[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I absolutely hate the eye for an eye qoute for so many reasons. First regardless of why you made the comment its traces are to jewish law but then jesus said to NOT follow the concept. But most of the people who support the Death penalty are self proclaimed christians.... sorry seperate rant there.

Who cares what Jesus said? The original dude got it right.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	The entire concept is tit for tat and this is entirely arbitrary.

No it isn't. It's based on our primal desire for self interest.

	There are thousands of reasons why tit for tat is not reasonable or logical when dealing with people.

Then might I bother you to name a few?

	But since its your comment back up your point show me one article showing an eye for an eye restores balance. Hell just show any evidence of that working ever.

Printed articles are irrelevant. It's intuitively self evident. If I poked out one of your eyes, would you be happier if society poke out your other eye, or would you rather they punish me? Which course of action balances things out?

[Holiman]

Well I apologize for bringing jesus into the debate its a personal soap box issue. But to your second comment how does your primal desire for self interest possibly relate to punishment. Primal desire for self interest is most likely a leading cause of murder, and your response is to stay at the level society finds unacceptable. That is not just foolish but it runs contrary to the entire concept of law. Unless you are chasing after Ray9 into his fantasy of recreating lynching mob's for solutions your just going down the wrong path my friend.

Now you want to understand how tit for tat or eye for an eye is wrong forgive me for being blunt. If you were to break into my home and rape my wife, should your wife expect a visit from me later on ? To take this retarded concept further should we have to compare wives to see if their equally attractive? I would rather trust in a penal system with all its present flaw's and mistakes thank you.

[LaoTzu]

Part of my issue with this thread is the idea that the OP would ENJOY watching these people die.

I don't really care who it is, I'm not going to enjoy watching them die. Hitler dying before my eyes is not something I would care to see. I have calmed my curiosity on a few occasions when 'death' vids get some pub. I've never watched the Saddam hanging...and even in that case, when the men taunted him before his death...I felt more pity for him than he deserved. Picture that... pitying a douchebag like Saddam... it pisses me off more than his crimes that I felt that for a mass muderer. (perhaps it was the human condition I pitied.... there, that's better...)

By killing people, you make a martyr of them to someone out there, and it makes you no safer than if they were long forgotten in a cell.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's based on our primal desire for self interest. [...] Printed articles are irrelevant. It's intuitively self evident. If I poked out one of your eyes, would you be happier if society poke out your other eye, or would you rather they punish me? Which course of action balances things out?

Primal self-interest, maybe, but it's not in our rational self-interest. But I guess that statement depends on how you define "self-interest," so let's look at a few concepts and see if we can find one where using the death penalty fits.

If capital punishment were a deterrent, then it would lead to lower crimes rates. Lower crime rates are a good thing, in that crime makes society unsafe, and lack of safety is bad, by any reasonable standard. The death penalty does not deter violent crime, so it isn't in our self-interest in terms of valuing a society with lower crime rates.

If our self-interest is viewed from an economic standpoint, then executing a criminal would be good if it were less expensive than housing him in prison for life. Prison is (maybe somewhat counter-intuitively at first glance) cheaper. The death penalty is not in society's economic self interest.

If self-interest involves restitution of the offense, then the death penalty would be good if it brought murder victims back to life. Next question.

If self-interest involves a primitive bloodlust, then the death penalty is good if it offers revenge killings of murderers. Under the current system, at least 39 innocent people have been executed ("at least" implying "probably more"), and between 1973 and 2005, 123 people from various states were released from death row after in light of new evidence overturning their wrongful convictions. And from the other end of the spectrum, countless guilty people have avoided execution. Capital punishment is, at best, questionably efficient at filling this definition of "self-interest."

I can't find a definition or concept of "self-interest" that supports the death penalty especially well. I really can't find one that outweighs the conceptions of self-interest that argue against the death penalty. What kind of self-interest were you referring to?

