Death Penalty [Archive]

Lymos

22nd September 2009, 19:21

I'm pro-Death Penalty but not in it's current form.

I'm more of a pro-"slim chance of surviving" Salem's Witch trial.

That is, I don't mind if there's a gladiator contest, a reality TV where a guy must systematically survive in a land of cannibals or dropping a guy in a jungle.

Some would argue that this is going back to the barbaric ways of old but I would equally argue that only by witnessing violence and making it very viewable to the public can a society test whether they have progresed and truly understand violence or they are just a society who, due to them being raised in a PC world, are anti-Death Penalty.

That said, I'm also not for immediate implementation of this system in current society but both current pro- and anti- Death Penalty is inferior to me because it doesn't make one think of life in general nor does it benefit anyone. (An electrocution does not feed living beings)

I hate this because even if there's value in pure elimination and non-elimination, it twists people's view of the value of life. Makes them waste time on cherishing the dead while they can sleep well at night ignoring/being detrimental of the living. Makes them be more passionate about visiting graveyards than visiting organizations that help dying people. Makes them be able to rally to get criminals free but makes them sit on their butts instead of visiting and rallying for a better future for people living in a 3rd world country.

That said, I don't do any of the altruistic thing above either so I am being a hypocrite but that's my current view on the death penalty.

Vendetta

22nd September 2009, 19:44

I'm not for the death penalty except in certain cases (McVeigh, etc).

mannetje

22nd September 2009, 19:51

Durruti's Ghost

22nd September 2009, 19:52

The only situation in which murder can ever be justified is a situation in which that murder directly prevents the murder of one's self or others.

Steve_j

22nd September 2009, 19:58

I don't mind if there's a gladiator contest, a reality TV where a guy must systematically survive in a land of cannibals or dropping a guy in a jungle.

Some would argue that this is going back to the barbaric ways of old but I would equally argue that only by witnessing violence and making it very viewable to the public can a society test whether they have progresed and truly understand violence or they are just a society who, due to them being raised in a PC world, are anti-Death Penalty.

WTF? Reality tv? Truly understand violence?

What are you talking about?

You think by devaluing human life to a mere form of disposable entertainment it will in some way contribute to making a better society?

JJM 777

22nd September 2009, 20:00

Do you think two wrongs make a right?
This is a popular and logically shipwrecked anecdote heard in death penalty debates, "two wrongs don't make a right". If giving a penalty for crime is "wrong", then all penalties are "wrong", and everything what the police ever do is "wrong".

All human societies of all time have had the legal and moral belief that giving a penalty to law-breakers is not "wrong", it is "right", the correct thing to do.

This anecdote of "two wrongs" is valid only in places where people generally think that giving a penalty for crimes is "wrong". Such times and places are not many, in the entire world history of mankind. I don't know any single example of a time and place where people generally have thought that punishing a criminal is wrong.

Demogorgon

22nd September 2009, 20:04

This is a popular and logically useless anecdote heard in death penalty debates, "two wrongs don't make a right". If giving a penalty for crime is "wrong", then all penalties are "wrong", and everything what the police ever do is "wrong".

All human societies of all time have had the legal and moral belief that giving a penalty to law-breakers is not "wrong", it is "right", the correct thing to do.

This anecdote of "two wrongs" is valid only in places where such people think that giving a penalty for crimes is "wrong". Such times and places are not many, in the entire world history of mankind. I donät know any single example of a time and place where people generally have thought that punishing a criminal is wrong.
Nonsense. Even if one accepts punishment per se, they will still always view certain kinds of punishment has wrong. Who would still defend drawing and quartering for instance? The act of killing someone in cold blood is certainly something that many consider morally reprehensible and beyond the pale of what is acceptable in civilised society. Therefore it can most certainly be considered a "wrong" to put someone to death as a punishment.

Lymos

22nd September 2009, 20:15

[QUOTE=Lymos;1552948]That is, I don't mind if there's a gladiator contest, a reality TV where a guy must systematically survive in a land of cannibals or dropping a guy in a jungle.[QUOTE]

Something like in the running man?

I believe only that capitalist/imperialist society's are sick enough to broadcast that kind of reality-tv shows.
But sadly enough I'm afraid that that kinda tv is going to be reality in the (near)future. I only accept it when the contenders of that show are volunteering for it. (no problems with shows like jackass or something.)
But gladiators or something...(What time are you from?) fighting to death in front of an audience. is fucked up. It reminds me of the (Faces of death )video's that used to be in the videostores. (For who doesn't know what faces of death is, It's a movieserie with the most sickest clips showed.
I saw it as a kid. And it really fucked me up then. And about two years ago somebody showed me a snuff movie, and I still can't get that movie out of my head. Yes I find it barbaric!:mad:

It's been too long since I've watched running man and I'm not sure if that was sarcasm but I don't think running man benefited a biological species.

It was basically focused on entertainment.

Also your future scenario is actually wrong. Not so much in the idea that people will be for violence but it's what has allowed people to make excuses for censorship under that fear.

Yet, it's a common enough anecdote that Japan has one of the fewest sexually related crimes because they are more open to sexuality in their games. (although it's functioning like a hypocritical conservative culture that's more tailor made for them than it is for any other area)

The thing is though, IMO, when you censor snuff, you don't censor snuff. You just make it more subtle.

