Still believe in the death Penalty?

[transplant99]

The death penalty isn't about justice out of fair compensation. In fact, I'm not entirely what exactly is the purpose of the death penalty.

Pretty obvious isn't it? So that person can never have the opportunity to do what they have already shown they are capable of doing.

I have no problem with the death penalty. So long as they carry the logic through and also sentence to death the man who pulls the switch/gives the injection.

Horrible argument....the cases are such ridiculously different circumstances. But since you went there...i guess abortionists should also fall under this theory.

I am on the fence about capital punishment as well and for the same reasons that Dis suggested, if one single person is executed for something they did not do, then the whole thing should be done away with until the burden of proof is undeniable. That is why we have prosecutors and judges...to be absolutely sure that the person accused is the one who committed the crime. That's also why i don't get the whole "i have no right to decide who lives" theory...unless you are an elected/appointed judge, you will never have to worry about that.

I almost agree that execution may actually be more humane than life in prison...at least the maximum security places i have seen portrayed on various news programs. I know which choice i would make anyhow....especially if i had been guilty of taking another persons life (or many in some cases) that leaves a trail of heartbroken families and friends behind...as the penalty certainly fits the crime in that case.

As with anything however, there are mitigating circumstances in lots of cases where the death penalty is way over the top as a punishment.

Just a bit of a comparison...

This year in the entire USA there have been 12 executions.

This year in the entire USA there have been 29 law enforcement officers murdered on the job.

Which is worse?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

No that is not fair or balanced. In the case of Mr. Osborne, he took two lives. By your logic, he took two lives, so in "fair" return two lives should be taken. Perhaps him and a relative. For Jeffery Dalmer, he took the lives of countless prostitutes. Perhaps for fair compensation we need to sacrifice a countless number of virgins.

One life is NOT fair compensation for another life.

Well one life is the closest we can come to fair in Osborne's case until we learn how to resurrect folks.

So what would you say is fair and equal compensation for a life?

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Pretty obvious isn't it? So that person can never have the opportunity to do what they have already shown they are capable of doing.

In which case locking someone up for life is the same, except for that person's death, murderer or not, is not on someone else's hands.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well one life is the closest we can come to fair in Osborne's case until we learn how to resurrect folks.

So what would you say is fair and equal compensation for a life?

Nothing is fair compensation for life. You try to find something of equal value is fairly ridiculous. But instead of wiping that person off the face of the earth, remove them from society and learn why they failed in life and how society may have failed him so that we can look at ways of preventing this in the future. I think way more can come out of that than just killing a person. Call me an idealist, but any life, even a failed one, can be beneficial to society.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Nothing is fair compensation for life. You try to find something of equal value is fairly ridiculous. But instead of wiping that person off the face of the earth, remove them from society and learn why they failed in life and how society may have failed him so that we can look at ways of preventing this in the future. I think way more can come out of that than just killing a person. Call me an idealist, but any life, even a failed one, can be beneficial to society.

A life is a fair compensation for a life.

There will always be murderers among us. Murder is a selfish act. No amount of study is going to prevent people chosing to be selfish.

[transplant99]

double post

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

In which case locking someone up for life is the same, except for that person's death, murderer or not, is not on someone else's hands.

No it isn't as evidenced by the 6 correctional officers killed while at work already this year. Not necessarily all the offenders were in prison for murder, but I know that some were.

Now had they been put to death....would or would not at least some of these correctional officers still be alive? If your answer is yes, then jailing them for life is not the same as putting them to death. Period.

Here is a case in fact, that almost BEGS for the death penalty, as the guy has confessed to everything.

http://jakester133.blogspot.com/2008...er-killed.html

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So what would you say is fair and equal compensation for a life?

It has nothing to do with compensation. Compensation is simply vengeance, which is an undesirable (and deeply un-Christian) ideal. Punishment for crime is based on 2 considerations 1) deterrence and 2) prevention of re-occurrence.