[Holiman]

To those whom support the death penalty exactly how can you reconcile your theories with this


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ray9]

I can agree that the death penalty should never be given when there is doubt about guilt and conflicting testimony. But when there is no doubt and malice and premeditation are involved, get a rope and make the world a better place.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I dont think I can find a middle ground with someone who simply doesnt seem to care about the issues with capital punishment. You from what I have gathered have a predisposition towards punishment as some kind of fix all that I cannot agree with. The cost to me is the most important part of any goverment program regardless of the outcome I judge its worthiness by its expense compared to how much good its does. That you have no problem with the state ordering peoples death regardless of their innocence again boggles the mind. Since you are utterly married to your punishment which can never 'fit' a crime and wont consider any argument that doesnt effect your opinion of just desserts I doubt you will ever be satisfied with any argument against the death penalty. As for my suggestions they are simple take some of this mis-spent money on research and grass root movement to alter our present penal system towards something less expensive and more fruitful solutions that our society can adopt.

I'm not sure what middle ground you're looking for. We're wither going to have capital punishment or we aren't. There isn't anything in between.

What I have a problem with is convicting innocent people of a crime. You've never mentioned this as a concern. However, this has no bearing on capital punishment. It is a seperate issue that should be addressed, though.

Economics is a concern, but no tthe most important. Propoer principles need to be applied and the most important here is that the punishment for breaking a law needs to be in proportion to the crime. I'm perfectly open to arguments that try to explain that the death penalty does not fit any crime. I just haven't heard one yet. Frankly, of all the costs involved, the economic costs are the smallest.

If there are solutions that prevent crime in the first place, I'm open to that as well. However, as long as the crimes are committed, there needs to be appropriate punishment.

[Holiman]

Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not sure what middle ground you're looking for. We're wither going to have capital punishment or we aren't. There isn't anything in between. What I have a problem with is convicting innocent people of a crime. You've never mentioned this as a concern. However, this has no bearing on capital punishment. It is a seperate issue that should be addressed, though. Economics is a concern, but no tthe most important. Propoer principles need to be applied and the most important here is that the punishment for breaking a law needs to be in proportion to the crime. I'm perfectly open to arguments that try to explain that the death penalty does not fit any crime. I just haven't heard one yet. Frankly, of all the costs involved, the economic costs are the smallest. If there are solutions that prevent crime in the first place, I'm open to that as well. However, as long as the crimes are committed, there needs to be appropriate punishment.

By middle ground I mean a place where we can find an understanding of each other's opinions and move towards concepts other than you see things your way and I see mine. When I discuss issues with someone I try to understand their point of view so If neither of us change our opinions at least we walk away with a better understanding of each other. So far I dont understand your platform.

Economics is probably the most important factor in violent crimes. Violence rarely rushes into murder at once its a gradual slope either in domestic or petty crimes etc. The recidivism of criminals has gotten so bad in many states they have instituted 3 strike law's and such. The number one reason they get so many chances is these same states have nearly revolving door's at the jails. Probation and parole are thin strings where most cases simply fall through the cracks. So you can wave away the cost as a small issue and miss the forest in all the trees.


The punishment fitting the crime however, you cannot punish the crime that actually fits the requirements of the death sentence. We most commonly use the same method used to put down our beloved pets, its low impact and gentle. It doesnt help the victim or their families, vengence is a horrible useless action we have known this fact for years now.


Lastly to Ray9 thank you soo much your restoring my faith in you. Now that your half way to seeing reason lets go the other half. Our system is incapable of working 100% on even the best of cases. The number of overturned death sentences in the last year alone proves our system has major flaws.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

By middle ground I mean a place where we can find an understanding of each other's opinions and move towards concepts other than you see things your way and I see mine. When I discuss issues with someone I try to understand their point of view so If neither of us change our opinions at least we walk away with a better understanding of each other. So far I dont understand your platform. Economics is probably the most important factor in violent crimes. Violence rarely rushes into murder at once its a gradual slope either in domestic or petty crimes etc. The recidivism of criminals has gotten so bad in many states they have instituted 3 strike law's and such. The number one reason they get so many chances is these same states have nearly revolving door's at the jails. Probation and parole are thin strings where most cases simply fall through the cracks. So you can wave away the cost as a small issue and miss the forest in all the trees.

