Capital punishment

[MarxSchmarx]

I am curious to hear from comrades who support capital punishment, either for things like counter-revolutionary activity or for murder or other offenses.

In particular, I am curious to hear why you are actively in favor of the death penalty, as opposed to solitary confinement or life-imprisonment.

[BIG BROTHER]

I support the death penalty. Life-imprisonment is a waste of resources.

[spartan]

Rapists and murderers who have been found guilty should face the possibility of execution (Instead of wasting resources (Food) on them which could be better used for people who actually deserve them).

Personally i would only have violent criminals executed and only when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did commit the crime.

Ways of securing a conviction and sealing a death sentence would be by these methods: Lie detector tests, truth serum followed by interrogation, any confessions made by the suspect (Either written, recorded or verbal), DNA, physical and circumstantial evidence that directly links the suspect to the crime in question and maybe even witnesses (Though that wouldnt be necessary if the other methods prove that the suspect did commit the crime).

The best execution method would be one that is cheap, quick and as painless as possible for the person being executed.

[Demogorgon]

Amazing to see so called leftists back capital punishment. How much more reactionary can you get?

[spartan]

Amazing to see so called leftists back capital punishment. How much more reactionary can you get?

Amazing to see so called leftists want to see valuable resources wasted on a bunch of murderers and rapists who forfeited their right to any sort of decent life once they commited their heinous crimes.

How much more reactionary can you get?

If there are ways of medically treating such people then i would have that done instead, the trouble though is that such things dont exist and the ones that do arent guaranteed to cure them of their illness (Far from it in fact).

So until then what do we do?

Do we leave them in prison living a life of luxury where they dont have to earn the resources that they are given (Which means that workers will have to put in that extra effort just to put food on a murderers table)?

Or execute them so that they dont ever have the chance of committing their crimes ever again and wasting resources living in the safety of a prison?

I really cant understand why there are leftists who oppose capital punishment?

Anyway i am open to change so those leftists who are against capital punishment please do try and convince me why it should not be used.

[Oswy]

Those who commit serious crimes could be put to useful labour so as to still positively contribute to society and, perhaps, for its rehabilitational possibilities.

Beyond that should we not recognise, as Marx did, that we do not entirely make ourselves and that society plays a role in forming us as humans with social values. In this light criminal behaviour must in some part be a consequence of the failings of society (from the institution of the family out-over) to properly socialise and integrate individuals. Obviously, however, once serioud crimes are committed society has to prioritise the needs of the many over the needs of the individual and so placing an offender beyond the potential for further harm while still allowing (requiring) useful labour seems reasonable. I wouldn't object to serious criminals being given the option to terminate their lives, should a life of alienated labour not appeal to them though. I don't think society should execute people without their permission however.

[Fedorov]

Amazing to see so called leftists back capital punishment. How much more reactionary can you get?How exactly is this reactionary? Furthermore don't you think that us so-called leftists have divergent views on topics? I mean look at all the isms. To the topic. If a repeat sexual offender of pedophile did something to you or your family would you support that man literally leeching off of the labour the you and other workers. Keeping him in jail, especially if its a lifetime sentence, costs society enormous amounts of money/labour.
I'm with the Honekerist, if the crime is serious and is proven beyond doubt the death penalty should be used. Now I realize there is a fine line with this and it should only be included in criminal area, none of that counter-revolutionary crap which was used to kill just about everyone.

It might sound odd from a self proclaimed anarchist but the power to decide this should be that of a fair council or court with public/community approval. If a person intentionally and knowingly harms the interests of others it is societies duty make right.

[spartan]

Delete.

[BIG BROTHER]

Actually I like how the Aztecs punished people in their society. Most serios offenses were punished by death and the lesser ones let's say stealing for example, enstead of prision you would be a slave and work until you repaid the person.

[Demogorgon]

Amazing to see so called leftists want to see valuable resources wasted on a bunch of murderers and rapists who forfeited their right to any sort of decent life once they commited their heinous crimes.

How much more reactionary can you get?

If there are ways of medically treating such people then i would have that done instead, the trouble though is that such things dont exist and the ones that do arent guaranteed to cure them of their illness (Far from it in fact).

So until then what do we do?

Do we leave them in prison living a life of luxury where they dont have to earn the resources that they are given (Which means that workers will have to put in that extra effort just to put food on a murderers table)?

Or execute them so that they dont ever have the chance of committing their crimes ever again and wasting resources living in the safety of a prison?

I really cant understand why there are leftists who oppose capital punishment?

Anyway i am open to change so those leftists who are against capital punishment please do try and convince me why it should not be used.
I think you may find the Conservative party more suited to your views than any leftist organisation.

[spartan]

I think you may find the Conservative party more suited to your views than any leftist organisation.

And you might find the Liberal Democrats more suited to your views.

The fact is there is nothing wrong with executing people who have commited serious violent crimes if the jury at the defendants trial finds them guilty and has the option to sentence them to death.

The alternative is that the workers have to work that extra bit harder so that the criminal/s can live in the comfort of a secure unit doing nothing to earn the resources that they live on.

Another alternative is that we do imprison them but in secure units which are walled off (To prevent escape) where they can still contribute to society by working but with the sentence requiring that they will have to stay here isolated from the rest of society for ever (Productive life imprisonment if you will).

Anyway you are in the minority thinking that capital punishment for serious violent crime is wrong as shown by those agreeing that violent criminals should be executed in this thread.

[Demogorgon]

And you might find the Liberal Democrats more suited to your views.

The fact is there is nothing wrong with executing people who have commited serious violent crimes if the community sentencing the criminal agrees with the decision.

You are in the minority thinking that capital punishment for serious violent crime is wrong as shown by those agreeing that violent criminals should be executed in this thread.

I am in the minority of what? People in this thread? People on this board? What?

If you were to put me in a room of right wingers my anti-death oenalty views would certainly put in a minority. Stick me in with left wingers and I would be in the majority.

There are few things more authoritarian than granting the state or its equivalent the power of life and death over people.

[Feedyourhead]

i agree with oswy. instead of just ending the problem by killing the offender, we should try to make some sort of benefit by putting them to work or hard labor.
we should only be able to do this, however, if (as spartan said) they have been proven without a doubt to be involved in or the commiter of the crime.

[Feedyourhead]

I am in the minority of what? People in this thread? People on this board? What?

If you were to put me in a room of right wingers my anti-death oenalty views would certainly put in a minority. Stick me in with left wingers and I would be in the majority.

There are few things more authoritarian than granting the state or its equivalent the power of life and death over people.

true, granting the state power over the fate of someone's life is very authoritarian, but what if you put that decision in the hands of the people who live in the criminal's community, or people who were affected by the violent crime?

[spartan]

There are few things more authoritarian than granting the state or its equivalent the power of life and death over people.

We arent granting the state anything.

The power of sentencing will be given to a jury made up of citizens of the community/ies most affected by the criminals acts.

It should be up to the people to decide what happens to a criminal found guilty when sentencing comes around via deciding the best punishment and voting on whether that punishment (Whatever it may be) should be carried out.

Its called Direct Democracy.

Also your linking of capital punishment to right wing views is very silly indeed.

Capital punishment isnt a right or left issue as people from both the left and right can often agree on this issue.