Instead you do get your run of the mill Reality TV, you get your occassional Bill O'Reilly, you get Oprah, you get less of the violence but equally a product like snuff that makes you become desensitized to life.

At least, that's my over-generalized over-simplified observation.

See, the thing with snuff is the reason why it's detrimental to the mind is because it focuses on violence rather than the why of that violence. Similarly despite the significance of gladiators in the past, it was also easy to be absorbed in the idea that it was done as entertainment's sake.

The thing with death penalties though is that it's not purely for entertainment and that we live in a generation where technology has improved enough that it's not purely about pitting two people together. That's why other less lethal sports has been accepted.

Nowadays we live in a culture where in order for something to hold our attention for long, there needs to be a presentation. Stats, backgrounds, marketing, all of that.

In a death penalty situation, these can be used to allow viewers to become more humanized by the person dying. Not just because they would die but to understand what and why this death penalty was necessary for this case. Even with this, there is a chance that the person may live and his heart to survive may even won people over.

Meanwhile, in the current implementation, there's none of that except if it's a celebrity. In a non-death penalty situation, it's still the same. The masses are not educated or introduced to who or why these people were in need of death penalty, they just become blobs that didn't die or were confined forever.

This doesn't put the fear on the major criminal to change because a long sentence in jail is rarely a benefit. Similarly the act of making people who go out of prison doesn't exactly make people become less prejudiced to them because they got out and served their time. It just produces a cover your eyes, cover your ears politically correct view of death instead of a way for masses to really reflect on death and the death penalty.

Lymos

22nd September 2009, 20:32

You think by devaluing human life to a mere form of disposable entertainment it will in some way contribute to making a better society?

It doesn't contribute to a better society. It tests a better society.

It also a way of controlling overpopulation and increasing the life of other species (food) instead of being a total bodybag in the current system.

Finally,

It only seems like I'm devaluing it because like any stable person in any current society in time, you have the bias that this is either the limit of a civilized society or at least close to that perfection.

The reality is that even today it is strange for me to suggest that we shouldn't step on cockroaches or constantly think of 3rd world country people because they're dying even when we're tired and just came home to a job.

It may be even weird or impractical to tell all fast foods to shut down or to send a package of food for every food we ate.

That's because just as our previous civilization can seem barbaric, our current civilization hasn't really reached that situation where we value death and killing.

If anything we have gone away from the biological reasoning into a culture built morality that is biased to our species and helps make the more stable living among us, easier to sleep at night.

This is also why such minor things like celebrating graveyards can be belief defining in a future civilized society but seem like normal traditional things to us that does no harm. (The same way gladiator fights are to us now and to the people then.)

What graveyards do for example is that they make you celebrate and remember the qualities of the person that used to live.

Yet arguably in a general estimate, most people don't value these qualities when that person was living until they dead. Now that they died, there's almost an accusation of being inhumane if you can't empathize with a person mourning for the dead.

Yet biologically speaking, if that person replaced mourning with the tradition of helping a dying person elsewhere, the net effect is that they would have helped prevent deaths where as mourning does nothing unless you believe that mourning somehow helps the dead find their way to a better after life.

Even if you argue that a person can do that after they mourned, it doesn't change the fact that most people don't do that and feel perfectly fine with it. It doesn't change the fact that you can still mourn without being in front of a burial ceremony and is instead helping a dying person. It doesn't change the fact that mourning won't make you hesitate to step on an ant.

Another flaw is that you assume that these beliefs don't have an influence elsewhere. By celebrating death, you could just as cause a country to be ignorant that the government is tricking them and pulling their emotional strings to issue a false war in Iraq for example.

The reality is the death penalty is just as much the consideration and weighing of life than it is to "feel good" about knowing a person didn't die even if they are still suffering other penalties or to "feel bad" that a criminal got eliminated even if you would just as have no problem with shooting a bear that's attacking your child to death under the thought of self-defence.

Steve_j

22nd September 2009, 20:47

It doesn't contribute to a better society. It tests a better society.

Tests a better society by toturing and killing people in public.... That would not happen in a better society.

It also a way of controlling overpopulation and increasing the life of other species (food) instead of being a total bodybag in the current system.

There is no over population... And how does this increase the life of other species?

If you want to increase the life of the other species on this planet then promote a vegetarian diet. You dont need to kill people. :(

Couldnt be bothered with the rest of your post.

Dionysus

22nd September 2009, 20:56

:lol::mad::bored::bored::closedeyes::D:(:lol::roll eyes::confused::mad::mad::blink::crying::cool:

IrishWorker

22nd September 2009, 20:57

Class War For Idiots (http://exiledonline.com/cat/class-war-for-idiots/) / August 7, 2009
China Executes More Corrupt Millionaires… While In America, AIG Swipes Another $249 Million In Bonuses (http://exiledonline.com/china-executes-more-corrupt-millionairesmeanwhile-in-the-peasant-states-of-america-aig-takes-another-242-million-in-bonuses/)
By Mark Ames (http://exiledonline.com/?s=Mark Ames)
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/china-execution21.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/china-execution21.jpg)
There’s a reason why the Chinese are ascendant while America is in decline. Because the Chinese walk upright and aren’t afraid to apply justice to the pigs who are ruining their country; while at the same time, Americans bow and scrape to the same people who loot them, dreaming like peasants of the day they can become Donald Trump’s “Apprentice.” It’s a grotesque role-reversal, and we ought to be ashamed.
I’ve written about the wonderful Chinese “Mobile Execution Bus Fleets” (http://exiledonline.com/mobile-execution-bus-fleets-the-solution-to-americas-banker-problem/)as the solution to America’s banker problem, but you folks are all too damn squeamish and worried about “class war.” So while you roll over and take it as AIG announces yet another new round of bonuses (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPFpXinGOWhU)stolen from your bank account,the Chinese get down to the business of executing their millionaire traitors. Can’t reform ‘em, folks. Gotta put ‘em down for the good of the country. Three more big ones this week, including two put to death (http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090806/BUSINESS/708069956/1049/rss) because they “seriously damaged the country’s financial regulatory order and social stability”:

