Hello everyone, i recently(20 minutes ago) started wondering what intelligent people thought about the death penalty, i consider myself by no means close to highly intelligent so i'd like to ask:

What do you think about the death penalty?

personally i don't like it, death isn't punishment fitting of crimes like rape, murder, kidnapping, child-molestation etc.

i think lifetime imprisonment is the way to go. ^^

Views: 593

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I like the death penalty it provides good selection pressure for intelligence. If you do something stupid like step in front of a speeding car, you die. Before I met Tracy, I also thought the death penalty was acceptable as an inexpensive means of disposing social liabilities. After weeks of on and off debate on this subject, she finally swung my opinion on this issue. The most telling argument is from a functional point of view. Consider carefully who the jury is going to be. How many of them have a religious predisposition towards delusion? Do the jurors have first hand unfiltered knowledge of the crime? Can such a sentence be reversed in the event it is wrong?

The only way I can support the death penalty now is if I fill in all of the following rolls witness, judge, jury, and executioner. I still would be very hesitant to apply such a penalty, because in many cases I would have to question my credibility as a witness.
Back when I was technologically illiterate, I didn't know how to post a picture on profiles.
i suppose it was stupid of me to believe that he could not read the smaller case letters and unobservant to not notice those words in lower case at the bottom, not to mention that you can write without seeing as i did writing this post.
Were that it was not the case--but it is the case. I remember being on the other side of this exact same conversation 17 years ago. It's not a fight you're going to win. So long as you persist in defying convention, people will judge you based upon it and you'll always need to explain yourself.

Absurd or no, it's how it is. On the other side of the coin, one might view your refusal to simply come to the table as most do, bowing to conventions of grammar, aesthetics and common courtesy as absurd.

I'll be a bit more helpful: hold down the "Ctrl" key and press the + key until the font is large enough to suit you. Then case should not matter and everyone will be happy. Else, people are likely to think you disingenuous; that perhaps you are flogging the caps-lock key for the same reason most people do: because they want to be seen--or perhaps because you feel that it is your duty to teach everyone here to accept things that they don't care for whether they will it or no.

Also, I think you'll be hard pressed to call grammatical conventions "elitist." That's a bit like saying that owning socks is "elitst." These conventions exist to facilitate conversation by giving us all (and not just a select few) a common language so that we can focus on the message, rather than focusing on the delivery.

By way of evidence, I label this conversation "Exhibit A."
i am inclined to agree to most of your wall of text but i think stronger punishments and good policing doesnt have to be dependant on each other, you can increase the imprisonment on rape to lifetime and still have better policing(i bring up the sentence on rape a lot since it's a case i feel strongly about, you will learn that about me :P ) and i agree that drug "use" should not have a long sentence(help should be given though) but drug "dealing" however should be followed by a strong sentence.
when i said most i didnt mean that part, and btw cant you just ctrl+scroll so you can see the text in a bigger size? if this doesnt work for you i'm sorry i'm just trying to help.
I have mixed feelings either way. My instinct is to be for the death penalty because of overpopulation, even though it probably doesn't make that much difference. I don't have any bleeding-heart feelings about people who have committed horrible crimes. (The convicted are not always guilty, but DNA and forensics have made it more accurate.) I can't get emotional about serial killers being killed in one of the least painful ways available, when some of them have killed and tortured their victims, and especially when most of us will die in a more painful fashion.

In that sense, the death penalty is less cruel than letting someone rot in prison. I have heard that the death penalty is actually more expensive than life imprisonment, because of all the appeals in court.
I have not and i would not wish that burden upon anyones conscience
nope, i detest drugs and all they stand for(recreational drugs i mind you).

i also never did anything illegal, and i don't drink smoke or drive too fast(not at all actually)

can you tell me your clever point i really want to hear it(i'm not trying to be sarcastic here i actually mean what i write)
if you dont have anything constructive to say please do not mention it in this discussion(yes i'm a aware of the irony of me saying this)
When I first thought I about this I more or less went through the following thought process:

1) What is/are the general purpose/s of the death penalty?
a) Revenge
b) Crime prevention
c) Insulating society from violent miscreants

2) Does it serve these purposes?
a) If the victims want it, yes.
b) Intuitively, yes. Statistically, no.
c) Yes.

3) Is the death penalty the only means of achieving this?
a) Possibly, depending the victims.
b) -
c) No. Life imprisonment is just as effective.

4) Can it be equitably applied?
a) No. Human error is unacceptable when deciding who it is okay to kill and still call it justice.
b) -
c) -

After that I concluded there was no justifiable reason to exercise the death penalty.
We live in a world and country where resources and opportunities are limited. Some people have proven, through either extreme action, or repeated less extreme action, that the resources needed to continue their presence are more than can be justified. Removal of those people from society and from the biosphere is a form of weeding. I know this argument has all sorts of problems, like social engineering and where you drw the line as to who to weed out. But still, I can't see keeping Timothy McVeigh alive, or a number of serial killers.

I'm not saying that's completely good or bad. Im very uncomfortable with it. It is a separate argument from "punishment" for crimes. Removal of those people from society prevents them from committing further crimes, but doesnt prevent other people from committing crimes.

We don't have other places to send them, unlike in the colonial distant past where they were sent to prison colonies in Georgia or Australia, or islands. In an efficient system (ours is not), fewer resources are used to removed those people from society if they are killed.

As a society, many people justify war, which is killing people, as a means of eliminating enemies or competition. I personally was for destroying the Taliban (which we obviously fucked up), but against invading Iraq (which seemed like a corrupt means of removing Saddam and I don't know what else).

I can't justify using resources to keep proven serial killers and terrorists in prison and alive. It's hard to know where to draw a line, but that does not make death penalty invalid in all circumstances. It just makes it harder to think about.

Unless someone is against all war in all circumstances (I used to be but not any more), I have a hard time understanding being against all death penalty. There are some governments, and some individuals, that are just too dangerous to keep around. I understand profound discomfort with it, and distrust of government, and that the lines are blurred as to who to kill and who to let live, but as an absolute "wrong", death penalty is an absolute wrong in all circumstances only if war is an absolute wrong in all circumstances.

I still don't like it.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service