Do you support the death penalty?

[Aspiring Humanist]

Should be interesting what the capitalists, quasi-fascists and undesirables of revleft have to say about this

[Dr Mindbender]

Nope, never.

2 reasons-

Dead people cant fight their own case (in the case of a wrongful conviction).

A lifetime in prison is worse than a shorter stint on death row.

[ZrianKobani]

You cant kill a killer to show that killing is wrong.

'Nuff said.

[Black Sheep]

No,because there's no reason to do that.

Regular,common criminals are criminals because their environment,upbringing,education led them to criminal acts.
Mentally ill criminals / pathologic crimnals, well they need psychological help.They are patients.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Why pay for someones lifetime sentence, when rope is cheap, and reusable

[thesadmafioso]

I only support it under pressing circumstances of revolution or under the threat of counterrevolution, wherein certain individuals can pose a threat so tremendous as to justify a very restrained and limited use of such otherwise deplorable tactics. It is philistine to categorically condemn this implement, as historical conditions regrettably demand its use in certain instances of synthesis. Beyond the aforementioned scenarios, I see no reason for its existence though.

[Valdemar]

Why pay for someones lifetime sentence, when rope is cheap, and reusable
This.

Of course in our current society, no, because sometimes it forces people to do crime in order to survive or because of psycholochical pressure and mentally not healthy environment society causes deviation.

In short, in current society they are not problems, problem is Society itself.

If i would be capitalist or right winger, i would support it.
So question is badly formulated...sorry...

[thesadmafioso]

To the apparent majority in support of such unwavering opposition to the death penalty in every imaginable situation, what have you to say of situations wherein such an act would actually prevent death on the larger scale?

For instance, in revolutionary Petrograd a situation arose wherein the reactionary General Kornilov was captured after a failed attempt to coup the provisional government and to establish a military dictatorship over the people, an act which would of essentially brought about an abrupt end to the progress of the revolution. He was detained but later managed to escape. After his escape he went on to resume command of operations against the newly formed Bolshevik government. In this position he proceeded to ravage the soviet countryside, murdering hundreds of innocent civilians. Should the death penalty not of been applied to this dangerous and threatening individual so as to prevent the deaths of hundreds more? This is not even to take into account how many more would of been slaughtered by his forces had he not been eventually defeated by the red army, or the disastrous impact which his interests may of had on the people of the Soviet Federation had he come to power.

[Dr Mindbender]

Why pay for someones lifetime sentence, when rope is cheap, and reusable

because you might hang an innocent person. The dead cant defend themselves.

There is no place for eye for an eye justice in a progressive society.

This sort of punitive barbarism belongs on scumfront.

[Demogorgon]

There are no circumstances under which I would support the death penalty. To anyone who thinks they can come up with a certain situation whereby I might change my mind, I will say right now, that I mean that absolutely literally.

The cruelty alone should be reason enough against it, but even leaving that aside there is the fact that the innocent can be killed, even leaving that aside it costs more than imprisoning people (that's the beauty of "soft on crime" punishments in general incidentally, as well as their other benefits they cost less), but even leaving that aside there is the fact that it is no deterrent and even increases the crime rate. For the reason alone, even a society that only ever executed the guilty with no mistakes ever made, would still have the blood of innocents on its hands.

Incidentally I am not a fan of life imprisonment either, particularly whole life tariffs or "life without parole" as it is called in America.

[jake williams]

I don't support the death penalty as a punishment, and generally speaking I don't support "punishment" at all.

In cases where a person is a significant threat to the safety of others, and where prison is impractical, people have the right to defend themselves, including by force. Sometimes this means executing people. That's not a good thing at all, but sometimes it really is the only option. I don't think that's a realistic situation that's going to face very many of us here at all though.

[Dr Mindbender]

The USA with its skyrocketing prison population should be proof enough that the death penalty doesnt work.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

because you might hang an innocent person. The dead cant defend themselves.

There is no place for eye for an eye justice in a progressive society.

This sort of punitive barbarism belongs on scumfront.

But if there already convicted of murder, they don't need to defend themselves, no?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

The USA with its skyrocketing prison population should be proof enough that the death penalty doesnt work.

What? Only 300 people die from the death penelty a year.

[Dr Mindbender]

But if there already convicted of murder, they don't need to defend themselves, no?

Please tell me you're trolling me...

The bodies responsible for conviction arent infallible.

There is such a thing as being wrongly convicted.

Look at the case of Mumia Abu Jamal.

[Che a chara]

Except in times of conflict and war, where it is legitimised today anyway and would be in a future revolution, I don't really see why we should be seen to be supportive of an act in any other situation that we wish to have abolished in a socialist society. If we wish to perceive that a socialist/communist/anarchist society to be morally, humanely and socially more developed than that of a capitalist one, then there should only be one position to take. plus OP, i take exception to you labelling OIers as 'undesirable' or 'quasi-fascist', as the majority are not.

[Dr Mindbender]

What? Only 300 people die from the death penelty a year.


Yeah but one argument for the death penalty is that its very existance is supposed to act as a deterrent to would be murderers.

Obviously i dont subscribe to that.

[thesadmafioso]

There are no circumstances under which I would support the death penalty. To anyone who thinks they can come up with a certain situation whereby I might change my mind, I will say right now, that I mean that absolutely literally.

The cruelty alone should be reason enough against it, but even leaving that aside there is the fact that the innocent can be killed, even leaving that aside it costs more than imprisoning people (that's the beauty of "soft on crime" punishments in general incidentally, as well as their other benefits they cost less), but even leaving that aside there is the fact that it is no deterrent and even increases the crime rate. For the reason alone, even a society that only ever executed the guilty with no mistakes ever made, would still have the blood of innocents on its hands.

Incidentally I am not a fan of life imprisonment either, particularly whole life tariffs or "life without parole" as it is called in America.

Alright then, I just recently posted an example which exemplifies a theory which you have not refuted in your remarks here. Would you like to defend your thoughts when they are applied to a situation when they cause an excess of death which could be avoided through the tactful use of this act? In my provided situation, I outlined an individual who was irrefutably behind a violent military campaign which set out to establish a military dictatorship. You cannot deny that such was not his intent, and you cannot deny that he was not a danger to the people of Russia given his actions. By merely subjecting him to imprisonment in this unstable political climate, he was all but invited to continue on with his violent efforts against the masses of Russia. How would it not of made sense to permanently subdue this menace to society and this threat to the achievements of the revolution?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Yeah but one argument for the death penalty is that its very existance is supposed to act as a deterrent to would be murderers.

Obviously i dont subscribe to that.
Why be afraid of the death penalty when you have about a 1/400,000 chance of getting it

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Please tell me you're trolling me...

The bodies responsible for conviction arent infallible.

There is such a thing as being wrongly convicted.

Look at the case of Mumia Abu Jamal.
I think that's happend 3 times in the last century. And think of it this way: if you rob a bank, with a gun. And your 20. You get a 20 year sentence. You will be 40 when you get out. You will have no job experience, and will likely not be hired. On top of that, you and I had to pay for his life while in prison.

[Demogorgon]

Alright then, I just recently posted an example which exemplifies a theory which you have not refuted in your remarks here. Would you like to defend your thoughts when they are applied to a situation when they cause an excess of death which could be avoided through the tactful use of this act? In my provided situation, I outlined an individual who was irrefutably behind a violent military campaign which set out to establish a military dictatorship. You cannot deny that such was not his intent, and you cannot deny that he was not a danger to the people of Russia given his actions. By merely subjecting him to imprisonment in this unstable political climate, he was all but invited to continue on with his violent efforts against the masses of Russia. How would it not of made sense to permanently subdue this menace to society and this threat to the achievements of the revolution?Well in the first instance, let me remind you:
To anyone who thinks they can come up with a certain situation whereby I might change my mind, I will say right now, that I mean that absolutely literally.
Furthermore, are you going to claim it is impossible to imprison someone so that they don't escape and go back to what they were doing? Or are you so sure that such a person will obviously be more dangerous alive than dead? Martyrs are more easily created than done away with.

Plus there is the fact that you do not even refer to a criminal situation. Even supporters of the death penalty understand that prisoners of war are not to be killed.

[Decolonize The Left]

The death penalty is state-sanctioned murder.

Given that I oppose the state, I obviously oppose it's supposed legitimacy in murdering its civilians. The death penalty has not only been proven to fail as a deterrent, it is highly costly and serves no real purpose other than to encourage the acceptance of outdated and impractical laws.

- August

[thesadmafioso]

Well in the first instance, let me remind you:
Furthermore, are you going to claim it is impossible to imprison someone so that they don't escape and go back to what they were doing? Or are you so sure that such a person will obviously be more dangerous alive than dead? Martyrs are more easily created than done away with.

Plus there is the fact that you do not even refer to a criminal situation. Even supporters of the death penalty understand that prisoners of war are not to be killed.

Your resolute grasp on ignorance is not a valid counterpoint to my initial assertion. I do not care in the slightest for your shortsighted ignorance, I care more for the process of exposing the faults in your position.

And is that pathetic attempt at a rebuttal suppose to be taken seriously? How much do you know exactly about your typical Tsarist general and their tendencies? Any halfwit of the era with even the slightest bit of political or military acumen would be able to see Kornilov as a tremendous threat to the revolution and to the people of Russia, so please spare us the fallacy riddle and irrelevant niceties of your modern liberal thought and try to analysis this situation through a material lens of the era.

Also, Kornilov was certainly not a martyr after his death. After indiscriminately killing hundreds of innocent civilians with troops under his command, his image was more or less tarnished to a point where such martyrdom was for all intents and purposes impossible to achieve. I would suggest you make an attempt at understanding the historical facts of a situation before making your way into an argument of this sort, for future reference.

And he was not a prisoner of war as he was a non state actor incapable of enacting a declaration of war, so it was in fact more a criminal situation than anything else. Perhaps your legalese could use some touching up as well.

[Decolonize The Left]

^ Perhaps you could stop getting off on imagining what it would be like to be in historical Russia and actually address the topic at hand?

- August

[thesadmafioso]

^ Perhaps you could stop getting off on imagining what it would be like to be in historical Russia and actually address the topic at hand?

- August

One of the options for this poll dealt with conditional support for the use of this act, thus I raised a condition wherein its use was entirely justifiable so as to bolster the viability of holding that position. How is that not considered to be a direct approach to the topic at hand?

[Aspiring Humanist]

I think that's happend 3 times in the last century. And think of it this way: if you rob a bank, with a gun. And your 20. You get a 20 year sentence. You will be 40 when you get out. You will have no job experience, and will likely not be hired. On top of that, you and I had to pay for his life while in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate#Execution_of_innocent_pe ople

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate#Execution_of_innocent_pe ople

I'm sorry I didn't know the Exact amount. But still that's less that the city of jonesport, Maine. There where 400 people there

[Aspiring Humanist]

I'm sorry I didn't know the Exact amount. But still that's less that the city of jonesport, Maine. There where 400 people there

Thats just a few of the ones they know are innocent...it seems like every day forensic evidence proves the innocence of someone. This isn't even taking account the vast number of african-americans who were scapegoated for the rape/murder/lies of a white woman in the past 200 years

[Decolonize The Left]

One of the options for this poll dealt with conditional support for the use of this act, thus I raised a condition wherein its use was entirely justifiable so as to bolster the viability of holding that position. How is that not considered to be a direct approach to the topic at hand?

I'm sure Demo can handle your nonsense, but here's what he said:

Furthermore, are you going to claim it is impossible to imprison someone so that they don't escape and go back to what they were doing? Or are you so sure that such a person will obviously be more dangerous alive than dead?
He also noted:

Plus there is the fact that you do not even refer to a criminal situation. Even supporters of the death penalty understand that prisoners of war are not to be killed.

To which you babbled on about how he was ignorant blah blah blah but you didn't address his points (so I quoted them here).

But I'll bite:

To the apparent majority in support of such unwavering opposition to the death penalty in every imaginable situation, what have you to say of situations wherein such an act would actually prevent death on the larger scale?

This is basic utilitarianism and it falls, as all utilitarian arguments do, to simple counter-arguments. For what you are attempting to do here is weigh the value of one life against another, yet you fail to acknowledge that value is relative and subjective. For your mother and father's life are worth far more than Hitler and Bush's, are they not? Yet there is a simple 2 for 2 scenario.
What if I add to the scenario and say it's Hitler, Bush, and Mussolini vs. your parents. Now it's 3 to 2. According to your above quote, you must accept that the 3 are worth more than the 2, no?

- August

[Obs]

I'm not sure what to click on that poll, since the only crime for which I would even consider a death penalty is capitalism, and even then only for the very worst offenders.

[L.A.P.]

I don't at all support the death penalty under the current justice system in capitalist society but would for it in certain circumstances under socialist society. I used to be extremely pro-death penalty all my life even as Liberal whom was quite left compared to others but I can't trust a bourgeois state to have the power of life and death over people so easily. Plus the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal has been very influential on my opinion of the death penalty.

[Kenco Smooth]

Why pay for someones lifetime sentence, when rope is cheap, and reusable

Because effective legal consult is terrifyingly expensive in terms of both money and time. Often more so than a life sentence given that the appeals process can run up to 20 years or more in the US.

And if you cut either the money or time spent the odds of killing an innocent person goes through the roof.

This isn't even beginning to touch on the essentially biased nature a trial with capital punishment as an option has or the racial and class discrimination that is rife throughout the US system (and which will not disappear over night after the glorious revolution, don;t kid yourselves here).

[Viet Minh]

If someone has killed two or more people, deliberately, and seperately, I woud be more inclined to support the death penalty, or possibly a voluntary assisted suicide perhaps. But as a general rule, no, fuck that.

[Che a chara]

State sanctioned execution should preferably and normally be opposed, but opinions may vary depending on the prevailing conditions in society -- pre-revolutionary, where the capitalist state is still in power (it should then be opposed), during the revolution, where a worker's state may be in transition (where the death penalty/execution might be necessary or is supported by the worker's movement), and in a post-revolutionary society (where it should be opposed, and hopefully not be needed as punishment due to class emancipation)

[Dr Mindbender]

I think that's happend 3 times in the last century. And think of it this way: if you rob a bank, with a gun. And your 20. You get a 20 year sentence. You will be 40 when you get out. You will have no job experience, and will likely not be hired. On top of that, you and I had to pay for his life while in prison.

Che Guevara once said the 'life of a single human is worth more than all the property of the richest person on Earth'.

To arrive at the conclusion that death is better than a scenario of difficulty of finding work is a pretty repugnant one. There is such a thing as adult education. Besides which, I dont know about other countries but in the UK convicts get to partake in education while in prison. Some even leave prison with qualifications earned while incarcerated.

[Dr Mindbender]

In regards to the pedophile question my solution is to put them on a remote island somewhere with a load of child sized sex dolls (yes they do exist).

[Hivemind]

You guys seem to put so much emphasis on human life and create meaning where no meaning exists. What is this? Some sort of sanctity of life bullshit?

That being said, I am divided on this issue, and it depends on the system. In the current system, state sanctioned murder is quite hypocritical and I don't support it. However, if a change of system would occur, I don't know how I'd feel. I feel like it's a waste of time and resources (notice how I didn't say money, unless the change of system would result in something where money would still exist [I certainly hope not]) to rehabilitate some criminals.

I'd rather focus on changing stressful environments and eliminating things that turn people into criminals. IE making sure everyone has food and shelter and shit like that, eliminate abusiveness in families that causes children to grow up a certain way (for example: batshit crazy murderers), and stuff like that. That seems much more important than trying to rehabilitate people who don't even matter in the grand scheme of things. If you kill ten people to satiate some sick lust and nothing can "cure" you, a bullet is cheaper to use than extended usage of psychiatric wards or shit like that.

Fix the problem before it starts, though, and you won't need to cure people, whether with bullets or psychiatric help. That's my two cents.

[Le Socialiste]

The death penalty is as barbaric as the society that allows it. Not only that, it doesn't work. There is no justification for it in my mind, and frankly nothing is going to change that.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm not sure what to click on that poll, since the only crime for which I would even consider a death penalty is capitalism, and even then only for the very worst offenders.
Likewise, I think that the death penalty should only exist for extreme measures (most during a war) and for terrible war criminals.

[LegendZ]

In regards to the pedophile question my solution is to put them on a remote island somewhere with a load of child sized sex dolls (yes they do exist).
Japan. :laugh:

[Die Rote Fahne]

The problem with the prison systems of North America, and elsewhere, are the emphasis on punishment, rather than rehabilitation.

[Princess Luna]

Never, also to the people who voted Yes, I support the death penalty for a wide range of crimes what others crimes besides murder do you think should carry the DP?

[Hivemind]

Never, also to the people who voted Yes, I support the death penalty for a wide range of crimes what others crimes besides murder do you think should carry the DP?

You stole a candy bar?
Bullet to the head.

You went above the speed limit?
Noose around the neck.

Punched a guy in the face?
Lethal injection.

Just kidding, I didn't vote that :laugh:

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Armed robbery, fraud of over 5 million dollars, rape, possession of child pornography, murder, and many more

[Die Rote Fahne]

Armed robbery, fraud of over 5 million dollars, rape, possession of child pornography, murder, and many more
So you think that ending someones life and basically freeing them from any punishment, besides the short time prior to their execution, is a good idea? Not to mention the wide range of times people are innocent, and are sent to fry. How about the fact that it costs the tax payer more? I mean, their are numerous issues with the death penalty, and for anyone on this forum to support it out of anything other than irrational emotion, is very unlikely.

So, it's simple. Out of emotion, not reason, you believe in the death penalty. The logic isn't with you. Unless you believe in hell, the death penalty is a far cry from punishment.

*Boo hoo Im gonna die in 5 hours for possession of child porn, boo hoo*
*5 hours later*
*Dead. Consciousness gone. Justice served?*

As well, why not rehabilitation? Someone rehabilitated, with no likelihood to repeat (unlike people merely punished), will live with the guilt of what they did, and be integrated back into society.

