Capital punishment is justice served by it?

[Alan McDougall]

Well, since you insist I will answer your irrelevant question.

I would do the same as David did (or something like it- depending on circumstances: I'm not sure about the castration. If I had a gun I would shoot to maim, rather than shoot to kill)

 

Now, will you answer my point about the difference between killing in cold blood as you advocate and killing as the only way to stop a bad situation getting worse.

 

Do you understand that there's a difference?

Do you understand that one of them has nothing to do with capital punishment?

 

 

Also my point about spelling was not to illustrate that you can't spell- who cares- as you say, I worked out what you meant.

 

However I raised the point that you hadn't bothered to check what you were saying. (if you had done so you would have got the right word).

Why do you post opinion as fact?

 

Oh, BTW, this " I don't need to go and research "Closure" I would get immediate closure, while you would be out somewhere researching it."

Is nonsense as you well know.

I wasn't suggesting that someone who comes home to a disaster at home did the research.

I was suggesting that you should find out what you are talking about.

 

I will read your comments in future, but no longer respond to your insults! Of course I am always wrong and you are always right, you have "proved that to everyone by now" have you not?.

 

Finally the subject topic was to establish if capital punishment was a form of justice, in my scenario I would not wait for the state to do it, I will do it myself , because there could be no dispute about the pedophiles guilt. You can maim them if you like, I will eliminate them like the base beasts they are.

 

How can you state as if it were a fact that, I don't know what I am talking about" and you always know what you are talking about, by inference, what nonsense is that?

Edited January 13, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[swansont]

Once a killer is put to death it's impossible for him to kill again.

 

Once you kill a wrongly-convicted person, it's impossible to free them.

[BusaDave9]

 

Once you kill a wrongly-convicted person, it's impossible to free them.

Yes, modern technology such as DNA testing has freed people that have been imprisoned. But these modern technologies also are the reason we can now be more sure than ever that we have the guilty person.

[Alan McDougall]

 

Once you kill a wrongly-convicted person, it's impossible to free them.

 

He means once you put to death guilty murderers, they cant kill again.

 

I agree to wrongly put to death a person who is not guilty is a form of murder, thus it is absolutely necessary to establish, without the slightest doubt the guilt of the criminal, before contemplation such a final act on them. I would limit capital punishment to only to extreme types of crime, Such as an act of premeditated, evil with intent of self gratification, at the expense of a totally innocent victim, this is why I despise those who abuse little children, they have lost the right to belong to the human race and have become depraved monsters roaming in our midst.

 

However, there seems to be a difference in approach by those who for example, might catch a perpetrator in their home, many people will take this invasion of their privacy very seriously and shoot the criminals without going into any dialogue with them. Thus is seems that executing (Carrying out death penalty yourself) an obviously guilty criminal caught in the act in ones home is OK, but for the state to do the exact same thing is wrong.

 

It is no use trying to prove if the death penalty is a deterrent, but I have noticed that most criminals will do everything in their power to avoid it after the have been caught by the law and convicted by a jury. Plea bargaining is a prime example.

[swansont]

 

He means once you put to death guilty murderers, they cant kill again.

 

I agree to wrongly put to death a person who is not guilty is a form of murder, thus it is absolutely necessary to establish, without the slightest doubt the guilt of the criminal, before contemplation such a final act on them.

 

I am aware of what was meant.

 

Are there any criminal justice systems that require proof beyond all doubt? In the US the standard is reasonable doubt. Science never gives proof beyond all doubt, especially when it is misrepresented in court.

 

For example, DNA matches, especially partial DNA matches, are not as rare as one might be led to believe

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html

http://hstlj.org/articles/concerns-associated-with-expanding-dna-databases/

[Villain]

 

Once you kill a wrongly-convicted person, it's impossible to free them.

 

To play devil's advocate, let's assume the death penalty saves more innocent lives then those that are wrongfully accused and sentenced to death, would you chose death penalty or not?

