"You have forfeited your right to live"

[GePap]

If the point is to make him suffer, then long bouts of torture are what is necessary.

The DP is dependent on the notion of their being some hell, or the notion that death is somehow inferior to life. Both are very questionable if not unprovable notions.

So if what you guys want is for them to suffer, the DP is idiocy. Just torture him, savagely, unspeakably. Make him desire death each and every second, and deny him that for years on end.

BUt I guess Americans don't have the guts.

[Frozzy]

We are confiscating your Breathing Card. You may reapply for it in 30 days.

[Urban Ranger]

Somebody (a little girl) was killed. Killing her killer will not bring her back. Nor will it erase the experience from the memory of her friends and relatives. What purpose does capital punishment serve?

As a deterent it has been shown not to work. The last thing on the killer's mind would be, "Yikes, I am going to die if they catch me!" In fact, most criminals did not entertain the possibility of getting caught while committing a crime.

So, is it really punishment the purpose? Do we desire vengence to be served? Ethically this is an undefensible position. Besides, if you want the person to suffer, locking him or her up for a very long time is better than killing him.

[Sava]

How can death penalty opponents claim to oppose the DP because of moral reasons, but then say things like "they will suffer more if they are locked up for life"?

I never got that.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Somebody (a little girl) was killed. Killing her killer will not bring her back. Nor will it erase the experience from the memory of her friends and relatives. What purpose does capital punishment serve?

As a deterent it has been shown not to work. The last thing on the killer's mind would be, "Yikes, I am going to die if they catch me!" In fact, most criminals did not entertain the possibility of getting caught while committing a crime.

So, is it really punishment the purpose? Do we desire vengence to be served? Ethically this is an undefensible position. Besides, if you want the person to suffer, locking him or her up for a very long time is better than killing him.

1. Bad argument. Imprisoning him won't bring her back either. If the rationale is "it won't bring her back", then no form of punishment is justified

2. Bad argument. Life in prison isn't any more of a deterrent than death penalty. Should we do away with that too?

Yes, punishment is a purpose, and a legitimate one. There's an element of vengance /justice in every punishment. People "owe their debt to society." If you don't believe in that, then you don't believe in the concept of personal accountability. I don't see how this is "ethically indefensible"

There's only one good argument that can be applied to the death penalty that can't be applied to regular imprisonment, only one argument against it that I find reasonable, and it's not at issue in this case. There isn't a danger of mistaken execution here. This man was caught on tape. He did it.

I'm with Sava on this one. I hate the thought that a child murderer gets taken care of for the rest of his life, while there are many innocent people out there who are homeless. Resource allocation. That's why I think his execution should be soon; the less money wasted on him, the better.

People who do this type of act almost certainly can't be rehabilitated; even if they could, I don't believe that they deserve the chance to do so. He didn't give his victim that chance. This is a part of the "you reap what you sew", "debt to society" logic. At a certain point, your actions irreversibly detach you from society.

[Barnabas]

too lazy to read the link

are we like 100% sure he is guilty?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
too lazy to read the link

are we like 100% sure he is guilty?

Yes. He was caught on tape abducting her, and he admits to killing her.

[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?

[Combat Ingrid]

"In some countries they kill people to show that it is wrong to kill"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wycoff
1. Bad argument. Imprisoning him won't bring her back either. If the rationale is "it won't bring her back", then no form of punishment is justified

No, you are looking at backwards. If you use the most extreme form of punishment and it doesn't do more than a lesser form, there is no rationale in using it.

Originally posted by Wycoff
2. Bad argument. Life in prison isn't any more of a deterrent than death penalty. Should we do away with that too?

See above.

Originally posted by Wycoff
Yes, punishment is a purpose, and a legitimate one. There's an element of vengance /justice in every punishment.

Vengence is not the same as justice.

