Conservatives

[Mephisto]

Sorry, I should have been more precise.

I was indeed trying to express that it's impossible for anyone to know whether or not an innocent person has been executed in the US since 1976.

MF says that's irrelevant because we should base the law on facts and not speculation, and normally I would agree, but in this case I do not. It is precisely the absence of fact that makes the death penalty unsafe. I'm sure everyone here understands that courts do not require proof positive in order to convict, they require proof beyond reasonable doubt. That, in my opinion, is not a high enough standard of proof upon which to put someone to death. The death penalty leaves no space for the correction of errors. The justice system is not perfect, and as such, occasionally makes mistakes. Thus, irrespective of the facts to date, someone innocent will eventually be executed. It is merely a matter of time. That is not acceptable.

In addition, the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent, and does not confer greater safety upon the public than life imprisonment without parole.

In short, it is both ineffective and morally dubious. I have never encountered a cogent argument in favour of it.

QFT

[CrAz3D]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168

What are these non-death penalty states?  What if these states normally have a lower muder rate? 

Maybe the death penalty isnt being executed (hahaha!) correctly?  If the execution was public & brutal that might be a better deterrent.

[Rule]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168

What are these non-death penalty states?  What if these states normally have a lower muder rate? 

Maybe the death penalty isnt being executed (hahaha!) correctly?  If the execution was public & brutal that might be a better deterrent.

I can see you bringing popcorn to public executions.

I have never encountered a cogent argument in favour of it.

While I tend to agree with your position on the death penalty, this particular statement took away from the credibility of your argument.  First, it suggests that since you have not "encountered a cogent argument...", one must conclude that no argument in favour of the death penality is intellectually appealing -- as though your experience is authoritative and exhaustive.  Of course this is a logical fallacy, and I have seen you express great frustration when an opponent uses this tactic  (e.g. Hazard/republicans never do anything wrong).  Further, it must be quite obvious to anyone who had put thought into this matter that there are logically appealing arguments in favour of the death penalty, not necessarily as a deterrent to crime but as an economical utility. 

After all, your argument rests on an opinion --

That [proof beyond reasonable doubt], in my opinion, is not a high enough standard of proof upon which to put someone to death.

Is it not equally reasonable to assume that the space that would be saved in jail and the money that would be saved from not having to support convicted criminals is more important than the unreasonable doubt that whomever is being executed is not guilty of what they've been convicted for?

To make an effective argument in favour of the death penalty, we would have to go to more lengths to show that the money and space saved are considerable.  However, these are obvious practical benefits that could follow from a death penalty. Amongst intellectuals, one who chooses to favour a life sentence over the death penalty is similar to a boy who chooses to like lollipops over chocolate bars.  Both arguments have their logical appeal, but in the end one is favoured simply because of a personal taste. 

I am rather dissapointed that you were so dismissive of the other side.

[Arta]

A brutal punishment is, by definition, cruel. Or do you disagree with your own consitution?

I would agree with this deterrence argument if it was even vaguely sensible. Deterrence only works on rational people. If you instituted the death penalty for littering, I am pretty sure that would be a very effective deterrent indeed. That, however, would be completely disproportional.

I'm reasonably sure that murders either kill on impulse -- in which case, no deterrent will ever work -- or are cold and calculating, in which case they obviously feel they won't be caught, which renders moot any potential detterent effect.

As for the lower muder rates: I don't know. Perhaps they were. Perhaps you should dig up some data to see if you can show that the murder rate in those states was uninfluenced by abolition?

[Arta]

... this particular statement took away from the credibility of your argument. First, it suggests that since you have not "encountered a cogent argument...", one must conclude that no argument in favour of the death penality is intellectually appealing -- as though your experience is authoritative and exhaustive.

Not at all -- I didn't mean that. I think it's a leap to say that that statement dismissed any possibility of the existence of a cogent pro argument. I really did just mean that I haven't heard one yet. I'm open to the possibility

Is it not equally reasonable to assume that the space that would be saved in jail and the money that would be saved from not having to support convicted criminals is more important than the unreasonable doubt that whomever is being executed is not guilty of what they've been convicted for?

No. That argument would put a price on human life, which is equally as abhorrent as the death penalty. The value of life is incalculable; the standard of proof that should be required to end it is beyond the ability of the justice system to deliver. More opinion, I suppose, but c'eset la vie: these arguments often rest on opinion in the end.

To make an effective argument in favour of the death penalty, we would have to go to more lengths to show that the money and space saved are considerable. However, these are obvious practical benefits that could follow from a death penalty, and so I am rather dissapointed that you were so dismissive of the other side.

