Life Sentence vs. Capital Punishment

Lundi, the only one not reading is you. You stated



To which I responded



So, what else besides the "statistically lower exoneration rate" does the pro-death penalty crowd have? That's all I'm asking, what else do they have to stand on?

Christ, can't you and I have one civil conversation for once?

I'd love to have one, as long as you actually decide to address the argument I asked you to address. You have so far refused to, and have ACTIVELY gone towards an argument I've stated that, for this argument's purpose, is completely irrelevant.

You insist on arguing a topic I'm not arguing, I make this clear to you over and over, and you're claiming I don't understand you. Kind of hard to be civil when you refuse to take the time to address a straight point.

So how many times do I have to point it out? The idea that society stands to benefit from keeping the death penalty in some material or moral sense was NOT the point of the argument, and I insisted on saying that, EXPLICITLY. And your response? "Well, give me a material or moral sense that society would benefit then."

Can you not see why that would make me tear my hair out in frustration?

[font=verdana][color=green]Okay, I am having serious confusion understanding what BigLundi is trying to argue. I know that FPoD, like myself, is vehemently against the death penalty. That... I understand. But, I actually have no idea what BigLundi is trying to argue. Is he for or against it? Something tells more for, something tells me against.

Either way, he needs to be more concise. Until I get a clear message on where he stands, I can't argue with him, as he might be of the same opinion as me.

Since you touched on a pro-death penalty argument, I was trying to pull more information out of you. This is because one of my external hard drives corrupted and I lost a good 10 GB chunk of my archives.

There's such a thing as being on the fence.

Sure, the death penalty doesn't serve as a deterrent and it's extremely expensive. This has been addressed in depth by both of you. What I've done is brought about a completely new argument in the form of a counter reductio argument concerning the problem of the miscarriage of justice. In essence, while it's completely true that we risk harming innocents by installing the death penalty, they're more likely to rot in jail for the rest of their life without it. So the option for someone convicted of a crime of that magnitude are - A. Get the death penalty and far more likely get off if they're innocent, or B. Be far less likely to get off, and spend the rest of their life in prison...just to die anyway.

And I showed the statistics on this earlier. 10 times the amount of man hours is spent on capital punishment cases(which is a partial justification of why they're so ungodly expensive) because they're taken that much more seriously in the hypothetical that, "This man COULD be innocent" because the DP is considered far harsher. There are instances of people getting exonerated SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE the death penalty was a part of the suffering, and I posted a link about that.

I quoted Ernst Van der Haag essentially saying that with every single system we put in place, we run the risk of killing innocents, even those we never think about(running construction projects, heightening the speed limit by 5 mph, the little stuff). Now, FPoD is trying to get me to give a specific benefit allowing the DP would give, and I'm trying to explain to him that I already explicitly explained that whether or not you agree with Van der Haag, the fact remains that we unconsciously adopt policies putting innocents at risk all the time, and this is perfectly ok. To me, my original post is just a summation of what I feel is a cogent argument in favor of the death penalty. But I'm not necessarily for, or against it. FPoD on the other hand...seems to just refuse to address it, and instead try to get me to address an argument...I never made. And it's annoying me.

[font=verdana][color=green]Ah, I think I see what you're getting at now. "They're only found not guilty because they were subject to Capital Punishment", in a phrase. But, surely that again provides reason for why states with Capital Punishment have higher rates of murders than everywhere else? If more money is spent trying to prove their innocence, then they have more chance of getting off the hook than anywhere else.

However, there is a big difference between Capital Punishment and things like construction and speed limit increases. Capital Punishment is a positive effect on someone's death, whereas other things are merely consequential. Speed limit increases take into account a car's improved technology before it imposes an increase - 70pmh 40 years ago was far more dangerous than 70mph today.

Bwah? That's the exact opposite of what I said. They were found NOT guilty because they were subject to capital punishment.



I don't think that's the reason. I think the correlation has more to do with education and economy than anything. But anyway, being extra scrutinal cuts both ways, if you're innocent you have a higher chance of being exonerated, and if you're guilty they could get you found guilty of even MORE things before your punishment. I think it's clear that very few, if any people take capital punishment into account when they commit a crime.



I don't find a comparison of 'intentional' v 'consequential' at all compelling.

I mean yes, there IS a difference between accidental deaths, and intentional deaths of innocent people.

I'm not a utilitarian. I don't think it's important to SIMPLY lower innocent deaths.

But I'm not a deontologist, and I don't think that decreasing suffering 'at all costs' is a good premise either, and I doubt you do too.

