Like Josh said (glad you brought it up), the death penalty DOES cost more than life in prison. Not only that, but even if it didn't, is it really worth ending a human life...to save a buck?

There is no reason anyone should ever be killed (other than war and self-defense, and that's not a justification for war, that's a justification of the soldiers who are forced to do a job that they may not agree with). That's why we have such heavy punishments for murder. Because it is wrong. So who are WE to kill someone because they killed someone? It is no more effective to kill them than it is to lock them away forever. An eye for an eye is a 4000 year old Biblical tradition. Is that how you want to run our country? The way bronze-age savages did?

If there was a foreign attack on the United States, nobody would raise an issue with killing those who are attacking. Yet, for some reason people raise an issue with internal attacks. The State has the right--and the responsibilty--to defend it's people.

At the point of capture it could be said that the need to defend no longer exists, but the State still has the responsibility to enact Justice. The death penalty is typically only given for first degree murder. The criminal should be given a punishment that is just for ending that person's life, for what grief they have caused the family, and what damage they have done to society. That person's entire future was taken from them. In some cases, life imprisonment is a reasonable course of action. However, for a serial killer or a mass murderer can the same be said? Certainly capital punishment should not be used leniently, but I feel that there are cases that it should be used.

Not only is having capital punishment effective for enforcing justice, but also for the preventative effect it has when people to know that it exists. Fear of punishment has always been a way to make people in in accordance to the law.

You can't compare a terrorist act with one murder. You can't. If you commit a terrorist act, the government is going to go after you. In the case of 9/11, it was, for the most part, a government going after a government (the Taliban).

In the case of capital punishment, it is a government (generally state) going after a person who did not harm the people as a whole. A terrorist act can bring down an economy, kill thousands. One murderer is going to kill one person, most likely. Possibly quite a few more if they are a serial killer or similar. It does not affect the government or the people as a whole at all.

The two are not comparable, and is a weak argument to boot.

I didn't mention a terrorist attack, I said a foreign attack. Terrorism is included, but not only that. War and others count as well. Terrorism kills; murder kills; comparison made. The fact that life has been brought to an early end applies to both.

Just as the government is responsible for protecting from foreign attacks, they are responsible for protecting us from internal attacks. Does the fact that it's internal really make that much of a difference? It's ok for our government to go after people as long as their from a hostile government? Talk about hypocrisy. Where someone is from doesn't make their crime any different, and that's the point that I'm making.

I expect the government to protect me from domestic dangers as well as foreign ones. You're saying that one murder does not harm society as a whole, then it that case, why even punish them? Certainly by that logic everyone could just go on living their lives. Shoot, we all will have murderers for neighbors and it won't make a difference. If a person is willing to take a life in a planned act then they are willing to do it again. This is first degree murder, not 3rd, not homicide, but first degree. An intentional act.

There is damage to society as well. Suppose someone is a day away from curing cancer, and only they know how. They get murdered and now we don't have the cure to cancer. For any murder victim there are family, friends and people they knew that now mourn that death. You're suggesting that we ignore the injustices that have happened simply because they do not affect us? If it was a murder of someone that affected the society as a whole would that change the punishment? If a random shot was fired that killed the President that would be a capital crime, but not if it hit an innocent pedestrian? If the economy collapses because of one murder it is more significant than another murder? You're comments suggest all of this.

You mentioned scope. One murderer might not be able kill that many people, but the collective sum of murders is quite large. In 2001 (and every year for the past 30 years) there were over 16000 murders not including the 9/11 events. The 9/11 terrorist acts killed 3000 people. I'm much more worried about being murdered than I am about being killed in a terrorist attack.

This statement is a load of crap, and clearly you didn't think about what I said nearly enough.

First of all, we can't just arrest the terrorists and give them life in prison like we can a murderer. Second of all, your whole argument is "kill them so we feel better". Why not give me a million dollars, supply everyone with heroin, and allow men to beat their wives? It'll make them feel better, but it doesn't make it right. You can't judge someone on a single action (or series of repeated actions). A serial killer is a bad person in the sense that they kill many people, but does that make them a bad brother or son or father? Does that mean their views on the world are corrupt and they are incapable of doing good? No. One bad action (or a series of them) should not be reason to revoke someone's right to life. You can lock them away forever and let them do whatever they please behind bars. They could be a good or bad person, but as long as they're away from us, how does killing them make anything better? Like I said, "an eye for an eye" is not the correct course of action.

