[jon boy]

Originally Posted by The Lung

I think all paedophiles should be tortured and fucking burned. I am sick of hearing about the ones that get let out of jail and then go rape another innocent kid. They should get the worst death in the world.

I also think that the familys of the people who have been murdered should be able to at least beat the shit out of the murderer. I would be against the death penalty but the number of people who get out jail after a few years and then go do the same evil shit should be killed.

so what happens if the person who has been molested does something similar to someone else? a very high proportion of people who commit crimes like that were victims of them at one point.

[jon boy]

what about the moral question of taking someones life?

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Bastian

I don't think so. Deterrence doesn't work that well, because every criminal thinks that they won't catch him.

Seems to be doing pretty well for Saudi Arabia/ China. I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat, but the low crime rates in zero-tolerance countries does say a lot for a more hard-line approach to law-enforcement.

[jon boy]

that could be true or it could be the blanket banning of journalism and the internet so we just never hear about it.

[Torn Curtain]

Originally Posted by Glice

Seems to be doing pretty well for Saudi Arabia/ China. I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat, but the low crime rates in zero-tolerance countries does say a lot for a more hard-line approach to law-enforcement.

I disagree, for instance in the US the majority of states without the death penalty have consistently lower crime rates than those with it, cf http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH% 20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

[Glice]

Edit: In response to Jon Boy

True enough. I'm more of a fan of horses for courses in this instance. What is appropriate for a secular (Western) democracy is not necessarily appropriate for an 'other' country (Islamic Sharia, communist etc). One thing that infuriates me endlessly is the assumption, usually from Anglo-American academics, that the Western system of democracy is superior to any other system. The crusades or British (or French) imperialism were not ideal systems, yet were foisted upon countries where not only were they imperfect, they were inappropriate (cf the history of Africa in the 20th Century). The current (predominently American) trend of imposition of Western-style 'democracies' in countries which have no tradition or sympathy for 'other' systems is, largely, narcissitic and misled bullshit. Ok, so Afghanistan and Iraq were not ideally led by anyone's standards, but it doesn't necessarily follow that 'our' system is the correct answer.

[Trasher02]

No, even though Sadam was responsible for the death of many people I still think it's not fair to give someone the death penalty. You'll be no better then the person who gets it.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Torn Curtain

I disagree, for instance in the US the majority of states without the death penalty have consistently lower crime rates than those with it, cf http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH% 20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

In the case of America I would say the disparity between the state's approach to the death penalty and the general consensus over the constitution (all that bollocks about 'freedom' that Americans never, ever stop harping on about) makes America a definite exception, and furthermore can only lead to a political schizophrenia. America is also notable for being one of the very few 'liberal' 'democracies' which have retained the death penalty, perhaps the only one that regularly practices it [anyone confirm this?].

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Trasher02

No, even though Sadam was responsible for the death of many people I still think it's not fair to give someone the death penalty. You'll be no better then the person who gets it.

It's not one person who gives the death sentence though, that's partially the point. The alleged 'blame' of the sanctioning/ enacting of death is spread through the multiple facilitators, the people who vote (within American democracy, at least) for the government which continues to practice the death penalty. It's not a case of tit-for-tat, it's a case of democratic legitimization standing against the individual.

[Glice]

NB - It should be noted that I'm opposed to the death penalty, in case anyone is wondering.

[jon boy]

japan execute quite a lot and so do russia, if russia can be considered a 'western' country now.

i know that in america you have to actually sign your own death warrant and in china no date is given for your execution so it could happen at any time. the guards just walk upto your cell and cart you off without prior warning or preparation. the stress that must cause the condemned must be extreme.

[Destroy Rock 'n' Roll]

I'm totally against it.

[greenlight]

no.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

I understand what you are saying, but I'm sure that "normal" was the last thing any victim was thinking when being raped or murdered.

Another way to look at the death penalty......if it were you about to be raped or murdered and you had a gun that you could use to shoot and kill your attacker......would you use deadly force? If you would kill your attacker to protect yourself from being raped or murdered, then don't you agree with the death penalty?

On the other hand, if you were going to be the victim and thought it best that your attacker not be killed......then you made the decision not to use deadly force and allowed yourself to be raped or murdered......then you most definitely oppose the death penalty.

The point in killing the criminal is to prevent them from killing you. Not to give them "justice" for their crimes.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Have you ever considered how easy it is for you to say this? You (and everyone reading this) sitting at your computer, possibly enjoying a cup of coffee with absolutely nothing to fear......do we understand true fear? Are you concerned that your government might come kick down your door because of something you posted on a message board? Because of something you said in public? Because of your family name or your religious belief? I seriously doubt it!

