Death Penalty

[Aisling]

But it is someone who already has killed someone, not just someone who might kill.

That doesn't particularly mean it's worth it to kill them back. What good does it do? It doesn't bring people back from the dead, and anyway the person only might have killed someone else if released (and just because they aren't death penalty'd doesn't particularly mean they get out of prison, either). There's no way to know that for sure.

I feel that murderers are much more serious morally than cancer or disease.

Just because you feel that way doesn't mean it actually is that way.
Medical research isn't the only thing that money could go into instead, but that was the first example that came to my head. It could go into things like... oil recovery perhaps? That's all topical and everything. Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless...
As long as I know that the difference can save at least one life directly, it'll take a lot to convince me that spending it in a way that only might save a life is worth it, but maybe I'm missing something big. I dunno, what does everyone else think? "Just because you feel that way doesn't mean it is" applies to me too. Is one million dollars worth spending on someone who might kill another person if he isn't killed himself?

 

[ultraviolet]

And this money isn't a waste; executions are proven by studies to deter crimes such as murder, as stated above.

actually the source you quoted about capital punishment being a deterrant says that it's a great deterrant because murderers can't kill again if they're dead.

ARGUMENT B: The death penalty is not a deterrent against violent crime.
The death penalty as a deterrent to crime is not the issue. Capital punishment is, pardon the redundancy, a punishment for crime. As a punishment, the death penalty is 100% effective--every time it is used, the prisoner dies.

Additionally, the death penalty is actually 100% effective as a deterrent to crime: the murderer will never commit another crime once he has been executed.

well... duh? What I meant when I was referring to capital punishment being a crap deterrant is that it doesn't deter people from murdering in the first place. sources one, two and three support this. In fact, the first one shows the murder rate in states with capital punishment is higher than that of states without capital punishment. So... people obviously don't worry about the death penalty when they're killing each other or whatnot - especially if you're talking about murders that are comitted in acts of passion/anger, when criminals panic while committing other crimes, or when people are mentally ill and don't think of the consequences at all.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

What the heck? I'm not saying all change is bad, but until you can give me specific examples as to why YOU can't be trusted to make decisions then STOP FREAKING REPEATING THAT RETARDED DOGMA.

You claim that you don't believe that all change is bad but whenever we suggest change, your automatic response is "I support the way things were back then".

So, logically, either you are lying and you do believe that all change is bad or you are only using that response because you can't think of a better argument.

Which is it?

But it is someone who already has killed someone, not just someone who might kill.
And this money isn't a waste; executions are proven by studies to deter crimes such as murder, as stated above. There is already a lot of money going into medical advancements. While I'm not entirely heartless and I DO care about people such as your sister, I feel that murderers are much more serious morally than cancer or disease.
Also, it's midnight here. More debating tomorrow. :P

Okay, let's accept the "they might kill again" argument. Why not put them in an isolated cell, away from everyone else, and just chuck food in a hatch? They're not very likely to kill people they have no contact with.

Also, death rates from the WHO:

Cancer: 9.92% of deaths per annum
Disease: 90.03% of deaths per annum
Violence (excluding War): 0.98% of deaths per annum
Violence (including War): 1.28% of deaths per annum

Somehow I think cancer and disease are a bit more important to prevent than murder.

 

[Butterfree]

The whole "released murderers kill again!" thing is in fact tripped up by one of your source's very own arguments, namely the one about racism. Prisoners serving a life sentence killing after being released on parole is not a problem with life sentences - it's a problem with the fact they were let out on parole. Nobody is saying murderers should go free: we are saying they should be incarcerated safely, for good, instead of being killed. This is cheaper, offers the possibility of releasing the innocently convicted (and I don't care how low a percentage it is: eight innocent people being murdered by the government is not simply okay because 4992 guilty people were also killed), and if correctly applied will also result in them never killing again. So why is the death penalty preferable to a proper life sentence, in a secure prison, without the possibility of parole?

 

[Dannichu]

Also, the argument against "The Death Penalty is Racist" only covers half the problem - you're more likely to get the death penalty if you're poor or black, yes, but you're also more likely to be put on death row if you kill a white person or a woman.

 

[opaltiger]

Other people have handled everything else, but I have to say:

Only 8 people are even "executed but possibly innocent" out of 5,000 executed in the past 80 years in the US alone.

I think your use of the word "only" here represents such a massive gulf in the way we view the world that no matter what we say we will never agree.

