My pro-capital punishment paper

[Deleted]

At least you admit that it is in fact revenge, that's cool. I respect that.

[DeadElvis]

agaveman said:

I have no problem calling the DP revenge. I do not shy away from it; I embrace it.

I'm kinda with you, Aga. I don't lie awake at night worrying about it either. For some folks (those personally involved with a case especially) an execution might be purely revenge. Who cares? Why is "revenge" such a dirty word in regards to the death penalty anyway? We have courts, judges, and juries to combat revenge decisions. It's not like we are asking surviving victims to personally decide life/death for the accused. Neither do we let them carry out an execution.

[sweethonesty]

You can call it Revenge in your view.

But in my view i see it differently, i don't know these ppl. To me if you have revenge against anyone, you would of had a relationship with them. I don't have a relationship with any DR Inmate.

Its not about Revenge to me, its about seeing to it that all people are treated the same, I view the life of a victim as someone who had meaning to someone.

I also view the life of a victim as a person that was very much loved by those that were left behind. Their life seems to take a back-seat to the life of a murderer.

I try to understand how the MVS feel when they talk about their emotions of missing their loved one.

I don't feel its right that a murderer has the right to life!

If we go through life without rules and consequences for our actions what does that say about our society.

There is value to life. Just not to the life of those scum-bags that made the choice to murder. They have no right to the things in life that the rest of us respected, or earned.

[josephdphillips]

agaveman said:

I have no problem calling the DP revenge. I do not shy away from it; I embrace it.

I don't either. Retribution can be thought of as collective revenge, the retributive penalty applied by the people acting as one entity against the convict which harmed it.

[anna_marek]

josephdphillips said:

agaveman said:

I have no problem calling the DP revenge. I do not shy away from it; I embrace it.

I don't either. Retribution can be thought of as collective revenge, the retributive penalty applied by the people acting as one entity against the convict which harmed it.

I reject the concepts of revenge and retribution. I do not argue with MVSs who feel the execution brought some sense of finality or satisfaction to them, which may be the case.. I support the DP largely for it's deterrent effect directed towards those who are capable of a murder, but haven't struck yet..I feel the murderer by the act of murdering has so cheapened the value of his life that all he/she is good for is to serve as a deterring example to others. Revenge and retribution attribute value to the murderer's name. We do not attribute value to a cancer tumor and such concepts of revenge and retribution are not applicable..

One supporting pillar of the predator cult is the belief that by committing murder the murderer becomes important-a somebody-a person of interest who dominates our thoughts and becomes the focus of our attention.. This is wrong and in the memoirs of many killers written before their murders and capture this wish for importance, fame, infamy, significance is what the very deliberate murderers wanted when they planned their killings... Claiming they are worthy of such human desires of "revenge" or "forgiveness" gives them this importance and strengthens the predator cult indirectly.. we forget people who aren't worthy of revenge and this thought of being forgotten is terrifying to this very deliberate celebrity status seeking murderer..

[josephdphillips]

spearmintgal said:

josephdphillips said:

I don't either. Retribution can be thought of as collective revenge, the retributive penalty applied by the people acting as one entity against the convict which harmed it.

I reject the concepts of revenge and retribution. I do not argue with MVSs who feel the execution brought some sense of finality or satisfaction to them, which may be the case.. I support the DP largely for it's deterrent effect directed towards those who are capable of a murder, but haven't struck yet..I feel the murderer by the act of murdering has so cheapened the value of his life that all he/she is good for is to serve as a deterring example to others. Revenge and retribution attribute value to the murderer's name. We do not attribute value to a cancer tumor and such concepts of revenge and retribution are not applicable.. One supporting pillar of the predator cult is the belief that by committing murder the murderer becomes important-a somebody-a person of interest who dominates our thoughts and becomes the focus of our attention.. This is wrong and in the memoirs of many killers written before their murders and capture this wish for importance, fame, infamy, significance is what the very deliberate murderers wanted when they planned their killings... Claiming they are worthy of such human desires of "revenge" or "forgiveness" gives them this importance and strengthens the predator cult indirectly.. we forget people who aren't worthy of revenge and this thought of being forgotten is terrifying to this very deliberate celebrity status seeking murderer..

Another parrot-like spasm from none other than Sally Struthers herself, patron-saint of the predated.

