What is your opinion on capital punishment?

[ImOuttaControl]

There are a lot of people who are pretty strong on the principle of saying "100% against" and that there are no exceptions. I wonder how strong those principles would stand if one of your loved ones was brutally murdered/tortured...ect. I also ask these people if they've ever experienced anything like that.

I have 2 personal stories that are good examples of why some people don't deserve to live.

A girl(Katie Poirier) I went to high school with here in Minnesota was working at a gas station when, in the middle of the night, she was kidnapped by a man named Donald Blom. He raped her, then put her body through a wood-chipper and burnt the remains. How more f*cking brutal can you get!! Does this murderer deserve to live? HELL NO! He deserves to die and rot in hell. She didn't deserve to be murdered at age 19.

Another story is of Paul Antonich. I didn't know him, but I became good friends with his sister in college. He was in a minor traffic accident with a group of native americans. In broad daylight, and in front of traffic, they beat him and threw him into the trunk of the car. They brought him to the reservation where they tortured him by shooting him in non vital areas of his body (legs, arms, feet..ect) with a .22 caliber firearm; ultimately killing him. The tramua that this family has faced, even after 7 years or so, is immense. They are forever scarred, and 17 year old Paul lost his life. Do these murderers deserve to live? NO!

If someone can give me a good reason on why people who committ such heinous crimes should live, I'll listen. "2 wrongs don't make a right" doesn't count, because in my mind how could it be wrong to execute someone who tortured/stole someone else's life? Both these cases had overwhelming DNA evidence, which is good enough for me.

Unfortunately the victims are the people who are almost always forgotten. Remember that criminals who are executed aren't victims--the people who had to be burried before their time are the true victims.

 

[Anirban]

there are many logical paths to reach the conclusion that capital punishment is wrong. an easy one that comes to mind is that it is generally accepted that morality/ethics has a universal component. if everyone was allowed to behave in their own way...making up their own code of ethics...the world would be in chaos. that said, laws and customs stem from general agreement on universal moral principles. through societal evolution, laws are perfected and adjusted to portray intellectual advancements on the discovery of universal moral law. however, murder/killing is definitely a crime that is universally accepted in modern times as wrong. therefore, to punish a muderer by killing him/her goes against the moral/ethical law the criminal broke to begin with. it is our responisbility as human beings to find ways to punish those who break the moral code of humanity in a manner that does not compromise that same code. if logic is seen as the "mathematics" of reason...then capital punishment would definitly contradict the very principle that makes the crime of murder wrong.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The first case shows evil, and no ammount of love can ever remedy that. Death is the lesser punishment; they never have to pay for what they have done. Just have a white room, leave them in it for the rest of their lives with no human contact, total isolation now that would be punishment.

The second case would never ever see the death penalty because the PC police would twist it around entirely and show that they were driven to it by racism in the community and transform the event to make the murderers the victim. The death penalty is too weak a punishment and its benefits are questionable.

A timely quote;
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
-- J.R.R. Tolkien

 

[starsgoblue]

I am sorry, but even if someone killed my mother (who is my best friend) I couldn't wish death on them...I just couldn't. It wouldn't bring my mother back, and it wouldn't make me feel any better...I didn't create life and I can't destroy either...

 

[Anthony]

nbcrusader;

In a nutshell, no - Capital Punishment does not go far enough. It truly is the easy way out for them. I do not believe, even for a second, that ending the life of someone is adequate punishment. Not when such a person has put through his or her victims through such torment and suffering. There are worse things than Death, and that is living through the consequences of your actions. In a word; pain.

What I would propose, in my ideal world, is to have them serve a life sentence. But not in a wonderful prison as we see in many cases here in Britain, but in a 'real' dungeon.

Ant.

 

[speedracer]

Presumptions are dangerous. Ok first of all has murder declined?

That's why I try to make explicit all assumptions in any argument I make.

As for whether capital punishment is an effective deterrent, I have no idea. You'd have to dig up a lot of data, control a bunch of different variables, etc.

But even if it has, my belief against capital punishment has nothing to do with future crime. You can't deter evil with punishment only with love.

If you believe that deterrence doesn't justify the taking of life, fine. Just don't confuse an empirical point with a philosophical point.

