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.

[bluethread]

[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.

I was referring to the purist form for simplicity's sake. I do believe in due process. However, the various forms of due process are really just trade offs. You choose to value the life of the accused over the well being of the general public, either by requiring the innocent by stander to provide for the incarceration of the perp, or by allowing perps of various degrees to be released do to over crowding. I just happen to draw the line at a different point on a slightly different spectrum.

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/

That is a rather simplistic data point. I agree that may be the case with regard to "cold blooded killing by the state". However, there are other options. As I states, I believe that a more community based process would provide a better deterrent.

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?

So, where does one draw the line on who can and who can not testify? Are we to let murderer's go just because they committed the act in front of someone serving a life sentence? Speaking of mind boggling, you would permit prison blood baths, rather than allow someone to testify? These are very complicated issues and simple answers generally lead to more problems, not less.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

So, where does one draw the line on who can and who can not testify? Are we to let murderer's go just because they committed the act in front of someone serving a life sentence? Speaking of mind boggling, you would permit prison blood baths, rather than allow someone to testify? These are very complicated issues and simple answers generally lead to more problems, not less.

But you stated that their testimony can't be trusted to begin with. Why don't you work with a specific example of what you are talking about so I can better understand what you are getting at.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

I was referring to the purist form for simplicity's sake. I do believe in due process. However, the various forms of due process are really just trade offs. You choose to value the life of the accused over the well being of the general public, either by requiring the innocent by stander to provide for the incarceration of the perp, or by allowing perps of various degrees to be released do to over crowding. I just happen to draw the line at a different point on a slightly different spectrum.

I am not choosing to value the life of the accused over the well being of the public, could it be that prison over crowding has nothing to do with the death sentence? Death row inmates still have to be housed in a prison while they await their appeals process.

The US has the largest percentage of citizens in prison. A lot of these people are non violent offenders. Could it be that the release of prisoners do to overcrowding has more to do with our ridiculous legal system than death sentencing?

If you argue that citizens shouldn't have to pay for the incarceration of criminals then we shouldn't even have a prison system to begin with let alone death penalty.

[Bust Nak]

Isn't it a total deterrent for the offender?

No, I wouldn't call physically stopping someone from doing something a deterrent.

Has anything been found that is a sure fire deterrent for others to not do crime?

No, but on the relative scale, death penalty is not top of the list.

Don't we all [prefer restorative] but does that make retribution useless or immoral?

Useless? No, it serve to appease those who demand vengeance. Immoral? Let just say retribution is less moral, and it's immoral to not aim for the most moral.

Where did you get this stat, please?

This http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty and other sites like that is where I got that from, I understand that bluethread dispute them, and I am not equipped to argue one way or the other, take it for what it is.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

I was referring to the purist form for simplicity's sake. I do believe in due process. However, the various forms of due process are really just trade offs. You choose to value the life of the accused over the well being of the general public, either by requiring the innocent by stander to provide for the incarceration of the perp, or by allowing perps of various degrees to be released do to over crowding. I just happen to draw the line at a different point on a slightly different spectrum.

I am not choosing to value the life of the accused over the well being of the public, could it be that prison over crowding has nothing to do with the death sentence? Death row inmates still have to be housed in a prison while they await their appeals process.

The US has the largest percentage of citizens in prison. A lot of these people are non violent offenders. Could it be that the release of prisoners do to overcrowding has more to do with our ridiculous legal system than death sentencing?

If you argue that citizens shouldn't have to pay for the incarceration of criminals then we shouldn't even have a prison system to begin with let alone death penalty.

You are correct, prison crowding has nothing to do with the death sentence. For example, in the State of Washington the prison population averaged about 18,200 in 2015. Number of inmates on death row: 9. That's 0.05%.
http://www.doc.wa.gov/aboutdoc/docs/msP ... TD_001.pdf
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-r ... h-row-year

Texas has 221,800 in prison, 271 on death row or about 0.12 percent.

