The Death Penalty

[Danmark]

There are many reasons to oppose the death penalty
There are reasons to support it.
I have one reason that is paramount to me, for opposing the death penalty.
As far as I know it is not one that is usually debated. It is not specifically a religious reason, but I believe it comes from several sources, including what I'll refer to as "core Christianity."
For the purpose of this debate, I am opposed to the death penalty for any purpose or crime, not on the grounds of fairness, or cost/benefit analysis, or justice. I am opposed to the death penalty because it brutalizes us personally and as a society.

It is hard to think of a more cold blooded, more calculating, more premeditated killing, than the death penalty as carried out in the United States.

[Danmark]

So, are you saying that the only rule of engagement that does not constitute murder is to not fire unless fired upon and cease fire upon the cessation of return fire?

Yes, that's my position. All non-defensive killing constitutes murder.

Hmmm, what about a preemptive shot to stop your opponent from getting into a position where he can bring his stronger weapons to bear upon you - if you wait till he shoots, you will die. Canadian law allows preemptive strikes for this kind of reason. If the threat is real enough to convince you it is immanent, a crime in itself, you may strike first.

Peace, Ted

The issue of whether it is self defense is always a factual one. At law, the defense must be reasonable. To justify deadly force most jurisdictions require an imminent thread of deadly force.

But of course none of this has anything to do with the death penalty.

Tho' our voting sample is too low [10] to mean much of anything, it is interesting to me that the only category that has zero votes is:
"I am religious and I oppose the death penalty in all cases."

I would think that religious people would be MORE likely to oppose the death penalty. But we know that is not the case. The related odd thing is the vehemence with which many religious people oppose the death of an embryo, even a mere zygote, but are equally adamant about employing the death penalty for adults, the majority of whom have low IQ's and have suffered horrible abuse as children.

Then they complain about being ridiculed for "their beliefs."

[ttruscott]

1) Death penalty does not appear to be a better deterrent than long prison sentence.

Isn't it a total deterrent for the offender? Has anything been found that is a sure fire deterrent for others to not do crime?

2) I prefer restorative justice over retributive justice.

Don't we all but does that make retribution useless or immoral?

3) Cost to tax payer for the carrying out a death penalty, is higher than long prison sentence.

Where did you get this stat, please?

My disagreement with the death penalty is that sinners are in charge of it and too many innocents have been killed.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

The related odd thing is the vehemence with which many religious people oppose the death of an embryo, even a mere zygote, but are equally adamant about employing the death penalty for adults, the majority of whom have low IQ's and have suffered horrible abuse as children.

Then they complain about being ridiculed for "their beliefs."

They consider the embryo to be innocent and therefore its death as wilful murder. They view the adult as guilty of a capital crime. Big difference...huuuuge difference.

Peace, Ted

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 19 by Excubis]

Yes I agree that there are sociopaths out there roughly 1-2% of any given population however there are other problems with the death penalty than simply removing these problematic people from society? Can you guarantee that no people wrongly convicted will be punished? Yes death is a normal part of life but how can we as a society say it's ok for the state to act in vengeance towards its citizens?

Will the death penalty prevent future sociopaths?
Will the death penalty clean up the prison system so it does not produce more psychologically damaged individuals who think it is the only way to act?

[Danmark]

...

The related odd thing is the vehemence with which many religious people oppose the death of an embryo, even a mere zygote, but are equally adamant about employing the death penalty for adults, the majority of whom have low IQ's and have suffered horrible abuse as children.

Then they complain about being ridiculed for "their beliefs."

They consider the embryo to be innocent and therefore its death as wilful murder. They view the adult as guilty of a capital crime. Big difference...huuuuge difference.

Peace, Ted

I understand the rationale. I simply disagree with it. I find it disproportionate. I don't even find it scriptural because "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." A single cell, a zygote vs a fully formed human being.

But remember, I started this topic not to debate the death penalty in general. Yes, it's been determined over and over that the death penalty is not a deterrent and is MUCH more expensive than life without possibility of parole.

MY argument is that even if it is applied fairly and EVERY other objection to and rationale and argument for the death penalty is conceded the the death penalty advocates, my single reason is dispositive for me. The hideous, cold blooded, calculated killing of a living, thinking human being strikes me as barbaric brutality that renders all of us "cold blooded killers." Its practice brutalizes our humanity.

No man is an island, entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were:
any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind,
and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls;
it tolls for thee.