The thing is, I find these statistics sufficient enough to override that...really in my opinion rather slight difference in effect. If the priority is saving innocent lives...then ending the death penalty shows no evidence that that's occurring, in any significant way.

The problem with both of them is that fact that both cost a lot of tax dollars and the government, although it will never happen, needs to find a way to make capital punishment cost less or life sentence cost less. Unfortunately, that will never happen, so I believe that it should be left to the crime the person commits, that way there will be guidelines to each crime and there will be no exceptions to certain crimes. Because seriously there are so many different ways to commit the same crime and when there is a different set of peers judging a criminal, it gets really hard to lay down guidelines and for people to take legal matters seriously.

All for capital punishment if the person killed somebody.. cut off their dick if they raped somebody. ezpz.
Cut off their hand if they steal. soon there will be no crime.

But seriously, if you kill those who have killed another. you are saving LOTS of tax payer money. Think about it, you aren't just saving money on the food and clothes, and water and cleaning product (to clean them with), but you're also saving tax payer money on NOT building new prisons every which where. Think about it, we have a huge influx of crimminals, overflowing our prisons.. simple solution: Kill all the murderers. That's what? half gone, heaps of room.

ezpz. aside from saving money, I feel those who murder deserve to have their actions done to themselves. it's only fair. Such is the principal of Equivalent Exchange

I would agree with an eye for an eye type system however it is not really plausible, i would say what we did with Australia worked pretty well, just toss a bunch of prisoners on an island wait a long time and eventually they civilize themselves, that might be a good idea, other than land it is to no cost if we send no provisions and eventually as I said they would form something akin to a civilization.

Life sentence, I don't believe killing the criminal will solve anything.

Capital punishment overall.

It helps get rid of the criminals, that we taxpayers pay for to keep in prison. Its way better than life sentence.

I dont personally see the point of Capital punishment, I mean I understand people wanting those who took someone precious to them to die but When you think about it what have you done? You made someone else who is innocent feel the pain of losing someone close to them.

Its like the case in Australia years ago when a british woman killed another woman in the outback (i think) and she was to be sentenced and they asked the brother of the murdered woman if he would prefer her to have a life sentence or to have her excuted and he said What is the point of an excution? Killing Her will not make it right again

The idea of Capital Punisment goes back to the ancient (and still used) beliefe of 'Eye for an Eye'

It is seen as that if you commit the crime of killing your fellow man, then you forfit your own life, in the eyes of God, and therefore deserve to be punished by having your own life taken.

In Iran the government (what there is for a government) still goes by the Eye for an Eye adage and will punish criminals with the same way that they harmed their victums. There was a story a year or two back that a man who had stabbed a woman in the back, paralyzing her, was to have his spinal cord severed by doctors by order of the government.

The female victum however intervened, and siting the Qu'ran for showing forgiveness, asked that the punishment be stopped.

It can also be attributed to the idea of Karma. That bad things happen to bad people and/or that the universe is in constant and perfect balance.

So in the idea of Karma, Capital Punishment can be looked at as balancing the universe.

I personally support Capital Punishment in only the worse cases of human cruelty and malice. I believe that locking up a criminal so that they are forced to live out their remaining days in a concrete box is much crueler then executing them outright as they have to suffer knowing that they will never be free again.

Capital Punishment, I might get flamed for this but I think anyone who assaults or rapes should immediately be executed. Because there is no reason to keep evil people in the world and if someone assaults or rapes another person you know as soon as they get out their just gonna come after their victim and kill them or come after another victim. And as long as the victim knows they are alive they will still be haunted by them unless the criminal is dead.

Problem with this though, is that some of the more "ambiguous" murder cases need time for the investigators. If someone is executed immediately, there will be a lot of innocent deaths. Even in Australia, where you only have life sentences, there are still cases of people going to jail for many years only to later find out they were actually innocent. (of course though, they get compensated afterwards, but how can you pay back their time, life, career, etc. with money?)

Something like 3% of the people executed in the United States have been posthumously proven innocent. That is unacceptable. Until we can prove murder with 100% accuracy, we should not have the death penalty.

This is known as the "Miscarriage of justice" argument. Please see my post on page 2, three posts from the top, concerning why this argument is insufficient.

Help me out, it might have gone over my head. There are better ways to save lives, so if we really wanted to preserve life, lets worry about things other than the death penalty, like not driving?

The benefits reaped from massive transportation outweigh the cost of people lost in accidents, we as a society agree on that which is why we have such a system.

