Topic: DC- Match 6 (MillsJROSS/Evil vs Nellie)

[Andail]

The topic is
Death penalty is morally wrong

A good old topic.
I'm sorry for the unfair team setting here, but I couldn't really change it this late.

Nellie is against, and gets the first post.

[Nellie]

Capital Punishment is the morally correct way to gain justice for the victims of murder.  How could anything else be the case?  Are we to believe that to purposefully cause the death of a human being should result in a punishment that in no way equals the crime commited?  No.  A murderer should be dealt with in the same way that they, as a sane human being, chose to deal with their victim.  When they, by their own free will, commit the horrendous act of ending another human being's life, then they forfeit their own life.  How can we claim true justice if this is not the case?

Please enlighten me...

[MillsJROSS]

[Evil]

SHIT! I messed up. I took twenty mins on pro... Damn... *retypes*

Ok, here it is the way it should have been...  

Lets look at how most people look at the death penalty, shall we?

1.) The convicted person of the crime is killed normally through injection
2.) The family of the deceased person gets happy

When in reality it is this:

1.) The convicted person of the crime is killed normally through injection
2.) The family of the deceased person thought the would be happier when the killer (or whatever) died, when actually they dont feel much better.

So why are these killers dying? The majority or these people are obviously insane and have no morals, whom should instead be put in rehab or something. I understand that the family of the deceased feel bad but does killing the killer make it any better? Doesnt that make you up for the death penality also? So why do we keep killing these people? The families think that they should be to death when they mostly feel that they should feel the same way that the deceased person felt. Now lets talk about jail. Jail sucks, it really does. People that go overnight think it is bad. Imagine staying there for the rest of you life. No one to talk to. All alone. Nothing much to do. Having to change your life. I think that sounds much more reasonable then killing the person.

[Nellie]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a religious commandment, and if you're going to bring religion to the debate, there are plenty of instances in the Bible where people have been killed for their sins.

As far as the idea of not killing being an absolute 'rule', because all life is to be valued, even of those that choose to kill others, I disagree.  Just as a lesser criminal forfeits their right to freedom when they act, a killer, by choosing to take an innocent life, forfeits their own right to life.  Why should a naive social view of 'absolute', inflexible rules deny justice to the victim of murder?

Indeed, what does?  It sounds like you are advocating the extension of the death penalty to all homicides, to rectify this unfairness in the justice system.

Death penalty states, in the U.S.A., do not have a lower crime rate. So the death penalty does not deter criminal action, in anyway.

How do you know that criminals aren't deterred?  Who's to say that if the penalty was removed, crime wouldn't rise?  Presumably one of the reasons these states introduced the death penalty in the first place was to put a lid on rising crime rates.  I would imagine, if anything, crime rates would be higher in states with the death penalty, and that is why the death penalty exists there.

You're right.  Much better for these people to be gunned down in the streets than executed after being justly tried and convicted by a jury.

In that case, what protects any defendant from prejudice?  Are the convictions of all prisoners to be cast into doubt because of this risk you perceive?  Maybe nobody can ever be punished for anything because of the danger of prejudice.  Personally, I'd prefer to count on the hard evidence presented in courtrooms, and the social mix of jury members as a defence against prejudice, rather than be frightened into refusing to give any criminal a just punishment.

We didn't.  They decided it themselves when they chose to kill another human being.

We should merely decide upon a punishment that takes this man away from the society, where he can do no harm.

Because to shut a human apart from society for the rest of their natural lives is more humane than to end their lives quickly?

So your argument is not that the death penalty is immoral, but that it is hardly worth it for the number of murderers it gets rid of?

2.) The family of the deceased person thought the would be happier when the killer (or whatever) died, when actually they dont feel much better.

I understand that the family of the deceased feel bad but does killing the killer make it any better? Doesnt that make you up for the death penality also? So why do we keep killing these people? The families think that they should be to death when they mostly feel that they should feel the same way that the deceased person felt.

If the justice system worked purely to make the victims of crime 'happy' by satisfying their desire for revenge, then society would be in a sorry state.  But the death penalty should not exist for the supposed comfort of the victim's relatives, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

The majority or these people are obviously insane and have no morals, whom should instead be put in rehab or something.