This is an issue for the people to decide for every individual case of serious crime.

[Demogorgon]

We arent granting the state anything.

The power of sentencing will be given to a jury made up of citizens of the community/ies most affected by the criminals acts.

It should be up to the people to decide what happens to a criminal when sentencing comes around via deciding the best punishment and voting on whether that punishment (Whatever it may be) should be carried out.

Its called Direct Democracy.

Also your linking of capital punishment to right wing views is very silly indeed.

Capital punishment isnt a right or left issue as people from both the left and right can often agree on this issue.

This is an issue for the people to decide for every individual case of serious crime.That is the logic of a lynch mob, not of anything resembling a fair trial or proving the crime was committed beyond doubt.

Capital Punishment is an issue that defines the difference between left and right. To support the execution of other human beings is to hold a right wing view to the same extent as to support capitalism is to hold a right wing view.

[Feedyourhead]

That is the logic of a lynch mob, not of anything resembling a fair trial or proving the crime was committed beyond doubt.

Capital Punishment is an issue that defines the difference between left and right. To support the execution of other human beings is to hold a right wing view to the same extent as to support capitalism is to hold a right wing view.
how would you say that a murderer be punished then? its not like he should be allowed to go on with no consequence at all for taking someone else's life.

[spartan]

I just thought that i would point out that i am not arguing for immediate capital punishment for all violent criminals, all i am arguing for is that it should be an option for the jury when they come to sentencing (Just like life imprisonment).


That is the logic of a lynch mob, not of anything resembling a fair trial or proving the crime was committed beyond doubt.

The defendant will be able to defend himself in the same manner as they do now.

All i am arguing for is that the decision when it comes to sentencing should be left to the people.

Members of the jury will be selected from outside of the area/s where the crimes were commited and only those who werent affected by the crimes (Friends or relatives dying) should be selected so as to guarantee complete impartiality and a fair trial for the defendant (Who is innocent until proven guilty).

Either way the jury should be given the right to consider capital punishment for serious violent criminals who have been found guilty (Though it is up to them whether or not they choose this as a punishment come sentencing).

[spartan]

Capital Punishment is an issue that defines the difference between left and right.

No it doesnt.

It defines the difference between those who have no problem wasting resources on convicted murderers at our expense and those who do have a problem allowing these criminals to live after they didnt give their victims that same right.

This isnt a left-right issue so stop trying to make it into one just to make my position appear reactionary.


To support the execution of other human beings is to hold a right wing view to the same extent as to support capitalism is to hold a right wing view.

I suppose that that makes Che Guevara an evil right winger then seeing how he had no problem executing people?

[Demogorgon]

No it doesnt.

It defines the difference between those who have no problem wasting resources on convicted murderers at our expense and those who do have a problem allowing these criminals to live after they didnt give their victims that same right.

This isnt a left-right issue so stop trying to make it into one just to make my position appear reactionary.

I suppose that that makes Che Guevara an evil right winger then seeing how he had no problem executing people?
I am calling your position reactionary because it is reactionary. Indeed given that most of the Western world has now abolished the death penalty, your position is essentially wishing to retreat back to practices wisely left behind in the mid twentieth century. You might as well argue we should abolish Universal Healthcare.

Bringing up cost incidentally is somewhat ironic, given that it costs far more to execute someone than it does to imprison them. It seems you have no problem wasting resources at all so long as it will satisfy your bloodlust.

[Demogorgon]

how would you say that a murderer be punished then? its not like he should be allowed to go on with no consequence at all for taking someone else's life.
It may shock you to learn that there are alternatives available other than either murdering the perpetrator or leaving them unpunished.

[spartan]

Bringing up cost incidentally is somewhat ironic, given that it costs far more to execute someone than it does to imprison them. It seems you have no problem wasting resources at all so long as it will satisfy your bloodlust.

What so bathing, clothing, entertaining and feeding someone for the next 50 plus years of their life costs less then one lethal injection that will end their life?

[spartan]

I am calling your position reactionary because it is reactionary.

You cant just call someone's position on something reactionary just because it isnt the same as your own opinions on it.

Leftists can, and whether you like it or not do, have differing opinions when it comes to capital punishment as seen by the leftists coming out in support and against capital punishment in this thread alone.

My position is one of choice.

If the jury finds a defendant guilty of a violent crime then the option of capital punishment should be there for them when considering punishment, just like life imprisonment should be as well.


Indeed given that most of the Western world has now abolished the death penalty, your position is essentially wishing to retreat back to practices wisely left behind in the mid twentieth century.

Well the country that defines the "western world", America, still has the death penalty so where exactly are people advocating capital punishment retreating back to exactly seeing how it is still practiced in the western world?

Capital punishment is a more than just punishment for violent criminals who had no problem not giving their victims that same right to life which you are arguing in favour of for these murderers when they are caught.

Like i said before i would leave it up to a jury to decide whether or not someone should be sentenced to death or not.

[BIG BROTHER]

Quote:
Bringing up cost incidentally is somewhat ironic, given that it costs far more to execute someone than it does to imprison them. It seems you have no problem wasting resources at all so long as it will satisfy your bloodlust.

What so bathing, clothing, entertaining and feeding someone for the next 50 plus yaers of their life costs less then one lethal injection?

I support capital punishment too, but I think that what he's saying is true at least in the U.S. were people who are setenced to death make appeals and try everything to change the sentence, and since they ussually use the lawyer appointed by the state, they end up wasting more money.

[spartan]

Out of intrest Demogorgon what would you have done with Adolf Hitler and all other Nazi war criminals if you captured them in 1945?

I think that the general consensus amongst leftists is that they should be executed if found guilty after a fair trial and not kept alive via life imprisonment.

[wallflower]

After coming to this debate with the preconceived notion that capital punishment was indeed a left/right issue, I must confess I am stunned that so many on the Left would support capital punishment. Yet, the supporters have laid out many convincing arguments, such as the question of why we should waste resources on a murderer, for example. This said, I still contend: capital punishment in its current incarnation is unjustly and capriciously applied, and should be abolished for this very reason. Perhaps, far in the future, when we are confident that the prejudices that today often decide capital-punishment cases have indeed been exorcised, capital punishment could be considered a just punishment for especially heinous acts. Perhaps. Yet, I still argue a) for a certain, eh...socio-economically deterministic model of human behavior that asserts that people aren't simply born completely evil and beyond redemption and that, as a society, we must take responsibility for the monsters we create, and b) we, as a society, are no better than the presumed murderer we choose to execute if we concede that we are indeed qualified to decide who lives and who dies. Forgive me for edging close to preaching - keep in mind I am not a religious man - but didn't some dude 2000 years ago say something about letting he who is without sin cast the first stone? No agenda, just some good advice...

Now what to do with those who commit heinous acts...? Quite frankly, I don't know. Try our best to rehabilitate them, maybe...? Just don't kill them. Not now.

And to do my best to address the earlier red herring: if someone killed a close friend or member of my family, would I want them executed...? No.

And Hitler - let's not forget about him. Should he have been executed, if given the option...? Still, no. I fear a full-scale execution would have given birth to an even greater cult of personality around that man than exists even today.

Call me a liberal if you will; I can take it. But I can't get behind capital punishment.

