You can probably guess my leanings, but after watching the Penn and Teller Bullshit on this very subject I have to wonder how anyone could be for it! ;) So now it's up to my two favorite conservatives (and anyone else who has something to add!). And this one will probably turn into a debate, so don't forget your helmet.

If you remove the death penalty you must reform the system that is supposed to rehabilitate the criminal or else you have a revolving door mechanism with permanent residents. Even if you don't remove the death penalty, there is still the underlining problem of the system.

Ugh...
Anyone against it is just a hypocrite. See if someone they loved got brutally murdered or raped, wouldnt they want that person dead?

Its not humane you say? Yeah, I bet death row prisoners were humane with their victims too.

My cousin and her bf were both beaten to death with a baseball bat. She was 17 years old and only daughter. The details were just horrible and showed just how cold blooded and violent the murders had been, like how her radius and ulna on both of her arms where shattered, a sign that she had desperately tried to protect herself before being beaten on the face. The bastard that killed them didnt get the death penalty.

Today I will be brief, and just quote Gandalf, who put it much better than I ever could:

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Chaos, you are against it?

Surbius: What' wrong with permanent residents?

Shadoen: I'm sorry to hear about your loss, and I know that if I were in a situation remotely like yours I would absolutely want the murderer to be killed. But that is an opinion I don't have now, and one that would be influenced by the pain of whatever hypothetical event happened. This is all getting very confusing, I guess I just think that society and laws etc should be more removed

And "I bet death row prisoners were humane with their victims" is just an eye-for-an-eye argument... again I think society could/should do better

Permanent residents cost us all money. It's a shame that a "voluntary suicide booth" couldn't be erected in every prison.

Here's the problem with permanent residents. Why should one cent of MY money, being taken from me via taxes, be spent to keep some child rapist alive. I'd much rather see them hung, drawn and quartered. Start doing that and it might serve as a deterrent (sadly, that won't happen). I simply can not fathom the bleeding hearts that say it's wrong to kill these people. I think it's wrong to let them continue sucking down our atmosphere. As far as I'm concerned, they are no longer people even, just vermin, to be exterminated, no different than cockroaches.

As for the whole thing about them not getting enough of the sleeping drug, fuckem, don't give them any, shoot them up with ethylene glycol and let them writhe in agony till they die.

Anybody who starts pointing out how expensive it is to execute people, I've got a real simple solution. Line them up and shoot them in the head, back to back to save on ammo.

Adding to LNH's post and as long as we are quoting from movies, PC:

"Men get arrested, dogs get put down"
Rorschach

Disclaimer: I'm not just talking about the US, here. Other countries have capital punishment, too.

Interestingly, the deterrent (of capital punishment) does not work as well as it's supposed to. I'm sorry, I have nothing to back this up. But the fact that there are people committing crimes worthy of the death sentence regardless (and often in knowledge) of its existence should prove my point.

Furthermore, there are also innocent people in death row, are there not? So you would condone the killing of innocents? If we accept the fact that judiciary systems are susceptible to human (and systematic) error (not doing so would be quite naive und unworldly), we cannot with a clear conscience approve of capital punishment. Or life sentences, for that matter (in Switzerland, just to name an example, but there are others with similar legislations, you cannot sentence one person to more than 25 years of prison at a time. There are flaws in that system as well, obviously).

Another thing: Revenge is bad counsel. Your argument is flawed, Shadoen, since decisions made by a person affected by the crime cannot in any way be objectivistic, unlike an (ideal) judge's. It's easy to talk about child rapists. Most populistic, undeserving, stupid politicians use this to bring about anything. Don't make the same mistake, don't use that rhethoric.

And lastly, I think that murder is murder, regardless of whether it is carried out by a single individual or on the orders of a government. Shooting enemy soldiers in combat is, from my point of view, different in that there is a very real possibility that you will be shot, too.

P.S.
Franquin (a Belgian comic artist) once drew a couple of volumes, called 'idées noires'. In them, he assembled all depressing thoughts he could think of (he had a great many of those, which probably led to his suicide, sadly). On two pages, he commented on the death penalty. I suggest getting the first one. It contains two pages very much relevant to this topic.

Toshiro
I said that people affected by the crime would approve of the capital punishment. I did not say they should make the decisions. I completely agree with that, for the obvious reasons that you mentioned.

Still, I do not need to to be affected by a crime when I turn on the tv or read the papers and see the usual shit (brutal murders, rapists, etc) and still want those people dead.

Moreover, there are good objective reasons that could be given to justify capital punishment (e.g., removing potential dangers from society without them becoming a drain to the economy). However, sometimes objectivity just doesnt cut it.

I agree that it is a shame that sometimes the judicial system fails and innocent people get sent to death row. But there's nothing that can be done about it, except trying to decrease the probabilities of something like that happening by improving the system.

How's talking about child rapists a bad argument? Its completely true. Fuck objectivity, bring in the barret .50 cal for that scum.

Lastly, yeah, murder is murder. But what makes each one different are the circumstances. Can you seriously compare your example of soldiers killing soldiers to the example on my previous post and say its the same thing?

