Death Penalty - Ye or Ne? - also why terrorists are better than murderers

[sir dooble]

If an animal kills or severely harms a person we tend to put them down. We also accept that they didn't decide to kill or harm a person, they just did, as they are an animal and can't make conscious sentient decisions.

But if a human kills someone, or severely harms them (including the emotional trauma associated to crimes such as rape and paedophilia), and we know they made a decision as a human being, then suddenly it's a difficult decision to put them down.

Humans aren't sacred. People as a whole have no qualms about killing other humans. To kill someone who has killed others (or made equally atrocious crimes) doesn't make you as bad as the person you are killing.

[Ad Bot]

[DiceyGrammar]

Yes, but not as an across-the-board measure.

It is important for retribution, and can give closure to victims/families of victims
It is important for (permanent) incapacitation (removal of dangerous individuals from society)
It is not important for deterrence, and a number of studies have shown no correlation between capital punishment and deterring would-be criminals

[Benjamin Lopez]

Bump
If felt that this, should be brought over here since the father is most likely going to be executed.

[Dodger]

Bump
If felt that this, should be brought over here since the father is most likely going to be executed.

Child murder should be pretty strong grounds for capital punishment

I doubt this man can be rehabilitated, and if you think so, go pay for it yourself

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

you cant fix people like him
when you go that far to murder a child and then leave his loving head out for the neighborhood to see you are beyond help and don't deserve anyone's mercy

[Benjamin Lopez]

you cant fix people like him
when you go that far to murder a child and then leave his loving head out for the neighborhood to see you are beyond help and don't deserve anyone's mercy

From the artical he also cut off the child's hands and feet.

[DrenDran]

It is important for retribution, and can give closure to victims/families of victims

This is not the reason to do things. The legal system is not for revenge. It should solely be for prevention.

It is not important for deterrence, and a number of studies have shown no correlation between capital punishment and deterring would-be criminals

We're not doing it effectively enough.

[Doom Mantis]

I am a religious man, but I believe if people cause enough mayhem, they should be killed.
That violates something in the Bible, I'm sure of it.

[DrenDran]

I am a religious man, but I believe if people cause enough mayhem, they should be killed.
That violates something in the Bible, I'm sure of it.

You can't be too religious if you can't even google a page of the Bible.

[Lego lad]

I am a religious man, but I believe if people cause enough mayhem, they should be killed.
That violates something in the Bible, I'm sure of it.

nah i don't think it does

it says that murder is a sin but killing for justice (like killing an enemy soldier) is not.
this is probably includes executing murderers like this, because it will keep them from killing more people/doing any more damage in the future.

[Dodger]

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

can't really justify it biblically

besides, our government shouldn't be based off of religious text if a premise is individual freedom

[DiceyGrammar]

This is not the reason to do things. The legal system is not for revenge. It should solely be for prevention.

I'm not saying the legal system is for revenge, I'm saying retribution is one of the justifications for punishment.

Retribution is important for the victims and families of victims, and is basically a method of closure. It's the job of the legal system to balance that with the ideas of proportionality, incapacitation and prevention (and rehabilitation but not so much with capital punishment lol) They're not to be taken exclusively.

We're not doing it effectively enough.

How much more "effective" can capital punishment be? What amendments would you propose?

[DrenDran]

I'm not saying the legal system is for revenge, I'm saying retribution is one of the justifications for punishment.
Retribution is important for the victims and families of victims, and is basically a method of closure. It's the job of the legal system to balance that with the ideas of proportionality, incapacitation and prevention. They're not to be taken exclusively.

But how does giving individual families closure benefit the government or society as a whole?

How much more "effective" can capital punishment be? What amendments would you propose?

It's not about prevention, I'll admit. It's about saving money.
Perhaps limiting the appeals and finding cheaper ways to kill people.
Ultimately shooting someone costs but a few cents, it's all the legal bullstuff they have to go though first that takes time and money.
If you can cut that down then it's far cheaper to kill someone than to pay for them to live in prison for a lifetime.

[Harm94]

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

can't really justify it biblically

besides, our government shouldn't be based off of religious text if a premise is individual freedom

"Though shall not kill"
Though shall not judge:
"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. And judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned." Luke 6:37

[Foxscotch]

"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. And judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned." Luke 6:37

Luke really liked repeating himself huh