[Metti]

I think the death penalty is more some kind of salvation for a criminal.
Normally, criminals who should get the death penalty aren't treated very nicely in prisons AND being in a prison is a punishment.
Giving them an injection just takes the time of reflection and suffer for the criminal away. They should rot in a prison for 20-30 years, thats a punishement!
This release of a miserable live is something between barbaric and salvation.

[Zsych]

I don't think the death penalty happens often enough even in states where it is allowed, to constitute much of a deterrent. Its just considered a higher level of punishment.

Kill everyone who has been convicted of murder (and yes that will include the occasional innocent - much the same as being jailed for years while being innocent, in that there was unwarranted suffering), and then it might act as a deterrent.

Personally, I'm not sure that punishments that people at large are unaware of, are necessarily deterrents. A hanging in a town-square, is an undeniable reality. Lethal injection hidden somewhere is just something vague that you have no relation to.

Jail also, is something similar, in that you don't really see it happening or see any suffering happening for the criminal, so the deterrence effect is probably weaker. Make school field trips out of it, where kids go and laugh at the criminals, and then it would be something humiliating that people know about and want to avoid.

[nowt]

I'm for the death penalty for the simple fact that those who spend a lifetime imprisoned then get to wish not only for death, but for a death which could have been granted.

[mormeguil]

I hear a lot about :

-"criminal should be punished".

- "Families of the victims/the victims themself should get revenge."

Why is it that some people think that way?

I'm honestly asking because the whole concept of vengence is alien to me...


Edit: Edited post for grammer and clarity

[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by mormeguil To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I hear a lot about how criminal should be punished and how family of the victime or the victim themself should get some form of revenge because that criminal is suffering. Why does some people thing that?

You have your personal preferences, others have theirs.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by mormeguil To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I hear a lot about : -"criminal should be punished". - "Families of the victims/the victims themself should get revenge." Why is it that some people think that way? I'm honestly asking because the whole concept of vengence is alien to me... Edit: Edited post for grammer and clarity

You do understand that these two things are in no way related, right? Punishment isn't vengence.

[mormeguil]

Well yes they are not really related. The thing is punishment seems to considered a way to stop bad behaviors from happening. On the other hand vengence is that you feel that someone should suffer because you suffered yourself.

Now, we have no proof that death penalty (or even imprisonment) is the best way to stop someone from making a behavior. As such when people suggest that death penalty/life imprisonement is a punishment I wonder why the discussions does not become about the motivational studies that have been made and that could help us find the best punition.

So in this case the "punishment" seems mostly about hurting the person as much as the victim. This seems related to vengence to me.

So, if you suggest death penalty as a punishment then it's simply wrong since it's not a from of punishment and it becomes a form of vengence in this particular case.

[Warrior]

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

Well yes they are not really related. The thing is punishment seems to considered a way to stop bad behaviors from happening. On the other hand vengence is that you feel that someone should suffer because you suffered yourself. Now, we have no proof that death penalty (or even imprisonment) is the best way to stop someone from making a behavior. As such when people suggest that death penalty/life imprisonement is a punishment I wonder why the discussions does not become about the motivational studies that have been made and that could help us find the best punition. So in this case the "punishment" seems mostly about hurting the person as much as the victim. This seems related to vengence to me. So, if you suggest death penalty as a punishment then it's simply wrong since it's not a from of punishment and it becomes a form of vengence in this particular case.

Nope. Punishment is not about stopping bad behavior. It is the consequencies of acting in a way that the law says is punishable by death. It's not about hurting the person. It is simply the consequences spelled out in the law.

Even if there was data that the death penalty prevented crime, it would be irrelevent to the entire discussion. In that case, pointing to that data as justification for the death penalty would be equally as incorrect as saying that no data, or data to the contrary, is justification for doing away with the death penalty.

I'm all for figuring out if something can be done to stop bad/illegal behavior. However, that is completely seperate from the question of whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment when those measures fail.