Naturally, any person not in control of their actions when they commit murder, cannot be held accountable for those actions.  But how about the people who do knowingly and willingly commit murder?  How do you feel about them?

Now lets talk about jail. Jail sucks, it really does. People that go overnight think it is bad. Imagine staying there for the rest of you life. No one to talk to. All alone. Nothing much to do. Having to change your life. I think that sounds much more reasonable then killing the person.

So in your desire to see a terrible punishment for perpetrators of murder, you reject the death penalty in favour of a fate that (as you describe it) sounds even grimmer?

[MillsJROSS]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a religious commandment, and if you're going to bring religion to the debate, there are plenty of instances in the Bible where people have been killed for their sins.

Yes indeed it is bringing religion into the debate, because without religion, the idea that people being killed is a bad thing might never have arisen. How could one not bring religion into this debate? That wouldn't make any sense at all. Even if a person is not a religious man, his life has been affected by religions, and the fact that we are so against killing a man has a great deal to do with western religion.  

As far as the idea of not killing being an absolute 'rule', because all life is to be valued, even of those that choose to kill others, I disagree.  Just as a lesser criminal forfeits their right to freedom when they act, a killer, by choosing to take an innocent life, forfeits their own right to life.  Why should a naive social view of 'absolute', inflexible rules deny justice to the victim of murder?

It sounds like you are advocating the extension of the death penalty to all homicides, to rectify this unfairness in the justice system.

Quote:
Death penalty states, in the U.S.A., do not have a lower crime rate. So the death penalty does not deter criminal action, in anyway.


How do you know that criminals aren't deterred?  Who's to say that if the penalty was removed, crime wouldn't rise?  Presumably one of the reasons these states introduced the death penalty in the first place was to put a lid on rising crime rates.  I would imagine, if anything, crime rates would be higher in states with the death penalty, and that is why the death penalty exists there.

In that case, what protects any defendant from prejudice?  Are the convictions of all prisoners to be cast into doubt because of this risk you perceive?  Maybe nobody can ever be punished for anything because of the danger of prejudice.  Personally, I'd prefer to count on the hard evidence presented in courtrooms, and the social mix of jury members as a defence against prejudice, rather than be frightened into refusing to give any criminal a just punishment.

No, we decided that killing them is the only choice. To say there is only one choice is limiting you. They have decided to put their lives actions to the court by committing this act, but should the court be able to handle their death?

Quote:
We should merely decide upon a punishment that takes this man away from the society, where he can do no harm.


Because to shut a human apart from society for the rest of their natural lives is more humane than to end their lives quickly?

So your argument is not that the death penalty is immoral, but that it is hardly worth it for the number of murderers it gets rid of?

Yes the death penalty is immoral. And yes, it is indeed hardly worth it for the number of death it gets rid of. Do I want more death, though? No. I am arguing for no death penalty. One life is too many for the death penalty to take. I am just commenting again, at how inefficient your system is.

If the justice system worked purely to make the victims of crime 'happy' by satisfying their desire for revenge, then society would be in a sorry state.  But the death penalty should not exist for the supposed comfort of the victim's relatives, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

I agree it would be a sad society that got to kill people because of revenge. But if killing a person is a wrong thing, what makes killing the killer a good thing? Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not the right thing to do.

Naturally, any person not in control of their actions when they commit murder, cannot be held accountable for those actions.  But how about the people who do knowingly and willingly commit murder?  How do you feel about them?

Quote:
Now lets talk about jail. Jail sucks, it really does. People that go overnight think it is bad. Imagine staying there for the rest of you life. No one to talk to. All alone. Nothing much to do. Having to change your life. I think that sounds much more reasonable then killing the person.


So in your desire to see a terrible punishment for perpetrators of murder, you reject the death penalty in favour of a fate that (as you describe it) sounds even grimmer?

[Nellie]

(Spent ages typing my first reply, then the bloody page refreshed on me for no discernable reason :.  Feel my pain.)

Yes indeed it is bringing religion into the debate, because without religion, the idea that people being killed is a bad thing might never have arisen. How could one not bring religion into this debate? That wouldn't make any sense at all. Even if a person is not a religious man, his life has been affected by religions, and the fact that we are so against killing a man has a great deal to do with western religion.

