Jump to content

Do you believe the death penalty is unethical?


Lyudmilascience
 Share

Recommended Posts

Vengeance

Since 1973 there has been 156 exonerated death row inmates. How many innocent people would you be okay sacrificing at the atler of our bloodlust for institutionally performed revenge?

Death row exonerations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

 

Not just Death Row cases but since 1992 the Innocene Project has help exonerate 342 people.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/

 

You don't think any of the murderers on death row murdered for vengeance? If it wasn't a justifiable reason for them why is it for our gov't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 1973 there has been 156 exonerated death row inmates. How many innocent people would you be okay sacrificing at the atler of our bloodlust for institutionally performed revenge?

Death row exonerations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

 

Not just Death Row cases but since 1992 the Innocene Project has help exonerate 342 people.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/

 

You don't think any of the murderers on death row murdered for vengeance? If it wasn't a justifiable reason for them why is it for our gov't?

In 2015, 144 people not on death row were exonerated after spending an average of 15 years in prison.

 

How many innocent people would you be okay with locking up like lab rats?

 

People die unfairly in every endeavors humans take on. We know up front that some number of children will suffocate if we make plastic bags, but we do so anyway. People die from Viagra. We can make car tires better but instead accept that some people will die because doing otherwise would bite into profit.

 

Nothing we do is risk free. Expecting it to be is a fools errand.

 

 

A record-breaking number of people were exonerated in 2015 freed after serving time in American prisons for crimes they did not commit.

 

In all, 149 people spent an average of 15 years in prison before being cleared last year, according to a new report (.pdf) out Wednesday from the National Registry of Exonerations, a project at the University of Michigan Law School.

 

The convictions ranged from lower level offenses, such as 47 drug crimes, to major felonies, including 54 murder convictions that were overturned. Five of the convicts were awaiting execution, and were saved last year when courts ruled they didn't belong in the prison in the first place.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jailed-innocent-record-number-people-exonerated-2015-n510196
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Zapatos, we generally endeveavor to make things safe as possible. Our governments tend to stop when become counter productiveor they is no clear benefit. Risk that a child will suffocate if we make plastic bags vs having no plastic bags at all. Pastic bags are water resistant and flexible. They are ideal for containing food, body, hazmat, or other types of waste. There flexibilty allows superior access in a wider range of locations and envornments. They are more convenient and hygenic than alternatives. There are obvious benefits to plastic bags and an argument can be made that not having them could result is more fatalities than having them causes.

 

What is the obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate? How would not doing so be as potentially deadly as doing so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Zapatos, we generally endeveavor to make things safe as possible. Our governments tend to stop when become counter productiveor they is no clear benefit. Risk that a child will suffocate if we make plastic bags vs having no plastic bags at all. Pastic bags are water resistant and flexible. They are ideal for containing food, body, hazmat, or other types of waste. There flexibilty allows superior access in a wider range of locations and envornments. They are more convenient and hygenic than alternatives. There are obvious benefits to plastic bags and an argument can be made that not having them could result is more fatalities than having them causes.

 

What is the obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate? How would not doing so be as potentially deadly as doing so?

The problem with this is your looking at it from a 100% logical view. What percentage of people FEEL safer because of the death penalty? Whether it makes them safer or not doesn't matter to them, they believe it does. And when you can say with 100% certainty that taking away the death penalty won't result in ANY deaths, people still won't believe you. Also, its not sinking down to their level if you kill them. What they did was kill someone who didn't deserve it. They deserve it. That means you didn't leave the moral high ground.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vengeance

i consider that more of a defect than a reason.

It doesn't actually make teh world a better place.

 

In 2015, 144 people not on death row were exonerated after spending an average of 15 years in prison.

 

How many innocent people would you be okay with locking up like lab rats?

 

People die unfairly in every endeavors humans take on. We know up front that some number of children will suffocate if we make plastic bags, but we do so anyway. People die from Viagra. We can make car tires better but instead accept that some people will die because doing otherwise would bite into profit.

 

Nothing we do is risk free. Expecting it to be is a fools errand.

