Capital Punishment

Sending criminals to life in prison is doing nothing more than wasting space and further overcrowding our jails. Once in jail for life, there is no reform (at least not one that is able to be acted upon), they are just continually punished until death.

The death penalty punishes in the same way life in prison does - no possible way to be reformed and re-enter society a “changed man”.

Surely the government has the right to give death as a penalty for extreme crimes. Think of law enforcement on the street - in certain situations, a police officer is to open fire on a suspect. Granted, these circumstances are usually extreme (the suspect has a lethal weapon drawn and ready, the suspect is attacking an officer or civilian, etc.), but they are no where near as extreme has serial killers and murderers.

Nos.

I think the example you gave of the policeman opening fire in the street as misleading because such an act is preventative of the destruction of an innocent’s liberty while capital punishment is not.

As for capital punishment itself, it saves no money as I believe it costs millions of dollars to execute someone, while it costs much less to lock them up for life. If you made the capital punishment process much cheaper you would have many situations where an innocent person would be killed ofr a crime they did not commit, which would be entirely unacceptable as locking them up for life means there is at least a possibility that an innocent will once again be able to enjoy their liberty.

The other question to ask is whether you wish society to stoop down to the miscreants level and to act as they did by killing someone. It is questionable especially if you believe in a utilitarian stance of punishment, who’s only purpose is to get the best possible outcome allround.

Well, to kill someone is to take all since of justicefrom them, because once someone is dead, they can no longer be rendered justice…

Your policeman analogy is flawed, as others have pointed out, but also because the policeman has a right to defned himself…He is not the state, but working for the state, and he is intitled to self-defence…

Life in prison is a process of justice, in which the ciminal will receive justice for the rest of his life…If he is found later to be innocent, he will recieve justice and be let free…
If he were dead, then you could not recieve said justice…

It’s called the “criminal JUSTICE” system for a reason, folks.

Justice means you get what you deserve. A criminal deserves a miserable experience–the greater the crime, the shittier the experience. Justice should be the sole concern of the courts and prisons–not rehabilitation, not deterrence, not anything else–simply justice.

“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” – Adam Smith

So, what you’re telling me is, that you’re intolerant…And rather machiavellian

But your assessment is contingent upon the absolute morality and unassailability of the law, and its enforcers. Just deserts cannot be ascertained in any system where perfection does not obtain. The law is always an approximation of intent, the intent to prevent or encourage behaviors, and is not always written with any good in mind; quite to the contrary, the law is often scripted with the benefit of specific and limited parties, to the exclusion of others, in mind - and such condtions do not suit the idea that the law determines just deserts…

I’m intolerant of people who cause harm to others (except in self-defense), yes–and I believe that they deserve a miserable experience, and that it is the responsibility of the courts to give them what they deserve (in other words, to do justice to them).

OK, I made an error of definition. I define a crime to be something that violates certain absolute principles (namely, that no individual shall voluntarily engage in acts of force or fraud against another’s person or property without consent, except in self-defense). Someone who has indeed committed a crime deserves a very, very, miserable experience–that is justice. Whether or not it is always works perfectly in practice does not change the validity of the idea itself.

I understand why you might want to define it that way, but neither of us can avoid the consequences of law enforcement. The law isn’t merely a definition, and so neither is the word crime. The law is enforced, and since the law is not made by Absolutes, but by persons, the law tends to be temporary, partial, partisan and reflective of contemporaneous values, either in its scripting or its interpretation.

And that means that the assessment of guilt or innonence prior to any judgement assumes an insight into character and motivation that - barring some unimagined intrusion into awareness itself - is indefensible in its primary assumptions, namely that intent can be quantified and punished.

Then you are aware that ALL intolerance is built by ignorance?[/code]

An interesting movie I saw lately on the subject of death penalty is The Life Of David Gale. Here is an excerpt from it where a philosophy professor discusses the death penalty with a conservative governer:

Journalist: Welcome back to Batter’s Box, we continue our very special four part program with governor Harden and arguing capital punishment with him is Death Watch regional codirector professor David Gale. You are up governer.

Governer: Well you know I always say the same thing and I’m gonna keep on saying it: I hate killing, and my administration will kill to stop it.

Journalist: How about it ?

Professor: Well governer murderers are not deterred by the thought of execution, they’re just not and you know it. Every single study there’s been done over this subject and there’s been over 200 of them and you’ve read them governer has reached the same conclusion and they all same the same thing.

Governer: Well maybe you should read your bible: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”.

Professor: What did Gandhi say about that: “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves us all blind”.

Governer: Heh, well I’m sorry and with respect but that’s fuzzy liberal thinking.

Professor: You really believe that governer ?

Governer: Of Course.

Professor: Well that’s interesting because you said that yourself in a speech in your first campaign.

Journalist: He got you there governer how about it ?

Governer: Yes he did, yes he did. Well if you’re not a liberal at 30 you’ve got no heart, and if you’re still a liberal at 40 you’ve got no brain.

Professor: I see.

Governer: That’s Winston Churchill.

Journalist: Touché.

Professor: So what you’re essentially saying, what you feel is, and this is to choose another quote, that “a healthy society must stop at nothing to cleanse itself of evil”.

Governer: Euh yes, euh, I’d have to agree, did I say that too ?

Professor: Oh no sir that was Hitler.

Journalist: Oooh.

Also consider what Nietzsche said:

So basically when your hate for murderers becomes so strong that you want to murder them yourself, you have to take a step back and think for a moment.

Just because Hitler said it doesn’t make it any less true. It just so happens that Hitler had a seriously fucked-up idea of what constituted evil.

Death penalty is no more murder than killing in self-defense is.

Killing != murder.

Execution is simply a just punishment for someone who takes the life of another. It’s not murder, it’s justice.

What makes you so sure YOUR idea of what constitutes evil isn’t fucked-up ?

If you kill someone out of self-defense, you do it to prevent him from killing you AND because there was no other way of stopping him. But you can prevent killers from killing again by putting them in jail, so there’s no need to take the extreme measure of killing them.

You can substitute murder for killing in my statement, the only difference is that murder is against the law and killing is not. Which illustrates nicely the hypocrisy that killing is good as long as enough people agree that the victim deserved it.

Don’t you think it is kinda inconsistent being a Christian and supporting the death penalty? Do you honestly think Jesus is going to be keen on capital punishment?

do you honestly think that christianity is based only on what jesus thinks?

try not to fall back on stauch stereotypes.

i believe that christianity is NOT meant to dictate how secular governments are run, but how citizens who are of the christian religions are to live. the two are mutually exclusive.

No to capital punishment. I’d rather a revival of gladiators.

Your Christianity is nor your Christ

Once in prison a murderer cannot re-offend would only be true if:
(A) prisoners were kept apart and there were no prison staff, thus no-one to kill
(B) death penalties were taken seriously, which all to often they are not- too often killers are let out before they are dead out of pity.
If (A) were true then the death penalty would be enforced only no blood would be shed. The prisoner would die of natural causes, however I believe either the death penalty or a life-sentance under my above conditions are what murderers deserve.

ohhhhhh…deep. hold on. wow. useless neitzsche phrases that are taken out of context. now THAT’s real philosophy.

i’m not christian. i’m tolerant