[Rawmeo]

Yes for crimes with solid support (camera, etc.) and for select crimes: First-degree murder, pedophilia.

[The Beast1]

Yes for only mass killers with ample evidence. No for one off stuff (first-degree murder, pedophilia).

[TigerMandingo]

I think we should bring back crucifixions. Now there's a deterrent!

[Panokko]

Against: I cannot have an innocent man killed on (partly) my behalf. The legal system does sometimes make mistakes. If I apply the golden rule, this reasoning becomes clear: if I were wrongly convicted, I wouldn't want to die.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

I'm in favor of it, but I would call for a higher standard of evidance, where the jury is certain beyond any doubt that the defendant is guilty.

Of course, this standard of guilt does not exist. I think it could. I'm sure OJ Simpson is guilty, but the evidence is not iron clad. If they had taken the Dallas cop killer into custody, I would say the evidence was iron clad for him. The evidence is iron clad in many cases. I think this would be a practical legal standard, but it's only an idea in my head, and I don't ever expect it to become a part of the law.

I believe in the death sentence, and think it should be used far more often, but without a way to prevent it being used in cases of circumstantial evidence, there are going to be some questionable convictions.

[Hardy Daytona]

(07-20-2016 05:54 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

I think we should bring back crucifixions. Now there's a deterrent!

Sponsored by Travis Perkins - for all your timber needs!

This is such a complex and nuanced topic with all manner of ethical and moral implications so I'll sum up my sentiments succinctly with a couple of pop culture references.

   

[TigerMandingo]

I really don't understand why people always feel the need to overcomplicate this issue. You take somebody's life (deliberately), we take yours. You don't deserve to live in a civilized society. There are no "ethical" or "moral" implications here. Am I missing something?

[Phoenix]

I'm with TigerMandingo. I think the real question is whether or not we should have "worse than death" punishments. I'm on the fence about it, perhaps it's just better to dispose of them, or maybe it does improve closure for victims families and give a better deterrent.

Up until 1782, England still punished people with being "hanged, drawn and quartered". Here's an actual sentence handed down by a British judge:

Quote:

Then Sentence was passed, as followeth, viz. That they should return to the place from whence they came, from thence be drawn to the Common place of Execution upon Hurdles, and there to be Hanged by the Necks, then cut down alive, their Privy-Members cut off, and Bowels taken out to be burned before their Faces, their Heads to be severed from their Bodies, and their Bodies divided into four parts, to be disposed of as the King should think fit.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged..._quartered

Personally I think that's a little barbaric and messy. For the most heinous of crimes I'd consider going as far as boiling or the "breaking wheel", or possibly animals (throwing them to wolves etc) so they get the full "staring death in the face" horror that their victims did.

When it comes down to individuals like the Bataclan killers, who were torturing their innocent victims to death, is a simple execution really enough?

(07-20-2016 06:02 AM)Panokko Wrote:  

Against: I cannot have an innocent man killed on (partly) my behalf. The legal system does sometimes make mistakes. If I apply the golden rule, this reasoning becomes clear: if I were wrongly convicted, I wouldn't want to die.

And generals send innocent young men to their deaths. But that's life. Some innocent men, be they soldiers or wrongful convicts, have to die, to preserve peace and freedom for the rest of us. It's better that 10 criminals go free than one innocent man be convicted, sure. But make that ratio high enough and it ceases to be true.

If you apply your golden rule in this way, why stop at death penalty? Why not extend it to all punishments?

[Geomann180]

Like Phoenix, I'm for the death penalty, only I think it prudent to have a much higher standard of evidence required for that sentence.

I also think there should "worse than death" punishments, reserved for those who are clearly guilty (serial killers, Bataclan torturers, etc). For someone people, a quick injection is just too good.

G

[BortimusPrime]

I wonder if the extraordinary methods of execution would even really have the intended effect? I mean, the goal is the maximize the amount of terror and pain experienced by the criminal before death, but if they're a psychopath they probably just get an adrenaline rush from that sort of thing.

[weambulance]

I have no problem with the concept of killing people who are a legitimate, proven danger to society.

