Slate article on Capital Punishment

[LordKOTL]

I look at it less of "state sponsored murder" and more of "weeding out those that cannot play nice with each other." Unfortunately exhile isn't an option--just look at Australia. And if they did what the inuit did it's considered cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[mikita's helmet]

I look at it less of "state sponsored murder" and more of "weeding out those that cannot play nice with each other." Unfortunately exhile isn't an option--just look at Australia. And if they did what the inuit did it's considered cruel and unusual punishment.

"State sponsored murder" means something else to many.

 

[Tater]

@Wino:

Well, again, there are some interesting thoughts in the linked articles. You can't see the links (formatting issue) above, but it you go to the Slate site you will see the hyperlinks to source articles that say more than the synopsises(sp?).



Either way, I just think it is silly to say, "it is so wrong that innocent people may have been put to death" when innocent people may be sitting on death row or in a cell forever, all the while their care is paid for by the very society that cast them aside. That, to me, is a huge drain on society.



I firmly believe as well that a more frequently used death penalty would be a good deterant to comiting murder. You can't prove it, there's not enough data in ANY country in history. But I personally believe it would work.

Stop the press!!!!!

I totally agree with Pete on something.

This must be the apocalypse.

 

[supraman]

I look at it less of "state sponsored murder" and more of "weeding out those that cannot play nice with each other." Unfortunately exhile isn't an option--just look at Australia. And if they did what the inuit did it's considered cruel and unusual punishment.

If the government is sanctioning the the death, it is state sponsored murder.

 

[BigPete]

So two wrongs make a right?

There is no right/wrong about it. Murder is wrong and that dangerous, 'evil' person should be removed from society. That is where society comes in and has to do administer justice. Society incarcerates a convicted murder, right? So society has to 'throw out the trash'.

If the convict will never be free, what is the point of society letting them live in a cage? There is none.



As far as this notion that "using capital punishment is more costly than incarcerating someone for life", that is just as much of an unproven statement as is "the death penalty has been proven to not deter more murders".

 

[supraman]

There is no right/wrong about it. Murder is wrong and that dangerous, 'evil' person should be removed from society. That is where society comes in and has to do administer justice. Society incarcerates a convicted murder, right? So society has to 'throw out the trash'.

If the convict will never be free, what is the point of society letting them live in a cage? There is none.



As far as this notion that "using capital punishment is more costly than incarcerating someone for life", that is just as much of an unproven statement as is "the death penalty has been proven to not deter more murders".

There you go. Murder is wrong. ergo state sponsored murder is wrong.

 

[BigPete]

Then so is every punishment. If I stole from someone, should I have to pay a fine and have my time stolen from me? Because that is what the 'state' is doing when they incarcerate me and 'reclaim' that property in order to give it back to the rightful owner.

 

[supraman]

Then so is every punishment. If I stole from someone, should I have to pay a fine and have my time stolen from me? Because that is what the 'state' is doing when they incarcerate me and 'reclaim' that property in order to give it back to the rightful owner.

Death is rather final. My argument is this, If you are against murder, then why is state sanctioned murder acceptable? It is still murder. What if the courts got it wrong and you are innocent, you can't be brought back. At least with life in prison they can release you but if you are dead oh well.

 

[BigPete]

I've heard that argument and responded to it. I agree that there can be better rules instilled to get a much more accurate conviction accuracy rate. It will never be perfect. That's reality.



But if you have no rules you have no society and if you have no punishments for breaking those rules then they don't mean anything and no one will follow them.



In your scenario, does it matter to me as an 80 year inmate that my freedom was taken all those years without true warrant? No, you might as well have taken my life because at least then I wouldn't have had to live through all those years with the daily horrors of being incarcerated. It is wrong either way. A lifetime in prison is no better than death and vice versa, they are equally bad to me.

 

[JOVE23]

There you go. Murder is wrong. ergo state sponsored murder is wrong.

People who are irrefutably convicted of murder (shooting spree caught on HDTV while the guy's wearing a shirt with his name on it) should no longer be considered humans and destroyed.



(I also get really angry when I read internet arguments and want the world to blow up so pardon me if I seem extreme)

 

[LordKOTL]

Death is rather final. My argument is this, If you are against murder, then why is state sanctioned murder acceptable? It is still murder. What if the courts got it wrong and you are innocent, you can't be brought back. At least with life in prison they can release you but if you are dead oh well.