[Unicorn]

That is the logic of a lynch mob, not of anything resembling a fair trial or proving the crime was committed beyond doubt.

Capital Punishment is an issue that defines the difference between left and right. To support the execution of other human beings is to hold a right wing view to the same extent as to support capitalism is to hold a right wing view.
:D
So according to you Trotsky was a capitalist. He supported the death penalty. He wrote:

"An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death-penalty in its arsenal. So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements—the animals that we call men—will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the inevitable one in the rear."

[Demogorgon]

Out of intrest Demogorgon what would you have done with Adolf Hitler and all other Nazi war criminals if you captured them in 1945?

I think that the general consensus amongst leftists is that they should be executed if found guilty after a fair trial and not kept alive via life imprisonment.

I would have given them life imprisonment. As you may or may not have noticed, executing the war criminals failed to undo the harm they did

[Demogorgon]

:D
So according to you Trotsky was a capitalist. He supported the death penalty. He wrote:

"An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death-penalty in its arsenal. So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements—the animals that we call men—will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the inevitable one in the rear."

It does not follow from that that Trotsky was a capitalist. It follows that he held what by today's standards was a right wing view.

I disagree with him on that. It does not make him a capitalist though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I prefer harsh, "corrective" labour for the most heinous of crimes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/utilitarianism-t59120/index.html


At least, in regards to those deserving the death penalty (but no urgency for immediate execution, thus the "death row"), the harsher forms of penal labour are a cheap way to "execute" them, while extracting labour value from them (as exploitative as that sounds, I know).



This helps the proletarian cause during the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism (Lenin, Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I am opposed to the death penalty. Firstly, it is legally anomalous to give the state the right to kill someone as punishment for something they did in the past. The law permits the killing of another human being in self-defence, that's the only situation I can think of where killing is allowed. And that requires an immediate threat by the deceased-to-be, and the action taken has to be just enough to stop the threat and no more. The law has never permitted a defence of retribution for any crime, much less murder, and I don't see why the state should be exempt from this rule.

However the main reason I oppose the death penalty is because it punishes the criminal's family and not the criminal. In death, the criminal gets off completely free and has no chance to atone, repent or to be rehabilitated. The criminal's family, however, have to deal with the loss of a loved one, despite having done no wrong.

It's a different story, of course, in times of war and revolution.


It defines the difference between those who have no problem wasting resources on convicted murderers at our expense and those who do have a problem allowing these criminals to live after they didnt give their victims that same right.
It is common knowledge that executing someone costs more than imprisoning them.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

What so bathing, clothing, entertaining and feeding someone for the next 50 plus years of their life costs less then one lethal injection that will end their life?
Most of the money spent on judicial executions are spent on entertaining appeals against the death sentence. These appeals, however, are a just and necessary part of the process. Would you rather refuse a condemned man the right to appeal his sentence?

[Fedorov]

It is common knowledge that executing someone costs more than imprisoning them.

Well with lethal injection it does cost a lot but to be honest there are cheaper ways of executing that are acceptably humane. (Go ahead and starting calling me a fascist)


I am opposed to the death penalty. Firstly, it is legally anomalous to give the state the right to kill someone as punishment for something they did in the past. The law permits the killing of another human being in self-defence, that's the only situation I can think of where killing is allowed. And that requires an immediate threat by the deceased-to-be, and the action taken has to be just enough to stop the threat and no more. The law has never permitted a defence of retribution for any crime, much less murder, and I don't see why the state should be exempt from this rule.

What if as well all envision, there is no state and a people's jury or some collective council? After all what gave the right for the convicted to kill another man (assuming its beyond doubt). We can all agree that the judicial system in America is ridiculously inefficient, that a big reason for the high costs.

I'm amazed at the level of childish squealing there is at the very idea. Suddenly we are conservatives and why not Nazi's.


However the main reason I oppose the death penalty is because it punishes the criminal's family and not the criminal. In death, the criminal gets off completely free and has no chance to atone, repent or to be rehabilitated. The criminal's family, however, have to deal with the loss of a loved one, despite having done no wrong.

What if it a repeat offender that has multiple crimes such as pedophilia (I believe is nearly as bad as murder) or plain murder? Is there a point in rehabilitating that person much less spending labor on him?

I don't know where some of you true "leftists" are all located but our prehistoric view has many adherents.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well with lethal injection it does cost a lot but to be honest there are cheaper ways of executing that are acceptably humane. (Go ahead and starting calling me a fascist)
I repeat:
Most of the money spent on judicial executions are spent on entertaining appeals against the death sentence. These appeals, however, are a just and necessary part of the process. Would you rather refuse a condemned man the right to appeal his sentence?


What if as well all envision, there is no state and a people's jury or some collective council? After all what gave the right for the convicted to kill another man (assuming its beyond doubt). We can all agree that the judicial system in America is ridiculously inefficient, that a big reason for the high costs.
Well, what gives the people's jury or some collective council to kill a man in retribution? Retribution is not a defence for anyone or anything, and rightly so.


What if it a repeat offender that has multiple crimes such as pedophilia (I believe is nearly as bad as murder) or plain murder? Is there a point in rehabilitating that person much less spending labor on him?
You didn't address my point about punishing the family.

[Fedorov]

I repeat:
Most of the money spent on judicial executions are spent on entertaining appeals against the death sentence. These appeals, however, are a just and necessary part of the process. Would you rather refuse a condemned man the right to appeal his sentence?And as a I stated before the process is extremely inefficient and can be sped up. Once again, if he is proven beyond doubt or is a repeat offender then the death penalty is in question. There has to be a VERY serious crime in order for there to be consideration.


Well, what gives the people's jury or some collective council to kill a man in retribution? Retribution is not a defence for anyone or anything, and rightly so.I think I recall thinking the other way around as well, what about the person he killed? Did that man have a choice? I believe if the crime is serious enough and there is a proof with a common consensus among the council (whatever that may be) then yes retribution is far more logical than keeping that man alive.


You didn't address my point about punishing the family.You're right, I forgot. I guess I'll have to give "reactionary" answer, I feel sorry but that should not factor into the man's punishment seeing as he wouldn't be able to financially support the family either way. The emotional damage is inevitable but should not stand in the way of justice. Its impossible to please everyone and there's never a full compromise so with that in mind...thats my stance.

[spartan]

I'm amazed at the level of childish squealing there is at the very idea. Suddenly we are conservatives and why not Nazi's.

Put simply it is easier for these people to start calling our views reactionary (Without any proof) rather then to tackle them and actually try to dismiss our points.

I dont care what people think, i am not going to work that extra bit harder so that the Adolf Hitler's and Ted Bundy's out there can live in a secure unit where they are looked after by guards 24 hours a day and are clothed and fed at our expense.

If a jury decides this then fair enough but i object that there shouldnt even be the option of capital punishment for the jury to consider in cases of violent crime.

Like it or not people even in a Socialist society are going to think that capital punishment is a fair punishment for violent criminals and as Socialists we should be giving them at the very least a choice when it comes to sentencing and punishing these violent criminals (Death sentence or life imprisonment for example).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Nobody in this thread so far has gotten past this binary thinking of execution vs. incarceration?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Put simply it is easier for these people to start calling our views reactionary (Without any proof) rather then to tackle them and actually try to dismiss our points.