I think you are intentionally missing the point. I'm not waving away the monetary costs, I'm saying that other costs - the impacts on people's lives, and not just the person being executed, is horrendous. I'm not glad when someone gets executed. I wish there was some other way. I can only imagine how hard it is on the people who actually have to authorize it and carry it out.

	The punishment fitting the crime however, you cannot punish the crime that actually fits the requirements of the death sentence. We most commonly use the same method used to put down our beloved pets, its low impact and gentle. It doesnt help the victim or their families, vengence is a horrible useless action we have known this fact for years now.

Viewing capital punishment as vengence is not correct. We're not taking revenge - that's what I would do in the absence of capital punishment. When someone is put to death, it is an appropriate punishment for their crime.

	Lastly to Ray9 thank you soo much your restoring my faith in you. Now that your half way to seeing reason lets go the other half. Our system is incapable of working 100% on even the best of cases. The number of overturned death sentences in the last year alone proves our system has major flaws.

Agreed, so let's fix them, but using capital punishment as a fitting punishment isn't one of them. Putting someone to death who was innocent gets a lot of attention, but having that innocent person sit in prison doesn't seem to bother anyone. What bothers me is that an innocent person gets convicted in the first place. That's where attention needs to be focused.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Viewing capital punishment as vengence is not correct. We're not taking revenge - that's what I would do in the absence of capital punishment. When someone is put to death, it is an appropriate punishment for their crime.

I think this may be the disconnect: are you arguing that punishment has an inherent value that is unassociated with deterrence or rehabilitation?

[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But to your second comment how does your primal desire for self interest possibly relate to punishment.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, tits for tats is perfectly rational. Individuals who lack the desire to do this will eventually have their ability to compete diminished. They will be eliminated through natural selection.

	Now you want to understand how tit for tat or eye for an eye is wrong forgive me for being blunt. If you were to break into my home and rape my wife, should your wife expect a visit from me later on ?

If your wife was considered to be your property, then yes, you could do the same damage to his property. Fortunately, we no longer consider women to be chattel.





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 16 minutes and 10 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If capital punishment were a deterrent, then it would lead to lower crimes rates. [.....]The death penalty does not deter violent crime, so it isn't in our self-interest in terms of valuing a society with lower crime rates.

If we accept this argument, then it can also be argued that prison sentences doesn't deter crime, therefore we should abolish it.

	If our self-interest is viewed from an economic standpoint, then executing a criminal would be good if it were less expensive than housing him in prison for life. Prison is (maybe somewhat counter-intuitively at first glance) cheaper. The death penalty is not in society's economic self interest.

But this is really an argument against the cost effectiveness of the current judicial process. It means we ought to find a cheaper process to convict and kill a murderer. It does not automatically mean that capital punishment is bad.

	If self-interest involves restitution of the offense, then the death penalty would be good if it brought murder victims back to life.

But since we can't, we need to do the next best thing. Just because someone is dead does not mean that everyone's debt to him is erased.

If self-interest involves a primitive bloodlust, then the death penalty is good if it offers revenge killings of murderers. Under the current system, at least 39 innocent people have been executed ("at least" implying "probably more"), and between 1973 and 2005, 123 people from various states were released from death row after in light of new evidence overturning their wrongful convictions. And from the other end of the spectrum, countless guilty people have avoided execution. Capital punishment is, at best, questionably efficient at filling this definition of "self-interest."

Without capital punishments, there would be thousands of unavenged killings every year. This is bad. So we need to strike a balance between two imperfect choices.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we accept this argument, then it can also be argued that prison sentences doesn't deter crime, therefore we should abolish it.

You're really reaching with this one.

The argument for why capital punishment is ineffective as a form of deterrence is formed by comparing nations. Across the board nations without a death penalty have a significantly lower murder rate than nations that still have executions. If execution was an effective form of deterrence the converse would be true.

