Do You Support Capital Punishment?

[Zierro]

Alright, then what is his argument if it is not about his opposition of personal retribution nor killing to prevent more killing? What am I missing here? I have a feeling that it might be you who doesn't understand my argument. So yeah, you're right. It is ridiculous when people do that. ;)

 

 

 

Oh and that "Protip:" meme is quite possibly even more lame than "epic fail".

[fastortoise]

Alright, then what is his argument if it is not about his opposition of personal retribution nor killing to prevent more killing? What am I missing here? I have a feeling that it might be you who doesn't understand my argument. So yeah, you're right. It is ridiculous when people do that. ;)

 

 

 

Oh and that "Protip:" meme is quite possibly even more lame than "epic fail".

 

His argument was more about 'getting' the bigger picture. Have some perspective, it's on the house.

[Zierro]

Are you trying to be as unspecific and vague as possible, so that I'll argue and you'll say, "Try understanding my argument better next time."? Good tactic. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Heckle at what you think is my inability to comprehend all you want. :roll: Go ahead, but your heckles are coming from someone who sees "killing is bad" as the big picture rather than the fact that letting them live only causes more potential killings.

 

 

 

By bringing up the big picture, you're telling me that we should be open to all of the points in the argument - not overlooking the fact that keeping those people around causes more harm than good. Tell me, what is your rationale for keeping these psychos around? That should be the first step in wanting to envisioning the big picture you speak of.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't recall saying violence is always a bad thing. I just said it disturbs me how violent and spiteful some of the sentiments in this thread are.

 

 

 

I find it more disturbing when people want these psychos to continue being a threat to society.

 

I don't want them to be a threat to society either. You seem to have interpreted a false dichotomy where you either kill murderers, or release them freely.

 

 

 

You've killed a convicted murderer. So what? You've still got around about the same chance of being murdered/raped/shot dead as you did before. In some ways it's like the whole 'we should know where local paedophiles are' debate. It makes you no safer, it's just society feeling they have to get even instead of getting on with their lives undisturbed like normal.

 

 

 

Taking serial killers out of society (people who usually revert back to their old ways) doesn't make society any safer? That doesn't make sense. I hope you're just talking about personal retributions rather than doing something for a greater good.

 

I don't really think of murderers, or rapists as a "group" of people. That would be to imply that they're all similar to each other, or that they're some part of organised crime. Under this logic, the group can be oppressed, stopped even, to make society a safer place. Extremely high sentences work well because they have a direct impact on other murderers thinking of following suit, or on the organisation of the group itself. You can even go further, and idealise a perfect society where all in this group are dead, and thus the crime itself fails to exist altogether.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, there's just one problem with this vastly ideological perception of crime: this view is wrong.

 

 

 

I prefer to think of murderers as exceptional radicals; people who go off the rails apparently randomly because an experience in their life has triggered them to become sociopathic. Under this logic, the chances of becoming a victim of a murderer remain constantly random, and thus the death penalty (or life sentences, depending on your location) becomes nothing more than a device society uses to fulfill an emotional need for retribution.

 

 

 

Nevertheless, society is no safer, unless you count an emotional perception as "safe". You've killed someone, and for apparently no gain.

 

 

 

Regrettably, sociopaths exist. Nothing short of monitoring each and every single person's behavioural patterns will stop this. The death penalty does not decrease the amount of sociopaths, thus I feel no need for its inclusion in a judicial system.

[BlueLancer]

 

Regrettably, sociopaths exist. Nothing short of monitoring each and every single person's behavioural patterns will stop this. The death penalty does not decrease the amount of sociopaths, thus I feel no need for its inclusion in a judicial system.

 

 

 

It's not even a deterrent, which is why I don't support it at all. A sociopathic person who is willing to kill other people or go into organised crime often has nothing left to lose in life. They don't care if they die in some gunfight or get stabbed in the neck. A lot of them can be suicidal as well.

 

 

 

Isolating them from every other human being in the world for the rest of their lives is a much more painful punishment.