 

[speedracer]

there are many logical paths to reach the conclusion that capital punishment is wrong. an easy one that comes to mind is that it is generally accepted that morality/ethics has a universal component. if everyone was allowed to behave in their own way...making up their own code of ethics...the world would be in chaos. that said, laws and customs stem from general agreement on universal moral principles. through societal evolution, laws are perfected and adjusted to portray intellectual advancements on the discovery of universal moral law. however, murder/killing is definitely a crime that is universally accepted in modern times as wrong. therefore, to punish a muderer by killing him/her goes against the moral/ethical law the criminal broke to begin with. it is our responisbility as human beings to find ways to punish those who break the moral code of humanity in a manner that does not compromise that same code. if logic is seen as the "mathematics" of reason...then capital punishment would definitly contradict the very principle that makes the crime of murder wrong.

Murder != capital punishment.

Murder is the malicious, premeditated killing of an innocent person.

Capital punishment is the dispassionate killing of a person who has been found guilty of some severe crime by the criminal justice system.

 

[speedracer]

A timely quote;
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
-- J.R.R. Tolkien

I was wondering why it was taking so long for someone to pull out this quote.

I was a little bit disappointed that the movie pulled out this quote in the Mines of Moria when the book had Gandalf saying it to Frodo in the Shire, though.

 

[speedracer]

nbcrusader;

In a nutshell, no - Capital Punishment does not go far enough. It truly is the easy way out for them. I do not believe, even for a second, that ending the life of someone is adequate punishment. Not when such a person has put through his or her victims through such torment and suffering. There are worse things than Death, and that is living through the consequences of your actions. In a word; pain.

What I would propose, in my ideal world, is to have them serve a life sentence. But not in a wonderful prison as we see in many cases here in Britain, but in a 'real' dungeon.

Ant.

Look down, look down
Don't look 'em in the eye
Look down, look down
You're here until you die

The sun is strong
It's hot as hell below

Look down, look down
There's twenty years to go

I've done no wrong
Sweet Jesus, hear my prayer

Look down, look down
Sweet Jesus doesn't care

I know she'll wait
I know that she'll be true

Look down, look down
They've all forgotten you

When I get free
You won't see me
Here for dust

Look down, look down
Don't look 'em in the eye

How long, O Lord,
Before you let me die?

Look down, look down
You'll always be a slave
Look down, look down
You're standing in your grave

 

[thacraic]

I am undecided. While I believe you have to suffer the consequences of your actions, reap what you sew, etc. when I hear that someone has been executed by the state it leaves me with a sinking feeling. Even when Timothy McVeigh was executed I just felt saddened! Someone that did such a horrible thing deserved what he got - but I can't explain it, I don't know why. It just makes me near ill when I hear about it happening.

Carrie

 

[namkcuR]

There are a lot of people who are pretty strong on the principle of saying "100% against" and that there are no exceptions. I wonder how strong those principles would stand if one of your loved ones was brutally murdered/tortured...ect. I also ask these people if they've ever experienced anything like that.

I have 2 personal stories that are good examples of why some people don't deserve to live.

A girl(Katie Poirier) I went to high school with here in Minnesota was working at a gas station when, in the middle of the night, she was kidnapped by a man named Donald Blom. He raped her, then put her body through a wood-chipper and burnt the remains. How more f*cking brutal can you get!! Does this murderer deserve to live? HELL NO! He deserves to die and rot in hell. She didn't deserve to be murdered at age 19.

Another story is of Paul Antonich. I didn't know him, but I became good friends with his sister in college. He was in a minor traffic accident with a group of native americans. In broad daylight, and in front of traffic, they beat him and threw him into the trunk of the car. They brought him to the reservation where they tortured him by shooting him in non vital areas of his body (legs, arms, feet..ect) with a .22 caliber firearm; ultimately killing him. The tramua that this family has faced, even after 7 years or so, is immense. They are forever scarred, and 17 year old Paul lost his life. Do these murderers deserve to live? NO!

If someone can give me a good reason on why people who committ such heinous crimes should live, I'll listen. "2 wrongs don't make a right" doesn't count, because in my mind how could it be wrong to execute someone who tortured/stole someone else's life? Both these cases had overwhelming DNA evidence, which is good enough for me.

Unfortunately the victims are the people who are almost always forgotten. Remember that criminals who are executed aren't victims--the people who had to be burried before their time are the true victims.