If your morals come from the Bible, then the parts of the Bible where God commands that people should be killed for their sins means that the death penalty is moral.

I never gave an indication of how sacred or otherwise I believe life to be.  And it is precisely because society deems life so important that a person who unjustly takes away that life should be punished in a likewise manner.  If life is so important to you why are you arguing that victims of murder should not receive proper justice for the act committed against them?

That's a lot of prejudices to put on a single judge.  Thankfully the system also has a jury, which is a measure implemented to filter out the prejudices of individuals.  Would all the jurors have the same prejudices as this crazy judge you've invented?  And would they all be completely blind to the evidence put before them?  The system is set up so that defendants can never be convicted by a 'racist bigot who hates the poor'.

To compare one state with another is an unfair comparison.  The only fair way to see the deterrent effect of the death penalty would be to look at crime figures of a state without the death penalty, and then after the same state introduced the death penalty (or vice versa).  Otherwise, you might as well argue that Deverry has a higher crime rate than Melee Island.

How is that out of context?  Certainly, there may be a lesser deterrent effect on criminals who face potential death anyway, but that doesn't alter the fact that a justly and humanely given execution is better than whatever other grisly fate might await the people you mention.

Nothing defends any defendant from prejudice. The whole system is flawed.

Then how can we ever punish anyone for anything?

Yes, I agree.  And I am certainly passionate about seeing justice for the victims of murder.

I didn't infer it.  I simply pointed out that the jury is a wonderful method of filtering out prejudice from the final verdict.  And lets not forget there's evidence in the equation - juries aren't making their decision based on a toin coss.

There should be a drawn line in your system as to what needs to be done that absolutely requires the death penalty. Not a gray area where the judge can choose of the man should be killed or not, which puts prejudice into the system.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I see that we both seek a fair and just death penalty.

No, we decided that killing them is the only choice. To say there is only one choice is limiting you. They have decided to put their lives actions to the court by committing this act, but should the court be able to handle their death?

When a person makes the decision to kill another human being, in full knowledge of the lawful consequences of their action, they make the decision to face those consequences.

First you advocated a punishment that was less than the crime committed.  Now you advocate a punishment that is worse than the crime committed.  Why not accept that the only just way is a punishment that equals the crime committed?

Yes the death penalty is immoral. And yes, it is indeed hardly worth it for the number of death it gets rid of. Do I want more death, though? No. I am arguing for no death penalty. One life is too many for the death penalty to take. I am just commenting again, at how inefficient your system is.

Thankfully, and contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not coldly in search of an 'efficient' way to conveniently dispose of hundreds of murderers.  I am simply searching for justice for the victims of murder.  How can you argue that only a few people receive justice, so there might as well be nobody receiving justice?

Earlier you argued that there should be a line drawn that prevents 'grey area' defendants from being given the death penalty.  Surely your consistent argument that only a small percentage of convicted murderers finally receive the death penalty is an indication that this line has already been drawn.

I agree it would be a sad society that got to kill people because of revenge. But if killing a person is a wrong thing, what makes killing the killer a good thing? Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not the right thing to do.

To kill a person is never a good thing, just as putting somebody in jail is never a good thing, but sometimes it is necessary to see justice done.  If you want to argue that seeing justice done is not the right thing to do, be my guest.

Where is this argument going?  Are you advocating the death penalty for mentally ill people?  Are you arguing that ill people should be punished rather than treated?  Are you arguing that people who knowingly, of their own free will, commit murder are committing a lesser crime than those who kill because of mental illness?

If his life is grimmer, so be it.  He killed someone.  We don't feel sympathy for the man.

Again you show that you would rather a murderer be given a grimmer punishment than death, because you simply don't care.  I advocate justice for the victims, but thankfully my humanity compels me to advocate fairness in the treatment of the killer.  You are clearly happy to see a criminal subjected to this treatment, but I would rather have the punishment that is both just and, compared to your suggestions, humane.

Because the written laws that are based on the moral will of the people aren't good enough for you?

Mainly because you have proved neither of the points you make in that paragraph.

[MillsJROSS]

I never gave an indication ....proper justice for the act committed against them?

