"You have forfeited your right to live"

[Last Conformist]

I've not heard that refrain before, no, but the interesting question is, is it true? I'm not saying it isn't, but I'll want something more than hearing its a commonplace on American TV before accepting it.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Last Conformist I've not heard that refrain before, no, but the interesting question is, is it true? I'm not saying it isn't, but I'll want something more than hearing its a commonplace on American TV before accepting it.

I'm not sure if it is. That's one of the reasons I put it out there. Hopefully some Germans will respond.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Life in prison sucks, dying sucks. Why do people either pro or anti death penalty get so worked up about something so inconsequential as the particulars of punishing capital crimes?

You have a point... in most cases, prisoners spend so much time on death row, a death sentence is almost the same as a life sentence.

Also, in the US, so few people are put to death anymore. Less than 100 per year. Making the DP even more inconsequential.

I think what gets me all riled up is the dumb arguments I hear from the anti-DP people. I hate dumb arguments. And when I hear them, I just have to respond. And then when I keep hearing them, I have to keep responding. And nobody seems to change their minds, no matter how stupid their arguments are.

I believe in the DP because of principle... basically... because if someone killed my family, I would want them to die as punishment. Sure, there is a level of revenge there. But that's what justice is. Any form of punishment is going to have a level of revenge in there. That's another of the dumb arguments I hear from anti-DP people... the "bloodlust" argument.

In fact, I'll just list some of the dumb arguments right now...

"the DP is racist"
"you just want revenge... bloodlust"
"it's primitive"
"it's not a deterent"


oh btw... the deterent one is perhaps the dumbest one of all... the only reason the DP is not a deterent is because it is used so sparingly... it's effectiveness as a deterent is miniscual. And how about it's effectiveness as a threat in getting people to take deals for life in prison when they know if they possibly go to trial, they could be given the death penalty? Have you guys ever thought of that? oops... stupid question... of course you haven't. That would imply the ability to think. Also, do you guys seriously think the threat of death is not a deterent?

Let's put storm troopers out on the streets and start shooting people at random for stuff like walking out of line, jaywalking, and littering. I bet you will see an end to that stuff REAL QUICK.

But wait, the threat of death isn't a deterent.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


What I do object to is the notion that killing someone is justified because he doesn't contribute anything to society. I think human life has a value of its own, quite apart from any usefulness it may have to any abstraction like "society".

Well. I should explain my position.

I don't feel a single human life has value on its own if that person commits a heinous and evil act.

Even if that person can still be useful or valuable to society... although there may be extreme examples, like if someone could cure a disease or something.

And I certainly don't feel that death is the worst thing that you can do to a person. Suffering is much worse. I'm against torture. And locking a person up for decades to live out their "natural life" seems cruel and unusual to me. We wouldn't even do something like that to an animal... but yet, we do it to our own kind? And anti-DP people claim to have the moral high ground? I am offended by that notion.

If I were in a position of power, I would see to it that locking people up in prisons, like we do, would cease to become a long term method of punishment.

[Last Conformist]

Prison sentences may be cruel, but they're certainly not unusual ... and we certainly do look up animals.

On to more substantial matters, nobody (I hope) is claiming that DP has no deterent effect. The question is, how large is it, and how does it compare to the deterent effect of other punishments. The sad fact is that the kind of people who commit the kind of crimes for which DP is usually used (murder, rape, etc) are little detered by any potential punishment, because they don't believe they will be caught. (Somewhat ironically, murder is near the top of the league when it comes to the convictions/crime ratio; murderers aren't notable for their realism.)

As for your notion that long imprisonment is worse than execution, that's no more valid than the anti-DPer's to the contrary.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Wycoff
About half. Europeans in general and Germans especially are way too lenient.

I know about the horrors of Naziism and everything, but it seems unjust to give vicious criminals convicted in 2006 light sentences to make up for the brutality of the 3rd Reich. Doing so doesn't change to past, nor does it properly address the present. What good comes from such backward looking?

Thanks LC

[Sava]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


As for your notion that long imprisonment is worse than execution, that's no more valid than the anti-DPer's to the contrary.

Exactly.


So can we please not ever hear any of this argument involving the DP from anyone again?



