BF2S Forums for all of you anti- death penalty folks.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Repeating this for you lowing

Its quite simple, actually.

1) Some people consider death penalty to be a deterrence
2) Some people consider life in prison to be a deterrence
3) Some people consider both the death penalty and life in prison to be a deterrence
4) Some people will kill either way.

So, basic logic.  If the population is larger with a menu of options than it is with only one option...

So by arguing one over the other, you are decreasing the deterrent for murder.

I can agree with that, but the argument for the anti-death penalty crowd is no death penalty ever, for no reason, life is sacred, it is not a deterrence, and life in prison is far worse. There is no gray area for their argument.

way to twist words around lowing
the ONLY reason the death penalty is wrong is because innocent lives have been taken in the name of justice. It is the lives of these people that is sacred not the heinous low life scum sucking doodie chewing self fornicating fucktards. Just ONE executed innocent person blows the death penalty out of the water. We care about innocent people being murdered by the state because the system is imperfect.

Prison (regular or mental) is the only option. Prison is what it is and costs what it does. You keep it humane but you keep these fucktards away from society until they die. It doesn't matter if prison is worse, it doesn't matter how much of a deterrent either option is, that FACT remains that innocent people have died and will die because the justice system is imperfect, sometimes convicting innocent people of a capital crime. So execution is not an option, ever.

Then what about the cases of for example, dahmer, where the police officers discovered a severed head in his fridge and his freezer full of body parts, a barrel with headless torsos while mr. dahmer is standing in the same room.

It should be 1000% possible to apply death sentence in cases such as these, where you are presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence.

It's not practical to execute serial killers. Without some sort of incentive they would just clam up and never tell you how many people they killed or where they disposed of them. You'll have a bunch of unsolved missing persons and murder cases on your hands forever. Also some serial killers sometimes assist police in tracking down others. I forgot which one but there was a a famous killer who gave the FBI valuable advice in tracking down another serial killer.

Can't really use them as examples.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-03-15 15:18:25)

Stubbee wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Repeating this for you lowing

Its quite simple, actually.

1) Some people consider death penalty to be a deterrence
2) Some people consider life in prison to be a deterrence
3) Some people consider both the death penalty and life in prison to be a deterrence
4) Some people will kill either way.

So, basic logic.  If the population is larger with a menu of options than it is with only one option...

So by arguing one over the other, you are decreasing the deterrent for murder.

I can agree with that, but the argument for the anti-death penalty crowd is no death penalty ever, for no reason, life is sacred, it is not a deterrence, and life in prison is far worse. There is no gray area for their argument.

way to twist words around lowing
the ONLY reason the death penalty is wrong is because innocent lives have been taken in the name of justice. It is the lives of these people that is sacred not the heinous low life scum sucking doodie chewing self fornicating fucktards. Just ONE executed innocent person blows the death penalty out of the water. We care about innocent people being murdered by the state because the system is imperfect.

Prison (regular or mental) is the only option. Prison is what it is and costs what it does. You keep it humane but you keep these fucktards away from society until they die. It doesn't matter if prison is worse, it doesn't matter how much of a deterrent either option is, that FACT remains that innocent people have died and will die because the justice system is imperfect, sometimes convicting innocent people of a capital crime. So execution is not an option, ever.

Actually I didn't twist words, those were the exact arguments levied in this discussion.

Now, I will ask again, if you are so concerned about punishing the innocent, with your logic,  especially since " life in prison is worse than death", why should we punish people at all, I mean why take a chance on punishing an innocent perspn with a sentence "worse than death"


Can I also assume by your argument that if all cases were 100% accurate, that you would be FOR the death penalty? I doubt it, so innocent people dying really isn't your argument is it?

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-15 18:59:22)

You're contradicting your own position, Bert (welcome back, btw):

Bertster7 wrote:

1. Life in prison is arguably worse than the death penalty

This speaks to vengeance, does it not? "worse than"? You're subjecting the criminal to something you deem "worse than death" in response to their crime? Sounds an awful lot like "vengeance" to me...

Bertster7 wrote:

2. Life in prison is, in practice, cheaper than the death penalty (those arguing this is only due to the safeguards put in place by the system need to remember those safeguards are there for good reason - to avoid innocent people being executed)

This is not just due to the (needed) appeals system. There are many other reforms that could be put into place to make prison a much less "pleasant" place to be: ie, those programs focused on "rehabilitating" those people who clearly ignored potential penalties--such as imprisonment--to commit their crimes

Bertster7 wrote:

3. Innocent people have been executed, it's certainly not unheard of. People whose innocence is later established can be released and compensated to some degree

No doubt. And that compensation can take into account any deprivations imposed upon them in prison, rather than affording them education benefits and the like while in there.

Bertster7 wrote:

4. Statistically speaking, it has no obvious additional deterent effect over incarceration

And again, this is operating on the flawed assumption that the criminal justice system (and its strata of punishment) is intended to serve as a deterrent, rather than a punishment system. See previous post.

