What's your opinion on capital punishment?

I am fully in favor of capital punishment. It should be issued in cases only where direct evidence is found to link a suspect to a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Guilty verdicts for capital crimes based solely upon circumstantial evidence should carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Prison labor in proportion to the severity of the crime in addition to prison time (or execution) is a desirable possibility.

For those who consider the death penalty to be too light a sentence or immoral, I find the arguments presented unconvincing and unmoving. It is not immoral to punish those who violate the rights of society (i.e., the rights of other people apart from themselves). Capital punishment is no more "murder" (by definition, murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person; which entity, if not society, should establish what is lawful?) than simple confinement to a prison cell is kidnapping. Any "pragmatic" considerations for substituting "quasi-slave labor" in place of the death sentence are such that I can only regard them as trivial: there is no compelling reason to believe that the forced labor of a small minority who would otherwise sit on death row would produce a discernible economic impact, let alone serve as a necessary inclusion.

Rev Scare wrote:I am fully in favor of capital punishment. It should be issued in cases only where direct evidence is found to link a suspect to a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Guilty verdicts for capital crimes based solely upon circumstantial evidence should carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Prison labor in proportion to the severity of the crime in addition to prison time (or execution) is a desirable possibility.

For those who consider the death penalty to be too light a sentence or immoral, I find the arguments presented unconvincing and unmoving. It is not immoral to punish those who violate the rights of society (i.e., the rights of other people apart from themselves). Capital punishment is no more "murder" (by definition, murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of a person; which entity, if not society, should establish what is lawful?) than simple confinement to a prison cell is kidnapping. Any "pragmatic" considerations for substituting "quasi-slave labor" in place of the death sentence are such that I can only regard them as trivial: there is no compelling reason to believe that the forced labor of a small minority who would otherwise sit on death row would produce a discernible economic impact, let alone serve as a necessary inclusion.

You, and Celtiberian, contradict yourselves when you say that capital punishment is perfectly "moral", and then want to kill people because they killed someone. Equating imprisoning with kidnapping is a straw man, because the whole point of imprisoning is to remove the danger to society posed by such individuals, not just "punish" them by removing their freedom. Such reasoning could be echoed in the old english penalty of deporting prisoners to Australian even.

As for the economic impact of forced labour, who says there had to be one in the first place? I happen to believe that if you did something wrong, a sentence should be put forth in order to make the individual compensate a group in some way for what he did, and to provide an "example" of what you can expect if you do the same. Killing the individual achieves none of this. Not only won't the individual compensate society in any way, nor will anybody who has nothing to lose really see a merciful death as anything frightening, as it's proved by the crime rate of the US vs the crime rate in countries where capital punishment is abolished.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:You, and Celtiberian, contradict yourselves when you say that capital punishment is perfectly "moral", and then want to kill people because they killed someone.

I fail to see the contradiction in anything I've stated. Simply because capital punishment fails to meet your subjective standard of morality does not render it immoral from my own perspective.

Equating imprisoning with kidnapping is a straw man, because the whole point of imprisoning is to remove the danger to society posed by such individuals, not just "punish" them by removing their freedom. Such reasoning could be echoed in the old english penalty of deporting prisoners to Australian even.

How so? Of course there is a restrictive basis for imprisonment (and the death penalty), but I have not denied this, nor does it run counter to my argument. However, one cannot simply circumvent the punitive aspect of restricting freedom due to criminal actions.

As for the economic impact of forced labour, who says there had to be one in the first place? I happen to believe that if you did something wrong, a sentence should be put forth in order to make the individual compensate a group in some way for what he did, and to provide an "example" of what you can expect if you do the same. Killing the individual achieves none of this. Not only won't the individual compensate society in any way, nor will anybody who has nothing to lose really see a merciful death as anything frightening, as it's proved by the crime rate of the US vs the crime rate in countries where capital punishment is abolished.

I view death to be compensation enough, and is it not a most impressionable example of what an individual may expect should they commit a particularly heinous crime? I believe that most people view the forfeiture of one's life to be the highest price anybody could pay for a crime. The anti-social member is extricated and either restrained or eliminated. You have failed to establish why mere incarceration is a superior alternative to execution, apart from the fact that it offends your sense of justice, and what worthy "compensation" (apart from forced labor, which I claim produces negligible consequences) would suffice.

