Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What do you think about the death penalty

Page 9 of 14 [ 211 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Are you in favor of the death penalty
Yes 30%  30%  [ 26 ]
No 70%  70%  [ 60 ]
Total votes : 86

Vatnos
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 119
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

09 Oct 2012, 8:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Punishment as a whole is a terrible way to deal with the crime issue. It is far more practical to prevent people from turning into criminals. By giving them a healthy society and not denying chances and potential to people. you can reduce the need for punishment.


You have implicitly denied free will. No matter what material circumstance we are raised up in there is still a potential for evil doing. Human will is freer than the wind and is not determined by material circumstances. It never was and it never will be.

ruveyn


The problem with your argument is that free will might not exist. And even if it does, a very large percentage of our experience is out of our control. Even if free will doesn't exist though, that would not invalidate your point. I think you'd still be right actually. Even if we are just very complicated machines with no real agency, we are still incapable of foreseeing and stopping every possible deviation in someone's conscience that could cause them to commit wrongdoings.

ruveyn wrote:
They always have a choice. Humans have free will.

If there is no free will, then there is no point in administering punishment or reward.

ruveyn


This is a deep philosophical tangent that I'd love to get into, but probably not in this thread. Are you saying that there is no purpose for anything if there is no free will? Because if so, I would disagree with that.

GGPViper wrote:
... Some people - for instance - believe that rape should be punished by death.


Well that's a great way of turning rape victims into rape-and-murder victims.



AspieRogue

09 Oct 2012, 8:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:


Human will is freer than the wind and is not determined by material circumstances. It never was and it never will be.






EVIDENCE, please?



Quote:

If there is no free will, then there is no point in administering punishment or reward.

ruveyn




Not true. People respond to incentives and most people respond to them in a very predictable way. The certainty of punishment creates an incentive for people to control their behavior. The ability to control ones behavior does not automatically imply free will; it implies that humans are automatons and can interact and respond to their environment.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

09 Oct 2012, 9:07 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Being pro-death penalty is a very American position to have.


Why?



AspieRogue

10 Oct 2012, 8:24 pm

Vatnos wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Punishment as a whole is a terrible way to deal with the crime issue. It is far more practical to prevent people from turning into criminals. By giving them a healthy society and not denying chances and potential to people. you can reduce the need for punishment.


You have implicitly denied free will. No matter what material circumstance we are raised up in there is still a potential for evil doing. Human will is freer than the wind and is not determined by material circumstances. It never was and it never will be.

ruveyn


The problem with your argument is that free will might not exist. And even if it does, a very large percentage of our experience is out of our control. Even if free will doesn't exist though, that would not invalidate your point. I think you'd still be right actually. Even if we are just very complicated machines with no real agency, we are still incapable of foreseeing and stopping every possible deviation in someone's conscience that could cause them to commit wrongdoings.





The exist of free will is unnecessary for humans to make decisions or to change their behavior. We humans have the ability to learn; and that means not only can we acquire knowledge but our behavior is strongly influenced by incentives. The kind of people who murder others, especially the innocent, are people who lack empathy and don't understand anything other than pure force. That is why they need to be punished! To not only provide justice for the victim(s) and their family(s) but to set an example for those who might be tempted to do the same thing.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

14 Oct 2012, 3:29 pm

People who take a life do not deserve to keep their own and should be killed in the same way they murdered.

We who support the death penalty are always tasked with being morally accountability for the possibility of putting to death an innocent, and that possibility, though exceedingly rare, exists. But I think its only fair for those who oppose the death penalty to then acknowledge all of the people who have then been harmed or murdered by just incarcerating a murderer for however long they are imprisoned... be it other inmates, guards, those in the criminal justice system, family/friends of the victim by people outside the prison acting on behalf of the imprisoned, etc. Its only fair.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 3:38 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
People who take a life do not deserve to keep their own and should be killed in the same way they murdered.

.


Fine. What guarantee do you have that a guilty verdict is correct. The state of illinois found that five percent of their convictions for felony murder were not correct and later evidence exonerated the lucky few. Since the means of determining guilt is quite uncertain (a five percent false positive leading to death is rather high) we should substitute a means of separating those found guilty of felony murder from society but in such a way that if an error is found, there person can be freed and compensated for time lost.

I propose penal colonies which are virtually escape proof, relatively cheap to patrol and accomplish the same end as capital execution, the permanent separation of the wrongdoer from society.