The death penalty is a way of saying "I don't care WHY, I just care that it happened.". It is now, and always was, a barbaric, emotional, flawed form of punishment.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

yea because the lethal injection is expensive, rope is cheap and as a bonus reusable

[Die Rote Fahne]

yea because the lethal injection is expensive, rope is cheap and as a bonus reusable
Nice that you only "counter" that one point. Let me explain, by quoting Amnesty International:


Death Penalty Cost


"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."

--California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (http://www.ccfaj.org/rr-dp-official.html), July 1, 2008
Recent Cost Studies



A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit (http://www.kslegislature.org/postaudit/audits_perform/04pa03a.pdf))
In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
(2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)
In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
(Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008 (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411625_md_death_penalty.pdf))
In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
(California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice (http://www.ccfaj.org/rr-dp-official.html), July 2008)

The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.


Trials in which the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence have two separate and distinct phases: conviction (guilt/innocence) and sentencing. Special motions and extra time for jury selection typically precede such trials.
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, taxpayers first incur all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).

The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:


Reducing the resources available for crime prevention, mental health treatment, education and rehabilitation, meaningful victims' services, and drug treatment programs.
Diverting it from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse.
Emergency services, creating jobs, and police & crime prevention were the three highest rated priorities for use of fiscal resources.
Schools/libraries, public health, and roads/transportation also ranked higher than the death penalty.







Unless you are a Stalinist. In which case, I'm not going to go any further in this discussion.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

what would being a stalinist have to do with anything? what about the other 46 states, did those just disappear? and about your other post, so what, there conscience is gone, why do they feel bad about having child pornography. they obviously didnt feel to bad that they had it. and if you murder someone because he was your bullie during school, that makes it completely right, right? and besides, until we start turning prisoners into slaves until there time is up, there really is no torture
and thats 123 people that have been wrongly convicted in 40ish years
and rehabilitation system needs to be redone(doing drugs gives you a check from the government, no questions asked)

[#FF0000]

Why pay for someones lifetime sentence, when rope is cheap, and reusable

Death penalties cost more than life sentences actually. And not because of the method of execution, necessarily.

But don't let facts keep you from using that zinger instead of a real argument. It's a hoot, that one.


and thats 123 people that have been wrongly convicted in 40ish years

123 that we know of, and frankly, one innocent person being executed is already too much.

But shit, guy, who cares about killing people who didn't do anything as long as that bloodlust is sated.

[#FF0000]

hey guys i have an idea. lets fight the state and at the same time give the state power to kill people gubgubgubgugbugb

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

hey guys i have an idea. lets fight the state and at the same time give the state power to kill people gubgubgubgugbugb
and there going to kill you no matter if they have the power to do so

[#FF0000]

and there going to kill you no matter if they have the power to do so

ah of course the "fuck it whatever" argument.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

ah of course the "fuck it whatever" argument.
of course the "anti-fuck it whatever" argument

[#FF0000]

of course the "anti-fuck it whatever" argument

my jokes are funnier when I say them.

Anyway my point is you're dumb and what you said about life sentences and death penalties and all that is dumb and you should actually think and reason things out instead of opting for the position that makes you look most like a big strong stalinist hardman tuffguy

[Aspiring Humanist]

Armed robbery, fraud of over 5 million dollars, rape, possession of child pornography, murder, and many more

9/10 times armed robbery is done out of desperation...

[GPDP]

There is no rational argument for the death penalty as a method of criminal justice. All arguments made in its favor are either easily debunked or boil down to an irrational lust for vengeance. It should be left behind along with torture as a relic of the Dark Ages.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

i have thought, a lot. you call me dumb, when you should looking at how many people are in our fucking prisons. roughly 7.5 million people. the most in the world. lets see there are approximately 130 million working americans. so thats about 17 people paying for one persons in prison.

[#FF0000]

i have thought, a lot. you call me dumb, when you should looking at how many people are in our fucking prisons. roughly 7.5 million people. the most in the world. lets see there are approximately 130 million working americans. so thats about 17 people paying for one persons in prison.

You realize that hardly any of that bloated prison population are in for crimes punishable by death, right? Tons and tons and tons are locked up on some pretty petty things e.g. drug charges.

And your solution is to kill them lol

[GPDP]

i have thought, a lot. you call me dumb, when you should looking at how many people are in our fucking prisons. roughly 7.5 million people. the most in the world. lets see there are approximately 130 million working americans. so thats about 17 people paying for one persons in prison.

...I don't even know where to start with this. Are you saying all those prisoners should be put out of their misery? Moreover, are you implying all those prisoners are rightfully there?

That's honestly what I'm getting out of this post. If not, then why bring up prison population in a thread about the death penalty?

Honest to god, I hope I'm just misreading your post.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

hello im #FF0000 and i cant tell a good argument if it stabbed me in the face, then tea-bagged me for 4 hours
im not saying that we should kill all prisoners or put them out of there misery, its just along with that, 6 people are paying for one persons employment. thats TOO much

[Aspiring Humanist]

i have thought, a lot. you call me dumb, when you should looking at how many people are in our fucking prisons. roughly 7.5 million people. the most in the world. lets see there are approximately 130 million working americans. so thats about 17 people paying for one persons in prison.

Your solution is to kill them?

[#FF0000]

hello im #FF0000 and i cant tell a good argument if it stabbed me in the face, then tea-bagged me for 4 hours

You're not funny, and you're not good at arguments. I'd also get this uh, weird violent streak under control too, guy. You don't have much going for you here.


im not saying that we should kill all prisoners or put them out of there misery, its just along with that 6 people are paying for one persons employment. thats TOO much

You realize the whole thing is so expensive because in part of the death penalty.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

You're not funny, and you're not good at arguments. I'd also get this uh, weird violent streak under control too, guy. You don't have much going for you here.



You realize the whole thing is so expensive because in part of the death penalty.
yes im on weird violent streak. and again with "what about the other 46 states?"

[#FF0000]

yes im on weird violent streak. and again with "what about the other 46 states?"

What about them

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

What about them
you know what, this is an uphill battle, i'm tired, you think i am dumb. im just done. but you should be more open about other ideals than your own. and by other 46 states, what are the costs for the death penalty compared to the cost of life imprisonment

[Die Rote Fahne]

what would being a stalinist have to do with anything? what about the other 46 states, did those just disappear? and about your other post, so what, there conscience is gone, why do they feel bad about having child pornography. they obviously didnt feel to bad that they had it. and if you murder someone because he was your bullie during school, that makes it completely right, right? and besides, until we start turning prisoners into slaves until there time is up, there really is no torture
and thats 123 people that have been wrongly convicted in 40ish years
and rehabilitation system needs to be redone(doing drugs gives you a check from the government, no questions asked)
Stalin liked to kill people. For lots of reasons. You support the guy, you support his actions.

I would say that the trend stays the same. However, to judge the death penalty on cost alone is not the point. It is merely a supporting argument. One which I can toss to the wayside if you can find a state with the death penalty, that pays more for life imprisonment than the DP.

Their conscience is gone? I said consciousness (being awake/aware/alive). That is all that is lost in the death penalty, and they don't even know, because of that.

No, murdering someone because they bullied you, is not right.

123 that we know of. Still, as FF has said, that's 123 too many.

Rehabilitation does not refer to just drugs. It refers to all criminal activity, the activity that is harmful to others in my opinion (murder, rape, child abuse, etc.) that should be the focus of rehabilitation in prison.

Rehab facilities FOR DRUGS need to be free, open and OUTSIDE of prison.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

hmm, good point about the stalins actions, and hell, he didnt just singlehandedly end hunger, industrialize a country, and make a shithole a super power. but we dont need a tendancy war

the internet, can only go so far.

what?

agreed

true, but nothing is perfect

true, but as i said it needs much reformation

yes, but you they dont need checks every month if there not at rehabilitation

[Aspiring Humanist]

you know what, this is an uphill battle, i'm tired, you think i am dumb. im just done. but you should be more open about other ideals than your own. and by other 46 states, what are the costs for the death penalty compared to the cost of life imprisonment

You're willing to end a human life to save money? This is a socialist forum, right? Where everyone pretty much agrees that, “The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth.”(Che Guevara)?

Oh wait
This is revleft I forgot

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

You're willing to end a human life to save money? This is a socialist forum, right? Where everyone pretty much agrees that, “The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth.”(Che Guevara)?

Oh wait
This is revleft I forgot
so by your theory, murder is completely acceptable and cant be punished at all, because it deters someones quality of life?
i do agree, but as long as we live in a capitalistic society, we live by capitalistic ideals

[Die Rote Fahne]

hmm, good point about the stalins actions, and hell, he didnt just singlehandedly end hunger, industrialize a country, and make a shithole a super power. but we dont need a tendancy war
So, Stalin is fully justified in killing millions of people for political and batshit reasons, out of paranoia, just because he industrialized Russia, and he "singlehandedly ended hunger"...the shit doesn't fall far from the bat.

I'm not that interested in a tendency war either. Just making a point.


the internet, can only go so far.Well, you have no case. As I said, i will abandon the cost argument.


what?I said that the person's consciousness is gone when you kill them. That's your punishment. To cease their feeling, awareness, pain, etc.


agreedOkay, then what was your point about murdering bullies?


true, but nothing is perfectWow...just wow...you are justifying the STATE SANCTIONED MURDER of innocent people by saying the system isn't perfect...are you serious? Reactionary much...


true, but as i said it needs much reformationYes, prison needs reformation to focus on rehabilitation and not punishment.


yes, but you they dont need checks every month if there not at rehabilitationWho doesn't need cheques for what?

[Die Rote Fahne]

so by your theory, murder is completely acceptable and cant be punished at all, because it deters someones quality of life?
i do agree, but as long as we live in a capitalistic society, we live by capitalistic ideals
5hfYJsQAhl0

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Wow...just wow...you are justifying the STATE SANCTIONED MURDER of innocent people by saying the system isn't perfect...only a matter of time before you are restricted I think.
would you rather have a messed the fuck up serial killer alive in prison? and im not justifying anything. there are problems with everything, and us arguing will not fix them, will they?

[Die Rote Fahne]

would you rather have a messed the fuck up serial killer alive in prison? and im not justifying anything. there are problems with everything, and us arguing will not fix them, will they?
Yes, i would rather them in prison than sent to death. Solely on the reason that the person could be innocent. Even if that is only a 0.0001% chance of innocence.

Neither will living by capitalistic ideals, just because we are in a capitalistic society.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Yes, i would rather them in prison than sent to death. Solely on the reason that the person could be innocent. Even if that is only a 0.0001% chance of innocence.

Neither will living by capitalistic ideals, just because we are in a capitalistic society.
damn, you have a point

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

5hfYJsQAhl0
i laughed for 10 minutes

[Comrade Crow]

Yes but only in certain cases. Under capitalism and currently, would I support the death penalty? Absolutely not, during the revolution? Of course, I do. Afterwards? Would be dependent upon the circumstances.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yes but only in certain cases. Under capitalism and currently, would I support the death penalty? Absolutely not, during the revolution? Of course, I do. Afterwards? Would be dependent upon the circumstances.
What say you to the possibility of innocence?

[Comrade Crow]

What say you to the possibility of innocence?

What type of situation? During the revolution or in a post-revolutionary society? Post-revoution, I don't really support the death penalty unless it's like a vicious murderer or rapist or some other habitually violent criminal, whom can't be rehabilitated, whom has tried to harm/murder staff at a mental facility and so forth, essentially a (and I hate the use this term here but) "rabid animal," then, I think it would be best to just, you know, "neutralize," them, for the good of the whole. Otherwise, no, and the possibility of innocence is a motivating factor. If we're talking about during the revolution, it's hard to say, under those circumstances do we, as the proletariat, trying to seize the means of production and defeat/take over the state, have the luxury, to have a full out trial for such things?

[Le Socialiste]

as long as we live in a capitalistic society, we live by capitalistic ideals


Dude, the reason why we're leftists (whether we be communists, socialists, anarchists, or somewhere in-between) is because we recognize the irreconciliable damage capitalism and its ideals bring to society and the world. We live in a capitalistic society, and rather than blindly adhereing to its ideals of subjugation, oppression, and division, we choose to fight it. That's what leftism fights - the ideals of capitalism and the state that maintains it. Destruction of both is - and should be - the ideal of any socialistic society.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

true, but are you going to give your life for what you believe in?
i dont know what that has to do with anything, but yes you have a point. and thats a very good way to put it

[Die Rote Fahne]

What type of situation? During the revolution or in a post-revolutionary society? Post-revoution, I don't really support the death penalty unless it's like a vicious murderer or rapist or some other habitually violent criminal, whom can't be rehabilitated, whom has tried to harm/murder staff at a mental facility and so forth, essentially a (and I hate the use this term here but) "rabid animal," then, I think it would be best to just, you know, "neutralize," them, for the good of the whole. Otherwise, no, and the possibility of innocence is a motivating factor. If we're talking about during the revolution, it's hard to say, under those circumstances do we, as the proletariat, trying to seize the means of production and defeat/take over the state, have the luxury, to have a full out trial for such things?

So instead of incarceration, we just murder them?

Scenario:

Man is accused of raping a teenage girl, because she claims he did it. She is a bit bruised and beat up, some torn clothes.

You're telling me that this man should be executed without trial? Just because "we don't have the time right now". That's insane.

[thesadmafioso]

I'm sure Demo can handle your nonsense, but here's what he said:

He also noted:


To which you babbled on about how he was ignorant blah blah blah but you didn't address his points (so I quoted them here).

But I'll bite:


This is basic utilitarianism and it falls, as all utilitarian arguments do, to simple counter-arguments. For what you are attempting to do here is weigh the value of one life against another, yet you fail to acknowledge that value is relative and subjective. For your mother and father's life are worth far more than Hitler and Bush's, are they not? Yet there is a simple 2 for 2 scenario.
What if I add to the scenario and say it's Hitler, Bush, and Mussolini vs. your parents. Now it's 3 to 2. According to your above quote, you must accept that the 3 are worth more than the 2, no?

- August

I actually provided a proper response to his comment which claimed my proposed scenario to be of a non-criminal nature, one which was based in a thorough analysis of the situation from a common legal perspective. I addressed the fact that Kornilov was a non state actor with no authority to mount a baseless military campaign against the provisional government, which made him a criminal more than anything else.

I never stated that this has to be made into an equation of straight numbers, you are simply attacking a blatantly fabricated straw man with this line of argumentation. I think it is safe to say that Kornilov's life did not outweigh the hundreds of innocent lives which his men took, and from that we can conclude that there are indeed situations wherein this sort of measure can be applied to some positive effect. This is hardly an argument based in utilitarianism so much as it is one based in historical materialism, some conditions demand the application of this sort of drastic action in order to facility a more effectual transfer of power to the working class and so as to reduce the degree of violence involved in the process.

[ComradeMan]

Although in some cases I must admit my knee-jerk reaction would be to string the bastards from a tree, it's wrong to kill and killing to demonstrate killing is wrong is hypocritical in my opinion.

I do acknowledge however that in some cases of wanton and sadistic cruelty, like this recent case of the boy in NY I would find it hard to restrain myself if I were the arresting officer or even the judge.

Dura lex sed lex.

[cheguvera]

A lifetime in prison is worse than a shorter stint on death row.
__________________

This is true.But when there is a death penalty , criminal think twice before commit a crime.human nature is a greed for life.but they are scared of death.
Death penalty lowers crime rate.On the other hand tax payers do not have to feed criminals.

[RGacky3]

No it does'nt lower crime rate, criminals who commit death penatly crimes are not the type that would be detered by a death penalty if they are not detered by life in prison, most of them have psychotic problems.

[ComradeMan]

This is true.But when there is a death penalty , criminal think twice before commit a crime.human nature is a greed for life.but they are scared of death. Death penalty lowers crime rate.On the other hand tax payers do not have to feed criminals.

Err.... in short...... no.

[Kenco Smooth]

This is true.But when there is a death penalty , criminal think twice before commit a crime.human nature is a greed for life.but they are scared of death.
Death penalty lowers crime rate.On the other hand tax payers do not have to feed criminals.

Did I just see a communist appeal to 'human nature'? :laugh:

1) death penalty doesn't lower crime rate.
2) The death penalty system in the US ends up costing more to put a man to death than hold him in prison for life. It's also worth noting that the provisions for legal aid for those in death row is pathetic and disgusting and any hope of a fair trial would require significantly more state payment for legal aid.

Death penalty trials are inherently biased. If capital punishment is an option the odds of the jury convicting the defendant are significantly higher than if the case was identical but capital punishment was not an option. A fair trial is an impossibility when capital punishment is an option.

[Demogorgon]

Your resolute grasp on ignorance is not a valid counterpoint to my initial assertion. I do not care in the slightest for your shortsighted ignorance, I care more for the process of exposing the faults in your position.

And is that pathetic attempt at a rebuttal suppose to be taken seriously? How much do you know exactly about your typical Tsarist general and their tendencies? Any halfwit of the era with even the slightest bit of political or military acumen would be able to see Kornilov as a tremendous threat to the revolution and to the people of Russia, so please spare us the fallacy riddle and irrelevant niceties of your modern liberal thought and try to analysis this situation through a material lens of the era.

Also, Kornilov was certainly not a martyr after his death. After indiscriminately killing hundreds of innocent civilians with troops under his command, his image was more or less tarnished to a point where such martyrdom was for all intents and purposes impossible to achieve. I would suggest you make an attempt at understanding the historical facts of a situation before making your way into an argument of this sort, for future reference.

And he was not a prisoner of war as he was a non state actor incapable of enacting a declaration of war, so it was in fact more a criminal situation than anything else. Perhaps your legalese could use some touching up as well.
You don't really get to accuse others of fallacies when most of your post is taken up trying to insult me and throwing in ad hominems.