At lest consider the thought of you being present as Saddam and the people he directly controlled tortured and killed people. Imagine the screams coming from those who were having holes drilled into their legs and other body parts......and they were the lucky ones!

Look down at the ground and imagine one of your parents, siblings or loved ones screaming in agony. Their blood squirting all over the place and you are there witnessing it, but are powerless to do anything about it.

I respect EVERYONE'S right to say they are totally against the death penalty......because we have the freedom to say say such things. If we fail to understand / appreciate this freedom, then we don't understand how fortunate we (all of us reading this) truly are.

Nothing he did can make his execution just in my eyes. The death penalty is state instituted "revenge." Revenge is wrong plain and simple.

Say someone killed a loved one of yours, if you found them and got your revenge and personally exacted it- would you feel like a better person? Or would that void that your loved one left be a little bigger?

Revenge isn't fulfilling. It is sour. It takes away a part of your soul.

It seems that in carrying out the death penalty on a killer, you're just adding one more death to a chain of violence. Why not send a message of peace and forgiveness and let someone like that survive instead of upholding the rule of violence?

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Exactly! The point of the death penalty is to kill the individual. Denying them the right to life and knowing they can never do anything to hurt anyone again.

Look, I'm not saying I agree with the death penalty. If I was on a jury, I'm not sure if I could take part in a death penalty case? Here in the United States, there are several problems with the judicial process......but the death penalty has always been around and I'm sure it always will be.

I understand that point- but when it comes to self defense and you have a gun and they have a gun- killing or being killed is the only option.

In court there are many more options to prevent violence from ever occuring again. If you can solve things without violence, why not?

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

So your argument is for instinct.

If you see someone torturing another person, of course you're gonna want to kill the perpetrator. It makes your blood boil with rage. But those are animalistic urges. What separates us from animals is that we try to overcome our animal urges and instead use our brains.

Now our animal instincts have their purpose- to keep ourselves, our mates, and our bloodline alive. But when we are not in such situations that call for survivalism- we are to use our brains and our morals.

[qprogeny79]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

The point in killing the criminal is to prevent them from killing you. Not to give them "justice" for their crimes.

it's interesting that you should say this, because generally speaking, those are the two primary philosophical justifications for the institution of legal punishment in general -- called utilitarianism and retributivism, respectively. a lot of people have argued that retributivism, the one that says that punishment is justified because the criminal deserves it, smacks of a certain primeval lust for vengeance (as have some of you); i suspect that our western judeo-christian heritage, with its emphasis on "turning the other cheek" and mercy, has contributed greatly to this intuition. but i think there's a difference between punishing someone for revenge and punishing someone out of respect for general principles of justice, which demand that people not be allowed to simply get away with their crimes, and that their punishment in some relevant sense "fit" the severity of the crime.

that said, i think the death penalty can be meaningfully justified on both utilitarian and retributivist grounds. as noted, it does remove the threat to society (not that effective lifetime incarceration doesn't, but capital punishment does have the added bonus of eliminating society's financial burden that the criminal imposes -- but this too, i admit, is arguable). also, since retributivism requires that the severity of punishment not exceed the severity of the crime, and at least in homicide cases no execution that involves pain not exceeding that inflicted upon the victim is off-limits by this standard, capital punishment can therefore be justified on these grounds as well.

of course, i do make several caveats: there is the problem of convicting innocents, and for that reason i do believe that extreme caution should be carried out when sentencing people to die. people too often forget the principle, in the american court system at least, of "innocent until proven guilty," which requires that if the prosecution has not demonstrated the culpability of the accused beyond a "shadow of a doubt," the juror is obligated to acquit. also, i admit that the utilitarian and retributivist justifications for punishment are not without their problems; utilitarianism is subject to the "punishment of the innocent" example and retributivism is problematic as above. also, they seem to be mutually exclusive: the retributivist limit of "no punishment beyond what the criminal deserves" may not give to society the full extent of benefits that might accrue to it if greater punishment were carried out, and utilitarian punishment may likewise be too severe. so i think there are probably better justifications for punishment out there, but i don't know what they are.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

By using the death penalty- we're turned into premeditated killers- not instinctual killers- which is what the criminal was.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

The point in killing the criminal is to prevent them from killing you. Not to give them "justice" for their crimes.

How many times is this gonna be taken out of context? I was replying to Bytor Peltor's comparison between self-defense killing and the death penalty.

I guess it is my fault in the way I phrased it. By in killing the criminal- I mean at the scene of the crime about to happen.