The quest for vengance and retribution would lead to putting innocent people to death. Are you in favor of that? I would put to you the same question that Oliver Cromwell put the rulers of Scotland --- In the bowels of Christ, bethink yourselves. Might ye not be mistaken?

ruveyn



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

14 Oct 2012, 3:59 pm

I'd rather it be mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, and something more painful than a sleepy shot,
but other than that, it's okay, I guess.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

14 Oct 2012, 4:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The quest for vengance and retribution would lead to putting innocent people to death. Are you in favor of that? I would put to you the same question that Oliver Cromwell put the rulers of Scotland --- In the bowels of Christ, bethink yourselves. Might ye not be mistaken?

ruveyn


Arguably, far FEWER innocent people would die should the death penalty be instituted as mandatory sentencing in some instances, because it would serve as a deterrent.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 4:04 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
I'd rather it be mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, and something more painful than a sleepy shot,
but other than that, it's okay, I guess.


Then you are o.k. with doing away with innocent folk wrongly convicted?

ruveyn



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

14 Oct 2012, 4:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
I'd rather it be mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, and something more painful than a sleepy shot,
but other than that, it's okay, I guess.


Then you are o.k. with doing away with innocent folk wrongly convicted?

ruveyn


If it means far fewer innocent folk die at the hands of violent criminals who know all-too-well that they'll not be made to answer, absolutely.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


AspieRogue

14 Oct 2012, 4:08 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
I'd rather it be mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, and something more painful than a sleepy shot,
but other than that, it's okay, I guess.



All violent crimes? That position is unacceptable. However, I favor mandatory death sentences for premeditated murder proven by forensics AND where the killer can be shown to be involved in any kind of criminal organization: Be it a street gang, drug ring, or organized crime syndicate. THAT would definitely be a deterrent.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 4:10 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
I'd rather it be mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, and something more painful than a sleepy shot,
but other than that, it's okay, I guess.


Then you are o.k. with doing away with innocent folk wrongly convicted?

ruveyn


If it means far fewer innocent folk die at the hands of violent criminals who know all-too-well that they'll not be made to answer, absolutely.


Whatever it is you are advocating, it is NOT justice. What it is is human sacrifice. You are willing to throw a few innocents to the lions.

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 14 Oct 2012, 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

14 Oct 2012, 4:11 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

The quest for vengance and retribution would lead to putting innocent people to death. Are you in favor of that? I would put to you the same question that Oliver Cromwell put the rulers of Scotland --- In the bowels of Christ, bethink yourselves. Might ye not be mistaken?

ruveyn


Arguably, far FEWER innocent people would die should the death penalty be instituted as mandatory sentencing in some instances, because it would serve as a deterrent.

Except it doesn't serve as a deterrent. The death penalty does not lower the murder rate.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a ... th-penalty



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

14 Oct 2012, 4:14 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
I'd rather it be mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, and something more painful than a sleepy shot,
but other than that, it's okay, I guess.


Then you are o.k. with doing away with innocent folk wrongly convicted?

ruveyn


If it means far fewer innocent folk die at the hands of violent criminals who know all-too-well that they'll not be made to answer, absolutely.


Whatever it is you are advocating, it is NOT justice. What it is is human sacrifice. You are willing to throw a few innocents to the lions.

ruveyn


As I said, fewer innocents dying is precisely why I feel that way.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

14 Oct 2012, 4:18 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

The quest for vengance and retribution would lead to putting innocent people to death. Are you in favor of that? I would put to you the same question that Oliver Cromwell put the rulers of Scotland --- In the bowels of Christ, bethink yourselves. Might ye not be mistaken?

ruveyn


Arguably, far FEWER innocent people would die should the death penalty be instituted as mandatory sentencing in some instances, because it would serve as a deterrent.

Except it doesn't serve as a deterrent. The death penalty does not lower the murder rate.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a ... th-penalty


You must have quoted the wrong statistics- these aren't from a state whereby the death penalty is a mandatory sentence for a certain class of crimes, it's from nations where it currently makes up an absolutely miniscule number of sentences, hence the word "deterrent" doesn't even apply here, by definition.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


AspieRogue

14 Oct 2012, 4:20 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
I'd rather it be mandatory sentencing for all violent crimes, and something more painful than a sleepy shot,
but other than that, it's okay, I guess.


Then you are o.k. with doing away with innocent folk wrongly convicted?

ruveyn


If it means far fewer innocent folk die at the hands of violent criminals who know all-too-well that they'll not be made to answer, absolutely.


Whatever it is you are advocating, it is NOT justice. What it is is human sacrifice. You are willing to throw a few innocents to the lions.

ruveyn


As I said, fewer innocents dying is precisely why I feel that way.



Antwort mein post, valentinewiggin!



RUVEYN:

I see not reply from you about the facts I informed you of regarding the electric chair. IF the current is in the "lethal current" range of 100-200 milliamps the voltage sufficient high enough to induce a massive seizure, the executionee will be dead as a doornail with only a few minutes of sustained electrocution and will not feel a thing! Nor will they experience any burns of any sort.