First of all, it's been a few days here and you guys are awesome. And sorry if i'm bugging anyone with my topics.
To get to the point, religion and killing people are deeply intertwined (especially islam), yet they also have that "sanctity of life" thing.
Atheist usually defend the right to live etc.. but where do we stand in relation to the death penalty? I'm not talking about innocent being killed accidentally, i'm talking about a criminal 100% proven guilty (hypothetical situation), what would you do? And it's not drugs or whatever, he's in prison for killing. Would you kill him? Or would you imprison him the old fashioned way? Maybe some kind of prison farm where criminals can be useful for society?
Note that killing someone is in no way beneficial than keeping him in prison. (other than economically)
I'm still forming my position on this one, i feel that they have the right to choose between painless suicide, rehabilitation, or some sort of "agricultural prison".
Enough of me, what's your position?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
And since we're talking about prisons, the whopping majority of prisoners are religious, i wonder why. *Sarcasm*
I believe there is no right or wrong answer on this matter. I'm against the death penalty simply because once dead there is no more of anything for that person. I want that person to live with and deal with his/her crimes. I don't mean that I want them to be treated inhumanely or tortured because of what they've done. Yeah trust me I get so angry and I do have cruel thoughts when I hear someone did terrible hurtful things to others but if I get delighted at someone getting tortured I'm no better. I do like the idea of putting prisoners to good use and I have seen how work programs give them some purpose in life.
I have a very detailed opinion about this issue. I can't fully disclose all that I would do. I only condone the death penalty for TREASON.
I think that the USA should have a model prison system. One that didn't have dog eat dog facilities. Highly controlled with layers of oversight. For example, I would make it impossible for rape to occur in prisons. But that is only a very small part of my overall plan. Part of my plan is for some prisoners to be fully restored to society without the stigma of a record to hold them back. Parole would be far different than it is now.
@mykcob4: "I only condone the death penalty for TREASON."
Why the exception for treason? Do you think the Rosenbergs' death sentences were justified?
@Algebe
To answer your question I don't know if the Rosenbergs were actually guilty. There is some speculation about that.
Treason is the worst of all crimes IMHO. I think Benedict Arnold should have been hung. I think that the leaders of the Confederates should have been hung. But it's tricky. There has to be a way to determine TRUE treason from just opposing politics. That is another issue from this thread, however, and I am not prepared to debate that aspect on this thread.
Reagan, Nixon, G.Bush I, Channey, Trump, and their underlings have all committed treason. It's a crime against all the people of the USA no matter the motive.
trea·son
ˈtrēzən/Submit
noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: treasons
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More
historical
the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons
IMHO defying the Constitution is treason. BUT, sedition is not treason. The SCOTUS have more than proven that fact. Thus the tricky part.
se·di·tion
səˈdiSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
synonyms: rabble-rousing, incitement to rebel, subversion, troublemaking, provocation; More
In the US, it is almost always far more expensive to kill a person then it is to house them for the rest of their lives. Well it is up for debate, but the evidence points to death penalty costing a lot more to taxpayers, then housing them for 50 years.
If you want to see a semi decent debate on cost, go here: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000
I, like I imagine, many atheist, also believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a worse punishment than death because I do not believe in the afterlife and certainly do not believe in heaven/hell.
I too like the idea of putting prisoners to work to help pay back their debt to society, but we have to be very careful with this, a lot of abuse occurs. I watched 13th on netflix that talks in part about the abuse that can occur from having prisoners work to pay back their debt to society.
An interesting angle to throw in: if the technology/medical science existed, what about wiping out all memories of the criminal person? In a lot of ways, this is a death sentence, but the body remains behind, perhaps the body without the memories that make us who we are can be reformed and be a functioning, safe member of society again? No prison, just a return to a type of schooling to learn basic skills again, and then going on to be productive members of society.
Obviously research would have to be done on the effectiveness of this if such a technology existed, but "reforming" a brutal person that was on death row anyways, seems like it would be a lot cheaper, and the possible addition of a "new" person contributing to society instead of draining resources seems like a win.
The entire jail/prison system in the US is very flawed, and it disproportionately affects the poor and more vulnerable.
You know, your profile picture really contradicts the topic. But anyways, I'd personally agree with Usagi, just killing someone is basically giving him a free way out with no pain (I'm not sadistic), so we should find ways to make that person useful to the Society, and try to compensate for his crimes through work. I'm not saying that he should be kept in prison to die a slow death in confinement, I'm just saying that killing someone is just a life wasted, along with millions of money.
@Chab: The death penalty turns the state into a murderer. When that state is a democracy we speak of the existence of a state of law and, in turn, it turns the society that supports that State into murderers.
It is my opinion that the purpose of prisons should be the rehabilitation of the convicted persons -- even for heinous crimes. When the State takes upon itself to murder someone who committed a crime against society, that society has taken upon itself to murder in the name of law and order. In other words, a person cannot murder another but it is just fine for a State to murder.