 

 

 

People who think the death penalty is somehow a more 'powerful' punishment aren't looking at it from the eyes of a sociopathic killer who doesn't *care* about dying or living like an average person. For these people, specific punishments can be tailored that are much more effective and act as a better deterrent.

[Zierro]

I don't want them to be a threat to society either. You seem to have interpreted a false dichotomy where you either kill murderers, or release them freely.

 

 

 

If they are alive, they will still always have the potential ability to cause more harm (unless they are physically disabled of course but that is more inhumane than death). Death is the only way to ensure that they won't escape or get out of jail. Death is the only way to ensure that they won't be a threat to society any longer.

 

 

 

I prefer to think of murderers as exceptional radicals; people who go off the rails apparently randomly because an experience in their life has triggered them to become sociopathic. Under this logic, the chances of becoming a victim of a murderer remain constantly random, and thus the death penalty (or life sentences, depending on your location) becomes nothing more than a device society uses to fulfill an emotional need for retribution.

 

 

 

I see them as people who fail to control their emotions so much that they take it to sickening extremes. Sure, whatever triggered them to go off the rail is nothing more than random stimuli. Not everyone goes off the rail though. Not everyone who was abused by their parents grows up to be a serial killer. This suggests that it isn't only nurture that effects their decisions but nature too. If it's in their nature to do something horrendous then why would you want to give them a chance to go off the rail again? Isn't it true that people who get out of jail usually wind back up in there again?

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

People who think the death penalty is somehow a more 'powerful' punishment aren't looking at it from the eyes of a sociopathic killer who doesn't *care* about dying or living like an average person. For these people, specific punishments can be tailored that are much more effective and act as a better deterrent.

 

 

 

'Powerful' as in preventing them from harming society any further you mean? I don't see why they'd favor a death sentence over life sentence anyways. If they are given a life sentence they can still commit suicide if they really did think death is a better option.

[kehllz]

The whole point of prison is to isolate people who would harm society and reform them. In the case of people with life sentences, it just becomes a case of isolating them from society. Death is the best means of removing them from the people they can harm.

 

 

 

And in the case of mentally ill patients, perhaps a death sentence is more humane. Yes, they can't help it, so should they be isolated from everyone for the rest of their lives due to a mental defect? Put them in the rest of the prison community and they will either kill someone else or be killed. Yes, it's sad that they are like this and I don't like the idea of executing them, but it comes to a point where it's necessary.

 

 

 

And for those who say it isn't a deterent, how do we know? We have no numbers on the amount of capital crimes in America without the death penalty present, so for all we know it might have detered hundreds of murderers from commiting crimes. Yes, it doesn't stop sociopaths, but they are, for lack of a better word, errors in the system that skew the outcome.

[warri0r45]

To be fair, I think Zierro has a good point. One of the few justifiable reasons I can see for the death penalty is that it eliminates the threat of people with no remorse re-offending in case they escape from prison.

 

 

 

As for how many people escape from US prisons, in 1998 it was 6530, which was around 0.5% of the prison population. The good thing is that this percentage is decreasing, and more AWOL prisoners are captured than those that escape. Perhaps the most promising statistic here is that virtually no one escapes from federal prisons:

Federal prison breakouts are rarer than state prison escapes. One federal prisoner escaped and was recaptured in 1999, out of a prison population of more than 115,000. He was the only one to escape in the past four years.

 

Perhaps the most dangerous members of society (especially those with with no remorse who are likely to re-offend) should go to these maximum security federal prisons, and it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that's exactly what would happen.

[NoMoreDead]

I don't want them to be a threat to society either. You seem to have interpreted a false dichotomy where you either kill murderers, or release them freely.

 

 

 

If they are alive, they will still always have the potential ability to cause more harm (unless they are physically disabled of course but that is more inhumane than death). Death is the only way to ensure that they won't escape or get out of jail. Death is the only way to ensure that they won't be a threat to society any longer.

 

 

You still seem to think that just because someone is dead it means that their potential to effect society is gone.