As for your final point, you are 100% wrong. Let me repeat that. 100% wrong. I'm going to admit to ripping off this argument here, but this is how it goes.

Murders are caused for 1 of 3 reasons. There are murders of passion. The kind where a woman is beaten and abused by her husband to the point of murdering him, for example. She is not thinking about the punishment of her actions when she pulls the gun on him. She's thinking about her safety and her hatred for him. Nothing more. The death penalty will not deter that.

There are the murders of reason. Like organized crime. These people do not believe they're going to get caught. It's simply a way of life for them and they take precautions to avoid ANY punishment. Capital punishment, if anything, will make them try harder. It's not going to stop a gang member from shooting up a rival member because they're scared of getting the chair.

The third are murders of compulsion. These are your serial killers. They don't kill because they want to, per se, but because it's a psychological need of theirs. Most of the time, the murders know it's wrong. John Wayne Gacey and Jeffery Dalmer (spelling could be way off) both hid their victims (they're not the only ones). They knew it was wrong and they knew the punishments. It didn't stop them because they weren't considering those things when they killed. They did because they were mentally unstable.

Capital Punishment is NOT a deterrent, so can we just ignore that argument for the rest of the thread?



And suppose they're the next Hitler. You can't toy with people's lives over what "might" have been. All's that matters is what is true and factual. Speculation is not grounds for capital punishment. And EVEN if it was, what difference does it make if that person was the next Hitler, had a cure for cancer, or was just some dude on the internet? He is dead now and nothing will change that. Killing the killer just makes one more death, costs more money, and sends us back a few years closer to the bronze age. Or, we can lock them away for the rest of their lives, save some tax payer money, give them a chance to reflect on their life and their actions, and we can continue to move forward as an intellectual and humane society.


Last Edit: Jan 12, 2010 2:31:33 GMT by Lucifer

Guantanamo bay much? POW are in fact quite common. I'm not really sure what you're saying here though. Are you saying that it's ok to kill them because we can't keep them in prison? I'm not saying that is what you're saying, I'm just not sure where you're going...

It is? I hadn't realized. Thanks for telling me what my argument is. My argument is that justice has to be enacted, that there have to be consequences for actions. That criminals should have to understand the weight of the crime and receive a proper punishment. If it was to "make them feel better" then justice would be left in the hands of those close to the victims. Our judiciary system has an impartial judge and a selection of jury members, a selection that each lawyer (who is working for their client, the criminal or the state) has a choice over. These people will not feel any better by giving the death sentence, but they feel it's the appropriate punishment.

Also, I know I certainly wouldn't feel any better if someone who murdered any of my family got the death penalty. It doesn't cure the situation at all. I can't say everyone is the same, but that's how it is for me.

Yes you definitely can judge someone by either of those two. Actions, not words are what make people who they are. Sure, I would say this is typically true. However, certain acts (such as murder) are so heinous that they are able to allow a person to be judged by that one act. The act of murder is an incredibly devastating one, especially when it is a first degree murder. As far as does it make them a bad family member? Well, yes, it does. Their imprisonment and murder(s) also affect their own family. They acted without thinking of the consequences for not only themselves, but their family as well. As I've said, I don't say that capital punishment is appropriate for all situations, but definitely for some first degree murders.

It's not really an eye-for-an-eye at all. Eye-for-an-eye would be someone personally taking revenge on that person. In fact, the murderer has already committed themselves to be willing to take the death penalty (for those states that have it) by committing the act. They've as good as killed themselves. It's not about getting even, but rather punishing the crime that has been committed.

The best part about you declaring that it's 100% wrong is that you are arguing based on opinion, not any fact.

There have been studies that go each way, indicating one direction or the other. Sure what you wrote sounds reasonable, but it is not fact nor proven to be true. Mine hasn't either, so sure we can drop it, but I'm not conceding it.

That's what my point was. That one life can not be measured in value, and therefore a greater number does not necessarily equal a more horrid crime.

The bronze age argument is noted, but they also ate as well. Does that mean that by eating we're sending ourselves closer to the bronze age? Sure, you're saying they did terrible things back then, and you're suggesting that this is among them. However they also did great and good things, and this hasn't been decided one way or the other. If it had been decided, then this argument and statement would make sense, but as of now it doesn't go to support either claim.

Sure, locking them away takes care of them in terms of protecting society, but in some cases it does not make them pay for their crimes. For some criminals, that can't even be considered a punishment.

Monetarily it does cost more, but I'm more interested in debating the ethics, after all, I can't really touch this one as it's fact.