Let us turn to what you did offer in way of argument. Once we strip away the "your a liberal", "you don't understand this or that" and so on, I believe we are left with a handful of arguments.

1. My point on martyrdom did not apply in this situation
2. You cannot be a prisoner of war if you are a non state actor, hence this was a criminal case.

This is pretty thin pickings so let's add in another one from your later reply to August West:

3. Drastic action is sometimes required to secure workers power.

Now before we begin, we do need to point out a few things that put your already weak argument in context. First of all you are attempting to back your argument with a ninety year old case from a time period you cannot possibly fully understand. It may sound great to bring up the Russian Revolution, but it isn't that persuasive in the modern context. Moreover, the case you have picked is one where there wasn't even any execution. Kornilov was killed when the building he was in was shelled. So you are giving as a good example of an execution a case where there wasn't even an execution... This requires us to be a little hypothetical I think.

But to those three points I identified.

1. Maybe, maybe not. Like I say your choice of argument means we are purely dealing in hypotheticals anyway. Certainly many executions (or other killings) of opponents gives Martyrdom even if they have done terrible things. We see many pretty appalling terrorists these days being venerated as martyrs after their deaths after all.

2. You want to be very very careful with this argument. In the first instance it is hardly agreed upon anyway. That is why the Bush policy of taking prisoners to Guantanamo Bay and refusing to grant prisoner of war status is so controversial. Legally as well as morally. Moreover as someone whose self identified political position is support of overthrowing the existing society which may in many cases require war against existing Governments, you want to be very careful before you claim that that cannot be considered a war situation and purely a criminal matter.

3. Drastic action may be required, but that does not automatically mean that any such action is justified. Moreover the Russian Revolution did not actually lead to a worker run society so whatever happened there cannot be taken as a good precedent for events that could lead to a succesful revolution in the future.

So to sum up, the Ninety year old example you brought up barely even applies unless you make some hypothetical assumptions, and even when you do it does not hold up very well. Moreover it has little to do with modern discussions. You may feel that my argument was poor, but in actual fact your own position is the deeply faulty one. Perhaps you should come up with a better argument.

BTW I have ignored the personal attacks in your post for most of my own, but at the end I will respond to one of them, because it does not take the power of foresight to see that it will come up in your next post. You threw out a meaningless charge of "liberalism" against me. In common with most people on this board that like to throw that word around, I doubt you really know what it means and why one should not be a liberal. So let me enlighten you on liberalism and the death penalty.

LIberalism was historically very comfortable with capital punishment both in theory and in practice. While a few of its thinkers (such as Voltaire) opposed it, most were in favour of it and in the Liberal Revolutions that replaced the old order with new Liberal Governments, the new Governments continued to practice the Death Penalty with great enthusiasm.

The wave of abolition only came for the most part when liberalism found itself seriously challenged by socialism and social democracy. Where liberalism remained least challenged in this way, such as the United States or Japan, the Death Penalty remains. In other words liberalism is historically pro death penalty and its move to abolition came under pressure from more progressive forces. So kindly reconsider who might be the liberal here.

[tbasherizer]

Progressive forces should never have to institutionalize the retaliatory murder of criminals. The reactionary forces that pose a threat to the revolution can be re-educated, exiled, or maybe even tolerated. The only time lethal force should be used by the progressive forces in a revolution is during the militant defense of peoples' power immediately following a workers' takeover, should the bourgeoisie decide to send in the Freikorps or Black Hundreds.

Even as supposedly universally correct historically materialistic Marxists (anarchists, whatever), we are fallible, and we cannot allow the waste of someone's life to be due to our own error. We need to present something better to society. In other words, we can't establish a gallows state but excuse it because it's our gallows state.

In viewing the death penalty as a deterrent to crime, the pseudo-communists who recommend the death penalty for theft, rape, etc. deny two foundational tenets of socialist thought: the material basis of human behaviour and the idea that socialism will improve material conditions. What is your revolution worth if it doesn't remove the material conditions that lead to people offending? Why should people fight for the establishment of a society that needs explicit death threats to maintain itself when the implicit ones of capitalism are easier to bear?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I'm still waiting for proof of the other 46 states that it cost more for the death penalty

[Principia Ethica]

Only 34 states have the death penalty. . .

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm still waiting for proof of the other 46 states that it cost more for the death penalty
The burden of proof is on you.

The lack of ethical/moral standing of the death penalty should be the key concern here.

If it is cheaper to torture 100 children to share than it is to educate them and show them why sharing is good, doesn't make the former the correct choice.

[Game Girl]

My feelings...are mixed about this subject.

On one hadn, I believe people who commit violent crimes like murder, rape, terrorism, child abuse and such are a danger to society, who should die to make society a little safer.

On the other hand, I believe the fate of a persons life should not be up to us. What would make us any better than a murderer. Execution is just lawful murder. At the end of the day, a murderer has a family as well. A family that will be hurt by his/her execution.

So...I really..don't know what to believe...I try to avoid this subject as much as possible.

[thesadmafioso]

You don't really get to accuse others of fallacies when most of your post is taken up trying to insult me and throwing in ad hominems.

Let us turn to what you did offer in way of argument. Once we strip away the "your a liberal", "you don't understand this or that" and so on, I believe we are left with a handful of arguments.

1. My point on martyrdom did not apply in this situation
2. You cannot be a prisoner of war if you are a non state actor, hence this was a criminal case.

This is pretty thin pickings so let's add in another one from your later reply to August West:

3. Drastic action is sometimes required to secure workers power.

Now before we begin, we do need to point out a few things that put your already weak argument in context. First of all you are attempting to back your argument with a ninety year old case from a time period you cannot possibly fully understand. It may sound great to bring up the Russian Revolution, but it isn't that persuasive in the modern context. Moreover, the case you have picked is one where there wasn't even any execution. Kornilov was killed when the building he was in was shelled. So you are giving as a good example of an execution a case where there wasn't even an execution... This requires us to be a little hypothetical I think.

But to those three points I identified.

1. Maybe, maybe not. Like I say your choice of argument means we are purely dealing in hypotheticals anyway. Certainly many executions (or other killings) of opponents gives Martyrdom even if they have done terrible things. We see many pretty appalling terrorists these days being venerated as martyrs after their deaths after all.

2. You want to be very very careful with this argument. In the first instance it is hardly agreed upon anyway. That is why the Bush policy of taking prisoners to Guantanamo Bay and refusing to grant prisoner of war status is so controversial. Legally as well as morally. Moreover as someone whose self identified political position is support of overthrowing the existing society which may in many cases require war against existing Governments, you want to be very careful before you claim that that cannot be considered a war situation and purely a criminal matter.

3. Drastic action may be required, but that does not automatically mean that any such action is justified. Moreover the Russian Revolution did not actually lead to a worker run society so whatever happened there cannot be taken as a good precedent for events that could lead to a succesful revolution in the future.

So to sum up, the Ninety year old example you brought up barely even applies unless you make some hypothetical assumptions, and even when you do it does not hold up very well. Moreover it has little to do with modern discussions. You may feel that my argument was poor, but in actual fact your own position is the deeply faulty one. Perhaps you should come up with a better argument.

BTW I have ignored the personal attacks in your post for most of my own, but at the end I will respond to one of them, because it does not take the power of foresight to see that it will come up in your next post. You threw out a meaningless charge of "liberalism" against me. In common with most people on this board that like to throw that word around, I doubt you really know what it means and why one should not be a liberal. So let me enlighten you on liberalism and the death penalty.

LIberalism was historically very comfortable with capital punishment both in theory and in practice. While a few of its thinkers (such as Voltaire) opposed it, most were in favour of it and in the Liberal Revolutions that replaced the old order with new Liberal Governments, the new Governments continued to practice the Death Penalty with great enthusiasm.

The wave of abolition only came for the most part when liberalism found itself seriously challenged by socialism and social democracy. Where liberalism remained least challenged in this way, such as the United States or Japan, the Death Penalty remains. In other words liberalism is historically pro death penalty and its move to abolition came under pressure from more progressive forces. So kindly reconsider who might be the liberal here.

That's a lovely post, but the issue here is that you have fallen into the classic and ever so dreaded straw man fallacy. You misrepresented my position and have made a slew of arguments based upon your limited selection of what I did and did not say, making your post more or less worthless.

First off, I never unilaterally stated that a non state actor must always be treated in a criminal manner, such remarks were more a reference to the state of this particular conflict. You excluded my mentions of key factors such as support among the general population for those actions and their general political aims so as to facilitate the simplification of my position for your own ease in refuting it.

My point of violence being needed on occasion to seize power on behalf of the working class was far more nuanced than that, I made note of how making such a concessions alleviates the degree of violence involved in the process if this methodology is applied in a restrained yet effectual sense. Once more we see an instance of you simply ignoring key pillars of my argument so that you may aimlessly flail about in an attempt to refute them with a bit more ease.

Yes, my case obviously requires an elementary degree of inference, to state such is frivolous for it does not lessen the brunt of my point. The degree of what would need to be implied from this example for it to be a fitting point is almost non existent, it is certainly not enough for you to circumnavigate the heart of my argument.

And let me be clear with this next point. I do not care in the slightest for your opinion. I don't care if you don't find the example relevant to the modern context and I certainly do not care if your cognitive abilities are not capable enough of drawing the rather basic point from my example on the pathetically weak grounds that one needs to imply obvious conclusions for them in order for them to function. If you honestly fancy yourself worthy of my time and deserving of a response then I would suggest that you cease in your incessant drive to aimlessly waste my time and deal with the actual substance of my argument as depicted in this example. You are only making a fool of yourself by insisting upon your reliance on the straw man, it serves you no purpose. Oh the bitter irony of being subjected to insults of my knowledge on matters of revolutionary history while at the same time bearing witness to this sort of tactless nonsense of fallacy in argumentation.

But allow me to digress back to the rest of your skewered interpretation of my 'points'.

1. I do not care about other situations or what you think of them. We are discussing this particular situation and other readily comparable situations wherein the theory exposed in this example can be applicable. Do not draw away from the point. We know that Kornilov has not been made a martyr by history in his death on the front, and this same logic can be applied easily enough to how his treatment would of been had he been executed by the provisional government. Perhaps there might of been a brief period in the Civil War where his image may of been of some use to the White Army, but beyond that period he would certainly of returned to his reviled position in history. Regardless of this, the threat which he posed on the field of battle far outweighed any he may of had in death as a martyr, making it a logical political choice to carry out such an act in relation to Kornilov.

2. I would direct you back to my introductory comments for a response to this misinformed argument, as it is based in a false representation of my original statements. You seem to of forsaken factors of revolutionary support and political alignment entirely, elements which I referenced and was fully aware of when crafting my comments, making your analysis one not fit as a rebuttal to my initial point.

3. The philistine thought on display in this section which deals with the Russian Revolution does not merit any serious thought, as its defeat would likely derail the conversation entirely into a embarrassing assault on the progress represented by the RSFSR and the later CCCP. As for the remainder of this numerical grouping, the proletariat will come to victory in its struggles with the bourgeoisie using what tactics prove themselves to be the most effectual at curbing the volatility of the process, communist morality is not burdened by the categorical failings of which bourgeois thought so often times is. If a measure such as this is carefully applied to exceedingly dangerous figures in an insecure situation of revolution, where the momentum of the movement can be lost by one misstep, then any proper revolutionary should not be absolutely opposed to the possibility of its use in order to secure the well being of the revolutionary masses over that of the disdainful bourgeoisie which seek to annihilate the progress which they represent. To think in such an unwavering matter on matters of this sort is to crudely apply moralistic thinking to a context where it holds no rightful place.

So in brief summary, your failed effort to comprehend the rather understandable and thorough example which I provided for your own ease had led you into creating a fragmented and logically deprived assortment of cascading blunders loosely attached to the topic of discussion at hand. It would be wise of you to not confuse your own intellectual failings in regards to comprehension with the solvency of my arguments in the future, as if you are to do so this dreary situation can finally be brought to a definitive and painless conclusion.

And what is this of reference to history? Do away with that nonsense, for history has no place in this discussion. It is irrelevant to the modern circumstance, surely. You cannot bring it into the conversation, we are not talking about events and thought which have already passed.

All sarcastic jests aside though, perhaps I should begin to include a collection of footnotes in my works designed to explain the finer connotations of every single term used in my writing which could potentially be mischaracterized? I am fully aware of what classical liberalism is based upon and the composition of its thought, I was quite clearly referring to its more contemporary manifestations. The pretentious and condescending lesson in history was enjoyed though, if not for the laughs it provided then for the amusing glance into your personal character which it furnished.

I hardly think that the classical liberal type could be found defending the tentative application of violence when it is in the name of preserving the revolutionary masses and furthering a revolution of the proletariat. In case you missed this, I have already argued for the abolishment of the death penalty in more stable societal circumstances. This is also a horribly false equivocation as well, due to the absence of various other different pertinent factors of this comparison which you seem to of forgone entirely, factors which were quite clearly present in my assertions of liberalism towards your political holdings.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

The burden of proof is on you.

The lack of ethical/moral standing of the death penalty should be the key concern here.

If it is cheaper to torture 100 children to share than it is to educate them and show them why sharing is good, doesn't make the former the correct choice.
kids need a chance. adults have had there chance (again uphill battle, dont take it the wrong way)

[Die Rote Fahne]

kids need a chance. adults have had there chance (again uphill battle, dont take it the wrong way)
So you don't believe someone can change and become safe and fit back into society?

Or is it that you do not wish to let them?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

So you don't believe someone can change and become safe and fit back into society?

Or is it that you do not wish to let them?
if they commit murder, do you thing they should be let back into society?
i mean if someone punched you in the face, do you think they should be let back into society?
if they are charged with beating there children and there partner, should they be let back into society?
and if they rape someone, should they be let back into society?

[ComradeGrant]

Armed robbery is a result of the Capitalist system. You would have a person executed for desperately trying to survive the system? We're supposed to speak for these people, we advocate their emancipation. If you think that crimes that are the result of capitalism are punishable by death you are not a communist.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Armed robbery is a result of the Capitalist system. You would have a person executed for desperately trying to survive the system? We're supposed to speak for these people, we advocate their emancipation. If you think that crimes that are the result of capitalism are punishable by death you are not a communist.
hmm point, remember, i used to be a republican.

[Die Rote Fahne]

if they commit murder, do you thing they should be let back into society?
i mean if someone punched you in the face, do you think they should be let back into society?
if they are charged with beating there children and there partner, should they be let back into society?
and if they rape someone, should they be let back into society?

Yes, after a prison sentence and rehabilitation.

[Comrade Crow]

if they commit murder, do you thing they should be let back into society?

Just because someone commits murder doesn't mean that they instantaneously turn into a werewolf and will never stop. Murder is a terrible thing however the people whom commit it are, by and large, not monsters. Arguments get out of hand, people cheat on each other, robberies, drugs, booze, bars, family disputes, property disputes, all kinds of normal things can lead to a homicide. It's not hard to see that in most cases, the murderer could easily be rehabilitated and would no longer be a threat to society.

You may ask, then why is that the American prison system seems like a revolving door then? Simple, capitalism and how the prison system functions under capitalism and the nature of said system itself. Not only do you have the problems of capital to deal with but also you have the criminal social conditioning that happens in prison. Inmates often become institutionalized and turn out 'worse' or more violent than when they entered due to survival. To survive in prison, you have to play the games they play, otherwise, you're probably not going to have a pleasant stay in time out, which is putting it mildly. I think this is why, even with murder, you see so many repeat offenders but this isn't to say, that they can't be rehabilitated, even under capitalism. It is possible.



i mean if someone punched you in the face, do you think they should be let back into society?


Yeah, it was just a punch in the face, things can get heated some times.



if they are charged with beating there children and there partner, should they be let back into society?


After some rehabilitation and assuming their therapy was successful, then yeah.


and if they rape someone, should they be let back into society?

See above comment for domestic/child abuse. Violent crimes like this and murder should be judged differently, I think, than assault cases. If it is habitual, they have tried to be rehabilitated/reformed, it hasn't work or they refuse treatment and so on, then, yeah, they should probably be 'neutralized.'

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

The system itself is flawed and "rigged" against the poor:


Federal Costs The average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought. A study found that those defendants whose representation was the least expensive, and thus who received the least amount of attorney and expert time, had an increased probability of receiving a death sentence. Defendants with less than $320,000 in terms of representation costs (the bottom 1/3 of federal capital trials) had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence at trial. On the other hand, those defendants whose representation costs were higher than $320,000 (the remaining 2/3 of federal capital trials) had only a 19% chance of being sentenced to death. Thus, the study concluded that defendants with low representation costs were more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence. The complete report can be found here (http://www.uscourts.gov/defenderservices/FDPC_Contents.cfm).

The cost of executing someone is much more than life in prison without parole:

Indiana A recent state analysis of the costs of the death penalty in Indiana found the average cost to a county for a trial and direct appeal in a capital case was over ten times more than a life-without-parole case. The average capital case resulting in a death sentence cost $449,887, while the average cost of case in which a life-without-parole sentence was sought and achieved was only $42,658. The study was prepared by the Legislative Services Agency for the General Assembly, Jan. 2010, as a cost assessment for a bill that would make more cases eligible for the death penalty. Read the assessment (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/INCostAssess.pdf).


There's much more, but I don't have time. Some of it is here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

[Demogorgon]

I have to tell you, we all have our character flaws. One of mine is that I do not suffer fools gladly. So you'll have to forgive my growing lack of patience for you.

That's a lovely post, but the issue here is that you have fallen into the classic and ever so dreaded straw man fallacy. You misrepresented my position and have made a slew of arguments based upon your limited selection of what I did and did not say, making your post more or less worthless.A strawman argument is one where an opponent's case is misinterpreted in order to make it look weaker, in order to make it an easier tactic. That was not the case here as I actually had to flesh out what you wrote to find something worth responding to, given that most of your post was just insults. As is this one come to that. You may think that because you try to make use of flowery language that your arguments are more sophisticated as a result, but that is not the case. It is a really obvious attempt to disguise a weak argument and when you misuse some of the words you are trying to show off with, it makes you look rather silly.