[swansont]

 

To play devil's advocate, let's assume the death penalty saves more innocent lives then those that are wrongfully accused and sentenced to death, would you chose death penalty or not?

 

I would have to rethink things. But how would it do that? The convict can't kill any more innocents, and it's not a deterrent.

 

I can understand the perspective of the victims; I was in the DC area when the snipers were killing people back in 2003, and it was not a nice feeling to be thus terrorized, and I can only try an imagine what the friends and families of the people killed felt. I didn't lose any sleep when they executed John Allen Muhammed. But that's a big reason why you don't let the targets of a crime choose the punishment. It's a justice system, not a revenge system.

 

It's also cheaper (in the US) to put people in prison for life rather than executing them

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.UtP8iqUfz8s

[Villain]

 

I would have to rethink things. But how would it do that? The convict can't kill any more innocents, and it's not a deterrent.

 

I can understand the perspective of the victims; I was in the DC area when the snipers were killing people back in 2003, and it was not a nice feeling to be thus terrorized, and I can only try an imagine what the friends and families of the people killed felt. I didn't lose any sleep when they executed John Allen Muhammed. But that's a big reason why you don't let the targets of a crime choose the punishment. It's a justice system, not a revenge system.

 

It's also cheaper (in the US) to put people in prison for life rather than executing them

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.UtP8iqUfz8s

 

The innocent people, killed by the convict sentenced to life in prison, all work in the prison (guards, cleaners etc), obviously it's just hypothetical.

[imatfaal]

 

To play devil's advocate, let's assume the death penalty saves more innocent lives then those that are wrongfully accused and sentenced to death, would you chose death penalty or not?

 

Makes no difference to me whatsoever - I do not believe in the right of the state to kill in times of peace. I would still work against the death penalty even if I could clearly and honestly see benefits (reduction in crime, closure for victims, removal of fear of crime etc.); as none of these have ever been shown then there is all the more reason to campaign against the death penalty - ie from both pragmatic and ethical reasons.

 

As devil's advocate questions are making an appearance - how many people here would classify themselves as a christian and yet still agree with the death penalty in some certain specific circumstances?

[Alan McDougall]

 

To play devil's advocate, let's assume the death penalty saves more innocent lives then those that are wrongfully accused and sentenced to death, would you chose death penalty or not?

 

It is still wrong to put to death an innocent person, so I can't answer your question.

 

Makes no difference to me whatsoever - I do not believe in the right of the state to kill in times of peace. I would still work against the death penalty even if I could clearly and honestly see benefits (reduction in crime, closure for victims, removal of fear of crime etc.); as none of these have ever been shown then there is all the more reason to campaign against the death penalty - ie from both pragmatic and ethical reasons.

 

As devil's advocate questions are making an appearance - how many people here would classify themselves as a christian and yet still agree with the death penalty in some certain specific circumstances?

 

 

There are so many different Christian cults , sects denomination with different interpretation of the Bible that it is impossible to give a generalized answer. However, fundamentalist Christians nearly all support the death penalty.

 

I have no set believes on religion I would say I fit somewhere between a deist and an theist, and I am not sure which of these I prefer .I don't like the idea of a god that interferes, in our affairs.

[john5746]

To play devil's advocate, let's assume the death penalty saves more innocent lives then those that are wrongfully accused and sentenced to death, would you chose death penalty or not?

It may be morally correct, but in practice you have the problem of corruption, ala Minority Report.

[John Cuthber]

 

I will read your comments in future, but no longer respond to your insults! Of course I am always wrong and you are always right, you have "proved that to everyone by now" have you not?.

 

Finally the subject topic was to establish if capital punishment was a form of justice, in my scenario I would not wait for the state to do it, I will do it myself , because there could be no dispute about the pedophiles guilt. You can maim them if you like, I will eliminate them like the base beasts they are.

 

How can you state as if it were a fact that, I don't know what I am talking about" and you always know what you are talking about, by inference, what nonsense is that?