However, as things stand, our "justice" system is completely broken. Prosecutors routinely withhold exculpatory evidence and the FBI and various state crime labs routinely return false results that incriminate innocent people. "Experts" are used to give evidence on things like bite marks using the worst kind of junk science. That is particularly dangerous with the CSI effect running at full steam.

It's clear that far too many people in the justice system care only about their careers and gaining power, and if they have to put innocent people in prison or in the ground, so be it.

Given that, I am very much opposed to the state executing people.

[Panokko]

(07-20-2016 12:36 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

If you apply your golden rule in this way, why stop at death penalty? Why not extend it to all punishments?

Other punishments can be rectified. Death is final.

In my profession I routinely make life or death calls, who do I save, who is too far gone. Any lapse of judgement can result in a death that comes too early. I am very aware of this. I know that I am only human and can make mistakes.
Judges and juries are also humans and also sometimes make mistakes.
Death is the final mistake. There is no coming back from that.

My rejection of the death penalty comes from the realization that we as mere mortals cannot and should not play God (for lack of a better analogy: I'm an atheist). We are fallible.

[griffinmill]

(07-20-2016 11:49 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

I really don't understand why people always feel the need to overcomplicate this issue. You take somebody's life (deliberately), we take yours. You don't deserve to live in a civilized society. There are no "ethical" or "moral" implications here. Am I missing something?

The problem comes from the contradiction there. If they are uncivilised because they have committed a gross violation of the moral code, and we in turn commit that same violation of the moral code against them as punishment, then we kind of forfeit the right to be called civilised ourselves.

[weambulance]

^

That assumes killing is always immoral. Killing, in and of itself, is not fundamentally immoral or uncivilized. What matters is the context.

[aeroektar]

Those that are without a doubt guilty of murder should be sentenced to death immediately, none of this waiting on death row shit, it costs money and people forget. Keep it simple, cheap, and savage, hang them in public while its fresh in everyone's minds.

[griffinmill]

(07-20-2016 05:52 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

^

That assumes killing is always immoral. Killing, in and of itself, is not fundamentally immoral or uncivilized. What matters is the context.

If a man kills a child molester in premeditated cold-blooded murder, that man will face the criminal justice system and could very well be put to death. I assume the act of killing a child molester could be "moral", but the law won't look at it like that.

Context becomes messy.

[Phoenix]

Firstly, on the "we're just as bad if we kill him" moral relativism, that's not true. Initiation and retaliation are polar opposites of maintaining social order. The initiator is anti-social, and the retaliator is pro-social.

On vigilante justice, the issue is that the vigilante does not have moral authority. He has not used an objective and dispassionate court process to determine guilt, nor is he wise on matters of law, so his judgement will not be respected. This may precipitate counter-vigilantes from the original perpetrator's family, causing a blood feud and creating a sustained breach of the peace.

I think the best treatment of vigilantes would be to include a pre-trial based on existing evidence of the original crime, and give them a lesser punishment according to the justice of their actions. Kind of like how Romeo only got excile for killing Tybalt, because Tybalt killed Mercutio.

[infowarrior1]

(07-20-2016 06:11 PM)aeroektar Wrote:  

Those that are without a doubt guilty of murder should be sentenced to death immediately, none of this waiting on death row shit, it costs money and people forget. Keep it simple, cheap, and savage, hang them in public while its fresh in everyone's minds.

Death row should be only as long as a year or slightly more so they can get right with God in my opinion.

Then the option is either paradise or the pit.

[Dantes]

Against it

I don't like giving the legal system the authority to determine who lives and who dies. The government and legal system is proved to be corrupt when it comes to justice.

[Kalkin]

Just some observations:

• My facebook feed is full of "me too" posts regarding bringing back the death penalty in Europe for acts of terrorism. It is worth pointing out that the death penalty is singularly ineffective against suicide attacks.
• Specifically in the case of terrorism, it's more important to do something about the sponsors of terrorism, than about the useful idiots who carry it out. You'll never run out of useful idiots. And the sponsors are protected by sovereign immunity and high status. That's why we have runaway terrorism, that nobody seems to be capable of doing anything about. If Hillary weren't taking bribes from the Saudis and Qataris, that would be a start.
• More generally, the certainty of punishment is more important than severity. This has always been a chronic problem, but it gets worse whenever you have a corrupt and ineffective government.
• Putting the death penalty into the hands of a corrupt government is a bad idea.
  