I'm not dismissive -- far from it. Feel free to present any argument you please; I'd enjoy hearing them.

[Rule]

No. That argument would put a price on human life, which is equally as abhorrent as the death penalty. The value of life is incalculable; the standard of proof that should be required to end it is beyond the ability of the justice system to deliver. More opinion, I suppose, but c'eset la vie: these arguments often rest on opinion in the end.

For the purposes of legislation, it is best then to consider whether your opinion on this matter coincides with the overall best interests of society.  For example, I can see the prospect that an innocent is among 1 in every 400 million executed (essentially an innocent will never have his life taken away unjustifiably) as less detrimental to society than the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and necessary jail space to hold dangerous criminals.  Perhaps this is something we could agree on despite whether or not we feel that putting a price on human life is morally questionable.  Besides, sentencing one to a life in prison is very similar to executing him/her -- many would rather be executed, but are not given that option (or right).  It's puzzling that you could be completely in favour of one (under certain conditions), yet completely oppose the other (under the same conditions).

[Mephisto]

How economically damaging would it have been if the ~1000 or so criminals executed were sentenced to life in prison rather than executed?  I'm not mocking you, I'd just like to know for the sake of your economical argument.

[Rule]

How economically damaging would it have been if the ~1000 or so criminals executed were sentenced to life in prison rather than executed?  I'm not mocking you, I'd just like to know for the sake of your economical argument.

I'm not sure how many people have been executed, and I'm not sure how much money or space has been saved by their executions.  I'm saying that it's worth considering though: a logical argument could be made in favour of capital punishment on these grounds.  Or perhaps, one could change how capital punishment is presently implemented in order to make it an even more effective money and space saving tool?   

Note:

To make an effective argument in favour of the death penalty, we would have to go to more lengths to show that the money and space saved are considerable.  However, these are obvious practical benefits that could follow from a death penalty. Amongst intellectuals, one who chooses to favour a life sentence over the death penalty is similar to a boy who chooses to like lollipops over chocolate bars.  Both arguments have their logical appeal, but in the end one is favoured simply because of a personal taste.

[CrAz3D]

Popcorn, probably not, but maybe 

Maybe brutal is the wrong word, but punishment needs to be harsh & unpleasant.

I'm not sure if manslaughter(impulse killing) has a punishment of execution...
A harsh death for the cold blooded killer could deter, for example, his family from joinning gangs.  Death would also be 100% effective in stopping him from committing more crimes.


We cant put a price on the life of a criminal, but it is a woman's choice whether or not to allow her child to be born................................
How does ANY of that make sense?

[Mephisto]

Manslaughter is accidental murder.  2nd degree murder is "impulse killing."

[CrAz3D]

bum bum ba dum bee dum bum (I've been singing this little ditty in my head alot)

Manslaughter is made up of involuntary or voluntary.
Murder is mainly made up of 1st & 2nd degree.

[Rule]

We cant put a price on the life of a criminal, but it is a woman's choice whether or not to allow her child to be born................................
How does ANY of that make sense?

Although I think it seems strange to put a price on the life of a "criminal," that's not what he was talking about.  He was talking about putting a price on innocent life, given that it's possible that an innocent could be executed under capital punishment.  The abortion argument is different; in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.

[rabbit]

For example, I can see the prospect that an innocent is among 1 in every 400 million executed (essentially an innocent will never have his life taken away unjustifiably) as less detrimental to society than the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and necessary jail space to hold dangerous criminals.

• A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
            (December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)
  
• The estimated costs for the death penalty in New York since 1995 (when it was reinstated): $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each person sentenced to death. To date, no executions have been carried out.
            (The Times Union, Sept. 22, 2003)
  
• In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
            (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)

Source: http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

Usually a life sentence doesn't cost more than the death penalty.

[MyndFyre]

in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.

Stop stating this as fact.  It is obviously a primary source of debate within this argument.  Stop stating this as fact.  Stop stating this as fact.

[Grok]

Maybe brutal is the wrong word, but punishment needs to be harsh & unpleasant.

I'm not sure if manslaughter(impulse killing) has a punishment of execution...
A harsh death for the cold blooded killer could deter, for example, his family from joinning gangs.  Death would also be 100% effective in stopping him from committing more crimes.

This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.

Regarding your second argument, if we have a beef with someone's family, we should charge the family with a crime, or leave them the hell alone.  People should be left alone by government unless charges are going to be brought against them for some crime.  You don't deter an uncharged person by executing someone in their family.  What the heck are you smoking?