Against abortion for any reason? What about the death penalty?

[Badran]

It shouldn't be about revenge

I think we actually agree so i'm not arguing but just want to point out that revenge isn't actually always wrong in my view. Sometimes its basic justice.

If someone takes some of your money and spends it, will you be okay with taking that money from his own money, or would you feel you have no right to that?

I'm inclined to think we can both agree that you'll feel more than okay about it. Why? Because he has lost the right to that amount of money (that he stole from you) when he decided to take it away from you.

If we apply that to things where you can't actually get anything back, that still doesn't mean taking it from the other person too is wrong. I would rather not do it, and hope to be able to do that, but i won't judge someone who does as doing something inherently wrong.

The cases where revenge is wrong however in my view is where it involves others who did not do anything that warrants their involvement in that harm you want to inflict.

 

[Erebus]

I think we actually agree so i'm not arguing but just want to point out that revenge isn't actually always wrong in my view. Sometimes its basic justice.

If someone takes some of your money and spends it, will you be okay with taking that money from his own money, or would you feel you have no right to that?

I'm inclined to think we can both agree that you'll feel more than okay about it. Why? Because he has lost the right to that amount of money (that he stole from you) when he decided to take it away from you.

If we apply that to things where you can't actually get anything back, that still doesn't mean taking it from the other person too is wrong. I would rather not do it, and hope to be able to do that, but i won't judge someone who does as doing something inherently wrong.

The cases where revenge is wrong however in my view is where it involves others who did not do anything that warrants their involvement in that harm you want to inflict.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for revenge

I do feel though that "returning the favour" isn't so much about revenge as it is balancing the books. Revenge to me is a personal thing that is neither about reclamation or about removing a threat, it's about inflicting some degree of harm or unhappiness in order to settle one's own feelings.
For example, if somebody stole my wallet and I stole back the same value from them, that's just reclaiming what's mine. If I spread dog mess across their floor (with or without reclaiming my money) that's revenge. I'll admit I have a slightly odd honour code

Having said that I think we essentially agree and the rest is semantics.

 

[Songbird]

I suppose I'm repeating what many have felt - I voted prochoice and anti-death penalty. I'd sum up my view as "Do the least harm". There's no perfect justice system, and sending one innocent man to death is too steep a price for sending any number of guilty to theirs.

Regarding abortion, it's best left up to individual cases. Lots more can be said about the topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And any murderer that remains alive is a potential re-offender.

If we want to be more accurate, any person who remains alive is a potential offender, period.

Whether we're talking about escape, murdering prison guards or potentially innocent fellow inmates (or guilty inmates whose crimes aren't serious enough to warrant death), LWOP sentences being commuted, parole being granted, conspiring with fellow inmates up for parole to murder the witnesses that would testify against him in a re-trial...

The things I highlighted above stuck out for me.

These are the "safety valve" mechanisms that are in place in the system. It seems to me is that what you're saying is that we should kill offenders now, because there's a risk that if we re-evaluate their situations, we might decide that they shouldn't killed, or even shouldn't be in prison at all.

IOW, you're advocating the death penalty as a way to prevent further rational decision-making about what to do with the offender.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm not sympathetic to murderers, and in fact, if the death penalty is the only reasonable way to protect society from a killer, then I would be OK with the death penalty. But - life without the possibility of parole seems like justice to me.

I don't have enough faith in our legal system to allow for the death penalty. I have absolutely no faith that such a punishment is or would be carried out with justice and fairness. The wretched disparity that I see in the application of the death penalty sickens me.

Two wrongs don't make a right. In my world, I don't see how the killing of another person, especially such a horrible person as a murderer, would in any way atone for the death of an innocent person. We can't have atonement - but we can protect society from the murderer.

You don't have enough faith in our legal system to allow for the death penalty.

But you have enough faith in our legal system to send people to prison.

The flaws present in a system that uses the death penalty exist just the same in a system that doesn't. Innocent people are sent to prison. Innocent people die in prison.

An innocent person who dies in prison while serving a ten year sentence is neither any less innocent nor any less irreversibly dead than an innocent person who is executed. And the appeals process has indeed been known to exonerate individuals who shouldn't have been sentenced to death.

If you've got someone serving multiple life sentences, or a sentence of upwards of 100 years, it's obvious this person is never going to see the light of day. His life has been taken from him, but the taxpayers are still paying to feed, clothe, and medicate him. It's a death sentence, but the method of execution is time. With all the people moaning about long and painful deaths, a life sentence is the longest death there could be.

As far as LWOP being enough, you're wrong. I'm sorry to have to say it that way, but it's not a matter of opinion. A murderer left/kept alive is a potential re-offender.