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jailed-innocent-record-number-people-exonerated-2015-n510196

Plastic bags offer a benefit.The death penalty does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate?

The trouble with thinking like this is that no consideration is given for the victim's family's loved ones. What right do you have to decide what is appropriate? They are the ones experiencing the loss, not you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this is your looking at it from a 100% logical view. What percentage of people FEEL safer because of the death penalty? Whether it makes them safer or not doesn't matter to them, they believe it does. And when you can say with 100% certainty that taking away the death penalty won't result in ANY deaths, people still won't believe you. Also, its not sinking down to their level if you kill them. What they did was kill someone who didn't deserve it. They deserve it. That means you didn't leave the moral high ground.

 

"he problem with this is your looking at it from a 100% logical view. What percentage of people FEEL safer because of the death penalty? Whether it makes them safer or not doesn't matter to them, they believe it does."

Thank you for that heartfelt plea for better education.

I don't see what it has to do with the death penalty.

 

"They deserve it. "

Nobody does.

Killing for no reason is not better than killing.

It is sinking to their level and it does lose the high ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Zapatos, we generally endeveavor to make things safe as possible. Our governments tend to stop when become counter productiveor they is no clear benefit. Risk that a child will suffocate if we make plastic bags vs having no plastic bags at all. Pastic bags are water resistant and flexible. They are ideal for containing food, body, hazmat, or other types of waste. There flexibilty allows superior access in a wider range of locations and envornments. They are more convenient and hygenic than alternatives. There are obvious benefits to plastic bags and an argument can be made that not having them could result is more fatalities than having them causes.

 

What is the obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate? How would not doing so be as potentially deadly as doing so?

While not having plastic bags at all is an option, it is not an either/or situation. Just as we could makes tires that are safer if they fail, we could makes plastic bags safer than they currently are. But we don't. We accept there is a level of risk that we accept to keep costs down.

 

The obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate is that he will then be dead, which is the penalty society has assigned to the crime he committed. No point in assigning a penalty if you are not going to apply it.

 

The point of my post was that all actions carry a risk. You cannot deny the death penalty just because it carries the risk of an innocent person being punished any more than you can deny a 15 year prison sentence, as that also carries the risk of an innocent person being punished.

You don't think any of the murderers on death row murdered for vengeance? If it wasn't a justifiable reason for them why is it for our gov't?

Because we live in a society governed by law.

 

You could just as easily ask, if it is not justifiable for some citizen to take a person off the street and lock them away for 10 years, then why is justifiable for our government to take a person off the street and lock them away for 10 years?

 

The government is granted the option of doing to its citizens what they are not allowed to do to each other, otherwise we will have anarchy.

It is sinking to their level and it does lose the high ground.

You'll have to explain to me how the government does not hold the high ground over Timothy McVeigh.

 

Working at a lakeside campground near McVeigh's old Army post, he and Nichols constructed an ANNM explosive device mounted in the back of a rented Ryder truck. The bomb consisted of about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

 

On April 19, 1995, McVeigh drove the truck to the front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building just as its offices opened for the day. Before arriving, he stopped to light a two-minute fuse. At 09:02, a large explosion destroyed the north half of the building. It killed 168 people, including nineteen children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 684 others.[49]

 

McVeigh said that he had no knowledge that the federal offices also ran a daycare center on the second floor of the building, and that he might have chosen a different target if he had known about it.[50][51] Nichols disputed this, saying they knew there was a daycare center in the building and that they did not care.[52][53]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not having plastic bags at all is an option, it is not an either/or situation. Just as we could makes tires that are safer if they fail, we could makes plastic bags safer than they currently are. But we don't. We accept there is a level of risk that we accept to keep costs down.

 

The obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate is that he will then be dead, which is the penalty society has assigned to the crime he committed. No point in assigning a penalty if you are not going to apply it.

 

The point of my post was that all actions carry a risk. You cannot deny the death penalty just because it carries the risk of an innocent person being punished any more than you can deny a 15 year prison sentence, as that also carries the risk of an innocent person being punished.