No, I disagree. Look, both of those stories are truly awful, I can't imagine what either family had to/is still going through. But that isn't a reason for capital punishment. Life in prison no questions asked would have been the proper punishment. In these cases, the most important thing is NOT soothing the blazing hate that families will naturally feel for the criminal That may be cold and that be insensitive, and I'm not saying the families shouldn't be hurting, but it's the most important thing is keeping the criminal out of society. And prison for life accomplishes that. No need to go any further. Also, I honestly think that living in a small confined place eating stale food and having near no recreational activities is a more just punishment because it lasts for a long time. If you are executed, it lasts for ten minutes, then you're gone. You're not being punished anymore once you're dead. If these families truely wanted these criminals to suffer, they would push for life in prison no questions asked. Why do you think so many guilty criminals would rather die? Because it's shorter than prison. Finally, mistakes can be made. Not saying they were in the cases you've spoken of, but mistakes can be made with capital punishment. If a wrongly convicted person is in prison, you can release him. If a wrongly convicted person is executed, you can't bring him back.

To answer your question, even if my whole family was killed by someone, I wouldn't ask for death. You can bet I'd fight with every bone and muscle in my body to make sure the sick bastard rots in prison for the rest of his/her life. But no capital punishment. Because ultimately when families push for capital punishment, it is an attempt to ease the pain they are feeling. Well guess what? They can watch the criminal be tortured and beaten and murdered even more barbarically than their loved one was, but it's not going to bring their child/sister/brother/spouse/friend back. And the pain will still be there. You can't just make it go away injecting chemicals into the person. If that were to happen to me, I would still feel the pain, and it would never fully go away. Capital punishment wouldn't change that.

Capital punishment is unneccessary and it is wrong.

 

[Anirban]

Murder != capital punishment.

Murder is the malicious, premeditated killing of an innocent person.

Capital punishment is the dispassionate killing of a person who has been found guilty of some severe crime by the criminal justice system.

making laws on the motivations of actions gets us nowhere. who is to discriminate between someone going out and killing innocent strangers and someone who hunts down abusive fathers and kills them? you cannot provide a definition (and use words like malicious and premeditated) when that is not always the case (murder during a burglary sometimes is not premeditated). That said, both muder and capital punishment is the taking of a human life by a human. No matter what extra words you tack onto the definitions of murder/capital punishment, that statement will ALWAYS be true.

 

[nbcrusader]

making laws on the motivations of actions gets us nowhere. .

The entire criminal system dealing with the killing of another is based on motivation!

 

[BVS]

There are a lot of people who are pretty strong on the principle of saying "100% against" and that there are no exceptions. I wonder how strong those principles would stand if one of your loved ones was brutally murdered/tortured...ect. I also ask these people if they've ever experienced anything like that.

I have 2 personal stories that are good examples of why some people don't deserve to live.

A girl(Katie Poirier) I went to high school with here in Minnesota was working at a gas station when, in the middle of the night, she was kidnapped by a man named Donald Blom. He raped her, then put her body through a wood-chipper and burnt the remains. How more f*cking brutal can you get!! Does this murderer deserve to live? HELL NO! He deserves to die and rot in hell. She didn't deserve to be murdered at age 19.

Another story is of Paul Antonich. I didn't know him, but I became good friends with his sister in college. He was in a minor traffic accident with a group of native americans. In broad daylight, and in front of traffic, they beat him and threw him into the trunk of the car. They brought him to the reservation where they tortured him by shooting him in non vital areas of his body (legs, arms, feet..ect) with a .22 caliber firearm; ultimately killing him. The tramua that this family has faced, even after 7 years or so, is immense. They are forever scarred, and 17 year old Paul lost his life. Do these murderers deserve to live? NO!

If someone can give me a good reason on why people who committ such heinous crimes should live, I'll listen. "2 wrongs don't make a right" doesn't count, because in my mind how could it be wrong to execute someone who tortured/stole someone else's life? Both these cases had overwhelming DNA evidence, which is good enough for me.

Unfortunately the victims are the people who are almost always forgotten. Remember that criminals who are executed aren't victims--the people who had to be burried before their time are the true victims.

I had someone very close to me who was murdered she wasn't even 19 yet. The man confessed to his crime. How will taking his life bring back hers?

 

[speedracer]

I had someone very close to me who was murdered she wasn't even 19 yet. The man confessed to his crime. How will taking his life bring back hers?

