Jump to content

Do you believe the death penalty is unethical?


Recommended Posts

Killing them guarantees they can't kill anyone else. It was very clearly put, as it was the entire point of the post. Anyways, I asked you a question and you dodged answering it, so let me try and make you go though a tiny thought process. this may be a little disturbing, but its a true thing that happened when a mentally insane person wasn't killed. Ted Bundy was arrested 3 times, and was never put to death. twice he managed to get out, and as a result over 30 people died in extremely horrific ways. It didn't stop until he was put to death. Now the innocent people who were subjected to extreme pain, the families of the loved ones, they ALL suffered at the sake of not ending this mans life. If they never did, hundreds more would have probably died. Your looking at it from a curved view. theres a point when ethics reach the highest, before they start to curve again resulting it in being too twisted to be recognized as ethical. If your willing to sacrifice hundreds, in an attempt of not killing someone, I am quite willing to say your insane. Its about the greater good. And the death of those who he did kill, resulted in deep pain of hundreds.

Thank you for that heartfelt plea in favour of better jails. I agree- and I'm sure others do too, that it is better if criminals don't escape from incarceration.

 

What has it got to do with the death penalty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 445
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That post was responding to Disarray.     I...must.... stop.... responding. I don't go into this kind of discussion to'win' an argument; it's too serious a subject. I go in with the intention of t

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 t

Some nice, thinly-veiled, derogatory and hand-wavey dismissive adjectives there which is usually where discussions on this sort of topic end up. I'm going to be bigger that and refrain from reciprocat

My thoughts haven't changed, the death penalty isn't punishment, its vengeance and I am not opposed to vengeance given the provocation.

The point I was trying to make was, given that a criminal will never benefit by anything he's learned during a life sentence, should a life sentence also be considered vengeance?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make was, given that a criminal will never benefit by anything he's learned during a life sentence, should a life sentence also be considered vengeance?

 

If we ship his "unique case" to another country with no return and pretend we killed him, will he still learn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make was, given that a criminal will never benefit by anything he's learned during a life sentence, should a life sentence also be considered vengeance?

 

From a victim's or surrogate's perspective, I think the death penalty is vengeance. From the perspective of those condemned to death, it's a cost rather than punishment. Death is the price one pays for an egregious act or wrong among certain societies. Like the death penalty, which is vengeance, I think a life sentence is also a price and not punishment when the condemned essentially loses the life he may have previously enjoyed. Therefore, a life sentence could also be considered vengeance.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that heartfelt plea in favour of better jails. I agree- and I'm sure others do too, that it is better if criminals don't escape from incarceration.

 

What has it got to do with the death penalty?

What is it with nobody getting the point. I must be really bad at this.

 

The point is that should the death penalty been given, it would have saved a lot of lives. Thousands. Every year there's a murderer convicted of death, who either escapes or kills fellow prisoners. Its financially a bad idea. The ethical argument cancels itself out because ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Just because someone bad does something doesn't makes it bad, and you other arguments? Please present them.

 

Also, memmal, (I don't think I got your name right...) Your simply stating the same thing over and over again, as per your custom. I ask you the same question I asked john. Present your argument.

Edited by Raider5678
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with nobody getting the point. I must be really bad at this.

 

The point is that should the death penalty been given, it would have saved a lot of lives.

I think the problem is that you are not making a very good point. When Bundy was in jail he was serving 1 - 15 years for a kidnapping in which the victim escaped from his car while he was trying to restrain her. She was not physically injured. It was while serving this sentence that he escaped.

 

To suggest that he should have been put to death for such a crime seems unethical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only reporting what I've read.

 

 

 

Very misleading quote from...Gee! Surprise! Amnesty International.

 

They referred to death penalty "cases." As in the court costs. This is far different than claiming that the actual cost of doing one lethal injection one time on a guy is more expensive than feeding and housing and caring for him for, say, another 20 or 30 years. Where I think the cost per annum for a Maximum Security Inmate equates to the same as an Ivy League University education.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, memmal, (I don't think I got your name right...) Your simply stating the same thing over and over again, as per your custom. I ask you the same question I asked john. Present your argument.

I already presented my argument and yes, I repeated myself as you seemingly did not understand it first time around. Just go back to where we started off. The point that I have been trying to convey is that criminal acts are (according to the findings of behavioural scientists) likely the results of interactions between the criminal's genetic make-up and specific or unique environmental "triggers" and as such there is an argument to be made that the criminal did not act "intentionally" or "consciously", but that it was an "automatic" reaction. Let us assume that the findings of such studies have merit and then revisit the question as to whether the death penalty is ethically justified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that you are not making a very good point. When Bundy was in jail he was serving 1 - 15 years for a kidnapping in which the victim escaped from his car while he was trying to restrain her. She was not physically injured. It was while serving this sentence that he escaped.To suggest that he should have been put to death for such a crime seems unethical.