The point is, murdering the convicted person automatically makes restitution to society by the person who committed the crime impossible. This does not mean that I do not believe in punishment for criminal acts against society. I just do not believe that the "intended plan" of punishment should be State-sponsored murder.
@mbrownec: I totally agree with you.
Being younger I had the conviction that law and justice should be the same, or that at least the law should tend to be as fair as it could. Being in the University I attended a conference that offered someone who, later, was a very good friend until he passed away, Pedro Zerolo. He got me out of my mistake.
Should the law be fair? Is law and justice the same? It isn't, nor should, nor can be. Why? It's a question that can only be answered with other questions.
What's the law? The law is only a series of coexistence norms between individuals in a society. Nothing else.
What's fair to the father who has lost his daughter to a rapist and murderer's hands? Would not it be fair to leave that murderer with his hands tied behind his back with that father inside a closed room for fifteen minutes? Yes, that would be fair for that father, that would be justice.
On the basis of these two answers we can infer that, while the law makes us civilized beings, justice makes us animals, and when the law tends to be fair that brings society closer to bestiality.
Likewise, Is there any difference between the justice being exercised by that father, or that justice be exercised by the State? No, there isn't, moreover, if we speak about justice, it would be more fair to allow the father to exercise justice and the State not to take it from him.
We have all heard "the sentence must be up to the crime", only a poor fool would say something like this. Penalty serves no purpose if it doesn't serve to rehabilitate the convicted, if the sentence isn't pronounced based on the law, and the penalty that marks the law isn't made to rehabilitate the condemned, then only serves to avenge anything, the law tends to be fair that brings society closer to bestiality and, again, justice makes us animals.
If anyone doesn't agree with that, should perhaps ask why the prison population doesn't stop growing in the United States, with a legal system based on which the law must be fair, while in Sweden are closing prisons because there're no convicts to fill them, with a legal system based on the law should be a norm of coexistence and penalty should serve to rehabilitate. It would also be good to know why the level of recidivism in the United States is almost 95%, while in Sweden it doesn't reach 10%.
This has always been a tough one for me.
I've looked into the face of someone who killed a woman who testified against him for rape, her daughter, and and the neighbor who just happened to be visiting at the time. He was hung by the state, but the memory of the look on his face after his arrest still scares me.
Then I think to myself, how would I feel if he were my child.
I just don't know.
But that's all emotion.
My head keeps going back to thinking that some people have just given up their right to be on the planet. And my heart asks what went wrong to make them do this thing.
I just have not yet decided.
I rather like the idea of making a prison a sort of work rehabilitation. I've personally witnessed some of the insides of prisons, and to see all the older men that probably have no families to return home to reinforces this. Most people who go in for murder and spend 25 or more years go in when they're between 25 and 40 (statistically). That makes their parents anywhere from 45 to 60, maybe older. After a 25 year sentence, if a prisoner walks out to no family or means of support, why even leave? Why do you think we have so many repeat offenders in this country? There's no reason to try to get along normally in society at that point. I think if prisons were geared to rehabilitate those who were psychologically able and train them to do work, and maybe even offer an education, the country would be much better off. Prison sentences should be used to make productive citizens out of criminals, not make psychologically damaged and lonely ex-cons out of perfectly able people. This line of thinking pretty much eliminates the death penalty, and I'm not much for life sentences unless the criminal is insane or shows no sign of reform. A life ended in prison is a life wasted, and a life denied freedom of self determination. If a criminal wants to be a productive member of society, we should let them. No sense in not.
Stepping a bit away from pure death penalty debate to the closely related prison/reform debate:
There is a core problem with punishing people after the deed. Especially on violent crimes. Nearly everyone knows right from wrong before they purposely commit a violent crime. The threat of punishment incentive to not commit crime already failed 99% of the time when a major violent, purposeful crime is committed. The threat of punishment can deter rational thinking people, but desperate irrational people or people that push aside the thought of right and wrong for their situation went ahead and committed it anyways. Perhaps they also believe they will not be caught, a reflection of our policing and court system, not the prison/jailing system. And we all know executing a murder is not going to bring back the people the person murdered.
While yes, it is good to have a punishment system in place to deter people beyond simple "treat others like how you would like to be treated." A income + wealth % punishment would fulfill that role just as well as prison, with the percent rising based on the severity of the crime.
Of course, there is another piece to it, the victims want justice, and a monetary punishment is not going to do it for major crime. Victims and people in general also want these people that commit these violent crimes removed from their ability to do so. (locking them up.) These people are not seeking to reform the offender, they are seeking some form of justice and safety for themselves. The death penalty is purely eye for an eye justice for the victims and a weak and ineffective way to try to deter others from committing major violence/crime themselves.
Violent crime rates in states with the death penalty has always been about the same as states that do not have it, once other factors for affecting crime rates are filtered out.