What are you talking about? I have responded to your points, you haven't responded to mine. And I haven't been doing any squealing about you being a reactionary or anything of the sort, yet both you and Fedorov seem to think that I have.

Fedorov, I will respond to your points tomorrow.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

^^^ Nobody in this thread so far has gotten past this binary thinking of execution vs. incarceration?
Pray tell, what new-age hippy liberal alternative do you have in mind?

[spartan]

What are you talking about? I have responded to your points, you haven't responded to mine. And I haven't been doing any squealing about you being a reactionary or anything of the sort, yet both you and Fedorov seem to think that I have.

Not you RB i was referring mostly to Demogorgon.

[spartan]

Pray tell, what new-age hippy liberal alternative do you have in mind?

Life imprisonment in a forced labour camp?

Thats what Jacob Richter proposed earlier i think?

The advantages to that is that the prisoners will still be able to contribute to society whilst being permanently excluded from the rest of society.

The disadvantage to this is that it would appear as if they are being exploited (Almost like slaves when you think about it).

[Die Neue Zeit]

spartan, I actually acknowledged quite explicitly the chattel-slavery aspect, but it's necessary for the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism. :(


Pray tell, what new-age hippy liberal alternative do you have in mind?

I already stated my utilitarian preferences above, which are anything BUT "new-age hippy liberal." :glare:

Come to think about it, a system of industrial "gulags" like the old Magnitogorsk (yes, that city was an industrial "gulag") would be nothing short of beneficial for post-revolutionary society in dealing with irredeemable class enemies, political class traitors, and serial criminals.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Retributive justice has no place in any half decent society.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Throw my support behind the abolition of capital punishment as well.

[spartan]

Retributive justice has no place in any half decent society.

Neither do mass murderers.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And as a I stated before the process is extremely inefficient and can be sped up. Once again, if he is proven beyond doubt or is a repeat offender then the death penalty is in question. There has to be a VERY serious crime in order for there to be consideration.
But the more you speed it up the less accurate it becomes, and the more likely you are to make mistakes. The threshold of proof for criminal cases is already beyond reasonable doubt, yet appeals are still necessary and mistakes are still made. I don't think it's acceptable to remove a convict's right to appeal.


I think I recall thinking the other way around as well, what about the person he killed? Did that man have a choice? I believe if the crime is serious enough and there is a proof with a common consensus among the council (whatever that may be) then yes retribution is far more logical than keeping that man alive.
No, that man did not have a choice. But that's irrelevant. Unless you're advocating eye-for-an-eye style justice, which is ridiculous and has only ever been advocated by the Bible and its followers.

Realistically retribution is never a logical thing to do in criminal justice. It simply doesn't accomplish anything.


You're right, I forgot. I guess I'll have to give "reactionary" answer, I feel sorry but that should not factor into the man's punishment seeing as he wouldn't be able to financially support the family either way. The emotional damage is inevitable but should not stand in the way of justice. Its impossible to please everyone and there's never a full compromise so with that in mind...thats my stance.
The problem here is that you're begging the question, you are assuming that killing the criminal is "true justice" but how is that so?

[Fedorov]

But the more you speed it up the less accurate it becomes, and the more likely you are to make mistakes. The threshold of proof for criminal cases is already beyond reasonable doubt, yet appeals are still necessary and mistakes are still made. I don't think it's acceptable to remove a convict's right to appeal.One appeal is enough, more than that is a waste of money/labor. A convicts right for an appeal should of course be taken but its shouldn't take years. I guess I agree with you but I still stand firm than it can be sped up.


No, that man did not have a choice. But that's irrelevant. Unless you're advocating eye-for-an-eye style justice, which is ridiculous and has only ever been advocated by the Bible and its followers.

Realistically retribution is never a logical thing to do in criminal justice. It simply doesn't accomplish anything.
Its not Bible rubbish, there are plenty that have and do support it that don't sport a pocket Bible in their hands. In my view its not "we kill you because you killed him", at least agree it is the most efficient answer as opposed to keeping them alive, I don't want to waste the labor of others on a criminal. Now from the ethical point of view I guess I plainly don't see anything wrong with disposing of heinous criminals in such a way. It might not make anyone feel better but I stand by that is is indeed the most logical answer.


The problem here is that you're begging the question, you are assuming that killing the criminal is "true justice" but how is that so?It was Saturday night yesterday and my thoughts were somewhat "whack" as they say. I don't see killing the criminal as some sort of obligation or a necessity because of a personal retribution. My point is simply from the standpoint that these people waste more of our time and energy (even assuming appeals take a long time) than just executing criminals with severe crimes who have been proven beyond guilt and have gone through a just but sped up (in comparison to today's standards) appeal process. I think that is rather rational and just, not just kill him because he killed.
The true justice part (I used completely the wrong words) I guess is taking of the burden of supporting the criminal from society, not the actual killing of him.


What are you talking about? I have responded to your points, you haven't responded to mine. And I haven't been doing any squealing about you being a reactionary or anything of the sort, yet both you and Fedorov seem to think that I have.

I was also reacting to Demogorgon. I realize it was in the middle of my post and looked confusing but you're by far the most constructive so far out of pro-life posters.

[spartan]

Perhaps in time my opinions on capital punishment will mellow.

Though i still cant see why people who have caused so much pain and suffering to so many people (An example being Adolf Hitler and his cronies) should be allowed to live at our expense if found guilty after a fair trial?

[Cryotank Screams]

Amazing to see so called leftists back capital punishment. How much more reactionary can you get?

Totally agree. :glare:


Amazing to see so called leftists want to see valuable resources wasted on a bunch of murderers and rapists who forfeited their right to any sort of decent life once they commited their heinous crimes.

As stated in another thread about capital punishment, people tend to fuck up, alot and thus I would rather push for rehabilitation than just offing the poor bastards. If however a person refused treatment and remained a ‘enduring danger to the public’ I could then see where the death penalty could be justified.


Do we leave them in prison living

The current prison system isn't a better solution either because prisons are ‘pain factories’ and cause more problems than they solve and should be drastically revamped if not done away with completely and replaced with something better.


I suppose that that makes Che Guevara an evil right winger then seeing how he had no problem executing people?

Che executed people in a revolutionary situation in which decisions must be carried out ‘quick and dirty’ and thus him executing counter-revolutionaries during a revolutionary situation is completely different then executing people in a pre/post-revolutionary society.


Out of intrest Demogorgon what would you have done with Adolf Hitler and all other Nazi war criminals if you captured them in 1945?

That would be a special situation and it would be idiotic to compare Hitler and Fascist war criminals to your average criminal.

[EricTheRed]

I support the death penalty. Life-imprisonment is a waste of resources.

I don't know if this has been rebuffed or not, as I haven't read through the entire thread, but it costs more resources to put someone to death in this country than it does to put them away for LWOP.

In any case, I am not opposed to the death penalty as long as it can be absolutely proven that the person committed the crime - and the punishment has to fit the crime, obviously. For this reason, I am opposed to the death penalty in this country.

In a revolutionary situation, I think the way the Cubans did it was fine.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Out of intrest Demogorgon what would you have done with Adolf Hitler and all other Nazi war criminals if you captured them in 1945?