First off, I never unilaterally stated that a non state actor must always be treated in a criminal manner, such remarks were more a reference to the state of this particular conflict. You excluded my mentions of key factors such as support among the general population for those actions and their general political aims so as to facilitate the simplification of my position for your own ease in refuting it. Those are irrelevant factors. What does and does not constitute a prisoner of war is based upon role in conflict, not aims or support.


My point of violence being needed on occasion to seize power on behalf of the working class was far more nuanced than that, I made note of how making such a concessions alleviates the degree of violence involved in the process if this methodology is applied in a restrained yet effectual sense. Once more we see an instance of you simply ignoring key pillars of my argument so that you may aimlessly flail about in an attempt to refute them with a bit more ease. Once we take away the needlessly pretentious language we are left with a claim that violence is justified when it is necessary and is not excessive. That is a fairly well accepted position, pacifism being the only significant outlook opposed to it. Two things stand out about that position. The first being that i have never disputed it and secondly it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.


Yes, my case obviously requires an elementary degree of inference, to state such is frivolous for it does not lessen the brunt of my point. The degree of what would need to be implied from this example for it to be a fitting point is almost non existent, it is certainly not enough for you to circumnavigate the heart of my argument. At the risk of saying this too often in one post, do you realise how ridiculous this attempt at poetic language looks in this context? It doesn't impress anyone. Grow up.


And let me be clear with this next point. I do not care in the slightest for your opinion. I don't care if you don't find the example relevant to the modern context and I certainly do not care if your cognitive abilities are not capable enough of drawing the rather basic point from my example on the pathetically weak grounds that one needs to imply obvious conclusions for them in order for them to function. If you honestly fancy yourself worthy of my time and deserving of a response then I would suggest that you cease in your incessant drive to aimlessly waste my time and deal with the actual substance of my argument as depicted in this example. You are only making a fool of yourself by insisting upon your reliance on the straw man, it serves you no purpose. Oh the bitter irony of being subjected to insults of my knowledge on matters of revolutionary history while at the same time bearing witness to this sort of tactless nonsense of fallacy in argumentation.
Oh heaven forfend that I may not be worthy of your attention! From the language that looks like a bad attempt at poetry to the shaky logic, not to mention the snotty tone, you come across every inch the sixteen year old who has read through a number of wikipedia articles and fancies himself the expert.Needless to say you do not come across as the sort of person in any position to comment on others intellectual abilities or able to pronounce upon their "worthiness" to be engaged.


But allow me to digress back to the rest of your skewered interpretation of my 'points'.

1. I do not care about other situations or what you think of them. We are discussing this particular situation and other readily comparable situations wherein the theory exposed in this example can be applicable. Do not draw away from the point. We know that Kornilov has not been made a martyr by history in his death on the front, and this same logic can be applied easily enough to how his treatment would of been had he been executed by the provisional government. Perhaps there might of been a brief period in the Civil War where his image may of been of some use to the White Army, but beyond that period he would certainly of returned to his reviled position in history. Regardless of this, the threat which he posed on the field of battle far outweighed any he may of had in death as a martyr, making it a logical political choice to carry out such an act in relation to Kornilov. We know Kornilov is not a martyr, we also know that he was never executed. We can play all sorts of "what if" games if you like, perhaps had he been executed by the Provisional Government he wouldn't have been better thought of because he would have done slightly fewer horrible things thereafter. Maybe it wouldn't have the blindest bit of difference. At any rate your example is pretty weak. Come up with something a little more relevant.


2. I would direct you back to my introductory comments for a response to this misinformed argument, as it is based in a false representation of my original statements. You seem to of forsaken factors of revolutionary support and political alignment entirely, elements which I referenced and was fully aware of when crafting my comments, making your analysis one not fit as a rebuttal to my initial point.
This bit has been addressed above. Nice to see that you slipped in some more flowery language though.

3. The philistine thought on display in this section which deals with the Russian Revolution does not merit any serious thought, as its defeat would likely derail the conversation entirely into a embarrassing assault on the progress represented by the RSFSR and the later CCCP. As for the remainder of this numerical grouping, the proletariat will come to victory in its struggles with the bourgeoisie using what tactics prove themselves to be the most effectual at curbing the volatility of the process, communist morality is not burdened by the categorical failings of which bourgeois thought so often times is. If a measure such as this is carefully applied to exceedingly dangerous figures in an insecure situation of revolution, where the momentum of the movement can be lost by one misstep, then any proper revolutionary should not be absolutely opposed to the possibility of its use in order to secure the well being of the revolutionary masses over that of the disdainful bourgeoisie which seek to annihilate the progress which they represent. To think in such an unwavering matter on matters of this sort is to crudely apply moralistic thinking to a context where it holds no rightful place.One wonders where the "philistine" insult came from.

Anyway once we strip away the silly language yet again we are left with a claim that I am denying a potentially necessary tool in a revolution and that I am "moralising". Well as for the first, I am not. At times it is necessary to take a life, but to take the life of someone who is already a prisoner. As for the claim that I am "moralising", naturally I am holding to certain moral positions. You will too. If it were necessary would you say use gang rape as a means of torture to extract necessary information? What about pour acid onto the face of an infant child to put pressure on a parent who may be an enemy? A case could be made for saying those could be "necessary". Would you do those or worse if you thought they were necessary, or are you in face a "moralist" too?


So in brief summary, your failed effort to comprehend the rather understandable and thorough example which I provided for your own ease had led you into creating a fragmented and logically deprived assortment of cascading blunders loosely attached to the topic of discussion at hand. It would be wise of you to not confuse your own intellectual failings in regards to comprehension with the solvency of my arguments in the future, as if you are to do so this dreary situation can finally be brought to a definitive and painless conclusion. If you think what you came up with was a thorough example, I dread to think what you may think a weak one was. Again, please desist from this notion that flowery language makes your argument sophisticated. That is the crudest kind of sophistry. And don't bother throwing insults about how I obviously lack the "cognitive abilities" to understand what you are saying. Insults to my intelligence can only hurt from those who have demonstrated themselves as having intellects worthy of my respect. Weak arguments phrased in needlessly complex (and sometime badly misused) language isn't going to earn that.


And what is this of reference to history? Do away with that nonsense, for history has no place in this discussion. It is irrelevant to the modern circumstance, surely. You cannot bring it into the conversation, we are not talking about events and thought which have already passed.

All sarcastic jests aside though, perhaps I should begin to include a collection of footnotes in my works designed to explain the finer connotations of every single term used in my writing which could potentially be mischaracterized? I am fully aware of what classical liberalism is based upon and the composition of its thought, I was quite clearly referring to its more contemporary manifestations. The pretentious and condescending lesson in history was enjoyed though, if not for the laughs it provided then for the amusing glance into your personal character which it furnished. One wonders what possible insight could have been gained into my character based on that. I await your definitive biography of me to find out.

I am aware that you thought you were referring to modern liberalism which is why I mentioned you were misusing the word. You see socialism comes into conflict with liberalism because liberalism (in all its forms) is based around market capitalism and polyarchy. For this reason we reject it. On this message board however some people have extended this to be to do with anything connected to what is called liberalism in the United States these days (which is basically Social Democracy-lite) and hence make silly accusations of "liberalism" when they are actually trying to defend a position to the right of the weak centrism that that entails.


I hardly think that the classical liberal type could be found defending the tentative application of violence when it is in the name of preserving the revolutionary masses and furthering a revolution of the proletariat. In case you missed this, I have already argued for the abolishment of the death penalty in more stable societal circumstances. This is also a horribly false equivocation as well, due to the absence of various other different pertinent factors of this comparison which you seem to of forgone entirely, factors which were quite clearly present in my assertions of liberalism towards your political holdings.
Okay, let's see precisely how you think I fall into the category of "liberal" in the modern sense or otherwise. Please note that in doing so you will have to connect me to the most commonly used definition of liberalism these days. That is to say neoliberalism.

[Zealot]

I'll be honest, I support capital punishment in some cases.

[tm315]

I'm still waiting for proof of the other 46 states that it cost more for the death penalty
First of all, not every state uses the death penalty.

Second of all, why the hell would it cost much less in another state? The appeal process for the other states is still just about the same length.

[#FF0000]

This is true.But when there is a death penalty , criminal think twice before commit a crime.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The death penalty does not deter criminals. Deterrence in general does not work.


Death penalty lowers crime rate

Wrong. Even a cursory glance at actual evidence would show that this statement is false.


On the other hand tax payers do not have to feed criminals.

Death penalties cost more than the alternatives, though, because of the appeals process and all this.

[hatzel]

I remember a certain user saying recently that the thanks-system was good because it let you know that others agreed with you, even if they didn't make a post themselves. I am therefore heartened to see the conspicuous lack of thanks directed towards Red Spartan's seemingly endless torrent of batshit posts in this thread...

[Agent Blazkowicz]

Under no circumstances would I support the notion that the capitalists should have the authority to execute someone, probably from the working class, no. If during the revolution some capitalists need to be killed then that's a different story.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Just because someone commits murder doesn't mean that they instantaneously turn into a werewolf and will never stop. Murder is a terrible thing however the people whom commit it are, by and large, not monsters. Arguments get out of hand, people cheat on each other, robberies, drugs, booze, bars, family disputes, property disputes, all kinds of normal things can lead to a homicide. It's not hard to see that in most cases, the murderer could easily be rehabilitated and would no longer be a threat to society.

You may ask, then why is that the American prison system seems like a revolving door then? Simple, capitalism and how the prison system functions under capitalism and the nature of said system itself. Not only do you have the problems of capital to deal with but also you have the criminal social conditioning that happens in prison. Inmates often become institutionalized and turn out 'worse' or more violent than when they entered due to survival. To survive in prison, you have to play the games they play, otherwise, you're probably not going to have a pleasant stay in time out, which is putting it mildly. I think this is why, even with murder, you see so many repeat offenders but this isn't to say, that they can't be rehabilitated, even under capitalism. It is possible.



Yeah, it was just a punch in the face, things can get heated some times.



After some rehabilitation and assuming their therapy was successful, then yeah.



See above comment for domestic/child abuse. Violent crimes like this and murder should be judged differently, I think, than assault cases. If it is habitual, they have tried to be rehabilitated/reformed, it hasn't work or they refuse treatment and so on, then, yeah, they should probably be 'neutralized.'
the whole point is that im not one of those people that say" oops he made a mistake, hang him"
and BATSHIT? maybe you should be a little more open.
and ok, what about the other 30? unless i get proof, i am apparently going to keep trolling

And according to you, killing people is perfectly fine, but when the state wants to kill someone because of murder or other violent crime, its wrong

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

what is this? is no one responding to my post? is it because I'm right?

[#FF0000]

what is this? is no one responding to my post? is it because I'm right?

No dude chill out someone will be with you in just a moment to demolish your arguments.

EDIT: Honestly I don't even know what you're arguing anymore so if you want to clear that up right quick I'll get right back to you on why you're wrong.

[#FF0000]

And according to you, killing people is perfectly fine, but when the state wants to kill someone because of murder or other violent crime, its wrong

Yes it is a bad thing to make it easier for the ruling class to kill working people.

And no one said "killing is fine". I'd say the only time violence in general is permissible is in self defense.

(p.s. revolution is an act of self-defense lol)

[tm315]

what about the other 30?
What about the other 30? Every serious study on the costs of the federal or state capital punishment system has concluded that it is significantly more expensive than a system in which life in prison without the
possibility of parole is the most severe penalty.

So you can't draw logical conclusions based off the studies posted in this thread?

[Dr Mindbender]

The bottom line there is always a humane, progressive alternative to the death penalty. Even for those really nasty crimes that seem to create moral ambiguity.

Its difficult to believe that 'progressives' are complaining about the cost of feeding (by in large) working class people is pushing up taxes.

Am i reading the Daily fucking Mail here or what?

Moreover progressives should be asking not how do we respond to crime but why do crimes happen and how can we thwart the motives?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

What about the other 30? Every serious study on the costs of the federal or state capital punishment system has concluded that it is significantly more expensive than a system in which life in prison without the
possibility of parole is the most severe penalty.

So you can't draw logical conclusions based off the studies posted in this thread?
proof?

[#FF0000]

proof?

the studies have been posted over and over again but here's a summary (http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000) with all the evidence down at the bottom so you don't have to read much

The death penalty costs more than life in prison.

But it's fucked up that this would change someone's mind on the issue anyway, since there's a million other reasons to not execute people anyway. Firstly, because it serves literally no purpose but to sate bloodlust. It does not deter criminals or anything like that. Secondly, it's very possible to execute the wrong person, which should be the end of the discussion, honestly. Since execution serves literally no other purpose like I said above, then how can you say risking people's lives like that is just?

Oh and there's also the little point of not giving the state power to kill workers in prison. That's a thing too.

[Kenco Smooth]

it's worth saying again that it is completely impossible for a fair trial to be carried out (and there's no reason to simply assume the causation of this would disappear in a post-capitalist society) when capital punishment is an option. It significantly biases the jury against the defendant and lowers the necessary threshold of proof to secure a guilty verdict.

This may largely be due to the necessary screening out of those who oppose the death penalty from sitting on capital juries. This process is necessary as allowing jurors onto capital juries who oppose the death penalty on principle can often lead (as it did during the 19th century when capital punishment was handed out for minor crimes) to jurors refusing to convict on the grounds of their opposition to the punishment. This means only those who do not oppose the death penalty (and typically support it) are chosen to sit on capital juries. This group has time and time again been shown to be biased towards convictions in capital cases. A meta-analysis of the bias in this group of jurors by Allen, Mabry and McKelton (1998) showed that "this favorable attitude towards the death penalty translates into a 44% increase in the probability of a juror favoring conviction.".

A fair trial in which capital punishment features is impossible given that the selection process necessarily picks biased jurors.

[hatzel]

It ought to be said that the above could equally apply in non-capital cases, too, should the jurors oppose the proposed punishment, either in general or in relation to the offence in question. Of course prison sentences are rarely as contentious an issue, but the fact remains that some jurors could be swung based on their opinion of the 'suitability' of the punishment to the offence, rather than on whether they feel the accused committed the offence.

Of course the real issue, when it comes to juror weakness, is the bias that fokes from mere expectation, thr presumption of guilt due to some stereotype, the effect of whicu is demonstrable. It's bad enough putting people in prison for 'looking like they did it,' but sentencing them to death, given the potential fallibility of the almost inevitably biased jury...please, pull the other one...

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I like this idea

"Executions do not have to cost that much.* We could hang them and re-use the rope. No cost! Or we could use firing squads and ask for volunteer firing squad members who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Again, no cost."

Jan. 31, 2002 - Chris Clem, JD*

But yes, I support the death penalty only for violent crimes and murder

[tm315]

I like this idea

But yes, I support the death penalty only for violent crimes and murder
That's not the reason why it costs so much! The cost is high because of the appeal process.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I like this idea

But yes, I support the death penalty only for violent crimes and murder
You have yet to answer these points:

a) Possibility of Innocence
b) Possibility of Rehabilitation
c) Giving the bourgeois state the power to murder workers.

[Tenka]

Nope, never.

2 reasons-

Dead people cant fight their own case (in the case of a wrongful conviction).

A lifetime in prison is worse than a shorter stint on death row.
It really depends on the quality of the prison, but putting bold aside I agree with you. I don't think what is "worse" should necessarily be called for even in the most heinous of cases, as this would show a desire more to 'punish' than to simply remove this harmful individual from society, and hopefully re-introduce them a less harmful individual. Punishment is reactionary IMO.

[#FF0000]

I like this idea

But yes, I support the death penalty only for violent crimes and murder

the method

of execution

is not

why capital punishment

is expensive

[Tomhet]

Death penalty is obviously not cool at all, it's an awful symptom of capitalism...
Fuck state sanctioned murder, how does that have anything to do with workers power?...

[danyboy27]

Dead people cant work or be helpful to society in any way.

Living people can learn and be productive.

enuf said.

ps: i am not advocating labor camp, just mentionning that there is no way a dead person can contribute or give back to society if he/she is dead.

[Ingraham Effingham]

There are some criminals, who are too sick in the mind, and beyond repair. Their very existence, even outside of prison, strikes fear and torture into their own heart. A life in prison would be hellish and cruel. In these extreme cases, better to enforce the death penatly as a form of euthanasia to end the suffereing.

[danyboy27]

There are some criminals, who are too sick in the mind, and beyond repair. Their very existence, even outside of prison, strikes fear and torture into their own heart. A life in prison would be hellish and cruel. In these extreme cases, better to enforce the death penatly as a form of euthanasia to end the suffereing.

yea germany did something similar in the 30s, riveting stuff.

[Ingraham Effingham]

yea germany did something similar in the 30s, riveting stuff.

I mean proven, repeat criminals only.

[danyboy27]

I mean proven, repeat criminals only.

i am sure the SS had the same reasoning while killing mentally disabled folks.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

You have yet to answer these points:

a) Possibility of Innocence
b) Possibility of Rehabilitation
c) Giving the bourgeois state the power to murder workers.

a) no answer, beside you should have to have solid evidence
B) if you go and murder an ex, do you deserve another chance?
C) I didn't know the bourgeois where the working class?!?!

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

the method

of execution

is not

why capital punishment

is expensive

I

Was
Joking!

[Die Rote Fahne]

a) no answer, beside you should have to have solid evidence
B) if you go and murder an ex, do you deserve another chance?
C) I didn't know the bourgeois where the working class?!?!
a) There you are. You can't say "So what if someone is innocent?" and then not provide a reasoning for it. Where is your reasoning?

b) After serving a prison sentence, and being deemed rehabilitated, yes. The release should have stipulations, but you certainly should have a second chance.

c) Currently, the state is a bourgeois state. I was unaware we were living in socialism.