In the US prisons are not really about reforming people, it is more about a weird sense of justice for victims, and housing people that are considered dangerous. For most, having a felony on your record means you will never be a productive member of society again and are a net drag for everyone else working together to better all our lives.
Factor in that prisons have turned into a for profit industry, and politicians use fear tactics to win votes, and you got a real mess on your hands.
Kill'm all. Let god sort them out.
First off, definitions are in order. Defining a stance is not that easy. Kill him, he murdered my son. Kill my son, he murdered someone's son. 100% guilty in both scenarios and yet as inwardly conflicting as they can possibly be.
Event, not a norm?
Baldered Ash!
All of them are my sons. All of them killed my sons.
Where are you on that? Lost? Entrenched one way or the other?
Is every life sacred? Are they all apathetically expendable in the interests of justice, or injustice if perceptions can be allowed the light of understanding?
How many people have directly died by my own hand? How many people have indirectly died by my own contribution? Are we all guilty by association in either/both a glaring or most insidious way?
What is your depth of guilt? Do you feel for each life lost? Lost in what manner?
Death by criminal action versus death by military action; where do you stand on that? Is a battlefield death not criminal in some manner no differently than a street slaying? What's your sensibility on that? Is it easier to metabolize in your psyche a soldier's last gasp of breath than it is a similarly aged person bleeding out on the street?
Can you take the above street and battlefield slayings in context with the scheduled slaying of a convicted criminal and tell yourself you're okay with one over the other?
Or, are you invoking that twisted sense of human "rationale" and twisting it yet again to placate your sensibilities on the topic?
Death is not a topic to put on the table for selective discussion. Bring it all to suffer your perspective amongst others, or leave it alone to suffer itself. It is a quality in man to qualify and/or disqualify life as he chooses relative to his opinion du jour.
@Pitar First off .... of understanding. I don't understand what you're referring to. (English is my 3rd language, dumb it down a bit)
Define "indirectly died"
Military vs criminal: i feel the same deathwise, i just tackle the issue of prisons because it's far easier to deal with and chronologically more immediate.
The whole principle of a "military" exists because humans are fueled with self-intrest and mistrust towards other humans. Nations hate other Nations.
Death is a really vast subject and you can't just bring it to the table all at once. You bring coherent chunks and resolve issue by issue then you glue the pieces together. Death itself belongs to another category and it's a chunk of that category. (I hope i understood what you mean by "selective discussion")
I think the prison system is fucked; and this is why I think so:
Prisons serve several purposes:
Having one institution to implement these 3 very different purposes results in what we have; an institution that doesn't do a very good job implementing any of them.
As far as the death penalty goes; in principle I'm not against it. In practice; there isn't anyone I trust enough to sentence someone to death.
I agree, I also want to point out while they state rehabilitation as a goal for confinement, I think we can all agree prisons as they are set up now in the US, are horrible method for rehabilitation in so many ways. So blatantly bad, that: anyone that sends people to prison (judges,) have to know they are kidding themselves. if they state rehabilitation as a reason why.
@Usagi Yeah i get what you mean usagi, anger and emotions sometimes get in the way. I pretty much agree with what you said
Why treason? What so special about it?
@LogicFTW it slipped my mind that that the death penalty costs more. T regarding the memeory wipe thing, it's unethical, even the worst prisoner has some good memories and a family he wishes to always remember.
@CyberLN i haven't complety decided yet
@Nyar Keeping and criminal alive and rehabilitating him / making him useful is way more ethical and beneficial. In principle, death isn't the way to go
I mentioned memory erase as an alternative to death penalty. (If they were going to kill someone anyways....)
Historically the application of the death penalty in America has been racist and capricious. Not all States have the death penalty. And even the States that have it don't apply it evenly in all of the counties. It's more of a prosecutor's club than it is of equal justice. Therefore it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and should be eliminated.
Of course if a person engages in criminal behavior he should know where it's best to commit his crime of choice. If a person intends to kill someone he should do it where there's no death penalty if he doesn't want to get executed when he's caught. And if he does kill someone in a State that has the death penalty he should do it in a county where the DA doesn't seek the death penalty.
In Norway even mass murderers don't do more than 20 odd years and they have very nice prisons.
Prisons are businesses. It's no surprise that the increase in the privatization of prisons so closely correlates with the transition of rap music from a fun genre to "Gangsta" glorifying violence and prison life. But you all can research that on your own if you wish.
To your point Chab: I agree with you on the conflict you describe. Sanctity of life and the death penalty are like oil and water. They do not fit together in the mind of anyone who can think critically so what happens? The religious person will separate the two so far that the conflict of belief is easily forgotten. Assign sanctity of life to abortion(children) and assign The devil, herecy, and all bad to the lawbreaker(Adults) Now they can send the adult devil back to hell on Saturday and become born again children on Sunday. The religious person is such a creative creature.