If somebody brutally raped and killed my sister, for example, I would want death for them (far more than that, but that is neither here nor there).

Leon Mcnichol wrote:You, and Celtiberian, contradict yourselves when you say that capital punishment is perfectly "moral", and then want to kill people because they killed someone.

I never claimed that capital punishment is inherently "moral." There are no objectively moral or immoral answers to this question. The rationale for my position is rather straightforward: if someone takes the life a several innocent people (i.e., they're a convicted serial killer) or causes a lifetime of heinous trauma to innocent people (i.e., they're a serial rapist or child molester), they have forfeited their right to continue living. Whether attributable to innate psychological illness or free will alone, they should no longer have a right to continue to sustain their lives using the social product, and their victims should have a right to retribution in the form of their assailant's life. It's an ethic which a nation can either choose to adopt or reject, neither choice is fundamentally more correct than the other.

Killing the individual achieves none of this. Not only won't the individual compensate society in any way, nor will anybody who has nothing to lose really see a merciful death as anything frightening, as it's proved by the crime rate of the US vs the crime rate in countries where capital punishment is abolished.

Nothing is more frightening to the human psyche than the prospect of death. For instance, if I had to choose between an eternity of penal labor or death, I'd undoubtedly choose the former. As for the death penalty not being a sufficient disincentive for crime, it's unfair to compare the United States' murder rates to those in the European nations which have abolished capital punishment. For example, a lot of murders in the United States (one of the few crimes which carries the possibility of a death sentence) are committed by gangsters in very poor communities. These gangs are fighting with one another over territory in which to sell narcotics. I attribute such behavior to the drug dealers' very low socioeconomic status and the culture of poverty of which they were born into; the Western European nations are comparably better off than the United States in this respect, which, in my opinion, voids the comparison.

Rev Scare wrote:I fail to see the contradiction in anything I've stated. Simply because capital punishment fails to meet your subjective standard of morality does not render it immoral from my own perspective.

It's not about my subjective standard of morality. It's about the old "do as i say, not as i do" biased course of action.

How so? Of course there is a restrictive basis for imprisonment (and the death penalty), but I have not denied this, nor does it run counter to my argument. However, one cannot simply circumvent the punitive aspect of restricting freedom due to criminal actions.

Well, unless we have a whole island to deport criminals, we have no alternative to that.

I view death to be compensation enough, and is it not a most impressionable example of what an individual may expect should they commit a particularly heinous crime? I believe that most people view the forfeiture of one's life to be the highest price anybody could pay for a crime. The anti-social member is extricated and either restrained or eliminated. You have failed to establish why mere incarceration is a superior alternative to execution, apart from the fact that it offends your sense of justice, and what worthy "compensation" (apart from forced labor, which I claim produces negligible consequences) would suffice.

If somebody brutally raped and killed my sister, for example, I would want death for them (far more than that, but that is neither here nor there).

Death is a compensation? What will society gain with the death of this individual? Surely the victim and anyone sympathetic may want him/her to die, but the authority cannot be some sort of vigilante who just acts without an once of rationality of pragmatism. And about my "sense of justice", forced labour for your community doesn't give the state a ruthless irrational power do dish out "justice" with no meaningful reason but to appease the victims or those who demand vengeance. It actually provides a path to some sort of punishment/justice that involves giving back something, as opposed to be an act of pure retribution.

Besides, i could make the same argument that it's your "sense of justice" that thinks one penalty is merely "worse" then the other.

Celtiberian wrote:I never claimed that capital punishment is inherently "moral." There are no objectively moral or immoral answers to this question. The rationale for my position is rather straightforward: if someone takes the life a several innocent people (i.e., they're a convicted serial killer) or causes a lifetime of heinous trauma to innocent people (i.e., they're a serial rapist or child molester), they have forfeited their right to continue living. Whether attributable to innate psychological illness or free will alone, they should no longer have a right to continue to sustain their lives using the social product, and their victims should have a right to retribution in the form of their assailant's life. It's an ethic which a nation can either choose to adopt or reject, neither choice is fundamentally more correct than the other.

Well, they have forfeited their right to continue living according to what? Your sense of retribution? One individual harms the community, so instead of paying back in some way, it's the state who decides that he should just die? Sure, all morality is subjective, but i don't see what the community in particular will gain with such an ending, apart from maybe appeasing to a sense of vengeance from the victims. And even that is dubious, maybe they would rather see the criminal tortured forever, then what? We should condone that?

