This guy should be executed for murder

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 77
#61
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,246
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
If "bleeding heart liberals" aren't willing to make such a small and efficient sacrifice, why should I have to sacrifice a higher dollar to life ratio (because murderers are more expensive than African children) to save a murderer from getting executed?
I’m quite sure in my last reply to you I specifically stated one of the major reasons to oppose capitol punishment was to ensure we do not execute innocent people. Yet you seem to have completely disregarded that point in your response.

I’m also quite sure that I haven’t yet said anything about money, so I’m not sure why you have suddenly become so fixated on it.
Topic's author
#62
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 I’m quite sure in my last reply to you I specifically stated one of the major reasons to oppose capitol punishment was to ensure we do not execute innocent people
There are 2 options for dealing with innocent people who are murder convicts.

Option 1: Execute them.  Out of 25 murder convicts, 1 will be innocent.

Option 2: Life in jail.  Lets say it costs $2 million to feed somebody for their whole life if they start to be in jail when they are in their twenties and they stay there for the rest of their lives.  Multiply this number by 25 (because it takes 25 murder convicts to produce one innocent person) and you end up spending $50 million to save one innocent person.

We either can spend $50 million on 1 innocent person and 24 people that actually committed murder (people who should be executed) or we can let kill one innocent person.

To see which is better, lets look at precedent.  The typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day to save a kid in Africa (a kid that requires saving no murderers to save).  If people felt the need to pay, they would do it directly instead of using government funds.  But people don't want to spend a mere dollar a day to save a stranger (even if that stranger isn't believed to have murdered anybody).

If people aren't willing to spend $1/day on saving strangers who never committed murder and aren't accused of doing it, why should society spend $50 million to make sure 1 innocent person doesn't die?

It is because of that that I conclude that it is better to kill one innocent person than it is to waste $50 million to keep them alive.

I’m also quite sure that I haven’t yet said anything about money, so I’m not sure why you have suddenly become so fixated on it.
Because I'm very fiscally minded.

Prisons are expensive and due to my anti welfare stance, I also don't want prisoners receiving government assistance either.  To be fair, not all prisoners deserve execution.  But all prisoners that don't get executed should generate labor where the revenue generated from that labor pays for the living expenses of the prisoner as well as pays for any damages the prisoner has done.

Having a murder convict do labor takes a job away from a construction worker.  Other criminals would be taking jobs away from someone in the workforce, but that is better than lets say a drunk driver getting executed.  However, if I had to pick between a murderer taking someone's job from hard labor and them getting executed, I'd pick the ladder.  If I had to pick between a drunk driver taking someone's job and them getting executed, I'd pick the former because it is a less serious crime.
#63
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
You can usually only convict one person of murder.
People are incarcerated for a number of violent and non violent crime they may or may not have committed. I'm not sure I see your point in regards to the prison system being incentivized by profits to encourage mass incarceration. 
Prisoners generating profit at slave wages is a slippery slope
How would it be a slippery slope?
It incentivizes not just being fiscally neutral but turning a profit at which point someone is profiting from slave labor. 
Legally; it does.  Morally, it depends.  If you kill some middle eastern civilian because you knew you could get away with it, that would be murder and you should face the death penalty.  But if you kill someone whom other people have decided that they committed murder with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that's just implementing punishment.
What if you knowingly order the death by drone strike of a large number of civilians in order to execute without due process a relatively small number of accused international criminals?
Topic's author
#64
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
It incentivizes not just being fiscally neutral but turning a profit at which point someone is profiting from slave labor. 
What enslaving prisoners would do is the revenue generated from the prisoner's slave labor goes to the victim(s) of the crime.

What if you knowingly order the death by drone strike of a large number of civilians in order to execute without due process a relatively small number of accused international criminals?
Then that politician would be a terrible person.  The innocents being bombed weren't costing tax payers a penny to live, and I'm anti war as a matter of principle.  Bombing the civilians to kill the terroists isn't a good idea as as long as those terrorists stay in their home countries, I have this America first policy.  We need to focus on our own problems before we kill terrorists in other countries.
#65
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
What enslaving prisoners would do is the revenue generated from the prisoner's slave labor goes to the victim(s) of the crime.