 

 

 

When Martin Luther King Jr. died, his impact was felt nationwide at a higher pulse than ever. When JFK died, his words rang truer than ever. When Tu-pac died, his sales rose higher (had to throw a non-political one in there to lighten the mood :).

 

 

 

The same is true for those who are driven by violence, unfortunately. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (The two murderers involved with the Columbine Killing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_ ... l_massacre) continue to influence similar killings, such as the Virginia Tech killings.

 

 

 

These people are not afraid to die folks. If they're willing to kill people, they're willing to be killed. Knowing that you will have to live out the rest of your days in sub-standard conditions while being confined to a single building for the entirety of your existence is much more terrifying to these people than being executed.

[Zierro]

You still seem to think that just because someone is dead it means that their potential to effect society is gone.

 

 

 

The effect they left behind isn't gone, but they can no longer do anything else to effect society anymore (murder). I'll admit I should have been more specific about that though.

 

 

 

These people are not afraid to die folks. If they're willing to kill people, they're willing to be killed. Knowing that you will have to live out the rest of your days in sub-standard conditions while being confined to a single building for the entirety of your existence is much more terrifying to these people than being executed.

 

 

 

Then why don't they just kill themselves? :-k

[ThurinEthir]

 

These people are not afraid to die folks. If they're willing to kill people, they're willing to be killed. Knowing that you will have to live out the rest of your days in sub-standard conditions while being confined to a single building for the entirety of your existence is much more terrifying to these people than being executed.

 

 

 

Then why don't they just kill themselves? :-k

 

I don't have a statistic, but some do. Like in school shootings. Usually the shooter kills himself in the end.

 

I suppose it's usually because he thinks his life sucks, not because he's afraid of the punishment. I don't know.

[NoMoreDead]

 

Then why don't they just kill themselves? :-k

 

 

 

Most school shooters attempt to kill themselves for one of two reasons (or likely a combination of the two, now that I think about it):

 

 

 

One: Because they are scared of the consequences. Nobody wants to sit in a prison cell for 50+ years and slowly rot away. They would rather die. Do you see why life in prison is a better deterrent as opposed to capital punishment?

 

 

 

Two: Because they want to be glorified after death. A living, breathing body (the killer's, mind you) with which to punish leaves the murderer no glory as his saga is on going.

 

 

 

Another less obvious reason is that they're scared of critics. Some might not be, but I'd be willing to say that a large portion of murderers regret committing it.

[Zierro]

One: Because they are scared of the consequences. Nobody wants to sit in a prison cell for 50+ years and slowly rot away. They would rather die. Do you see why life in prison is a better deterrent as opposed to capital punishment?

 

 

 

How would that make it a better deterrent? If anything, I'd say that makes it a worse one. If they feared life in prison more than death then they could easily remedy that by committing suicide. Why would a life sentence deter you if you could just kill yourself for an easy way out of the punishment?

[Ginger_Warrior]

One: Because they are scared of the consequences. Nobody wants to sit in a prison cell for 50+ years and slowly rot away. They would rather die. Do you see why life in prison is a better deterrent as opposed to capital punishment?

 

 

 

How would that make it a better deterrent? If anything, I'd say that makes it a worse one. If they feared life in prison more than death then they could easily remedy that by committing suicide. Why would a life sentence deter you if you could just kill yourself for an easy way out of the punishment?

 

If they've killed themselves, aren't you happy anyway? They're dead.

 

 

 

If they're gonna chop themselves, I don't see why the state needs to do the deed for them.

[Zierro]

If they've killed themselves, aren't you happy anyway? They're dead.

 

 

 

If they're gonna chop themselves, I don't see why the state needs to do the deed for them.

 

 

 

Umm... yeah? They'd no longer be a threat to society so I would be satisfied. What is your point though? I was just responding to the argument, "They fear life sentences more than death."

 

 

 

I don't want the satisfaction of having them die in the name of justice if that's what you think. I just want them gone.

 

 

 

And also, not all of them kill themselves. Just the ones who think that a life in prison is worse than death.

[Marco]

If they've killed themselves, aren't you happy anyway? They're dead.