 

[Michi]

Alraune and Teh Ebil Snorlax:
It costs far more to research, cure, treat, and prevent things like cancer or other such serious ailments. It would save more lives IF we could find cures or better treatments, but it would also cost tons more money, in the billions and trillions. A single scientist spends 500,000 dollars a year on supplies alone. And it costs 500 dollars for a single experiment alone.
And yes, it could go to other similarly expensive, or perhaps less expensive, ideas, though I still think this is where the mony should be spent; about 3,000 people are executed for murder each year worldwide, and thousands more convicted for murder.

To ultraviolet:

Seven recent studies make it clear that executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums.

To Butterfree:
If you confine someone to a cell alone with no human contact, then what life do they have? It's much worse to have to exist doing nothing and interacting with nothing than to be killed, when you won't even be aware of losing all connection with existance.

To Dannichu:
This is not a problem with the death penalty itself, but rather with the justice system and the mindset of citizens. Keep capital punishment, fix the justice system, and problem solved.

To oplatiger (and partly Butterfree):
I agree; you all seem to think that these 8 human lives were of such significance that the entire capital punishment system should be abolished.
What about the 70 million that died in WWII? Or the 600,000 that died in the Civil War? I fail to see the great sigificance of 8 mistakes.

Sorry if this seems short, but the longer one I had was killed by my internet connection timing out.

 

[Aisling]

Alraunne and Teh Ebil Snorlax:
It costs far more to research, cure, treat, and prevent things like cancer or other such serious ailments. It would save more lives IF we could find cures or better treatments, but it would also cost tons more money, in the billions and trillions. A single scientist spends 500,000 dollars a year on supplies alone. And it costs 500 dollars for a single experiment alone.

If it costs so much then that's exactly why we should be putting extra money towards that instead of spending so much on someone you just want to kill off. All of those little fundraisers where you donate five dollars or collect soda can tabs or something don't instantly produce billions and trillions of dollars either- the money that's made builds up into the money that's needed. Are you saying we should just not bother with those or something, if you're not going to bother putting the difference between what's spent on a life sentenced prisoner and a death row prisoner towards other causes just because it's not billions and trillions?

though I still think this is where the money should be spent; about 3,000 people are executed for murder each year worldwide, and thousands more convicted for murder.

Again, just because you think that way doesn't mean it is justified. And what does that have to do with the argument at all? Are you saying we should follow other countries' examples or something? Because the countries whose examples we should follow, if we consciously follow any, have abolished the death penalty already.

Butterfree:
If you confine someone to a cell alone with no human contact, then what life do they have? It's much worse to have to exist doing nothing and interacting with nothing than to be killed, when you won't even be aware of losing all connection with existance.

How can you care about what their life is like, but want to spend a lot of extra money on killing them at the same time? @_@

 

[Dannichu]

To Dannichu:
This is not a problem with the death penalty itself, but rather with the justice system and the mindset of citizens. Keep capital punishment, fix the justice system, and problem solved.

But the justice system is heavily flawed, and there's no sign of that changing in the near future. In the meantime, people are going to be murdered by the government who wouldn't be if they were white. How can that not be a problem? Surely, even by your logic, the death penalty should be stopped until the inequalities in the justice system are sorted out?

 

[Tailsy]

I agree; you all seem to think that these 8 human lives were of such significance that the entire capital punishment system should be abolished.
What about the 70 million that died in WWII? Or the 600,000 that died in the Civil War? I fail to see the great sigificance of 8 mistakes.

Yes, this kind of thing is called 'choosing to not follow in the footsteps of our ancestor's mistakes'. Every innocent life is significant to someone. You have clearly never walked between thousands and thousands of graves of innocent soldiers who died because of some great war that was not their fault (I apologise for specifically citing WWI). All of the graves just marked with 'a soldier of the great war', someone who doesn't even have the small courtesy of a name on his gravestone; that would mean nothing to you, would it?

Those eight people had lives. They had family and friends who loved them. And they don't matter because the government murdered three thousand 'bad' people in their place?

The fact that governments today choose to kill people, when history has demonstrated time and time again that killing people leaves nothing but pain, quite frankly is disgusting and inhuman. The fact that money is cited as a genuine reason for ending another person's life is awful.

