Gilga-flesh

Trying to find errors in the reasoning of some people in this thread is like shooting goldfish in a bowl. Easy but pointless and gets boring quickly. Clearly many people didn't form their opinion on the basis of a reasoning. They formed their opinion on basis of emotions and then picked up some arguments they don't truly believe in to try to defend an opinion they don't actually understand.

Arguments should be at the core of a belief and should stand or fall together. They are not ablative armor for your own ego.

 

 

 

That's not what I got out of "But current death penalty isn't the first or preferred option. It is the last."

Let me refresh your memory also.

 

Patently false. "Last option" means all other options have been tried. Has incarceration worked?

You insisted there is no other interpretation possible of last resort. I'm cool with that. So, you must try other options first like incarceration and if that doesn't work you can kill them right?

Last resort doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. It means you have exhausted all other options.

 

But there are people on death row that are not repeat criminals, ergo the death penalty is not being used as a last resort.

As you could get out of my posts, I understand death penalty isn't already being used exclusively on repeat criminals. What I asked was: would people accept death penalty if it was exclusively used on repeat criminals?

Um, I don't recall providing a definition that subscribe to, so I don't really have any need to provide evidence.

 

Indeed, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. You seem to agree that punishments vary from one culture to the next regarding the same crime, which really is just a way of saying that ethics are culturally relative. In terms of the question of whether the death penalty is ethical, it would seem that both of us agree that it depends on what alleged crime one is talking about, who is the defendant, and which culture one is referring to. Bottom line, the answer as to whether the death penalty is ethical becomes yes, no, maybe, depends.

 

Gilga: It seems to me that you are objecting to the round about condoning of the death penalty by those who appear to be saying that it is bad, but that it is nevertheless okay as long as one has tried other things such as short term jail sentences, or are you saying that for some people, we should just end their lives right away so that we aren't sending them to prison and then letting them out to see if they behave, thereby leading to repeat offenders?

The former. It appears some people here do not realize the consequences (or meaning) of their own statements and are left without rebuttal when I confront them. It's a common symptom among people who do not have a logical reasoning to sustain their belief to begin with. They treat words as stones and just throw them like blunt weapons rather than have them naturally flow from logical reasoning.

 

No. See, for example, Buddhism.

Indeed! My question was hypothetical. There are many spiritual/religious believes without a god, or rather without an omnipotent creator, that include spiritual immortality of some kind.

 

So you agree that what is just and fair can vary from culture to culture and perhaps individual to individual.. rather arbitrary don't you think. And which is it, the culture decides what is fair, or the individual... and what if there are mixed opinions within the culture, e.g., on the issue of abortion, with variants such as incest, rape, safety of mother.

 

And what happens to the idea of justice if the law in a given state is changed from one year to the next, or people in a given town reject state law on abortion and pass laws of their own against the state law.

 

So your definition is rather vague to begin with. Really, the only thing that makes sense is that we get back to the idea that justice be distributed equally and impartially within a given culture, not the severity of the punishment. Again, what evidence other than your own (say, for example, a different wiki article) supports your definition?

 

Gilga: I see your mind is sharp..I would not be capable, or couldn't be bothered pointing out such a litany of inconsistencies.

Thanks. I'm used to reviewing scientific literature so inconsistent crap bothers me much. Also I'm bored I guess. But you're right. He's not worth it.

If I may interject, I don't see what difference it makes whether other punishments/measures have (or should) be used. If a guy goes in and out of prison and rehabilitation programs several times and continues to rob gas stations to support his heroin addiction, should we just increase prison terms (under the assumption that doing so would make any difference) or try a different form of rehabilitation, or should we at some point just throw our arms up in the air and say, "Gosh, we tried everything, but you are incorrigible, so we are forced to take your life." I don't understand this line of reasoning...am I missing something?

Possibly you missed the post I responded to? It was this one:

Patently false. "Last option" means all other options have been tried. Has incarceration worked?