BEIJING // China has executed two people for defrauding hundreds of investors out of millions of yuan in beauty parlour, cosmetics and property scams, crimes which the government described as a serious blow to social stability.
The two executed fraudsters, Du Yimin and Si Chaxian, “seriously damaged the country’s financial regulatory order and social stability”, the supreme people’s court ruled.

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/china-execution3-big.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/china-execution3-big.jpg)
But wait folks, that’s not all. One of the most powerful public-private officials was turned into mu-shu millionaire after getting nailed for taking millions in bribes, and more executions of top officials could be a-comin:

Former Beijing airport boss executed in China
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN (AP)
BEIJING — Leaders of China’s elite state industries are renowned for their power, influence, and — in several recent cases — corruption. Increasingly, they are paying the price.
On Friday, the former head of the company that runs airports in Beijing and more than 30 other Chinese cities was put to death after the People’s Supreme Court upheld his sentence in a $16 million bribery and embezzlement case.
Li Peiying’s execution came two days after word emerged that the head of China’s nuclear power program was under investigation for alleged corruption. Just last month, the former chairman of China’s second-biggest oil company, Sinopec, was also convicted of taking $29 million in bribes and given a suspended death sentence.
The heads of state-owned enterprises “possess power and money, making it easy to give rise to corruption,” Wang Yukai of the China National School of Administration was quoted Friday in the Communist Party newspaper Global Times as saying.

Lymos

22nd September 2009, 21:17

Tests a better society by toturing and killing people in public.... That would not happen in a better society.

Again, like I said, it's bias.

I hope you don't honestly think that back then, people's vision of better society was similar to yours but that's why things can be controversial.

Today slavery is just absolutely not a civilized thing to do. Back then, mass freeing of slaves was just not thought about at all until much later.

There is no over population... And how does this increase the life of other species?

If you want to increase the life of the other species on this planet then promote a vegetarian diet. You dont need to kill people. :(Right because every species on earth is a vegetarian or that biologically we're not omnivores.

Btw basic eco-system model: Some one lives and some one dies. Even if you don't believe in over-population, the reason it got so bad to the point that you're now suggesting a pure vegetable diet is because one dominant species was so good at eliminating the rest that imbalance was created.

Steve_j

22nd September 2009, 21:50

I hope you don't honestly think that back then, people's vision of better society was similar to yours

For some it was, and we take their ideas and expand on it. Thats why we are on this forum, to talk about making a better world possible most of us influenced by the ideas of people "back then".

Today slavery is just absolutely not a civilized thing to do. Back then, mass freeing of slaves was just not thought about at all until much later.

Well wage slavery is still quite acceptable.

Right because every species on earth is a vegetarian or that biologically we're not omnivores.

Whats that got to do with the price of fish? You stated that publically killing people is also a way of
increasing the life of other species

Im sorry but thats a stupid thing to say, and if the lives of other species is so important to you i gave you a simple and viable alternative that does not involve making a game show out of killing people.

the reason it got so bad to the point that you're now suggesting a pure vegetable diet is because one dominant species was so good at eliminating the rest that imbalance was created.

What got so bad? The reason i support a vegetarian diet is because things have gotten better and i can support the lives of other species without having to kill humans on a game show :(

Obviously.

Glad you understand :laugh:

MilitantAnarchist

22nd September 2009, 22:04

I dont think its a good idea...
In some cases, like Saddam Hussien, or Hitler, or Mugabe, or Bush... in cases of genocide then excecution is the only fair option...
But when it is small things (not that im calling child abuse or rape and stuff small) it doesnt warrant the death penalty.

Lymos

22nd September 2009, 23:11

For some it was, and we take their ideas and expand on it. Thats why we are on this forum, to talk about making a better world possible most of us influenced by the ideas of people "back then".

It wasn't all expansion. Look up what a paradigm shift is.

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?

Nothing, I never stated the words "price of fish" anywhere.

Im sorry but thats a stupid thing to say, and if the lives of other species is so important to you i gave you a simple and viable alternative that does not involve making a game show out of killing people.

and that is one of the major flaws with your assumption of my post.

1) You assume I made this thread and not that someone was asking for my views of the death penalty.

2) You don't seem to understand cumulative improvements and you view your alternative as the one absolute solution that fixes all this issue like a miracle pill.

What got so bad? The reason i support a vegetarian diet is because things have gotten better and i can support the lives of other species without having to kill humans on a game show

If things were better than you wouldn't need to sacrifice being an omnivore in favor of being a vegetarian.

Luisrah

22nd September 2009, 23:25

I don't agree with death penalty at all.

