Do You Support The Death Penalty?

[ifyoucantfixit]

           I am sorry but if you find it hard to love someone who came to you armed with words and
insults.. How then will you be able to do as you are asking me to do.  And love these killers and
murders and rapists that have committed such haineous crimes against the weakest and best
among us...I am not saying these things in order to defend myself, or to wreak vengence.!! 
I am trying to protect the ones who are unable to protect themselves..

[David In Indy]

Wow Gary! What a thorough and well thought out response. Thank you for reposting it here! And I totally agree with every word you said. Hopefully the person you directed it to will consider it and have a change of heart. At the very least you gave him or her something to think about. You planted a seed in their mind and maybe some day it will take root.

Thanks Gary! 

[delalluvia]

Gary,

The word faggot means bundle of sticks.  Why are gay men called faggots?  Because it refers to the pile of wood gay men were placed on top of when they were burned at the stake.

Only in the US.  In the UK, a ‘faggot’ is a cigarette.

There was a time when committing gay sex was considered by the majority to be a heinous crime, worthy of the death penalty.  Many still hold this view.  And political winds can change quickly.  Nazi Germany arose from a free and democratic society.

So you’re going to live your life by what may happen?  We’re just as likely to turn into a Constitutional Monarchy, which also had the death penalty, but doesn’t seem to carry the same boogeyman status as Nazi Germany. 

And I never claimed I had any dirty laundry at all.  I meant that my neighbor may simply view what I do as dirty.  But what does he know?  Not a lot.  None of us do.  Like Socrates said, I know nothing but of my own ignorance.  I certainly don't know who is worthy of life, and who isn't.

True, but your neighbor could view it as dirty, or think well of you, or think nothing at all.  Again, no point in thinking worst case scenario or living your life on what people might think.

If someone was attacking me I would defend myself.  But we're not talking about that.  We're talking about the death penalty.

I consider the death penalty self-defense.  A society defending itself from known killers.

And the reason that so many rapes and assults take place in prison isn't simply because the people behind bars are violent.  The way the prisons are set up allow, and subtly encourage this to happen.  The way gangs are formed, and the way weaker men are prayed upon behind bars has been known for years.  The reason nothing is done to correct the situation is because the state doesn't care.  The state considers the abuse part of the punishment.  And the result is petty criminals are sent to these over populated pirsons and they become violent criminals.

Sorry, I don’t buy that.  Young men have a tendency to form gangs, they don’t have to be in prison, and commit violence.  My best friend’s brother-in-law works for the Texas Dept of Corrections and he has long stories of how inmates have to be separated, the short-timers from the lifers, the different attitudes each have.  Now, all prisons are different, but I don’t believe they’re “set up” as torture chambers by the State in some conspiracy.   

And yes, we do trust government to make war and protect our drinking water.  And look at what a wonderful job they're doing.

Do you see thousands dying of cholera or dysentary?  That’s what used to happen every summer when water quality wasn’t regulated.  WWII was a pretty good fight, done for good reasons.  So was Bosnia and the 1st Gulf War.  I do agree Doofus Dubya has really wrecked it recently.

[delalluvia]

crayons,

But in both those cases, the killing is done to prevent further killing, not after the fact to punish someone for having killed.

But do you think the perps of these heinous crimes are going to stop?

Perhaps not. But that doesn't mean they encourage humans to take the punishment into their own hands. If God(s) disapprove of a heinous criminal, you'd think he/she/they'd have the power to mete out justice. Alternatively, the fact that heinous criminals do exist and can get away with such crimes suggests that God(s) don't exist, don't care, or plan to deal with the criminals later in their own way.

Or the gods are simply expecting humans to do it themselves.  The gods won't do for humans what humans can do for themselves. 

See?

Religious arguments don't really help in this type of discussion.  Some people are Christian, some are not, some are agnostic and some are atheists to whom the idea of what a big invisible friend in the sky might think is absurd.  We all have different ideas about what the gods - if they exist - might or might not do.

A friend of mine is a debate coach and I mentioned this thread to her.  She is anti-death penalty herself and said that this topic is on her discussion list for her team's competition.  She did admit sheepishly that it's easier to argue for the death penalty instead of against it, because the only arguments one could bring against it were emotional arguments and not really suited for the logical structure of a debate.

And that's an argument for wanting to see them fry??
 
And that's an argument for trusting juries to decide on whether people live or die??