Someone remarked how death penalty should be a last resort measurement. Which I thought it already was. So we got in an unfortunate linguistic discussion about the term last resort. Apparently people think it means that you should first try out other courses of actions before the last resort action become acceptable.

Which of course means that they do think death penalty is acceptable as long as other courses have failed. Ergo repeat criminals.

 

I simply agreed that those arguments make no sense, for instance, why does your supposition without evidence take priority over mine?

 

I, at least, explained why my supposition lacks evidence, whilst you just continue to insist yours is valid and mine is made up (hence the double face-palms).

 

 

I look forward to the citations, you'll no doubt provide now, or at least an explanation as to why you can't provide them.

 

 

BTW I live in a society that values freedom of speech, or would you deny me that?

 

Where to start.

Let's summarize our discussion for the sake of sanity and late arrivals.

"If death penalty is abolished the alternative is life in prison. Because these are the worst of the worst. Rehabilitation isn't really an issue if you plan to keep someone locked up in a cage forever."

0) I state the "worst of the worst" of criminals can't be released.

As for your extreme example, of course their will always be some people considered to dangerous to be released, but, that said, 99% of the prison population in any given country is rehabilitatable.

1) You agree with me. You also claim that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated.

No and I'm not going to look because it was meant as a counterpoint to the extreme example suggested by Gilga-flesh, as in 99% of any prison population won't meet of his example.

2) You refuse to back up your claim because it was meant as a counterpoint. And you can make those up apparently. You also no longer agree to my point that the worst criminals can't be released even though you already agreed to it a post earlier.

Except ofcourse, my "extreme example" actually exists many times over and yours is completely made up.

3) I point out the obvious. The worst of the worst of criminals exist. But 99% of criminals have not been rehabilitated, nor is there evidence that they can be.

4) You disagree but lose the ability to use language. I especially like how you decided to post the same smiley twice.

"Oh, you disagree that your statement that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated is made up? Strange cause you admitted it yourself just a few posts later. The example you claim as extreme is, unfortunately, not even remotely exceptional."

5) I'm confused and try to find out what's going on + I make a large reasoning about how society badly combines attempts to punish criminals and protect society.

"Indeed."

6) You post a single word while deliberately quoting my phrase "This does not make sense" out of context. I guess it's better than a couple of smileys. Unfortunately there is still no indication of what part you disagree with, let alone an explanation as to why.

"Brilliant argumentation. If you don't have anything to say, don't."

7) I point out that you are not saying anything of worth. At all.

"I, at least, explained why my supposition lacks evidence, whilst you just continue to insist yours is valid and mine is made up (hence the double face-palms).I look forward to the citations, you'll no doubt provide now, or at least an explanation as to why you can't provide them. BTW I live in a society that values freedom of speech, or would you deny me that?"

8) You again disagree with me and your former self. Apparently you no longer think that there are criminals who shouldn't be released. You demand scientific evidence for their existence and claim I'm oppressing your freedom of speech by exercising my own freedom of speech to tell you to put more meaning in your speech.

 

Patently false. "Last option" means all other options have been tried. Has incarceration worked?

It seems to depend on the definition of last resort you use. If you feel other punishments/measures must first be used, does that mean that you would support death penalty for repeat criminals (assuming crime of sufficient magnitude) that do not seem to be rehabilitable?

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

How about other punitive measures such as fines. What do you think of these?

After adding death sentence to codex.

It's just a matter of time when this punishment will be used to kill "traitors", anyone who is upset at the government,

which means killing the all democratic/non-democratic opposition.

If a country becomes a dictatorship they can do whatever they want regardless whether it was legal before. Aside from this, there are always ways to kill 'traitors' if you really want it. Even in countries without death penalty. That's why, when your country becomes a dictatorship, it's game over as far as ethics and legality issues are concerned. They people who determine what is legal ARE now the criminals and they don't need your or the public's approval at large in order to create their law.

 

 

Indeed.

Brilliant argumentation. If you don't have anything to say, don't.