 

Because we live in a society governed by law.

 

You could just as easily ask, if it is not justifiable for some citizen to take a person off the street and lock them away for 10 years, then why is justifiable for our government to take a person off the street and lock them away for 10 years?

 

The government is granted the option of doing to its citizens what they are not allowed to do to each other, otherwise we will have anarchy.

 

You'll have to explain to me how the government does not hold the high ground over Timothy McVeigh.

 

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

 

That is the point of doing it and not a benefit. You cannot think of a real benefit because there is not one. It serves no purpose beyond satisfying the urge to do it. It doesn't make society safer, doesn't save money, and doesn't bring a murdered victim back to life. If we stopped doing it today there wpould be no negative consequences, none. Same is not true for plastic bags. There are risks vs benefits associated with not producing plastic bags. With the Death Penalty there are no benefits and as such no risk vs benefits. We accrue the risk of killing innocent for no tangible reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the point of doing it and not a benefit. You cannot think of a real benefit because there is not one. It serves no purpose beyond satisfying the urge to do it. It doesn't make society safer, doesn't save money, and doesn't bring a murdered victim back to life. If we stopped doing it today there wpould be no negative consequences, none. Same is not true for plastic bags. There are risks vs benefits associated with not producing plastic bags. With the Death Penalty there are no benefits and as such no risk vs benefits. We accrue the risk of killing innocent for no tangible reason.

Fine. Call it a reason instead of a benefit.

 

Are you conceding all the other points I made?

That is the point of doing it and not a benefit. You cannot think of a real benefit because there is not one. It serves no purpose beyond satisfying the urge to do it. It doesn't make society safer, doesn't save money, and doesn't bring a murdered victim back to life. If we stopped doing it today there wpould be no negative consequences, none. Same is not true for plastic bags. There are risks vs benefits associated with not producing plastic bags. With the Death Penalty there are no benefits and as such no risk vs benefits. We accrue the risk of killing innocent for no tangible reason.

Well, not in the US anyway. If we didn't agree to the extra cost to reduce the risk of killing an innocent person, it could be more cost effective to kill them.

 

But who cares? If I can come up with a benefit, that doesn't mean we should allow execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the point of doing it and not a benefit. You cannot think of a real benefit because there is not one. It serves no purpose beyond satisfying the urge to do it. It doesn't make society safer, doesn't save money, and doesn't bring a murdered victim back to life. If we stopped doing it today there wpould be no negative consequences, none. Same is not true for plastic bags. There are risks vs benefits associated with not producing plastic bags. With the Death Penalty there are no benefits and as such no risk vs benefits. We accrue the risk of KILLING INNOCENT for no tangible reason.

 

Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. I have a question, do you have kids? A loved one? If they were murdered, what would you want? The death penalty? Jail?

 

What's the benefit of keeping cigarettes? What's the benefit of having rehabilitation centers for people serving life? I mean, why not just feed them and let them rot in jail? That's not a financially smart idea! Neither are gyms, 5 star cafeterias, college, internet, TV. It's jail. Not a hotel. Say, neither are large prison cells. Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? And if its financially beneficial let's do it. According to you that might as well be a great plan!

 

No benefit, let's get rid of it eh? We could get rid of half the people on the planet with that logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the point of doing it and not a benefit. You cannot think of a real benefit because there is not one. It serves no purpose beyond satisfying the urge to do it. It doesn't make society safer, doesn't save money, and doesn't bring a murdered victim back to life.

No benefit of the sense of justice for the victim's family then? I don't give a monkey's what you think, or even I think, it's what the victim's loved ones feel is right that really matters. The consensus is that the majority of Americans support it, so democratically it is supported as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we live in a society governed by law.

 

You could just as easily ask, if it is not justifiable for some citizen to take a person off the street and lock them away for 10 years, then why is justifiable for our government to take a person off the street and lock them away for 10 years?

 

The government is granted the option of doing to its citizens what they are not allowed to do to each other, otherwise we will have anarchy.