The forum rules require you to answer reasonable questions about your assertions.

 

 

There's a tacit assertion that you think the home invasion scenario is relevant to a discussion of the death penalty.

They are not remotely equivalent, and the law recognises that.

I'm asking if you also know what the difference is.

That's not an insult, it's a question.

 

 

"Finally the subject topic was to establish if capital punishment was a form of justice, in my scenario I would not wait for the state to do it, I will do it myself ," And, in my opinion, you thereby lower yourself to their standards.

If there's no other way to stop the crime then shoot all you like, and with my blessing, but it's still not the same as the cold blooded killing of a helpless man in jail so it's not the same topic.

 

"How can you state as if it were a fact that, I don't know what I am talking about"

Because you couldn't even spell it correctly.

I remind you that, when I asked for evidence, you didn't provide any.

To me, that also suggests that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Why do you assume that this is something to do with "Of course I am always wrong and you are always right, you have "proved that to everyone by now" have you not?."

Do you not realise that if you post stuff that's wrong (or unsupported) on a science website then people will point out that you are wrong.

Do you not think we should do so?

Would it still be a science website if people could post any old stuff and people were not permitted to point out errors?

Incidentally, that's quite a lot of questions.

Please answer them.

[Alan McDougall]

The forum rules require you to answer reasonable questions about your assertions.

 

 

There's a tacit assertion that you think the home invasion scenario is relevant to a discussion of the death penalty.

They are not remotely equivalent, and the law recognises that.

I'm asking if you also know what the difference is.

That's not an insult, it's a question.

 

 

"Finally the subject topic was to establish if capital punishment was a form of justice, in my scenario I would not wait for the state to do it, I will do it myself ," And, in my opinion, you thereby lower yourself to their standards.

If there's no other way to stop the crime then shoot all you like, and with my blessing, but it's still not the same as the cold blooded killing of a helpless man in jail so it's not the same topic.

 

"How can you state as if it were a fact that, I don't know what I am talking about"

Because you couldn't even spell it correctly.

I remind you that, when I asked for evidence, you didn't provide any.

To me, that also suggests that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Why do you assume that this is something to do with "Of course I am always wrong and you are always right, you have "proved that to everyone by now" have you not?."

Do you not realise that if you post stuff that's wrong (or unsupported) on a science website then people will point out that you are wrong.

Do you not think we should do so?

Would it still be a science website if people could post any old stuff and people were not permitted to point out errors?

Incidentally, that's quite a lot of questions.

Please answer them.

 

No!!

[John Cuthber]

 

No!!

Thanks for answering the first question.

So, you say that you don't know the difference between the heat of the moment and capital punishment.

OK, that explains a lot.

Please answer the other questions.

Thanks

[Alan McDougall]

Thanks for answering the first question.

So, you say that you don't know the difference between the heat of the moment and capital punishment.

OK, that explains a lot.

Please answer the other questions.

Thanks

 

I refuse thanks!

[John Cuthber]

 

I refuse thanks!

Fair enough, I will stop offering thanks.

Could you answer the questions please?

[Alan McDougall]

Fair enough, I will stop offering thanks.

Could you answer the questions please?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

It looks as though discussion has ground to a halt. Is there a way to get relevant questions answered, or is it time to close the thread?

[BusaDave9]

It's also cheaper (in the US) to put people in prison for life rather than executing them

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.UtP8iqUfz8s

Yes, it's cheaper because of the appeals. They automatically get an appeal. That's understandable. But then these appeals go on and on even when the one on trial doesn't want an appeal. Here's one example: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30975952-75/death-brumwell-court-eugene-murder.html.csp

Groups apposed to the death penalty fight to keep these appeals going for the most despicable of our species. It's these groups that complain that the death penalty is too expensive but they are the ones making it more expensive. They fight even for people they know are guilty but they say they value human life. I say the lives they fight for are not worth the life of a cockroach.