An LWOP inmate could escape and go on to murder again.
An LWOP inmate could conspire with an inmate who is eligible for parole to murder (look up the case of Clarence Ray Allen).
An LWOP inmate could be granted clemency by an idiot governor (Mike Huckabee) to make himself appear to be compassionate, when all he's doing is unleashing dangerous criminals into society (Maurice Clemmons).

If there wasn't a moratorium on the death penalty to commute the death sentences of everyone on death row in 72, Kenneth McDuff wouldn't have been able to murder 11 more people in addition to the three he murdered to get him sentenced to death in the first place.

He wasn't the only one. He's just the most notorious one I can think of.

The Death Penalty Information Center, an anti death penalty organization, gives a list of possible wrongful executions with "strong evidence of innocence"... 9 names long.

Kenneth McDuff alone murdered more people than that because he wasn't kept on death row and executed.

Even if there were more wrongful executions, I'm willing to bet (and I don't use that phrase lightly) that since 1976, it would still be the case that more innocent people have died at the hands of murderers who murdered post incarceration than have been executed.


LWOP does not sufficiently protect society from killers, and the risk inherent in the death penalty is not diminished in the least if the death penalty were done away with.

It's true that the system isn't perfect. There ought to be significant reforms to make appeals more effective and efficient, so that time and money isn't being wasted, but a defendant is still afforded all the due process he's entitled to. Cases considered for the death penalty ought to have a stricter standard of evidence, so that juries aren't expected to reach a verdict based on eyewitness testimony.

Improvements must be made, but what we have now is certainly an improvement over what it would be if the death penalty were abolished.

 

[9Westy9]

Once the child begins to develop it starts to attain sensation and consciousness (with the development of the central nervous system), I have an interest in stopping them; just as I have an interest in preventing harm/suffering in areas of the world that do not directly affect me.

The baby is still living inside the woman though. What do we do if she can't have an abortion and doesn't want to keep the child?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't have enough faith in our legal system to allow for the death penalty.

But you have enough faith in our legal system to send people to prison.

You don't have enough faith in our legal system to allow it to commute death penalties or to parole offenders, but you have enough faith in our legal system to use it to kill people.

The flaws present in a system that uses the death penalty exist just the same in a system that doesn't. Innocent people are sent to prison. Innocent people die in prison.

But sometimes we realize our mistake and they get released. These cases do happen. Consider Rubin Carter, Steven Truscott or Guy Paul Morin. Yes, it's awful that they spent decades in prison for crimes they didn't commit, but ask them if they would have preferred to have been executed instead of being eventually released for what time they have left. I'm sure they'll say that they wouldn't have wanted to die.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there wasn't a moratorium on the death penalty to commute the death sentences of everyone on death row in 72, Kenneth McDuff wouldn't have been able to murder 11 more people in addition to the three he murdered to get him sentenced to death in the first place.

And if Canada hadn't gotten rid of the death penalty, Steven Truscott would've been hanged. Good thing he wasn't.

 

[Badran]

I haven't thought what i'm about to say through, so i very well might be missing something. But is what is being suggested by those who oppose the death penalty for the possible mistakes that anything that can be misused, and cause death, should be done away with?

That is, if we know upfront that the existence or usage of a certain thing, causes unwanted death, we should stop using it altogether?

 

[Poisonshady313]

If we want to be more accurate, any person who remains alive is a potential offender, period.


The things I highlighted above stuck out for me.

These are the "safety valve" mechanisms that are in place in the system. It seems to me is that what you're saying is that we should kill offenders now, because there's a risk that if we re-evaluate their situations, we might decide that they shouldn't killed, or even shouldn't be in prison at all.

IOW, you're advocating the death penalty as a way to prevent further rational decision-making about what to do with the offender.

I'm advocating the death penalty as a way to protect innocent people from being murdered by murderers who should be put to death but aren't.

"re-evaluate their situations". The only situation that ought to ever be re-evaluated is whether or not a person is factually innocent of the crime they were convicted of. That's what the appeals process is for. The guy who kidnaps, tortures, rapes, mutilates, and murders a 16 year old girl and is sentenced to death ought not to have the ability to have his sentence commuted because he found Jesus in prison and isn't such a bad guy anymore. That sort of thing makes a mockery and a sham of the whole business of a sentence being issued. Death row isn't a sentence being carried out. It's a postponement of the sentence being carried out. A death sentence isn't served until the inmate is dead. Just because a guy behaves himself during the appeals process, it doesn't change the fact that he has been sentenced to die for the crime he committed.


As soon as a defendant's appeals have been exhausted and the guilty verdict is upheld by the various courts of appeal, he ought to be executed. The only situation that matters is that after having been found guilty of a capital crime beyond a reasonable doubt and with full due process, he serves the sentence of death.

