Capital Punishment

[MaverickChaos]

I mostly hear arguments for the idea in day to day life so I was looking for some strong arguments against it - I have some ideas myself but I was wondering if you guys/girls could enlighten me further.

I do study Sociology and of course a large part of that is Crime and Deviancy, I understand the causes but put into practice it's nigh impossible to put an end to under Capitalism. Therefore if we're working within the boundaries of the current economic system, how can we realistically decrease the amount of murders/knife crime without bringing back the death sentence? (Not that it would put an end to it, and I see the irony in the last sentence)

[dschbach]

As a deterrent it does no good, look at the "Bloody Code" in the UK in the C19th.
A tricky one. Under current circumstances the only way by which crimes can be stopped is by an alteration in the media's obsession with the self and sub-standard rap/rnb artists, by improving employment rates, even by Keynesian methods and improving public services. It seems obvious, but and improvement in employment rates and a greater self esteem among citizens reduces the need to carry knives - most knife carriers say something about being respected for carrying a knife, protected too, but a greater feel for earning bread and having had good doors opened by the way of education, creative, academic and practical can at least relatively shift the pinch of being lumpen or "lower working class". It hurts me to talk in such ways, when socialism clearly offers a better answer than any bourgeois sociology.

[PigmerikanMao]

Arguments against? What about all the instances a man was killed for a crime and afterward was proved innocent by means of new crime investigation technologies?
:laugh:

[Demogorgon]

It actually raises the murder rate due to the brutalising effect.

The death penalty is an utterly barbaric practice, it has no place in the modern world.

[MaverickChaos]

Arguments against? What about all the instances a man was killed for a crime and afterward was proved innocent by means of new crime investigation technologies?
:laugh:

Of course that's a factor, but I'm sure it's only a rather small percentage of instances in which this happens.

[PigmerikanMao]

There's always the "cruel and unusual punishment" defense. :rolleyes:

[Pia Fidelis]

I am sure it will be ardently argued by members here, and I assume Ulster Socialist will again start accusing me of being a Nazi, but I am a supporter of state executions.

Now, with this said, I am not saying that things like murder, rape and other heinous crimes, for I think criminals of that calibre should be left to labour-style prisons and harsh, drawn out punishment. In the ominous "post-revolutionary" world, a state execution would only be warranted from treason of the highest regard: when it is moreso for the utilitarian removal of a parasitical element than an actual form of punishment. In the same way the body will void any poisons to avoid further damage.

This would not be used as a deterrant, but as a method of cleansing the state of destructive elements.

*backs up and awaits accusations and flaming*

[Sharon den Adel]

I am against it because it serves no purpose. It does not binrg back the victim, and also, innocent people have been executed in the past, and there is every possiblity this could still happen.

[MaverickChaos]

There's always the "cruel and unusual punishment" defense. :rolleyes:

But what if it is a cruel and unusual crime?
Just so you know, I'm not really in favour of state executions; I'm just trying to get responses to further my knowledge on the matter.

[apathy maybe]

For my opinion of "killing" in a general sense, including execution as punishment, see this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1210883&postcount=6 (basically, the state has no right to exist, and even less right to kill people).

(By the way, I don't believe that "punishment" is a worthwhile or useful tool for preventing "crime".)

As for preventing murders:
Change the economic system; remove the causes of poverty; raise the standard of living; involve people more into society; don't demonise entire groups (the young, "black" or any other group); shoot the prime minister and the entire parliament, CEOs of major corporations and news paper editors (oh wait...).

[Pia Fidelis]

Are you serious?

Yes


I hope you're assuming once communism has "settled in" our society?

When else would I be speaking of?


In the current system, why do you have a problem with treason?

I do not.


There is no way we will be able to avoid treason when the revolution comes push to shove.

I would not call it treason, because I have no regard for the present order.

[MaverickChaos]

For my opinion of "killing" in a general sense, including execution as punishment, see this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1210883&postcount=6 (basically, the state has no right to exist, and even less right to kill people).

(By the way, I don't believe that "punishment" is a worthwhile or useful tool for preventing "crime".)

As for preventing murders:
Change the economic system; remove the causes of poverty; raise the standard of living; involve people more into society; don't demonise entire groups (the young, "black" or any other group); shoot the prime minister and the entire parliament, CEOs of major corporations and news paper editors (oh wait...).

Of course I agree with you, but I'm talking within the current Econonomic system, but the whole Integration/Regulation theory is difficult to apply under Capitalism because it's hardly a collective system which leads to individualism and crime. I get that, but what I'm saying is that under the circumstances we currently have, how would you react to the death of one of your family members at the hands of a criminal? I'm sure a little empathy wouldn't hurt here.