Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime

[BSM1]

It's also probably great at incentivizing the murder of possible witnesses.

No offense, but this is truly a non sequitur....

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

And as I tried to show (it was just a beginning) with my list above, the idea of "the one receiving it will never do it again" presupposes that he or she did it in the first place. I presume that's not a question you ever ask yourself -- do you assume that the justice system is perfect, and never makes errors?

No judicial system is perfect as man is not perfect. But you exercise the system you have. If one has been found guilty, and is punishable by death, you kill him.

You can associate the death penalty all you want with the killing of innocent people, but it is not for that. It is for killing the guilty.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I doubt you actually follow through with that. Such as, I doubt you refuse going to a doctor or refuse treatments because "who cares what the experts say." Engineering is another field where I doubt you really believe that, but only harp it when it's convenient. Your computer and car, after all, weren't designed by those with a higb school level understanding of physics.

The term 'experts' is thrown around just like the term 'scholars' is thrown around. Experts say this. Scholars say this. But behind these 'experts' you will find a liberal view of thinking.

As I said, the point is not deterrence. It is fitting the punishment with the crime.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Straw Dog]

The results of the study reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder.

Yes, in some ways, it is just an act of official vengeance, like a community killing a lost grizzly bear or wild dog after they cause harm.

It’s treating the symptoms and not the cause of violence. Self-defense of this extremity may still be necessary in some cases until our understanding of the human condition matures and our medicine advances.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No judicial system is perfect as man is not perfect. But you exercise the system you have. If one has been found guilty, and is punishable by death, you kill him.

You can associate the death penalty all you want with the killing of innocent people, but it is not for that. It is for killing the guilty.

Good-Ole-Rebel

And in my view, -- knowing, as you stated, that "no judicial system is perfect as man is not perfect" -- if you kill him and you are wrong, you are just as guilty.

Or did you mean "it is for killing those we think are guilty?"

Because if you lock someone up, and find that they were wrongly convicted, you can at least give them the rest of their life back. After killing him, you're kind of done, and making amends is just slightly harder.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Those arguing that Justice is served by executions might ask the victims' loved ones if their anguish, grief, and pain is lessened any by the death of a perpetrator or by their continued suffering in prison - or likelihood of suffering where their crimes are so serious. It seems to me that nothing can take away their grief apart from changes within themselves.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

And in my view, -- knowing, as you stated, that "no judicial system is perfect as man is not perfect" -- if you kill him and you are wrong, you are just as guilty.

Or did you mean "it is for killing those we think are guilty?"

Because if you lock someone up, and find that they were wrongly convicted, you can at least give them the rest of their life back. After killing him, you're kind of done, and making amends is just slightly harder.

Not so. You function with the judicial system you have.

The death penalty is for those who have been determined guilty and worthy of death according to the judicial system.

When you go to war, many are killed by friendly fire. Many are killed that arn't even soldiers. Do you quit fighting just because this is going to happen? As it will happen. No, of course not.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[BSM1]

And in my view, -- knowing, as you stated, that "no judicial system is perfect as man is not perfect" -- if you kill him and you are wrong, you are just as guilty.

Or did you mean "it is for killing those we think are guilty?"

Because if you lock someone up, and find that they were wrongly convicted, you can at least give them the rest of their life back. After killing him, you're kind of done, and making amends is just slightly harder.

This is why the state is charged with issuing this and all other penalties and not you as an individual.

Yes, in some ways, it is just an act of official vengeance, like a community killing a lost grizzly bear or wild dog after they cause harm.

It’s treating the symptoms and not the cause of violence. Self-defense of this extremity may still be necessary in some cases until our understanding of the human condition matures and our medicine advances.

If we could actually foretell the cause of the impending violence then we could "pre-execute" the potential perpetrator.

Those arguing that Justice is served by executions might ask the victims' loved ones if their anguish, grief, and pain is lessened any by the death of a perpetrator or by their continued suffering in prison - or likelihood of suffering where their crimes are so serious. It seems to me that nothing can take away their grief apart from changes within themselves.

Again, another straw man sentiment. The penalties handed down from our judicial system has little, if any thing, to do with the feelings of the victim's family. The judgement is justice for the society. BTW, if polled I believe you'll find just as many family members of victims that would be willing to pull the switch on the animal that violently took a loved one from them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not so. You function with the judicial system you have.