 

 

 

If they're gonna chop themselves, I don't see why the state needs to do the deed for them.

 

 

 

Umm... yeah? They'd no longer be a threat to society so I would be satisfied. What is your point though? I was just responding to the argument, "They fear life sentences more than death."

 

 

 

I don't want the satisfaction of having them die in the name of justice if that's what you think. I just want them gone.

 

 

 

I feel as though this has been the basis for Zierro's arguments for a while now, and a basis which I find myself agreeing with each time.

 

 

 

1. Basic principle

 

If someone has gone so far beyond all reasonable thought as to kill another person in cold blood then I think that rather than punishing them through a life of incarceration then they might as well just be killed instead. My reasoning for this is is as follows: If they are going to be punished by being removed from society for the rest of their lives then they might as well be dead, as It should be cheaper to kill someone, than it is for them to be incarcerated for 60+ years. However, due to repeated appeals and court cases, it is not significantly cheaper to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

2. Justification

 

The difference between executing and incarcerating a person who will never come into contact with society again is, in my opinion, zero.

 

 

 

2.1 Regarding becoming a 'martyr'

 

I do not agree with the argument that executing a murderer will make him a martyr for other people to follow their actions. I feel as though it is unreasonable to think that someone who is so far removed from rational thought as to callously murder someone in cold blood would be capable of seeing another person, who may or may not have been in a similar situation as they were, as a martyr, and someone to honour. I may be wrong, but I don't think that people would copy the original murderer's actions because they thought that the original murderer was 'right' in what they did.

 

 

 

2.2 Regarding being 'inhumane'

 

This seems like a pretty basic argument, in my mind. It is no more inhumane to incarcerate someone for the rest of their life, than it is to kill them. If anything, I feel as though a murderer would prefer death to incarceration, although I cannot speak on their behalf, this is an assumption. I can expand on this by saying that I personally would rather be dead, than know that I was going to live the rest of my life inside an institution apart from society. Take that statement as far as you wish; as said, I cannot speak on behalf of people who would do such an act.

 

Out of the following two statements, morally, is one better than the other?

 

In regards to the 'death penalty':

 

Incarceration: The act of imprisoning, and therefore removing from society, someone for the duration of their lives so as not to be a threat to society ever again.

 

Death sentance: The act of killing, and therefore removing from society, someone so as not to be a threat to society ever again.

 

 

 

2.3 Regarding retribution

 

In my view, which as far as I can see Zierro concurs, this has nothing to do with retribution. The death penalty is a means to remove an individual from society permanently, just as is the aim of imprisonment. It is not an act to 'get back' at an individual.

 

 

 

2.4 Regarding barbarism (primitive savagery)

 

I don't see the issue. As said, the aims of both death and incarceration are the same. How one is more civilised than the other is beyond me. They are different methods to the same effect. Saying that one is better than the other to make a point that we have apparently mentally advanced is inconsequential.

 

 

 

2.5 Regarding killing an innocent man

 

Very quickly: If you murder someone, you will have more of a chance to be found innocent if you are sentenced to death, rather than imprisonment. You will go through more trials, retrials and appeals as a murderer due to be executed, than you would if you were sentenced to incarceration for the rest of your life.

 

 

 

2.6 Regarding the chance of 'rehabilitation'

 

Really..? Without meaning to be condescending; if you can reform the kind of person that would be sentenced to death, then you are clearly one of the best psychologists alive. Bear in mind that these people have been given such a punishment because they bear such a threat to the general public that it would be better if they were dead/incarcerated for life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Criticism

 

As said in my general principle; It is not currently cheaper to kill someone when compared to incarcerating them for their lives. What points can be made from this?

 

It is justifiably expensive, as you should make sure that the person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Currently, I feel as though if someone is sentenced (which is carried through after retrials) to death, then they are guilty. By the time they die, in most states of America they would have gone through at least 3 trials. These are trials which the defendant is proved to have been guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by his peers (representatives of the general public). You may choose to get into an argument over how workable the current justice system is (of which I'm only really qualified to argue for the UK system), but this argument would never end, so I suggest that we just accept the current system of being judged by your peers as the best of the worst. As far as I am aware, no one who has been sentenced to death has been later found innocent since 1910.