There have been several cases in Texas where corrupt judiciaries have resulted in probable miscarriages of justice. In several cases, the judge and prosecutor were sleeping together. In another, a man was effectively threatened with deportation as an illegal resident, and bribed with residency, if he testified against the defendant. In yet another, a man was executed apparently as a favor to a bitter ex-wife, based on dodgy forensics.

Meanwhile, Casey Anthony walked after her jury was stacked, Mary Winkler walked due to widespread sympathy for her and media disinformation about her case (she murdered her husband after he discovered that she was committing check fraud, and then a feminist mob concocted stories of emotional abuse), O.J. Simpson walked, etc.

One particularly outrageous case was this one:

Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

I can think of many, many more including several in my neighborhood. In one case, two men were gunned down in cold blood by strangers who had the intent to kill strangers out of sheer malice. Our state supreme court ruled that they had no intent. The killers are free after spending a few years in prison. Dozens of killers benefitted from the same ruling. The ruling seems to apply only to killers of certain specific races.

In each of these cases, and many more, you have a situation that contradicts the official narrative. As a result, the publicity is spiked (see the wikipedia link above).

Quote:

According to the Associated Press, bloggers and media critics complained that the story was ignored by the national media because the victims were white and all five of the suspects were black. Most news reports came from local media and online news sites.

Quote:

The grand jury indicted four of the suspects on counts of capital murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape, and theft, while a fifth was indicted on federal charges of carjacking.

It's a trick. Bait-and-switch. The judge and DA will keep postponing the trial, to give public outrage time to wear down. They loudly announce draconian charges to satisfy the public's outrage, but they have no intention of really letting them stick.

Quote:

The state convictions were all initially set aside

Two convictions were re-instated, the rest were pursued on lesser charges and reduced sentences. I am confident that the one and only death sentence will eventually be set aside.

I suggest focusing your attention on corruption and an incompetent ruling class that is overall hostile to you and does not value your life.

[Hades]

For. Bring back the guillotine, make it a public spectacle.

Furthermore, appoint wise judges.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

I would argue that usage of the death penalty should be reserved solely for crimes against the state, which in the US are defined as terrorism, high treason, espionage, and drug kingpin activity.

This is because these crimes have a specific political and societal nexus that represent a serious and continuing threat to society as a whole. Keeping them alive allows for other actors to attempt to coerce their release and further threaten society (eg. Israel and the case of Gilad Schalit.) On top of which, the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice is infinitesimally lower in these types of cases than in other types of serious violent crimes, since they usually require some sort of a conspiracy or organizational effort.

Otherwise, I would say life without parole should be the maximum penalty for serious/violent crimes like rape or murder. As we've seen multiple times before, the possibility of executing an innocent person is simply too high.

[Samseau]

If there is proof beyond reasonable doubt a man is guilty, then the death penalty should be used for murderers and terrorism. Video evidence, for example. It was used for the Boston Bomber, and he got the death penalty even in ultra liberal Mass.

[Pride male]

How is it possible that the same people who dont support death penalty for criminals fully support abortion?

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(07-29-2016 02:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If there is proof beyond reasonable doubt a man is guilty, then the death penalty should be used for murderers and terrorism. Video evidence, for example. It was used for the Boston Bomber, and he got the death penalty even in ultra liberal Mass.

I agree with the idea of a high standard of proof for the death penalty. Instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, it should be beyond any doubt. There are plenty of gruesome and despicable murders that fit this standard. However, many are on death row right now for cases that do not meet this standard. The O.J. Simpson murders do not meet the higher standard, although I think he did it. With Timothy McVeigh, I think there's no doubt whatsoever.

Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility of a new standard of proof being introduced to the justice system.