I had realised later on that ted Bundy wasn't a very good example, but there are quite a few cases or murders being put in jail, and either escaping or killing fellow prisoners.

 

 

I already presented my argument and yes, I repeated myself as you seemingly did not understand it first time around. Just go back to where we started off. The point that I have been trying to convey is that criminal acts are (according to the findings of behavioural scientists) likely the results of interactions between the criminal's genetic make-up and specific or unique environmental "triggers" and as such there is an argument to be made that the criminal did not act "intentionally" or "consciously", but that it was an "automatic" reaction. Let us assume that the findings of such studies have merit and then revisit the question as to whether the death penalty is ethically justified.

And the same thing STILL applies, should others suffer for one mans inability to control himself? If you cant stop yourself from killing others, your basically try into argue that they should go free because WE do not have the right to judge them. In that case, what right do we have to judge the victims he/she might kill?

 

Also, someone said about an extremist case. I'm pretty sure if they're even consider in the death penalty then the case was already extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with nobody getting the point. I must be really bad at this.

 

The point is that should the death penalty been given, it would have saved a lot of lives. Thousands. Every year there's a murderer convicted of death, who either escapes or kills fellow prisoners. Its financially a bad idea. The ethical argument cancels itself out because ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Just because someone bad does something doesn't makes it bad, and you other arguments? Please present them.

 

 

You really need to get into the habit of substantiating your claims. What evidence do you have that thousands of lives would be saved? Where are your statistics on deaths caused by escaped murderers? Or the financial details? I have already provided links that confirm that death row inmates are much more costly than general population ones.

 

Please present your evidence.

 

 

Very misleading quote from...Gee! Surprise! Amnesty International.

 

They referred to death penalty "cases." As in the court costs. This is far different than claiming that the actual cost of doing one lethal injection one time on a guy is more expensive than feeding and housing and caring for him for, say, another 20 or 30 years. Where I think the cost per annum for a Maximum Security Inmate equates to the same as an Ivy League University education.

 

 

 

That's cherry picking the cost. Where does the money for the trial, and the more expensive incarceration while awaiting execution come from? The jail fairy? If you aren't comparing total cost — the burden on the taxpayer — then you're making a dodgy argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to get into the habit of substantiating your claims. What evidence do you have that thousands of lives would be saved? Where are your statistics on deaths caused by escaped murderers? Or the financial details? I have already provided links that confirm that death row inmates are much more costly than general population ones.

 

Please present your evidence.

This should give you an outlook for murderers release:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+murderers+kill+again&oq=how+many+murders+kill+a&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.14673j0j4&client=tablet-android-gigabyte&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#q=how+many+murderers+kill+again+after+prison

1\100 of murderers released kill again.

 

Here's some statistics from the next link

There are 4 homicides inside of prison per 100,000

There are 3 homicides inside of local jails per 100,000

Here's the link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiqjZO_qp3NAhWDPD4KHXxXDXwQFggrMAU&usg=AFQjCNH9319X9tfaNuyzMVKq6D4OjAvfaw&sig2=5eL4X13Ahlas4imxiIM95w

 

Obviously not all of there murders are done by previous murders, but we can run the numbers with how many prisoners are murderers, which sadly I couldn't find the numbers for that.

 

 

If you don't keep the deathrow inmate in jail for the next 25 years,I'm pretty sure it'll be a lot less costly. The cost of a death penalty case is

Average

Death penalty 1.26 million

Non death penalty 740,000

Now a life sentence?

1.598 million

If you don't keep them on death row for too long, it should be cheaper.

Edited by Raider5678
Link to post
Share on other sites

IOW, you're OK with killing 99 people to save one life. (edit to add: statistically, a couple of these people will be innocent of the crime for which they were convicted)

 

And you'd need to have released 100,000 murderers to reach your number of 1000 people killed.

 

If you don't keep the deathrow inmate in jail for the next 25 years,I'm pretty sure it'll be a lot less costly. The cost of a death penalty case is

Average

Death penalty 1.26 million

Non death penalty 740,000

Now a life sentence?

1.598 million

If you don't keep them on death row for too long, it should be cheaper.

So how do you ensure they haven't been incorrectly convinced (there are examples of such people being exonerated), if you don't give them the time to prepare appeals and further investigate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with nobody getting the point. I must be really bad at this.