 

If the current system calls for all reasonable precautions to be taken so as to avoid killing an innocent man, and if these precautions mean that the costs start to run into behemothic figures, then the only argument which should ensue is how to reduce these costs. Alright, I'll throw it out there - although a lazy aspiration, one day I hope to become a lawyer, an occupation which I feel is grossly overpaid. I am not bringing this point up as to give any weight to my argument, but I'm sure we all know that major cuts can be easily made here, so as to reduce the cost of this method of punishment so as to make it a viable alternative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Brief conclusion

 

My argument is in the main body of text, read it all if you want to understand it fully rather than just skipping to the conclusion (not meant to be a repetition).

 

If you're going to lock someone up for the rest of their lives on the basis that they're such a threat that the Earth would be a better place without them, then you might as well just save time and kill them if it would benefit everyone else (cheaper). My argument is that, as it stands, neither of the two options (life in prison/death) are any good. If you're going to do either one, you might as well do the other. They both cost similar amounts, and if anything sentencing someone to death would give them more of a chance to prove their innocence anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Please feel free to take apart anything that you wish. I know that I may have missed a few points which other users may have raised, and so this is not a comprehensive argument by any means; it is far from finished. I am in no way claiming that I am right in everything that I have said, this is simply my opinion on the issue. Hopefully people will criticize my argument, and together we can build a more reasonable and balanced one in which some clarity and comprimise between the two sides will occur. Parts of this are from a paper which I had to do recently on criminology, but I have tried to suit it as much as I can to the issues raised here.

 

 

 

As ever, with such a clear and strong argument, I must remind users that my views do not reflect Tip.it in any way. As a moderator I am entitled to my opinions which do not in any way indicate Tip.it's stance on any issue.

[IGoddessI]

 

Then why don't they just kill themselves? :-k

 

 

 

Most school shooters attempt to kill themselves for one of two reasons (or likely a combination of the two, now that I think about it):

 

 

 

One: Because they are scared of the consequences. Nobody wants to sit in a prison cell for 50+ years and slowly rot away. They would rather die. Do you see why life in prison is a better deterrent as opposed to capital punishment?

 

 

 

Two: Because they want to be glorified after death. A living, breathing body (the killer's, mind you) with which to punish leaves the murderer no glory as his saga is on going.

 

 

 

Another less obvious reason is that they're scared of critics. Some might not be, but I'd be willing to say that a large portion of murderers regret committing it.

 

 

 

Another thing you'll find criminals talk about is not giving people the satisfaction of capturing them. Some murderers feel like they have won, if they've taken out a large amount of people, get talked about, make history even if it's in some disturbing way and then took themselves out before anyone could do any healing or get any justice.

[nickeley102]

 

If someone has gone so far beyond all reasonable thought as to kill another person in cold blood then I think that rather than punishing them through a life of incarceration then they might as well just be killed instead. My reasoning for this is is as follows: If they are going to be punished by being removed from society for the rest of their lives then they might as well b, my post assumed this was true where you live too

 

What about learning what you did was wrong and restorative justice?

[dsavi]

If you want to argue that the judicial system has no right to sentence a murderer, rapist, pedophile or traitor to death, I would argue that it has no right to let them live.

 

I would argue that it has no right to let them free for the rest of their life.

 

What if the convict takes a life, what gave him that right?

 

Nobody did. But nothing and nobody has given anyone from the judicial system a right to sentence anyone to death either. I don't see anything complicated about it, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

It really disturbs me sometimes how... violent this community is sometimes.

 

 

 

How on Earth can you discuss how best to murder someone through capital punishment, and not talk about drugs in the same place?

 

I think it's because discussing that is just empty threats. I think there are maybe one or two people around here (I wouldn't have any idea who) who could take the mental implications of killing another human.

 

Drugs, however, are easily accessible to nearly everyone.

[doomy]

For somethings, I can only support Life Imprisonment, or death penalty.