 

They make sure those on death row don't have access to anything they could kill themselves with. WTF??

Many of these killers don't even want to live any more. I say let them all die. Every cell on death row should have a hangman's noose and a stool. Want to talk about the cost of an execution, how much does a piece of rope cost? Hey, they're even reusable.

What upsets me is the fact that these scum gets meals in prison. They are not worth it. That food could go to someone homeless. I am talking about the worst of the worst.

 

I am talking about people like Charles Ng who was convicted of 11 murders, believed to have commited 25 murders. He even filmed them. He tortured his victims, even the infants.

 

Ng and Lake filmed each other clubbing victims, male and female, adults and children, with homemade spiked bats, chaining them to tables and sawing their limbs off, raping them before and after, and forcing them to watch their family members receive such tortures.

 

The above quote is from http://listverse.com/2010/08/01/10-crimes-of-men-on-death-row/

 

Do your own Googleing and you'll find lots of killers that have incontrovertible proof against them.

I am talking about the worst of the worst. These guys have a light bulb in their cell that is worth far more than their life. That light bulb could do some good elsewhere. A light bulb could never cause such pain. These killers cause such fear in communities that I say just get rid of them.

Give them a noose and let them make the decision.

 

The morbid fact is that a lot of the worst killers film themselves torturing their victims. They try to inflict unimaginable pain on their victims before they die and they then watch these videos for their own enjoyment.

The worst of the worst.

 

Here's what Joseph Edward Duncan did to a 8 and 9 year old (the other family members got a quick death):

 

He broke into the home of Brenda Groene and Mark Mackenzie, clubbed them and Brenda’s teenage son, Slade, to death with a hammer, then kidnapped her other children, Shasta, 8, and Dylan, 9, taking them into the Idaho and Montana wilderness. For the next 7 weeks or so, he filmed himself torturing Dylan by hanging him by his wrists to trees, stripping him naked, punching and kicking him all over, especially his genitals, burning him with cigarettes, all while shouting at him that, “God is nowhere listening, Dylan! I am the Devil!”

Edited January 14, 2014 by BusaDave9

[Alan McDougall]

!

Moderator Note

It looks as though discussion has ground to a halt. Is there a way to get relevant questions answered, or is it time to close the thread?

 

It seems that someone still wants to keep it going, but you are a moderator and I cant decide.

Yes, it's cheaper because of the appeals. They automatically get an appeal. That's understandable. But then these appeals go on and on even when the one on trial doesn't want an appeal. Here's one example: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30975952-75/death-brumwell-court-eugene-murder.html.csp

Groups apposed to the death penalty fight to keep these appeals going for the most despicable of our species. It's these groups that complain that the death penalty is too expensive but they are the ones making it more expensive. They fight even for people they know are guilty but they say they value human life. I say the lives they fight for are not worth the life of a cockroach.

 

They make sure those on death row don't have access to anything they could kill themselves with. WTF??

Many of these killers don't even want to live any more. I say let them all die. Every cell on death row should have a hangman's noose and a stool. Want to talk about the cost of an execution, how much does a piece of rope cost? Hey, they're even reusable.

What upsets me is the fact that these scum gets meals in prison. They are not worth it. That food could go to someone homeless. I am talking about the worst of the worst.

 

I am talking about people like Charles Ng who was convicted of 11 murders, believed to have commited 25 murders. He even filmed them. He tortured his victims, even the infants.

 

The above quote is from http://listverse.com/2010/08/01/10-crimes-of-men-on-death-row/

 

Do your own Googleing and you'll find lots of killers that have incontrovertible proof against them.

I am talking about the worst of the worst. These guys have a light bulb in their cell that is worth far more than their life. That light bulb could do some good elsewhere. A light bulb could never cause such pain. These killers cause such fear in communities that I say just get rid of them.

Give them a noose and let them make the decision.