Does killing a war criminal resurrect the dead? End tyranny? Does it do anything at all besides satisfy some primitive emotion? If you say it brings "justice," well remember the roots of that term and who invented the concept.

[Fedorov]

I think the pro-death party here already explained their stances and rebuffs to everything just stated, read a little before and then specifically pick apart my argument. By the way, as stated before the cost for killing someone is so high because of all the fuss of the convict feeling zero pain and if you look back I've stated that there are much cheaper and acceptably humane alternatives to lethal injection. My argument is from a labor point of view, I honestly couldn't give a damn what that person feels if he is (once again) proven without doubt, the crime is severe enough, and he has had a chance to appeal his case.
All of you who denounce other "leftists" because of a difference of opinion that hasn't much to do with Marxism have your head up your arse, give your critique and what not but don't call me and spartan reactionary.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I find it rather strange that people go about debating the merits of capital punishment based on how expensive it is. To measure the world, and human life, purely in terms of what costs the most is missing the bigger picture.

I would oppose capital punishment even if it cost nothing in terms of labour, time, or money.

[Fedorov]

Well that is where we plainly disagree Kropotkin. I have no moral dilemma about doing away with murderers and pedophiles. That "human life" is of no value to anyone (excluding family) and has severely hurt or injured the society and individual that has given everyone including the convicted a fair chance to earn an honest living. Seeing as it does in fact cost more to incarcerate (not in the US) and that prison itself is an extremely horrible institution the death penalty is is a completely valid.

[Black Cross]

I don't know if this has been rebuffed or not, as I haven't read through the entire thread, but it costs more resources to put someone to death in this country than it does to put them away for LWOP.

Covered. The argument was that amerikkka's way of puting criminals to death is inefficient and costly.

Why should we be comparing our hypothetical community/country to amerikkka, anyway? I can't speak for others, but i sure as hell am not fighting for revolution so that i can put amerikkkan policy back into practice.

Comrade Richter's comment went relatively unrecognized for some reason (it is the most practical idea for an alternative to death or life imprisonment). But i'm in agreement that the labour of these criminals could be very useful during times of revolution and a translation into a socialist society. I especially feel this way for murderers. I hate to put it this way, cos it sounds kinda messed up, but they destroyed labour besides destroying a life. At the very least we can extract some labour from them to replace that which was taken from society. Again, please don't flip out; i don't mean, in any way, to demean the life of the deceased (any loss of innocent life is tragic).

[Enragé]

there's nothing wrong with capital punishment as long as it's either capitalists or bureaucrats getting shot.

[Kyznetsov]

Correction, just as education, is the assertion of something and the repression of something else, this is true in bourgeois society and in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Bourgeois prisons create a system of underground drugs, crime and cruelty and they bottle the person up in a cage till they waste away. I favor reform-through-labor programs which enable the prisoner to be active and to put back into society what they took away through anti-social and/or social parasitism, just as strikes and organized labor is repressed under bourgeois society, so too must capitalistic black-market actions be repressed by the worker authoritities.

[Fedorov]

I'm completely open to the idea of forced labour for such criminals as an alternative to the death penalty. But that is essentially slavery and perhaps is only useful during a transitional period (which I believe can't work all that well), what if it becomes the norm and we forget about progressing?

[Kyznetsov]

I'm completely open to the idea of forced labour for such criminals as an alternative to the death penalty. But that is essentially slavery and perhaps is only useful during a transitional period (which I believe can't work all that well), what if it becomes the norm and we forget about progressing?
No you misunderstand, law has and always will be a social tool, it should be used by any socialist state to 'correct' any bourgeois and reactionary intermediate classes who break proletarian laws (laws which reflect the interests of a working class state), correction can be through labor-reform.

Understand it like this, the society is about the principle 'To each the full product of their labor', so if a socially-dangerous element engages in clandestine exploitation or the like he has taken away the right of every individual to have their full labor value, so he must give it back to the society through such correct.

[Wanted Man]

The fact is there is nothing wrong with executing people who have commited serious violent crimes if the jury at the defendants trial finds them guilty and has the option to sentence them to death.
Well, that certainly happens in Texas. Or will judicial failure "wither away" under socialism? :rolleyes:



It should be up to the people to decide what happens to a criminal found guilty when sentencing comes around via deciding the best punishment and voting on whether that punishment (Whatever it may be) should be carried out.

Its called Direct Democracy.
What if the majority is wrong? Even if every jury member was completely independent, they could still be utterly mistaken. "The people" could theoretically vote to kill someone for any reason. Why should a group of people have the right to determine someone's life or death, just because they're the majority?

[Die Neue Zeit]

At least I'm not alone in my "pro-gulag" stance towards outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial criminals as part of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism. :cool:


there's nothing wrong with capital punishment as long as it's either capitalists or bureaucrats getting shot.

Meh - why not extract hard labour from them instead, preferrably in industrial gulags like Magnitogorsk (instead of the idiotic forced-labour farming, forestry, or mining) or construction gulags like Stalin's dam projects? :)

[Kyznetsov]

At least I'm not alone in my "pro-gulag" stance towards outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial criminals as part of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism. :cool:
Well it's about the liquidation of classes (economic relationships), not people, collective punishment does not make sense, if an individual breaks proletarian laws (which exists for the protection of the worker class rule) then he will suffer the consequences. After the revolution I don't their is much argument that a great deal of the bourgeois, lumpenproletariat gangsters etc may try to make underground black markets so they can secretly operate a capitalist regime. This is why the full apparatus of the state should be mobilized against them as such underground capitalism infects the greater society.

[Enragé]

At least I'm not alone in my "pro-gulag" stance towards outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial criminals as part of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism. :cool:



Meh - why not extract hard labour from them instead, preferrably in industrial gulags like Magnitogorsk (instead of the idiotic forced-labour farming, forestry, or mining) or construction gulags like Stalin's dam projects? :)

Because we would be turning ourselves into bureaucrats/capitalists.

Far easier it is to shoot or banish them to some island, let them fuck up themselves.

Simply put, each prison creates prison guards.

[Enragé]

I'm completely open to the idea of forced labour for such criminals as an alternative to the death penalty. But that is essentially slavery and perhaps is only useful during a transitional period (which I believe can't work all that well), what if it becomes the norm and we forget about progressing?

Why are you so opposed to killing?

They've been killing us since 1793.

And yes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but im not saying poke eachother's eyes out, im saying, make the capitalists and bureaucrats blind.

[Fedorov]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedorov http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1110929#post1110929)
I'm completely open to the idea of forced labour for such criminals as an alternative to the death penalty. But that is essentially slavery and perhaps is only useful during a transitional period (which I believe can't work all that well), what if it becomes the norm and we forget about progressing?

Why are you so opposed to killing?

They've been killing us since 1793.

And yes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but im not saying poke eachother's eyes out, im saying, make the capitalists and bureaucrats blind.

If you look at my other posts you see that I'm not opposed to it as long as there is a fair and justifiable cause in the criteria I mentioned earlier. Capitalists and the like should not be shot just because there are such, there must always be reason.

[shorelinetrance]

capital punishment for the bourgeoisie, of course i support it. Capitalism has killed more than the worst serials killers in human history.

death to the ruling class.