[Ingraham Effingham]

i am sure the SS had the same reasoning while killing mentally disabled folks.

Im sure they did, but with much less discernment (discernation?).

I am talking strictly about remorseless killers, with no question of guilt, and numerous failed attempts at rehabilitation. Probably a handful of people per billion. More to limit suffering and protect life, than to enact judgment or fix the gene pool or anything like that.

Don't attribute all forms of euthanasia with the Nazis; the world is never so black and white.

[danyboy27]

Im sure they did, but with much less discernment (discernation?).

I am talking strictly about remorseless killers, with no question of guilt, and numerous failed attempts at rehabilitation. Probably a handful of people per billion. More to limit suffering and protect life, than to enact judgment or fix the gene pool or anything like that.

Don't attribute all forms of euthanasia with the Nazis; the world is never so black and white.

you are using the verry same words used by the reich to justify the killing of mentally ill, criminals and the disabled.

if x person dosnt want to die, he should be allowed to live.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Im sure they did, but with much less discernment (discernation?).

I am talking strictly about remorseless killers, with no question of guilt, and numerous failed attempts at rehabilitation. Probably a handful of people per billion. More to limit suffering and protect life, than to enact judgment or fix the gene pool or anything like that.

Don't attribute all forms of euthanasia with the Nazis; the world is never so black and white.
In which case, life incarceration would be appropriate.

As well, what makes you believe that execution is a punishment, or deterrent? Personally, I would rather die than spend life in a prison cell. (This is directed at Red Spartan).

[Dr Mindbender]

It really depends on the quality of the prison, but putting bold aside I agree with you. I don't think what is "worse" should necessarily be called for even in the most heinous of cases, as this would show a desire more to 'punish' than to simply remove this harmful individual from society, and hopefully re-introduce them a less harmful individual. Punishment is reactionary IMO.

Quality of prison aside, I think being put in a cell for the rest of ones life and being deprived of privacy, the intimacy of lovers, proximity of loved ones or any meaningful opportunities for self embetterment is as bad as it gets.

I'd almost say execution would be a merciful exit. Almost. With that in mind, i think that life imprisonment should be reserved specifically for the predatory un-rehabilitatable or the most heinous and malicious of people. With pedophiles, I'm not convinced that the malice element is prevalent which is why i'd suggest some sort of off shore asylum.

[#FF0000]

let me just draw the line in the sand right now.

if you support the death penalty or the continued existence of prisons, you're not a communist.

get at me

[Dr Mindbender]

..... or the continued existence of prisons
I don't think you can say that because capitalism or communism, there are always going to be certain people who cannot or do not deserve to contribute to society.

Fascists, pedo's etc.

[ComradeMan]

let me just draw the line in the sand right now.

if you support the death penalty or the continued existence of prisons, you're not a communist.

get at me

Sorry- but that isn't really going to float.

China, North Korea, former USSR, Cuba (moritorium since 2003) etc etc and practically every other communist regime practises/practised the capital punishment.

I don't agree with the death penalty but I don't think you can argue that it's a capitalism vs communism thing, not given the history of communist countries with regard to capital punishment and also the fact that the death penalty existed in societies long before capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

Sorry- but that isn't really going to float.

China, North Korea, former USSR, Cuba (moritorium since 2003) etc etc and practically every other communist [sic]regime practises/practised the capital punishment.


So?

[ComradeMan]

So?

Let's not forget the death penalty for using money during the Spanish Civil War.

Now, Marx, for the very little he wrote on the matter was apparently against the death penalty, but practically no other communist regime seemed to worry about enacting it whatsoever- and some nominally communist regimes still do.

[Killermunch]

Everyone has rights, one of those rights is the right to live. Nothing on earth is allowed to override these rights, not the death penalty, not the law, not even the government. And if anyone tells you otherwise their fascist and are to be ignored.

[Demogorgon]

Let's not forget the death penalty for using money during the Spanish Civil War.

Now, Marx, for the very little he wrote on the matter was apparently against the death penalty, but practically no other communist regime seemed to worry about enacting it whatsoever- and some nominally communist regimes still do.
The trouble is that these nominally Communist countries do rather a lot of things that neither of us would consider very progressive. Practicing the death penalty can simply be argues to be yet another thing that shows them not to really be communist countries.

I think the argument that Communists ought to oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it is simply incompatible with communism is pretty simple. Almost all capitalist states inherited the death penalty from their pre-capitalist predecessors. First they continued it, then they cut down on it, then the majority of the most advanced ones abolished it. That shows a distinct progressive trend. Unless it could be argued that against the historical evidence that abolishing the death penalty was actually a step backwards, it is crazy for Communists to want to undo that development. Or not implement it in the case of our American friends here.

[Kenco Smooth]

Everyone has rights, one of those rights is the right to live. Nothing on earth is allowed to override these rights, not the death penalty, not the law, not even the government. And if anyone tells you otherwise their fascist and are to be ignored.

Let me begin by saying I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty.

However the idea of essential, inalienable rights are not truly believed by the vast majority of individuals. Most who put forward the argument of essential human rights would recognise freedom of movement and association as some yet the average prison system infringes on these absolutely.

Human rights should be recognised as an extremely valuable form of hypothetical social contract that are absolutely worth defending but to say not one of these rights can be overridden, or to propose this as a solid argument against the death penalty in itself, doesn't stand up very well.

[Decolonize The Left]

Fucking a. People who are supporting the death penalty are ignoring the most important point (which I made earlier, much earlier):

The death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. It doesn't matter what the reasons are behind it, it's the state fucking murdering people in it's own name. And even if you're some batshit crazy Stalinist, you still can't get behind it because it's the capitalist state.

- August

[#FF0000]

China, North Korea, former USSR, Cuba (moritorium since 2003) etc etc and practically every other communist regime practises/practised the capital punishment.

(none of those are communist lol)

[Dr Mindbender]

Now, Marx, for the very little he wrote on the matter was apparently against the death penalty, but practically no other communist regime seemed to worry about enacting it whatsoever- and some nominally communist regimes still do.
That didnt answer the question.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

let me just draw the line in the sand right now.

if you support the death penalty or the continued existence of prisons, you're not a communist.

get at me
so any person who commits murder or rapes or some other unspeakable crime is home free, no questions asked?
"hey bob did you kill jeff?"
"yep"
"thats too bad, i will miss his homemade ice-cream"

maybe your not communist

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

a) There you are. You can't say "So what if someone is innocent?" and then not provide a reasoning for it. Where is your reasoning?

b) After serving a prison sentence, and being deemed rehabilitated, yes. The release should have stipulations, but you certainly should have a second chance.

c) Currently, the state is a bourgeois state. I was unaware we were living in socialism.
A) my point is if you CAN
B) murderers have no fear, they will get out in 2 months jail
C)the one good thing the people did when creating this nation was our jury system, unless they deem it necessary, they can send people to the gallows. and if im not mistaken, more often than not people are average working people on those jurys. so does the state kill people?

[#FF0000]

so any person who commits murder or rapes or some other unspeakable crime is home free, no questions asked?
"hey bob did you kill jeff?"
"yep"
"thats too bad, i will miss his homemade ice-cream"

Nope


maybe your not communist

lol

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Nope



lol
ok then what happens to this murderer?

[tm315]

ok then what happens to this murderer?
Rehabilitation for those who can be fixed. Asylums for those who can't.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Rehabilitation for those who can be fixed. Asylums for those who can't.
again they are home free? no repercussions at all?

[tm315]

again they are home free? no repercussions at all?
I would consider rehab a repercussion.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I would consider rehab a repercussion.
have you been in rehab?

[Die Rote Fahne]

A) my point is if you CAN
B) murderers have no fear, they will get out in 2 months jail
C)the one good thing the people did when creating this nation was our jury system, unless they deem it necessary, they can send people to the gallows. and if im not mistaken, more often than not people are average working people on those jurys. so does the state kill people?
a) The possibility of innocence is still there. Regardless if you have the ability to prove it. In some cases it is proven after the execution ahs taken place.
b) There is a reason someone murders. It is how sentencing is determined. And no, they will not be out in 2 months. Obviously punishment will still be there, they will serve a sentence, but be rehabilitated at the same time.
c) I don`t see your point.

[tm315]

have you been in rehab?
No, but that is irrelevant.

[#FF0000]

have you been in rehab?

have you

[Johnny Kerosene]

I think that's happend 3 times in the last century. And think of it this way: if you rob a bank, with a gun. And your 20. You get a 20 year sentence. You will be 40 when you get out. You will have no job experience, and will likely not be hired. On top of that, you and I had to pay for his life while in prison.

When they started using DNA to solve crimes and shit and they went back and tested older crimes where they had DNA evidence (but of course there was no way to test it back then) and they found that 1/4 of the people who had confessed to crimes were in fact innocent based on DNA evidence. That goes more to cops being cops but they're still a part of the system, and they're the part that investigates and finds the evidence for the court system to use in prosecutions. And we all know that cops fuck up all the time, coercion aside.

Sorry if this was said already I didn't want to read through 8 pages to check first.

[ComradeMan]

(none of those are communist lol)

You see the trouble with that "they weren't really communists" argument is where there is a major failing with the left. Ironically when the same type of argument is used by religious people they are accused of being apologists and hypocrites. :confused: If someone argued that the 4th Crusade, for example, was not really Christianity (which it wasn't in terms of Jesus) they would be rounded on as usual from the usual quarters.

Getting back to the death penalty thing, plenty of anti-death penalty supporters are not communists and plenty of communists past and present have supported and still support the death penalty. By May 1917 Lenin had re-established the death penalty, outlawed on the 12th March 1917- for the army- was he now not a communist?

[Kenco Smooth]

C)the one good thing the people did when creating this nation was our jury system, unless they deem it necessary, they can send people to the gallows. and if im not mistaken, more often than not people are average working people on those jurys. so does the state kill people?

Um... yes :rolleyes:

If twelve of my peers were to come over to my house, question me on my whereabouts last night and relation to a recently murdered man and then conclude that I'm guilty and shoot me is that legal? No, the right to take life is essentially given by the state, they make an exception in their case. The fact that the jurors convicted the man doesn't change the fact that the authority and legitimacy given to an execution is that of the state. It's the only thing with that power.

You still haven't responded to my point on the other page that the jury selection process in capital cases necessarily creates bias against the defendant causing an increase of up to 40% in likelihood to convict.

[Hiero]

Rehabilitation for those who can be fixed. Asylums for those who can't.

People can fake rehabilitation. Murder isn't always a sympton that is either treated or not treated. Take organised crime where people are fine to do a long stint in jail for murder. If it is as simple as rehabilitation, organised criminals would be happy to murder someone and then fake rehabilitation , even if this meant doing a 20-30 year stint. There has always been a materialist naivety around crime on this website, that every act that is bad is just a sympton of capitalism.

Secondly, what do you mean by asylums. My first impressions are that asylums are far more reactionary then prisons and not even popular in the western world.

[danyboy27]

red spartan, vengeance and punishement are not constructive in any way.

Its been demonstrated time and time again trought history.

[tm315]

People can fake rehabilitation. Murder isn't always a sympton that is either treated or not treated. Take organised crime where people are fine to do a long stint in jail for murder. If it is as simple as rehabilitation, organised criminals would be happy to murder someone and then fake rehabilitation , even if this meant doing a 20-30 year stint.
That's right. Rehabilitation would not deter crime. But neither would the death penalty nor prisons.


There has always been a materialist naivety around crime on this website, that every act that is bad is just a sympton of capitalism.Poverty is a very common reason for crime.


Secondly, what do you mean by asylums. My first impressions are that asylums are far more reactionary then prisons and not even popular in the western world.What I mean is an institution for the maintenance and care of the mentally ill.

[Comintern1919]

I'm most of the times against Death Penalty. However, there are special cases and times where you can and should execute executions. Like while in a revolution, where the most gruesome, violent oppressors, the one who fight to death regardless of how much suffering that causes, should be executet, so they can't escape and cause more suffer, and his followers, troops etc. lose the will to fight, so that there will be no more bloodshed. Like it happend in the Cuban Revolucion, and like Che did.

And of course child molester. Which of course shouldn't be killed RIGHT AWAY, but rather cut out there... Y'know what, make them eat it, get them thrown in an american prison for a few days, let the other prisoners have their "fun" with them, and then throw them in a small cage, and let them die. Slowly. Painfully.

In all other cases, no, rather not, a live in Prison is much worse than death, which is often more of a salvation for them.
,

[Hiero]

That's right. Rehabilitation would not deter crime. But neither would the death penalty nor prisons.
Prison is not always about deterring crime. The reason I used organised crime for an example is that people in criminal gangs do crime for a living, you remove thoose people from society so they can not organise further criminal activity.



Poverty is a very common reason for crime.



For the crimes of the poor (naturally). Corporate crime, organised crime, corruption, fraud etc are often done by people who live outside of poverty. Their position in society means if they have credentials (probably not for organised crime) they can have accesses to middle class lfie.

The problem with the legal and penal system is that it focus too much on working class and lower class crimes, without focus on rehabilition, employment, education opportunities etc and it too often ignores other crimes. The goal of a progressive scheme would be reverse the system and then extend community based services (run by the community, funded by the government, especially for indigenous communities).

Another comment about death penalty as a deterrent, is that it wont work for people who live in a temporality (long strips of unemployment, homelessness, drug abuse, victims and perpetrators of domestic violence) as they do not foresee a long life, so they do not plan long term, but week to week. You can bet though that stable working class, middle class and bourgeoisie class are thinking well into later life. They would be the classes that are deterred by death penality, could you imagine what would happen to police corruption if cops were faced with the death penality?

That last comment is just a comment, I don't think it is reason for supporting death penality.

[Nox]

Yes but only in certain cases.

Reform should be the top priority

[ZrianKobani]

Why pay for someones lifetime sentence, when rope is cheap, and reusable

Our sister, Emma Goldman, once said that it is easier to condemn than it is to think.

I repeat the sympathy and say that it's easier to kill a man than it is to reconcile him with his victims and show him the love no one else would.

Between the options of ending a life or incarcerating it, we need to break out of these close-ended choices and think up ways to heal inmates and then prepare them to do the same on the outside.

[Judicator]

If you're a utilitarian and the deterrent effect is sufficient strong, then the death penalty makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately death penalty research is so laden with political considerations it seems impossible to get even an academic consensus.

[#FF0000]

If you're a utilitarian and the deterrent effect is sufficient strong, then the death penalty makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately death penalty research is so laden with political considerations it seems impossible to get even an academic consensus.

The consensus is p. much that deterrence is some ol' bullshit.

[DinodudeEpic]

The death penalty is an infringement on our rights by the government. It is ineffective, and it merely is a tool for repression of our liberties. Abolish it immediately. Cause, no entity, corporate, government, cooperative, or labor union, should have the right to end ones life. Unless, they attack first, and you were defending yourself in immediate danger.

[Judicator]

The consensus is p. much that deterrence is some ol' bullshit.

Is this because you think criminals don't weight the costs/benefits of their actions? Or is this just in the unique case of the death penalty?

I can say for sure I would speed nearly 100% of the time if tickets were $5 instead of $200.

[gendoikari]

Only for murder, and murder cases with DNA evidence.

Why? because society should not bear the burden for keeping the most depraved alive. Irreguardless of environmental conditions, these people have made a conscious decision to take the life of an innocent, and they need to be erased, not paid for.

the mentally ill are a different story.


Is this because you think criminals don't weight the costs/benefits of their actions? Or is this just in the unique case of the death penalty?

I can say for sure I would speed nearly 100% of the time if tickets were $5 instead of $200.


and if there were no capital punishment.....


Between the options of ending a life or incarcerating it, we need to break out of these close-ended choices and think up ways to heal inmates and then prepare them to do the same on the outside.

Even the psychologists are coming out saying that most murderers and vilolent offenders can't be re rehabilitated.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Is this because you think criminals don't weight the costs/benefits of their actions? Or is this just in the unique case of the death penalty?

I can say for sure I would speed nearly 100% of the time if tickets were $5 instead of $200.

And if the punishment for homicide was a 5 dollar fine, I bet there would be an increase in homicide rates too. But it's more or less proven that there's no noticeable effect on levels of so long as the punishment for homicide is a lengthy sentence, life imprisonment, or the death penalty.

[gendoikari]

And if the punishment for homicide was a 5 dollar fine, I bet there would be an increase in homicide rates too. But it's more or less proven that there's no noticeable effect on levels of so long as the punishment for homicide is a lengthy sentence, life imprisonment, or the death penalty.

Lengthy Sentance- deters only some spur of the moment murders
Life imprisonment- Will deter most well thought out murders unless the person had a good reason
Deathsentance- Deters all murder save for those that did not think about the consequences of their actions, those whom are arrogant enough to think they will get away, and those that do not care about death.

Somethings are worth going to jail for but far less are worth dying for.

also isanity is pretty much immune to any of the forms of punishment,

[VanSneiwder]

I think capital death should ever be an option. Proudly said from a portuguese, first country to abolish death penalty and slavery:thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

I think capital death should ever be an option. Proudly said from a portuguese, first country to abolish death penalty and slavery:thumbup1:

The Grand Duchy of Tuscany was the first modern state to abolish the death penalty in 1786. Leopold I Grand Duke, II Holy Roman Emperor (1747-1792), was a philanthropist, humanitarian and reformer and based his policies on the work of Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria. This is still marked by the Cities for Life day held around the world every November 30th.

[NGNM85]

Capital punishment, as far as I can see it, is practically indefensible. It has no deterrent effect. It is, simply put, uncivilized, and represents a stain on the collective conscience of any society that tolerates it. Furthermore, it’s fundamentally incompatible with Anarchism.

