Death penelty

Author: Alec ,

Posts

Total: 67
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I support the death penalty for murder.  If anyone wants to change my mind they are allowed to try.
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,187
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
so you support an eye for an eye, and revenge? you also think the right way to say it's wrong to kill people is by killing people?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
I could also make this argument about Life imprisonment and prison in general. If 2 wrongs don’t make a right, then wouldn’t we also have to not punish our prisoners at all?  If the phrase, (Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing is wrong) is a legitimate phrase, then wouldn’t the phrase, (Why do we kidnap people who kill people to show that killing is wrong) also be legitimate.  Putting someone in jail without their consent is similar to kidnapping. Does this logic apply? It does not. This is because it is different when the state does something as opposed to an individual.

When the state takes your money without your permission, it is taxes.  When you do the same, it is theft.

When the state kidnaps you without your permission, that is prision.  When you do it, it is kidnapping, even if vigilantically a punishment for a crime.

When the state kills someone as a punishment for a crime, it is an execution.  When you do the same, it is murder.

Moreover, your argument ignores the fact that there are multiple types of killing.  Some types of killing along with their basic definitions are:

Slaughtering: When you kill an animal for food.

Manslaughter: When you accidentally kill someone.

Execution: When the state kills as a punishment.

Murder: When a vigilantic individual deliberately kills someone without their consent, and illegally.

My definitions may not be perfect, but they are a basic overview of the definitions of various types of killing.  They are not all equal. Murder is different from execution is the same way kidnapping is different from being imprisoned.

Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
--> @n8nrgmi
so you support an eye for an eye, and revenge? you also think the right way to say it's wrong to kill people is by killing people?


n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,187
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Alec

prison time is about deterrence. if you also view it as revenge, that's on you. capital punishment effectively is about revenge, because deterrence it has long been shown doesn't happen. 

the bottom line is that you must view revenge favorably, while those against the death penalty do not. 
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
--> @n8nrgmi
Justice requires a proportionate price to pay for harms caused to others. He who unjustly takes a life gives up any right to his own.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
 capital punishment effectively is about revenge, because deterrence it has long been shown doesn't happen. 
Actually, the death penalty(DP) reduces the homicide rate, so deterrence to at least some extent works.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fno3SaXsJAt1SKTlKC-vVAjVJTgWvVJG5I0qKqM5Lbw/edit#gid=0 shows many states that abolished the DP and their homicide rates before and after the abolition of this punishment.  On average, when states abolished the DP, their homicide rates went up.

n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,187
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Alec
do you honestly mostly advocate the death penalty to deter people, or for revenge?

even if the death penalty deterred people, so would a long time in prison. the only extra factor that would make the death penalty a higher priority is revenge. and, so, as i said, it all comes down to whether you support the concept of revenge. 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
The death penalty is not revenge.  Revenge is vigilantic.  The death penalty is not.
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,187
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Alec
why is it revenge for vigilantes but not for a government body? 

why should the death penalty be favored over prison? 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
why is it revenge for vigilantes but not for a government body? 
The government is objective and is therefore more likely to make a decision on the basis of logic and morality.  They are also less likely to convict the wrong person.  It is better if punishment is left to the government for felonies like murder.

why should the death penalty be favored over prison? 
Life imprisonment is not strong enough for a crime like murder.  The DP reduces the homicide rate, it is cheaper or can have it's costs offset.

More information can be found in the following debate:


n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,187
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Alec
even if the government is more objective, the intent is still the same, revenge. 

the link you gave that says the death penalty deters people is just a bunch of numbers, and at least the conventional wisdom is that it does't deter crime. 

the death penalty isn't more cost effective as it costs millions in appeals to kill them. i might agree it could be cheaper in principle, but in effect it's not. 

do you think someone might actually be deterred by the death penalty but not life in prison or sixty years in jail?

the death penalty, in addition to essentially being about revenge, says that the murderer has no redeeming value, or at least not enough to say they are worth living. maybe serial killers have not enough redeeming value to keep them alive, but id say given most people have at least murderous impulses, that someone actually following through on it, doesn't make them have no redeeming value. 

also, i dont know your religious views, but jesus preached to turn the cheek. he also said the measure with which you use will be measured to you. so while a person could find other biblical ideas to say the pentalty can be just, that doesn't mean it has to be that way. even if turning a cheek is just a rule of thumb, the measure you use isn't much. i know i'm not a murderer, but i dont want to be killing people and using that standard against them, when death could also be my penalty for the things i do wrong. 
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,187
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Alec
eighty eight percent of criminologists think the death penalty doesn't deter murder, and that getting rid of the penalty wouldn't change anything either. 
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,848
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @n8nrgmi
An eye to eye approach is justified in certain scenarios. While I don't agree it is right to kill these prisoners, because it teaches them nothing, but sometimes it works in a society

