Death Penalty

[PK]

also, wikipedia is not, in fact, a reliable source. Not to mention that the article is covered with quality notifications.

 

[Aisling]

Wikipedia, of course, and from them you can find their sources.

"This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup."
edit: Ninja'd by PK but just posting to remind you that I made another cited post that you didn't seem to notice

 

[Michi]

In statistics it says that many, including 3000 people from just one institution, people in the US will be serving long enough to die behind bars.

All criminals sentenced to life must wait 15-35 years, depending on the crime, before applying for parole. And even then, there are people who get denied and then all the people who are not given the option of early release.

 

[Butterfree]

The possibly innocent people are dying because jurors found them guilty and a judge sentenced them to death.
Note that they have been listed as possibly innocent.

Wrong kind of why; you're dodging the question again. You answered the cause-and-effect kind of why, but that's tautological and inane; we all know that. I meant (and you know I meant) why as in what justifies this. To make an analogy, I'm asking "Why is my puppy being put down?" and you're answering "Because I said the words 'Put him to sleep' to the vet," instead of something like "He had an incurable disease and if he'd lived he would have been in horrible pain."

Really, this boils down to a very simple question. Given the choice between two solutions to the same problem that are exactly equivalent in every other way, do you go for the one that involves potentially killing innocent people or the one that doesn't?

 

[PK]

In statistics it says that many, including 3000 people from just one institution, people in the US will be serving long enough to die behind bars.

All criminals sentenced to life must wait 15-35 years, depending on the crime, before applying for parole. And even then, there are people who get denied and then all the people who are not given the option of early release.

READ THIS.
edited by Alraune because he quoted the wrong one

(also, even though 12 years is only the average of time spent on death row- it is still pretty well established that death row costs more than life sentences

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year
this place again)

therefore the time a life sentence actually lasts is still irrelevant
end edit

 

[Michi]

Wrong kind of why; you're dodging the question again. You answered the cause-and-effect kind of why, but that's tautological and inane; we all know that. I meant (and you know I meant) why as in what justifies this. To make an analogy, I'm asking "Why is my puppy being put down?" and you're answering "Because I said the words 'Put him to sleep' to the vet," instead of something like "He had an incurable disease and if he'd lived he would have been in horrible pain."

Really, this boils down to a very simple question. Given the choice between two solutions to the same problem that are exactly equivalent in every other way, do you go for the one that involves potentially killing innocent people or the one that doesn't?

The one that does, as it has a chance of killing a guilty person that is over 325 times higher.

And I suppose it isn't justified to kill innocents, but it's something I say we have to deal with. And nobody who has been killed has been proven innocent after death yet.

 

[opaltiger]

The one that does, as it has a chance of killing a guilty person that is over 325 times higher.

And I suppose it isn't justified to kill innocents, but it's something I say we have to deal with. And nobody who has been killed has been proven innocent after death yet.

Do you see "killing a guilty person" as inherently a good thing?

 

[PK]

The one that does, as it has a chance of killing a guilty person that is over 325 times higher.

And I suppose it isn't justified to kill innocents, but it's something I say we have to deal with. And nobody who has been killed has been proven innocent after death yet.

"just something we have to deal with"? if you think that's okay, then why not let murders go free and just "deal with it"? And of COURSE no one's been proved guilty after death, they're DEAD and the case is CLOSED. There's no reason to probe farther.

 

[opaltiger]

Oh, and everyone here should read this.

 

[Michi]

Do you see "killing a guilty person" as inherently a good thing?

Actually yes.

Oh yeah, this is one of Wikipedia's sources.

 

[opaltiger]

Actually yes.

I am not exaggerating when I say that this is the most disturbing thing anyone has ever said to me.

Oh yeah, this is one of Wikipedia's sources.

How on earth does this strengthen your position? From what I read of it, this article says "life imprisonment laws are too strict; even people who have been rehabilitated can't be released". Your solution is... kill them before they ever have the chance to be rehabilitated?