Nobody's arguing that killing a murderer will bring the victim back, and (at least checking back for the last couple pages or so) nobody is arguing that we need to kill murderers to provide a catharsis for the relatives of the victims. Underlying ImOuttaControl's post is the objective assertion that people who commit certain crimes forfeit their right to live.

 

[Anirban]

The entire criminal system dealing with the killing of another is based on motivation!

no. the method in which prosecuters determine whether someone is guilty/innocent is based on motivations. if someone can establish motives for a crime, then it is easier to prosecute. once the judgment has been made, the punishment follows laws that are based upon the actual severity of the crime (except in the case of mental illness/insanity).

 

[Liesje]

There are a lot of people who are pretty strong on the principle of saying "100% against" and that there are no exceptions. I wonder how strong those principles would stand if one of your loved ones was brutally murdered/tortured...ect. I also ask these people if they've ever experienced anything like that.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Retribution just doesn't bring closure.

And no, no one I knew personally was ever murdered (although my mom's closest co-worker's stepson was one of Dahmer's victims )

 

[speedracer]

making laws on the motivations of actions gets us nowhere.

Ditto nbcrusader's point.

who is to discriminate between someone going out and killing innocent strangers and someone who hunts down abusive fathers and kills them?

Nobody is trying to draw a distinction between a plain old murder and a vigilante murderer, while your implied equivalence between a vigilante murderer and capital punishment is spurious.

 

[speedracer]

no. the method in which prosecuters determine whether someone is guilty/innocent is based on motivations.

More accurately -- depending on motivations, some forms of killing are crimes (murder) and some others aren't (self-defense, war). Seems like the point that nbcrusader was trying to make.

Capital punishment is the act of the state killing someone with a certain set of motivations.

 

[BVS]

Nobody's arguing that killing a murderer will bring the victim back, and (at least checking back for the last couple pages or so) nobody is arguing that we need to kill murderers to provide a catharsis for the relatives of the victims. Underlying ImOuttaControl's post is the objective assertion that people who commit certain crimes forfeit their right to live.

I know no one is arguing that, but ImOuttaControl's post was based on and pleaing to someone's emotions. I was giving my response from that point of view.

 

[Anirban]

you guys are forgetting that the motivations for a murder are only used during prosecution...to find out whether the person is guilty/innocent. the actual degree of severity of the crime (manslaughter, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree) is how punishments are made (i believe there may be degrees of manslaughter as well). that said, in the eyes of the law, a haneous crime committed out of boredom or out of an eleaborate/premeditated plot are punished equally if the actual crime is of the same nature. it logically follows that once these distinctions are made, there are 4 (roughly) different possible punishments for the crime of murder. now that we have that cleared up (sorry it got side tracked with definitions of the words i used) ... the argument should concentrate on the nature of the 4 possible punishments (again, manslaughter, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and 3rd degree murder). is capital punishment an appropriate punishment for any of these crimes? i don't think so...since motivations are removed when punishing a criminal, it comes down to whether killing somone is a moral/ethical punishment.

 

[speedracer]

I know no one is arguing that, but ImOuttaControl's post was based on and pleaing to someone's emotions. I was giving my response from that point of view.

Fair enough.

I don't like these sort of emotional arguments for precisely this reason. To borrow a quote from Kent Brockman, "they tug at the heart and cloud the mind."

 

[speedracer]

you guys are forgetting that the motivations for a murder are only used during prosecution...to find out whether the person is guilty/innocent. the actual degree of severity of the crime (manslaughter, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree) is how punishments are made (i believe there may be degrees of manslaughter as well). that said, in the eyes of the law, a haneous crime committed out of boredom or out of an eleaborate/premeditated plot are punished equally if the actual crime is of the same nature. it logically follows that once these distinctions are made, there are 4 (roughly) different possible punishments for the crime of murder. now that we have that cleared up (sorry it got side tracked with definitions of the words i used) ... the argument should concentrate on the nature of the 4 possible punishments (again, manslaughter, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and 3rd degree murder). is capital punishment an appropriate punishment for any of these crimes? i don't think so...since motivations are removed when punishing a criminal, it comes down to whether killing somone is a moral/ethical punishment.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

The whole point that nbcrusader and I have argued is that there isn't necessarily anything "unethical" or "immoral" about capital punishment. As for whether it's "appropriate", well, that's another argument.