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
even if the government is more objective, the intent is still the same, revenge.
The government did not get hurt from the homicide.  Therefore, it is not revenge.  It is merely the government sticking to a moral code.  Moreover, life imprisonment can also be classified as revenge.

the link you gave that says the death penalty deters people is just a bunch of numbers
It is evidence cited from disaster center that it reduces homicide.  Those numbers represent the blood and the innocent human life that got saved from the death penalty.

and at least the conventional wisdom is that it does't deter crime. 
The "conventional wisdom" is that a strong punishment reduces deterrence.  If we had no punishment for murder, then the murder rate would skyrocket.  Therefore, the tougher the punishment, the less likely the occurrence.

the death penalty isn't more cost effective as it costs millions in appeals to kill them
This cost can be offset by public executions, which would pay for the execution and can allow the state to have more funds so less innocent people get punished since they could afford to do more lengthy trials.

says that the murderer has no redeeming value, or at least not enough to say they are worth living.
The murderer ought to have no redeeming value since murder makes your moral position beyond the point of no return.  If we offer redemption for murder, then it encourages more people to commit murder.

maybe serial killers have not enough redeeming value to keep them alive

but id say given most people have at least murderous impulses, that someone actually following through on it, doesn't make them have no redeeming value. 
This is a contradiction on your part.

You mention religion, but we have separation of church and state.  If we were to abide by this verse literally, it would mean that you wouldn't punish murderers at all since you would be just turning the other cheek.

when death could also be my penalty for the things i do wrong. 
I my book, you have to do something very bad to merit the DP.  This includes but is not inherently limited too:

-Murder
-High treason
-Serial rape.
-Serial deliberate HIV spread.  If you rape while spreading HIV deliberately, this would also merit the DP.

If your a normal person, your not going to get executed.  If you speed, you might get fined, but not executed.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
eighty eight percent of criminologists think the death penalty doesn't deter murder
Why do they think this?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @SupaDudz
While I don't agree it is right to kill these prisoners, because it teaches them nothing
It teaches society that murder is bad, very bad.  The legal system determines how bad a crime is by the punishment that it imposes.  The harsher the punishment for murder, the worse murder would seem in the eyes of society.  The punishment should fit the crime.
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
--> @n8nrgmi
But you don't understand. Revenge can be good. It's one of life's darkest but most satisfying pleasures.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Death23
Says who?
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,848
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @Alec
I'd rather have them suffer in a life of prison. That will teach them vs a suicidal murder that wanted death
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Alec
You are under the misapprehension that government determines the guilt or innocence of an accused. Your OP is evidence of a child's POV and that is understandable.
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
Juries decide that, no? They're not the government. BTW I had a big grin on my face when Bin Laden was killed.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 884
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
--> @Alec
I was a strong supporter of the death penalty for many years, but I’ve come to be pretty neutral on the topic (or slightly against it) 

My knee jerk reaction is very much for it, and in principal I support it. I think the death penalty properly applied can be a good thing. The idea of a swift and ultimate justice deters crime as well as affirming the societies opposition to the crime. Moreover the death penalty, applied properly, can bring dignity and redemption to the condemned and closure to the victims loved ones far more than imprisonment ever could. 

Okay. So how is the death penalty in this country ACTUALLY applied? Well, if you commit a heinous enough murder and don’t plead out, the state will be lucky if they execute you less than twenty years after the sentence has been handed down. All the while, they’re spending so much money navigating the byzantine legal system that it actually costs more to execute you than it does to lock you up for life. And when you’re executed, it almost certainly doesn’t deter anyone because the crime would’ve happened so long ago that it was long forgotten. This entire process completely destroys the utility of the death penalty. Then factor in the fact that you might actually have the wrong guy, and it becomes a very open question on if this is all worth it

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @Alec
-Murder
-High treason
-Serial rape.
-Serial deliberate HIV spread.  If you rape while spreading HIV deliberately, this would also merit the DP.

So you agree with murderers it's sometimes ok to kill people...you just disgree about when it's ok.

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @keithprosser
Not all killing is equal.  Murder is worse than execution in the same way that kidnapping is worse then prision.