First woman since 1953 to be executed.

[Brickjectivity]

Why do you think it is useless as a deterrent?

...possibly because the prisons are cruel. You're put in with other criminals, and they are the punishment. People are probably more afraid of going to prison than of dying. I am. I would probably be happier on death row than trying to figure out how to live in the prison population. Maybe. I'm not sure.

 

[rocala]

What about the barbaric murders they committed?

Do you always respond to a question with another question? I asked what the complaint was about, I was not giving a personal opinion.

I do not think anyone should ever get the death sentence unless the evidence clearly proves they are guilty and there is no doubt.

That is the usual requirement for any guilty verdict for any crime.

 

[Valjean]

I do not think anyone should ever get the death sentence unless the evidence clearly proves they are guilty and there is no doubt. When someone confesses to the murder we know they are guilty but they often do that to avoid the death sentence.

People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time, even without being grilled by police.

It is not the same at all. One was a planned out murder for selfish purposes and the other was a carrying out justice.

By "justice" I assume you mean revenge.

Is it more costly than taking care of a prisoner for life?
Why do you think it is useless as a deterrent?

Yes,. It's counter-intuitive, but considering the cost of the trial and appeal, and housing on a special unit for X years, it's usually considerably higher.

Criminals aren't known to be good planners or doing risk-benefit calculations before their crimes. Most tend to be impulsive, and few expect to be caught. There isn't a clear relationship between penalty and deterrence.

 

[Valjean]

That is the usual requirement for any guilty verdict for any crime.

True, and in capital crimes you'd think they'd be especially careful, yet closer investigations by organizations like The Prison Project exonerate people all the time.

 

[Trailblazer]

People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time, even without being grilled by police.

If they do that then what do you think should happen to them? What is the justice system supposed to do, find them innocent when they say they are guilty?

By "justice" I assume you mean revenge.

No, I mean justice, an eye for an eye.

Yes,. It's counter-intuitive, but considering the cost of the trial and appeal, and housing on a special unit for X years, it's usually considerably higher.

Maybe so, because the justice system is so messed up that these appeals go on so long.

Criminals aren't known to be good planners or doing risk-benefit calculations before their crimes. Most tend to be impulsive, and few expect to be caught. There isn't a clear relationship between penalty and deterrence.

Probably not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you always respond to a question with another question? I asked what the complaint was about, I was not giving a personal opinion.

I only ask the questions to try to get people to think about the other side of the coin. What if YOUR loved one was brutally murdered?

That is the usual requirement for any guilty verdict for any crime.

Sometimes there really is no doubt, like when there is forensic evidence that is incontrovertible and/or when the murderer admits to the crime and nobody else could have known the details of the crime.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure. Sink to the level of a killer. Because the death sentence makes everything better and works to deter crimes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If they do that then what do you think should happen to them? What is the justice system supposed to do, find them innocent when they say they are guilty?

Better protections for suspects, including NO interrogations without a lawyer present. NO paperwork is to be signed without a lawyer present. And no more crap with cops playing their games of offering promises and deals that can't be assured or backed up and no more making threats of a charge and penalties and consequences that only a judge can decide. And for safe measures, have an institutional review board review that (along with reviewing other police actions for legal and ethical concerns) to make sure no rights or laws were violated and what did transpire was legit. (these practices MASSIVELY effect the poor and mentally ill)

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure. Sink to the level of a killer. Because the death sentence makes everything better and works to deter crimes.

With all due respect, I do not see how the death sentence is sinking to the level of the killer, because murder was a selfish premeditated act of pure evil and cruelty towards an innocent human being(s) and the death sentence is only an attempt to serve justice and get justice for the families of those who lost a loved one.

To me, it is not a matter of whether it deters crimes, it is a matter of justice, and of course it all depends upon how heinous the crime was.