 

[Michi]

Alraune:
No, but if there is already a substantial amount of money going toward them, I am saying we shouldn't rediredct even more to it if it means ignoring these murderers and still allowing them to live, also taking into account that it is a bleak and cruel life we are giving them.
Dannichu:
No, I think the death penaly should remain in tact, because all of them were/are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty, and less than half of a percent of them even have a possibility to be innocent, much less are AUCTUALLY innocent. If you went by worldwide tallies, only a small, small fraction of a percent are innocent. People blow the whole "15 released, possibly innocent people" thing way out of proportion and act as if half of all the inmates are actually innocent and wrongly executed. Those fifteen people weren't all found to be perfectly innocent either.

Edit for ninja.

Jessie, what I'm saying is that the chances that it would ever happen are insignificantly small, and that's assuming the 8 people atually were innocent, which has not been proven.
I'm not even goint to try to get myself killed because of my opinions on those soldiers and on "inhumanity."

 

[Pwnemon]

Oh god so much to respond to. Sorry but I will just cut this into a few points.

Dannichu, again. "The problem isn't black people and poor people getting what they deserve, but whites not getting what they deserve."

Basically, there's no real problem in black people or poor people having a high rate of the death penalty. Just a problem in whites having a low one.

Secondly, Alruane. I won't go into a rant on how the government shouldn't even have social programs in the first place but which would you rather have, no social security benefits when you turn 60 or being killed by a released murderer and never turning sixty?

Sorry this is brief.

EDIT for ninja: Wait a second you're now saying they were innocent but it said that they were possibly innocent. Difference is huge.

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

People blow the whole "15 released, possibly innocent people" thing way out of proportion

Umm, isn't it like one of America's founding principles that we're all innocent until proven guilty? If they're possibly innocent then we have to treat them as innocent until we prove that they aren't, right?

 

[Pwnemon]

Umm, isn't it like one of America's founding principles that we're all innocent until proven guilty? If they're possibly innocent then we have to treat them as innocent until we prove that they aren't, right?

Well truly they had been proven guilty, or they would never have been on death row.

 

[Michi]

They WERE proven guilty, by a jury and judges, but it turned out that one of the two sets MAY HAVE BEEN morons. It also means that the evidence might, even purely by coincidence, match up a little with a random guy nearby.
Besides, to be proven guilty, a hell of a lot of evidence has to support it, in comparison to only the kind of shoe or something - a LOT must match.

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

Well truly they had been proven guilty, or they would never have been on death row.

...I hate to bring this up again but there have been people convicted wrongly and put on death row.

They WERE proven guilty, by a jury and judges, but it turned out that one of the two sets MAY HAVE BEEN morons. It also means that the evidence might, even purely by coincidence, match up a little with a random guy nearby.
Besides, to be proven guilty, a hell of a lot of evidence has to support it, in comparison to only the kind of shoe or something - a LOT must match.

Well, yes, but wouldn't an equally large amount of evidence to the contrary have to be found in order to release someone already convicted?

 

[Pwnemon]

No. Actually, a very small amount of evidence can have an appeal made and any reasonable doubt can get you out of the slammer. That's why it's so unlikely these 8 actually were innocent.

 

[Aisling]

"The problem isn't black people and poor people getting what they deserve, but whites not getting what they deserve."

Basically, there's no real problem in black people or poor people having a high rate of the death penalty. Just a problem in whites having a low one.

That's still racist and that's still a problem. With the justice system. Dude.

the government shouldn't even have social programs in the first place

Are you serious? Are you really serious? Do you even know you're saying? Just... You don't. You don't or you wouldn't be saying that.

edit: oh you do, do you? count this post as the last time I ever reply to you personally again. Until you experience real life you'll never know what you are really saying, I am convinced. You're not worth my time until you come to realize why these things matter to people who have been on this earth longer than thirteen cushy years, living off their parents' money.

but here's a hint: those are not the only things "social programs" encompasses.

 

[Pwnemon]

Hm. I do know what I'm saying. I don't agree with medicare medicaid social security welfare public housing health care and all the other "Objects of benevolence" (James Madison) the government seems to be handing out today.

 

[Tailsy]

Tailsy, what I'm saying is that the chances that it would ever happen are insignificantly small, and that's assuming the 8 people atually were innocent, which has not been proven.
I'm not even goint to try to get myself killed because of my opinions on those soldiers and on "inhumanity."

Well, you can't 'prove' that someone is guilty either. The only person who will truly know is the condemned person, and people have reasons to withhold information. Sadly that's a flaw of the justice system that can't really be overlooked, so yah boo.

The fact that the chance is small doesn't mean that it's not important.

And yeah, don't bother. :) I can get the feeling you'll just make me angry.