[Enragé]

@Federov

ok, agreed, common sense (i hope... *glances at maoists/stalinists/ anarchists who like terrorism as long as it's individual* <3)

[Black Cross]

Capitalism has killed more than the worst serials killers in human history.

I think, as a group, we should agree to stop saying that. It's not true, and all it does is leave the door open for capitalists/anti-socialists to say the same about socialism.


Far easier it is to shoot or banish them to some island, let them fuck up themselves.

whatever yoda. Just messin, but i'd definitely vote for the death sentence before i voted to give them an island. That's how australia was formed, and they love it there; i hardly see that as a punishment. Unless it was like that island in jurassic park. a bunch of spoiled bourgeoise pricks tryin to survive on an island inhabitted by volasaraptors. That's good stuff.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

One appeal is enough, more than that is a waste of money/labor. A convicts right for an appeal should of course be taken but its shouldn't take years. I guess I agree with you but I still stand firm than it can be sped up.
First of all, I don't think one appeal is enough. It is quite easy for two judges to err in law, or in their charges to the jury, or for two juries to be influenced by external factors or an incorrect understanding of the law/facts. Absolute clarity and certainty would be needed, and that would cost a lot and take a while even if we could speed it up.


Its not Bible rubbish, there are plenty that have and do support it that don't sport a pocket Bible in their hands. In my view its not "we kill you because you killed him", at least agree it is the most efficient answer as opposed to keeping them alive, I don't want to waste the labor of others on a criminal. Now from the ethical point of view I guess I plainly don't see anything wrong with disposing of heinous criminals in such a way. It might not make anyone feel better but I stand by that is is indeed the most logical answer.

If in your view it's not "we killed you because you killed him", then you evidently don't support the concept of "eye for an eye". Wouldn't you agree? If you do, then it is illogical to state that because someone killed another man, the state can kill him.

My point here is that there is no defence of retribution in law; if someone harmed your family and then five months later you hunted him down and killed him, the mere fact that he harmed your family would not get you off. So you are affording the state a defence that you would not afford to an individual. It's legally anomalous, as I said.


It was Saturday night yesterday and my thoughts were somewhat "whack" as they say. I don't see killing the criminal as some sort of obligation or a necessity because of a personal retribution. My point is simply from the standpoint that these people waste more of our time and energy (even assuming appeals take a long time) than just executing criminals with severe crimes who have been proven beyond guilt and have gone through a just but sped up (in comparison to today's standards) appeal process. I think that is rather rational and just, not just kill him because he killed.
But that's the problem, you say that "even assuming appeals take a long time" it is more expensive to jail someone than to kill them. But that is obviously not the case, as I have pointed out. Indeed, you could reduce costs and probably make execution more cost-effective than imprisonment by abrogating the appeals process, but in that case execution would be unethical because the state would be killing people without a sufficiently high degree of certainty of their guilt.


Though i still cant see why people who have caused so much pain and suffering to so many people (An example being Adolf Hitler and his cronies) should be allowed to live at our expense if found guilty after a fair trial?
By the way, I support introducing labour in prisons. Not for the same reasons as Jacob Richter (if I read him correctly) though. Whereas Jacob seems to see the labour as a kind of punishment in itself which would act as a further deterrent to criminals, I think the point would be to lessen the burden of their detention on society by making them less productive. There is a problem here though in that they wouldn't really be seeing the full fruits of their labour, so we would effectively be simulating capitalism within the prisons (which could make for some absolutely delicious irony if used against class enemies post-revolution).


Well, that certainly happens in Texas. Or will judicial failure "wither away" under socialism?
Exactly, judicial mistake can never be completely abolished.


What if the majority is wrong? Even if every jury member was completely independent, they could still be utterly mistaken. "The people" could theoretically vote to kill someone for any reason. Why should a group of people have the right to determine someone's life or death, just because they're the majority?
Exactly. People seem to have this overly simplistic view of the law and therefore think that can't be too hard to tell whether someone is innocent or guilty. But it can be. It's not just about whether or not someone killed the guy, it's about whether or not they fulfill the sufficient mens rea as well as the actus reus and whether or not their action was justified or excusable. For example, a man could stab another man in front of a hundred people in the middle of the day. But how do they know he wasn't insane, provoked, under duress, acting in self-defence etc.? Some areas of the law relating to defences are even heavily disputed, for example, duress not applying to a murder charge. This is in my view a heinously wrong stance, yet it is the one adopted by most judges. Would you agree with it?

[guevara2093]

After the revolution, it would be better to abolish capital punishment because most people would find it to be stupid that we strived to demolish opression, and then pull out a system that would believe to be the optimal solution (that is what republicans are for). I haven't read everything yet, but wouldn't it be better to construct gulags on islands where the prisoners would have to support themselves? they would have to provide for themselves and would stop thinking about other pursuits like rape, murder, ect... and soldiers can come and check on them once a month or something.

[Fedorov]

Exactly. People seem to have this overly simplistic view of the law and therefore think that can't be too hard to tell whether someone is innocent or guilty. But it can be. It's not just about whether or not someone killed the guy, it's about whether or not they fulfill the sufficient mens rea as well as the actus reus and whether or not their action was justified or excusable. For example, a man could stab another man in front of a hundred people in the middle of the day. But how do they know he wasn't insane, provoked, under duress, acting in self-defence etc.? Some areas of the law relating to defences are even heavily disputed, for example, duress not applying to a murder charge. This is in my view a heinously wrong stance, yet it is the one adopted by most judges. Would you agree with it?

On the topic of being stabbed in front of hundreds of people even if the person had lets say a bad day or is mentally unstable I don't think that should grant them any more protection that a "sane" person. I think all people that commit such crimes are mentally unstable so I call that rubbish. Self defence is of course another issue but as our scenario goes, if a hundred people saw it I believe that is more than enough evidence make a solid case. There are many judges that do indeed follow an extremely simplistic formula but there are also many cases that the judges give out very light and joking sentences. Such as a case (forgot where and when) when a repeat pedophile got only 1 year in jail. So perhaps the entire judicial system should be re-examined.


First of all, I don't think one appeal is enough. It is quite easy for two judges to err in law, or in their charges to the jury, or for two juries to be influenced by external factors or an incorrect understanding of the law/facts. Absolute clarity and certainty would be needed, and that would cost a lot and take a while even if we could speed it up.


If the two judges and jury's come to the same and unanimous vote that is good enough for me, I guess that is a debate on personal opinion. The possibility for error is always present in everything so in my opinion the chances of two different trials "getting it wrong" is pretty small although obviously there.


By the way, I support introducing labour in prisons. Not for the same reasons as Jacob Richter (if I read him correctly) though. Whereas Jacob seems to see the labour as a kind of punishment in itself which would act as a further deterrent to criminals, I think the point would be to lessen the burden of their detention on society by making them less productive. There is a problem here though in that they wouldn't really be seeing the full fruits of their labour, so we would effectively be simulating capitalism within the prisons (which could make for some absolutely delicious irony if used against class enemies post-revolution).

Thats why I myself am iffy on the whole gulag deal.


If in your view it's not "we killed you because you killed him", then you evidently don't support the concept of "eye for an eye". Wouldn't you agree? If you do, then it is illogical to state that because someone killed another man, the state can kill him.