I really do not understand how people can have sympathy towards these kinds of criminals. I guess they have not watched as many Investigation Discovery shows as I have. There are many family members who never recover from the loss of a child for example and they have to live with that grief for the rest of their lives. Those are the people we should feel sorry for, not the perpetrators.

 

[Valjean]

No, I mean justice, an eye for an eye.

That's your idea of justice?

People often confuse justice and vengeance. If two words are interchangeable with no change of meaning, they're synonyms. "Revenge" is often a case in point.

Trailblazer said:
"...and the death sentence is only an attempt to serve justice and get justice for the families of those who lost a loved one."

QED


Matthew 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

"That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind.The time is always right to do the right thing."
-- Martin Luther King.

 

[Valjean]

With all due respect, I do not see how the death sentence is sinking to the level of the killer, because murder was a selfish premeditated act of pure evil and cruelty towards an innocent human being(s) and the death sentence is only an attempt to serve justice and get justice for the families of those who lost a loved one.

To me, it is not a matter of whether it deters crimes, it is a matter of justice, and of course it all depends upon how heinous the crime was.

I really do not understand how people can have sympathy towards these kinds of criminals. I guess they have not watched as many Investigation Discovery shows as I have. There are many family members who never recover from the loss of a child for example and they have to live with that grief for the rest of their lives. Those are the people we should feel sorry for, not the perpetrators.

It's not a matter of sympathy. It's a matter of acting in harmony with abstract moral principles.

 

[rocala]

Sometimes there really is no doubt, like when there is forensic evidence that is incontrovertible and/or when the murderer admits to the crime and nobody else could have known the details of the crime.

So in your example, the no doubt cases get the death penalty. Therefore anybody who does not get the death penalty has the built in defence of an unsound verdict. Virtually guaranteed appeal and acquittal.
Have you actually thought about what you are posting here?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's your idea of justice?

People often confuse justice and vengeance. If two words are interchangeable with no change of meaning, they're synonyms. "Revenge" is often a case in point.
QED

No, my idea of justice is what was revealed in The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, which is Bahá'u'lláh's book of laws, the most Holy Book of the Baha’i Faith.

“In His Tablets ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains the difference between revenge and punishment. He affirms that individuals do not have the right to take revenge, that revenge is despised in the eyes of God, and that the motive for punishment is not vengeance, but the imposition of a penalty for the committed offence. In Some Answered Questions, He confirms that it is the right of society to impose punishments on criminals for the purpose of protecting its members and defending its existence.

With regard to this provision, Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf gives the following explanation:

In the Aqdas Bahá’u’lláh has given death as the penalty for murder. However, He has permitted life imprisonment as an alternative. Both practices would be in accordance with His Laws. Some of us may not be able to grasp the wisdom of this when it disagrees with our own limited vision; but we must accept it, knowing His Wisdom, His Mercy and His Justice are perfect and for the salvation of the entire world. If a man were falsely condemned to die, can we not believe Almighty God would compensate him a thousandfold, in the next world, for this human injustice? You cannot give up a salutary law just because on rare occasions the innocent may be punished.​

Shoghi Effendi, in response to a question about this verse of the Aqdas, affirmed that while capital punishment is permitted, an alternative, “life imprisonment”, has been provided “whereby the rigours of such a condemnation can be seriously mitigated”. He states that “Bahá’u’lláh has given us a choice and has, therefore, left us free to use our own discretion within certain limitations imposed by His law”. In the absence of specific guidance concerning the application of this aspect of Bahá’í law, it remains for the Universal House of Justice to legislate on the matter in the future.”

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pp. 203-205

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not a matter of sympathy. It's a matter of acting in harmony with abstract moral principles.

And who determines what is moral, God or humans?

 

[Trailblazer]

So in your example, the no doubt cases get the death penalty. Therefore anybody who does not get the death penalty has the built in defence of an unsound verdict. Virtually guaranteed appeal and acquittal.
Have you actually thought about what you are posting here?