Bertster7 wrote:

5. (Personal opinion) It's barbaric. The state stooping to that level is pathetic and not something I would want any government representing me to play any part in

It's barbaric, yet you have no problem with the state stooping to a level "below" that in incarcerating someone for life? You say above that "life in prison is arguably worse than the death penalty". Which is it? If the death penalty isn't as bad as life in prison, and you're OK with the latter, but the former is "barbaric...and not something you would want any government representing you to play any part in," you've tied yourself into a logical Gordian Knot.

Bertster7 wrote:

So what is the point in the death penalty? What does it achieve? Vengance is the only thing I can think of and what place for that is there in a justice system? There are clear drawbacks to it and very, very few, purely emotive, benefits. Personal opinions aside, the negatives massively outweigh the positives.

It's not a matter of vengeance. It's a matter of punishment for a crime. Vengeance is an emotional response. Capital punishment is a non-emotional response (punishment) to a crime. In fact, the arguments against capital punishment appear to be founded primarily in emotion. The primary negative is the chance of executing an innocent person--hence the mandatory appeals system, which still isn't perfect. And that is clearly the strongest (and only, IMHBCO) argument against capital punishment.

FEOS wrote:

You're contradicting your own position, Bert (welcome back, btw):

Bertster7 wrote:

1. Life in prison is arguably worse than the death penalty

This speaks to vengeance, does it not? "worse than"? You're subjecting the criminal to something you deem "worse than death" in response to their crime? Sounds an awful lot like "vengeance" to me...

It's simply a side effect of the necessity of removing criminals, particularly dangerous criminals, from society.

I couldn't care less either way, but they certainly haven't done anything to deserve luxury - just the humane minimum.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

2. Life in prison is, in practice, cheaper than the death penalty (those arguing this is only due to the safeguards put in place by the system need to remember those safeguards are there for good reason - to avoid innocent people being executed)

This is not just due to the (needed) appeals system. There are many other reforms that could be put into place to make prison a much less "pleasant" place to be: ie, those programs focused on "rehabilitating" those people who clearly ignored potential penalties--such as imprisonment--to commit their crimes

Why should prison be made a much less pleasant place to be? What does that achieve? The majority of people in prison have the potential to be rehabilitated, no matter how unlikely, it's worth a shot (despite the fact that prison tends to have the opposite effect).

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

3. Innocent people have been executed, it's certainly not unheard of. People whose innocence is later established can be released and compensated to some degree

No doubt. And that compensation can take into account any deprivations imposed upon them in prison, rather than affording them education benefits and the like while in there.

Again, this is down to the need to offer the chance of some form of rehabilitation to the majority of prisoners. Whilst it is uncommon, there is no reason that a car thief or drug dealer might not get an education of some sort in prison and go on to benefit society - it does happen, though admittedly infrequently.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

4. Statistically speaking, it has no obvious additional deterent effect over incarceration

And again, this is operating on the flawed assumption that the criminal justice system (and its strata of punishment) is intended to serve as a deterrent, rather than a punishment system. See previous post.

Flawed assumption in your opinion. I completely disagree.

There is a clear deterent effect for having punitive measures in place - but the difference between life in prison and death is not one that has had any impact on that.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

5. (Personal opinion) It's barbaric. The state stooping to that level is pathetic and not something I would want any government representing me to play any part in

It's barbaric, yet you have no problem with the state stooping to a level "below" that in incarcerating someone for life? You say above that "life in prison is arguably worse than the death penalty". Which is it? If the death penalty isn't as bad as life in prison, and you're OK with the latter, but the former is "barbaric...and not something you would want any government representing you to play any part in," you've tied yourself into a logical Gordian Knot.

I have no problem with removing someone who is potentially a threat to society in general from that society, provided they are humanely treated. I see no contradication there.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

So what is the point in the death penalty? What does it achieve? Vengance is the only thing I can think of and what place for that is there in a justice system? There are clear drawbacks to it and very, very few, purely emotive, benefits. Personal opinions aside, the negatives massively outweigh the positives.

It's not a matter of vengeance. It's a matter of punishment for a crime. Vengeance is an emotional response. Capital punishment is a non-emotional response (punishment) to a crime. In fact, the arguments against capital punishment appear to be founded primarily in emotion. The primary negative is the chance of executing an innocent person--hence the mandatory appeals system, which still isn't perfect. And that is clearly the strongest (and only, IMHBCO) argument against capital punishment.

I would disagree. The whole point of the justice system is to deter crime, to remove dangerous elements from society and/or to offer a chance at rehabilitation.

Much of your argument is based on the notion of the justice system to be designed as punishment - which I see as an entirely emotive response. I don't see punishment as being a factor.

Stubbee wrote:

It would be a deterrent for normal, sane people.

People who commit these kinds of acts are NOT normal, not sane. Murder is not a rational thing to do.