Nothing is more frightening to the human psyche than the prospect of death. For instance, if I had to choose between an eternity of penal labor or death, I'd undoubtedly choose the former.

Prove it. I am not so sure. Some people, would rather die than being subjected to prolonged torture or affliction, so witch is worse after all? And does that really matter in the end? We should strive for a compensation for the crime, or for vengeance for the crime?

As for the death penalty not being a sufficient disincentive for crime, it's unfair to compare the United States' murder rates to those in the European nations which have abolished capital punishment. For example, a lot of murders in the United States (one of the few crimes which carries the possibility of a death sentence) are committed by gangsters in very poor communities. These gangs are fighting with one another over territory in which to sell narcotics. I attribute such behavior to the drug dealers very low socioeconomic status and the culture of poverty of which they were born into; the Western European nations are comparably better off than the United States in this respect, which, in my opinion, voids the comparison.

Well, i see a lot of drug related crimes in east europe for example, and still, the crime rate and specially the death toll isn't nearly as high. Now you can say that access to guns makes a difference, and i agree, but then again, that doesn't help the death penalty case either.

Rev Scare wrote:If somebody brutally raped and killed my sister, for example, I would want death for them (far more than that, but that is neither here nor there).

I would echo this desire if I was in that position; however, what I would seek would be vengeance and not justice. If you use the argument that this is just my opinion then I say that yours is the worse one. You may not like mine but at least I know that cold justice does not blend well with a hot temper. Projecting your own desires onto another hiding behind "compensation" is, in reality, nothing more than throwing a completely understandable hissy fit. Society should be focused on helping all of it's members and not just the nice ones. It may be true that some people are irredeemable but that does not mean that we should give up. To make the decision to kill, condoned by the mass's emotions or not, is not the decision of men to make for each other. The only time that killing is acceptable is when it would either save life or one's own life. That is a truism of my moral foundation and I say so with pride.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Well, they have forfeited their right to continue living according to what? Your sense of retribution?

Mine, and most other people's sense of retribution, correct.

One individual harms the community, so instead of paying back in some way, it's the state who decides that he should just die?

It's a jury of the defendant's peers which decides whether the evidence and the crime warrant capital punishment.

Sure, all morality is subjective, but i don't see what the community in particular will gain with such an ending, apart from maybe appeasing to a sense of vengeance from the victims.

It's possible that the community benefits from the threat of capital punishment via the sentence discouraging would-be criminals from committing atrocities, out of fear of the reprisal they'd face for doing so. For example, if drinking alcohol suddenly became an illegal crime punishable by death, I can assure you that I (and millions of other people) would abstain from its further consumption.

And even that is dubious, maybe they would rather see the criminal tortured forever, then what? We should condone that?

If I were murdered, I probably would want my assailant to be tortured for a number of years before being executed. However, I realize that's not a reasonable request due to the amount of resources it would require and the general discomfort it would probably give to the community. Lethal injection is humane enough not to offend the sensibilities of most communities, and it's efficient.

Prove it. I am not so sure. Some people, would rather die than being subjected to prolonged torture or affliction, so witch is worse after all?

But you're not proposing torture, you're advocating for penal labor. I don't deny that most people would prefer death to torture, but that's probably the only alternative which is capable of provoking that response. And I can't prove my position without releasing a massive questionnaire and collecting data therefrom. However, I think it's rather obvious that, if presented with the option of working for the rest of their life or being put to death immediately, people would overwhelmingly choose the first option.

And does that really matter in the end? We should strive for a compensation for the crime, of for vengeance for the crime?

The only suitable compensation is vengeance, in my opinion.

Well, i see a lot of drug related crimes in east europe for example, and still, the crime rate and specially the death toll isn't nearly as high. Now you can saw that access to guns makes a difference, and i agree, but then again, that doesn't help the death penalty case either.

It is my understanding that capital punishment exists in much of Eastern Europe today. Furthermore, aggregate crime rates are irrelevant, as the death penalty is only applicable to certain crimes. We would have to compare specifically crimes which carry the possibility of capital punishment in the United States to those in Europe which carry a lesser sentence. It also wouldn't account for the culture of poverty which exists to a far greater extent in poor communities across the United States than in Europe. The point I was trying to convey by mentioning gang warfare in my previous post was the fact that, while they inflate our murder statistics, they really shouldn't be counted since gang activity in general is wholly attributable to cultural and socioeconomic factors. In other words, it's a phenomenon that can be abolished over time and which tends to only affect the gang members themselves. Personally, I don't consider drug dealing, gangster victims of a drive-by shooting to be "innocent people."