Good thing many have refused to accept that and we now have criminal and trial laws that better serve and protect us.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not so. You function with the judicial system you have.

The death penalty is for those who have been determined guilty and worthy of death according to the judicial system.

When you go to war, many are killed by friendly fire. Many are killed that arn't even soldiers. Do you quit fighting just because this is going to happen? As it will happen. No, of course not.

Good-Ole-Rebel

This is why the state is charged with issuing this and all other penalties and not you as an individual.

If we could actually foretell the cause of the impending violence then we could "pre-execute" the potential perpetrator.

Again, another straw man sentiment. The penalties handed down from our judicial system has little, if any thing, to do with the feelings of the victim's family. The judgement is justice for the society. BTW, if polled I believe you'll find just as many family members of victims that would be willing to pull the switch on the animal that violently took a loved one from them.

I can only assume, then, that both of you would be satisfied with the outcome if it were you that were wrongly convicted and condemned. You'd just take it as "doing what's right for society," I suppose. How noble.

It amazes me, sometimes, how many Christians, who profess the sanctity of life and acting justly, agree with you. And even more, how many of us atheist humanists do not.

 

[BSM1]

I can only assume, then, that both of you would be satisfied with the outcome if it were you that were wrongly convicted and condemned. You'd just take it as "doing what's right for society," I suppose. How noble.

It amazes me, sometimes, how many Christians, who profess the sanctity of life and acting justly, agree with you. And even more, how many of us atheist humanists do not.

As I would assume that you are more concerned about the life of a duly tried and convicted (with absolute irrefutable proof) animal that would gladly kill again if the opportunity ever arose, then protecting the innocent. Thank goodness there are people out with enough stomach to do what some folks won't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As I would assume that you are more concerned about the life of a duly tried and convicted (with absolute irrefutable proof) animal that would gladly kill again if the opportunity ever arose, then protecting the innocent. Thank goodness there are people out with enough stomach to do what some folks won't.

Yet I note that you didn't answer my point.

And I am more concerned about those, like the names I listed above, who were "duly tried and convicted" and later discovered to be innocent -- regardless of whatever the "proof" was that was used to convict them.

 

[Straw Dog]

If we could actually foretell the cause of the impending violence then we could "pre-execute" the potential perpetrator.

Yes, we could do that in a Minority Report pre-crime twist, or we could take a more compassionate route and seek to rehabilitate them before they can cause harm.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Good thing many have refused to accept that and we now have criminal and trial laws that better serve and protect us.

Do we?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do we?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Yes. We have trial by peer, protections from unwarranted searches and seizures, prohibitions against double jeopardy, allow the defendant regardless of class to provide a defense, and we assume innocence until proven guilty rather tham having to prove our innocence.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I can only assume, then, that both of you would be satisfied with the outcome if it were you that were wrongly convicted and condemned. You'd just take it as "doing what's right for society," I suppose. How noble.

It amazes me, sometimes, how many Christians, who profess the sanctity of life and acting justly, agree with you. And even more, how many of us atheist humanists do not.

You mean...like Jesus was?

If it ever comes to that, we take it as of God. (John 19:11) "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above;....."

You speak of the 'sanctity of life'. We who are Christian see that as encompassing eternal life also.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes. We have trial by peer, protections from unwarranted searches and seizures, prohibitions against double jeopardy, allow the defendant regardless of class to provide a defense, and we assume innocence until proven guilty rather tham having to prove our innocence.

Sounds great. And we have the death penalty for those crimes that merit it. Great country.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You speak of the 'sanctity of life'. We who are Christian see that as encompassing eternal life also.

I understand what "also" means, but I hope you accept that "also" entails what came before. And from your posts, you've suggested that you care much more for that "eternal life" than the simple "life" that comes before -- the one that we both agree that we have.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds great. And we have the death penalty for those crimes that merit it. Great country.

Good-Ole-Rebel

It too will be a thing of the past. And, simply put, the state allowing themselves to kill and risking the death of innocents os not great.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I understand what "also" means, but I hope you accept that "also" entails what came before. And from your posts, you've suggested that you care much more for that "eternal life" than the simple "life" that comes before -- the one that we both agree that we have.

I do understand it entails what comes before. Which is why I support the death penalty for those who commit a crime worthy of death. It is very 'Christian'. (Gen. 9:5-6) That has never been revoked.

Good-Ole-Rebel