No, I'm saying that an act of terrorism cannot lead to a simple arrest and imprisonment. It leads to war. In war, sometimes you don't have a choice. If there's a way to avoid it, excellent, but that's not always an option. That was my point. If we could just walk into Afghanistan and arrest Osama bin Laden, I'm sure we would've. But we have to fight and kill if we want to stop this (not that I agree with the war, but you brought up the terrorism example so I'm running with that, but this applies to any sort of attack on America or declaration of war).



When I said "this is your argument", I was simplifying what I understood to be your argument. Don't focus so much on personal accusations (for lack of a better term) and semantics like that or we'll just waste time. Just sayin'.

As for your point here, it's the job of the judge and jury to be unbiased. There is simply no way an unbiased party could morally agree to the "an eye for an eye" punishment. The only explanation is that they still adhere to archaic savagery for no reasonable purpose other than to be "fair". Sometimes being "fair" isn't right. If being fair means inflicting the same punishment on an individual that they're being condemned for committing, then that makes them hypocrites. And again, exactly what would change if we were to kill him instead of give him life in prison? He would sit in prison laughing at us because he got out of this whole scenario alive? No, really, in what way is the justice less served? He is now locked away forced to live by the rules we set for him and he can no longer harm innocent civilians. What more can you ask for? His death, sure, but that doesn't change a thing other than the fact that he's still alive and maybe he might feel like he got a lesser sentence than he deserved. The only thing that means is that this punishment may not deter him from doing it again (not that capital punishment will deter first-time offenders, but it will stop someone from offending again), but since he's locked away, even if he wanted to kill again, he couldn't. So...what's changed? I still don't see how killing someone is somehow more just than life in prison, OTHER than the fact that it's a perfectly balanced punishment. But why go for something more barbaric for the sake of balance when that balance doesn't actually make any more of a difference than the alternative. Or, in other words, if killing doesn't make any more of a difference than life in prison, then how is it being more "just" make it more correct?



Two things. One, I should've specified. You cannot judge someone AS A WHOLE based on a single action or set of actions. A woman sells her body for prostitution to feed her children. If you're of the mind that prostitution should be illegal and a sin, does that make her a bad person as a whole because she's a prostitute?

The other thing. You say that murder is so heinous that it can sort of "override" the other aspects of a person, but here's a true story for you. A guy my sister went to school with had just gotten out of prison on parole. Why was he in prison? Murder. Why did he murder? He walked in on his sister being beaten by her boyfriend, so he did what he knew how to do or what he mistakenly thought was best. He shot him. Does that make him a bad person? That's a bad action and huge mistake, there's no denying that, but he was a good kid and trying to protect his sister (and not even from something lethal). Who are you to say that he no longer deserves his life because he made the mistake of taking someone else's? It's not always that simple, and even when it is, that doesn't make the death penalty right.



Nowhere does it state that lex talionis (law of retribution, IE: an eye for an eye) has to be personal. It simply states that you inflict punishment perfectly equal to the crime. And I'd argue your other point, but I think my earlier allegory touches on it just fine. Most times murder isn't, "I'm going to kill this guy and hopefully I don't get caught." It's an impulsive act, or a compulsive act. Impulsive acts are generally mistakes and shouldn't be reason to take someone's life. Compulsive are generally a result of a psychological disorder--something that can either be worked to fix or at the very least contained by imprisoning the person. Again, you've yet to point out how the death penalty is a better solution than life in prison.



With rare exceptions (that I even doubt exist, but acknowledge might), I highly doubt there's ever been a murder that has been thought out in the sense that it wasn't an act of impulse or compulsion, but where the murderer also fully believed that they may be caught. As in, I don't think there's ever been a murder that doesn't fall into one of those three categories. If it falls into those categories, then no punishment is a deterrent because none of those categories are concerned with the punishment, only the crime. But we can drop it, because this really will go nowhere.



Maybe I'm tired, but I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you reword that?



Eating is necessary for life. Murder is not.

But I get what you're saying. My point is that a civilized society is meant to advance. As we grow and learn as a species, we should be able to replace ideas. Just because some of those ideas are still relevant and the best possible solution now doesn't mean that they are eternally good ideas. The death penalty is something that can be avoided and should. There's no reason to adhere to such an archaic practice because it is not necessary. 4000 years ago, that's something that might've been effective and practical in their society. In ours, it's not. So why do it?