My point here is that there is no defence of retribution in law; if someone harmed your family and then five months later you hunted him down and killed him, the mere fact that he harmed your family would not get you off. So you are affording the state a defence that you would not afford to an individual. It's legally anomalous, as I said.

As I said, I don't support the eye for an eye thing in any way. My stance is one from lessening the burden others have to pay for the actions of others. Its not out a want for retribution.

[Cryotank Screams]

On the topic of being stabbed in front of hundreds of people even if the person had lets say a bad day or is mentally unstable I don't think that should grant them any more protection that a "sane" person.

This reminds of the movie M and in particular the very last bit of the movie in which the child murderer explains why he feels that he must kill children and so on before the citizens of the town that are acting as the jury/judges. After that the murderer’s defense lawyer says something to the effect of “this man is sick, you take a sick man to a doctor not an executioner.” I find this to be true. If someone is found to be genuinely insane and is delusional, schizophrenic or whatever then they should be placed in an asylum and so forth, not executed.

Not all violent criminals are insane or mentally unstable. There is a great many that are perfectly sane and rational and commit violent crimes.


I think all people that commit such crimes are mentally unstable so I call that rubbish.

I call what you just said rubbish because it isn’t backed by factual/empirical evidence but rather it’s just your thoughts.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm opposed to capital punishment.

[rampantuprising]

i agree with the "eye for an eye" proposal. we shouldn't offer a "plea bargain" for lack of a better term, it's more than obvious what capitalism has done not only to the united states, but also the foreign countries the u.s. has intruded upon. let the capitalists take their own medicine.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

i agree with the "eye for an eye" proposal. we shouldn't offer a "plea bargain" for lack of a better term, it's more than obvious what capitalism has done not only to the united states, but also the foreign countries the u.s. has intruded upon. let the capitalists take their own medicine.
Grand, I'm off to rape a supermodel so.

[Fedorov]

i agree with the "eye for an eye" proposal. we shouldn't offer a "plea bargain" for lack of a better term, it's more than obvious what capitalism has done not only to the united states, but also the foreign countries the u.s. has intruded upon. let the capitalists take their own medicine.Ugh...my argument grows weaker and weaker this... Its a general argument on the death penalty, not under revolutionary circumstances. My opinion on that is t those should be kept in check (execution during critical stages of revolution). You can't go around executing every Joe and Bob because they are capitalist scum.


I call what you just said rubbish because it isn’t backed by factual/empirical evidence but rather it’s just your thoughts.And your arguments are supported by hard facts? They are just as opinionated as mine.


Anyway, I don't think anyone is on the way to changing their minds on this topic and I really don't know what to add. Just pointing out for perhaps the fifth time that I do not go by the logic that murderers deserve murder, not an eye for an eye.

[rampantuprising]

Ugh...my argument grows weaker and weaker this... Its a general argument on the death penalty, not under revolutionary circumstances. My opinion on that is t those should be kept in check (execution during critical stages of revolution). You can't go around executing every Joe and Bob because they are capitalist scum.

i never said that they should be executed simply for being capitalist, i am just saying that they should receive the same criminal prosecution and punishment as the lower class does.

but i have gotten off track. as far as capital punishment in general goes, can you really say that life imprisonment is a adequit punishment? i mean obviously no one WANTS to go to prison, but after a certain amount of time inmates do adjust to the prison life. i know theres know way of knowing. but how many murderers, rapists, etc who are serving life right now feel remorse for what they've done? not only that but are living comfortably after being there for so long. some just seem to not care about being imprisoned and it may be safe to say that in some cases imprisonment is not a punishment at all.

[Fedorov]

i never said that they should be executed simply for being capitalist, i am just saying that they should receive the same criminal prosecution and punishment as the lower class does.

But for a justifiable cause, I think its a given that they would fall under the same laws and process that lower classes do in the event of a revolution. Anyway, that first comment I made was unnecessary, I'm sorry if I offended you with it.

[rampantuprising]

no problem. still kind of new to this!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

i never said that they should be executed simply for being capitalist, i am just saying that they should receive the same criminal prosecution and punishment as the lower class does.

but i have gotten off track. as far as capital punishment in general goes, can you really say that life imprisonment is a adequit punishment? i mean obviously no one WANTS to go to prison, but after a certain amount of time inmates do adjust to the prison life. i know theres know way of knowing. but how many murderers, rapists, etc who are serving life right now feel remorse for what they've done? not only that but are living comfortably after being there for so long. some just seem to not care about being imprisoned and it may be safe to say that in some cases imprisonment is not a punishment at all.
And how many murders and rapists would ever feel remorse if you killed them for their crimes? None, of course. In fact, they don't feel anything, because they're dead.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Fedorov, I will respond to you tomorrow.

[Sendo]

Doesn't rape occur when it is easier to get away with it? BY that I mean, in a nation in civil war, rape occurs more often. Where do you think they are at peacetime? Really all you would be doing is killing those who get caught and making an example of them. It is charade the same way Nuremburg was. Pardon some major Nazis, but make sure you KILL some of ones you prosecute so that everyone thinks justice was meted out

[rampantuprising]

And how many murders and rapists would ever feel remorse if you killed them for their crimes? None, of course. In fact, they don't feel anything, because they're dead.

and i agree completely. but what then would be a proper punishment? its as if they care neither about living or dying. do you then let them live a life of imprisonment in which they wouldnt mind living?

[rampantuprising]

Doesn't rape occur when it is easier to get away with it? BY that I mean, in a nation in civil war, rape occurs more often. Where do you think they are at peacetime? Really all you would be doing is killing those who get caught and making an example of them. It is charade the same way Nuremburg was. Pardon some major Nazis, but make sure you KILL some of ones you prosecute so that everyone thinks justice was meted out

right and thats what i was trying to say earlier. justice shouldnt be limited to a certain status or military rank. the only example that should be made is that those types of crimes should not be tolerated by anyone

[Enragé]

The solution to rape is an AK-47 to every woman.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

On the topic of being stabbed in front of hundreds of people even if the person had lets say a bad day or is mentally unstable I don't think that should grant them any more protection that a "sane" person. I think all people that commit such crimes are mentally unstable so I call that rubbish. Self defence is of course another issue but as our scenario goes, if a hundred people saw it I believe that is more than enough evidence make a solid case. There are many judges that do indeed follow an extremely simplistic formula but there are also many cases that the judges give out very light and joking sentences. Such as a case (forgot where and when) when a repeat pedophile got only 1 year in jail. So perhaps the entire judicial system should be re-examined.
Ah come on, don't be ridiculous. You think people who are mentally insane should be treated like people who intentionally and maliciously kill someone? What if someone, due to a schizophrenic delusion, believes that their victim is an immediate threat to their life? Or honestly believes that unless they kill this person, the world will end? (It has happenbed before.)

As for the rest of that, you missed my point completely. Obviously a hundred people seeing an act is enough to confirm that that act actually happened, but in order for the person to be guilty their mind must also be guilty. Again, they could be acting in self-defence, responding to a threat made by the victim which the crowd didn't see, the person might be provoked into killing the victim, or the person might be under duress (duress traditionally isn't a defence to a murder charge but I think it should be, this is a separate argument). The list of defences is long, and all these have to be considered in any criminal case, making the procedure a lot less clear-cut than you think.


