Do you oppose the death penalty? If so, why?

[Arrow]

<snip>

I'll concede that it cost more, but I find the idea of paying to keep a person that will never see the outside of a cell alive distasteful.

Also, I didn't claim the death penalty prevented crime, and that's not even part of my reasoning. My reasoning is that the death-penalty/life-without-parole convict is too dangerous to let back into society, so why keep him alive?

[RedImperator]

Oppose it on practical grounds except in extreme circumstances (serial killers and the like). I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I don't trust the justice system nearly enough to believe it won't execute innocent people.

It's worth considering, in many US states, Stofsk would be looking down the barrel of the death penalty right now.

[Lord Zentei]

I'd only be in favor if there were a completely rock solid case against the criminal in question. (IE - clear substantial evidence). Beyond that, I think permanent incarceration is better than risking accidentally killing someone who isn't guilty.

The problem is, if you place a sufficiently high burden of evidence on death penalty cases to prevent that from occouring (as is only appropriate), you'll reduce not only false posetives, but true posetives as well: i.e. fewer innocent people get convicted, but fewer guilty people get convicted also (since there will always be guilty suspects whose cases are borderline with the lower burden of evidence associated with life in prison).

I'm not sure how this contradicts what I just said. If you have to have a rock solid case against someone, then I'd rather a few people not get handed the death sentence if they deserved it even though there wasn't sufficient evidence (relegated to Life or something lesser instead), than executing someone who isn't guilty.

I'm not saying that it contradicts what you said; I'm pointing out that the higher the burden of evidence, the fewer guilty get convicted, since not all criminals leave rock solid evidence. I'm saying that this is not a desirable situation in the case of the worst offenders.

[General Zod]

I'm not saying that it contradicts what you said; I'm pointing out that the higher the burden of evidence, the fewer guilty get convicted, since not all criminals leave rock solid evidence. I'm saying that this is not a desirable situation in the case of the worst offenders.

I'm not saying that you should let them go either, I'm simply saying that it should factor into their punishment. If there is enough room for doubt when the verdict is given, IE - that an appeals could be made, then they should not be given the death sentence but sentenced to something lesser instead.

[Lord Zentei]

I'm not saying that it contradicts what you said; I'm pointing out that the higher the burden of evidence, the fewer guilty get convicted, since not all criminals leave rock solid evidence. I'm saying that this is not a desirable situation in the case of the worst offenders.

I'm not saying that you should let them go either, I'm simply saying that it should factor into their punishment. If there is enough room for doubt when the verdict is given, IE - that an appeals could be made, then they should not be given the death sentence but sentenced to something lesser instead.

OK, though if the death penalty is an option you will get prosecuters seeking it in high profile cases regardless. Moreover (particularly with the previous in mind), even with supposedly "rock solid evidence", innocent people may slip through.

And as I pointed out above, a person in solitary is off the street anyway, so society is not automatically safer with them dead (assuming the prisons are run properly).



There are still the issues of cost and deterrant: see my linked articles above:

First, the higher cost associated with cases where the death penalty is sought; if the cost of the case goes into half a million dollars extra or more, society is not better off executing them practically speaking, since it would be more economical to keep them in solitary for the next 30-50 years.

Second, the issue of deterrant -- if the death penalty fails in that regard, the point is much reduced.

[TheLemur]

I voted "No on moral grounds", but I agree that there's a lot of trouble with practical questions as well. The important thing is that death is utterly permanent, so throwing someone in prison for thirty, forty, fifty-odd years is trivial compared to wiping out a life which might continue Eru-knows-how-long. The death penalty doesn't have any benefits even to society as a whole; it costs more, does nothing whatsoever to help fix the damage the murderer has done, is often done to innocent people and has no effect on preventing future crimes (being in a street gang is actually worse for your life expectancy than being on death row).

[General Zod]

There are still the issues of cost and deterrant: see my linked articles above:

First, the higher cost associated with cases where the death penalty is sought; if the cost of the case goes into half a million dollars extra or more, society is not better off executing them practically speaking, since it would be more economical to keep them in solitary for the next 30-50 years.