I'm happy to live in the country that was the first to abolish death penalty for political crimes and the third for common crimes. Our highest punition is 25 years even for murder. The system works , we have a low rate of violent crimes.

Of course sometimes we have a crime so horrible that we feel the punition is not good enough but those are the exceptions.

Only a violent society needs a violent punition. Or dictatorships.

...

My country doesn't have death penalty either. But does the system work BECAUSE of the lack of death penalty and low max. sentencing? Or is the causality reversed? My impression is that societies tend to loose death penalty when they become more pacified. And call for death penalty increases when violence/terrorism goes up.

Last Resort - A final course of action, used only when all else has failed

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/last-resort

 

...

 

 

The Death Penalty is not a last resort. It is retribution for an offense.

...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/last%20resort

When nothing else works. In the opinion of lawmakers in countries like the USA, nothing less than death penalty would work to punish the very worst criminals sufficiently. It's the maximum punishment available for the worst crimes possible.

I hope there is a god, as it would suck to just stop existing. But I believe I only prove my own point in the end.

Honestly, I try to stay away from religion and just live life.

Does a belief in immortality of the spirit require a God?

You can't prove God doesn't exist, only because that's not how evidence works.

Didn't intend to suggest otherwise. But it is quite possible to prove the existence of something. Especially very big and powerful things like elephants and suns. Though not gods it seems.

 

 

 

 

Because it's not justice. Now please explain why it should be and how that goal helps society.

Oh, you disagree that your statement that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated is made up? Strange cause you admitted it yourself just a few posts later. The example you claim as extreme is, unfortunately, not even remotely exceptional. There are *many* serial pedo-raping child murders. Enough to start a society all by their own had that been a good idea. And I can't count the number of times that a trial came in the news because the pedo-murderer was laughing in court, even actively taunting the parents of the victims.

These are complete psychopaths, according to psychology completely without conscious. They like hurting others and either don't feel their pain or even like it. Some don't even understand why other people are all touchy and sentimental about things like raped and murdered children.

So tell me: what purpose did the facepalm smileys serve? In what way was my statement incorrect?

As for your 'second' statement, though the first barely deserves to be called a statement: I don't care either way. As I made clear in my earlier posts, I don't mind if criminals are punished or merely kept away from society. I don't care if they receive the death penalty or kept imprisoned for live either. None of these are per definition evil or good in my eyes.

I'm pretty much cool with any of these philosophies as long as they are approached consistently and in a rational manner. They usually aren't. And the badly mixed desire to keep society safe (isolate philosophy) and punish criminals (punish philosophy) at the same time has led to systems in which prisoners are tormented for long periods of time only to be released back in a society in which they can no longer function. Further increasing chances of relapse and harm to society. And death penalty is given even if the criminal desires death more than life and consider death a release. While other criminals beg for death and are kept forcefully alive as an act of 'kindness' rather than cruelty.

This does not make sense.

Ethicists abhor an ethical policy chosen on majority grounds. But if there is a strong favor among a public for either the punish or isolate philosophies then it might be better to just pick one and create a system which actually achieves what it set out to accomplish.

 

 

that's not the only reason to stop reading such bloviation.

Bloviation? His post could be more concise to match forum convention but it certainly wasn't empty of meaning.

Which god?

Different cultures have/had very different type of entities which all got translated to gods. If you want a definition you have to observe the common base for all these entities.

Which is a degree of immortality and a degree of supernatural power beyond what is ascribed to humans by the culture which acknowledges said god entity.

The Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is of course an extreme example since he maxes out at both requirements. However that works against him in my aspect. Cause even though you can't prove whether a god exists or doesn't exist, it's easy to find reasons not to consider an omnipotent god worthy of worship just by observing the world.

 

 

No and I'm not going to look because it was meant as a counterpoint to the extreme example suggested by Gilga-flesh, as in 99% of any prison population won't meet of his example.

Except ofcourse, my "extreme example" actually exists many times over and yours is completely made up.

