility, but SILENCE OF THE LAMBS-style escapes by notorious killers tend to be the stuff of Hollywood rather than reality.

Finally, a lot of pro-death penalty folk appear to feel that those who are against the death penalty are just woolly-headed bleeding hearts who are soft on crime, but I know that if I had the choice between receiving the relatively quick exit of the death penalty and decades mouldering behind bars I'd dread the latter far more than the former.

Lock 'em up in a dark cell for the rest of their lives. Death is the easy way out for these people.

tiffanywint wrote:

@harmsway the Christian tradition, (the Catholic tradition at least) is clear.
Ie an allowance for capital punishment is only made when killing the person, is necessary to protect the lives of others. I am not going to quote the chatechism as that would require much work on my part but it is clearly spelled out.
Basically if there is no way to contain the threat, and if the threat is a genuine threat to kill others, than executing the person is morally justified. It’s really an extension of the moral justification for killing in self defence.

Contemporary Catholic teaching is just a segment of a much broader Christian tradition and conversation, a conversation that not only extends into the history of Catholicism, but into the corners of Protestant and Orthodox thought, to say nothing of the early traditions in which all these later forms of Christianity are rooted.

Furthermore, the briefest of looks at Catholic history will demonstrate that the Catholic Church has not followed such guidelines throughout the many centuries of its existence.

Loomis wrote:

I don't oppose the death penalty because I find the idea of regular people killing each other "unsavoury" - I find the idea of the state doing it unsavoury! (To put it mildly.)

You're just against killing someone else under all circumstances. That's what it comes down to. You don't want "the state" to do it, but you don't want private individuals doing it either. Obviously I disagree; I think the state should have the power to execute the worst among us after a fair trial has demonstrated guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. I think adopting your point of view about capital punishment would certainly simplify the matter in some ways, but I'm not sure I want this matter simplified.

Quote :

Finally, a lot of pro-death penalty folk appear to feel that those who are against the death penalty are just woolly-headed bleeding hearts who are soft on crime, but I know that if I had the choice between receiving the relatively quick exit of the death penalty and decades mouldering behind bars I'd dread the latter far more than the former.

Life in prison is a form of torture all on its own, including solitary confinement and "the hole" (no clothes, no bed, no light, no reading, no communicating with anyone). One could argue that it is almost as barbaric to put condemned killers in confinement for the rest of their lives than to simply execute them.

As I've said, I could live with life in prison and no death penalty; it's not a make or break item for me. I'd even be willing to give up my support for the death penalty if I could get the rest of the world to give up their right to have an abortion and let all innocent life come to full term and be born. But neither one of us are likely to get what we want on these issues.

I'm not particularly pro the death penalty but I think it could be applied on a case by case basis. The idea of getting it wrong is beyond horrible, but in very serious cases and where guilt is beyond any doubt I think it is worth considering. But I do mean in serious cases, where the offense is repeated or prolonged - does anyone really think it's worth keeping Jo Fritzl alive, or that latest case of the man who locked up and raped his mentally ill daughters for 41 years, for example? The Fred Wests of this world or maybe the Ian Brady types? To legislate for the death penalty as a standard punishment I don't want to see, but I could live with it being used (by the most humane of the available methods) in special, extraordinary cases. Some people cannot be rehabilitated or punished.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

You're just against killing someone else under all circumstances. That's what it comes down to. You don't want "the state" to do it, but you don't want private individuals doing it either.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much my position. Although there are a couple of obvious exceptions that spring to mind - killing in self-defence, for instance. If someone were attacking me and trying to kill me, then I'd feel fully justified in trying in turn to close that motherfucker down. You wouldn't see me agonising over the morality of killing in that situation, I can assure you.

Neither would I have any objection if a cop were to shoot dead someone who was in the middle of killing others or on the point of killing others.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

As I've said, I could live with life in prison and no death penalty

You've said that? Apologies, I must have missed it.

Harmsway wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

@harmsway the Christian tradition, (the Catholic tradition at least) is clear.
Ie an allowance for capital punishment is only made when killing the person, is necessary to protect the lives of others. I am not going to quote the chatechism as that would require much work on my part but it is clearly spelled out.
Basically if there is no way to contain the threat, and if the threat is a genuine threat to kill others, than executing the person is morally justified. It’s really an extension of the moral justification for killing in self defence.

Contemporary Catholic teaching is just a segment of a much broader Christian tradition and conversation, a conversation that not only extends into the history of Catholicism, but into the corners of Protestant and Orthodox thought, to say nothing of the early traditions in which all these later forms of Christianity are rooted.

Furthermore, the briefest of looks at Catholic history will demonstrate that the Catholic Church has not followed such guidelines throughout the many centuries of its existence.

Well the chatechism is what it is. My point is that the Catholic teaching on the matter is quite clear and not ambiguous. It's as I explained but articulated much more eloquently on the Vatican website.

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

As I've said, I could live with life in prison and no death penalty

You've said that? Apologies, I must have missed it.

I must have missed it to. I know I said it, I just can't find it.

Categorically not. Far too many cases overturned on appeal, with innocent people convicted of crimes that would normally attract the death penalty.

It's not a deterrent. It certainly never put Brady and Hindley off. Death penalty had only recently been recinded when they got caught. Murder is, statistically, the least likely of all repeat crimes anyway - basically, most murders are what might be called Crimes of Passion, and once the victim is dead, the murderer isn't going to kill them again. Therefore, least likely repeat offenders are murderers.

Deterrent - nope. Never worked. Never will. Because most murderers do it a) because they can't stop themselves (anger, drink, drugs etc) or b) don't expect to be caught (serial killers).

Cheaper? Hell, no. The cost of keeping someone in prison for life (meaning life) is actually a lot less than dealing with appeal after appeal. And are you really going to reduce the number of times someone can appeal? Or refuse to let them appeal? Because if so, I really do admire your trust in the Law, in the Prosecution Service, and in the Police Force.

Personally, I've had far too much experience of all three to trust them to organise a piss up in a brewery. I certainly wouldn't want to put a rope around someone's neck on any of their say-so.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

As I've said, I could live with life in prison and no death penalty

You've said that? Apologies, I must have missed it.

I must have missed it to. I know I said it, I just can't find it.

I presume, Grav, that you detest big government and believe that the state should butt out of as many aspects of our lives as possible. If so, is it not ironic that you feel that the state should possess the power of life and death via capital punishment?

Santa, I see what you're saying, but I presume that The Point(TM) of keeping someone like Fritzl alive is to demonstrate that:

1. Society is always "better" than these scumbags and never goes down to their level.

2. If you believe in the right to life, then that right is absolute (that's what, erm, makes it a right, I guess) and cannot be taken away from you, no matter who you are or what you've done.

1. Not sure that's a point I'm worried about proving.

2. I don't generally see things as that black and white. Mostly shades of grey. There is only one issue on which I am absolute and I would never dare bring it up with GS around as the arguments would go on forEVER :D .

I'm not sure the language of "right to life" is helpful.

Harmsway wrote:

I'm not sure the language of "right to life" is helpful.

Why would it be unhelpful? I mean no offence to anyone by using the expression and am not aware it's a controversial or emotive one. Over here in England, anyway. Does it have certain connotations in the States?

I think he's suggesting in an amorphous way that human life is a privilege, not a right.

I'm not sure I agree.

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

I'm not sure the language of "right to life" is helpful.

Why would it be unhelpful? I mean no offence to anyone by using the expression and am not aware it's a controversial or emotive one. Over here in England, anyway. Does it have certain connotations in the States?

I wasn't offended and I'm "pro-life".