As I stated about 273 pages ago, I don't much care whether we execute first-degree murderers or lock them away for life. I've just been taking the side of capital punishment because it seems like that's where I could make the most effective arguments in this thread.

 

[Anirban]

More accurately -- depending on motivations, some forms of killing are crimes (murder) and some others aren't (self-defense, war). Seems like the point that nbcrusader was trying to make.

Capital punishment is the act of the state killing someone with a certain set of motivations.

using your logic, someone who goes out and kills 10 people out of boredom would be punished less serverly than someone who goes out and hunts 10 abortion doctors after a carefully thought out plan. motivations ease prosecution...but are secondary to the actual nature of the crime when punishing a criminal. and since motivations are the variable here, and the crime of murdering a human is constant in every case (since every human life is seen equal to every other human life in the eyes of the law) then it follows that punishments should be designed around the constants. (because the variables are too numerous)

 

[speedracer]

using your logic, someone who goes out and kills 10 people out of boredom would be punished less serverly than someone who goes out and hunts 10 abortion doctors after a carefully thought out plan. motivations ease prosecution...but are secondary to the actual nature of the crime when punishing a criminal. and since motivations are the variable here, and the crime of murdering a human is constant in every case (since every human life is seen equal to every other human life in the eyes of the law) then it follows that punishments should be designed around the constants. (because the variables are too numerous)

I think you're conflating two arguments here.

The first is about how to punish criminals. I don't much care about this side.

The second is about whether capital punishment is equivalent to a crime. I argue that since the motivation in this case is to protect the people/deter future criminals/whatever, and that since it's done by the state by due process of law, capital punishment is not a crime (morally and legally speaking). Just as killing in wartime according to certain conventions is not a crime.

 

[Anirban]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

The whole point that nbcrusader and I have argued is that there isn't necessarily anything "unethical" or "immoral" about capital punishment. As for whether it's "appropriate", well, that's another argument.

As I stated about 273 pages ago, I don't much care whether we execute first-degree murderers or lock them away for life. I've just been taking the side of capital punishment because it seems like that's where I could make the most effective arguments in this thread.

yes...i agree with you that the debate is over the ethics of capital punishment. clearly both of us have valid points on the actual judicial process since some states have capital punishment and some have stopped them.

 

[Anirban]

ok...so forgetting the side of how to punish criminals... capital punishments and ethics: if the goal of punishing a murderer is to make sure that he/she never murders another individual, then we must brainstorm all the different ways to accomplish this. the two most popular methods (i think you will agree) are capital punishment and life-imprisonment. talking about economics doesn't fit here because it has been seen that both cost the state a lot of money. ethically, i just can't see how ending another human life is better than being removed from the society in which the crime was committed.

 

[speedracer]

ok...so forgetting the side of how to punish criminals... capital punishments and ethics: if the goal of punishing a murderer is to make sure that he/she never murders another individual, then we must brainstorm all the different ways to accomplish this. the two most popular methods (i think you will agree) are capital punishment and life-imprisonment. talking about economics doesn't fit here because it has been seen that both cost the state a lot of money. ethically, i just can't see how ending another human life is better than being removed from the society in which the crime was committed.

Well, here are some arguments which I don't entirely agree with.

1. Deterrence. Perhaps facing execution instead of life-imprisonment will deter would-be criminals. I'm skeptical of this argument, because I don't think murderers think about this sort of thing when they murder, but who knows? I could be wrong. It'd take some serious analysis to figure this out.

2. Negotiating with terrorists. If we execute Ramzi Yousef, the argument goes, terrorists won't take hostages and offer them in exchange for his release.

Of course, I would think that if we killed Ramzi Yousef, then the terrorists would just go about their business and kill the hostages instead of offering in exchange.

 

[Anirban]

i do not feel deterrence works in the case of capital punishment because countries who have banned the practice also have less crime (this is also the result of many other judicial differences with america). as for terrorists, if you are specifcally talking about fundamentalists/extremists, their value for all life is very low (including their own!). capital punishment could even be seen as a reward...a crowning of martyrdom if you will. moreover, i'm not really sure how international law plays a factor in these situations....since in most cases the crimes are comitted in other countries.

 

[bonosloveslave]

I'm just curious, did any Christians take the time to read the full article in the link that I posted? Did it give you a new perspective?