Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Parading Death Row


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:31 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk...-china-21625905

Like many social issues the legality of the death penalty swings back and forth as if it were a pendulum. I consider myself a moderate on most social issues, however when it comes to the death penalty I'm 100% in favor of it.

The article tells of people upset in China because the suspects, about to be terminated were paraded through the street. I've always been a little puzzled over the intention of societies to implement the death penalty. Is it to give the devil his due, an eye for an eye? Or is the main driver behind DP to discourage future unspeakable acts by others?

If the latter is true we here in America do a poor job of making this point and using other killers as examples. I would venture to bet that very few of the people who will commit a murder this Saturday evening will take pause and reflect on the last person to receive the DP before they kill. If we are trying to use it as deterrent wouldn't it be a good idea to parade them?

I know some people do not agree with me on this point, but I stand by my position that when someone breaks the law they give up some of their rights, not all but some. The more severe the crime the greater amount of rights they sacrifice.

My point is that if we are going to use the DP to act as a deterrent to future crimes then the acts should be made much more public instead of the quietly way they are played out now.

#2 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:28 PM

We know that many innocent people have been executed. Why do you feel that the deterrent effect of capital punishment justifies this collateral damage of innocent people and their families?

#3 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:38 PM

I agree with you, many innocent people have been executed. They were executed by the heinous and unthinkable crimes of disturbed inviduals.

I must acknowledge your point and agree that not all those executed are guilty, but our system gives them the chance to prove themselves innocent to their peers. It's not a perfect system I concede, but it's the one we have.

When some of these predators rape and kill men, women, and children do you think life in prison is a deterrent? Many say life is too precious to take from anyone. And what kind of life are we affording these individuals in a 6 x 6 cage for the rest of their lives? If their lives are so precious wouldn't placing them in a cage for 30yrs not disrespect the homage we should pay to it as well?

Of course these individuals who slaughter others are always candidates for rehabilitation in some peoples eyes. Just so long as its not in their backyard where their children play.

#4 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:31 PM

Your response is emotive and not objective. That limits its practical value.

I agree with you, many innocent people have been executed. They were executed by the heinous and unthinkable crimes of disturbed inviduals.

Irrelevant. Responding to this my executing other innocent people is not moral, it is not ethical, it is not logical, it is not beneficial to individual or society.


I must acknowledge your point and agree that not all those executed are guilty, but our system gives them the chance to prove themselves innocent to their peers. It's not a perfect system I concede, but it's the one we have..

The system is flawed and we should moderate our actions based upon recognition of those flaws. Executing people when we know that a proportion of them will be innocent does not strike me as a morally responsible approach.


When some of these predators rape and kill men, women, and children do you think life in prison is a deterrent?

There is very little evidence that capital punishment acts as a deterrent either, so what benefit does it offer other than making some people feel better that the crime has been avenged.


Many say life is too precious to take from anyone. And what kind of life are we affording these individuals in a 6 x 6 cage for the rest of their lives?

What would you choose? Death or life in a 6 x 6 cage? I know where my choice lies.

Of course these individuals who slaughter others are always candidates for rehabilitation in some peoples eyes. Just so long as its not in their backyard where their children play.

Unwarranted misinterpretation of my moral position that approaches the character of an ad hominem, Feel free to apologise.

#5 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:54 AM

Note taken on final response I apologize, but my point is the death penalty is not a deterrent because it's used so little as of right now. These individuals made a conscience effort to exterminate anothers existance. There must be serious reprecusions for that. Giving them three warm meals and a TV for the rest of their life is not justice.

#6 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:29 PM

To clarify my personal position, and therefore my personal bias on the issue of execution, let me state that, for personal moral reasons, I believe no person should be executed under any present day circumstances.

We know that many innocent people have been executed.

“Know” and “many” are, I think, too strong to be used to describe our knowledge of the number of people wrongfully executed in the US or other nations. Although on the order of tens of people who have been executed in the US have later had witnesses against them recant their testimony, often admitting to the crime for which another was executed, as with any recanting witness, it’s difficult to be confident they are telling the truth.

We do know with high certainty that some people have been executed based on convictions based on incorrect scientific evidence. For example, Claude Jones was executed in 2000 for a murder based on microscopic hair analysis done in 1990 that concluded that a hair found at the crime scene was his. In 2007, the hair was DNA tested, and found to belong to the murder victim. However, this shows only that Jones’s conviction was based on incorrect analysis, not that he was innocent. (source: http://www.criminalj...-execution.html)

Most of the high certainty evidence we have that people have been wrongfully sentenced to death comes from cases in which these people were exonerated based on DNA testing prior to their executions. 18 such people have been released since 1992 due to the work of the Innocence Project, out of a total of 301 people released based on exonerating DNA evidence. As this organization and ones like it are interested primarily in freeing people who are still alive, rather than proving the innocence of ones already executed, they put more effort into the former than the latter.

I agree with you, many innocent people have been executed. They were executed by the heinous and unthinkable crimes of disturbed inviduals.

You are using legal terms incorrectly here, Deepwater.

Execution refers the killing of people convicted of crimes by agents of the judicial organ of a legitimate government. Murder refers to the killing of people by individual or group of people who are not legitimate agents of a state military or judicial system.

You also appear to assume that all murders are heinous, “unthinkable”, or committed by mentally disturbed people. In my experience, this is not true. Rather, most murders are committed by fairly ordinary people in extraordinary situations, usually over disputes over money, property, or romantic rivalries, in which the victim was guilty of some wrongdoing. In these circumstances, the murder is rarely – never, in my personal experience – executed or imprisoned for life.

Of course these individuals who slaughter others are always candidates for rehabilitation in some peoples eyes. Just so long as its not in their backyard where their children play.

Some incarcerated murderers are good candidates for rehabilitation. Some are not. I strongly believe such determinations should be made on an individual basis, using the best available science, not categorically using impassioned political speech, and am glad that this is the case in the US and many other nations.

I’ve never heard it suggested that murderers should be rehabilitated in anyone’s backyard, or around playing children. Deepwater, I think you’re using political rhetoric, describing a situation that doesn’t exist to inflame passions. Such arguments are fallacious, and shouldn’t be used in these forums. :naughty:

#7 paigetheoracle

paigetheoracle

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1432 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:55 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-21625905

Like many social issues the legality of the death penalty swings back and forth as if it were a pendulum. I consider myself a moderate on most social issues, however when it comes to the death penalty I'm 100% in favor of it.

The article tells of people upset in China because the suspects, about to be terminated were paraded through the street. I've always been a little puzzled over the intention of societies to implement the death penalty. Is it to give the devil his due, an eye for an eye? Or is the main driver behind DP to discourage future unspeakable acts by others?

If the latter is true we here in America do a poor job of making this point and using other killers as examples. I would venture to bet that very few of the people who will commit a murder this Saturday evening will take pause and reflect on the last person to receive the DP before they kill. If we are trying to use it as deterrent wouldn't it be a good idea to parade them?

I know some people do not agree with me on this point, but I stand by my position that when someone breaks the law they give up some of their rights, not all but some. The more severe the crime the greater amount of rights they sacrifice.

My point is that if we are going to use the DP to act as a deterrent to future crimes then the acts should be made much more public instead of the quietly way they are played out now.


It doesn't act as a deterrent - conscience does. If we want what society has to offer, we control our emotions but when we reach the point of no longer caring, then anger and short term gratification takes over. Murder by the state is still murder, whether it's cold blooded and calculated (and sometimes wrong). We have to stop defining things as though termination of a life by the law is different to termination outside of it.