Slavery was supposed to have been abolished. I do not support this policy. Slavery is not a suitable punishment or a suitable living condition for anyone. 
Then that politician would be a terrible person.  The innocents being bombed weren't costing tax payers a penny to live, and I'm anti war as a matter of principle.  Bombing the civilians to kill the terroists isn't a good idea

Agreed.

Topic's author
#66
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Slavery was supposed to have been abolished. I do not support this policy. Slavery is not a suitable punishment or a suitable living condition for anyone. 
The 13th amendment allows an exception for a punishment for a crime.

I don't want prisoners living off government assistance for their sentence.  Slavery I think is the only way they can pay off their debts.
#67
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Slavery I think is the only way they can pay off their debts.
So you believe in indentured servitude?

The 13th amendment allows an exception for a punishment for a crime.
Do you have any moral compass?
I would think people would want to fix that.

#68
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 13th amendment allows an exception for a punishment for a crime.

I don't want prisoners living off government assistance for their sentence.  Slavery I think is the only way they can pay off their debts.
Slavery is morally reprehensible. I'm afraid that doesn't change just because you want some people to be slaves and if the thirteenth amendment disagrees then it is wrong on this point.
Topic's author
#69
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
So will prisoners be mooching off the government for their sentence?  I don't want prisons taking a single tax dollar because prisoners serve no benefit to society whatsoever under our current laws.  They are parasites to the government; they don't produce anything and prisoners just take without paying back to society.  Enslaving them is how they can pay their debt to society.  I don't know how else they can do it as them just sitting in prison doesn't benefit society at all (except for the prisoner threat being neutralized, but the prisoner threat shouldn't even exist and prisoners should not be given free lunch).  It's unfair to the victims; it's unfair to the taxpayer, and prison labor is something that should exist.
Topic's author
#70
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
So you believe in indentured servitude?
For crimes; yes; that is the law.  The alternative is rapists and murderers getting free shit paid for by their victims.  I don't want that.  If your homeless but don't do any crimes, you only are allowed on government assistence for a certain amount of time.  If yousteal from someone, your on government assistence for 20 years; it's ridiculus.

Do you have any moral compass?
I would think people would want to fix that.
Everyone has a moral compass.  I don't want prisoners leeching off of taxpayers for free.  Forced labor is the only way they can pay off their debt.

Society supports the 13th amendment.
#71
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
So will prisoners be mooching off the government for their sentence?
At the moment it is actually privatized prisons that both "mooch of the government" and profit from the slave labor provided by prisoners. 
I don't want prisons taking a single tax dollar because prisoners serve no benefit to society whatsoever under our current laws.  They are parasites to the government; they don't produce anything and prisoners just take without paying back to society.
Funny I think you just described CEOs, land lords and bankers here too.
Enslaving them is how they can pay their debt to society
What debt? I don't care about fair. I don't care if they "pay for what they did". I just want to prevent future crime and our current system does the opposite. 
It's unfair to the victims; it's unfair to the taxpayer, and prison labor is something that should exist.
I don't care I don't care and we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment which I believe slavery qualifies for.
Topic's author
#72
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
At the moment it is actually privatized prisons that both "mooch of the government" and profit from the slave labor provided by prisoners. 
I'm unsure what I think of private prisons, but government prisons take money from the taxpayer as well, so prisoners need to do labor to pay for their living expenses and to pay for the harm they caused to others.

Funny I think you just described CEOs, land lords and bankers here too.
The CEO gets funded through their company.  The land lord gets funded by the people he helps out by giving them a place to live.  Taking away his house without compensation to give it to the poor is unconstitutional and ruins the whole point of buying multiple homes.