Do you see rapists going free by the dozens?  Some do, most don't.  And why?  Because people are being educated about women and rapists.  That women aren't always the Virgin or Good Little Housewife and if they're not, doesn't mean they deserve whatever violence is done them.  It's an educational process.  The same might be said for the Matthew Shepard case in a state not known for being gay friendly.

Good point, Gary. Some countries even now hand out death penalties for homosexuality.

And adultery, but I'm not about to compare them to the West and we are talking about the West, right?

[serious crayons]

But do you think the perps of these heinous crimes are going to stop?

Yes, because they'll be in prison. I'm not saying that the alternative to killing them is setting them free.

Or the gods are simply expecting humans to do it themselves.  The gods won't do for humans what humans can do for themselves. 

See?

Yes, I "see," all right. I just don't agree.

Religious arguments don't really help in this type of discussion.  Some people are Christian, some are not, some are agnostic and some are atheists to whom the idea of what a big invisible friend in the sky might think is absurd.  We all have different ideas about what the gods - if they exist - might or might not do.

Right. My point was not to speculate about religious influence because, as I said, I'm agnostic. So we're off on the wrong track.

My point is that, IMO, killing people as punishment is wrong. It's not about being practical or impractical, fair or unfair, feeling sorry for the killers or loving the killers or hating the killers. It's not about whether I want to feed and house them or not.

I believe it's just wrong, in some larger, overarching sense of morality. So it's not really about gods. My point in invoking the concept of "god" was to suggest that it's about the moral laws to the universe. I know that even that concept, in itself, is often disputed. I happen to think that there are some moral absolutes, and one of them is that you don't kill people except in self-defense.

the only arguments one could bring against it were emotional arguments and not really suited for the logical structure of a debate.

But that's not true. First of all, you can argue that it's wrong because inevitably innocent people wind up getting executed. And you can point out that death sentences are influenced by juror misperceptions, inadequate representation, gender, racism (from deathpenaltyinfo.org: Modern studies of the death penalty continue to find a correlation between sentencing and race. The studies consistently show that those who kill white victims are much more likely to receive the death penalty than those who kill black victims) and other inequalities.

And in practical terms, you can argue that capital punishment is not effective at deterring crime -- on the contrary, I believe it encourages crime. The United States, the only Western country that allows capital punishment, also has the highest crime rate among Western industrialized countries. And states where capital punishment is legal tend to have higher murder rates. Here's a chart ranking states by murder rates. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169#MRord The states with the highest murder rates are at the top. The states highlighted in yellow are those that DON'T allow capital punishment. You'll notice that the yellow states are concentrated at the low end of the list.

Now, the cause-and-effect could potentially go the other way -- perhaps the states with higher murder rates allow capital punishment because they feel they "need" it more. But clearly the existence of a death penalty does not stop murders from occurring.

Do you see rapists going free by the dozens?  Some do, most don't.  And why?  Because people are being educated about women and rapists.  That women aren't always the Virgin or Good Little Housewife and if they're not, doesn't mean they deserve whatever violence is done them.

Fine, but that's a direct contradiction of what you said in the first place, that juries make mistakes in rape trials. So you could argue that, through education, they're improving. But your point originally was that they do make mistakes. I agree, and that's one problem with capital punishment.

And adultery, but I'm not about to compare them to the West and we are talking about the West, right?

No, we're talking about capital punishment. I don't think we specified a specific global region. Gary's point was that in very recent memory homosexuality was considered a deviant crime here. I added that, in some countries, it is still a capital crime. The overall point is that humans are fallible in their perception of criminality. The criminalization of homosexuality relates to the capital punishment debate because it shows that humans are capable of killing people -- and feeling totally justified in doing so -- for "crimes" that others regard as perfectly acceptable behavior. I don't trust that sense of justice.

[delalluvia]

Yes, because they'll be in prison. I'm not saying that the alternative to killing them is setting them free.

But if they do get out of prison - and they do have chances at parole?

My point is that, IMO, killing people as punishment is wrong. It's not about being practical or impractical, fair or unfair, feeling sorry for the killers or loving the killers or hating the killers. It's not about whether I want to feed and house them or not.

I believe it's just wrong, in some larger, overarching sense of morality. So it's not really about gods. My point in invoking the concept of "god" was to suggest that it's about the moral laws to the universe. I know that even that concept, in itself, is often disputed. I happen to think that there are some moral absolutes, and one of them is that you don't kill people except in self-defense.