So the benefits of the death penalty outweigh the cost of it? This is not a human universal like transportation. Many nations have outlawed the death penalty. The amount lawyers/judges are paid outweighs the cost of housing the inmate for life. Also, you know... hypocrisy? You killed someone, which is wrong, so we are going to kill you. You can't argue a moral standpoint on that. You can say that this person is a danger to society as a whole so he will be removed/perma-ban. You can't say killing is wrong.

Also you equate a life sentence with a death sentence. You don't mention the massive amount of parolees. And really? You think that just because they die in the course of their sentence, they would rather have died sooner? Life in prison, might as well be dead? I know that I would rather a life sentence than a death sentence, because while death row often takes years upon years, the time spent is different.

I know a guy who was in prison for 3 years. He became extremely well-read and learned how to deal with people. (he was previously hikikomori/NEET)Time in prison is still time, being in prison is not the absence of self, you are still alive and active.

I am speaking from a moral/emotional standpoint. Imagine sitting for months-years on death row, years of appeals and lawyers. Imagine the opposing witness is a tear sprouting maiden who juries can't find fault with. Knowing that you have not done anything wrong, but to have hundreds of people look at you with hate and condemn you to death. Would you feel resigned? Become religious? Desperate? Hopeful? Bored?

Just thinking about that situation, my gut is upside down.

Moreso that we implement policies every day that we know are going to result in death of innocents, so saying that innocent people are being killed by a policy isn't really all that much reason to give anyone pause.



And we, as a society, agree that there are benefits to having a death penalty system(such as the taking away of people who are bound to do more damage in an inadequate re educational system). As well as the understanding that the threat of death for punishment causes us to try our best to investigate the crime in question...which...I don't think you think is a bad thing.



You're jumping all over the place here. Could you stick to one argument? IT doesn't matter that many nations have outlawed the death penalty. That doesn't speak to whether or not it ought to be a preferred outcome. That's called an argumentum ad populum.



Do they also outweigh the chances of getting someone who is innocent out of jail? Isn't that...you know...what you're asking for with your original objection? That innocent people not be punished unjustly? So let me ask you, since you refuse to be consistent with your values. Which is more important, exonerating innocents, or the money it costs to house them when they're not?



Sure we can, provided we simply add a qualifying explanation as to how circumstances change between applying the death penalty, and an unstable individual devaluing human life enough to take it away in favor of other values they place above human life...taking away that life. I'm not of the opinion that people can reliably be 'cured' of murderous intent and desires through the prison system, are you? And if you are, could you provide data to show that this actually does happen? That there's a statistically significant success rate for rehabilitation of murderers? And if not...why...are we keeping them around? If we know...they will remain a danger to society and with murderous intent?



Not...really. Prison's the same for both. Rough people pressuring you to take sides in the pseudo-politics of the other prisoners, becoming someone's bitch, being dehumanized by other prisoners with your worth being calculated in the form of cigarettes, being forced to fight with others in order to be left alone on a regular basis...aside from a petty wishing to cling onto life, no matter how much suffering you go through, why would you prefer a life sentence over a death sentence? And of course we'd have to presume you're guilty, because if you're not, I would personally prefer the death penalty, as I'm more likely to be exonerated if I do. As far as parole goes, would you mind providing statistics of murderers who end up getting parole?



What kind of prison was he in? What was he sentenced for? I can almost guarantee prison life would have been far different for him if he was a convicted murderer. My brother went to a low security prison for misdemeanors and light felonies for domestic abuse. It was the most torturous time of his life, because his time was majoritively spent listening to an ex heroin addict talking about how much of an awful person he used to be and how Jesus saved his life. And that's pretty much how he spent the majority of his waking hours only for 2 weeks...he would rather go on the run than experience something like that again.



If you honestly think that one opposing witness is sufficient to give a death penalty, you're sorely mistaken. Even if the witness is taken as credible...that's not enough. There needs to be a lot of physical evidence to condemn someone to a death penalty. And after all of it is gathered and the sentence is given, hundreds upon hundreds more man hours are spent making sure you did it(severely increasing your chances for exoneration if you didn't).



Your hypothetical doesn't at all reflect how the legal process works in real life. And the fact that you have said that "hundreds of people look at you with hate and condemn you to death" as something against the death penalty situation specifically...implies you don't think this happens to those who are consigned to life in prison. Is that...really what you think? That those who are sentenced to life in prison for being convicted of murder...aren't looked at with hate, or disdain? Or people wishing them dead? You honestly think that doesn't happen?

Your hypothetical, to summarize, doesn't at all reflect anything about reality, skews the situation in a way that unfairly only reflects the death penalty as if the emotions felt are solely felt when one receives capital punishment, which isn't the case, and it ignores one of the main points of the argument I pointed you to, that capital punishment drastically increases your chances of exoneration.