 

 

 

I'm happy with an eye for an eye, kill them, if you have 100% evidence they did it, if not, don't bother, stick them in life imprisonment.

 

I also don't get how the Death Sentence is not a deterrent in any way, I'd be pretty put off doing a major crime if I was going to be killed, especially if it was in a painful way, so for a worse crime I'll go ahead and say you should kill them in worse ways.

 

 

 

I mean, murderers and things like that are pretty much scum..

[BlueLancer]

From a legal viewpoint what DOOMY said is valid support for the death penalty in the countries that use it... If you have absolute, irrefutable proof (such as multiple independently-shot video tapes from various angles) of a horrible crime, the person probably should be put instantly on death row and executed.

 

 

 

If it was, say, a murderer, what will killing him accomplish though? It certainly wont bring back the victims. It's instant gratification that will fade with time.

 

 

 

I know a lot of people disagree on this issue, but from a parent's view for example.. Isn't it better he has to rot in a cell for the rest of his life, without any chance of getting out, being scorned by other prisoners? That seems like a worse punishment than experiencing a few seconds of pain & then dying off..

 

 

 

I also don't get how the Death Sentence is not a deterrent in any way, I'd be pretty put off doing a major crime if I was going to be killed

 

 

 

That's because you're an average, normal citizen. A person who commits crime for a living or kills for money lives in an almost different world than you. He might have nothing left to live for. The worst criminals constantly put themselves at risk, they don't care about dying as you or the average Joe would. Hence it'd be better to think what punishes them better, taking away their freedom forever, or just ending their misery early

[Marco]

 

If someone has gone so far beyond all reasonable thought as to kill another person in cold blood then I think that rather than punishing them through a life of incarceration then they might as well just be killed instead. My reasoning for this is is as follows: If they are going to be punished by being removed from society for the rest of their lives then they might as well b, my post assumed this was true where you live too

 

What about learning what you did was wrong and restorative justice?

 

 

 

Check the part about rehabilitation. As said, these are people who have callously killed someone in cold blood. Do you honestly think these kinds of people go through couselling and rehab programmes in the states where the death penalty doesn't exist? I was given the impression by the people that advocate imprisonment, that they would be locked up in such a state that they would barely have any contact with other people (someone earlier mentioned a large time in solitary confinement).

 

 

 

 

 

If it was, say, a murderer, what will killing him accomplish though? It certainly wont bring back the victims. It's instant gratification that will fade with time.

 

 

 

I know a lot of people disagree on this issue, but from a parent's view for example.. Isn't it better he has to rot in a cell for the rest of his life, without any chance of getting out, being scorned by other prisoners? That seems like a worse punishment than experiencing a few seconds of pain & then dying off..

 

 

 

Bit of a contradiction I think. Aside from the point of the death penalty, to me, being an act to remove someone from society permanently & not any kind of act to cause pain in order to be gratified, you go on to claim that imprisonment would bring more pleasure than death.

 

Using your first point; What will imprisonment accomplish? It wont bring back the victims. It's just a long period of shallow gratification fading over time.

 

 

 

My argument remains the same: Death penalty = Imprisonment.

[BlueLancer]

What I'm implying is that death is a too easy way out for a person that, say, killed 6 people. He has no regard for human life, not possibly even his own, so why would he care about dying at all?

 

 

 

If you take his freedom away, the freedom to continue killing people, talk to anyone, visit places, considering the individual psychological profile of the offender.. It's likely much more painful especially if he's in solitary confinement.

 

 

 

A lot of people just seem to think killers are like normal people, who just snap one day and decide to go on a spree. They're not. They almost without exception have mental problems for years. Their behavior and thinking models change radically. Some of them get involved in brutal organised crime and don't give two thoughts about killing someone.

 

 

 

People committing offenses that warrant the death penalty in the US are not normal people. They don't respond to the threat of death or respect/revere it as you or I do. If you just make them live for decades without any purpose except sitting in a square room, it's going to punish even the worst serial killer.