You would recommend people to commit scuiside???!!! <etc>

I would recommend people to allow people a degree of autonomy over their own life which also includes voluntary ending, if so desired. If a friend was sick and wished to die, and I determined his wish to be sincere and not a fleeting impulse, I would assist him. And I have several friends that would do the same for me.

You once again validate my conclusions. Some people think life is a duty. An obligation. But your opinion should only affect you. Not me. Understand?

 

---

 

Gilga comments that instead of letting the inmate decide, perhaps the victims and/or their surviving relatives should have a say instead: "They might veto to allow the criminal to suffer or might relish the notion that the perpetrator is dead far more so." I think it highly unlikely that this would happen (e.g., in the U.S.). For one thing, what happened to letting the legislative/judicial/executive aspects of government make such decisions...are we to willy-nilly let disgruntled and vindictive victims/relatives mete out punishments as they see fit? And what happens if vindictive victims think that the death penalty is the worser option while the inmate prefers death over life in prison? In any case, such a proposal seems to focus on the role of vengeance in our legal system, and I would have thought that our enlightened culture was moving away from that sort of attitude.

 

Nor can I foresee in the immediate future that the legal system would allow those convicted to decide their own fate, as giving them the option to choose between life in prison or a death sentence is tantamount to offering them the option of committing suicide. Indeed, in the sci-fi scenario where a society operated in this way, one could envisage the possibility that the legal system would make the prospect of life in prison so unpalatable as to encourage convicts to rush to the gallows (electric chair, gas chamber, or what have you) rather than deal with the harsh realities of life in prison. (Though in States where euthanasia is legal or 'virtually legal', one wonders who is to decide who has the right to have themselves euthanized and who doesn't....Would not an inmate who faces the prospect of life in prison unacceptably onerous, or indeed, who finds prison life unendurable after, say, a few years have passed, also have the right to end his own life? Where does one draw the line between suicide and euthanasia....shouldn't we all have the freedom to die when we want?)

 

Finally, I would point out that the prospect of death means different things in different cultures. I have read that some Easterners (e.g., Buddhists, Hindus) have the bizarre diversion of drawing straws to see who jumps out of an airplane to his death, and thus to the next incarnation. This tale may or may not be true, but it makes the point that not everyone fears death and for some, dying is no big deal. In some other societies, the death sentence could be construed as a form of torture, since it is hastens, for example, the (presumably guilty) inmate's descent into hell and everlasting torment.

 

Nor do I think that a system in which the victim has official power over punitive measures is realistic. Nonetheless if victim satisfaction is the underlying goal for death penalty then a veto is the only way to achieve this. Since not all victims will require the outcome to accomplish satisfaction. If mere punishment and/or imprisonment is the underlying goal, then no veto is required.

If we look at violence in overall in countries without the death penalty and tha look at violence in countries with the death penalty what would be the average trend? Perhaps promoting that killing people is the right course of action if that person(s) deserved it isn't a good attitude to promote. Gavin Long thought police officers deserved to die in Baton Rouge. He was wrong but stands as an example of how everyone has their own definitions for who deserves what. In my opinion it is best for the Gov't to stay out of that business. Gov't should be using death as a last resort and never as a preferred option. If for no other reason than to set the bar high for society.

A last resort, yes. But current death penalty isn't the first or preferred option. It is the last. Your statement seems, again, exaggerated. I understand you do not see punishment as a goal and (most?) proponents of death penalty do. And that almost all of you see death as worse than the, as disarray described time in many prisons, "a subdued but prolonged form of torture".

So it might help the discussion if you explained why punishment of criminals should not be a goal.

And then there's some who didn't go rotten, but simply are rotten. By all deems of society I should be one of the cruelest sickest people after the stuff I went through. I have seen people who would kidnap and torture a random little girl for years, and then kill her. And if they didn't kill her they would traffic her. People who's network was so large prison couldnt stop them. They would bribe the guards, have arms assailants break them out. They wouldnt give a hoot about the thousands of peoples who's lives they just ruined by setting up human trafficers, drug trade, slave collectors, and much worse. I've seen how bad people can be. I've been in one of the violentest places in this world. My sister was raped and abused to the point of no return. My brother was tortured for years. I was subject to abuse, and the horror of watching my siblings get beaten, raped, abused, and neglected.