The "overcrowding" argument for the death penalty is ridiculous.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

So, where does one draw the line on who can and who can not testify? Are we to let murderer's go just because they committed the act in front of someone serving a life sentence? Speaking of mind boggling, you would permit prison blood baths, rather than allow someone to testify? These are very complicated issues and simple answers generally lead to more problems, not less.

But you stated that their testimony can't be trusted to begin with. Why don't you work with a specific example of what you are talking about so I can better understand what you are getting at.

No, I just referred to one of the drawbacks of jailhouse testimony that can be mitigated by making the penalty for perjury equal to the penalty for the crime to which the perjury relates.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 36 by bluethread]

Don't you think there are other ways to mitigate that other than killing people. What if the person was coerced by other inmates to lie or be shanked? For most situations the current purgery laws work just fine. What you are talking about is someone who already is in a max sentence and no more time can be added. Killing them isn't the only way to prevent them from giving false testimony. This seems like such a unique hypothetical, are there any real world examples you can provide?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 22 by ttruscott]

Retribution is almost unquestionably immoral (by any modern standard), the question is whether or not there is any indirect benefit. Retribution might correlate with deterrent and some forms of rehabilitation, as well as reparations, but you don't need a retributive system.

Capital punishment really isn't the effective deterrent people think it is. Even worse, if someone expects to be caught and receive capital punishment - all (legal) deterrent becomes useless. It certainly doesn't deter those who kill themselves in the act, e.g. murder-suicides and some terrorist attacks.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-8 ... -deterrent

[Danmark]

No, I just referred to one of the drawbacks of jailhouse testimony that can be mitigated by making the penalty for perjury equal to the penalty for the crime to which the perjury relates.

In other words, you're suggesting the death penalty for perjury in certain cases?
This sounds so "Old Testament."
Maybe this explain why, out of 15 votes, no one religious opposes the death penalty
Only SOME of the crimes that earned the death penalty:

Consuming blood (Genesis 9:4), Leviticus 17:10[13]
Eating a cheeseburger or anything that mixes meat and dairy (Exodus 23:19)
Sacrificing anything with yeast or honey (Leviticus 2:11)
Eating leavened bread (bread with yeast) during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:15)
Eating fat (Leviticus 3:17)
Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7-8)
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices (Leviticus 19:5-8)
Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales (Deuteronomy 14:9-10)
Eating any meat not killed according to the Kosher practice (Deuteronomy 12:21)
Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean (Leviticus 7:20)

Being a male who is not circumcised. (Genesis 17:14)
Trying to convert people to another religion (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20)[14]
Worshiping idols (Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 20:1-5, Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
Practicing magic (Exodus 22:18)[15]
Blaspheming (Leviticus 24:14-16, 23)
Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36)
Consulting a psychic or spiritualist (Leviticus 19:31)
Being a psychic, medium or spiritualist (Leviticus 20:27)[16]
Being a town that believes in another, non-YHWH god (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)[17]
Giving one of your descendants to Molech (Leviticus 20:2)[18]
Not being a priest and going near the tabernacle when it is being moved (Numbers 1:51)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... _the_Bible

But He LOVES us.

[bluethread]

No, I just referred to one of the drawbacks of jailhouse testimony that can be mitigated by making the penalty for perjury equal to the penalty for the crime to which the perjury relates.

In other words, you're suggesting the death penalty for perjury in certain cases?
This sounds so "Old Testament."
Maybe this explain why, out of 15 votes, no one religious opposes the death penalty
Only SOME of the crimes that earned the death penalty:

Consuming blood (Genesis 9:4), Leviticus 17:10[13]
..........
Not being a priest and going near the tabernacle when it is being moved (Numbers 1:51)

So, since the principle is mentioned in HaTorah, it is to be rejected out of hand? Nice cut and paste. This list is based on interpreting the term karath to mean in and of itself the death penalty. That is not the case. That said, if you reject the death penalty all together, what difference does it make what it applies to. Hannibal Lector would not receive the death penalty.