When it boils down to it. The only concerns regarding the DP involve possible errors... innocent people being put to death. And with the DP being reserved for the most heinous crimes, where guilt is rarely an issue... and with prisoners having lengthy appeals processes at their disposal, meaning their sentences are carried out long after they are convicted, there is ample time to find errors, and let someone be released. Plus, now with DNA evidence to test to prove guilt or innocence... I mean... there is so much more burden on the prosecution when it comes to DP cases. The fact that you hear about some people on death row being exonerrated proves the system works.

Every flaw... every problem, has a solution. And most problems with the DP aren't with the DP itself, but rather, the justice system as a whole.

I don't see any argument against the death penalty. Period.

Not even a moral one.

Let me ask anti-DP people.

Would you use deadly force to stop a murder?

If so, how can you be against the DP?

If human life (of an evil person) is not valuable enough to you that you would take it to protect another, why should that life not be taken as punishment?

[Last Conformist]

That's gotta be the worst argument for capital punishment ever. If I kill a would-be murderer, I effectively exchange one killing for another. If I execute a murderer, I have two killings instead of one. 2 > 1

I'll note your argument for DP applies equally to torture, which you claim to be against ...

[Wycoff]

nevermind

[Last Conformist]

How would that follow from what I said?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Last Conformist How would that follow from what I said?

I misread what you said

[Sava]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
That's gotta be the worst argument for capital punishment ever. If I kill a would-be murderer, I effectively exchange one killing for another. If I execute a murderer, I have two killings instead of one. 2 > 1

I'll note your argument for DP applies equally to torture, which you claim to be against ...

No...

it's the same

one evil person is dead in both cases

only in the case of DP, the victim is already dead


now answer my question...

would you use deadly force to prevent the death of an INNOCENT life?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sava



No...

it's the same

one evil person is dead in both cases

only in the case of DP, the victim is already dead

It's only the same in your sick, twisted world. To normal human beings, whether they approve of capital punishment or not, killing to save someone else and killing for revenge are different things.

now answer my question...

would you use deadly force to prevent the death of an INNOCENT life?

I'd give the murderer a few tips on how to make the victim's death as painful as possible.

What I'd do in a situation has nothing to do with the morality of the different possible courses of action in that situation.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wycoff


This isn't strictly true. There are sentencing guidelines in the U.S. If someone is found guilty of a crime, the Judge then has a set of convintions that he can choose from. Say that Manslaughter comes with a sentencing range of 10 -35 years. The judge can then look at factors (such as prior history, age of criminal, extenuating circumstances) and sentence the criminal accordingly. Habitual offenders would get the 35 year sentence, while a first time offender who accidentall killed someone in a bar fight would get 10 years.

To ensure better operation of the death penalty, we just need to write better sentencing guidelines. For example, no execution if the conviction was based largely on circumstantial evidence. No execution unless there's DNA evidence proving the criminal did it. Encourage reviewing courts to give great scutiny to the judge's decision of execution. If you make it extremely difficut to execute anyone but the extreme cases (like this guy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.), then mistaken execution wouldn't be a factor.

I think this would be a great approach to imrpoving the usefulness of the DP!

[GePap]

The Dp is simply just a way to appease people who think death is the gravest punishment of all. It would be hilarious to think that in fact those people are utterly wrong because it turns out everyone who dies goes to some paradise. That would be mwtaphysical irony on huge level.

I don't support the DP because I see no need for it. I don;t buy the "deterrence arguement" whatsoever. People who would be deterred from their crime by the DP would be deterred just as well by any other punishment. Most criminals don;t even think they will get caught, so the DP becomes irrelevant. Crime drops due to better policing, better socieoeconomic conditions, not whether there is a DP or not. The DP used to be the basic punishment for a huge number of crimes. If being handged in public did not deter people from stealing horses 200 years ago, why would it deter murder?

I also don't get the moral basis for people who support the DP but then go ape**** when other societies use it more extensively. I mean, what is the moral arguement against the Death penalty for Tax evasion (an act which robs all of society of needed resources for the common good) if you accept that the DP is a valid tool that also works as a deterrent?

So whatever. The world would function just as well without it.