 

When you can imagine half of what I went through, you will believe there is people who should die. I don't care what made them that way. Try and solve that. But right now, we know the apple is rotten. We know its at a point of no return. Do you want to save it to see how many more apples it'll spoil?

Exactly.

If I contracted some contagious airborne disease I would be kept in hospital even if I turned out to be only a carrier. I wouldn't be released if there was any doubt that I was cured to prevent harm to others. They'd need 100% certainty of that, not 70 or 80 or even 90.Yet rapists and murderers are just let loose like it's nothing. Take this figure: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/135292/170-convicted-rapists-reoffend-after-released-from-prison. So for the small chance that a former rapist will become a rehabilitated wholesome member of society, many other lives of people who were wholesome members of society to begin with, are sacrificed.

That's not good ethics.

In the case of crimes with high chance of repeat and a lot of damage to other people, there shouldn't be a second chance. Because that chance comes at the price of other people's first chance at life. As one victim said: "‘We are all still paying a price. Victims of rape and their families get a life sentence, so why don’t the rapists?" It would be something if rapists were being castrated before release. But to let them keep sex drive and release them, knowing they can't control themselves, is madness. It's like letting a hit and run driver keep their drivinglicense, or a random shooter his gunpermit and just trust them using the honor system.

And to keep it relevant to the discussion at hand: one argument speaking for the death penalty is that the perpetrator isn't going to repeat the crime. Even if they are kept locked up in prison for life, they might rape another prisoner who was imprisoned for something much less severe. Say theft instead of rape/murder. Is that fair?

 

Suicide could be a mistake. It can also be a good decision. Either way adults have the right to make their own decisions. It's not up to YOU to decide for them. You can advice, a psychologist might test to see if the desire for death is sincere. But only 1 person carries the actual right to decide: the person in question.

 

And no of course people who are depressed (true depression aka as in medical disorder) aren't feeling alive. That's pretty much what depression means. Children aren't as aware? I used to be a medical researcher with a fondness for psychology and I never heard that. At the contrary, children's minds are very active. My personal memories of childhood are extremely strong. I think I felt everything considerably stronger then. Like many adults I'm now more reserved, thicker skin. Less sensitive. Anyway a moot point.

 

Comparing the death wish of someone who is suffering to a child's undeveloped capacity to reason is silly.

My post is downvoted. The only one in this thread I think. Interesting.

Is it because I dared to state that people have the right to commit suicide? There are people with unimaginable problems. I doubt, no I know, that none of you have endured true disease and disorders. There are people who are experiencing close to the maximum amount of pain and suffering that a person can possibly go through. There are people who have gone completely insane and do nothing but scream in agony while imagining hells you can't describe. They will never be better. None of the worst cases of schizophrenia have ever become healthy again. You can drug them to become a barely conscious vegetable but that's not cured. *I* think they have the right to chose a dignified end. A right to decide about their own life or death. It seems that some of you would rather put such a person in a straight-jacket and force them to endure several more decades of hell. OR make them into a vegetable. Something without a proper human mind. Against their will.

And yet you think me immoral. Unbelievable.

But I think my conclusion was correct: at least some, perhaps many, of the opponents of death penalty aren't motivated by the belief that people deserve to live. It's because they think people have the obligation to remain alive. I suspected due to a fear of their own mortality but perhaps some religious background is involved as well. Even if you are not actively religious, the culture in which you are reared will still affect you. Look at nature. Look at the world. Look at medical conditions. What exactly makes you think life is sacred?

But I really don't want to derail this conversation any further. I brought up the subject of suicide because I didn't understand the hypocrisy involved. I think I figured it out pretty well in the end.

