...Is retarded. Discuss.

There's a reason most of the civilized world has abolished captial punishment. There is not justice in murder, state-sponsored or not. It's been proven repeatedly that it does not act as a deterrent. The only purpose it serves is to provide vengeance for a few. And that is not the purpose of the justice or penal systems. So, no, this is a pathetic, barbaric process.

Yeah, I think of it as the ultimate in hypocritical thinking. Killing is bad! So-- we're going to kill you!

Murderers-- for full-fledged over the top psychos life in jail, no chance of parole

Rapists/Molesters-- chemical castration and for die-hard nuts also life, no chance of parole

I got into a convo tonight with a friend who said life in prison wasn't so bad and that it wasn't a punishment. It's freaking LIFE in prison. Tell me something that's good about that? How is never being free for the rest of your life anything other than punishment? I don't care if I have digital cable and a golden toilet. If I live behind bars, risk anal rape in the shower and have guys with guns watching my every move from now until I die, that's punishment.

The law shouldn't be about an eye for an eye, it should be about justice. Revenge doesn't equal justice, nor does it prevent anything. It simply makes those carrying the act out hypocrites.

Any pro death penalty supporters out there? What are your thoughts?

Interesting side note to this, a few years back, my college had a free showing of "The Life of David Gale," with the extra perk that Kevin Spacey would be there after the movie to do a Q&A. I had a front row seat. What Kevin was most interested in, was to simply get people to start talking about the death penalty, for or against, didn't matter, just talk and learn from others...the second half of his session ended up being a bunch of girls asking for hugs, which he obliged. He stayed for a couple hours talking actually and was very humble and easy going. I am not for the death penalty. The movie was mostly shitty, Kevin rocked, Kate Winslet was fucking piss poor.

On a similar note this was in the news yesterday http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/27/drivi ... index.html
and what is interesting to me, at the end of the article, the victim's mother thought the guy should have had a harsher sentence. The fact that it happened is really sad, but I think the judge made a very decent ruling.

What's the point of permanently warehousing someone who society has deemed cannot be rehabilitated, someone who can still be a danger to other individual inmates and staff inside a prison, someone who could conceivably continue to consume resources for decades?


As for state-sponsored killing, what about wars? What about police officers, who have the authority to use deadly force as agents of the state? Or indirect policy choices that save some while others die (distribution of economic aid, medicine, etc.)? Execution is only one obvious form of state-sponsored killing, which will always exist as long as governments exist. Also, individuals who kill others are sometimes found not liable under our criminal system if they act in self-defense. Isn't the state in essence sanctioning their killings as well?

So far, the anti-capital punishment arguments appear to assume that killing is on its face antithetical to the concept of "justice." I'd like to understand the justification for that assumption, especially when for most of human history it has not been the case.

To my mind, justice means that the punishment is proportional to the crime. Jaywalkers shouldn't be sent to prison for 20 years, to use an obvious example. Crudely carried out, it's the principle of "an eye for an eye." Societies have refined those ideas, but isn't that still the bedrock of civil and criminal justice? And when someone commits a crime judged by society to be especially heinous, why should execution not be considered as a possible punishment?

I've got to go now, but I'm sure I'll have more to say later.

Distribution of wealth and care? There is so much wealth in a single western country that there is absolutely no reason for anyone on the entire planet to ever go hungry, not recieve medical care, etc. This is not an inevitable situation. It's a situation created by political means.

Police officers using deadly force? If it's kill or be killed, or some such situation, you do what you gotta do... but that doesn't make it right. Sometimes, there is no right thing to do, no good way out. Sometimes, it's inevitable that the only outcome is a negative.

Same goes for wars. I will never support violence as an option, but if your hand is forced (and I mean actually forced, not "Them guys got some dubya-em-deez! Let's git 'em!"), then you gotta do what you gotta do, again. Still isn't just or right.

These are both self defense measures, as you mentioned.

In either case, it's not something to look at as a positive, or to be done with zeal. It should be seen as THE last resort, and still done grudgingly. No one should be pleased with killing.


But capital punishment? That's completely avoidable. There is no inevitability there. It's not "kill or be killed." It's not "kill and save millions of lives."

You're saying that someone ought to be killed because they'd still be trouble inside the penal system, and "consuming resources"? Do you have a business degree? I don't see either of those as even remotely approaching a reason to end another life. If he's a threat to other prisoners or guards, that's what solitary is for, that's what training is for, that's what shackles are for, etc etc.
If he's consuming resources... how about freeing up the tons and tons of resources burned up by government waste and pork projects before just offing someone? It'll actually take some effort, but isn't it a worthy project, even independant of this issue?


Just because something has been done throughout history does not make it right. That it will continue to be done does not make it right. Neither of those are real arguments.

Just pointing out that "state-sponsored" killing happens in many direct and indirect forms beyond the death penalty.

Also, resource usage isn't the sole criteria -- otherwise I'd suggest executing everyone convicted of a felony. When it comes to death penalty cases, we're talking about people who a) have committed a crime judged to be especially heinous under our criminal justice system, b) people who have basically been judged to have no hope of rehabilitation, and c) will therefore have to be cared for by the state for the rest of their lives, while still posing a danger to those around them.

Based on those factors, the death penalty would be both proportional to the act committed and practical in terms of what's gained from warehousing the person (nothing) versus putting them to death (at minimum, ensuring they commit no further violent acts against others).

I guess I'm just always going to put more value on a human life, even one as awful as this, over any loss/gain anaylsis or anything like that.

locking someone up and throwing away the key can be far less humane sometimes.

Generally I don't support the death penalty, and I don't remember a single crime in this country in my life time that I thought deserved it. But there are people that should be eradicated from the earth.

Moist notably, people who respond to the question on a survey "sex:" with "yes please".

The single most vaild reason not to have the death penalty is the one already put forth:

"You killed someone so we'll kill you to show people that it's wrong to kill"

I mean , huh?

I can understand that people want to see a pedophile or someone that abused children hang, that's a deeply human thing, we're much less civilized then we want to appear, but lately there has been a huge scandal here inSweden where men convicted of sexual abuse of children (in many cases their own kids) have been found not guilty on further inspection, A witch hunt mentality kicked in a few years ago and almost everyone that had childabuse charges leveled at them was convicted.

Then the truth hit the fan, psychologists intent on being almost crusaders in cases put words into teh children's mouths, mothers who risked losing custody at divorces took an easy way out and accused the father of abuse...Lives were destroyed because of this, fathers who were only guilty of actually lovng their kids became convicted of the most disgusting of crimes, children who in these cases deep down knew that this was wrong were wrecked by what they had done. There was a highly published case where after 10 years in prison and 10 years of being seen as a pedophile, a man was aquitted and found not guilty, one of the large TV channels here did a feature on the case that lead to the man being found innocent, the father and the daughter were reunited and two lives that had been alost destroyed were back on track again.

now imagine of child abuse was penalized by the death penalty...the father would have been executed and the daughter would have to live with the knowledge that she in a way killed her innocent father.

Death penalty is an antiquated relic from a time when the idea was to send the perpirator to answer before God...As far as I can tell only one truly democratic country uses tehd eath penalty...the US...