Comments | stevencwatts: Some random political rantings

stevencwatts

Some random political rantings

Jan 17, 2006 19:10

For years, as I've argued against the death penalty, people have eventually been argued down to "it keeps these people from doing it again." This is a faulty premise to start with, since life imprisonment does the same thing, but the "takes away the threat of this criminal" thing seems to be the best argument they've got. So could someone please ( Read more... )

opinions

Comments 10

lbd_nytetrayn January 17 2006, 16:35:34 UTC

...I'm sure there are those who would argue they were doing him a favor...

LBD "Nytetrayn"

anotherdelta January 17 2006, 17:58:36 UTC

I agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances, but I don't agree how it's done often times in the States. The guy in the news you linked to (a) should not have had the death penalty for what he did from what I read (a life-term in prison, sure), and (b) since he was getting the death penalty, it should have been done much more quickly: say after one or two years at most (giving time in case there was an error in the case against him). Take them out back and shoot them! No need for all this pomp and circumstance and money spent on foolish methods of killing people. Clearly what was done here was stupid and pointless, regarding this man ( ... )

stevencwatts January 17 2006, 18:19:58 UTC

Actually, a good portion of our society is based on "what ifs" from an optimistic perspective. The concept of presumed innocence until proven guilt is based on a very illogical, very optimistic "what if." It has to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person in question committed the crime. So to carry the analogy (that you started) further, it should logically be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person has nothing to contribute to society. I defy you to actually prove that for anyone who's ever been sentenced to death.

anotherdelta January 17 2006, 18:57:25 UTC

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" should be rephrased with high probability, because that's what it really is. Given the evidence, what is the probability that this person committed this crime? Nothing can be proven for certain, and so probability is our next best thing. I fail to see how this is either optimistic or illogical.

Going back to the example of the person above. Let's ignore the potential contributions that the four victims would have made to society, and quantifying contribution, the fact that our serial-killer is most likely "in the hole", so to speak. You are suggesting our serial-killer might contribute to society from behind bars. We should drain resources to feed him, clothe him, keep him warm and safe, keep the television and all going to entertain him, etc., because he might just do something that would counter all of our contributions to him; i.e. make all this money spent on him worth it. Ignoring the fact that a large percentage of the human race would consider his new life as royal, what is the probability of ( ... )

stevencwatts January 18 2006, 16:15:49 UTC

Your example is faulty because it assumes my only reason for opposition is that they may contribute to society. That's a factor in my thoughts, not the whole truth.

Like I said last night on AIM, this is an issue of principle for me. The inherent value of a person's life is more important than the contributions they make or the crimes they commit. No one, no person and no government, has the right to take the life of someone if it isn't in direct self-defense. (This is also why I oppose abortion, but that's another issue altogether). War is justifiable only if it is in defense of a country and if diplomatic resolutions won't work. The death penalty is a fatal end that is not self-defense; if the person has been caught already (and obviously they are, if the death sentence is even an option), they can easily be kept behind bars the rest of their life and the same amount of defense will be had.

Thread 6

woekitten January 19 2006, 12:14:00 UTC

I disagree with the death penalty in principal because I think "Eye for an eye" is bullshit and deters nothing.

That said, I'm not exactly crying when some sick fuck it put to death, but therein lies my main problem with the penalty: These people rarely die. The endless appeals gum up the system and cost so much money and time that by the time the convicted actually die, I feel like the window for satisfactory justice closed ages ago, anyway (the Death Penalty is also useless for 'clearing out' an overcrowded prison system. If anything, it makes things worse).

A crazed psycho goes after an innocent person and gets death, which is carried out maybe ten years later. By then, the victim's family has already patched up their lives and moved on, or else they're bitter and resentful and nothing will ever heal them, even the death of the person who did the crime. It sucks being a human, sometimes.

anotherdelta January 26 2006, 19:01:56 UTC

Indeed. Which is why I don't agree with the system. But the principle behind it, I'm all for. In extreme cases, of course, as I mentioned. I'm not too bloodthirsty.

anotherdelta January 26 2006, 19:07:00 UTC

I should add this: I'm not necessarily for the "eye for an eye" idea either when it comes to life. But Person is a threat to society, no one wants to have Person in the society, and no one wants to pay money to keep Person alive. What should society do with Person?