 

 

 

But not to learn from that understanding? if you don't learn you don't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

Not much point in rehabilitation then.

 

 

 

 

Well aren't you the lucky one, that no-one caused you to be a pillock.

Rehabilitation...? In reference to death penalty? If death penalty is abolished the alternative is life in prison. Because these are the worst of the worst. Rehabilitation isn't really an issue if you plan to keep someone locked up in a cage forever. Are you suggesting life in prison should also be abolished?

So to keep with my example I gather you would try to rehabilitate said serial child raping/murdered. You know one of those guys that keep a little girl locked up and rapes her for months, then kills her and bursts into laughing in court when asked if he doesn't feel guilty.

Be honest here. Look in your heart. If he gets released because psychologists declared him better. Could he become your friend? I mean that's what rehabilitate means. To become a fully fledged and accepted member of society. Will he be your friend? Will you ever let him into your house, love him like a brother, babysit your daughter?

then is living based on how happy you are in life or how aware you are in life? becasue then someone in depression is not living, and a young child is not living either because they are not as aware as adults. then who exactly is living?

im not saying scuiside attempts are impulsive. what i said is that it could be a mistake they make. if you make a mistake that puts you to jail its something that can be fixed sometimes, but I am saying that we should not allow people to kill themselves.I have personal experience with scuiside I have a couple friends that comitted scuiside and they were in their early twenties. it really effected my life negitivly. sometimes people who commit scuiside dont relize how much other people care about them and how much of a loss it is for everyone. and I do think that scuiside should be prevented as much as possible because the prisoners are not in their right mind if they are planning to do that. people in general are not mentaly healthy if they want to commit scuiside. im not sure how I would want the prisoners to be helped but I would want to buy therapy for anyone who is depressed and wants to commit scuiside, I hope you wouldnt want somone in life to commit scuiside and just say oh it was their choice and same goes for people in prison. no one knows if life is better then death but once you die you hit the point of no return and at least we know life can be good if you make it good. I dont think anyone should have the right to take a life away with the acception of doctor assisted scuiside and abortion if you consider the first month as life.

Suicide could be a mistake. It can also be a good decision. Either way adults have the right to make their own decisions. It's not up to YOU to decide for them. You can advice, a psychologist might test to see if the desire for death is sincere. But only 1 person carries the actual right to decide: the person in question.

And no of course people who are depressed (true depression aka as in medical disorder) aren't feeling alive. That's pretty much what depression means. Children aren't as aware? I used to be a medical researcher with a fondness for psychology and I never heard that. At the contrary, children's minds are very active. My personal memories of childhood are extremely strong. I think I felt everything considerably stronger then. Like many adults I'm now more reserved, thicker skin. Less sensitive. Anyway a moot point.

Comparing the death wish of someone who is suffering to a child's undeveloped capacity to reason is silly.

 

 

If you don't understand the rotting process, then you'll be forever picking out rotten fruit; understanding why it rots, may save the barrel.

I agree. It's good to understand the cause of the problem. However it's not a requirement to recognize the problem.

Whether they are born like that, made like that, chose like that is an interesting issue and the answer(s) might help prevent similar cases in the future. But it won't change the fact that the bad person is a bad person. I don't think understanding Hitler or some pedophile/child murderer will make me consider them brothers and invite them over for Holidays. No matter what the cause, they became/are bad on the inside.

i think the reason people dont allow prisinors to commit scuiside is because you dont want a person to make a decition that they will not be able to correct or undo. there is a scuiside hotline for people in life trying to commit scuiside. if they kill themselves their relatives will not be able to visit them pay bail if they were planning to do that. everyone does die but if you take good care of yourself you can extend your life for a very long time as opposed to thoes who hevily smoke and drink. do you think there is a difference between living and surviving? they both mean remain alive to exist.

As pointed out: surviving in essence requires no more than a heartbeat. That is not living in the metaphorical sense. There are people in coma that survive but they aren't even aware. There are children kept as sex slaves that survive.. till they get too old and get shot. They survived for a while too. But that's not what we would call a living. And considering how many Afghan sex slaved children set themselves on fire in the hopes of getting freedom one way or the other, I don't think they value such a life very high either.