[mormeguil]

	Nope. Punishment is not about stopping bad behavior. It is the consequencies of acting in a way that the law says is punishable by death. It's not about hurting the person. It is simply the consequences spelled out in the law.

What is the purpose of a punishment? What is the purpose of the justice system. The only purpose that I can see is to stop people from using behaviors we consider "bad". If i'm missing the real purpose I would like to know.

As such if desicion concerning the death penalty is not taken with this is mind whats the point?

I know there are a lot of steps before getting to the point where we check if it's a good way to stop these behaviors. The whole moral and financial issues being some of them. What i'm saying is that before doing all that hard work, lets make sure thats it's a good deterant or at least something that suits whatever goal there is to the justice system.

[Lucky]

	Originally Posted by Frozen Nook To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Killing is morally reprehensible. I believe the United States and the rest of the world should ban capital punishment.

Many countries in Western Europe including my own country already did that years ago. And I think it is fine that way.

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


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

[Nightsun]

I'm pro for death penalty but:
people shouldn't suffer, USA methods are all barbarian, Guillotine were better. Also death penalty is good only for basically certain crimine, there are too much innocent.

[Freedom Geek]

I'm against the death penalty. If you mistakingly bag an innocent then you can't exactly free them.

[PunkinA]

	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.
	Nope. Punishment is not about stopping bad behavior. It is the consequencies of acting in a way that the law says is punishable by death. It's not about hurting the person. It is simply the consequences spelled out in the law.

All I get from this paragraph is the idea that "The law justifies ... the law." Are you saying the death penalty is justified, because it is the law? If the law does not entail death penalty as a consequence, then would you agree the death penalty is no longer justified?

What justifies enacting a law enforcing the death penalty, when the law did not previously exist?

Or, Warrior, are you saying punishment justifies itself? Here I think most people disagree. Most people I know see punishment as a means to something else. Usually punishment enables order, or a sense of order. I believe solid arguments can be made to show that death penalty as a punishment fails to ensure order, and even to the contrary, may contribute to disorder.

[papkan]

Why are the "rights" of criminals so important? Why should criminals' rights be respected whilst they violate our rights to feeling safe, happiness, etc.

---------- Post added 11-18-2009 at 07:33 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Freedom Geek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you mistakingly bag an innocent then you can't exactly free them.

I agree completely. The problem lies with the justice system. A jury shouldn't decide whether someone gets the death penalty, people tend to make decisions according to feelings and bias or prejudices. Only if it can be proven beyond any doubt that a person is guilty, by a judge, should someone be sentenced to death.

[Austin018]

You know, those of you talking about deterants....in times past, prisons were open to the public. I believe so more in England than the US, but regardless, it was not uncommon for "tours" to be given by the jailer to curious tourists, esp. of notorious criminals being held, sometimes before trail. But it was more like a zoo or museam...those that visited saw firsthand the horrors that they would behold if they were to comit a crime and be caught. Today, with jails being off-limits, most people who have never been jailed in one have no clue as to what may await them (I have never been jailed!).....so I think people take risks without really knowing what the consequences can be...

Same with capitol punishment....in times past executions were almost ALWAYS public, with only a few exceptions (that is, execution of royalty/nobility in a few choice instances, etc)
Pretty much anyone who was able bodied and free would witness these spectales first-hand....No, it didnt stop crime, but im sure the sight of five people dangling from a rope, and all the grumsome and dingy symptoms of the execution being see, was a deterant for most! Today, with someone sticking a prisoner with an IV needle and killing them, with some people watching (that is mainly, the warden, maybe the family of the victim(s), etc.)....thats it....there's no real true picture of what its really like, so people take chances even with horrific crimes of murder, torture, etc and not even thinking of what could or probably will happen to them.

[Freedom Geek]

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

Why are the "rights" of criminals so important? Why should criminals' rights be respected whilst they violate our rights to feeling safe, happiness, etc. ---------- Post added 11-18-2009 at 07:33 PM ---------- I agree completely. The problem lies with the justice system. A jury shouldn't decide whether someone gets the death penalty, people tend to make decisions according to feelings and bias or prejudices. Only if it can be proven beyond any doubt that a person is guilty, by a judge, should someone be sentenced to death.

