Why we should enforce the death penalty

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Well, it's primarily the dangerous ones who are forced into the hospital. That's hardly surprising.

And they're likewise the ones who escape, or are discharged. What's your point?

Sidhe

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
That is not possible. When a human life is taken, nobody gets it. The victim cannot be given reparation.

How about society getting reparation for its loss of a, ostensibly, productive member?

[Happy Monkey]

When someone's life is taken, society doesn't get it any more than the victim.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
When someone's life is taken, society doesn't get it any more than the victim.

Why do you say that?

What if the victim was a doctor, a priest, an engineer, a teacher, a philosopher, or a taxpayer?

[glatt]

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
The prime motivation in atonement justice is the reparation for the wrong done. If you steal something, your just punishment is directly in correlation to the value of the item stolen. If you cause a living thing unnecessary pain, your just punishment is directly in correlation to the social value placed on the living thing (we don’t punish for killing rodents, we do punish for setting the neighbor’s cat on fire). This is the principle behind the punishment fitting the crime.

You make an interesting argument, but it all just boils down to "an eye for an eye." I don't beleive in that concept.

Let me ask you about this: We had a situation in my area a few years ago where a woman was contemplating suicide. She was going to jump off a bridge. This was a pretty major bridge. They closed the bridge for several hours while they talked to the woman. Pretty much everyone agreed that she chose the bridge as a location for getting the most attention. She delayed something like 50,000 people by a couple of hours. If you add up all the time she "took" from these people it comes out to like 12 years. Should she be sent to jail for 12 years?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by glatt


You make an interesting argument, but it all just boils down to "an eye for an eye." I don't beleive in that concept.

Let me ask you about this: We had a situation in my area a few years ago where a woman was contemplating suicide. She was going to jump off a bridge. This was a pretty major bridge. They closed the bridge for several hours while they talked to the woman. Pretty much everyone agreed that she chose the bridge as a location for getting the most attention. She delayed something like 50,000 people by a couple of hours. If you add up all the time she "took" from these people it comes out to like 12 years. Should she be sent to jail for 12 years?

Yes

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Why do you say that?
What if the victim was a doctor, a priest, an engineer, a teacher, a philosopher, or a taxpayer?

No, I'm saying that if a murderer's life is taken, nobody receives it. Neither the victim, nor society gains a life by taking another.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by marichiko

I don't know where you get the idea that murders get to have their own cable TV. There may or may not be a single TV available in some prison common areas. Such TV's are shared by 100 - 200 inmates and may be watched for limited periods only - often this priviledge is taken away by the guards for discipinary reasons.

I don't think they get their OWN cable tv. The fact they get TV at ALL pisses me off.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
No, I'm saying that if a murderer's life is taken, nobody receives it. Neither the victim, nor society gains a life by taking another.

Ah, gotcha.

So you're saying that instead of making a murderer pay the price for his actions we get to pay the price for his further existance.

[Happy Monkey]

I don't consider economics to be relevant when discussing whether to kill someone.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally posted by Catwoman



I think I am going to throw up.

try not to hit the shoes

2. 'We are working in ideals not reality.' So what's the point of this debate? I'm sure it's pretty real for the victims.

It's essential. Before we look at how we use the death penalty in real life, we have to answer the question of whether it is morally allowable. If it is, then the debate should focus on accuracy and equity. If it is not, then no argument based on deterrence, revenge, ‘closure’ or future crimes has any weight.

I'd rather look at first issues first, then deal with how they are instantiated in real life.

-sm

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
I don't consider economics to be relevant when discussing whether to kill someone.

For most people economics is a proxy for time and effort. When you have to work for a living, the cost of supporting a convicted parasite on society is a legitimate issue.

[Lady Sidhe]

quote:Originally posted by glatt


"You make an interesting argument, but it all just boils down to "an eye for an eye." I don't beleive in that concept.

Let me ask you about this: We had a situation in my area a few years ago where a woman was contemplating suicide. She was going to jump off a bridge. This was a pretty major bridge. They closed the bridge for several hours while they talked to the woman. Pretty much everyone agreed that she chose the bridge as a location for getting the most attention. She delayed something like 50,000 people by a couple of hours. If you add up all the time she "took" from these people it comes out to like 12 years. Should she be sent to jail for 12 years? "


She didn't KILL anyone. That makes all the difference in the world. Wanting to kill YOURSELF, as opposed to wanting to kill someone else (or a lot of someone elses) is not a crime against society, IMO. She wasn't preying on anyone else. You're trying to compare two entirely different types of people.

If it was such a big problem for everyone, hell, they should've let her jump. Then traffic could've gone on it's way, and no time would've been wasted.


Sidhe

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Catwoman
"Hatred does not win over hatred
Only by love is hate defeated.
This is the law which is true for all time." ~ Buddha

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
~ Jesus, Matthew 5:43-44

Ask anyone who has lost a close one to crime - they will tell you that the brief 'pleasure' of revenge cannot compensate for such a loss.

No, killing Travis cannot compensate for Steven's death, but you know what? It's a good start.

He is PROUD of what he did. He isn't sorry he killed Steven.

And for every (--I can't call him a person, or even animal, because they rarely kill their own--) shitbag that is like him, killing simply is not enough punishment. No confinement too long, no pain too great for them to suffer. Fry them.

[DanaC]

I can't call him a person, or even animal

I think that's what I have difficulty with. He is a person. he has done awful things and I can understand a desire to punish someone who has done awful things.....but they never do stop being people.