That's a lot of prejudices to put on a single judge.  ... 'racist bigot who hates the poor'.

To compare one state with another is an unfair comparison.  ... crime rate than Melee Island.

How is that out of context?  ...other grisly fate might await the people you mention.

Then how can we ever punish anyone for anything?

With the same twelve men you mentioned earlier. Prejudice can still play a part here. But with twelve men, I agree, that prejudices do not have as much of an effect as they could.

Yes, I agree.  And I am certainly passionate about seeing justice for the victims of murder.

I didn't infer it.  ...- juries aren't making their decision based on a toin coss.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I see that we both seek a fair and just death penalty.

No, I am simply arguing that your system is not fair or just. The system used to put criminals into effect leaves a gray area. Which is what I was arguing. A gray area that should never have been drawn. The well-defined line, at least brings some sense of fairness to this system. However, it too, should be a line that the state should not be allowed to draw.    

When a... they make the decision to face those consequences.

However, the state should not be the one to give out consequences of that degree. That is not what the state is here for. The state is here for our protection, which can still be achieved without killing these people.

First you advocated ...just way is a punishment that equals the crime committed?

Thankfully, and contrary to what you seem to believe, I...  as well be nobody receiving justice?

Earlier you argued . ... indication that this line has already been drawn.

To kill a person is never a good thing,  ...done is not the right thing to do, be my guest.

Where is this argument going?  Are you advocating the death penalty ...who kill because of mental illness?

Again you show that you would rather a murderer be given a grimmer...  compared to your suggestions, humane.

Because the written laws that are based on the moral will of the people aren't good enough for you?

Mainly because you have proved neither of the points you make in that paragraph.

[Evil]

Quote:If the justice system worked purely to make the victims of crime 'happy' by satisfying their desire for revenge, then society would be in a sorry state.  But the death penalty should not exist for the supposed comfort of the victim's relatives, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

Wait, right thing to do? How is this right? Killing someone because it is the right thing to do? Explain how this is so. If it isnt to make the family happy what is it for?

[Nellie]

(I've jiggled the order of the quotes about a bit, so that I can respond to similarly themed arguments in one go.  And also to BAMBOOZLE and BEFUDDLE you, MUAHAHAHAHAAA!! *flashing red eyes*)

(P.S. Aaargh, too long post here too.  Elipses city!)

Yes, my morals to come from the bible, but I am free to interpret the bible anyway I see fit.

One person may interpret the Bible as commanding that the death penalty is immoral, another may interpret it as commanding that it is moral.  I guess this part of the discussion is a dead-end avenue.

Life is sacred, important...and, yes, a man should not commit murder.

Well as I don't see life as sacred, and considering the hundreds of millions of people who have died throughout history, and that we are all also going to die one day, I don't see what the big deal is about 'sparing' the life of a person who has chosen to kill another human being.

If life is sacred and precious, then the killer's life is as sacred and precious as the life of their victim.  But, oh dear...  somebody chose to take away the life of their victim - but we must respect the sacredness and preciousness of the killer's life, musn't we?

This man does deserve punishment, but killing the man should not be decided by the state.

The well-defined line, at least brings some sense of fairness to this system. However, it too, should be a line that the state should not be allowed to draw.

However, the state should not be the one to give out consequences of that degree...(etc)

What is this aversion to the state making decisions?  If a state run by democratically elected leaders should not be in control of how the law works then who should?  You?  Me?  Gandalf?

So the death penalty isn't a tough enough punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

So the death penalty is too tough a punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

So the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury, and you're worried that the judge (who has been trained for these matters) has power over the sentence?  Two things:

1. I think the operative phrase here is: the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury.

2. As you earlier pointed out (and criticised), only a small percentage of those convicted of murder ever actually receive the death penalty.  If judges are prejudiced at all when passing sentence, then they are obviously prejudiced in favour of the defendants.

Well, I'm pretty sure anyone can easily find statistics to support their case by an internet search, so I'm going to do one myself...

...yep, here's a juicy one:

'Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (2) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.'

Source: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/deterrenteffect.htm

We could sit and trade statistics until the end of the debate, but I doubt either of us would get anywhere.