Incidentally; I also object to the characterization of all Restricted members as ‘capitalists’, and ‘quasi-fascists.’

[Demogorgon]

Lengthy Sentance- deters only some spur of the moment murders
Life imprisonment- Will deter most well thought out murders unless the person had a good reason
Deathsentance- Deters all murder save for those that did not think about the consequences of their actions, those whom are arrogant enough to think they will get away, and those that do not care about death.

Somethings are worth going to jail for but far less are worth dying for.

also isanity is pretty much immune to any of the forms of punishment,
If your argument is true, how do you explain the fact that all the statistical evidence shows that there are more murders when the death penalty is an available punishment?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The best argument for capital punishment is that it is a sure-fire way of preventing re-offending. If somebody commits first-degree murder again after having already served a sentence for it (and there is more than one piece of non-circumstancial evidence for both offences), then I think that in the interest of public safety, capital punishment should be available as a judicial option. Although even then I think we should err on the side of caution.

Of course, this is assuming the above takes place in an egalitarian society - even with the caveats I've given, I'm skeptical that most contemporary justice systems can deliver the goods.

I think there are also extreme circumstances in which summary execution is not only justified but necessary - such as treason on the battlefield.

[gendoikari]

If your argument is true, how do you explain the fact that all the statistical evidence shows that there are more murders when the death penalty is an available punishment?

Through the same reasoning that there are more murders as ice cream sales go up, which is actually a true statistic. Just because There is a statistical connection does not imply causation of one to the other, in fact it can, but it can also be a single secondary cause for both. In the aforementioned ice cream example, it's thought to be because in summer there are more people out and about to be victims of such acts, and as we all know ice cream sales increase in the summer months.

In the case of murder, desperation, the fear of death due to starvation trumps the death penalty. ALL violent crime is an extremely complex issue, having more to do with societal concerns conditions than anything. But just because they had it hard on them and CHOSE to take someones life to support theirs, does not negate the fact that they made a conscious decision to kill. A reason even the desperation caused by capitalism is not an excuse.

now let me ask you one thing. we've just convicted a mob boss, for all intents and purposes a psycopath which most psychologists agree is almost near unredeemable, do we pay for him to sit in jail or do we string him up as an exampe showing that we will not tolerate that level of behavior and to me, once an individual has crossed the line of killing for money they are no longer human, and killing them in kind is nothing more than taking out the trash and returning to the earth the resources the criminal wasted.

There are obviously exceptions, self defense, insanity, Temporary insaity, and the likes. However some cases deserve the death penalty, and it should always be an option on the table for a variety fo reasons, Justice, logistics, deterrance, ect.

Edit: Take the troy anthony davis case as an exception, it was a case founded on shaky evidence to begin with, and as such he is one that should NOT be put to death. However, every case should be taken on a case by case basis, and not put under some blanket that pretends to be taking the moral high ground

[Viet Minh]

Much as I disagree with the death penalty, the statistics don't necessarily tell the whole story. Those states with the death penalty may be more prone to a high murder rate anyway due to socio-economic factors, which is then reflected in harsher punishments. I don't know that much about the situation to be totally honest I'm just thinking aloud here.

The now defunct news of the World created a media frenzy over pedophiles, demanding death sentences or castration etc. The death sentence was argued against because it actually provided motivation for pedophiles to kill their victims, and thus were less likely to be caught because they wouldn't be described or indeed named by the victim.

[#FF0000]

now let me ask you one thing. we've just convicted a mob boss, for all intents and purposes a psycopath which most psychologists agree is almost near unredeemable, do we pay for him to sit in jail or do we string him up as an exampe showing that we will not tolerate that level of behavior and to me, once an individual has crossed the line of killing for money they are no longer human, and killing them in kind is nothing more than taking out the trash and returning to the earth the resources the criminal wasted.

Psychopathy = an illness. You are literally saying we should execute a mentally ill dude as an example to other people to not make bad choices.

You're saying we should support the capitalist state in killing people.

[#FF0000]

Is this because you think criminals don't weight the costs/benefits of their actions? Or is this just in the unique case of the death penalty?

People who are at the point that they're willing to kill somebody probably aren't going to be weighing the consequences of their actions all that well in the first place. And what makes death less appealing than serving life in an American prison?


I can say for sure I would speed nearly 100% of the time if tickets were $5 instead of $200.

Yeah, but it's real easy to justify speeding to yourself. Murder is, for healthy people, something on a different level. It's almost a universal social more.

[Viet Minh]

People who are at the point that they're willing to kill somebody probably aren't going to be weighing the consequences of their actions all that well in the first place. And what makes death less appealing than serving life in an American prison?

Very true, you only have to look at the suicide rates in US prisons for proof (if proof were needed) that life in jail sucks basically.




The suicide rate on death row for the period 1976 through 1999 was found to be high (113 per 100,000 per year), some five times higher than the suicide rate for the male population of the United States.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12353556

[gendoikari]

Psychopathy = an illness. You are literally saying we should execute a mentally ill dude as an example to other people to not make bad choices.

You're saying we should support the capitalist state in killing people.

Psychopaths are a special exemption that require death.


Very true, you only have to look at the suicide rates in US prisons for proof (if proof were needed) that life in jail sucks basically.

For the majority yes, however, the hardest inmates not only see it as a right of passage but even continue to run things on the outside. This is only applicable to organized crime however, not the average joe blow. And the crimes of which the consequences were not weighed are in a category all their own. They are known as crimes of passion, which to me is a misnomer as I equate passion with positive emotions. but that's me.


You're saying we should support the capitalist state in killing people.

Actually in the case of mob bosses and organized crime i'm advocating killing the most dangerous of the capitalists, the ones that ignore the law's and regulations entirely and openly use brute force, murder and threats.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Psychopaths are a special exemption that require death.

What?! No! Speaking as a supporter of the death penalty (with the qualifiers I mentioned above), this is completely beyond the pale. Psychopathy is a mental condition, and the correct response is seperation and treatment, not execution.


Actually in the case of mob bosses and organized crime i'm advocating killing the most dangerous of the capitalists, the ones that ignore the law's and regulations entirely and openly use brute force, murder and threats.

You can't ignore the context of capital punishment as currently implemented - a racist, classist "justice" system with an interest in protecting the system that birthed it.

[gendoikari]

What?! No! Speaking as a supporter of the death penalty (with the qualifiers I mentioned above), this is completely beyond the pale. Psychopathy is a mental condition, and the correct response is seperation and treatment, not execution.

Even the most liberal psychologists are saying that the most deranged psycopaths are incurable and if let out they will simply repeat. It isn't an illness as much as it is a mode of their brain. Now granted I went too far in saying they all need to die, what i should have said is those that are convicted should face the death penalty.

Edit: also when I say psycopaths I mean the real term, not MPD, not schizophrenia, not DAID, but Psycopathy. as described here


Factor 1
Aggressive narcissism
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Factor 2
Socially deviant lifestyle
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavioral problems
Revocation of conditional release
Many short-term marital relationships
Criminal versatility


You can't ignore the context of capital punishment as currently implemented - a racist, classist "justice" system with an interest in protecting the system that birthed it.

Unfortunately yes, but it is still useful in some cases. For instance against those that are using it in the terms you have stated.

[gendoikari]

also on the subject of treating psychopathy


In practice, mental health professionals rarely treat psychopathic personality disorders as they are often considered untreatable and no interventions have proved to be effective.

It has been shown that punishment and behavior modification techniques do not improve the behavior of psychopaths. Psychopathic individuals have been regularly observed to become more cunning and better able to hide their behaviour. It has been suggested that traditional therapeutic approaches actually make psychopaths more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also untreatable.

Now I don't know that I'd agree with ALL psychopaths being untreatable, it's certainly a matter of degree, as we all show some psychopathic traits now and then.

also if you look at corporate personhood and apply the checklist to corporations, they meet most if not all of the checks. .... corporations are psychopaths.

[balaclava]

Should be interesting what the capitalists, quasi-fascists and undesirables of revleft have to say about this

What's a quasi-fascist?

Is this the latest insult for anyone to the right of Marx now that you have had to accept that there are no fascists, if it is, as a statement it doesn't make sense!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Even the most liberal psychologists are saying that the most deranged psycopaths are incurable and if let out they will simply repeat. It isn't an illness as much as it is a mode of their brain. Now granted I went too far in saying they all need to die, what i should have said is those that are convicted should face the death penalty.


also on the subject of treating psychopathy

[snip]

Now I don't know that I'd agree with ALL psychopaths being untreatable, it's certainly a matter of degree, as we all show some psychopathic traits now and then.

Which is why I think an automatic death sentence for psychopaths convicted of murder isn't justified. All cases should be judged on their own merits - if someone has a history of murderous violence and they don't respond to rehabilitation or treatment, then and only then should execution be considered as an option.

Even then, I'm open to the possiblity of alternatives. Technological advances could provide some; in Iain M. Banks' science fiction novels, convicted murderers are permanently assigned a "slap-drone", a robotic agent which follows them around to make sure they don't do it again. A simpler version of a similar idea would be an implant that incapacitates the perp if they attempt violence.

Other alternatives could be provided by insights in other fields.


also if you look at corporate personhood and apply the checklist to corporations, they meet most if not all of the checks. .... corporations are psychopaths.

Difference being, corporations don't bleed when you cut them.

[balaclava]

Talking about fascists, if Hitler hand been taken alive, tried and convicted for all the crimes he was accused of, what would have been an appropriate sentence?

[balaclava]

What did I do / say, to go from a 'reputation' of +49 to -18?

[RED DAVE]

ecause society should not bear the burden for keeping the most depraved alive.Society produces depraved individuals and then has the fun of killing them. Much better than video games.

"Society" (including socialist society, of course) should make executions public, bring back drawing and quartering. Now, we're talkin' deterrent. And if it doesn't deter, it takes Reality TV to a whole new level.

[B]RED DAVE

[Demogorgon]

Through the same reasoning that there are more murders as ice cream sales go up, which is actually a true statistic. Just because There is a statistical connection does not imply causation of one to the other, in fact it can, but it can also be a single secondary cause for both. In the aforementioned ice cream example, it's thought to be because in summer there are more people out and about to be victims of such acts, and as we all know ice cream sales increase in the summer months.

No, you told us that the death penalty deters murder. If that were true, there would be some evidence. Yet in actual fact murder goes up when the death penalty is used and some pretty convincing arguments have been made as to why that is the case. Even if it were mere coincidence in every single case, you are still in trouble because there is still no evidence of any reduction or deterrence.

This is the case even beyond the death penalty as you claimed that life imprisonment would have a greater deterrent effect than a shorter prison sentence, yet there is no evidence of this in practice either. If you make a claim you have to back it up with some sort of real world evidence and you have offered absolutely none.


now let me ask you one thing. we've just convicted a mob boss, for all intents and purposes a psycopath which most psychologists agree is almost near unredeemable, do we pay for him to sit in jail or do we string him up as an exampe showing that we will not tolerate that level of behavior and to me, once an individual has crossed the line of killing for money they are no longer human, and killing them in kind is nothing more than taking out the trash and returning to the earth the resources the criminal wasted.I am always deeply worried about anyone who claims that a human being is "no longer human" and will have no truck with that kind of reasoning. Incidentally I further note that you have said that his killing for money is beyond the pale but earlier in the same sentence no less, you said it would be justifiable to kill him because it would be cheaper. That is to say killing for money.

As for whether he is irredeemable, you cannot know that now. Only time can ever tell that. If he cannot be rehabilitated then he should not be released, but he certainly should not be killed.

[DarkPast]

Society produces depraved individuals and then has the fun of killing them. Much better than video games.

"Society" (including socialist society, of course) should make executions public, bring back drawing and quartering. Now, we're talkin' deterrent. And if it doesn't deter, it takes Reality TV to a whole new level.

RED DAVE

Meh, drawing and quartering is letting 'em off easy. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army))is what we need.

[Viet Minh]

Psychopaths are a special exemption that require death.

So in a prison wing with 100 murderers, the one that should die is the one who is pre-conditioned to behave without reason or emotion, and therefore without full comprehension of their actions or the consequences? The rest, who killed out of spite, greed, anger, jealousy - and very intentionally made that decision to do so whether premeditated or not - are less culpable than someone who has (quote) poor behavioral control, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, lack of remorse or guilt (/quote) hardwired into their dna?


For the majority yes, however, the hardest inmates not only see it as a right of passage but even continue to run things on the outside. This is only applicable to organized crime however, not the average joe blow. And the crimes of which the consequences were not weighed are in a category all their own. They are known as crimes of passion, which to me is a misnomer as I equate passion with positive emotions. but that's me.

Crimes of passion in theory are more to do with vengeance of some kind, where an individual belives themselves to be wronged and has reacted to that situation. For instance the Tony Martin case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)) I would describe as a crime of passion, but to me that implies a ruthless individual who has no remorse for their crimes. Most murderers have a reason for their action, but one who implies a crime of passion is the worst kind who justifies it. You could make the case that those who act remorsefully are merely attempting to gain sympathy, but at least they show the slightest form of rehabilitation, of which admitting your mistake is step one.
In the case of organised crime the answer to them running their criminal gangs from inside is to take away phone and visitation rights surely, its a leap to kill them for it, and yet another great leap to say they should be killed just in case!


Actually in the case of mob bosses and organized crime i'm advocating killing the most dangerous of the capitalists, the ones that ignore the law's and regulations entirely and openly use brute force, murder and threats.

As long as capitalism exists so will criminality, mob bosses simply have more ingenuity than the fatcat tax dodgers and their crooked lawyers. And usually they have come from a background that prevents them from becoming rich in any 'legitimate' way.


Even the most liberal psychologists are saying that the most deranged psycopaths are incurable and if let out they will simply repeat. It isn't an illness as much as it is a mode of their brain. Now granted I went too far in saying they all need to die, what i should have said is those that are convicted should face the death penalty.

Edit: also when I say psycopaths I mean the real term, not MPD, not schizophrenia, not DAID, but Psycopathy. as described here

So why not just not let them out? To save money? How much is a human life worth?


Unfortunately yes, but it is still useful in some cases. For instance against those that are using it in the terms you have stated.

In terms of a revolution thats another argument, the question here is a whether the state - any state - be it Capitalist, Marxist, Anarchist, Stalinist whatever - has the right to execute an individual.


Talking about fascists, if Hitler hand been taken alive, tried and convicted for all the crimes he was accused of, what would have been an appropriate sentence?

I'm more open to the idea of execution of those who have killed more than once, or more than twice to eliminate a certain margin of error. But with modern understanding of mental health issues he would have been given proper treatment by the state, and if he had been around in Victorian London he would be locked up in 'Bedlam'. One of the leading Nazi party members actually spent a long time in a mental institute of some sort for his crazy conspiratorial beliefs, but his name escapes me.

[gendoikari]

Which is why I think an automatic death sentence for psychopaths convicted of murder isn't justified. All cases should be judged on their own merits - if someone has a history of murderous violence and they don't respond to rehabilitation or treatment, then and only then should execution be considered as an option.

Good point. I agree. However, I would never say go as far as letting them out EVER. how do you show that they have responded to treatment then?


So in a prison wing with 100 murderers, the one that should die is the one who is pre-conditioned to behave without reason or emotion, and therefore without full comprehension of their actions or the consequences?

I don't think you understand what a psycopath is. They fully comprehend what they are doing, they fully comprehend what the consequences are, they just do not comprehend that it is wrong. What you have described is a totally different form of mental illness that is not psycophathy.


I'm more open to the idea of execution of those who have killed more than once, or more than twice to eliminate a certain margin of error.

Hitler never actually killed anyone, He had other people do that for him. What now?


has the right to execute an individual.

I believe they do if it is for the betterment of the species.


So why not just not let them out? To save money? How much is a human life worth?

In the case of citizens deemed harmful to society, their value is negative.


In the case of organised crime the answer to them running their criminal gangs from inside is to take away phone and visitation rights surely, its a leap to kill them for it, and yet another great leap to say they should be killed just in case!

That is the most moronic thing I've ever heard, they already don't have access to the outside world, and they still get their orders out, and in some cases order hits against the people who put them in jail, the innocent witnesses against them, and no the witness protection program isn't foolproof.


No, you told us that the death penalty deters murder. If that were true, there would be some evidence. Yet in actual fact murder goes up when the death penalty is used and some pretty convincing arguments have been made as to why that is the case. Even if it were mere coincidence in every single case, you are still in trouble because there is still no evidence of any reduction or deterrence.

Really well until you show me some evidence of the murders NOT committed we will chock both mine and your points on deterrence up to opinion. (and no, evidence of crimes committed is not evidence of crimes that were deterred) However I would like to point out again some things are worth going to prison for, far less are worth dying for.

Do you get my point, because there will never be any data on crimes that never happen because ... well because they don't happen.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good point. I agree. However, I would never say go as far as letting them out EVER. how do you show that they have responded to treatment then?

Ask a psychologist.


Hitler never actually killed anyone, He had other people do that for him. What now?

There is still the matter of culpability. Just like how Charles Manson got locked up even though he never actually killed anyone by his own hand.

[gendoikari]

Ask a psychologist.



There is still the matter of culpability. Just like how Charles Manson got locked up even though he never actually killed anyone by his own hand.

The problem with asking the psychologists is that even they have said psychopaths evade therapy only becoming better at looking like normal people when in fact they are still psychopaths.

[Demogorgon]

Really well until you show me some evidence of the murders NOT committed we will chock both mine and your points on deterrence up to opinion. (and no, evidence of crimes committed is not evidence of crimes that were deterred) However I would like to point out again some things are worth going to prison for, far less are worth dying for.