Suicide attempts can be impulsive yes. But there are plenty of prisoners for which it's not impulsive. They thought about it deeply and kept their conviction for extended periods of time. If someone keeps a death wish for a year or even years on end, it should simply be respected. There are plenty of people like that outside prisons too of course and these people will also face the same opposition. Yet, it should be their decision. Even if it will turn out to be a mistake, it's still the right of an individual to make that mistake. It's their life to do with as they chose.

Unless you intentionally wish for prisoners to suffer, in that case it makes sense to keep suicidal prisoners alive at all costs. But then it should also make sense to put prisoners who wish to live on death-row. See the inconsistency?

This debate and people themselves are clearly driven by the assumption that to live is always better than death. A belief so strong that it will be enforced on others at any cost (or reversely applied in the case of death penalty).

Rape and other forms of assualt in prison are a huge problem. I am not sure how executing prisoners would change it? Prisoners sentenced to die are not housed in the general popluation. So they are not involved in the numbers you referenced. Those who are, unfortunately, end up back out on our streets. So statistics that reflect rape, murder, and other acts of violnce do not provide much insight for the purpose of this discussion:

 

Corrections Compendium

(‘Death Row,’ 1999) summarized data from a recent survey of

37 state and federal corrections departments. This report detailed death row policies

regarding accommodations, time outside cell per day, inmate mingling, visitation,

programming and other issues. Specifically, in 35 jurisdictions death row inmates are

housed in individual cells. In 18 jurisdictions these death row inmates average less

than an hour daily of activity outside of their cells, and in five other jurisdictions out-

of-cell time is less than three hours daily. Social visitation is non-contact in 21 of 37

jurisdictions.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CunninghamDeathRowReview.pdf

The reason I brought up the horrible living inside prisons was to point out the inconsistency. Many people oppose the death penalty because they think it is too cruel. Yet far fewer object with the same fervor against the appalling conditions under which they have to live. Some weak prisoner ending up being violently/sexually abused for decades on end is apparently the lesser evil in their eyes.

Which makes no sense. It can only be explained because they think that living under any condition at all is per definition better than death, which is an opinion not shared by many people.

So again, so summarize, if you oppose the death penalty you apparently think that people, even the worst of criminals, have a right to live which can't be infringed upon. I neither oppose not support the philosophy itself but merely ask for consistency; if they retain the right to live, they should retain the right to die as well if they chose to do so.

Also, it people act out of concern for prisoners wellbeing, upgrading the conditions under which they have to live will likely achieve a lot more good for a lot more prisoners than merely get rid of the death penalty which only affects a few. Unless ofcourse you, as I suggested, consider mere physical survival sufficient and psychological wellbeing of less importance.

 

 

Nobody is born evil, much like bullies, they're made that way through suffering and abuse; to cast that stone without knowing their torment, borders on arrogance.

I don't need to know how an apple got rotten, I just need to know it's rotten.

We deprive people of "rights" as punishment.

But the criminal makes the choice to be punished; if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

But there is a difference between "the right to live" and "the right to decide to live"- ask someone who is terminally ill.

What?

Our legal system should function to keep society safe. It should not function to avenge our losses. We have the largest prison population in the world despite always beating our chest about being the freest country in the world because we misuse or legal system. If keeping society safe were the goal we would not incarcerate someone unless they posed a tangible danger to society by being free to walk our streets. Instead we lock people up for punitive reason and then ensure any future contributions to society will be great reduced by giving them criminal records. We use our legal system to pinish rather than prevent, to seek retribution rather than protect. It doesn't work.

