@Leinad
"Your position is sensible and fair, but only--only--if you start with the assumption that the government has the right to decide when a person deserves death. That goes into philosophy, morality, and depending on your positions on those two, theology, which is, in my opinion, WAY outside the realm of government."
This doesn't make sense to me. We're discussing whether or not the death penalty is an acceptable form of government behavior. If your position against it isn't derived from some sort of political or moral philosophy, then what is its basis? And if you think the government shouldn't be making decisions on some sort of political or moral philosophy (say, for example, Enlightenment ideals of individual rights or the American pragmatic approach of implementing what has the best practical effects, or perhaps a more vague societal standard for what is morally acceptable that adjusts itself over time), then how do you think it ought to distinguish between good and bad policy?

I will grant that actual government policy decisions are almost always based on politicians' political self-interest rather than their political or moral philosophy, but I doubt you'd argue that this is the way things OUGHT to be conducted. Or perhaps you would.

"Unless it's calling for full scale US intervention in syria and calling John Brown the only moral man of his time. You are such a hypocrite"

Killing in defense of those in danger is at times a necessary evil. But there is no realistic chance a federal prisoner will escape.

I say we kill him.

Out of interest, Thucy, if the prisoner expressed a strong preference for death in the stead of life in prison, would you allow him to die?

@OutsideSmoker

No, my position is based on my philosophy of the role of government. I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying: the government can decide how they operate based on their philosophy on the role of government, but I do not think that the government should decide things like who can marry who, what people can or cannot say, and, applicable to this case, who "deserves" to die.

The question of who deserves to die or not depends on one's interpretation of religious beliefs (interpreting religion, or ruling based solely on a religion or school of philosophy, is, in my opinion, WAY out of the government's jurisdiction), and as you can tell it's not something everyone agrees on.

And as our friend from Wisconsin (not Washington) said, 1 in 25 people executed don't deserve to be! That's terrible! How can we think that the "benefits" of the death penalty are worth that?!?

@Octavious

That's a debate of euthanasia, not capital punishment. Different issue, and in my opinion a bit trickier. This is more straightforward: life imprisonment is enough.

I disagree that it is a different debate. If the families of the victims are in favour of the death penalty, the law of the land provides it as an option, public opinion is supportive of it, and the criminal himself would prefer it, what would be the justification of trying to stop it? Who would you be aiding by fighting against it/

You would sentence life imprisonment still, but that doesn't necessarily preclude euthanasia at a later date.

@Octavious

I still think the government (or a jury enforcing government-made laws and punishments) doesn't have the right to kill people. If they want to be killed, then it comes down to if you think a person has the right to decide when their life ends, which is a different debate because it's based on a different moral question (government authority vs. individual authority), and I'd rather not enter that debate at the moment.

If the person doesn't want to die, or their wishes aren't expressed, then I still say that the government (or a jury enforcing government-made laws and punishments) isn't in a position to decide something such as who deserves to live or not, nor do I think they are in a position to do that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Everyone

I'd still like a better answer to my question. I'll refute these defenses:

-Yes, the death penalty removes someone from society, but so does life imprisonment.
-It's not cheaper.
-Public opinion may be in support of it, but when you let public opinion trump reason than we've gone from democracy to mob rule. Slavery was fairly popular, did that make it any less wrong?
-And I've already refuted the idea that the government (or a jury enforcing government-made laws and punishments) gets to determine who lives or not, although I guess that's a more subjective argument. I think eye-for-eye is a bad method, because I believe the legal system needs to be more about prevention and rehabilitation than "justice." Although as I said, it's a subjective argument...so shouldn't Lady Justice, with her blindfolds on, choose the way that doesn't involve the subjective argument, i.e. abolish the death penalty?

Is there another answer that can trump the fact that 1 in 25 people executed don't deserve to be? I don't think there is, but I'll still ask again:

What about the death penalty makes society better?

@Leinad
"I do not think that the government should decide things like who can marry who, what people can or cannot say, and, applicable to this case, who 'deserves' to die."
In all of these cases, why do you not think so?

"I think eye-for-eye is a bad method, because I believe the legal system needs to be more about prevention and rehabilitation than 'justice.'"
In this case, why do you think so?

"Although as I said, it's a subjective argument...so shouldn't Lady Justice, with her blindfolds on, choose the way that doesn't involve the subjective argument, i.e. abolish the death penalty?"
I'm incapable of following the logic here. If the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment is a subjective question, then how is abolition not also a subjective preference?

"The question of who deserves to die or not depends on one's interpretation of religious beliefs (interpreting religion, or ruling based solely on a religion or school of philosophy, is, in my opinion, WAY out of the government's jurisdiction), and as you can tell it's not something everyone agrees on."
I'm still unclear as to how you think government officials are supposed to make decision about good policy--or even about the proper bounds of what they as government officials should even be allowed to do--without reference to some school of philosophy or at least some set of philosophical principles. Obviously you think they shouldn't, but what's your suggested alternative? Something that everyone agrees on (which itself relies on some sort of philosophical belief in the need for consensus on moral issues before any public action can be taken)? Or something else?