It has been demonstrated throughout history that the death penalty does absolutely nothing to address the first concern. Nowhere has capital punishment been an effective deterrent. It does prevent re-occurrence, but since there are other ways to address that concern which do not result in taking a human life they trump the death penalty.

Capital punishment is vengeful, lazy, serves no purpose, does nothing to deter crime, and is no more unnecessary murder. It is vile and disgusting and I am so very, very glad that we have managed to rid ourselves of it here in Canada and I look forward to the day when the rest of the world is able to follow suit.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Now had they been put to death....would or would not at least some of these correctional officers still be alive?

There is absolutely no way to know that. This is a deeply logically flawed argument.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by driveway

It has nothing to do with compensation. Compensation is simply vengeance, which is an undesirable (and deeply un-Christian) ideal. Punishment for crime is based on 2 considerations 1) deterrence and 2) prevention of re-occurrence.

It has been demonstrated throughout history that the death penalty does absolutely nothing to address the first concern. Nowhere has capital punishment been an effective deterrent. It does prevent re-occurrence, but since there are other ways to address that concern which do not result in taking a human life they trump the death penalty.

Capital punishment is vengeful, lazy, serves no purpose, does nothing to deter crime, and is no more unnecessary murder. It is vile and disgusting and I am so very, very glad that we have managed to rid ourselves of it here in Canada and I look forward to the day when the rest of the world is able to follow suit.

Good post. I was about to post something similar to this. If people are arguing the death penalty because they want some kind of punishment/compensation then IMO they are just as bad as the original murderer.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by driveway

It has nothing to do with compensation. Compensation is simply vengeance, which is an undesirable (and deeply un-Christian) ideal. Punishment for crime is based on 2 considerations 1) deterrence and 2) prevention of re-occurrence.

It has been demonstrated throughout history that the death penalty does absolutely nothing to address the first concern. Nowhere has capital punishment been an effective deterrent. It does prevent re-occurrence, but since there are other ways to address that concern which do not result in taking a human life they trump the death penalty.

Capital punishment is vengeful, lazy, serves no purpose, does nothing to deter crime, and is no more unnecessary murder. It is vile and disgusting and I am so very, very glad that we have managed to rid ourselves of it here in Canada and I look forward to the day when the rest of the world is able to follow suit.

Simply untrue.

At least five federal prison officers have been killed since December 1982, and the inmates in at least three of the incidents were already serving life sentences for murder. For example, in the federal government's maximum security institution in Marion, Illinois, two experienced correctional officers were murdered in separate incidents on October 22, 1983. Officer Clutts died in an unprovoked, vicious assault when stabbed approximately 40 times with a homemade knife by inmate Thomas Silverstein. At the time, Silverstein was being supervised by three correctional officers. Silverstein had already murdered three inmates while in federal custody, for which he received three life sentences.

While it is impossible to determine precisely how many innocent lives the execution of convicted murderers has saved, the available data suggest that the number is not insignificant. Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following those convictions. Execution each of these inmates following their initial murder conviction would have saved 821 innocent lives.

http://www.dpinfo.com/dpwhy.htm

Again, not necessarily a proponent of the death penalty but there most certainly is a reason and a purpose for it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by driveway

There is absolutely no way to know that. This is a deeply logically flawed argument.

Uh...no it really isnt.

One way to guarentee that a convicted murderer does not re-offend is to end their life.

Read the statistics.

What's flawed?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by driveway

It has nothing to do with compensation. Compensation is simply vengeance, which is an undesirable (and deeply un-Christian) ideal. Punishment for crime is based on 2 considerations 1) deterrence and 2) prevention of re-occurrence.

It has been demonstrated throughout history that the death penalty does absolutely nothing to address the first concern. Nowhere has capital punishment been an effective deterrent. It does prevent re-occurrence, but since there are other ways to address that concern which do not result in taking a human life they trump the death penalty.