[venomai]

Zierro:

 

After releasing any serious offender, whether it be a murderer or a simple car thief, there is always the possibility that they will re-offend. Killing these convicts to ensure that they do not re-offend, however, is not a very reasonable solution to the problem of recidivism. This is a blunt and primitive tool; it brushes the problem under the carpet. We would inevitably end up killing hundreds of thousands of people who would not have otherwise re-offended.

 

 

 

If capital punishment was shown to be effective at reducing murder rates, I may support it, but this is not the case.[1]

[Marco]

What I'm implying is that death is a too easy way out for a person that, say, killed 6 people. He has no regard for human life, not possibly even his own, so why would he care about dying at all?

 

 

 

If you take his freedom away, the freedom to continue killing people, talk to anyone, visit places, considering the individual psychological profile of the offender.. It's likely much more painful especially if he's in solitary confinement.

 

 

 

A lot of people just seem to think killers are like normal people, who just snap one day and decide to go on a spree. They're not. They almost without exception have mental problems for years. Their behavior and thinking models change radically. Some of them get involved in brutal organised crime and don't give two thoughts about killing someone.

 

 

 

People committing offenses that warrant the death penalty in the US are not normal people. They don't respond to the threat of death or respect/revere it as you or I do. If you just make them live for decades without any purpose except sitting in a square room, it's going to punish even the worst serial killer.

 

 

 

I understand you point, mate. I think we just seem to differ on the reasoning for the punishment, be it death or life incarceration. To me, making sure the offender suffers is not a priority, the point of the punishment is to make sure they will never do it again. I understand that they should not in any way be let off 'easy' for what they did, but I don't agree that death is an easy way out. I agree with you in that, in the long term, the offender will suffer more if he is incarcerated for the rest of his life.

 

 

 

2.3 Regarding retribution

 

In my view, which as far as I can see Zierro concurs, this has nothing to do with retribution. The death penalty is a means to remove an individual from society permanently, just as is the aim of imprisonment. It is not an act to 'get back' at an individual.

 

 

 

It just feels redundant to try and cause as much harm and pain as you possibly can to an offender. These people have, mentally, gone past the point of no return. After giving them the death sentance/life incarceration it doesn't matter what you do to them - everything would be, as you said just instant shallow gratification. For all I care, you could incarcerate them and then go on to torture them every single day until they die, it makes no difference. It wont bring anyone back.

 

I neither condone nor condemn using death as a punishment. It is just the same as locking someone up for life. If death could ever be cheaper than incarceration then I would strongly advocate using it over imprisonment.

 

 

 

 

 

After releasing any serious offender, whether it be a murderer or a simple car thief, there is always the possibility that they will re-offend. Killing these convicts to ensure that they do not re-offend, however, is not a very reasonable solution to the problem of recidivism. This is a blunt and primitive tool; it brushes the problem under the carpet. Furthermore, we would inevitably end up killing hundreds of thousands of people who would not have otherwise re-offended.

 

 

 

If capital punishment was shown to be effective at reducing murder rates, I may support it, but this is not the case.[1]

 

 

 

The issue of stoping them from re-offending has no bearing. Understand how few people recieve the punishment of being incarcerated for life (read: never having the opportunity to come out). I could use your argument that imprisoning someone for life is just the same as 'brushing the problem under the carpet', but hopefully by now you can see that it's a technicality which renders your original idea redundant. If someone is sentanced to, say 30 years imprisonment, then let them serve it, what they do when they come out is of no relevance in this discussion. The death penalty is currently used as an alternative for life imprisonment.

 

 

 

I do agree that capital punishment is most likely no more a deterrent than life imprisonment, although I would argue that this is partly due to the mental state of the offenders. Show me what you can do to deter someone who is so far out of it that they're willing to kill another person, and I'll show you a redundant measure.

 

 

 

In this discussion I care not for whether it deters anyone or not. I am just slightly fed up with the amount of people (not aimed at you) that claim death is inhumane, barbaric, immoral etc, when to me, it is just a different method to the same effect as life imprisonment: "Oh no! You can't kill them! That's so cruel. Let's just let them rot in prison for the rest of their life."