And if they're dead, they have no consciousness in which to experience their punishment, so what's your point? That'd be even less of a punishment. The only difference is that the murderer wouldn't have to live with the immorality of his actions or our own.



It was just another point in support of the argument. And like you said, it's fact, so I don't expect you to touch on it at all. I was just throwing it out there.

Instead of quoting (it takes to long to respond to individual parts), I'm going to summarize and trying to make this concise.

First off, I only believe in capital punishment in the case of first degree murders. That is, premeditated, planned murders. It was intentional, there was no self defense, just outright murder. So the guy that you mentioned would not receive capital punishment by my view of it.

As far as the terrorism bit, this example has expanded way too quickly for something I just threw in there. Anyhow, sure, it's harder to arrest. However, if we did arrest him, I'm almost certain he would be put to death for his crimes. We would not just keep him in prison.

The part about curing cancer was a response to Josh and how he had mentioned that terrorism warrants killing the terrorists due to the societal impact. My point was that societal impact cannot be measured, and no matter what a life has been taken.

As far as the bronze age/archaic/etc stuff, you said you got what I was saying. And I understand that you're saying that we're supposed to advance from that, but this debate itself is over whether or not abolishing the death penalty is an advancement.

I'll just mention that I do believe in an afterlife, but I don't want to bring that into this as we have varying belief structures. As a result there are certain points I can't really respond to, such as the advantage of capital punishment versus life imprisonment.


Btw, are you never on msn?


Last Edit: Jan 12, 2010 5:05:20 GMT by Eric

Again, what difference does it make. Death or life or prison? Both have the same end result as far as anyone is concerned beyond the actual murderer (because in one scenario, he'd be dead).



And I would argue that it would be wrong to kill him.



Gotcha.



As I was saying, life in prison and the death penalty have the exact same impact, but only one ends with another death.



Then wouldn't he end up in hell for eternity, anyway? Would he know the difference between hell for eternity +30 years or the rest of his free life in prison and then hell for eternity? In fact, the latter seems worse (to me).




Pretty much. I'm on there every now and again. One of these days you'll catch me.

No, I don't believe in heaven or hell. My beliefs are way different than anything you've probably encountered. It'd take too long to explain entirely, and ultimately it wouldn't change your belief structure.

edit: removed quote


Last Edit: Jan 12, 2010 5:19:38 GMT by Eric

How about I pose this, then? Everyone has differing beliefs on afterlifes, so wouldn't life imprisonment, something we all have the same understanding of, be the most fair? Death penalty could be more/less just depending on your view of the afterlife.

I will concede that the life imprisonment is better for different belief structures, yes. This debate has essentially died if I'm the only one for death penalty, because my points all rely on my beliefs.


Last Edit: Jan 12, 2010 22:16:06 GMT by Eric

Well hopefully someone will come along and spark things again.

But in an attempt to keep things going, you concede to my argument that for some life imprisonment is worse. So even if it's not worse for you, like I said, we can all agree on and understand the concept of life imprisonment. If that's the case, wouldn't the right thing to do be putting aside your own beliefs (religious/spiritual, not moral) and trying to make a decision on something more concrete? This is why we don't have religion in schools. We agree on science in school because it's something demonstrable and we can understand it. Religion is not the same way.

So, in other words, the proper, secular reasoning would be life imprisonment solely for the fact that the death penalty not only results in another death (something morally reprehensible to most people), but the actual aspect of death is still a mystery to us (granted, everyone likes to think they "know", but it's yet to be proven in any direction and the fact that there are varying beliefs is still enough counter-thought to consider it a "mystery"). Not that I'm trying to bring in god/afterlife beliefs into this as something to debate, but merely that life imprisonment deals with something that we as a society know and understand and can control. The death penalty subjects an individual to an entirely different type of punishment, one that cannot be known, let alone controlled, and therefore should not be the answer. We are a secular nation (if you disagree, that's a debate for another time, so don't start that argument), so we should search for a secular answer.

So even if you, personally, believe the death penalty according to your beliefs is the correct answer, I'm asking you to concede that it should not be what the GOVERNMENT accepts as the correct answer, because the government represents all people, including those who believe differently than you.

I'm in that boat with abortion. Perhaps I, personally, may not like the idea of my significant other getting an abortion, but what I PERSONALLY believe should not dictate everyone else's rights and actions, so I'm Pro-Choice. Not because I like abortion or agree with it, but because I agree with a person's own right to choose. That's how this should be.


Last Edit: Jan 12, 2010 23:28:31 GMT by Lucifer