Capital punishment is vengeful, lazy, serves no purpose, does nothing to deter crime, and is no more unnecessary murder. It is vile and disgusting and I am so very, very glad that we have managed to rid ourselves of it here in Canada and I look forward to the day when the rest of the world is able to follow suit.

Compensation is not vengeance. Compensation is justice: A penalty that fits the crime. Vengeance is taking the law into your own hands. It isn't a balanced response and often escalates.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is not logical. The first person took a life without cause. The second took a life under order of the state. The first took a life knowing he would be forfeiting his own for the crime. The second was fulfilling a just law. Under your logic a man who killed in defence of his family or his country is just as much a murderer as this man who killed over a $400.00 debt and therefore should be treated the same. That would be a pretty messed up world.

You know what makes a messed up world. This premise that we should opperate in this eye for eye idea. That really has to be one of the worst ideas ever. It does nothing to solve problems and only furthers the chain if hate and resentment (sp?).

What if one of the family members decided that he will kill Osborne for killing his family member? Is the family member immune from any culpability? Because by your logic, Osborne has given up his right to live because he took someone elses life.

What about a drunk driver? He kills someone or a whole family. He knew what the possible consequences where when he decided to drive drunk. Is his life forfeit?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by fotze

Its weird to see the countries that do have it still:

Executions are known to have been carried out in the following countries in 2007[6]:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, USA, Vietnam, Yemen.


Japan and the US are really the two oddball nations, the rest really aren't all that shocking to see.

It's quite disingenious to lump the US and Japan in the same group as North Korea and Sudan.

They execute for very different reasons ... just having one list ignores blatent differences between them.

It seems to reason to me that ultimately if you could believe there is a chance that a murderer could re-offend ... then by definition being anti capital punishment means you are more focused on the guilty than the victims, which to mean is a huge reason why crime is as significant as it is.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

A life is a fair compensation for a life.

Who is receiving compensation? Who benefits?

Compensation implies, to me anyway, that someone is paying for something. In this case, they are paying for the life they took by giving up their own life. Who receives this payment?

[fatso]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Uh...no it really isnt.

One way to guarentee that a convicted murderer does not re-offend is to end their life.

Read the statistics.

What's flawed?

except, not every convicted murderer kills prison guards or innocent people again do they? How do you know which ones will and which ones won't? Isn't it really a case, then, of killing all convicted murderers to ensure no prison guards or innocent people die?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You know what makes a messed up world. This premise that we should opperate in this eye for eye idea. That really has to be one of the worst ideas ever. It does nothing to solve problems and only furthers the chain if hate and resentment (sp?).

What if one of the family members decided that he will kill Osborne for killing his family member? Is the family member immune from any culpability? Because by your logic, Osborne has given up his right to live because he took someone elses life.

What about a drunk driver? He kills someone or a whole family. He knew what the possible consequences where when he decided to drive drunk. Is his life forfeit?

You completely miss the point, it's not eye for an eye, it's to remove a problem from society. As long as there is such as thing as a murderer reoffending ... AND you think that risk needs to be removed from society then this is the best way to do it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Simply untrue.






http://www.dpinfo.com/dpwhy.htm

Again, not necessarily a proponent of the death penalty but there most certainly is a reason and a purpose for it.

And how many would still be dead even if they were sentenced to death? It takes many years to reach that final reality and as such, there may have been no difference in the number of dead guards.

In fact, one could argue that there may be more dead guards if we sentence more people to death. Really, what do they have to lose if the prisoner has no hope left in life?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by fatso

except, not every convicted murderer kills prison guards do they? How do you know which ones will and which ones won't? Isn't it really a case, then, of killing all convicted murderers to ensure no prison guards die?

So who's more important? the murderer or the tax paying honest living prison guard? Basically you have to pick.

Anything other than picking is naive ... as long as one prison guard is at risk of being killed it's a choice. If you don't think it's a choice then you are voting for the murderer.