Death penalty is actually an escape for the criminal. I think that a life of work almost like slavery would be a much worse thing for him.

If I saw myself, someone killing another for the most evil intention in my opinion, I'd pick a pistol and shoot his shoulder just to immobilize him and send him to jail. If the crime was absolutely horrid, after the shot on the shoulder, I'd shoot each of his toes and if he fainted when I shot one, I'd wait for him to wake up to shoot the next. And then jail of course.

But a lousy jail where they are forced to work.

Steve_j

22nd September 2009, 23:36

1) You assume I made this thread and not that someone was asking for my views of the death penalty.

No i didnt i just responded to your views on th matter.

2) You don't seem to understand cumulative improvements and you view your alternative as the one absolute solution that fixes all this issue like a miracle pill.

I very much understand cumulative improvements, but im sorry your maths doesnt add up.

If things were better than you wouldn't need to sacrifice being an omnivore in favor of being a vegetarian.

Its not a sacrifice. Im just chosing not to partake in what i see to be unethical behaviour. And i am free to partake in that choice because of the dietry diversity at my disposal.

Now for the sake of the thread can we try and stay on topic. So going back to your claims of justification. You support of public killings (or maybe this was in regards to the death penalty in general) being that it controls over population and extends the lives of other species.

Correct?

1. Is the world over populated? If so please provide me evidence that we can not sustain all humans on this planet.

2. You care about extending the lives of other animals, because you respect thier life? Or because you see them as resources for food that could be better spent elsewhere?

Segmund

22nd September 2009, 23:45

This is a popular and logically shipwrecked anecdote heard in death penalty debates, "two wrongs don't make a right". If giving a penalty for crime is "wrong", then all penalties are "wrong", and everything what the police ever do is "wrong".

All human societies of all time have had the legal and moral belief that giving a penalty to law-breakers is not "wrong", it is "right", the correct thing to do.

This anecdote of "two wrongs" is valid only in places where people generally think that giving a penalty for crimes is "wrong". Such times and places are not many, in the entire world history of mankind. I don't know any single example of a time and place where people generally have thought that punishing a criminal is wrong.

I think that punishment for the sake of punishment is wrong, where ever possible, the criminal should do her or his best to amend what has been done and reform her or his self. In essence, don't punish, reform.

Steve_j

22nd September 2009, 23:45

If I saw myself, someone killing another for the most evil intention in my opinion, I'd pick a pistol and shoot his shoulder just to immobilize him and send him to jail. If the crime was absolutely horrid, after the shot on the shoulder, I'd shoot each of his toes and if he fainted when I shot one, I'd wait for him to wake up to shoot the next. And then jail of course.

But a lousy jail where they are forced to work.

And what would that achieve? Im no pacifist, but what you are describing is tourture, and by the sounds of it, for self satisfaction.:(

Lymos

22nd September 2009, 23:56

No i didnt i just responded to your views on th matter.

You did that was why I quoted:

Im sorry but thats a stupid thing to say, and if the lives of other species is so important to you i gave you a simple and viable alternative that does not involve making a game show out of killing people.

I very much understand cumulative improvements, but im sorry your maths doesnt add up.

There was no math.

Its not a sacrifice. Im just chosing not to partake in what i see to be unethical behaviour. And i am free to partake in that choice because of the dietry diversity at my disposal.

It is a sacrifice because you don't just choose. You made the default decision to omit certain types of food based specifically on a point of view. (even foods you might not know of or have never tasted for the sole opinion that they don't fit a category)

That said, it might not be a hard sacrifice and that's why you don't realize it. In the context of biology though, it is a sacrifice.

Now for the sake of the thread can we try and stay on topic. So going back to your claims of justification. You support of public killings (or maybe this was in regards to the death penalty in general) being that it controls over population and extends the lives of other species.

If you're going to over-simplify my reasonings like this, you'll have to read my entire posts before or I won't reply.

Just because that was one aspect does not mean it's valid to stretch it as a major singular aspect instead of a cumulative reasoning especially on a controversial and minority opinion as mine.

Also your questions are off-topic as they pertain to over-population and biology and not on the death penalty. Just pointing that out since you emphasize on-topicness.

1) That's not how you measure over-population even in an over-simplified model. You have to factor in other species. Factor in territory. Factor in which species is making another species extinct.

2) Simple answer, both. Pedantically, "respect for their life" is a man-made concept. Not saying another species can't mimic this but in the context of your usage, you assume "respect" is a universal biological phenomenon.

That said, if you will kill off a man anyways, only species bias will keep you from turning him into food for another species. (assuming it is a perfectly healthy and consumptionable being)

Agnapostate

22nd September 2009, 23:58

Application of the death penalty to crimes other than multiple murder will typically constitute an irrational policy. For example, mandating execution for single murderers will create a perverse incentive for an offender to commit additional murders and violently resist attempts at law enforcement capture because there is no additional cost incurred.

redasheville

23rd September 2009, 00:03

Some of the most despicable things I have ever heard supposed leftists ever say, have been said in this thread.

Gladiator games? Life imprisonment makes people suffer more so its a better alternative?

Hit the books, comrades.

Agnapostate

23rd September 2009, 00:05

While I'll admit having a perverse desire for the Chinese "solution," the rationalist in me has to admit that it's hardly ideal.