 

The point is that should the death penalty been given, it would have saved a lot of lives. Thousands. Every year there's a murderer convicted of death, who either escapes or kills fellow prisoners. Its financially a bad idea. The ethical argument cancels itself out because ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Just because someone bad does something doesn't makes it bad, and you other arguments? Please present them.

 

Also, memmal, (I don't think I got your name right...) Your simply stating the same thing over and over again, as per your custom. I ask you the same question I asked john. Present your argument.

I am unaware of cases, that can substantiate your claim of saving thousands of lives, where convicted murderers on death row have escaped or killed fellow prisoners. Move over if people escaping prison our committing murder while in prison was a problem would better prison security be the solution to that problem?

 

People behave in society in the manners that society allows/encourages. When it was okay for males to beat their wives doing so was far more common. Same goes for hitting children. Society saying something is okay increases the rate of practice. Here in the United States as a matter of policy we say it is okay to kill people. That killing people is an acceptable course of action against those doing things we find reprehensible. It isn't constrained to our judical system either. War, drone killings, and special forces raids, and etc are part of our foriegn policy. Any presidential candidate that doesn't proclaim a desire to KILL terrorists (not just stop them) is viewed as weak and unfit to lead. As a downstream effect of this individuals arm themselves not just in their homes but out walking the streets with the intention of killing anyone who is doing something bad. Killing as a means to prevent any crime, even petty crime, and that behavior is viewed as a gray area. Case by case we accept our citizens killing each other if we feel the dead had it common. So we get cases like Trayvon Martin.

 

In my opinion it would be far better for society to say killing, all killing of any type, is a bad thing. That it is reserved strictly for the defense from imminent harm. A prison inmate who is detained behind bars and under guard poses no imminent threat. Not killing them is an easy place to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Also, memmal, (I don't think I got your name right...) Your simply stating the same thing over and over again, as per your custom. I ask you the same question I asked john. Present your argument.

Would that be the same question I already answered?

Killing killer is sinking to their level and abandoning the moral high ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion it would be far better for society to say killing, all killing of any type, is a bad thing. That it is reserved strictly for the defense from imminent harm. A prison inmate who is detained behind bars and under guard poses no imminent threat. Not killing them is an easy place to start.

 

Indeed. Plus the death penalty is just damned savage anyway. Do we need that in the world?

Edited by Thorham
Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with Ten oz when he said "In my opinion it would be far better for society to say killing, all killing of any type, is a bad thing. That it is reserved strictly for the defense from imminent harm. A prison inmate who is detained behind bars and under guard poses no imminent threat. Not killing them is an easy place to start." I think that its better to spend more money on inmates and keep them detained then kill them and not have to spend money, a person staying alive is worth the money even if he is a murder, there are psychological reasons why he is a murder its usually a psychopath or something and not that many people are or become murderers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with Ten oz when he said "In my opinion it would be far better for society to say killing, all killing of any type, is a bad thing. That it is reserved strictly for the defense from imminent harm. A prison inmate who is detained behind bars and under guard poses no imminent threat. Not killing them is an easy place to start." I think that its better to spend more money on inmates and keep them detained then kill them and not have to spend money, a person staying alive is worth the money even if he is a murder, there are psychological reasons why he is a murder its usually a psychopath or something and not that many people are or become murderers.

It is more expensive to execute a person than lock them up for life.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm

 

Sure there are psychological reasons and many murders are psychopaths how does that justify us (society of non-psychpaths) killing people who are detained and under our control? The feeling that someone deserves to die is, in my opinion, a very selfish one everyone is capable of. We have conflicts all over the world where people are killing each other for reason they have selfishly determined justified. I think not killing when it isn't necessary is far simplier than putting in the mental effort to kill someone that we do not need to. Explain why it is necessary to execute a prison inmate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A detained, living prisoner could be a workhorse. Not only would this reduce costs, but it's true justice if the profits go toward fighting his own crime. Furthermore, it might be only one more thing to dread, or a source of meaning, depending on his personality type and by proxy his guilt or innocence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more expensive to execute a person than lock them up for life.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm

 

Sure there are psychological reasons and many murders are psychopaths how does that justify us (society of non-psychpaths) killing people who are detained and under our control? The feeling that someone deserves to die is, in my opinion, a very selfish one everyone is capable of. We have conflicts all over the world where people are killing each other for reason they have selfishly determined justified. I think not killing when it isn't necessary is far simplier than putting in the mental effort to kill someone that we do not need to. Explain why it is necessary to execute a prison inmate?

We already know the trial costs a lot more.

Would that be the same question I already answered?

And we already said that the moral high ground depends on what you believe the high ground is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And we already said that the moral high ground depends on what you believe the high ground is.

Not killing people for no good reason seems to be pretty unequivocally on the moral high ground side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.