"What about the death penalty makes society better?"
It reminds us that the legal system should be about justice at least as much as it is about rehabilitation. ;)

@OutsideSmoker

"In all of these cases, why do you not think so?"
Because I believe that the government's job is not to enforce morality or even equality, but to ensure liberty.

Justice, I think, is a subjective matter. Different religions, philosophies, and schools of thought have different ideas about that. I mean, if I have a child who bites another child, my worry isn't going to be punishing the child, it's going to be to teach them not to do that, and keeping them from doing it again. It's obviously a different scenario, and I don't have kids yet, but you get the point, yes?

It's always better to err on the side of not killing people.

They should base their decisions on safeguarding the liberty of people. If you want to live your life how you want, as long as you aren't hurting other people, you should be able to do that. The government should protect against acts of violence, theft, fraud, and really not much else.

But, again, I think that's a flawed belief. It should be about prevention and, if possible, rehabilitation. And I also think the government shouldn't have the authority to kill people.

And if that 1 in 25 people wrongly executed doesn't bother you, I'm not sure what can.

"It's always better to err on the side of not killing people."

Why? You think any of this shit matters? The desert has dried up more blood than you can think of.

There is only the desert for you.

Out of interest, how many people here actually work in a prison/detention centre?

@fiedler

To me, the most important thing a person has is life. If you don't have that, you have nothing else, because, well, you're dead.

Also, I think that the government's job is 100% to serve the people, and protect them from exploitation, tyranny, and chaos. To ensure their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to enforce any moral code or legislated "equality," "justice," or whatever other words you want to use to make laws popular.

So, it's my understanding that protecting the people's rights is the government's job, and that life is, fundamentally, their most important right. Therefore, the government's most important job is protecting their people's lives, while also not infringing on their liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

To me, the death penalty is an infringement on their right to live.

"And if that 1 in 25 people wrongly executed doesn't bother you, I'm not sure what can."
Before this becomes too unclarified, this statistic (presuming the assumptions underlying it are true, and I'm certainly not in a position to take them apart) actually does bother me.

"my worry isn't going to be punishing the child, it's going to be to teach them not to do that, and keeping them from doing it again. It's obviously a different scenario, and I don't have kids yet, but you get the point, yes?"
I do get the point. But I also have kids, and if my daughter bites another kid on the playground when she has already been taught and knows that it's a bad thing to do (and she DOES know this), punishing her is a pretty important part of the equation.

As for the proper-role-of-government stuff, that's a fairly deep topic and (perhaps) worth its own thread. But I'm content to agree to disagree with you on it.

bump* how many people here actually work in a prison/detention centre?

@kaner: how about this: Ive been to jail

I new it.

ok so we have one member who has had direct experience with being in a gaol. Perhaps I should make the question more general...

How many people here work with people on a regular basis who have been or currently are in detention?
(and no, buying pot from your dealer on a regular basis doesn't count :)

What difference does it make? Are you going to start saying that only soldiers get to vote on wars too?

Nope, I'm more interested to see how many people here with extreme opinions in regards to how offenders are dealt with actually have had experience in their life with these very same people.

I've met the odd psychopath. The reality of the world is: "On your feet boxing, or on your knees".

The 'libs' in this thread have led *very* sheltered lives.

Is anyone here questioning the need for jails and police? Because I'm not.

You can keep evil people off the streets without treating them sadistically and becoming evil yourself.

You can put them to death without becoming evil yourself

Thucydides (869 D (B))
Thu 12 PM
+1
@kaner: how about this: Ive been to jail


Probably for a stupid fucking reason too.

if political protest is a stupid reason, fine

I'd vote to execute Tsarnaev.

I think one point many of the death-penalty abolitionists have missed is the rigor of the judicial process. I see no equivalency between murder and a lawfully conducted execution. No, our justice system is not perfect, but if anything criminals sentenced to death get *more* judicial safeguards than average criminals due to practically endless mandatory appeals.

Furthermore, the death penalty is only used in the United States for the most heinous of crimes: murder s, and particularly aggravated terrorist acts of the kind Tsarnaev committed, strike me as the perfect candidate crimes deserving of our society's gravest condemnation and severest punishment.

The death penalty ends the judiciary process prematurely. So many people have been exonerated off of death row with DNA evidence - who knows what we'll have in 20 years that might have the same effect? Why kill expensively when you could imprison them for less and have the chance to revisit the case given some crazy new evidence we didn't have before?

The fucker is guilty and has admitted so, beyond the video evidence. Kill him.

"Thucydides (869 D (B))
New 01:52 PM
+1
if political protest is a stupid reason, fine"


Probably a stupid political protest