Steve_j

23rd September 2009, 00:07

Well said redasheville, im really troubled by some of the shit that people are saying. Sometimes it looks like a page right out of stormfront :(

Die Rote Fahne

23rd September 2009, 00:21

The death penalty is nothing but an implication of idiocy, barbarism and religion.

MarxSchmarx

23rd September 2009, 06:31

rebelmouse

23rd September 2009, 14:35

against death penalty. because of lot of things (capitalist injustice, racism, etc).

since 1989 there have been 212 DNA Exoneration in the USA. 15 of the 212 were on death row. vN8ocY28V84

Spawn of Stalin

23rd September 2009, 15:13

I'm sure we're all well aware with Mumia's case, but let's face it, he's only in prison because he was an educated black man who understood how to make an argument against the status quo. I doubt anyone here has enough faith in the current capitalist justice system to advocate the death penalty, but in a better society it is going to have its uses. As I said earlier, some people just shouldn't be allowed to live, would-be counter revolutionaries like Nicholas II need to be put down before they are able to make a realistic challenge to the revolutionary society which could potentially ruin the lives of many workers. The Chinese way is also a good option for dealing with out of control capitalist thugs in a country with a "mixed" economy.

Holden Caulfield

23rd September 2009, 15:23

I support the death penalty, I think that some people deserve death in so much as the damage they did to society, and could do to society warrants it.

I think that it is cheaper than life inprisionment, and I think death is something people fear (several US serial killers facing death tried to flee to canada as they could not be extrodited to a country that they faced death in due to Canadian law).

I think it should be used in exceptional circumstances, in cases of serial killer, serial rapists, serial child abusers etc.

I think the argument against it due to errors of th capitalist system are very good arguments, but I also support jails, industrialisation, arms production, etc all things that capitalism ruins, in the same way i support many other things in principal that capitalism makes a hash of.

There is also another argument that we should not support the death penalty because it will one day be used against us, and to this I say if there ever comes a point where they want to kill off communists it will not matter if it is legal or not. Look at all the cases of torture that go ahead illegally.

my two cents

Bright Banana Beard

23rd September 2009, 15:29

I support the death penalty againsts the capitalist if they kept using this against the workers, otherwise it just prison for them.

Luisrah

23rd September 2009, 17:07

And what would that achieve? Im no pacifist, but what you are describing is tourture, and by the sounds of it, for self satisfaction.:(

Not for self satisfaction, but because that man killed someone for a horrible reason.

When my country's team won a soccer match (World Championship) against another, some of my countrymen were celebrating, and one of the losers shot them because he was annoyed that they were celebrating.

When that happened, I swear I would slap that guy so hard he would call for his mommy. Because when a guy does something like that, he deserves a good beat before he gets the luxury of going to jail.
But it isn't torture nor prolonged torture, just something that will make him be sorry, and when he is, he spends the rest of his life in jail, or if possible, working for others.

Monkey Riding Dragon

23rd September 2009, 17:48

The death penalty is backward and reprehensible on the level of principle, in my view. There has historically been the argument that the punishments have to match with the level of a given society's development (e.g. the death penalty is acceptable in a society coming out of feudalism, but not in a developed country coming out of an imperialist context). I don't fully agree with that kind of thinking. We need to have real principles that really mean something. We need to stand for the civilization of society. Those who support the death penalty as a principle are those, in my observation, who simply wish to apply the maximum force possible, not the amount of force necessary. Revenge, not the making of a better world, is their motivation. This definitely seems to apply to several of those who have posted on this thread.

Now will there be times in the course of revolution when some state executions will become necessary? I tend to strongly think that there will be (as in the example of our good friend the czar, whose continued existence came to represent a mortal threat to the revolution itself). At times it will be necessary to use revolutionary, rather than simply constitutional, means to deal with the enemy, but this (state execution) should never become an institutionalized principle of law. Insofar as it has been so institutionalized in historical socialist societies, I think it has been a mistake.

Holden Caulfield

23rd September 2009, 19:00

Revenge, not the making of a better world, is their motivation. This definitely seems to apply to several of those who have posted on this thread.

To a degree you are probably right, why not suffer the consequences of their actions.

if a serial rapist (remember rape isn't simply sex without consent it is the violent act of forced sex) gets released and this causes former victims to suffer psychological issues, then why not just kill him. If his death would spare the further suffering of his victims I would support him being killed for their sake.

Luisrah

23rd September 2009, 19:37

If his death would spare the further suffering of his victims I would support him being killed for their sake.

That could be used for someone to kill another one.

There is a possibility that they set something up to say a guy raped them, and they will ask for him to be killed.

Death penalty ALWAYS has the possibility of killing innocents. And when that happens, taking them out of jail doesn't make him free.

Holden Caulfield

23rd September 2009, 19:42

Luisrah

23rd September 2009, 19:58

I said a serial rapist, and with DNA evidence to support any conviction then it would be almost impossible for the jury to get the wrong verdict.
some people have no defence, some people filmed or photographed their acts of deprevity and in these cases i support the death penalty.

i dont think it should be used often, only in expectional cases with irrefutable evidence

Still I disagree.

There's always doubt. The data might be biased, there can exist human errors. You can never be 100% sure.
And if someone like that is worth more if he does work that no one else likes or can do (heavy work for example) than he is if he's dead, why kill him?

JohannGE

23rd September 2009, 20:00

I would be too concerned that we would in fact actually be executing the mentally ill. The recent case of the woman who stabbed her two teenage daughters for example. I cannot see such a crime as anything other than the act of a seriously disturbed mind.

