Without death penalty, prisons would be overloaded. Criminals would be released to make room for new criminals and many of these criminals who were sentenced for life for murdering or raping someone would be roaming the streets where you live. lots of tax money is wasted on these criminals, people who plan to murder would have nothing to fear since they are guaranteed they won't get any harsh punishment and that would increase the crime rate. And the planet is already over populated, so why not get rid of the rotten apples?

Views: 1052

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oh, thank you SO much John. I couldn't have said it better. But then, by comparison, I AM ignorant regarding the origins of modern engineering practices. I wouldn't, however, say that I'm "as ignorant of history and cultural origins as fundamentalist religionists". Fundamentalists tend, by their very nature, to be blinkered to historical facts. Facts tend to undermine the credibility of scripture. Scripture is the anchor of fundamentalist's faith. Without faith there is NO RELIGION.

The very nature of atheism leans towards free thought and investigation of historical facts, so as to deconstruct the fallacies of the christian culture we live in, which was inherited from - let me think - oh yes, the romans. Clever bunch, them romans ;)
This brief encounter with fellow atheists says the opposite: atheists are every bit as vulnerable to irrational thinking as religious people. They just think that the label atheist makes them intelligent, open-minded, and educated. Wrong.
Oh yeah, nothing could be more comforting to a traumatized child than watching a public execution - and as long as you mentioned Rome how about public crucifiction, that would be so soothing.
Everything has unintended consequences. Public execution as an abstraction has a satisfying ring to some, because we think certain people deserve it. But I would not allow any child for whom I am responsible to witness such a display. It brutalizes them and if they are told it is because of them (to protect them, get even for what was done to them, etc.) there is no way to control how they interpret that. The child may actually feel guilt for causing someone else to be killed. The cost of incarcerating an inmate for life is less than the process of taking him/her through a capital trial, appeals and confinement on death row.
We have not death penalty in Australia and the prisons aren't so overpopulated that we need to release prisoners, there are no rapist roaming the streets near me.
Unfortunately, the United States is a violent country that sends mixed messages to young citizens. Turn on the TV: it's non-stop over-the-top senseless brutality, glorification of drug use, infantile reliance on uncontrolled emotion. Pop culture raises criminals to wealth and status. The American religious right pretends none of it is their doing, even though they comprise the majority of the population. I suppose it's Atheists, who are 1% of the population, who are doing all the "bad stuff?" Guns are EVERYWHERE - it's so easy for kids to grab one and shoot over a fit of anger. Here's the dirty secret: white Americans don't really care that black Americans are killing each other with drugs and guns, or that a large population of black males will spend their lives in prison.
Much is the same in Australia, although we don't have the right to bear arms.
Repeat violent offenders are like cancer, they should be given a good dose of radiation and killed off. We as a society have decided that certain things are not acceptable. There is a learning curve, however if someone knowingly continues to violate the guidelines something should be done. I'm bypassing all the tedious talk about mental defects and the criminally insane as that is a different issue. We're talking about people with full control of their mental facilities.

"Here's the dirty secret: white Americans don't really care that black Americans are killing each other with drugs and guns, or that a large population of black males will spend their lives in prison."

I don't care. You don't have to follow in the foot steps of those before you. If they want to live like that then let them. I have no sympathy for them. I don't believe in affirmative action. I believe that you should be hired, given grants, scholarships ect based on your merit. So yes I believe that people should be looked at equally until you come down to the specific requirements for any given task. If someone is chosen over me it should be because they are better qualified to perform and based on that completely.
The discussion has been about the Death Penalty. I think we are all smart enough to know that you don't execute a mentally ill person for something they did while suffering from delusions or imbalances.
I don't see the need to keep people that knowingly murder others for their own motive around. Sure keep a few for study or what not.
What it comes down to is if the offender is in no way handicapped mentally and murdered with full knowledge of the possible punishment why not visit that same crime back on them? Do we not require monetary reparations from thieves and vandals? Is that not counter balancing the damage or loss with payment? How much is a life worth? You could go to the black market and find out, humans are for sale. So if you kill someone do you pay the going rate? Is a life for a life unreasonable? Punishments of death have been around far longer than Christianity.
I don't see it as a deterrent to crime. Its a punishment. Why should the onus of incarceration be placed on those of us that haven't committed the crime. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed out, why keep them caged for life.
I think its already been established that punishment used as a deterrent doesn't work. People will do what they want regardless of the repercussions. This is proven time and again all over the world. Since we make and set laws there has to be consequence for violating them. We call this punishment.
If this is fundamentally wrong, please show me an improved system to use. If you disagree with the death penalty because it takes a life, think of the life that was lost already. Is keeping the one that removed that life around really making the world a better place? I don't believe so.
You say, on the one hand, that "punishment used as a deterrent doesn't work" but, on the other hand, you say "since we make and set laws there has to be consequences for violating them". The whole point of 'consequences' is to enforce the law, by encouraging compliance, through discouraging disobedience, which is what 'deterrence' means. What other possible point is there to punishment? Since we know that punishment doesn't work in the justice system, why do we have to follow failed techniques, simply because we don't yet have a thorough knowledge of what WILL work. We have insights, evidence and examples of success with such systems as 'restorative justice', but the culture we live in still promotes revenge as being the ultimate answer to crime.

We are still happier to see someone get their 'just desserts' than to spend the energy necessary to find a better way. How much thought have you spent on thinking outside the existing framework of justice and law? Imagine if everyone who just shrugs their shoulders and says "punishment isn't working - punish harder!" actually spent that same energy in scrutinising the flaws of, and developing new ideas about, our justice system.
Totally agree John. The 'punitive' justice system doesn't work. As for a death for a death, Scott? What utter nonsense! The examples you refer to of recompense for theft or property damage are totally distant from the issue of 'eye for an eye'. The former case is about restoring the integrity of the victim. The latter example is purely based on revenge and was the norm in an historical, primitive culture. Let's not go back there huh?




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service