Do you support the death penalty?

[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/dete...r-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.

[FONT=Verdana]This is the type of bull shit that makes one question the common sense of certain individuals on this board.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]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?[/FONT]

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

[FONT=Verdana]For fucks sake.[/FONT]

[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]

[FONT=Verdana]This is the type of bull shit that makes one question the common sense of certain individuals on this board.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]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?[/FONT]

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

[FONT=Verdana]For fucks sake.[/FONT]

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"

[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.