But what are morals?  As you and Gary have pointed out, morals have fluctuated throughout the centuries.  What is moral in one era isn't in another and vice-versa, so there aren't really any moral absolutes.  There is only moral relativism.  Something is moral or isn't moral simply because at the time, we say it is.

And what do you think about WWII or Bosnia?  Was killing Nazis/genocidal Serbs immoral and wrong or in some cases is killing someone NOT in individual self-defense not as absolutely immoral as you say because at times it's necessary?

But that's not true. First of all, you can argue that it's wrong because inevitably innocent people wind up getting executed. And you can point out that death sentences are influenced by juror misperceptions, inadequate representation, gender, racism (from deathpenaltyinfo.org: Modern studies of the death penalty continue to find a correlation between sentencing and race. The studies consistently show that those who kill white victims are much more likely to receive the death penalty than those who kill black victims) and other inequalities.

Yes, but you could say that about sentencing people to long prison sentences.  They're innocent yet are punished for it, but I don't see the argument that because we're human and make mistakes and that all institutions are thereby flawed in some way, we need to do away with our justice system.  Allowances are made.

As for the race issue, all that means is that the white person got off easy, not that they didn't also deserve the death penalty. As for inadequate representation, well, if you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you get the best attorney you could afford?  That's the capitalist system.  You get what you pay for.  To argue against that goes against what our country is based on.

And in practical terms, you can argue that capital punishment is not effective at deterring crime -- on the contrary, I believe it encourages crime. The United States, the only Western country that allows capital punishment, also has the highest crime rate among Western industrialized countries. And states where capital punishment is legal tend to have higher murder rates. Here's a chart ranking states by murder rates. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169#MRord The states with the highest murder rates are at the top. The states highlighted in yellow are those that DON'T allow capital punishment. You'll notice that the yellow states are concentrated at the low end of the list.

But this argument completely fall apart when

1) you also point out that despite the highest rate of convicted felons in the world - sitting out prison sentences - that that hasn't deterred crime either.

and

2)  the death penalty isn't supposed to deter crime.  It's merely punishment for the most heinous of killers because we don't want to punish the convicted sadistic rapist/murderer of children the same way we do a guy who has stolen one too many cars - treating his crime as no better or worse than a property crime.

Fine, but that's a direct contradiction of what you said in the first place, that juries make mistakes in rape trials. So you could argue that, through education, they're improving. But your point originally was that they do make mistakes. I agree, and that's one problem with capital punishment.

See above.  We don't live in a perfect world.  People and institutions make mistakes.  Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of imperfections doesn't make much sense.

No, we're talking about capital punishment. I don't think we specified a specific global region. Gary's point was that in very recent memory homosexuality was considered a deviant crime here. I added that, in some countries, it is still a capital crime.

True, but only in countries where religion plays a key role in government - or are theocracies.  Most modern countries in the West have gotten away from judging people on moral standards and as you see, the punishment for such 'crimes' has diminished until they aren't crimes at all.

[souxi]

I never knew that the reason gay men in the US are called faggots is because of the pile of sticks gay men were burnt on?? Thats terrible!!
Delalluvia, in the UK a "fag" is a cigarette, a "faggot" is actually something you eat, it,s a meat dish. Very nice is it too, smothered in gravy with potatoes.

[delalluvia]

I never knew that the reason gay men in the US are called faggots is because of the pile of sticks gay men were burnt on?? Thats terrible!!
Delalluvia, in the UK a "fag" is a cigarette, a "faggot" is actually something you eat, it,s a meat dish. Very nice is it too, smothered in gravy with potatoes.

I stand corrected.     That dish sounds wonderful, I don't recall seeing it on menus while I was in London.  I guess it's not there for the same reason they're phasing out or renaming the dessert - "Spotted Dick". 

[souxi]

I stand corrected.     That dish sounds wonderful, I don't recall seeing it on menus while I was in London.  I guess it's not there for the same reason they're phasing out or renaming the dessert - "Spotted Dick". 

Here you go hun. Good old brains faggots. Heat them up in the oven for about 40 minutes, serve with mashed spuds, veg and gravy...yum.

[delalluvia]

Here you go hun. Good old brains faggots. Heat them up in the oven for about 40 minutes, serve with mashed spuds, veg and gravy...yum.

 

Who does the marketing for these people?