For one, that's why I say irrefutable evidence that you did it. I think the death penalty should only be reserved for those that there is hard fact that they did it--not drawing a conclusion like point a leads to point b leads to point c. Hard Fact only.



Second, you can't equate all killing to murder, it's not. If you do so it's propoganda, nothing more. If some criminal breaks into your house with the intend to rob or hurt you, and you kill them, it's not murder--it's self-defense. I think in the grand scheme of things, the death penalty, if applied only to those who are unequivicably guilty with no hope of rehabilitation, is not murder, it's defense of the society at large.

 

[supraman]

I've heard that argument and responded to it. I agree that there can be better rules instilled to get a much more accurate conviction accuracy rate. It will never be perfect. That's reality.



But if you have no rules you have no society and if you have no punishments for breaking those rules then they don't mean anything and no one will follow them.



In your scenario, does it matter to me as an 80 year inmate that my freedom was taken all those years without true warrant? No, you might as well have taken my life because at least then I wouldn't have had to live through all those years with the daily horrors of being incarcerated. It is wrong either way. A lifetime in prison is no better than death and vice versa, they are equally bad to me.

and the death penalty has significantly curbed the murder rate?

 

[BigPete]

and the death penalty has significantly curbed the murder rate?

1 ) There is not enough data to say difinitively if there has been a stem in murder per capita rates in areas that employ a death penalty.

2 ) If the death penalty was used more frequently and with more public exposure, I am pretty certain thugs would think twice about pulling the trigger. Tell the story of a convicts crime, then show his euthenization on prime time TV, and things will change.



Continue to let murderers off with little to no jail time or give them plea deals and everyone will think they have a chance to 'get away with murder'.

 

[supraman]

Public exposure? The news in Florida never misses a chance to tell us about executions. Hell the appeal for a guy failed last night, could be killed in the next few days.



It is well known Texas likes to juice them so your exposure argument falls short.



More frequently? Jesus is your first name Adolf or maybe Josef?



And not everyone who murders someone is an animal and monster.

 

[BigPete]

Public exposure? The news in Florida never misses a chance to tell us about executions. Hell the appeal for a guy failed last night, could be killed in the next few days.



It is well known Texas likes to juice them so your exposure argument falls short.



More frequently? Jesus is your first name Adolf or maybe Josef?



And not everyone who murders someone is an animal and monster.

There are many reasons for and definitions of 'murder'. You think it is simply one person taking another person's life. As pointed out above, that could mean self defence per the laws of just about every state in the union.



But cold blooded, first degree murder is perpetrated by someone who has a willful disregard for the other person's life. If you can kill once, then you can kill again. That makes that person an 'animal and monster'...as you put it. Honestly, I never said that, I said they are dangerous to society, big difference.



For the record, the Hitler/Goebbels comment is crossing the line, regardless of whether or not you were joking. ALL of my german ancestors left there long before the Nazis ever came to power.

 

[supraman]

There are many reasons for and definitions of 'murder'. You think it is simply one person taking another person's life. As pointed out above, that could mean self defence per the laws of just about every state in the union.



But cold blooded, first degree murder is perpetrated by someone who has a willful disregard for the other person's life. If you can kill once, then you can kill again. That makes that person an 'animal and monster'...as you put it. Honestly, I never said that, I said they are dangerous to society, big difference.



For the record, the Hitler/Goebbels comment is crossing the line, regardless of whether or not you were joking. ALL of my german ancestors left there long before the Nazis ever came to power.

Kinda like execution? you know pre-mediated murder?



Josef was referring to Stalin. And don't your panties in a wad. I'm Kraut too.

 

[BigPete]

Kinda like execution? you know pre-mediated murder?



Josef was referring to Stalin. And don't your panties in a wad. I'm Kraut too.

Well, I am definitely not Russian, so you can still go **** yourself

 

[BigPete]

Murder (noun) : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.



Muder (verb) : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.



Sorry, but both say unlawfully. How can the LAW be accused of unlawfully kill someone?

 

[supraman]

Murder (noun) : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.



Muder (verb) : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.



Sorry, but both say unlawfully. How can the LAW be accused of unlawfully kill someone?

Funny I can look up the definition online and find it where it lacks the word "unlawfully"



and using the two popular online dictionaries I figured you got your definition from webster but you cherry picked.

 

[klemmer]

The death penalty is murder by the government. Civilized people should be outraged by it.



(unless they are pro-life)