 

[Badran]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for revenge

I do feel though that "returning the favour" isn't so much about revenge as it is balancing the books. Revenge to me is a personal thing that is neither about reclamation or about removing a threat, it's about inflicting some degree of harm or unhappiness in order to settle one's own feelings.
For example, if somebody stole my wallet and I stole back the same value from them, that's just reclaiming what's mine. If I spread dog mess across their floor (with or without reclaiming my money) that's revenge. I'll admit I have a slightly odd honour code

Having said that I think we essentially agree and the rest is semantics.

Indeed it seems we do.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You don't have enough faith in our legal system to allow it to commute death penalties or to parole offenders, but you have enough faith in our legal system to use it to kill people.

A dead murderer will never murder again. Can't guarantee that for a live murderer.

But sometimes we realize our mistake and they get released. These cases do happen. Consider Rubin Carter, Steven Truscott or Guy Paul Morin. Yes, it's awful that they spent decades in prison for crimes they didn't commit, but ask them if they would have preferred to have been executed instead of being eventually released for what time they have left. I'm sure they'll say that they wouldn't have wanted to die.

And then sometimes we give people non-death prison sentences for crimes they didn't commit, and they die in prison 10 years before they're exonerated. Consider Timothy Cole. The fact that he wasn't executed doesn't make him any less innocent, or any less dead, than someone wrongfully executed.

The criminal justice system we have is imperfect. I don't deny that. But I prefer to err on the side of less innocent people being killed. And that happens when you execute convicted murderers.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I haven't thought what i'm about to say through, so i very well might be missing something. But is what is being suggested by those who oppose the death penalty for the possible mistakes that anything that can be misused, and cause death, should be done away with?

That is, if we know upfront that the existence or usage of a certain thing, causes unwanted death, we should stop using it altogether?

Traveling by plane is the safest way to travel.

But it's not 100%.

Every once in a while, a plane will (either by malfunction or by hijacking) be involved in a fatal crash, causing the death of hundreds of innocent people.

Yet who clamors for the abolition of the airline industry because even one innocent person dying is one too many?

Why do we continue to send planes into the air knowing that there is a risk that innocent people will die?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I haven't thought what i'm about to say through, so i very well might be missing something. But is what is being suggested by those who oppose the death penalty for the possible mistakes that anything that can be misused, and cause death, should be done away with?

That is, if we know upfront that the existence or usage of a certain thing, causes unwanted death, we should stop using it altogether?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase/expand?

I'm advocating the death penalty as a way to protect innocent people from being murdered by murderers who should be put to death but aren't.

You're begging the question. Built into your argument is that we have an obligation to kill certain people. I don't think this is the case, so if you're going to base your argument on it, you're going to have to support it.

"re-evaluate their situations". The only situation that ought to ever be re-evaluated is whether or not a person is factually innocent of the crime they were convicted of. That's what the appeals process is for.

Well no, it isn't. Not always, anyhow.

The appeals process is to remedy mistakes in law. Yes, sometimes innocent people get sentenced to death because of mistakes in law, but sometimes, even when everything's done correctly, innocent people get convicted.

To have grounds for an appeal, you need to show that something was wrong in the prior trial: a witness lied, a prosecutor hid evidence from the defense, the judge didn't instruct the jury properly... something like that. However, it's sometimes the case that no witnesses lied, the prosecutors acted in good faith, the judge did everything to the letter, but despite all this, the evidence pointed beyond a reasonable doubt to someone who didn't actually commit the crime.

In cases like this, the mere fact that you're innocent doesn't matter. If the police did their job properly for the first trial, simply having evidence coming to light later that exonorates you doesn't give you grounds for an appeal.

That's what these other mechanisms are for. Even if you can't don't have legal grounds for an appeal, the governor can still evaluate the situation and commute the sentence without being hamstrung by legal procedures; he can just use his own good judgement.

The guy who kidnaps, tortures, rapes, mutilates, and murders a 16 year old girl and is sentenced to death ought not to have the ability to have his sentence commuted because he found Jesus in prison and isn't such a bad guy anymore. That sort of thing makes a mockery and a sham of the whole business of a sentence being issued.

Replace the 16-year-old girl with an 8-year-old girl and that's precisely what Guy Paul Morin was convicted of. Do you think he should've been killed?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A dead murderer will never murder again. Can't guarantee that for a live murderer.

But is a system that's so out of whack that it would release dangerous offenders back into society one that's trustworthy enough to decide who should live or die?

And then sometimes we give people non-death prison sentences for crimes they didn't commit, and they die in prison 10 years before they're exonerated. Consider Timothy Cole. The fact that he wasn't executed doesn't make him any less innocent, or any less dead, than someone wrongfully executed.