 

 

If your aim were to prevent the infringement of rights as much as possible, the death penalty deprives an extra right for no good reason.

Edited by MonDie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If your aim were to prevent the infringement of rights as much as possible, the death penalty deprives an extra right for no good reason.

 

That could be, although I don't really think that is anyone's aim. The Constitution allows rights to be taken away as long as we follow due process.

 

Saying the death penalty deprives and extra right for no good reason, begs the question. As has been stated several times, some people feel there is a good reason. I think one of the issues here is that there is no consensus on what constitutes 'a good reason'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, this issue hinges on the finality of it all.

 

We all know and tend to readily concede that mistakes in the justice system are regularly and repeatedly made. In fairness, mistakes probably always will be made no matter how profoundly we reform the system or seek their minimization.

 

We're human and almost by definition imperfect.

 

But once someone is put to death, any mistakes become de facto irreversible. End program. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

 

Said another way, the death penalty in a single fraction of a single moment immediately transitions any errant mistakes from the emphemeral to the eternal.

 

If one is going to seek vengeance, then the vengeful must never once be wrong in their target or timing. And, if we're being honest, perfection is a promise most cannot keep.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, this issue hinges on the finality of it all.

We all know and tend to readily concede that mistakes in the justice system are regularly and repeatedly made. In fairness, mistakes probably always will be made no matter how profoundly we reform the system or seek their minimization.

We're human and almost by definition imperfect.

But once someone is put to death, any mistakes become de facto irreversible. End program. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Said another way, the death penalty in a single fraction of a single moment immediately transitions any errant mistakes from the emphemeral to the eternal.

If one is going to seek vengeance, then the vengeful must never once be wrong in their target or timing. And, if we're being honest, perfection is a promise most cannot keep.

For the most part our justice system is pretty accurate at undeniable evidence. Its when they're convicted without undeniable evidence that things go wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part our justice system is pretty accurate at undeniable evidence. Its when they're convicted without undeniable evidence that things go wrong.

And how often does that happen, Raider? Look at the evidence. Put forth some verifiable facts to us all that will help us to determine if the number of innocents sacrificed is worth it, or to explore whether or not there's possibly a better way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion then, not an argument. I will reiterate: it depends on what a particular society collectively feels is just; the consensus

The first part is clearly an opinion.

But "It doesn't actually make the world a better place."

is open to a degree of objectivity.

In what way does it make the world a better place if you kill people that you don't need to kill?

Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. I have a question, do you have kids? A loved one? If they were murdered, what would you want? The death penalty? Jail?

My word you are good at missing the point.

"Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. "

Yes, the murderers are not innocent.

But our justice system can not reliably distinguish between those who are murderers and those who are innocent.

So, by having the death penalty "We accrue the risk of killing innocent for no tangible reason. " as 10 Oz said.

 

I'd want to know why they did it.But I wouldn't want them killed- what would that achieve?

If I was in that position and someone asked me if I wanted the murderer killed I'd say no- and if anyone asked why not my answer would be simple.

One killer is 1 too many. Adding to the number of killers is not a good thing.

What's the benefit of keeping cigarettes? What's the benefit of having rehabilitation centers for people serving life? I mean, why not just feed them and let them rot in jail? That's not a financially smart idea! Neither are gyms, 5 star cafeterias, college, internet, TV. It's jail. Not a hotel. Say, neither are large prison cells. Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? And if its financially beneficial let's do it. According to you that might as well be a great plan!

 

No benefit, let's get rid of it eh? We could get rid of half the people on the planet with that logic.

The points you have missed here are that we jail people as punishment, not for punishment; and that keeping order in jails is easier for the guards if the prisoners are occupied doing something.

 

As for "Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? "

Again, you seem to want to sink to their level as quickly as possible; why is that?

For the most part our justice system is pretty accurate at undeniable evidence. Its when they're convicted without undeniable evidence that things go wrong.

Lol

How do we deal with inconsiderate criminals who don't provide obliging evidence?

Are you going to have two levels of justice?