Do you get my point, because there will never be any data on crimes that never happen because ... well because they don't happen.
A lower murder rate in comparison either to a similar jurisdiction or the same place before a change in policy is evidence of fewer murders. Now you may argue that places with the death penalty have vastly higher natural murder rates and the death penalty is still deterring plenty and there would be even more without it, but it would be a pretty major coincidence for this to simply happen in every case the death penalty is used. Moreover it would not explain considerable differences between different states in America depending on whether or not they use the death penalty. Observe http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Even if you completely reject the notion that the death penalty increases murder, that still doesn't take you to the position that it deters it. All that you could claim would be that it makes no difference either way. For you to say that there is definitely a deterrent effect, there must be fewer murders in comparison to a directly comparable alternative without the death penalty. Fortunately we can make some very close comparisons indeed. For a few years in the Seventies between the Furman and Gregg decisions, the United States had no death penalty. During this time there was no major change in the socio-economic environment in the United States so if you were correct and the death penalty deters crime then there would have been a spike in the murder rate with Furman and a fall with Gregg. Trouble is there was no such thing. The only way that this could be squared with your assertion is if there was a sudden coincidental lessening desire to commit murder with Furman and a sudden coincidental increase in the same desire with Gregg that merely cancelled out the effects. That would be quite a coincidence and indeed there would be some evidence of that. But alas, nothing.

Now, just in case you are going to repeat your ridiculous line that murder rates don't take into account murders deterred, perhaps I should point out what successful deterrence does: it reduces the instance of something happening. So something appearing or disappearing that deters murder would by definition see a change in the murder rate, but there is nothing. In other words you are completely and utterly wrong. Your only response now-which I suspect you have been doing since the beginning-is to retreat into rationalism and claim that empirical evidence means nothing and only innate knowledge counts.

And that is a very silly position indeed.

[Viet Minh]

I don't think you understand what a psycopath is. They fully comprehend what they are doing, they fully comprehend what the consequences are, they just do not comprehend that it is wrong. What you have described is a totally different form of mental illness that is not psycophathy.

I'm aware they understand the consequences, as far as it concerns them, but they cannot empathise with other people's pain and suffering.


Hitler never actually killed anyone, He had other people do that for him. What now?

He is as much responsible in that case, at the very least he is an accessory to murder.


I believe they do if it is for the betterment of the species.

We could grab hundreds of random citizens and do unethical medical experiments on them (as the Nazis did to Jews in the concentration camps, since this thread has already been Godwin'd) that would also be for the betterment of the species, it doesn't justify it. Prevention is the only justification, but imprisonment also prevents crime, at least by one individual for as long as they are deemed to be a threat. Escape is a concern perhaps but not one that justifies state murder on the scale it is happening.


In the case of citizens deemed harmful to society, their value is negative.

I wasn't actually suggesting you can value human life in monetary terms, the two are incomparable as human beings are real and money is basically an illusion. But purely in financial terms the US makes a profit from prison labor. Out of curiosity, is this a sliding scale? Are those who pay the highest taxes then the most beneficial citizens?


That is the most moronic thing I've ever heard, they already don't have access to the outside world, and they still get their orders out, and in some cases order hits against the people who put them in jail, the innocent witnesses against them, and no the witness protection program isn't foolproof.

Well clearly they do somehow, unless they have psychic powers. If you take away their phone priviliges, visitation rights, and put them in solitary confinement and info is still leaked then its fairly obvious that its either their legal representation or perhaps a prison guard. The real issue is the crime being committed on the outside should be investigated (or if possible prevented), if the mob boss was dead someone else would have taken over on the outside and be doing the exact same thing. Furthermore the mob boss, or mob enforcers (who are more likely to be in the pen for murder) can turn state witness and help prosecute other gang members. And they're more likely to do that for a deal meaning they serve 20 years instead of 25, compared to 25 instead of a death sentence. By your own logic..

[gendoikari]

I wasn't actually suggesting you can value human life in monetary terms, the two are incomparable as human beings are real and money is basically an illusion. But purely in financial terms the US makes a profit from prison labor. Out of curiosity, is this a sliding scale? Are those who pay the highest taxes then the most beneficial citizens?

Never said that value was in currency now did I?


Well clearly they do somehow, unless they have psychic powers. If you take away their phone priviliges, visitation rights, and put them in solitary confinement and info is still leaked then its fairly obvious that its either their legal representation or perhaps a prison guard. The real issue is the crime being committed on the outside should be investigated (or if possible prevented), if the mob boss was dead someone else would have taken over on the outside and be doing the exact same thing. Furthermore the mob boss, or mob enforcers (who are more likely to be in the pen for murder) can turn state witness and help prosecute other gang members. And they're more likely to do that for a deal meaning they serve 20 years instead of 25, compared to 25 instead of a death sentence. By your own logic..

They have ways of passing information along. UNLESS you intend on putting EVERY SINGLE PRISONER in a dark room completely isolated, they will get information out.

[Mythbuster]

Only in crimes against humanity will I support the death penalty. For those like Hitler and Mussolini I'd gladly support the death penalty; those who are CLEARLY guilty of genocide and human rights violations—That is the only time when I support it. Other than that, abolish it.

[ComradePonov]

I only support it under pressing circumstances of revolution or under the threat of counterrevolution, wherein certain individuals can pose a threat so tremendous as to justify a very restrained and limited use of such otherwise deplorable tactics. It is philistine to categorically condemn this implement, as historical conditions regrettably demand its use in certain instances of synthesis. Beyond the aforementioned scenarios, I see no reason for its existence though.


This is the type of bull shit that makes one question the common sense of certain individuals on this board.

What the fuck are you talking about? who would determine who is "counter revolutionary" or "a threat." is it your centralised institution which dreams of being the masters of the working class, or "the party" which rules with such inefficiency to compete with the inefficiencies of capitalism?

then again, you DID justify the existence of a vanguard party, so can't really talk common sense with your ilk.

For fucks sake.

[Viet Minh]

Never said that value was in currency now did I?

Okay but we're still back to the question of why would you not just keep them imprisoned, why do you need to execute them? If not the cost, and you haven't disputed the deterrent argument, then what? Personal morality? Murder is wrong so we should murder murderers by matter of course?


They have ways of passing information along. UNLESS you intend on putting EVERY SINGLE PRISONER in a dark room completely isolated, they will get information out.

We were talking theoretically about known mob bosses, not every single prisoner. But even if every prisoner were a mob boss giving instructions to his hoods on the outside, the fundamental issue is the crime itself, and if the leader is inside there is a chance of intercepting messages or as I said before getting them to rat out their accomplices. Still it doesn't exacerbate the situation, if anything it provides leverage or bargaining tools.

[#FF0000]

This is the type of bull shit that makes one question the common sense of certain individuals on this board.

What the fuck are you talking about? who would determine who is "counter revolutionary" or "a threat." is it your centralised institution which dreams of being the masters of the working class, or "the party" which rules with such inefficiency to compete with the inefficiencies of capitalism?

then again, you DID justify the existence of a vanguard party, so can't really talk common sense with your ilk.

For fucks sake.

what a useless post

[Judicator]

People who are at the point that they're willing to kill somebody probably aren't going to be weighing the consequences of their actions all that well in the first place. And what makes death less appealing than serving life in an American prison?

In any planned killing you're weighing the costs and benefits of lots of things, mostly what's the value of this person being dead vs. the cost of killing them, potential punishment included.

If you're saying the criminal is no worse off being dead than being in an American prison, then why is the death penalty bad at all given the quality of prisons?


Yeah, but it's real easy to justify speeding to yourself. Murder is, for healthy people, something on a different level. It's almost a universal social more.

The point is that people respond to incentives. The immorality of murder is enough to deter most people, but what about those who could potentially commit murder but don't end up doing so? Why wouldn't costs play a role?


Very true, you only have to look at the suicide rates in US prisons for proof (if proof were needed) that life in jail sucks basically

They are less than 100%, so the remaining people prefer life.

[gendoikari]

We were talking theoretically about known mob bosses, not every single prisoner.

actually we're talking prison gangs, regular gangs, Middle management of these organizations, the higher eschelons. Not really the mob, the mob seems to have a way to stay out of jail.

[Bostana]

I don't believe in Capital Punishment. But I do believe in a Prison in which the Inmates don't have more rights then the Correction Officers.

[NoMasters]

Hmm...really really tough question.

Che Guevara did if that means anything to us revleftists. I think we can do away with that if the technology and education permits us to.

If you put it into logical terms then without technology and education, execution is a must. If you cannot rehabilitate a man that puts other men into danger, then what else could you do.

If the revolution were to come, and the revolutionaries weren't able to stop an insurrection without execution, then revleftists would have no choice but to execute.

I am a anarcho-socialist, so that can tell you where I am coming from. I believe peace is the answer to peace.

"Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity"

:lol:

[eyeheartlenin]

There was a woman in the US a few years ago who killed her seven little children one day, drowning them in the bath tub, one after another. She was sane enough to wait until her husband had left for work, before she started slaughtering her family. She avoided being punished, through the insanity defense. I always think of that case when opponents of the death penalty start saying that no one should ever be punished for mass murder. Her defenders in the media were really, really happy, really gushing, when she avoided being punished in any way. You have to wonder why anyone thinks it is possible to have a society where mass murderers go unpunished. I guess having enough money to live in exclusive, gated communities gives trust fund liberals a certain sense of invulnerability.

There was also the Army shrink, a few years back, a certain Major H, if I remember correctly, who shot eleven people dead in a commissary, one of them a pregnant woman, one fine day, for no known reason, at the same time wounding thirty more. Given that he will be tried in a military court, it is just possible that mass murderer may actually be punished.

[NoMasters]

There was a woman in the US a few years ago who killed her seven little children one day, drowning them in the bath tub, one after another. She was sane enough to wait until her husband had left for work, before she started slaughtering her family. She avoided being punished, through the insanity defense. I always think of that case when the opponents of the death penalty start saying that no one should ever be punished for mass murder. Her defenders were really, really happy, real fans of her, when she avoided being punished in any way. You have to wonder why anyone thinks it is possible to have a society where mass murderers go unpunished. I guess having enough money to live in exclusive, gated communities gives trust fund liberals a certain sense of invulnerability.

There was also the Army shrink, a few years back, a certain Major H, if I remember correctly, who shot eleven people dead in a commissary, one of them a pregnant woman, for no known reason, at the same time wounding thirty more. Given that he will be tried in a military court, it is just possible that mass murderer may actually be punished.

Same nonsense that I hear from any authoritarian leftist.

Execution is another word for murder. Lock a person up. We have enough money and technology to make sure they never escape. And who would want somebody like that back into society anyways? Not me.

If we cannot show that murder is wrong, then it will always continue. If we can show that rehabilitating or incarcerating someone works, which in fact usually does, then we can move towards a better future for human kind.

In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that shows that giving someone the death penalty does absolutely nothing for the family of the victim. They receive no closure from it AT ALL. Self-help groups have proven to be more effective in proving culture.

Get your facts straight

[eyeheartlenin]

So, should Osama bin Laden's life have been spared? How about Hitler's? If the Allies had been able to capture Hitler, would you have insisted that he not be executed?

How about Reinhard Heydrich or Adolf Eichmann, two major organizers of the Holocaust, who were subsequently executed, or, as you would put it, "murdered"? Should their lives also have been spared? What about Rudolf Höss, the Nazi commandant at Auschwitz? Should he have been exempt from being executed?

It amazes me that death penalty opponents have so little sympathy for the victims of mass murderers.

[NoMasters]

So, should Osama bin Laden's life have been spared? How about Hitler's? If the Allies had been able to capture Hitler, would you have insisted that he not be executed?

How about Reinhard Heydrich or Adolf Eichmann, two major organizers of the Holocaust, who were subsequently executed, or, as you would put it, "murdered"? Should their lives also have been spared? What about Rudolf Höss, the Nazi commandant at Auschwitz? Should he have been exempt from being executed?

It amazes me that death penalty opponents have so little sympathy for the victims of mass murderers.

Yes and Yes and Yes.

[NoMasters]

Killing someone because they killed someone is no different than an eye for eye.

Even if its 100000 eyes for an eye. It is still better for us as leftists to refrain from such primitive behavior.

[Antipiol]

Same nonsense that I hear from any authoritarian leftist.

Execution is another word for murder. Lock a person up. We have enough money and technology to make sure they never escape. And who would want somebody like that back into society anyways? Not me.

If we cannot show that murder is wrong, then it will always continue. If we can show that rehabilitating or incarcerating someone works, which in fact usually does, then we can move towards a better future for human kind.

In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that shows that giving someone the death penalty does absolutely nothing for the family of the victim. They receive no closure from it AT ALL. Self-help groups have proven to be more effective in proving culture.

Get your facts straight

I agree with you for the most part. Though in some circumstances, depending on the person being qeustioned, life-long lock up may be viewed as worse than death. Just something to take into consideration.

Incarceration though is usually not enough. If I recall correctly over 50% of people who go to prison reoffend and most major crime is commited by a very small percentage of the population (forgive me, I don't have my data with me to cite specifically). This if anything shows the prison systems don't work very well as a "correctional" facility.

As far as rehabilitation goes, this is absolutely the way to go, though it has fallen out of favor since the 1970's (due to trying to find a "one fits all" treatement, which is ridiculous, etc, etc.). But this has been shown to be a lot more effective than just locking people up and calling it a day.

Yes, they should be punished but they should be evaluated and treated as well. It is my belief that people are not "bad" or "evil", they have just not learned and developed cognitively "correctly". But if they do not suffer from a major psychological disorder, a lot of the time (varying by case, etc.) they can be taught and developed into rational and sociable people, if they are given the proper care, treatement, etc.

When people murder (if it's not out of passion) it's because, logically, to them, it was what made sense to them to do. And my point is, they have learned this behavior through experiences, development, etc. ANYWAY.... haha, I could go on but it's go way off topic...

People can be taught to view things differently is my point (depending on the case).

People are not "bad" or "evil", just as a child that has never attended school is not an "idiot", they just haven't been given the right opportunity to learn.

Or they've developed/been born with a psychological disorder of sorts, haha.

And on another note, the death penalty does not stand as an effective deterrent either.

[NGNM85]

Should be interesting what the capitalists, quasi-fascists and undesirables of revleft have to say about this

I haven't conducted any kind of extensive research, but, from my experience, most of the Restricted members, the ones who stick around, are Leftists, mostly Socialists, of varying stripes. I, myself, am an Anarchist.

Since you asked; I'm against capital punishment. It's institutionalized murder.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

for.for rapists,big thiefs aetc

[Kindness]

In theory, I fully support the death penalty for pedophiles, rapists, and mass murderers. Scum like that don't deserve to steal another breath of fresh air; they'd be better off hanged. Justice requires their lives.

However, in practice I oppose the death penalty. This is because judicial bodies are far from perfect, and the probability of making a mistake is high: there have been 140 people exonerated from death row since 1973, not including the ones actually executed and then later found innocent. It's not worth it to have a system that executes innocents, especially when the system is known to be racist and classist. Also, and this may seem sadistic (I apologize), criminals suffer more from life in prison (especially solitary confinement) than execution. I want rapist / pedophile / mass-murderer scum to rot in solitary for the rest of their miserable lives.

[Tenka]

In theory, I fully support the death penalty for pedophiles, rapists, and mass murderers. Scum like that don't deserve to steal another breath of fresh air; they'd be better off hanged. Justice requires their lives.

However, in practice I oppose the death penalty. This is because judicial bodies are far from perfect, and the probability of making a mistake is high: there have been 140 people exonerated from death row since 1973, not including the ones actually executed and then later found innocent. It's not worth it to have a system that executes innocents, especially when the system is known to be racist and classist. Also, and this may seem sadistic (I apologize), criminals suffer more from life in prison (especially solitary confinement) than execution. I want rapist / pedophile / mass-murderer scum to rot in solitary for the rest of their miserable lives.

How are rapists and paedophiles as odious as mass-murderers? Are they therefore more odious than one-off murderers? That aside, what I'm hearing here is the same stuff I hear on The Young Turks: "DEATH PENALTY IS GOOD IN THEORY BUT WE MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY KILL INNOCENTS SO I DUNNO LOL GUESS I'M AGAINST IT FOR NOW".

I for one am against the state killing anyone till the dictatorship of the proletariat is underway--and then, only necessary political executions and nothing more would avoid the "violence fetishist" label being rightfully applied.

[SuchianFrog735]

This is certainly a rather interesting topic, especially regarding the role of violence. I know a huge chunk of this forum seems to support violent revolution(which would seem to give an obvious enough implication to kill the oppressors). What exactly is different about the death penalty's violence? Is it because it's from the state?

For the record, I voted for "opposed, except in certain cases". The "potential argument" is admittedly kind of weak, but life is something that has value from rehabilitation. The death penalty for the most part eliminates any chance of redemption.

[Kindness]

The "potential argument" is admittedly kind of weak, but life is something that has value from rehabilitation. The death penalty for the most part eliminates any chance of redemption.

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Do you really need to ask?

[Tenka]

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

Yeah, if we kill 'em on sight that oughta deter any future murderers and paedophiles. And even if it doesn't, they need to know what they done is wrong and be punished for it to the utmost ability of the bourgeois justice system.

Punishment is reactionary and so are you.

[VDS]

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

Because we're not animals. Our need for revenge and blood lust does not supersede the right for anyone to live.

Murder can in many cases be the result of a heated argument, of a mental disease, of the need to live and an armed robbery gone wrong. Too many factors there. As for pedophiles, unless they're out there abusing kids with no chance of stopping them, they have a mental situation that need to be addressed.

If we aim to be progressive then we NEED to be so regardless of how we PERSONALLY feel. Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see too many people receive the death penalty. However, I understand that it does nothing except feed a need for revenge. It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't cost less, quite the opposite actually, it costs MORE, and ending someones life is less punishment than killing someone anyways.

It really comes down to the fact that some people CAN be rehabilitated, and you don't know everyone's situation or life story and ultimately what lead them to finally committing whatever act YOU find is good enough to kill person. If they can be reintroduced as productive members, they deserve that chance. Those who CANNOT be rehabilitated should remain in jail cut off from the society that it poses a danger to. Simple as that.