Celtiberian wrote:The only suitable compensation is vengeance, in my opinion.

Well, then i suppose any further debate on the question will not be objective enough, given such deep differences, so i will conclude my contribution to the topic.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:It's not about my subjective standard of morality.

Sure it is. This argument is largely contingent upon one's ethical stance.

It's about the old "do as i say, not as i do" biased course of action.

I do not follow. What you are arguing is some material "compensation" (thus far, described as forced labor) for flagrant crimes as opposed to a death sentence.

Well, unless we have a whole island to deport criminals, we have no alternative to that.

We do not require an island. Prisons should suffice, especially with the dismantling of the prison-industrial complex and superior social relations in society.

Death is a compensation? What will society gain with the death of this individual?

I would say that society gains primarily in three ways: it deters potential future crimes, it removes an anti-social threat, and it upholds healthy social relations by demonstrating that crimes worthy of death shall be avenged in kind.

Surely the victim and anyone sympathetic may want him/her to die, but the authority cannot be some sort of vigilante who just acts without an once of rationality of pragmatism. And about my "sense of justice", forced labour for your community doesn't give the state a ruthless irrational power do dish out "justice" with no meaningful reason but to appease the victims or those who demand vengeance. It actually provides a path to some sort of punishment/justice that involves giving back something, as opposed to be an act of pure retribution.

We are not discussing a totalitarian regime which arbitrarily expunges citizens. The topic is capital punishment, and my particular stance pertains to its use as both a deterrent and just retribution for capital crimes within the context of a due legal process.

Besides, i could make the same argument that it's your "sense of justice" that thinks one penalty is merely "worse" then the other.

You have been doing so. Your entire argument rests upon the proposition that capital punishment equates to "murder" on the part of society and that mere penal labor is a superior alternative. I disagree.

Well, since i was quoted directly, i shall make reply, and finish my side argument with Rev Scare too.

Rev Scare wrote:I would say that society gains primarily in three ways: it deters potential future crimes,

It does? Well that is arguable.

it removes an anti-social threat

That can be done without death.

, and it upholds healthy social relations by demonstrating that crimes worthy of death shall be avenged in kind.

Healthy social relations are uphold by demonstrating that our society has the "eye for an eye" mentality and cares more about vengeance than about any other more rational outcomes to problems? The justice system is not supposed to be some cartoon vigilante character, but rather, the care taker of those who harmed society in some way.

You have been doing so. Your entire argument rests upon the proposition that capital punishment equates to "murder" on the part of society

And it doesn't? Murder i murder, i am not a proponent of "corrective" or "state sponsored" murder.

that mere penal labor is a superior alternative. I disagree.

Well, so i guess we can conclude our debate as well.

If we want to show that killing is wrong,we kill someone?It seems that logic is thrown out the window in favour of vengeance.

My opinion of prison reforms,is that it should be based on a level system;the harsher your crime,the less of those reforms you receive.So a rapist won't be able to go out of their cell,without the hope of contact from anyone except from psychologists,fed only bread,and water,so it's pretty much like their in a dungeon,while a narcotics offender will be able to exercise,have a radio in their cell,receive the nutrition they need,get a newspaper,et cetera.If we had it like that,it would be a passive-aggressive alternative to the death penalty

On the larger issue of a penal system (I remain unsure about the death penalty), I think a balance should be found between punishment/compensation and rehabilitation. The example of the Scandinavian justice system shows that rehabilitation can be immensely effective in decreasing crime rates, but I think, in addition, some kind of punishment for the crime or forced labour to compensate the victims is also important.

Anarcho-Edge wrote:If we want to show that killing is wrong, we kill someone? It seems that logic is thrown out the window in favour of vengeance.

I think the point of Celtiberian and others was that the death penalty, if used, should only be used for people who cannot and will not change, i.e., serial killers & rapists. It's not about showing that killing is wrong; people can figure that out regardless of what the jail system tells them. It's about putting down a rabid dog. I say this to clarify, not necessarily to express support.

I understood that point but I disagreed with it. I don't think that anyone is in the position to determine that a situation is so hopeless, but I have already made such views clear.