Second, the issue of deterrant -- if the death penalty fails in that regard, the point is much reduced.

I realize that it's expensive and not so effective as a deterrant. Which is why I'm not arguing from those angles. However if someone is so anti-social and dangerous beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen, then I fully support the death penalty and removing them from society.

[Noble Ire]

I am rather conflicted on the subject. I fully support the execution of criminal, identified sociopaths, since they are biologically incapable of rehabilitation, and are a potentially dangerous drain on society. However, identifying such individuals without lumping some people who have committed their crimes under other circumstances, or worse, are innocent, is a difficult task. I suppose I oppose the death penalty on practical grounds, but there are certain cases and situations under which I would be inclined to see it reinstated (perhaps on a case by case basis).

[General Zod]

And as I pointed out above, a person in solitary is off the street anyway, so society is not automatically safer with them dead (assuming the prisons are run properly).

Ghetto edit: There's always the possibility that they'll attempt to break out and murder guards in the process. Frankly, if someone's sentenced to life then they really don't have anything left to lose by using whatever methods are at their disposal to escape.

[TheLemur]

However if someone is so anti-social and dangerous beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen, then I fully support the death penalty and removing them from society.

So, of course, you support shooting quadriplegics, who in 1600 had no hope of ever being productive citizens.

[General Zod]

However if someone is so anti-social and dangerous beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen, then I fully support the death penalty and removing them from society.

So, of course, you support shooting quadriplegics, who in 1600 had no hope of ever being productive citizens.

Did you miss the part of my post where I added anti-social and dangerous dipshit, or are you just picking and choosing?

[Lord Zentei]

<snip>

I'll concede that it cost more, but I find the idea of paying to keep a person that will never see the outside of a cell alive distasteful.

Well, if that is distasteful, isn't it also distasteful to pay more to possibly give him a shot at getting a reduced sentance or aquittal? You're paying more one way or the other; at least for the solitary confinement option you're not paying as much more.

Besides, having them living half a century in a ten by ten foot cell knowing their life is already over is hardly giving them a suite at the Hilton. It's all in the implementation.

Also, I didn't claim the death penalty prevented crime, and that's not even part of my reasoning. My reasoning is that the death-penalty/life-without-parole convict is too dangerous to let back into society, so why keep him alive?

I didn't say you claimed that, the second article is something I included out of a sense of completeness.

As for your second point: on the (small) chance that the convict is found to be innocent later, you can set him free. That's one less innocent life accidentally taken in the name of justice. Those who are guilty are in for life and are thus off the street anyway.

[Teleros]

However if someone is so anti-social and dangerous beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen, then I fully support the death penalty and removing them from society.

I never knew paralysis lead to anti-social and dangerous behaviour ...

[Lord Zentei]

I realize that it's expensive and not so effective as a deterrant. Which is why I'm not arguing from those angles. However if someone is so anti-social and dangerous beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen, then I fully support the death penalty and removing them from society.

Uh, yeah. Though the point was that for every X such individuals you're executing, you're executing Y innocents, since no test leaves 0% false posetices, regardless of how hard you try.

Ghetto edit: There's always the possibility that they'll attempt to break out and murder guards in the process. Frankly, if someone's sentenced to life then they really don't have anything left to lose by using whatever methods are at their disposal to escape.

There is that possibility, naturally. The same holds true -- only moreso -- for those on death row.

[TheLemur]

Did you miss the part of my post where I added anti-social and dangerous dipshit, or are you just picking and choosing?

If I may refresh your memory, the words you used were:

if someone is so anti-social and dangerous beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen, then I fully support the death penalty

It's rather clear that the criterion you used was "beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen", since you obviously don't support executing anyone who's anti-social and dangerous. Regardless, this is just semantics.

[General Zod]

It's rather clear that the criterion you used was "beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen", since you obviously don't support executing anyone who's anti-social and dangerous. Regardless, this is just semantics.

That was one of the criterion you illiterate imbecile. Hence why the qualifiers "dangerous" and "anti-social" were added. I'd recommend going back to remedial reading classes before you attempt debate with adults further.

[Lord Zentei]

Did you miss the part of my post where I added anti-social and dangerous dipshit, or are you just picking and choosing?