I believe that developments in psychology and psychiatry are likely to further blur the distinctions between crime and illness.
-

Luisrah

23rd September 2009, 20:12

I believe that developments in psychology and psychiatry are likely to further blur the distinctions between crime and illness.
-

Yes. Commiting crimes and calling it illness is many times a way of escaping the consequences

Demogorgon

23rd September 2009, 20:50

To a degree you are probably right, why not suffer the consequences of their actions.

if a serial rapist (remember rape isn't simply sex without consent it is the violent act of forced sex) gets released and this causes former victims to suffer psychological issues, then why not just kill him. If his death would spare the further suffering of his victims I would support him being killed for their sake.Perhaps we should kill anyone who causes anyone psychological suffering?

I find it particularly appalling that people can support the death penalty for rape when out in the real world even strong supporters of the death penalty mostly only accept it for murder.

The attitudes of some supposed progressive people here are best described as Draconian. The world is moving on yet those who claim to support progress actually want to go back several decades, even centuries in some cases?

The thing is, not only is the death penalty cruel and barbaric but it has been pretty conclusively shown to not merely have no deterring effect whatsoever but actually causes something of a rise in the crime rate. Areas with more progressive justice policies focussed on rehabilitation and not seeking revenge inevitably have lower crime.

People have to make a choice, do they want a progressive society that focusses on lowering crime or a brutal one that tolerates high crime rates for the sake of being able to carry out barbaric practices on individual criminals?

Demogorgon

23rd September 2009, 20:52

i dont think it should be used often, only in expectional cases with irrefutable evidence
So you want juries to decide on two standards of evidence? "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "beyond all doubt", with the former being enough for conviction, but only the latter being enough to die. Suppose someone is convicted but escapes death owing to not enough evidence for that. Are they not entitled then to say their conviction is unfair and based on a broken system of determining guilt?

Durruti's Ghost

23rd September 2009, 20:58

Fuck the death penalty. In fact, fuck punishment period. The majority of crimes are victimless or crimes against property, which won't exist in a communist society. The rest are likely the result of psychological disorders of some sort or another. Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc. should be treated, not punished.

JJM 777

23rd September 2009, 20:58

No society in the world tolerates high crime rates "for the sake of being able to carry out barbaric practices on individual criminals".

This discussion is so sharply divided between two extremes, supporters and opponents of penalties equal to the committed crime, maybe we need to found two different societies for these two groups. I subscribe to the society where the state treats each person exactly as he treats other persons. Who kills other persons, let the state kill him. Who is violent against other persons, let the state give him a flogging.

Demogorgon

23rd September 2009, 21:00

No society in the world tolerates high crime rates "for the sake of being able to carry out barbaric practices on individual criminals".
Yes they do. The evidence is plainly there that draconian punishments do nothing to reduce crime, yet some countries insist on it anyway because they prefer punishing individuals to providing a safer environment.

Lyev

23rd September 2009, 21:02

People that shoot other people should be shot!

rosa_rot

23rd September 2009, 21:14

Death penalty is sick and inhuman.

You might find arguments for it...
- Why should really really bad people like child-rapers or mass-murderers should have a jolly time in prison, paid for by the people?
- They didn't deserve any better, they are not human, they are inferior to animals
- An eye for an eye, isn't it?
- Capitalists have surpressed the people for too long, now we gotta have the power, and if we won't kill them they'll make a conterrevolution.

Yeah, right.

But...isn't death penalty an unbelievably inhuman uncivilized relict from the darkest past. The human brain is in a constant ethical evolution (I take as example the already mentioned antic roman gladiator games...noone would now dare to do this...though there are sure tendencies towards a greater brutality, because sex...uh, blood sells.
And we, as revolutionary communists should have the hugest interest in making society human. Revenge, which many here used as an argument, is an inferior lust, a disgusting anachronism. The new human (I see that I quote Guevara, who was for death penalty) is not to have feelings like that.
Sure the capitalists surpress us, but that doesn't give us the right to surpress them. THey are - you won't believe it!- humans like us (though not that progressed in their evolution of moral), and we HAVE to treat them like fellow humans, or we are no better than them!

So, you might say now, bad criminals are just public expenses, why pay their food? Of course, they will have to work, and to work hard. They won't have freedom. But they have to be treaten like humans...see arguments above.

I'm aware that this is the view of an German who is born long long after the WW 2. For me, it was never a question whether death penalty is bad or good. I see that in other parts of the world, there are other opinions. But I hope I made my point clear and transparent...

Atrus

23rd September 2009, 21:15

People that shoot other people should be shot!

So, the executioner should be killed? And their executioner, and their execution after them?
Of course you'll say no, and you're suggesting that the state then gives out "licences to kill" which is one of the most frightening ideas in the world. Where does it end?

Lyev

23rd September 2009, 21:20

So, the executioner should be killed? And their executioner, and their execution after them?
Of course you'll say no, and you're suggesting that the state then gives out "licences to kill" which is one of the most frightening ideas in the world. Where does it end?

I was being sarcastic man, I totally agree with you. Why should the killing stop with the state? 'Where does it end?' is exactly the question that needs to be asked. I'm totally against capital punishment. Why is killing within the law anymore justifiable that killing outside of it?