So America has a higher proportion of insane or irrational people?
3-5 times as many?

No doubt some criminals deserves the death penalty lowing, have never argued against that at all ...

The difference here is actually the next debate that raises questions about the effect of the death penalty ... if it doesn't work as a deterrent and/or actually lower the threshold for other criminals to do murder!

Worst case scenario is that the death penalty itself instigate a lower level of respect for human life, like putting out fire with gasoline ...

Being against the death penalty doesn't mean you are against putting people in jail, that assumption is just silly lowing ...

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

1. Life in prison is arguably worse than the death penalty
2. Life in prison is, in practice, cheaper than the death penalty (those arguing this is only due to the safeguards put in place by the system need to remember those safeguards are there for good reason - to avoid innocent people being executed)
3. Innocent people have been executed, it's certainly not unheard of. People whose innocence is later established can be released and compensated to some degree
4. Statistically speaking, it has no obvious additional deterrent effect over incarceration
5. (Personal opinion) It's barbaric. The state stooping to that level is pathetic and not something I would want any government representing me to play any part in


So what is the point in the death penalty? What does it achieve? Vengance is the only thing I can think of and what place for that is there in a justice system? There are clear drawbacks to it and very, very few, purely emotive, benefits. Personal opinions aside, the negatives massively outweigh the positives.

Well I will say it yet again, by your logic why punish criminals at all? There is no further deterrence, we will avoid punishing innocent people, and there are no positives with punishing criminals because it isn't going to bring the dead back to life, and if we punish criminals that will drastically reduce their ability to change into a productive member of society!!

lol gotta respectfully disagree on your logic.

Because there is a deterent effect for criminal actions having severe reprecussions - however when looking at degrees of severity there is little difference. It is also necessary to remove dangerous criminals from society.

I agree, why punish criminals at all? I certainly do not view it as a system for punishment, but to remove dangerous people and to deter people from committing crimes. Any notion of justice as a system of punishment is driven purely by emotion.

There is a deterrent affect? That is the first time I have heard of it, What is the deterrent effect specifically? Is it the gym, the library, the college education, the full court basketball, or the 3 squares a day?

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, to claim that we must remove dangerous criminals from society, claim that death is worse than life in prison, yet not be afraid to lock up potentially innocent people for life. f you are so sure of their guilt to lock them up for life, a punishment crueler than death, then you must sure enough to execute them, a punishment not as bad.

I have no problem with justice being driven by emotion, after all the crime is as emotional as it gets, let the process be factually based to conclude guilt or innocence, but to say emotion should not play a part in the murder of someones kid is a little outside the realms of reality.  The entire philosophy of justice is emotional based. That is kinda sorta how we determined what is right and wrong in society

Varegg wrote:

No doubt some criminals deserves the death penalty lowing, have never argued against that at all ...

The difference here is actually the next debate that raises questions about the effect of the death penalty ... if it doesn't work as a deterrent and/or actually lower the threshold for other criminals to do murder!

Worst case scenario is that the death penalty itself instigate a lower level of respect for human life, like putting out fire with gasoline ...

Being against the death penalty doesn't mean you are against putting people in jail, that assumption is just silly lowing ...

Varegg, if you are going to insist that deterrence is the main goal of the prison system, and you claim the death penalty is not a deterrence, then you really need to answer what exactly a deterrence is or should be?

The death penalty instigates a lower level of respect for murderous vile life, you have a problem  with this, I do not.

Once the murder is committed and the murderer found guilty beyond all and every possible reasonable doubt, I am not looking for a deterrence, I am viewing it as removing ones right to life just as they denied someone else's right to life probably in a far crueler and torturous way than being put to sleep. You take an innocent life, you pay society, the victims family etc.. with yours. Not a hard concept to wrap around at all. It is because INNOCENT life is respected in our society, not ALL LIFE, that we punish with death for death.

Varegg wrote:

What ever ... you clearly do not understand what we are talking about ...

Ummm I am not the only one on here that is having a hard time following your logic Varegg. Just answer the question, you speak of deterrence WHAT DETERRENCE are you referring, what is an example of deterrence you have in mind?

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

What ever ... you clearly do not understand what we are talking about ...

Ummm I am not the only one on here that is having a hard time following your logic Varegg. Just answer the question, you speak of deterrence WHAT DETERRENCE are you referring, what is an example of deterrence you have in mind?

That exact question have been answered several times already ...

Yes I know, by stating the US has a higher crime rate, and that we should focus on crime prevention before hand. But never have you addressed what to do to criminals AFTER the fact. what example should they used to set for the rest of society as a deterrence NOT to do what they have done?

THAT question has never been answered.

Watched a video in law class once that showed a group of offenders who would visit local schools and talk to kids about prison. Try to get kids who would otherwise turn to crime to get an education instead, the main point that they had was how boring prison was. Being stuck inside for 22 hours a day or something silly, in one room.