The problem is a sufficiently good framing is indistinguishable from "beyond a doubt" evidence. I believe people who were considered such have been freed by DNA evidence.

Anyway I wouldn't even trust a judge to not be corrupt when we're talking about something as important as someone's life.

[SeaCzar]

	Originally Posted by Freedom Geek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm against the death penalty. If you mistakingly bag an innocent then you can't exactly free them.

Agreed. But, given the case in point, there is no doubt at all about Muhammad's guilt.

[nowt]

I'm thinking that the death penalty acts as a litmus test for the whole system, a survey of how well it all works, at a relative glance--

If there are innocents being killed, then that may be a pretty good indication of how many innocents there are incarcerated, overall--

But no one tries as hard to disprove the guilt of those lesser victims, as much as they do for those on death row, on average--

Which means death row, is the best we have.

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Which means death row, is the best we have.

Except that the stakes for failures (which actually occur) are infinitely worse than lesser punishments, considering no possible recourse avails for wrongfully-punished capital-accused.

[mormeguil]

If death row is only a way to determine how well the legal systems work then it is simply not worth killing human life and it would probably be much easier to actually keep up statistics.

[hubcap]

I think the death penalty is appropriate for some crimes. Crimes committed by individuals who are not mentally defective which are of the most heinous nature and wholly intentional.

People who are guilty of such things should be removed from the planet. IMO

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by mormeguil To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I hear a lot about : -"criminal should be punished". - "Families of the victims/the victims themself should get revenge." Why is it that some people think that way? I'm honestly asking because the whole concept of vengence is alien to me... Edit: Edited post for grammer and clarity

Assume you've been tortured for days and your friends with you. Assume afterwards that you know who did it but can't prove it... what are you going to do? Casually get along with your life and tell your friends to do the same ignoring what happened to you? Or will you plan to do something yourself to redress the balance?

Not dealing with an attack on you proves weakness and invites people to mistreat you again because there are no painful consequences to them from you or anyone else.

The law just takes away the need for you to handle the problem personally so you can focus on other issues and the person who attacked you still gets to suffer, showing him and others, that that action is unacceptable.

[mormeguil]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not dealing with an attack on you proves weakness and invites people to mistreat you again because there are no painful consequences to them from you or anyone else. The law just takes away the need for you to handle the problem personally so you can focus on other issues and the person who attacked you still gets to suffer, showing him and others, that that action is unacceptable.

Again, from what you say the goal of the whole process is to make sure it thats this behavior dos not happen again. Now there are a few assumption there:

- Killing someone makes them suffer. If you ask me, if I want someone to suffer there are a whole lot of better ways to do it.

- Making someone suffer for a wrong behavior (a positive punishment) is the most effective way to make that behavior stop.

-the greater the suffering the better.

We know from motivational theories that this is not how humans work.

So even before going at the whole argument of the "intrinsect value of human life" , we have to define the goal we are trying to attain with death penalty and IF thats the best way to attain those goals is with death penalty.

[Zsych]

Death terminates all future expectations for a person. A fairly harsh punishment. Not just for the person punished, but also for other people who might engage in the same type of behavior that caused this person to be so punished.

Harsh punishment works well enough to limit a person's ability to repeat the behavior (harsh is not torture, harsh is short and painful). The only real question would be what the person is mentally relating that punishment to (assuming they're not horribly messed up).
Its like a person in a car crash not wanting to drive a car again, and being advised to get behind the wheel quickly so that the pain isn't incorrectly related to the act of driving.

Unfortunately, its not always useful to assume humans are rational creatures, so some additional measures may generally be required to make sure they are learning the right lesson.

[nowt]

	Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Except that the stakes for failures (which actually occur) are infinitely worse than lesser punishments, considering no possible recourse avails for wrongfully-punished capital-accused.

I think I'd rather be an innocent on death row, than an innocent in the *general prison population.