Besides, even if it could be shown that the death penalty had no deterrent effect whatsoever, that wouldn't stop it from being the right thing to do.

Which brings me to...

Thank goodness it has all those other selling points left over, then.

Alright, I'll concede this one.  A small percentage of the total number of criminals liable to receive the death penalty are not as deterred by it as the rest of those criminals.

I would be a fool to only consider one alternative.  Naturally I have considered many alternatives, but have decided that the death penalty is the most just.

Would you argue that people who have committed rape should be raped themselves? People who steal millions of dollars should just have that money stolen back?

Thankfully these lesser crimes can be fittingly punished by a suitable prison sentence.  For the ultimate crime of taking another life (or many other lives), however, the only fitting and just punishment is to deprive the killer of what they sought to deprive others - their life.

It's not so difficult to understand.  Do you consider taking away people's freedom as a good thing?  Of course not, but sometimes it is a necessary measure used to see justice done because of the crimes these people have committed.  I look at the death penalty in the same way.  I would be truly sick if I thought that the death penalty, or any punishment, was somehow an enjoyable measure.

Where did the mentally ill even enter the equation?

It was in the paragraph where you suggested they were more guilty than sane murderers.

Who are you to say that the people who are killed from emotional heightening are as mentally ill as the person who plans it?

It's not for me to decide who is mentally ill or not - that's a job for trained doctors.  I'm not sure 'emotional heightening' is a recognised medical condition, however.

Are you telling me you don't distinguish between someone who kills because they chose to of their own free will, and somebody who kills because they are severely mentally ill?

Well, get enough of your similarly idealed people together, and you can vote together to change that bit of writing in the law.  You live in a democracy after all.  And the reason that bit of writing is there is because the will of the majority has not decided to vote to remove it - they obviously don't share your view that the death penalty is immoral.  Their ideals are as good as yours, and yours are as good as theirs.

There is no such thing as proof.

Fair enough.

The states have shown not to deter criminal action.

How have they shown it?  Where's the proof?

There is no such thing as proof.

Oh yeah, sorry.

There are no conclusive results to show that the death penalty is an affective way of lowering crime.

Would that be because there is no such thing as proof?

Maybe you should ask the families if they share your idea of justice.

[MillsJROSS]

One person may interpret the Bible as commanding that the death penalty is immoral, another may interpret it as commanding that it is moral.  I guess this part of the discussion is a dead-end avenue.

Well as I don't see life as sacred, and considering the hundreds of millions of people who have died throughout history, and that we are all also going to die one day, I don't see what the big deal is about 'sparing' the life of a person who has chosen to kill another human being.

If life is sacred and precious, then the killer's life is as sacred and precious as the life of their victim.  But, oh dear...  somebody chose to take away the life of their victim - but we must respect the sacredness and preciousness of the killer's life, musn't we?

What is this aversion to the state making decisions?  If a state run by democratically elected leaders should not be in control of how the law works then who should?  You?  Me?  Gandalf?

So the death penalty isn't a tough enough punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

So the death penalty is too tough a punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

So the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury, and you're worried that the judge (who has been trained for these matters) has power over the sentence?  Two things:

1. I think the operative phrase here is: the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury.

2. As you earlier pointed out (and criticised), only a small percentage of those convicted of murder ever actually receive the death penalty.  If judges are prejudiced at all when passing sentence, then they are obviously prejudiced in favour of the defendants.

Well, I'm pretty sure anyone can easily find statistics to support their case by an internet search, so I'm going to do one myself...

Thank goodness it has all those other selling points left over, then.

What other selling points? A deterrent from criminal homicide would be the only reason this system might be feasible. Which it fails to do.

Alright, I'll concede this one.  A small percentage of the total number of criminals liable to receive the death penalty are not as deterred by it as the rest of those criminals.

I would be a fool to only consider one alternative.  Naturally I have considered many alternatives, but have decided that the death penalty is the most just.

As have I, and I have found that the death penalty is not just. But to each his own.

Thankfully these lesser crimes can be fittingly punished by a suitable prison sentence.  For the ultimate crime of taking another life (or many other lives), however, the only fitting and just punishment is to deprive the killer of what they sought to deprive others - their life.