If the two judges and jury's come to the same and unanimous vote that is good enough for me, I guess that is a debate on personal opinion. The possibility for error is always present in everything so in my opinion the chances of two different trials "getting it wrong" is pretty small although obviously there.
If you admit that there is a possibility for error, why would you want to do something so irreversible as take away someone's life?

[Sam_b]

Although it has been said before in this thread, the differences between revolutionary and post-revolutionary society must be addressed. In a revolutionary situation, capital punishment is entirely justified. If the Bolsheviks had not executed the Tsar's family what do you think would have happened? They would have escaped from confinement and built up a counter-revolutionary army. In such instances, their execution is of direct benefit to the mass working class and can be justified.

However, when comrades talk of (what i'm guessing as) post-revolutionary society and that
Rapists and murderers who have been found guilty should face the possibility of execution (Instead of wasting resources (Food) on them which could be better used for people who actually deserve them). they are sliding dangerously into the mentality and mindset of the right-wing. The problem persists when there appears to be no 'middle ground' in the argument: do we execute a teenager who kills his parents after suffering a lifetime of pysical and emotional abuse, for example?

Resources are not the issue here: a classless society on workers control principles would be able to provide for everyone. Its alarming that Spartan, for example, paints the picture that people convicted of murder are 'in prison living a life of luxury'. Does a socialist/communist/anarchist etc society have prisons? Are they of the same level as pre-existing prisons in the USA or UK for example, which are by no means examples of luxury living'?

If a debate is to be made on capital punishment there needs to be a definition of alternative forms, whether this is labour, imprisonment or another abstract idea of justice. In today's world the death penalty is nothing less than a cruel and deliberate method of torture: does this mean that such similarities in punishment in the future are just taking lessons from the capitalist's rule book?

[Black Cross]

do we execute a teenager who kills his parents after suffering a lifetime of pysical and emotional abuse, for example?


I think that's a poor example. I don't really think anyone here would vote in favor of that. I think a better example would be Manson, or someone like that.


The solution to rape is an AK-47 to every woman.

heh, we love our AK-47's eh?

[JJM 777]

I think that the best way to deal with murderers would be making a medical examination to assess the condition of their body organs, match them with people waiting for an organ transplant (such as liver, kidney, heart, etc.) and then schedule a day when the body of the murderer will give life to many.

Life for life. You take life from others, so you give your life for many.

[Personality_404]

Im not sure what all has been said so far, Im a little to lazy to read it all but the first page, but I thought I'd put in some input.

My problem with capital punishment is the proof part, there have been many times that someone has been "proven" guilty and then it turns out they were innocent after they have been executed. Im not against the capital punishment from a moral standpoint.

I think capital punishment should only be used in cases where it is blatently obvious that he/she is guilty, like if they admit it, or they are caught on tape, or outstanding DNA evidence. In these cases I would back the death penalty but do it in the way JJM 777 said, have them set up to be killed on the same day someone needs an organ, or take their organs and do whatever it is they do to save them for someone.

All other cases that aren't in the "without a shadow of a doubt guilty" category should be in labor prisons for life with no chance of parole, unless they choose to kill themselves as the alternative, in which case they too would be mandatory organ doners.

I would just rather have a guilty man in prison for life than an innocent mans blood on my hands.

[Lyev]

Well, I see it that, if you're against murder and killing how can you be, at the same time, an advocate of killing a killer? Does that make sense? It just seems so hypocritical. It seems slightly strange that the person that injects the deadly injection or electrocutes the person in the electric chair shouldn't be punished.

Anyway, the people that are really punished by capital punishment are the criminals family when they've done nothing wrong. It also seems slightly heartless to kill someone just because they use up resources.

[Muzk]

It also seems slightly heartless to kill someone just because they use up resources.

I've had a whole lot of work to do about this at school. I learned(without proof) that killing someone is actually much more expensive than imprisoning them. And - that this is the 'only' way to permanently incapacitate someone.

Also that states use this to frighten criminals.

I think that this makes your conservative liberal american less scared about being raped by the next black guy around the corner:thumbup1:

U S A!

[mannetje]

in my heart i feel sometimes that a child rapist or something else heavy that the one who did it should be executed. but my ratio is against the death penalty. put those kind of criminals in to a isolationcell for the rest of their lives. that could be harder for the criminal than the easy way out of dying.

[Muzk]

Since they are human beings too, and from a materialistic point of view, they should be treated just like anyone else, of course this involves making them unable to ever commit such a thing again

[JJM 777]

if you're against murder and killing how can you be, at the same time, an advocate of killing a killer? Does that make sense?
I guess you are against stealing, but you approve the idea that police will "steal" back what a thief has taken?

Harvesting the body organs of a murderer, to save lives of others, makes perfect sense. It is a full compensation for the evil that the person has done.

For me it makes little sense to pamper a murderer. I don't see any moral obligation for the state to treat a person better than the person has illegally treated other people.

UN charter of human rights says: "nobody shall be subjected to a cruel or humiliating punishment". I have an objection: my version of justice goes: "nobody shall be subjected to a punishment MORE cruel or humiliating THAN THE ILLEGAL ACTIONS THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED".

[Outinleftfield]

I'm against execution, because no matter what kind of rules are set down to determine when doubt is completely removed there will be flaws and a risk of executing the innocent. If the person admits it they might be lying. I guess that's their fault for falsely confessing, but what if the person is crazy and hallucinated that they committed the murder and actually believes they did it when they didn't? If there's DNA evidence its possible, maybe not a reasonable doubt depending on the circumstances but possible they just happened to get their DNA on there without killing the person and someone else was able to do it carefully without leaving DNA evidence. If there's camera evidence it could be a person disguised as them. Likely? No. Enough to let them go? No. But the fact that its even remotely possible means the death penalty shouldn't be risked.

However in a post-revolutionary society communities will have to decide what works best for them. If they decide on execution as long as the accused gets a fair trial and they aren't executing people for stupid things it should be allowed and no action other than criticism should be taken against them (not even just severing ties). There are more important things. There are many things different revolutionaries will do that other revolutionaries disagree with, but if we divide ourselves on these issues the society will fail. Socialism will not work without tolerance.

[Luisrah]

I don't agree with capital punishment. It's just something I can't agree in normal circumstances.

Of course that if I had Hitler in front of me, and I had the possibility to shoot him, I'd do it with no problem.

But the problem with capital punishment is that there is ALWAYS a MINIMUN possibility that the person is innocent. And as you know, many people in the world have had capital punishment, only to be found that they were innocent some time later.
Hell, I already feel bad when I hear that someone was imprisoned from 16 to 36 and then they found out he was innocent (was going for perpetual)

Besides, not everyone would want their killers to be killed (in a hypothesis)
I myself would prefer to see someone who killed me for a despicable reason be turned into a slave instead of getting capital punishment.

Killing someone like that instead of giving them perpetual prison is IMO almost like a forgiveness because that person may have remorse, and by killing them, they are not paying back (at least a bit) of the errors they commited.

If I had to make the decision, I'd say he'd work as a slave for the rest of his life. He wouldn't be granted the forgiveness of death.

[The Red Next Door]

Let just like the victims families fuck them up.

[RATM-Eubie]

I only support the death penalty when its used on war criminals who are given a fair trial other than that i dont support the death penalty.