Originally posted by Wycoff
People "owe their debt to society." If you don't believe in that, then you don't believe in the concept of personal accountability. I don't see how this is "ethically indefensible"

You have yet to lay out some of these ethical reasons.

Originally posted by Wycoff
There's only one good argument that can be applied to the death penalty that can't be applied to regular imprisonment, only one argument against it that I find reasonable, and it's not at issue in this case. There isn't a danger of mistaken execution here. This man was caught on tape. He did it.

You're stating it like capital punishment should be applied until proven otherwise. That's not the approach for philosophical or ethical debates.

Originally posted by Wycoff
I'm with Sava on this one. I hate the thought that a child murderer gets taken care of for the rest of his life, while there are many innocent people out there who are homeless. Resource allocation. That's why I think his execution should be soon; the less money wasted on him, the better.

It takes more money to put somebody on the death row than locking him up for life.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sava

FYI: I don't have any taxable assets.

oh wow... this sounds like a great idea

forced labor

So, you're OK with capital punishment, but not with forced labour? The logic behind this is?

and you are opposed to DP on MORAL GROUNDS?

I didn't say I support forced labour.

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".

more great ideas

allowing felons to vote

I've yet to hear a sensible argument as to why they should be disallowed.

and I'm sure murdering people is a great way to boost family relationships

As opposed to spending all day before your computer?

Your claim was you contribute to society thru your family relationships. So do murderers.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sava
How can death penalty opponents claim to oppose the DP because of moral reasons, but then say things like "they will suffer more if they are locked up for life"?

I never got that.

Well I don't.

When it comes to punishment there are two functions. One is to prevent the person offending again; the other is to deter others who might want to commit the same crime.

Any other purpose for punishment is based on metaphysical hokum.

And when it comes to punishment, morality requires that we choose the least onerous method of acheiving the goal. The death penalty is simply excessive and panders to society's thirst for vengeance. In essence the DP is really a modern form of human sacrifice.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I'm with Sava on this one. I hate the thought that a child murderer gets taken care of for the rest of his life, while there are many innocent people out there who are homeless. Resource allocation. That's why I think his execution should be soon; the less money wasted on him, the better

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It takes more money to put somebody on the death row than locking him up for life.

Sounds doubtfull. How can putting him on death row cost more, than to lock him up for the rest of his life? Unless he's already 90 at that point, I don't see how death row could ever be more expensive, than locking him up for life

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Agathon
When it comes to punishment there are two functions. One is to prevent the person offending again; the other is to deter others who might want to commit the same crime.

How about "punishing" being another main function of punishment.

[Geronimo]

ok, nobody sees fit to respond. But really I am curious. What are the stakes in this debate for either side? I wouldn't care if it wasn't for all the crap that goes on in the name of this debate. Due to zealous opposition to the DP, evidence of guilt is withheld from countries where the DP is legal on the basis of whether the evidence might lead conviction. On the pro DP side people are willing to overlook multiple cases of innocent people being put to death so that the few cases where the physical evidence of guilt is essentially ironclad like this case can have access to the DP.

Those are some serious consequences to getting worked up about the validity of death penalty vs life imprisonment.

Why? Life imprisonment sucks so bad and the death penalty sucks so bad that I really don't see why people are willing to do so much damage just prop up their preferred method of punishment.

There are criminals who prefer death penalty to life imprisonment and there are criminals who prefer life in prison to death penalty. If the criminals (who are the most interested party to the debate) can't even agree on which is worse why should we care so much?

Why on the one side increase the chances that guilty people will go free just to demonstrate opposition to what kind of punishment might be available where the evidence will be used?

Why on the other side provide support to a system that currently makes no effort to reserve the death penalty for the most ironclad cases of guilt, relying instead on the philosophy that all convictions regardless of evidence are equally sound so the decision instead gets based on the heinousness of the crime without considering whether the particular defendant might prefer one punishment over the other?

It seems that zeal for both sides does a lot more damage than indfference to the issue could ever do.