 

The morbid fact is that a lot of the worst killers film themselves torturing their victims. They try to inflict unimaginable pain on their victims before they die and they then watch these videos for their own enjoyment.

The worst of the worst.

 

Here's what Joseph Edward Duncan did to a 8 and 9 year old (the other family members got a quick death):

 

 

We are really on the same page as far as this debate goes!

[hypervalent_iodine]

Alan, the point is that you are not responding properly to criticisms or counterpoints by other members in this thread, either by simply ignoring them, going off on some unrelated or factually incorrect tangent or explicitly refusing to as you did earlier with John Cuthbert. This is a discussion forum and that's not how a discussion forum works. If you wish to have an actual conversation here, then you should be willing to do members the courtesy of responding to them when they have taken the time and effort to respond to you. You have failed thus far to provide evidence for any of your claims and yet you sit here and continue to preach them anyway. So, what exactly did you start this thread for? It seems like it was just to have people agree with you, forget what anyone else has to say on the matter, and that being the case, then I'm afraid that staff will probably be closing this. Note also that since I have participated in this thread, none of this is my opinion as a staff member.

[iNow]

In a society such as ours where we aspire to be moral and just, is it not self-contradictory to advocate for the state sanctioned murder of someone else?

 

Many posters here clearly seem to believe that it is not right to deprive another human being of life, and yet the punishment they advocate for such an action is... to deprive another human being of life.

 

This is a internally inconsistent and illogical position. If it were about protecting others, you'd advocate for their isolation, not their termination.

 

 

Among these several arguments against, this link also covers the failure of capital punishment to deter crime: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml

Edited January 14, 2014 by iNow

[Alan McDougall]

Alan, the point is that you are not responding properly to criticisms or counterpoints by other members in this thread, either by simply ignoring them, going off on some unrelated or factually incorrect tangent or explicitly refusing to as you did earlier with John Cuthbert. This is a discussion forum and that's not how a discussion forum works. If you wish to have an actual conversation here, then you should be willing to do members the courtesy of responding to them when they have taken the time and effort to respond to you. You have failed thus far to provide evidence for any of your claims and yet you sit here and continue to preach them anyway. So, what exactly did you start this thread for? It seems like it was just to have people agree with you, forget what anyone else has to say on the matter, and that being the case, then I'm afraid that staff will probably be closing this. Note also that since I have participated in this thread, none of this is my opinion as a staff member.

 

I accept that and I can be hard headed and stubborn at time, please accept my apologies, but I retain the right not to debate with John Cuthbert as I perceive him as hostile toward me and has ignored my efforts t be friendly with him. I don't like using the ignore opinion on anyone be the way!

[iNow]

I retain the right not to debate with John Cuthbert as I perceive him as hostile toward me and has ignored my efforts t be friendly with him.

I'm sure he would warm up a bit if you showed even a modicum of integrity and actually answered the questions he's asked you now like 6 times... You know, the ones you keep evading.

[BusaDave9]

In a society such as ours where we aspire to be moral and just, is it not self-contradictory to advocate for the state sanctioned murder of someone else?

 

Many posters here clearly seem to believe that it is not right to deprive another human being of life, and yet the punishment they advocate for such an action is... to deprive another human being of life.

 

This is a internally inconsistent and illogical position. If it were about protecting others, you'd advocate for their isolation, not their termination.

You say my position is illogical?? You seem to be assuming all human life is worth the same. You seem to be saying Charles Ng's life is worth as much as his victims. Now I say THAT is illogical. A cockroaches life is worth far more than Charles Ng's. Look up some of these that I call the worst of the worst. They are worth less than a cockroach!

 

 

 

Among these several arguments against, this link also covers the failure of capital punishment to deter crime: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml

Deter crime? That's not my point. My point is Charles Ng's life is not worth a piece of toast. To feed him a single piece of toast is an outrageous waste of toast (let alone feeding him meals for the rest of his life)

Edited January 14, 2014 by BusaDave9