No, that is not what I am saying, I believe it depends upon the severity of the crime. No, I have not thought about it a whole lot. Suffice to say, I believe God knows more about justice than I or any human can ever know, so I believe in the Law as it was revealed in the book of laws of my religion:

#33 Trailblazer, 2 minutes ago

 

[Vinayaka]

In my opinion, this is the most solid reason to oppose the death penalty, along with the fact that it is such an exploitable sentence that can be abused to political or other ends. I believe it should be abolished primarily for these two reasons.

I think if we can argue that the death penalty is a social mechanism of self-defense (I don't believe it is the best way for that, however), then we can say that it is not the same as killing someone as an attacker who does so to rob or otherwise violate the victim. Sometimes the reaction is far more justified than the initial action even if both are similar in magnitude.

And indeed most (civilised) countries have abolished it. It has taken awhile, but there has been slow social change on the planet world wide against it. I couldn't find a time graph, but I'm sure in the last 100 years it's probably been reduced by 80 to 90%. Maybe another 100 years before it gets to zero. There is also a correlation to religion and non-religion, as evidenced by the maps.

Capital punishment - Wikipedia

 

[Debater Slayer]

"That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind.The time is always right to do the right thing."
-- Martin Luther King.

I've always found this argument a faulty and naive reason to oppose the concept of an eye for an eye. Going by that logic, abolishing "an eye for an eye" only leaves the victims blind.

Instead, the concept is flawed because, as modern studies show, it doesn't work as a deterrence--and it is emotional rather than pragmatic in nature, focuses on retribution instead of rehabilitation, and doesn't help the victim aside from some emotional satisfaction in a subset of cases.

One-liners and catchy mantras may be interesting, but they're quite brittle when compared to reasoned arguments and evidence.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And indeed most (civilised) countries have abolished it. It has taken awhile, but there has been slow social change on the planet world wide against it. I couldn't find a time graph, but I'm sure in the last 100 years it's probably been reduced by 80 to 90%. Maybe another 100 years before it gets to zero. There is also a correlation to religion and non-religion, as evidenced by the maps.

Capital punishment - Wikipedia

I think another point worth noting is that sometimes people demonize or look down on those who support capital punishment while forgetting that countries like France, the U.S., and Germany had to execute numerous criminals and corrupt, murderous politicians in order to be where they are today.

Abolishing the death penalty is noble and necessary, but in many third-world countries that are still suffering from corrupt leadership and abusive authorities, sometimes putting certain people--especially chronically corrupt officials--to death may be the most or even only effective method to pave the way for prosperity and progress.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think another point worth noting is that sometimes people demonize or look down on those who support capital punishment while forgetting that countries like France, the U.S., and Germany had to execute numerous criminals and corrupt, murderous politicians in order to be where they are today.

Abolishing the death penalty is noble and necessary, but in many third-world countries that are still suffering from corrupt leadership and abusive authorities, sometimes putting certain people--especially chronically corrupt officials--to death may be the most or even only effective method to pave the way for prosperity and progress.

That's similar to Marx's 'resort to violence only if necessary'. In Fan Shen, the case study of a single village in China's revolution, anyone in any class above peasantry were given the choice ... 'Join us or ______' Some joined, some didn't, preferring death to a lowering of class status.

I agree. but those are all special circumstances, hopefully wasting away by the sands of time.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And indeed most (civilised) countries have abolished it. It has taken awhile, but there has been slow social change on the planet world wide against it. I couldn't find a time graph, but I'm sure in the last 100 years it's probably been reduced by 80 to 90%. Maybe another 100 years before it gets to zero. There is also a correlation to religion and non-religion, as evidenced by the maps.

It all depends upon what is cruelty. In this country we don't break people on the wheel or cut off body parts, but we do put them into prisons with reportedly bad circumstances. Its possible that flogging would be less cruel. I'm not sure. Killing is actually a very kind sentence in some cases rather than forcing the person to live in the prison system.