Atrus

23rd September 2009, 21:23

I was being sarcastic man, I totally agree with you.

In which case I wholeheartedly apologise :)

But, to anyone who is for the death penalty, could you please tell me where it does end?

Lyev

23rd September 2009, 21:27

Well it ends with the state obviously, they're the be-all and end-all. They don't have to be above the law because they are the law. I guess it's quite an interesting philosophical debate that it provokes, kind of similiar to 'who guards the guards'?

Rjevan

23rd September 2009, 21:56

My opinion on this can be found in this thread (starting with post 23):
http://www.revleft.com/vb/death-penalty-t109716/index2.html

Short summary with some [additions]:

I'm not really for death penalty, [but also not totally against it because] I think some crimes should be regarded with death but I see the the problem of giving the state too much power and killing innocents because of judical "mistakes" is terrible. But I vehemently oppose the idea that every criminal is just misunderstood and has had a traumatic childhood and could be helped and "healed". Believe it or not, some people had an absoultely great childhood, loving parents and many friends but were still vicious murderes/rapists, who killed for fun and no, not because their father was a beating alcoholic, just because they were vicious bastards.
And even if my childhood is bad, well this is no excuse. I don't want to know how many people had a bad childhood and still lead "normal" lives. If they kill/rape/torture they know that they hurt other people and that they do something illegal, so why should I feel sorry for them and want to help them. They did their choice, nobody helped their victims and gave them a second chance. It's not my fault, if a lunatic decides to kill me, I would be the one to be pitied in that case, not my murderer.
...
I'm very well aware of the fact, that killing the murderer brings nobody back to life but at least he is not alive anymore [and doesn't have the chance to harm anybody anymore].
...
Nobody who didn't experience such a thing personally [but still advocates that demanding death penalty is wrong] knows what he speaks about, so it's hypocritical if people tell me that hate and revenge are bad feelings and that I should forgive the murderer.
...
I think labour camps (labour, not death!) would be the best solution; they harmed society, so they should give something back to society.

gorillafuck

23rd September 2009, 22:06

I do not support the death penalty except for against war criminals, and in time of revolution I support it against counter-revolutionary leaders (and others when it is absolutely necessary).

We need to stay compassionate while at the same time not become bleeding hearts.

bailey_187

23rd September 2009, 22:20

in time of revolution I support it against counter-revolutionary leaders (and others when it is absolutely necessary).

But the class struggle continues after the revolution and Socialism is established.

Spawn of Stalin

23rd September 2009, 22:48

I agree, since there are Marxists constantly working towards revolution in the capitalist society, we can only assume that there will be capitalists working towards counter-revolution in the Marxist society. Counter-revolutionaries should be met with force both during the revolutionary struggle, and in the society which it gives birth to, because at the end of the day, we're not just protecting our petty whims, we are protecting lives.

Steve_j

24th September 2009, 00:14

People that shoot other people should be shot!

Yeah that makes sense :laugh:

JohannGE

24th September 2009, 20:02

Yes. Commiting crimes and calling it illness is many times a way of escaping the consequences

And eaqualy, thowing mentaly ill into the penal system is a way of avoiding addressing mental health issues.
-

JJM 777

25th September 2009, 08:53

thowing mentaly ill into the penal system is a way of avoiding addressing mental health issues.
I would like to re-formulate your statement:

Diagnosing people as "mentally ill", as they are depressed of an identifiable and manmade cause in the society -- such as unemployment, poverty, etc. -- is a way of avoiding to address the socio-political issues that cause a depressed mental condition in people.

spiltteeth

25th September 2009, 23:24

countries where the death penalty has already been abandoned crime has not risen.

Since it is not a deterrent to crime the death penalty is merely a means for the state to dispose of those whom it sees as irremediable.

Without serving a purpose capital punishment is reduced to an act of revenge that only breeds further violence, fueled only by sadism and perpetuated by tradition. This is an act of state revenge, justice should be based on law and principles and not instinct and emotions.
There is no absolute authority capable of delivering judgement as no man possesses absolute innocence himself. Because of this the maximum penalty should be set at life labor due to the possibility of judicial error, a life of labor being harsher than death but at least carrying the possibility of being reversed. The convicted would then also always have the option of choosing death via suicide.

capital punishment is inappropriate because by effecting revenge for grievances it simultaneously hurts the family and loved ones of the convict in the same manner as those being avenged were hurt by the initial crime.

☭World Views

25th September 2009, 23:27

The death penalty should be reserved for:

capitalists
bourgeoisie sympathizers that hinder the movement
reactionaries
counter-revolutionaries

Comrade B

26th September 2009, 00:14

The death penalty should be reserved for:

capitalists
bourgeoisie sympathizers that hinder the movement
reactionaries
counter-revolutionaries
Though I am for the death penalty in some of these circumstances, I am going to say that it is illogical to kill all capitalists. We should not kill simply for thought crime, however if people actually take part in violent and effective counter-revolutionary activities, they should be disposed of.
Former oppressors should also be killed if they have harmed the people enough.

People that slow the system or damage it for ideological reasons should be sent to re-education schools (avoiding the word camp for its history) similar to what former Nazi officers and POWs of WWII were sent to after being captured.

People have often just been raised into a negative way of thinking.

MarxSchmarx

26th September 2009, 05:43

Since it is not a deterrent to crime the death penalty is merely a means for the state to dispose of those whom it sees as irremediable.