It's not so difficult to understand.  Do you consider taking away people's freedom as a good thing?  Of course not, but sometimes it is a necessary measure used to see justice done because of the crimes these people have committed.  I look at the death penalty in the same way.  I would be truly sick if I thought that the death penalty, or any punishment, was somehow an enjoyable measure.

It was in the paragraph where you suggested they were more guilty than sane murderers.

Are you telling me you don't distinguish between someone who kills because they chose to of their own free will, and somebody who kills because they are severely mentally ill?

No, I said both were just as guilty. They both killed a man. I consider them both to be mentally ill.

It's not for me to decide who is mentally ill or not - that's a job for trained doctors.  I'm not sure 'emotional heightening' is a recognized medical condition, however.

Well, get enough of your similarly idealed people together, and you can vote together to change that bit of writing in the law.  You live in a democracy after all.  And the reason that bit of writing is there is because the will of the majority has not decided to vote to remove it - they obviously don't share your view that the death penalty is immoral.  Their ideals are as good as yours, and yours are as good as theirs.

Maybe you should ask the families if they share your idea of justice.

Maybe you should ask the families of the killer what they think. Are they not victim too?

-MillsJROSS

[Nellie]

Wait, right thing to do? How is this right? Killing someone because it is the right thing to do? Explain how this is so. If it isnt to make the family happy what is it for?

It is certainly not, and should never be, to make the family 'happy'.  It is the right thing to do because the killer should receive a punishment that equals the crime they committed - namely, taking a person's life.

I don't see life as sacred, but why do you assume that I therefore must see it as worthless?  Life is very important, but that does not make every human being's life so precious that to kill them would be wrong no matter what their actions.  Life is so important, that to see an innocent human being killed or hurt is a terrible thing, but it is not so important that it renders us completely powerless to give the killer what s/he justly deserves.

So somebody who, lets say, murders ten people in cold blood, has a life that is sacred and precious?

If we follow this logic, then how can the state ever make any important decision that will affect people's lives, including war, healthcare, social security, etc?  The state exists to make these important and vital decisions and in a democracy it exists at the behest of the people.  Your belief that the state has no right to make such important decisions would render the whole country impotent - if the elected representatives of the majority have no right to decide, then who does?

At various points in this debate you have argued that the death penalty is too severe a punishment, a not severe enough punishment, and a punishment that does not equal the crime.  To claim all three positions is impossible.  I have consistently argued that the death penalty equals the crime, and you are yet to show me why you think this is not the case.  A person chooses to kill another human being, and in return they are punished by the removal of their own life - how is this not equal?  And why do you keep changing your opinion so freely and easily?  Is it because there is no sure footing to your stance?

How many cases have you seen brought against judges?  And how much margin of error can there be in appropriately punishing somebody who has already been found guilty?

Then what's the problem?

On what basis are you assuming this?  This is incredible - if the two hundredths of a percentile of people that are sentenced to death only receive it because of judicial prejudice, then that must mean nobody ever receives the death penalty because they simply deserve it.  Have you considered that a convicted killer might actually deserve the death penalty, rather than assume rampant prejudice in the law over the whole land?

...These statistics seem flawed to me...

Okay, I'll get some more then.  Here's something about the results of a temporary halt of the death penalty in Texas...

'Our evidence suggests that as a result of the unofficial moratorium on executions during most of 1996 and early 1997, Texas experienced a net increase in the number of homicides over what would have been expected had no such moratorium been in place. During the interim, there were 40 executions or three more per year than during the "normal" 1993-1995 period. The execution hiatus, therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost.'

Source: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Moratoriums.htm

There are all sorts of statistics that both of us could find to support our cases, but I doubt this will get us anywhere.

What other selling points? A deterrent from criminal homicide would be the only reason this system might be feasible. Which it fails to do.

1. The selling points you acknowledged when you said 'one of its many selling points'.

2. Deterrence is not the sole reason the death penalty is morally justifiable.  The main reason it is the right thing to do is because the killer receives a punishment that matches their crime.

3. We haven't, and cannot, establish whether the deterrence effect exists or not.  I believe it does, you believe it doesn't.