What debt? I don't care about fair. I don't care if they "pay for what they did". I just want to prevent future crime and our current system does the opposite. 
All of the following must be considered for punishments:

1) Deterrance/preventing crimes from happening again.
2) Making prisoners pay for what they did in a proportional.
3) Not being a burden to the state

Caring solely about #1 leads to very harsh punishments.  For example, if you make the punishment for drunk driving death, you would be preventing future crime.  Yet this is a bad idea because it violates bullet points #2.  Stricter punishments tend to lead to less crime for the same reason that high prices lead to less purchesing; when the penalty for buying an IPAD is $1000 instead of $500, you will have less people that do it.  When the punishment for murder is death instead of a free college degree, you will get less of it, when you make the punishment for drunk driving death instead of a jail sentence, you get less drunk driving.  However, the rights of the defendent must be weighed in addition to fairness, therefore we can't execute people for drunk driving, but murder is a crime worthy of the death penalty since it is a proportional sentence.  Some places do tougher than proportional sentences (like Saudi Arabia executing people for gay sex), and other places do less than proportional punishments (most EU countries and about half of US states).  I advocate for proportional punishments as a principle and slightly tougher than proportional punishment to save money.  This means executing murderers and rapists, but not giving the death penalty for any other crime.

I don't care I don't care and we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment which I believe slavery qualifies for.
Whether or not slavery counts as cruel and unusual is entirely subjective, however I don't believe it is cruel and unusual.  I don't want murderers living off the taxpayer while contributing nothing back to others.  If they did contribute to others, this takes a job away from somebody else, and given that they are murderers, I would support the death penalty for them.
#73
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
pay for the harm they caused to others.
Unimportant when measured against preventing future harm. If the best way to prevent future crime were to have no consequences (which I don't believe I'm just making a point) then that is what I would be in favor of. I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with revenge. 
Topic's author
#74
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
 If the best way to prevent future crime were to have no consequences (which I don't believe I'm just making a point) then that is what I would be in favor of.
This isn't the case.  The best way to prevent crimes is to have the death penalty for all crimes by the most painful way possible and to advertise this so people are scared of doing crimes.  Not even I advocate this (although religion seems to for the purposes of deterrence).  There are things that matter with punishments other than the prevention of future crimes.

I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with revenge. 
It's proportional, although I know an eye for an eye for all crimes is a non starter.  You can't rape a rapist and expect it to do anything decent.  But you can execute a murderer and it prevents him from being a burden to the state.
#75
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
The best way to prevent crimes is to have the death penalty for all crimes by the most painful way possible and to advertise this so people are scared of doing crimes.
The very best way to prevent crime would be to immediately execute every human BEFORE they can commit a crime but that us not in keeping with my goal of human wellbeing. I am even concerned with the wellbeing of murderers. 
Topic's author
#76
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
The very best way to prevent crime would be to immediately execute every human BEFORE they can commit a crime but that us not in keeping with my goal of human wellbeing.
You said your goal was deterrence, not human well being:

 I just want to prevent future crime and our current system does the opposite. 

There are things that matter besides the well being of murderers.  Things like not being a burden to others, deterrence, and economic freedom are all additional things that should be weighed to the anti pain policy that you propose.  All these factors must be considered when determining punishment.

 I am even concerned with the wellbeing of murderers. 
Their well being has to be considered, this is why we shouldn't burn them alive as punishment, even if deterrence is created as a result.  However, I think executing them by firing squad is an acceptable punishment.  It's quick, cheap, and relatively painless.

The well being of all criminals has to be considered, but it can't be the only thing that is considered.
#77
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
You said your goal was deterrence, not human well being:
Sorry deterrence for the purposes of wellbeing. Wellbeing is the higher goal.
Things like not being a burden to others, 
No man is an island. You must have the support of others to live and they must have your support. We are all a burden on each other and that is as it should be.
Their well being has to be considered, this is why we shouldn't burn them alive as punishment, even if deterrence is created as a result.  However, I think executing them by firing squad is an acceptable punishment.  It's quick, cheap, and relatively painless.
Quick and cheap are not a consideration for me and I am unconvinced that any method of execution or relatively painless.

Unlike the other arguments I have on this sight this is not an issue that can be resolved by logic. Unfortunately we don't seem to have the same goals in this regard or at least in as much as we do we disagree on the necessity of committing a second killing to make up for the first killing.