John Donne

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 18 by Danmark]

Although I agree systems are at the root but not putting someone to death that by evidence(repetition) will continue to endanger others, physical existence is in my opinion immoral since it still endangers others. The number one deterrent that we know is effective is a societal one(peer pressure). So long as we continue to support the existence(life) of sadistic people, it will propagate. This has now penetrated nearly every facet of our North American Culture. Look at how many shows are about trying to catch murders, victimization through violence is everywhere today and is becoming epidemic if not already. As long as we provide the same rights to those who utterly disregard ours continually there will never be an adequate solution in my opinion on dealing with such victimization.

This is not about justice, it's about consequence, at one time throughout the majority of human society these people if not killed would of been banished completely not cared for. It is showing care for those who do not show any for others I am against, this does not support a peer pressure environment to deter such behaviors. No penalty will deter but the social will, if we supply the same fundamentals for life(food, shelter, safety ect..) to those with no respect for others lives what social reason is there not to commit such acts.

There are many that in the jail system choose violence and accept incarceration as a norm. I was nearly one them, I also met many who wanted to be a violent person and be put in jail for a sense of accomplishment. This is not a black and white issue or yes no for me.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 19 by Excubis]

Yes I agree that there are sociopaths out there roughly 1-2% of any given population however there are other problems with the death penalty than simply removing these problematic people from society? Can you guarantee that no people wrongly convicted will be punished? Yes death is a normal part of life but how can we as a society say it's ok for the state to act in vengeance towards its citizens?

Will the death penalty prevent future sociopaths?
Will the death penalty clean up the prison system so it does not produce more psychologically damaged individuals who think it is the only way to act?

Well first part is a there are no guarantees in human behavior, so therefor no guarantee over judicial system being 100% effective. Now in Canada we do not have a death penalty and under our current judicial system I am not for but I would apply the death penalty to those already incarcerated. This is only for current working system. i could go on about adjustments to but I have given this an extreme amount of thought and is not the OP.

This is not about vengeance that at all and never should be, it is about safety only.

No death penalty will not predict the future outcomes but will provided a better setting now for public safety. Death penalty could very well do so if applied to violent people already incarcerated at this moment, being 100% effective no but greatly drop violent behaviors well incarcerated, yes.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

If you view taxation as theft then you might have a point. Then again I am not going to really argue for welfare programs as I view that as making people dependent on the government! Maybe welfare can be equated to being an enabler to an addict? That welfare is a suggestion that the best way to help someone is to just throw money at the issue and hope it goes away. Oh drats, are we both suggesting that welfare is not the best solution for poverty? tThat would be another topic though.

The issue was regarding correlation equals causation fallacy. I was not referring to dependence, but the threat of fine and imprisonment on the part of the government. Does that encourage theft under threat of fine, ie extortion, or imprisonment, ie kidnapping, in the general public?

I would like to know if you don't think that the government justifying the killing of shackled, neutralized, and surrendered individuals as justified in certain instances has a negative impact on society what non impact or positive impact do you think it provides.

If we are indeed considering factors other than personal visceral response, contrary to the OP instructions, here are a few.

1. In it's purist form, not the convoluted US form. It removes the threat from society at minimal cost to the innocent by stander.

Bust Nak's cost analysis is flawed in that it presumes lifetime incarceration to all murderers or release without significant repeat offense. For another thread, I actually did a cost benefit analysis that showed how the death penalty would not be cost effective, if lifetime incarceration to all murderers were the case or the costs of repeat offense were taken into account. Add to that the treat to the public by repeat offenders and the cost benefit as well as the restorative arguments against the death penalty is not compelling.

2. Again, as done in these United States the deterrent factor may be questionable. However, I think that community involvement, not what has been called the cold blooded killing by the state, results in a greater deterrent factor.

3. It makes restorative justice more useful in other cases. One of the problems in implementing restorative justice in cases of involuntary manslaughter is jail house perjury. If perjury in capital cases carried the death penalty, that would greatly curtail that. In the current system there is little or no deterrent for the lifer to trade jail house perjury for a pack of cigarettes.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 28 by bluethread]

1. This would not prevent the execution of wrongful convictions. If we did not have a. Appeals process and subsequent wait time we would be executing wrongfully convicted individuals.

2. It is not an effective deterrent states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states without it.
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/us-homici ... h-penalty/

3. Your solution to perjury is to expand the death penalty... This is mind boggling to say the least. Why not just remove the testimony of lifers in the first place?

[bluethread]

No man is an island, entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were:
any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind,
and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls;
it tolls for thee.

John Donne

You religious people, always quoting your scriptures.