Ithron

1. Is that any worse than being wrong convicted and spending your *entire life* behind bars with murderers and rapists? Say you're innocent and get locked up at age 18, then 50 years pass and upon reopening the casebook, you're proven innocent, given a pardon and released. You're 58 and you've had the best years of your life taken away from you? Imagine spending that long locked up, but knowing you're innocent. Hell, it'd probably make you pretty cynical and more likely to commit a crime upon release.

That question can only be answered by the innocent who is condemned. But surely you see the lunacy of arguing that because innocent people are jailed and suffer, it's the same thing to kill them. It certainly is not.

I'm not using this as evidence for capital punishment. I'm just saying that the same "What if the person was innocent all along" argument applies to all punishment - with equally horrific results.

Capital punishment is not "equally horrific" as life behind bars - it is more so. That's the point of capital punishment, isn't it? The worst punishment we can deliver. Being executed for a crime you did not commit is far worse than being jailed for a crime you did not commit.

2. Noone's talking about saying "There's a small chance you might have committed a crime - you're for the chop." At least, I hope noone's saying that. I think all of the points put forward assume that you you know when someone's guilty. As Vance pointed out earlier, that's very difficult these days, hence the small number of executions, that you yourself quoted. In some cases, you have to admit though, it is clear. I'll cite the old favourites: Hussein, Hitler (had he been captured) & Goering & Co(Though whether Nuremberg was a fair trial is a completely different issue that I think we should avoid for the minute... Also, I'm aware of Godwin's Law ), Bin Laden, Killers with loads of witnesses, etc.

There have been over 100 people released from Death Row who were slated to die. Clearly it is easier to mistakenly convict someone and sentence them to death than you would like to believe. Were we to adopt a system like Telan endorses, those hundred would have died, and likely far more. Texas, which executes the most inmates, also has one of the highest death row populations. Which way does the cause and effect go? You would think that, if capital punishment reduces crime and few people are actually sentenced to die, the number in Texas should be the lowest in the country. They execute the most people, after all. If Capital Punishment were to become commonplace, more cases would push for death, and it would be granted more often.

In those cases, when it's as clear cut as it's going to get, surely it's justified?

Only if you assume that you have the right to decide if a person deserves to live or die. I don't think that's a right mankind has or deserves. We punish a man who, seeing his wife in bed with another man, kills her because he thinks she deserves to die. How far removed is that really from us assuming to say the murderer deserves to die? In both cases someone did wrong, and was killed for it.

Without the argument of "you can never be certain", the only argument left is the one of "it's barbaric. You should never kill. That's what they do in Iran, etc". I'm not sure that holds up - just because your enemy does something, doesn't mean it's automatically good. In Iran, they use oil. Does that mean America should give it up? Of course not.

We punish people for killing. It is barbaric in our own society - we hold murderers in great disdain. But when the government commits murder, it becomes all right? Interesting hypocrisy.

The parallel with Iran is not "they do it", it's that very few "civilized" countries do it. The only countries that practice capital punishment, aside from the USA, are states that Americans think of us as brutal and barbaric. The kind of punishment that Telan desires especially is on the same level as Iran. No Western country tortures its citizens.

At the end of the day, it *does* stop a known offender from re-offending, and surely with Telan's plan in place - it would act as a deterrent.

The deterrent argument is poor, because a life sentence without parole does the exact same thing. Without the risk of killing innocent people. Without the moral ambiguities about taking life. "It will stop him" is a poor reason to kill someone when they're already contained.

Also, I'd like to add that just because something's morally repulsive by today's Western standards, doesn't make it "wrong."

That hinges on the idea that there is no "right" and "wrong", only perception of it. But the point is that right now, today, killing is wrong. That's why we have laws against it.

You're correct again demos -no Western country tortures it citizens. And look at the astronomical proportion of said citizens behind bars. I rest mycase on that point alone.

You are correct on a second option - death means little if you can keep appealling and live forever. So I said give them six months to prove their innocence, not use some legal loophole. As such, a division of the Justice Ministry would have to be detailed to such tasks as reviewing the cases for those to be executed, making sure they are guilty. However, they would not stop the execution due a mistake or one of the ridiculous the police found the murder weapon in a place not on the search warrant so its out and it's dismissed, no. That's a makrer of guilt and so the execution goes forward. But if DNA exonerates the accused then he is free to go.