Without serving a purpose capital punishment is reduced to an act of revenge that only breeds further violence, fueled only by sadism and perpetuated by tradition. This is an act of state revenge, justice should be based on law and principles and not instinct and emotions.

In broad outline I tend to agree. However, most laws and principles tend to themselves be based on instinct and emotions. In fact, I would argue that in so far as things like laws and principles are normative, they MUST be based on emotions and instincts. Therefore, the death penalty is no more irrational than, say, the prohibition against J walking. Of course I "feel" that the prohibition against J walking is justified, whilst the death penalty is not. But this is, in the final analysis, based on my "instincts and emotions", just as the death penalty is based on the "instincts and emotions" of others.

JJM 777

26th September 2009, 08:05

☭World Views

26th September 2009, 14:25

So, according to the latest posts we should pamper murderers, without giving a death penalty to them. BUT Capitalists, who have committed no murders, should be killed.

I prefer, indeed I strictly require, that punishments must be equal to the crime. Whose crime is not violence, should not be punished with violence. But whose crime is violence, should not escape a just and equally violent punishment.

The capitalists are the ultimate murderers. They rely on systematic violence, imperial conquests, economic imperialism, covert terrorism, etc.

According to the black book of capitalism, capitalism has claimed the lives of over 99,850,000 people in the 20th century through wars and suppression.

The list is not meant to be all inclusive. It is only meant to demonstrate the destructive nature of capitalism.

In the figure above, the following was not included:

Between 1990 and 1995 alone, over 5 million people have died due to capitalist wars of plunder. Over 3 quarters of these 5 million have been civilians.

In 1997 alone, malnutrition and famines have claimed the lives of over 6 million children due to imperialism and the inefficiencies of capitalism.

These children, along with the rest of the people that died due to malnutrition and famines due to capitalism in the 20th century are also not included in the figure above!

Who are these people and what is their connection to the United States?

Osama Bin Laden
Emperor Bao Dai
Ngo Dinh Diem
Chiang Kai-shek
Syngman Rhee
Park Chung Hee
General Chun Doo Hwan
Laurent Kabila
Idi Amin
General Sani Abacha
Francisco Franco
General Humberto Castelo Branco
Marco Vinicio Cerezo Arévalo
Roberto Suazo Cَrdova
Anastasio Somoza
General Suharto
Colonel Hugo Banzer Suarez
Reza Muhammed Shah Pahlawi
Augusto Ugarte Pinnochet
Fulgencio Batista
P.W. Botha
Saddam Hussein
Muammar al-Qaddafi
Rafael Leonidas Molina Trujillo
Porfirio Diaz
Morena Manuel Antonio Noriega
Anwar Al Saddat
Husni Mubarak
King Hussein
King Abdulla
Francois Duvalier (known as Papa Doc)
Jean-Claude Duvalier (known as Baby Duc)
The shah in Iran up until 1979
Augusto Pinochet
General Miguel Ydigoras

The USA does not support democracy. The USA dropped 7 million tons of bombs on Indochina (this usually kills people). After turning Vietnam into a wasteland they moved on to their heaviest bombings of Laos in the late 60's. Tens of thousands of people have died in Laos since that time just from US cluster bombs that didn't initially explode. What about Cambodia? Thanks to the US it's probably the most heavily bombed country in world history. The Khmer Rouge had almost no mobilization or movement until the USA started bombing the country in the early 70's. By the time they were done bombing there was a massive movement. Why might that have happened? What about the support the USA gave the Khmer Rouge well after the killing fields had been acknowledged?

I'm wondering, how did the USA go from east coast to west coast (with the frontier closing in 1890)? What about the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 What about the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government in 1909, or the repeated occupations of the DR and Haiti? One can easily go on with these examples...

What about the USA policy in Iraq over the last 3 decades? What about the USA policy with regard to Israel-Palestine, and US/Israeli rejectionism? What about Turkey's slaughtering of Kurds in the 90's (militarily backed by the US)? What about Afghanistan? What about all those arms the USA sent to Indonesia for decades so that Suharto could slaughter hundreds of thousands defenseless East Timorese? What about the illegal Contra war? What about all that aid they gave to Guatemala in the 80's when they were murding tens of thousands of landless peasants? What about USA policies toward Colombia? What about organizing death squads in El Salvador? What about USA history with Cuba for a almost a whole century before Fidel Castro? What about overthrowing democratically elected governments around the world? What about the arms trade? Again, one could go on and on. There's plenty of material to suggest that the US is one of the GREATEST OBSTACLES TO PEACE...

The only reason the supply side of the USA economy is possible is because organizations like the US Military, IMF, World Bank, etc. deliberately suppress other countries and keep them poor to use for cheap labor to make the supply side of the economy possible. Oh and what about the suppression of USA-dissidents, hundreds alone were killed in the 1890s. More were killed during the "Red Scare" and COINTELPRO era.

Let's see:

Organizing, funding, and arming insurgency groups. Assassinating democratically elected leaders and replacing them with juntas and dictatorships friendly to the USA..burning industries..burning crops..driving peasants off their land to make room for USA corporations..enslaving hundreds of thousands in sweat shops after depriving the people their means to live..spraying carcinogens over crops to starve peasants..bombing villages...(incomplete list)

IF THAT'S NOT TERRORISM, WHAT IS IT THEN!?