The man who almost certainly killed a hundred people in a hospital shooting spree doesn't get hanged, but the man who clearly killed one deadbeat junkie gets the death penalty because he wasn't clever enough to make sure there were no witnesses.

 

That could be, although I don't really think that is anyone's aim. The Constitution allows rights to be taken away as long as we follow due process.

 

Saying the death penalty deprives and extra right for no good reason, begs the question. As has been stated several times, some people feel there is a good reason. I think one of the issues here is that there is no consensus on what constitutes 'a good reason'.

It doesn't "beg the question", it invites one.

If you believe that the death penalty does not lead to killing for no reason, then you ought to be able to show what that reason is.

In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?

It doesn't but that's the wrong question. It should be: is the consensus that justice has been done? To make the world a better place the crime needs to be prevented in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't but that's the wrong question. It should be: is the consensus that justice has been done? To make the world a better place the crime needs to be prevented in the first place.

 

OK, so we need to teach the populous that vengeance and justice are different words- because they are different things.

Perhaps we should get parents and teachers to explain it to children. We would need some sort of short, snappy slogan.

Perhaps something like "Two wrongs don't make a right" would work.

If only there were some way to get lots of people to say that to the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with thinking like this is that no consideration is given for the victim's family's loved ones. What right do you have to decide what is appropriate? They are the ones experiencing the loss, not you.

The parents of an 8yrs girl killed by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote a letter to the court asking they not seek the Death Penalty. Today Tsarnaev sits on Death Row.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/16/end-anguish-drop-death-penalty/ocQLejp8H2vesDavItHIEN/story.html

 

There are family members of murder victims who become activists against capital punishment.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/marching-against-states-death-penalty-ep-374903874-352772261.html

 

Many argue that capital punishment only prolongs the suffering of families.

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=56

 

Implying that a pro death penalty position is automatically the default position of families is inaccurate and in my opinion uses those them as a prop. No one in the discussion speaks for victims families. To argue that it is for them is a divisive one that cannot be supported. Do murder victims families in Texas where they execute regularly have more closure than families in Vermont where they do not perform executtions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so we need to teach the populous that vengeance and justice are different words- because they are different things.

Perhaps we should get parents and teachers to explain it to children. We would need some sort of short, snappy slogan.

Perhaps something like "Two wrongs don't make a right" would work.

If only there were some way to get lots of people to say that to the kids.

Try tricking the parents to teach something against their own values. Maybe brainwashing. O.O

The parents of an 8yrs girl killed by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote a letter to the court asking they not seek the Death Penalty. Today Tsarnaev sits on Death Row.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/16/end-anguish-drop-death-penalty/ocQLejp8H2vesDavItHIEN/story.html

 

There are family members of murder victims who become activists against capital punishment.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/marching-against-states-death-penalty-ep-374903874-352772261.html

 

Many argue that capital punishment only prolongs the suffering of families.

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=56

 

Implying that a pro death penalty position is automatically the default position of families is inaccurate and in my opinion uses those them as a prop. No one in the discussion speaks for victims families. To argue that it is for them is a divisive one that cannot be supported. Do murder victims families in Texas where they execute regularly have more closure than families in Vermont where they do not perform executtions?

Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do? How about we reeducate the ones that think the murderers will suffer more. As you stated earlier, most murderers aren't right in the head. The degree required of mental instability to kill someone is when you reach the level sociopath. Sociopaths cant feel remorse or empathy. In other words they won't feel bad. Which means they won't suffer from guilt as most people think. Also, your a hypocrite if you say no one knows what the victims family's actually want, then proceed to explain what they want....

And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. Some people in Vermont I'm sure want the death penalty. Therefore, yes. They have more closure in Texas.

The first part is clearly an opinion.

But "It doesn't actually make the world a better place."

is open to a degree of objectivity.

In what way does it make the world a better place if you kill people that you don't need to kill?

 

 

My word you are good at missing the point.

"Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. "

Yes, the murderers are not innocent.

But our justice system can not reliably distinguish between those who are murderers and those who are innocent.