[CaptainJackJohnson]

I've got pretty strong views on this. But in all cases I always argue that individual anarchist communities in our hypothetical future should have freedom to debate and decide the particulars of nuances of anarchist society not explicitly covered by Marxist-style theories.

This does not, however, prevent me from expressing my opinion.

Firstly, one of cost. Let's assume someone is indisputably found guilty of murder. In this case, keeping them locked up costs money. As an anarchist, I don't agree that you should be able to force anyone else to foot this bill, so it should be a case that anyone who votes to keep them locked up should pay for this to happen, and they have no right to force anyone else to support their choice. As I do not support the prison system, if they can do this without affecting me, I am happy for them to continue, in the same way that I'm happy for people to have as many kids as they like as long as they can support them without stealing resources from others.

Secondly, one of social contract. All rights are dependant on respect for those rights. If you steal from me something that is mine by use or occupation, you have demonstrated a lack of respect for the right of possession and therefore have forfeited this. The extent of forfeiture is a matter for the community to decide but must be at least equal to amount of damage you have caused. In short, if you steal my car, I get yours. In the case of murder, you have demonstrated a lack of respect for the right for life and therefore you have forfeited your right to life. This does not mean that others are mandated to kill you, but that to do so would be morally inconsequential.

Thirdly, I propose an alternative system. The idea that a person can simply be sentenced to death is not appealing to me because there is the possibility that they could be sentenced for a crime that they did not commit. Therefore, imprisonment is the only fair option. Should, however, they demonstrate a violent nature while imprisoned that is compatible with the nature presented in their sentencing -- like the kind of people you hear forming Nazi gangs and shanking people in prisons -- then their sentencing is upgraded to the death penalty. On the other hand, if evidence comes out that reveals their innocence, then those of the community who pledged to pay for their upkeep while imprisoned are now liable to pay damages to the newly released prisoner. The sword of accusation cuts both ways.

[Kindness]

Because we're not animals.

We are animals, that is a scientific fact. We're just primates with big brains, not some kind of higher creature.


Our need for revenge and blood lust does not supersede the right for anyone to live.

I don't support the death penalty (as I said in an above post), but I do support justice. The act of taking another's life or violating another sexually (especially a child) is unforgivable and cries out for society's retribution. It's not about bloodlust, but giving proper recompense to heinous crimes. Punishment is about more than getting back at the perpetrator, it's about honoring the victim.


Murder can in many cases be the result of a heated argument, of a mental disease, of the need to live and an armed robbery gone wrong.

The justice system takes these factors into account, which is why the death penalty -- or even life without parole -- is comparatively rare as a sentence.


As for pedophiles, unless they're out there abusing kids with no chance of stopping them, they have a mental situation that need to be addressed.

I don't care if they have a mental disease, pedophilia is heinous, unbelievably damaging to children, and absolutely unforgivable. People who engage in it choose to commit disgusting acts against children of their own will, and they deserve brutal punishment and retribution. Execution would be appropriate if not for the possibility of judicial mistake; life imprisonment is the only other just option.


If we aim to be progressive then we NEED to be so regardless of how we PERSONALLY feel. Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see too many people receive the death penalty. However, I understand that it does nothing except feed a need for revenge. It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't cost less, quite the opposite actually, it costs MORE, and ending someones life is less punishment than killing someone anyways.

I agree with all of these (except the "only satisfies need for revenge" part), which is why I oppose capital punishment.


If they can be reintroduced as productive members, they deserve that chance.

In the vast majority of cases, yes, however, I don't feel a killer or rapist deserves a second chance. Let them rot in prison.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In theory, I fully support the death penalty for pedophiles, rapists, and mass murderers.

That's an interesting list - I will assume that you had meant to say "child molester" and not "paedophile", since otherwise the list would be more than interesting. Why those specific crimes?

[#FF0000]

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

lmao the "pacifist", ladies and gentlemen

[Kindness]

That's an interesting list - I will assume that you had meant to say "child molester" and not "paedophile", since otherwise the list would be more than interesting. Why those specific crimes?

Yes, I did mean pedophiles who actually molest children.

Those crimes deserve brutal punishment because they absolutely destroy innocent human beings: whether by killing them outright or murdering their psyches, stripping them of their bodily integrity, and placing within them an inalienable trauma. No other crimes come close to the horror inflicted by these three.

[Kindness]

lmao the "pacifist", ladies and gentlemen

I'm only a pacifist when it comes to innocent people and animals, not when it comes to monsters.

[VDS]

We are animals, that is a scientific fact. We're just primates with big brains, not some kind of higher creature.

It should have been obvious that it wasn't well..literal. Let me put it this way then. We're not barbaric and feral. Better?


I don't support the death penalty (as I said in an above post), but I do support justice. The act of taking another's life or violating another sexually (especially a child) is unforgivable and cries out for society's retribution. It's not about bloodlust, but giving proper recompense to heinous crimes. Punishment is about more than getting back at the perpetrator, it's about honoring the victim.

Again, not justice, revenge and blood lust. What you described is no doubt horrific and no one deserves it. But how is it justice if you take away someones perception, literally? All you've done by killing someone is taken away their ability to perceive. If your aim is to "honor" these victims, why not leave them in prison where they have no freedom? Surely having no freedom and being regulated is far worse than not even being able to tell that you're being punished for something.


The justice system takes these factors into account, which is why the death penalty -- or even life without parole -- is comparatively rare as a sentence.

Rare is not enough. Abolished is what it should be. For the Death Penalty, not life without parole.


I don't care if they have a mental disease, pedophilia is heinous, unbelievably damaging to children, and absolutely unforgivable. People who engage in it choose to commit disgusting acts against children of their own will, and they deserve brutal punishment and retribution. Execution would be appropriate if not for the possibility of judicial mistake; life imprisonment is the only other just option.

Again, your language says it all. Brutal Punishment and Retribution? Revenge and Blood Lust. On top of the fact that you're ignoring that it IS something that has the potential to be cured or the very least contained. For those who CANNOT be treated, life sentence is most definitely just.



In the vast majority of cases, yes, however, I don't feel a killer or rapist deserves a second chance. Let them rot in prison.

I feel the same way. However, the lives of others shouldn't subject to how I FEEL. Some do deserve a second chance, even I don't like it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, I did mean pedophiles who actually molest children.

Those crimes deserve brutal punishment because they absolutely destroy innocent human beings: whether by killing them outright or murdering their psyches, stripping them of their bodily integrity, and placing within them an inalienable trauma. No other crimes come close to the horror inflicted by these three.

"Murdering their psyches"? The thing is, I also think rape should be punished swiftly, brutally and with overwhelming force. Yet I do so because I think patriarchy needs to be smashed, and because rape is an aspect of patriarchy. So are attacks on abortion doctors and homosexuals; those crimes need to be punished equally swiftly, brutally and, if I might indulge myself a bit here, their punishment needs to inspire terror in those that support them. But your explanation seems to be inspired by patriarchy, not opposed to it - it's as if you're saying that raped women are somehow "damaged", "sullied" etc.

[Kindness]

"Murdering their psyches"? The thing is, I also think rape should be punished swiftly, brutally and with overwhelming force. Yet I do so because I think patriarchy needs to be smashed, and because rape is an aspect of patriarchy. So are attacks on abortion doctors and homosexuals; those crimes need to be punished equally swiftly, brutally and, if I might indulge myself a bit here, their punishment needs to inspire terror in those that support them. But your explanation seems to be inspired by patriarchy, not opposed to it - it's as if you're saying that raped women are somehow "damaged", "sullied" etc.

Not at all. I don't think raped women are sullied in some patriarchal way, I was simply trying to convey the horror of rape to the victim and point out why it deserves swift, merciless punishment rather than rehabilitation ("terror" is, in my opinion, taking it too far; this isn't Stalinist Russia).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Not at all. I don't think raped women are sullied in some patriarchal way, I was simply trying to convey the horror of rape to the victim and point out why it deserves swift, merciless punishment rather than rehabilitation ("terror" is, in my opinion, taking it too far; this isn't Stalinist Russia).

Does gay-bashing deserve a similar punishment? Do racist physical attacks?

[Kindness]

Does gay-bashing deserve a similar punishment? Do racist physical attacks?

Yes, they also deserve serious punishment -- decades to life in prison -- but the harm caused by those acts, while absolutely horrific, is not as severe as that caused by rape.

[#FF0000]

I'm only a pacifist when it comes to innocent people and animals, not when it comes to monsters.

People who will kill and cause harm to defend systems of power and privilege = innocent.

Meanwhile draconian methods of "punishment" that do nothing to alter behavior or deter violent crime and only serve to sate bloodlust aren't inherently monstrous.

A funny kind of pacifism, dude.

[VDS]

Yes, they also deserve serious punishment -- decades to life in prison -- but the harm caused by those acts, while absolutely horrific, is not as severe as that caused by rape.

For the sake of argument, doesn't gay-bashing lead sometimes to suicide and/or self-destructive behavior? Isn't that horrific as well?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, they also deserve serious punishment -- decades to life in prison -- but the harm caused by those acts, while absolutely horrific, is not as severe as that caused by rape.

Why not? As VDS points out, it can lead to major stress, suicide etc. etc.

[Blake's Baby]

We are animals, that is a scientific fact. We're just primates with big brains, not some kind of higher creature...

True. Let's act like animals. I don't think animals generally kill or imprison transgressors.


...
I don't support the death penalty (as I said in an above post), but I do support justice. The act of taking another's life or violating another sexually (especially a child) is unforgivable and cries out for society's retribution. It's not about bloodlust, but giving proper recompense to heinous crimes. Punishment is about more than getting back at the perpetrator, it's about honoring the victim...

No it isn't. What 'recompense' or 'honour' is there in punishing someone? 'Oh I'm dead, but at least I've been 'recompensed' and 'honoured' through someone else being removed from society'. ???????????????


...

The justice system takes these factors into account, which is why the death penalty -- or even life without parole -- is comparatively rare as a sentence...

'Justice' is a religious concept. What does it have to do with socialist society?


...

I don't care if they have a mental disease, pedophilia is heinous, unbelievably damaging to children, and absolutely unforgivable...

So, by brutalising paedophiles in turn, we magically 'cure' children who've been abused? Really, you're talking terrible shit. I suggest that you change your name from 'Kindness' to 'Reactionary Arse' instead as that's what you're talking.


... People who engage in it choose to commit disgusting acts against children of their own will, and they deserve brutal punishment and retribution. Execution would be appropriate if not for the possibility of judicial mistake; life imprisonment is the only other just option...

How about restitution? How about rehabilitation?


...
In the vast majority of cases, yes, however, I don't feel a killer or rapist deserves a second chance. Let them rot in prison.

Why should the rest of support someone useless to society? Isn't it better to get them to work to try and improve the planet a bit? Prison is the second stupidest idea imaginable as a response to social transgression (no matter how severe). It only makes sense if someone is so dangerous (ie likely to do the same to someone else) that they need to be sequestered for the general safety of the rest of us.

[Luís Henrique]

I know I must come out as a bore, but again I have to protest the limited options.


Yes, I support the death penalty for a wide range of crimesThat would be absurd. There is only one crime that can be logically punished with death: murder. Otherwise any other criminal (robber, rapist, arsonist) who legitimately feared being punished with death would be strongly tempted to resort to murder to conceal the first crime.

Or maybe there are two crimes that can be logically punished with death, the other being treason. But to support the death penalty in cases of treason requires being loyal to State first place, so it shouldn't apply to disloyal people such as revolutionary leftists...

So I can't vote for this option.


Yes, but only in certain cases So we have limited the cases in which death penalty can be logically applied to only two (or one, in the case we aren't loyal defenders of the State). Now we would have to understand whether the death penalty really works in such cases. Does it? There are very few actual serial killers; most murderers do so in extreme cases, and don't posit a real danger of reincidence. But such people as serial killers are more likely mentally ill than anything else, so we would risk killing people for being ill, instead of as a punishment.

Further, there is the problem that the death penalty sends to society at large - and this is quite clearly that killing is (at least sometimes) OK. Now, unless the conditions for OKing killing are related to the State (it is OK for the State to kill people, it is not OK for individuals to do it), this would mean OKing the killing of people by other individual under at least some circumstances. Or, if it is the nature of the killer - the State, as opposed to individuals - this implies a level of sheer irrational worship of the State that cannot be held by anyone who fancy themselves as revolutionary leftists.

Then, of course, there is the unavoidabe issue of mistakenly sentencing innocents, in which case the execution of a death sentence would mean the absolute impossibility of redressing the wrong in any significant way.

So, again, I can't vote for this option.

But...


Under no circumstances should someone be executed.I cannot vote for this either, for I certainly can think of circumstances where executing people is absolutely unavoidable, even without proper trial. Such are the realities of war, civil war and revolution included. Sometimes it is impossible to be humanitarian without risking military defeat, and so it is impossible to hold such an absolute position as "under no circumstances".

So I am not voting. Can someone who voted please PM me the results of the poll up to now?

Luís Henrique

[CaptainJackJohnson]

Kindness, (ironic name)

I think this is one of the issues which presents two problems with allowing the community to make loose interpretations of morality that don't follow the fundamental concepts of anarchism. The first problem is that over time the definitions tend to widen as people try to include more things in it in order to justify their hatred. Paedophilia is a good example of this. Active paedophilia -- that is, child molestation -- is, if not unforgivable, at least very, very difficult to justify. The problem is that many, many people like to extend the term -- which is explicitly the love of pre-pubescent children who physically incapable of engaging in sexual activity -- to include what is more correctly referred to as ephebophilia, which is the preference for those of late adolescence, who are fully capable of engaging in sexual activity.

Another example of this widening of definitions is that of "child". Correctly, it refers to pre-pubescents, but when adults desire to speak of paedophilia or when they wish to exert superiority over their youngers they like to extend the definition to include anyone up to the age of majority.

People use this widened definition to gloss over the fact that there is a huge difference in moral circumstance between molesting a pre-pubescent child and engaging in sexual activity with a young adult.

They do these things simply and for no other reason than the need to feel morally superior to others.

In an anarchist society, we need to respect the decision of others independent of their circumstances, and this includes respecting the opinions of the young. If a teenager says "I consented", we have to respect that. But if a child says that they consented, we know that this is impossible because their bodies are not adapted to sexual activity.

Ages of consent are arbitrary. If there was a scientific basis for them they would not vary from country to country. Saying that we can't trust that the teenager isn't hiding a coercive relationship is a moot point because people of all ages in abusive relationships hide them. In fact, age of consent makes it less likely that the abuse would be discovered because the abuser would be actively trying hide the very existence of the relationship if he knows that the relationship is, by the nature of age of consent laws, illegal.

I discuss this in greater depth here:
captainjackjohnson.tumblr.com/post/10284191179

The second problem is that, as we've demonstrated, having such a wide and fictional definition of paedophilia allows you to justify disproportionate punishments by glossing over the difference between raping a child and having sex with a "minor". It also demonstrated a lack of proportionality in that the equate child molestation to the death penalty. I also think it's fair to mention that by focussing on the "corruption of innocence" aspect, you are ignoring the much more important aspect which is the act of rape itself. Rape traumatises women, and men, to just the same extent that it does children. In all cases the raped are innocent victims and children don't deserve any special privilege that makes their case a more important one to fight than the case of protecting women from the same.

Back to the death penalty, although what the molester has done is wrong, they haven't demonstrated a lack of respect for life. What they have demonstrated is a lack of respect for self-ownership and bodily integrity by forcing themselves on another. In this respect I think the most proportional punishment would be imprisonment and forcing progressively larger and rougher objects up their urethra.

[SuchianFrog735]

Why would you want to rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles, and the like? They don't deserve forgiveness or rehabilitation.

I'm sorry, but who are you to decide that? This isn't a matter of simple retribution. If you care about the victim, then your job should also to help the readjust to society, not simply punishing the criminal brutally. You're riding on the assertion that "they've been irrevocably damaged by the experience and deserve to be avenged". Then why don't we help them as well? What do they gain by having the aggressor killed, some brief reprieve?

This is why people put in regulations and try to change the conditions of society.

[Blake's Baby]

I know I must come out as a bore, but again I have to protest the limited options....

... I certainly can think of circumstances where executing people is absolutely unavoidable, even without proper trial. Such are the realities of war, civil war and revolution included. Sometimes it is impossible to be humanitarian without risking military defeat, and so it is impossible to hold such an absolute position as "under no circumstances".

So I am not voting...

Sometimes, Luis, I feel we're very much on the same page.


... Can someone who voted please PM me the results of the poll up to now?
...

But I don't care. It's obvious that anyone who voted for any of the 'pro-death' options is wrong, and anyone who voted 'no death' only did so as the least worst option.

[Luís Henrique]

Sometimes, Luis, I feel we're very much on the same page.

We many times are.


But I don't care. It's obvious that anyone who voted for any of the 'pro-death' options is wrong, and anyone who voted 'no death' only did so as the least worst option.

I'm not sure that it is the least worst option, though.

Luís Henrique

[DarkPast]

I'm only a pacifist when it comes to innocent people and animals, not when it comes to monsters.

I have to say I find it extremely weird how you call murderers and rapists "monsters" while at the same time opposing violence against capitalists. Capitalists cause far more pain, misery and death than street criminals... but you call them "beautiful human beings". What?

[Comrade Alex]

Only execute them if they have killed and show absolutely no remorse or repentance for what they did

[Fourth Internationalist]

No death penalty. Innocent people have been murdered as a result of it. Choosing to keep it in place will result in more innocent people being murdered. I would not want to be murdered for doing nothing wrong. Also, I think it'd be nice to be treated with mercy in the case of a failed revolution.

[Art Vandelay]

I support the death penalty in certain cases.