If I may refresh your memory, the words you used were:

if someone is so anti-social and dangerous beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen, then I fully support the death penalty

It's rather clear that the criterion you used was "beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen", since you obviously don't support executing anyone who's anti-social and dangerous. Regardless, this is just semantics.

General Zod's point was that their anti-social and dangerous nature were the things that caused their lack of productivity. That was the key point.

[TheLemur]

That was one of the criterion you illiterate imbecile. Hence why the qualifiers "dangerous" and "anti-social" were added. I'd recommend going back to remedial reading classes before you attempt debate with adults further.

Then why exactly did you choose the criterion "beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen", rather than "cannot balance a glass of chocolate milk on their heads"?

[General Zod]

Then why exactly did you choose the criterion "beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen", rather than "cannot balance a glass of chocolate milk on their heads"?

Because someone who's been shown to be dangerous and anti-social to degrees can still be rehabilitated if they haven't gone to the point of murder. I really shouldn't have to explain this step by step for anyone with more than a grade-school reading comprehension.

[eyl]

I'm generally opposed on practical grounds. However, I would allow it, under the following circumstances:

1) The evidence needs to be solid. In particular, a substantial amount of the evidence used to convict should not have been circumstantial.
This sets up two standards of evidence - one to convict and a higher one to sentence to death - so it would probably work better if the body passing the sentence (whether judge or jury) isn't the same as the one determining the verdict weren't the same; for example, having two juries, or having the jury convict but the judge pass sentence, or having a jury's death sentence reviewed by a panel of judges.
2) The death penalty should be restricted to a small subset of crimes:
a) Cases where it's evident that prison is insufficient to restain the criminal; e.g., murders in prison, murder during an escape attempt or while on the run, and so on.
b) I'd also set as a capital crime setting someone up for the death penalty; e.g., falsifying evidence or commiting perjury in order to convict someone of a capital crime.

[Lord Zentei]

That was one of the criterion you illiterate imbecile. Hence why the qualifiers "dangerous" and "anti-social" were added. I'd recommend going back to remedial reading classes before you attempt debate with adults further.

Then why exactly did you choose the criterion "beyond the point of ever being a productive citizen", rather than "cannot balance a glass of chocolate milk on their heads"?

Because the question of their being productive citizens is the pragmatic issue, not their ability to perform circus tricks.

Good grief, I disagree with General Zod's position, but this kind of asinine nitpicking is just silly.

[TheLemur]

General Zod's point was that their anti-social and dangerous nature were the things that caused their lack of productivity. That was the key point.

Okay- so if the important thing is that they're anti-social and dangerous, and NOT that they can't be "productive members of society", why was that criterion even included? To separate them out from people who should get lesser sentences? So then why does no court use it as the key factor in judging death penalty cases?

[General Zod]

General Zod's point was that their anti-social and dangerous nature were the things that caused their lack of productivity. That was the key point.

Okay- so if the important thing is that they're anti-social and dangerous, and NOT that they can't be "productive members of society", why was that criterion even included?

You really are an idiot if you think that only one of those was important as opposed to all three being a required criterion.

To separate them out from people who should get lesser sentences? So then why does no court use it as the key factor in judging death penalty cases?

Someone who's dangerous or anti-social has not necessarily murdered in cold-blood yet. Murder drastically reduces their value and contribution to society. Why is this difficult to grasp precisely?

[TheLemur]

Because the question of their being productive citizens is the pragmatic issue, not their ability to perform circus tricks.

So then why not some other pragmatic issue? I'm sure I could list plenty of them, including:

- whether the person has killed/killed more than once/killed under aggravated circumstances
- whether the person is likely to commit further crimes
- how much it would cost for them to be executed as opposed to thrown in prison
- how fair/likely the guilty judgment is
- and all the other stuff that goes into these cases.

[Teleros]

Okay- so if the important thing is that they're anti-social and dangerous, and NOT that they can't be "productive members of society", why was that criterion even included?

Because not only are they dangerous people, but they're of the unproductive, net drain, useless and dangerous type of people. In other words, society has no benefit from keeping them around at all.