In order for this argument to show that prisons are ineffective as a form of deterrence you'd have to find a nation that has a low crime rate and no prisons.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's not the penal system that has changed, it's the people who are coming into it. The odious legacy of "The Great Society" -- the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life. We are now suffering the law of unintended consequences as criminal behavior and a lack of respect for life itself wreaks havoc in our communities. There is no way to structure prisons to deal with the results of bad social engineering because the seeds of evil are planted early in the development of perpetrators and some, unfortunately, are born evil. We need to return to a time when punishment is swift and sure. More bad social engineering is not the answer.

How about BETTER SOCIAL ENGINEERING?!?!

Swift and sure punishment won't solve the problem.

(Also, evil is a big word. More like: "some, unfortunately, are born in the wrong class".)

[aku chi]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're really reaching with this one. The argument for why capital punishment is ineffective as a form of deterrence is formed by comparing nations. Across the board nations without a death penalty have a significantly lower murder rate than nations that still have executions. If execution was an effective form of deterrence the converse would be true. In order for this argument to show that prisons are ineffective as a form of deterrence you'd have to find a nation that has a low crime rate and no prisons.

Correlation =/= Causation

There are many (relevant) differences besides the presence of capital punishment between nations. It would be ideal to find past data where captial punishment was introduced or abolished in the same region. Is there such data?

It seems unlikely to me that the threat of state administered death upon conviction would have a positive effect on potential murderers (that is to say, more of the former would lead to more of the latter). However, it does seem reasonable that the threat of state administered death upon conviction would have a low marginal deterrance effect when compared with life imprisonment upon conviction.

(For the record, I'm pretty indifferent concerning the presence or absense of capital punishment.)

[reb]

i think everyone knows i am 'into' genetics. destroying genetics of people like charlie manson before they can be replicated has to make the world a 'safer' place. behaviourally, destroying the genetics of gang members who beget more gang members will reduce the number of gang members, by simple deduction. getting rid of the genetics of 'royalty' such as thieves (madoff, geitner, et al) would contribute materially to those who work retaining what they worked for with much sweat and effort. i'm firmly in the death penalty camp because of the 'no further offspring' angle.

if i have a chicken that turns out aggressive roosters, i'm going to put that chicken in the stew pot. i have an aggressive rooster in two tupperware containers in the freezer at this moment. i can think of a number of aggressive roosters that 'should be in the stew pot' among so called 'humanity'; kim jung il and ahmadenijad come to mind, as do a number of u.s.s. of a. thieves.

[AlR]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who cares. Once again, the purpose of punishment is ot punish, not to prevent other crimes. The only questions that matters is whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for a particular crime. ...

I agree with Warrior on this one. I can read all the arguments for or against capital punishment and my logical mind could be swayed either way if the proper persuasion techniques are applied (hey we are all susceptible). But in the pit of my stomach there is no doubt that for murder Capital Punishment is the right thing (yes, there are different levels of murders...let's go with the example that started in this thread).

However, if you now ask me HOW I'd implement it given the limitations of our current government system and resources, now I'd care about figuring out how to protect the potential innocently convicted. I'd probably recommend laws that will apply Capital Punishment on a limited basis.

[PunkinA]

Air, your argument astounds me. You abandon whether logic can prove it is right or not. You even deny that meaningful arguments matter in this area. As long as you've got the pit of your stomach...

If we've all got pits in our stomach, and mine is different than yours, why bother talking about it at all. Why even contribute to the debate.

Perhaps you are just offering a public service announcement? "Hey everybody, I'm not going to think about this one! I got a biological type feeling here in my stomach." *points to lower intestine* "And biological is three letters smarter than logical."

Your kind of thinking gives me a feeling in my head. I'm off to find some aspirin.

[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In order for this argument to show that prisons are ineffective as a form of deterrence you'd have to find a nation that has a low crime rate and no prisons.

That is one of many ways. It is not the only way.

[Tyrant Soup]

I'm glad there's no capital punishment for killing threads.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.