Since you apparently oppose capital punishment, then please, can you give a good alternative?

tosh, their are two reasons it currently dosn't work as a deterrant. 1, it isn't used enough, 2, bleeding hearts try to make it as humane as possible, it should be a painful agonizing death.

also i disagree with your "murder is murder" line of thought, some people do need to be killed. As far as im concerned, the scum you read about in the paper, the assholes who commit home invasions, rapes, murders, hell even people like madoff. They should be put down like the vermin they are, no different than you'de swat a fly or mosquito. I don't veiw them as people anymore, only scum.

Shadoen: Yes, the case of soldiers killing each other on the field is comparable to the example you give. Both cases involve a person violently ending another person's life against the dying person's wishes.

As an alternative, how about rehabilitating criminals and putting them back into the society, where they can be once again useful to the society? Or how about investing in education programmes that ensure people like that don't happen in the first place, and 15-20 years down the line we don't end up with the problem in the first place?

LNH, it will never work as a deterrent, for the same reason as prisons and punishment in general do not work as a deterrent. People who commit crimes generally do not believe they will get caught. The only plausible argument for the death penalty is that the resources saved on maintaining, educating and rehabilitating people may not pay off.

If you're looking to fix the problem of recurring criminals then I suggest looking into the primary cause or root of the behavior they develop to act in deviant ways.

Why does a person rape?

Why does a person steal?

Why does a person kill?

Shadoen: You might need to read my bit about soldiers again. I exempt them from 'murder is murder'. As for the child rapists, in Germany, the parliament managed to get through a law that censors internet usage. Using child porn as a means to do so. You mean to tell me that using highly emotional arguments is good rhethoric? I say it is like invoking Godwin's law to end a discussion.

Antz: Yes, the death is violent, but one could, in my opinion, extend the right to self-defense, and to help others in their defense, to soldiers ordered to fight. It is of course not really as clear-cut as I make it out to be, it was just to prevent an obvious counterpoint. Well, I failed at that ;)

lnh, your post shows, to me, a deep contempt for the value of life, regardless whether it be plants, animals or humans (yes, I am aware that humans are highly evolved animals). I am not sure you really meant what you wrote there.

Also, I am not quite sure, but I think the people *on* death row who are to be executed sometimes spend a lot of time doing that. Yet they still have to be fed, clothed, etc. Does not that cost money, too?

And lastly, about the 'humane' executions... in Japan, people are hanged. Hanging people is not humane.
In China, drug dealers (and other offenders) are shot. Shooting people is not humane.

yes tosh i do truly mean what i wrote. and I do value human life, so much so in fact that when somebody willfully destroys another persons life, I no longer see them as people. As such, I view their existence as something that should be snuffed out asap.

The deterrent argument really is pretty meaningless. Suggesting that it has any affect is basically saying that murders/rapists/etc think "I'm okay dying for this and having a 'soft' death if I get caught." You really think they stop and consider the consequences?

Tosh: So people shouldnt use effective arguments just because it doesnt help the opposition? Thats like those kids in halo who yell their lungs out when you kill them easily with the rocket launcher.
Ok, I accept it IS cheap, but who cares if it helps you make a point and win?

Antz: Soldiers know what they are getting into when they sign up, they know the risks and they do it willfully. But yes, murder is murder, we already established that. But if we go by that definition, then anyone who accidentaly kills someone else (e.g. car crash) is also a murderer no different from a psychopath who brutally and willfully kills his victims.

Your alternative sucks. No matter how much you try to change the system or invest in educational progams, there will always be fuckups, psychos, sexual deviants, etc. You cant change that.
If you believe that society can be changed to a point where we wont have those types of people anymore, basically an utopia, then you are a really naive person.

LNH, just because you stop considering someone to be a person does not mean they stop being one. You are deciding who deserves the right to live and who does not based on some arbitrary definition. What makes you think you (or anyone) should have that authority? Saying "they should get murdered, and that's OK as they are not really a person, because I say so" hardly demonstrates valuing a human life.

Shadoen: I consider soldiers to still be people, just because some government says it is OK for them to go murder or go and be murdered does not make it OK. My definition included the word violent, but "deliberate" would probably have been a better word.

Oh, and about fuckups, psychos, and sexual deviants:

Who exactly are you referring to by "fuckups"?

What is considered a "sexual deviant" is open to a wide interpretation. E.g. until fairly recently being a homosexual was considered to be illegal and would have you sent to jail. On the other hand world governments are currently going after a thoughtcrime called paedophilia. Social pressures influence attitude to sex to a great extent. There will always be people who do not fit within the "norm", but how they are dealt with could probably be improved a lot from locking them up and forgetting about them.

As for mentally ill people, I do not think being ill should be considered a crime, and I would certainly not propose executing people who become ill. Yes, there will always be mentally ill people. That is completely irrelevant to a discussion on what to do with criminals.

Antz: I did not say it is OK. I said that soldiers know what they are getting into and they do it willfully. Which is not the same as...lets say some woman who gets murdered by an angry ex.

By fuckups I mean antisocials (I dont mean "basement dwellers" type who avoid social contact) inclined towards criminal behavior.

You are right, I shouldnt have use the term "sexual deviant" for the reasons you mentioned. I meant the average serial rapist, child molesters, etc.