Demos, you pose a recurring theme that is indeed very important and needs to be addressed. Can we execute masses of criminals while ensuring that no innocent ones are put to death? The answer is a simple no. The innocent will perish along with the guilty, but the systems needs to be refined so that the number is small but if ten innocent must die to execute a hundred guilty ones then so be it. The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. It is an aged old phrase but a real one true enough. That is why firefighters rush into burning buildings while civilians just stand there, gawking while people scream for aide. Some must do the unthinkable that the rest may live.

Just one question to Demos to help refine your argument: What about these hundred people? Was this from one year or over a course of time? How many other people were on death row at the time? It's good to throw around numbers, but a percentage or fraction to put it into perspective is better.

Thank-you. *nods*

Telan Desaria

Demos, you pose a recurring theme that is indeed very important and needs to be addressed. Can we execute masses of criminals while ensuring that no innocent ones are put to death? The answer is a simple no. The innocent will perish along with the guilty, but the systems needs to be refined so that the number is small but if ten innocent must die to execute a hundred guilty ones then so be it. The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. It is an aged old phrase but a real one true enough. That is why firefighters rush into burning buildings while civilians just stand there, gawking while people scream for aide. Some must do the unthinkable that the rest may live.

If you truly believe this, Telan, then I'm very, very disturbed. You honestly believe that it's all right that 10% of the people your plan would kill would be innocent? That for every nine people executed, an innocent man or woman would go to their deaths, too?

This is not a case of the "needs of the many" - capital punishment does not deter crime. It does prevent reoffences, but so does incarceration. Capital punishment is putting the desires of the victims to see bloody retribution above the rights of the citizenship not to have to worry about being accidentally put to death by their own government.

What a ridiculous argument you make, Telan.

It does crime, Demos. Believe me it does. if done the right way, it does.

And yes I do beleive in it. I believe that sacrifices are neccessary. Is 10 percent too high, of course. But losses must be accepted in the war on crime. And why does the right of the victim - and the victim's family - for retribution mean nothing to you? Are you that liberal that you take the side of murderers and rapists and theives

The deterrent argument is poor, because a life sentence without parole does the exact same thing.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you there. To me, death sounds worse than a life in prison (if I was guilty. If I was innocent and wrongly convicted, I'm honestly not sure what I'd think).

That's the point of capital punishment, isn't it? The worst punishment we can deliver.

Not really.... Extended torture - you know, pulling someone's fingernails off, sticking probes in their brain to stimulate pain constantly. That sort of thing (I'm sure you can use your imagination) - surely that's much worse? If I was supporting capital punishment as some sort of "revenge", surely I'd want the person to die slowly, over the period of months, or years - in constant pain. Personally, I don't condone that. Death should be quick and ideally painless. (I know in some cases it's not with lethal injection, and there's a controversy). I'm willing to admit there's room for change on the method, and indeed, on the way the system works.

I'm not saying "The system that the United States uses (say, in Texas) is perfect and should be emulated". I'm simply saying that in principle, I can support capital punishment in extreme cases. You seem to be saying that you don't support it in any case at all - that's the point I have issue with, really.

Out of curiosity (not to prove a point or anything), what would you have done with Hitler had we caught him? Or Hussein? Or Bin Laden?

But the point is that right now, today, killing is wrong. That's why we have laws against it.

I propose that today, now, killing is not necessarily wrong. The problem is using blanket statements like that one you've used there, I think. In war, for example, killling can be justified (to some people. To me, anyway). In self defence, killing can also be justified. We have laws against Murder (and "manslaugher" and "death by negligence" and all the rest). There are no laws that say "killing someone else is wrong. That's a moral stance, not a legal one, surely?

I would say that capital punishment is comparable (legally) to a soldier killing another soldier in war. Therefore, it's not murder, and it's not "wrong". (IMHO anyway)

Telan Desaria

It does crime, Demos. Believe me it does. if done the right way, it does.

No matter how many times you say it, Telan, it does not become true. There was crime when capital punishment was rampant - by your logic, there should have been none. Evidence shows that capital punishment is ineffective. When you say it is, you're pulling it straight out of your ass.

This is not a case of "siding" with murderers and rapists. There are not two sides to this argument, it is not "let them go free" vs. "kill them". It is "punish them appropriately" vs. "kill them, and some innocent people too".

That you support the murder of innocent people terrifies me. You claim to be acting in the interests of the "victims" of crime. But what about the thousands of victims that will be created by your plan's slaughter of innocent people? What about the innocent people who need to die for your plan to work?

It's incredibly selfish for you to believe that because of your suffering, innocent men and women need to die. Your victimization is nothing compared to the victimization those innocent people who are condemned to die, killed by their own government in the name of preventing victimization? I smell hypocrisy.