So, by having the death penalty "We accrue the risk of killing innocent for no tangible reason. " as 10 Oz said.

 

I'd want to know why they did it.But I wouldn't want them killed- what would that achieve?

If I was in that position and someone asked me if I wanted the murderer killed I'd say no- and if anyone asked why not my answer would be simple.

One killer is 1 too many. Adding to the number of killers is not a good thing.

 

The points you have missed here are that we jail people as punishment, not for punishment; and that keeping order in jails is easier for the guards if the prisoners are occupied doing something.

 

As for "Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? "

Again, you seem to want to sink to their level as quickly as possible; why is that?

Lol

How do we deal with inconsiderate criminals who don't provide obliging evidence?

Are you going to have two levels of justice?

The man who almost certainly killed a hundred people in a hospital shooting spree doesn't get hanged, but the man who clearly killed one deadbeat junkie gets the death penalty because he wasn't clever enough to make sure there were no witnesses.

It doesn't "beg the question", it invites one.

If you believe that the death penalty does not lead to killing for no reason, then you ought to be able to show what that reason is.

In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?

Don't hospitals have security cameras? Security guards? The gun have finger prints? Powder residue on the killers hands? There's a lot more evidence that could be found.

And, is it worth the cost of ALL those extras just to make prisoners happy? Seems like a pretty lame excuse.

Once again, for the final time. The moral high ground isn't a good argument. Nobody agrees what's right and what's wrong.

You also keep phrasing it wrong. We are killing a murderer. Not murdering a killer. What they did was wrong. What we do is punish them for that wrong. The benefit? Makes people happy. They get a sense of justice. Of course, you want the prisoners to be happy.

 

You can't argue one point without arguing the other point. Its like your trying to say the absolute value of 12 is different from the absolute value of -12!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. I have a question, do you have kids? A loved one? If they were murdered, what would you want? The death penalty? Jail?

 

What's the benefit of keeping cigarettes? What's the benefit of having rehabilitation centers for people serving life? I mean, why not just feed them and let them rot in jail? That's not a financially smart idea! Neither are gyms, 5 star cafeterias, college, internet, TV. It's jail. Not a hotel. Say, neither are large prison cells. Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? And if its financially beneficial let's do it. According to you that might as well be a great plan!

 

No benefit, let's get rid of it eh? We could get rid of half the people on the planet with that logic.

Benefits of allowing people to smoke is freedom of choice. Smoking is a personal choice one makes. This is a free country and we can choose to be healthy or not. Law does attempt to prevent individual choices from hurting others which is why there are laws in place that prevent individuals from smoking on planes, in federal buildings, in schools, etc, etc, etc.

 

Rehabilitation for inmates make sense because prison is a large community that needs to be managed. When the atmoshere is a prison is bad it is much harder and more dangerous to manage. Guards get assualted, other inmates who will eventually re-entry society get assualted, and so on. Providing amentities and resources to inmates is an important tool.

 

Do I have a loved one? See post #97.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try tricking the parents to teach something against their own values.

When what someone currently believe is a fallacy of logic then it isn't "tricking" them to convince them otherwise, it's education.

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

 

 

Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do?

 

How about we reeducate the ones that think the murderers will suffer more. As you stated earlier, most murderers aren't right in the head. The degree required of mental instability to kill someone is when you reach the level sociopath. Sociopaths cant feel remorse or empathy. In other words they won't feel bad. Which means they won't suffer from guilt as most people think. Also, your a hypocrite if you say no one knows what the victims family's actually want, then proceed to explain what they want....

And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. Some people in Vermont I'm sure want the death penalty. Therefore, yes. They have more closure in Texas.

"Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do? "

Strawman- nobody said that did they?

However just one person in that position and with that view voids your tacit assertion that we should kill for the benefit of the bereaved.

 

Also, not all murderers are sociopaths so that part of your post is unsupported.

 

"And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. "

I'm sure you would say that; it doesn't make sense.

 

Can I see the evidence for this claim please?

"They have more closure in Texas."

or is it something you just made up?

It's an issue you have been picked up on before.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.