 

[Butterfree]

The one that does, as it has a chance of killing a guilty person that is over 325 times higher.

So let me get this straight. All other things being equal - no difference in the chance of other people being murdered, no monetary gain, no benefit to society at large - you would still rather have 4992 murderers plus up to eight innocent people dead than nobody dead at all? Your pure desire to see murderers dead, as opposed to kept from hurting anyone ever again by otherwise equivalent means, is so strong that alone makes the deaths of several innocents worth it?

...Well, okay. I guess that's the fundamental moral difference between us. But forgive me for being quite disturbed, and quite reminded of Death Note.

 

[Michi]

Potentially innocent.
If I knew they WERE innocent, I'd fight to have them saved.
If I knew they were guilty, I would not lift a finger to keep them alive.

Why is it disturbing to want murderers dead?
My own mother believes they should use capital punishment more often.
THoug I have always seen her as a Hitler-type figure. I've even called her a Nazi in front of my friends.

 

[PK]

So let me get this straight. All other things being equal - no difference in the chance of other people being murdered, no monetary gain, no benefit to society at large - you would still rather have 4992 murderers plus up to eight innocent people dead than nobody dead at all? Your pure desire to see murderers dead, as opposed to kept from hurting anyone ever again by otherwise equivalent means, is so strong that alone makes the deaths of several innocents worth it?

...Well, okay. I guess that's the fundamental moral difference between us. But forgive me for being quite disturbed, and quite reminded of Death Note.

my point exactly. How is killing an innocent EVER acceptable? And how does killing a murderer make up for it, exactly?

Why is it disturbing to want murderers dead?

... seriously? you have to ask this?

BECAUSE YOU'RE SENTENCING A POTENTIALLY INNOCENT HUMAN BEING TO DEATH. And even if he WASN'T innocent, you're still killing a human being.

 

[Michi]

Your solution is... kill them before they ever have the chance to be rehabilitated?

I assume you already know my answer, but anyway...
Murderers don't deserve rehabilitation.

AND I REPEAT BUT WITH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WORDING:
I want MURDERERS dead, not innocent people. And 0.16% isn't that great of a chance, you know.

EDIT
Yes, PK. A human being who is a murderer.

 

[opaltiger]

I assume you already know my answer, but anyway...
Murderers don't deserve rehabilitation.

AND I REPEAT BUT WITH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WORDING:
I want MURDERERS dead, not innocent people. And 0.16% isn't that great of a chance, you know.

EDIT
Yes, PK. A human being who is a murderer.

Will you change your mind the day an innocent person is confirmed to have been executed by the state?

 

[Aisling]

But is getting what you want worth the implications and overall cost of doing so, which affects many more people who don't particularly want that? Seems kind of selfish.

I mean, take myself for example, I'd much rather have that money spent on things that help people, not hurt people, (and there is a several million dollar difference, as I cited earlier) on top of eliminating the chance of an innocent person being executed. So far you haven't adequately explained why the way you want it should be in practice, for any other reason other than you think so.

 

[xkze]

[everything you've said in this thread]

excuse me for popping in here but

 

[PK]

I assume you already know my answer, but anyway...
Murderers don't deserve rehabilitation.

AND I REPEAT BUT WITH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WORDING:
I want MURDERERS dead, not innocent people. And 0.16% isn't that great of a chance, you know.

EDIT
Yes, PK. A human being who is a murderer.

i don't even know where to begin.

Who are you to say they don't deserve rehabilitation? Aren't you the one saying that killing them is a-okay? Isn't that crime they're guilty of? And if there is any chance, any chance at all, of their innocence, it can never be done.

 

[Butterfree]

No, it isn't that great a chance, but doing something with any chance at all of killing an innocent person should only be done when there is a very, very, very great benefit to outweigh the risk. For example, most dangerous diseases are quite unlikely to be fatal, but that doesn't mean it's a-okay to go and deliberately infect people with them.