Alright then.  I concede that the death penalty will have less of a deterrent effect on the people who caused that 34% of homicides, and that the deterrent effect will be relatively stronger for the remaining 66%.

What fits these crimes into a magical number of years at a state penitentiary? If the greater the crime accounts for more years in prison, it seems to me, that killing a man should be the longest sentence, not the shortest

So now you're arguing that the death penalty is not severe enough again.  Didn't you argue the exact opposite earlier in your post?  I still don't see how you can deny that the death penalty is an equal and moral punishment for somebody who has taken another human life.

So despite having killed a human being, the killer gets to occupy themselves in work for the time they are imprisoned (however long/short that may be), and the family receives a small amount of money as a recompense for a dead relative?  And then presumably the killer gets released on a good behaviour scheme, because I can't imagine anybody other than the most disciplined and well-behaved prisoners will be permitted to take this job.  And so the killer never truly receives the just punishment for the crime they committed.  Brilliant solution.

No, I said both were just as guilty. They both killed a man. I consider them both to be mentally ill.

I believe we have got our wires crossed here.  This thread of the debated started as a discussion of the mentally ill, but morphed into a discussion of the difference between 'heat of the moment' killers and 'cold blooded' killers.  I've been thinking your arguments were incredibly strange, and no doubt you've been thinking mine were too.

So for the record, I do believe there is a difference between those who kill in the heat of the moment (presumably due to severe provocation or accident), and those who plan and carry out murder.  And I believe the law makes a distinction between these different types of crime too, and rightly so.

Legal processes, it seems to me, take years upon years to decide something like that...

Are you suggesting that if the majority of the electorate voted for a president who promised to abolish the death penalty, the death penalty would not be abolished?  That's all it would take.  If you believe the moral will of the majority is against the death penalty, then that will prove true by the next election, right?

Anything you said about proof...I have no definite way of proving it, do I? No, but I believe in it. Just like I believe in the sanctity of life above all other things.

Agreed, we can't get anywhere by seeking for proof, only by trying to justify our values.  And I believe in the value of giving murderers the punishment they deserve.

Maybe you should ask the families of the killer what they think. Are they not victim too?

Yes they are.  More victims of the choice the killer made.

[MillsJROSS]

(Again, too long, ellipes. But It's all in order)

It is certainly not,...- namely, taking a person's life.

I don't see life as sacred...  s/he justly deserves.

So somebody who, ...has a life that is sacred and precious?

If we follow this logic... -  have no right to decide, then who does?

Does healthcare or social security have anything to do  with killing life? No. We are arguing about the states right to kill human life. I say the state has no right to make such an important decision because no one, not anyone, out of the millions of people in this country, have the right to kill another man, even if the man is a killer. Therefore, because the people do not have this right, the state should not have this right either. We do not have to kill these people to stop the harm that they have caused.

At various points in this debate you have argued ... Is it because there is no sure footing to your stance?

How many cases have ...who has already been found guilty?

Then what's the problem?

The problem is that I never argued against the jury system we have now. You seemed to be implying that I had. For the record, I think that the jury system does have flaws, but in determining guilt, with what evidence is found, I think that the jury system can determine who is the guilty party or person.

On what basis are you assuming this?  This is incredible - ... prejudice in the law over the whole land?

There are all sorts of statistics that both of us could find to support our cases, but I doubt this will get us anywhere.

1. The selling points you acknowledged when you said 'one of its many selling points'.

Alright then.  I ...remaining 66%.

So despite having killed a human being,... Brilliant solution.

So for the record, ... the law makes a distinction between these different types of crime too, and rightly so.

Are you suggesting that...will of the majority is against the death penalty, then that will prove true by the next election, right?

Yes, that is what I am arguing. The president is not the sole decider of the death penalty. All branches of government are involved here. I might vote for someone who represents most of my beliefs as my state senator, but to say that the person who represents thousands up to millions of people represents everyone in an equal manner would be a flat out lie. The majority of Americans think that the state should legalize the use of marijuana. Have the laws changed all of a sudden? No, the system we have is so slow moving that by the time changes can be made, the majority might just believe in the opposite argument.

Agreed, we can't ...of giving murderers the punishment they deserve.

Yes they are.  More victims of the choice the killer made.