What about him? The average person convicted of a crime will have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. It makes no sense to assume that a prison sentence means that a wrongfully convicted person will die in prison. There are many, many cases of people being found innocent and released 40 or 50 years after being imprisoned.

The criminal justice system we have is imperfect. I don't deny that. But I prefer to err on the side of less innocent people being killed. And that happens when you execute convicted murderers.

No, I don't think it does. I don't think you have any sense of just how big the problem of wrongful conviction really is.

 

[Songbird]

Traveling by plane is the safest way to travel.

But it's not 100%.

Every once in a while, a plane will (either by malfunction or by hijacking) be involved in a fatal crash, causing the death of hundreds of innocent people.

Yet who clamors for the abolition of the airline industry because even one innocent person dying is one too many?

Why do we continue to send planes into the air knowing that there is a risk that innocent people will die?

We don't "send" people into planes. They choose to fly. We all risk death every day. Ending someone else's life for them is the issue of capital punishment. I'd rather risk incarcerating someone accidentally than make an irreversible decision.

 

[Badran]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase/expand?

Sure. What i was trying to say basically was this: I both understand and agree with the view that the current system is sloppy and results in unfair deaths, and that we can and have an obligation in my view to do something about that.

That thing though, i think should be making the required evidence for applying punishments that cannot be discontinued to be of both more amount and quality. That is, make sure that it leaves no possibility for someone being unfairly given the death penalty. Since its certainly possible to put it lightly that we can not in fact reach such perfection, perhaps we can make sure it can't happen unless an intentional misusage on a high level is going on.

In other words, do everything possible in our powers to avoid this. But if that is not enough neither, is it then accurate to say that you think anything that has even the slightest possibility of causing unjust or unwarranted death, should in fact be done away with?

If thats the case, why do we not apply this too to other things that cause much, much more deaths than the existence of the death punishment? Things that we are responsible for their existence. Things we choose to use, and things we can survive without. I think we do because we can't base our judgments on the rare exceptions of misusage. Especially when the thing in question does have a positive effect when used properly (which is most of the time).

To emphasize again though, i do agree that we must do something about the sloppy appliance, and the preventable unfortunate mistakes that caused innocent people to lose their lives. Just questioning the part about that something we should do being doing away with whatever that thing is altogether.

 

[Poisonshady313]

We don't "send" people into planes. They choose to fly.

They choose to fly under the assumption that they'll reach their destination safely. We execute murders under the assumption that the person being put to death is truly guilty. If we need to abolish the death penalty because of the risk of error, then we need to abolish air travel because of the risk of error. If we can't trust the government to run capital punishment, why should we trust pilots to take passengers into the sky?

I'd rather risk incarcerating someone accidentally than make an irreversible decision.

When incarcerating someone accidentally IS an irreversible decision, then what?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They choose to fly under the assumption that they'll reach their destination safely. We execute murders under the assumption that the person being put to death is truly guilty. If we need to abolish the death penalty because of the risk of error, then we need to abolish air travel because of the risk of error. If we can't trust the government to run capital punishment, why should we trust pilots to take passengers into the sky?

Nobody forces you to fly in a plane against your will. Most people are aware of the risks, and make a calculated choice to fly or not. If you get arrested, convicted, and executed for a crime you didn't commit, you didn't get to decide whether to take that calculated risk or not.

I'm sure if you ever got arrested for a crime you didn't commit, and put on death row, the difference would become immediately apparent.

 

[Poisonshady313]

But is a system that's so out of whack that it would release dangerous offenders back into society one that's trustworthy enough to decide who should live or die?

Yes.

An innocent person is more likely to die at the hands of an ex-con who should have been put to death than he is to be executed.

What about him? The average person convicted of a crime will have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. It makes no sense to assume that a prison sentence means that a wrongfully convicted person will die in prison. There are many, many cases of people being found innocent and released 40 or 50 years after being imprisoned.

There are approx 2 million Americans incarcerated in our prison system. There are approx 3 thousand Americans on death row. There are more innocent people that are sent to non death prison terms than are sentenced to death. More innocent people will slip through the cracks. Whether they die quickly, or serve a full life sentence, more innocent people will die serving non-death sentences.

No, I don't think it does. I don't think you have any sense of just how big the problem of wrongful conviction really is.

I do, actually. It kinda drives my argument. Only 34 states have the death penalty, and most of them almost never use it. All fifty states have prisons. More opportunities for wrongful convictions and, by extension, more opportunities for those wrongfully convicted to die in prison because they couldn't be exonerated (or they couldn't be exonerated quickly enough).


Prove to me that the US has executed more innocent people than have been murdered by those who should have been executed, and that'll convince me that the risk of having the death penalty isn't worth it.