 

The Gov't saying that they will not kill people who are totally detained and under their control should be easy. It should be easy for society to accept that its Gov't doesn't kill people that it doesn't have to. That revenge isn't official policy. It speak to the violent mindset of our (USA) country that honest people have honest debates about whether our not killing people who are already completely pacified is a pro or con. Killing to save a life is one thing but the death penalty doesn't do that. The death penalty kills to satisfy feelings and imo that is a little scary. It is scary that so many in society have feelings that are best satisfied by killing a person(s).

This is actually very nicely written. Although I don't feel the abhorrence at death penalty like you do, I think I understand your viewpoint better now. If a criminal is kept for life in a prison he/she would indeed be unable to inflict harm on those outside, and you wish to eliminate the punishment aspect of prisons.

Nonetheless, with up to 20% of inmates being raped and many violent assaults (and a few murders/suicides) occurring inside prisons each year, it seems prisons are still places in which punishment is central even without death penalty.

Granted, criminal lives won't be saved by ending them either. But to me it seems that, even if death penalty was something undesirable, that it should have lower priority than changing the horrid conditions under which criminals are kept to begin with. To me that seems like the real punishment; perpetual struggle to survive in a hellhole. And this is why the death penalty seems benign to me in comparison.

Yet I see considerably less people making a fuss about prison rape than about the occasional death penalty, even though death penalty only affects a few and rape affects A LOT of prisoners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States

"In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration, and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.^[5]"

" In 1974 Carl Weiss and David James Friar wrote that 46 million Americans would one day be incarcerated; of that number, they claimed, 10 million would be raped. A 1992 estimate from the Federal Bureau of Prisons conjectured that between 9 and 20 percent of inmates had been sexually assaulted. Studies in 1982 and 1996 both concluded that the rate was somewhere between 12 and 14 percent; the 1996 study, by Cindy Struckman-Johnson, concluded that 18 percent of assaults were carried out by prison staff. A 1986 study by Daniel Lockwood put the number at around 23 percent for maximum security prisons in New York. Christine Saum's 1994 survey of 101 inmates showed 5 had been sexually assaulted.^[9]"

You seem to have conflated assisted / permitted suicide with the death penalty. They are not the same debate.

No they are not. But they clearly overlap since both concern the right of the individual to have power over their own life/death. And if you want to settle a discussion you should first find out the underlying motives for people on either side of the argument to stick to their positions.

I can see why it would make sense to suspend a right, even such a fundamental one as the right to live, as ultimate punishment. But if people object against this and think this crosses a line, then I would expect them to be consistent and allow prisoners the right to die as well. Since they are essentially one and the same right. However I've noticed that many people who oppose death penalty would rather put a prisoner in a straightjacket and keep them doped up for the remainder of their lifespan than allow them a dignified end even if said prisoner begged for death.

I didn't understand this.

So I suspect that many opponents of death penalty have other reasons than mere concern about rights to oppose the death penalty. Namely their own views on death. It certainly fits the trend in society. Whereas in the past people were taught to accept their mortality and death as a natural phenomenon, keeping memento mori in their homes and on their person, society nowadays has moved completely away from this. The quest for eternal life was always there ofcourse but with a generation of narcissists and pseudo-scientific daydreams which suggests immortality is just a few years away, it reigns stronger than ever.

Everyone dies. Everyone. And usually it's a very unpleasant death after many years of physical and mental degradation. The only alternative is a life-sentence. It won't however prevent anyone from dying. All it does is make sure you have many years of prison before your death occurs. People have survival instinct so their gut reaction is to prefer life. That doesn't mean they will truly live in those years. Not live in any sense that matters. Just... survive.

I think the inevitability of death puts the death penalty in perspective doesn't it?

People on death row appeal the sentence hoping for life in prison instead.

They presumably know more about it than you do.

SOME, perhaps many, people on death row appeal the sentence. But SOME people on life wish for death. Death isn't worse or better than life by some cosmic standard; it's subjective. That was my point.

Which is why FORCING either life OR death on a person out of compassion is ridiculous.

I personally am on neither side of the capital punishment debate. But if you think the government has no right to the power of life and death over criminals then you should give criminals the possibility to voluntarily chose death as well.