I propose that today, now, killing is not necessarily wrong. The problem is using blanket statements like that one you've used there, I think. In war, for example, killling can be justified (to some people. To me, anyway). In self defence, killing can also be justified. We have laws against Murder (and "manslaugher" and "death by negligence" and all the rest). There are no laws that say "killing someone else is wrong. That's a moral stance, not a legal one, surely?

That killing is wrong is a legal stance. Yes, there are times when it is justified, and in those cases the criminal justice system makes that judgement. In cases of self-defense, for example. It is not a case of "killing is right if its in self-defense", but a case of "killing can be justified when there is no other option". That's why, even in self-defense, "excessive force" is still an offense. If a hostile country is invading your homeland, and the only way to stop them is to go to war and kill people, then yes, it can be justified.

But that is not the same as killing be morally acceptable. That we are sometimes left with no choice but to kill does not make it morally acceptable.

Demos, you sound dangerously close to hippy. You are saying that excessive force is wrong? So when a man enters your home in the middle of the night rather than stand and fight and kill the intruder you should lock yourself in a closet and cower while his depreadations continue because running and hiding is a logical alternative. That is not only wrong it is dishonourable.

I have admitted that there would be victims of such pogroms against criminals and that innocent people would suffer. The goal is to shrink the number of such innocents dying so that eventually only the guilty perish. I am saying losses are acceptable while the bugs are worked out, not in the long run.

You are of the school that thinks it is right for a man to shoot fifty people in a bell tower then be able to just throw his gun down and be taken calmly by the police. I am ordered to do that now and I do it accordingly because I know what it is to obey. It is not however right - that person should be executed on the spot, the blood still fresh and wet on his hands. You have such a person spend a lifetime in jail.

Now, I am amenable to the elimination of the death penalty if something equally appropriate is put in its place. For example, the working endlessly of the prisoners. Yes, make them cut the path for the new right of way using shovels and picks and axes - make them crush rocks into smaller ones, make them pcik up trash on the side of the highway. Work them and make them pay their debt to society. A debt to society is not sleeping for twenty years in your cell with three meals a day and medicine provided by the law abiding citizens outside the wire. Incarcerate a murderer then, seize all his assets and sell them off, including bank accounts and cars and clothes, and work him until he is decrepit. Then his debt will be paid, his blood and sweat turned into the soil that the lawful citizens now trod upon. THAT is a debt paid to society, forever sorrowful for his crimes.

How many times have you watched MSNBC or other jail shows and see unrepentent murderers and rapists? Too often. They are not punished every day, they are not worked, they are not beaten, they are not made to remember the horrors they inlficted on the world. No, they are coddled by therapists, drugged at expense to the tax payers, and given shelter and protection by officers of the law working inside. That is not punishment and it is not justice.

So I say again, fine - remove the dealth penalty. But then make a life spent behind the walls a life spent in search of absolution and forgiveness that work may make free. Arbeit macht frei if you will. Now it will be put to good use - not the wholesale slaughter of innocent people based on beleifs no but the punishment of the truly wicked for their sins.

Now, I am willing to be sacrified as the first to the alter of justice or I would not be able to make such an argument. I am not a hypocrit -I believe what I say with the utmost of conviction. I am willing to do as ordered - I obey as commanded now as an officer and I live by the tennets of my oath. I do question the basis for those orders but I obey all the same.

Can you, Drayson, say that you are willing to do so? There is a major difference between us, my friend. I say these opinions as someone who everydayfights against crime, who everyday sees the evil that man is capable of. You live insulated from it. Remember that there are those of us out here working to keep you safe - please finally stand and show us our work is not in vein, that our blood has our blood has purchased a better future.

Time to show my powers of 'sitting on the fence'.

Two points:

1) Open and public capital punishment desensitizes the public to violence. Yeah, there's fake violence in things like Saw but we know enough to know that it's fake. That would be really seeing someone die (in painful ways according to Telan). I think gaining a stomach for violence will do nothing for the crime rate, except in the short term perhaps.

2) But, execution does prevent reoffence, and more importantly is cheaper than imprisoning someone for life. After all, if they're getting life without parole, then all they'll do is get to rot in a cell for all their days at the tax payers expense. Last I checked, this is a capitalist state and if they aren't generating money than that project should be cut. *nods*

Also: Drayson! Statistic! Answer question! Gah! *brain explodes from not knowing the full extents of the statistics provided*

Thank you Irtar, but using Drayon's anti death logic, they could be used as cheap labor, only costing minimal food-intake the cost of the officers who watch them. Now THAT I can support