"Anna," the surest way to glorify certain murderers is to single them out for the very punishment you claim they all want. A news editor has no choice but to lead with an execution if they the state only puts to death one after every blue moon.

The only way to deprive murderers of notoriety is to treat them all the same. Can you name a single murderer doing 25-to-life? That's the most common sentence for them. Do you know their victims? I'll wager you can't even Google them.

Execute murderers and none of them become important. Of course, with no mention of murderers who are executed, scant mention, if any, will be made of their victims, but that's already true now. However, at least society is doing the right thing by the victims in expunging their slayers. And among those expunged would be those whom you've fetishized as well.

Your comparison of murderers who are sexual predators to cancer may be apt, but it doesn't make capital punishment any less punitive or retributive in its application. Melanomas, for instance, aren't entitled to the due process you feel these killers should have. All the obstacles which must be surmounted in order to execute a murderer are in place because the state values the murderer more than it does a tumor.

You can call capital punishment anything you like, but in the end it's murderer-disposal at its simplest. It's the harshest penalty we have, and it doesn't become less harsh if we apply it to a particular murderer we hate more than another.

[Deleted]

To me it is partly about revenge. I can explain it like this - for all other crimes, you're locked up. In my view, this is about keeping them away from society.
This could be archieved with LWOP, but in some countries they take the extra step and kill them. This is why I feel it's partly about revenge.
I can perfectly well understand that some people don't think of revenge as a bad thing either, after all it's only fair.. if someone hit me in the face, my first reaction would naturally be to hit back. It's the way the human mind works I think.

[josephdphillips]

laffer said:

To me it is partly about revenge. I can explain it like this - for all other crimes, you're locked up. In my view, this is about keeping them away from society. This could be archieved with LWOP, but in some countries they take the extra step and kill them. This is why I feel it's partly about revenge. I can perfectly well understand that some people don't think of revenge as a bad thing either, after all it's only fair.. if someone hit me in the face, my first reaction would naturally be to hit back. It's the way the human mind works I think.

It's more of a natural instinct, Laffer. I don't think a desire for retribution requires much conscious thought. It is probably more reptilian in origin.

[Deleted]

You're probably right.

[californian]

laffer said:

donnie said:

And with LWOP this is not really a big issue, they will never get out again so innocent people are just as safe.

LWOP exists only at the pleasure of the various legislatures or courts. It could go away tomorrow.

And I have no doubt that if the DP goes away someday and is replaced by LWOP, a crusade against LWOP will be the next item on the anti agenda.

I can hear the argument now: "Surely no one should be locked in a cage forever. Shouldn't we believe in redemption?"

LWOP is a fantasy.

Dead is dead.

[Deleted]

I disagree

[josephdphillips]

californian said:

laffer said:

donnie said:

And with LWOP this is not really a big issue, they will never get out again so innocent people are just as safe.

LWOP exists only at the pleasure of the various legislatures or courts. It could go away tomorrow. And I have no doubt that if the DP goes away someday and is replaced by LWOP, a crusade against LWOP will be the next item on the anti agenda. I can hear the argument now: "Surely no one should be locked in a cage forever. Shouldn't we believe in redemption?" LWOP is a fantasy. Dead is dead.

I agree. For all the antis that support LWOP on this board -- and more power to you -- LWOP as the ultimate punishment isn't tenable. The SkyLooms that dominate the abolitionist "movement" use LWOP as a smokescreen, an alternative to capital punishment lacking any emotional investment on the part of antis.

Also, if you think justices currently opposed to capital punishment won't find just as many faults with LWOP, you're kidding yourself. These guys have the same warped view of human nature as any SkyLoom. They will oppose LWOP on the exact same moral grounds upon which they base their opposition to capital punishment.

[anna_marek]

josephdphillips said:

spearmintgal said:

I reject the concepts of revenge and retribution. I do not argue with MVSs who feel the execution brought some sense of finality or satisfaction to them, which may be the case.. I support the DP largely for it's deterrent effect directed towards those who are capable of a murder, but haven't struck yet..I feel the murderer by the act of murdering has so cheapened the value of his life that all he/she is good for is to serve as a deterring example to others. Revenge and retribution attribute value to the murderer's name. We do not attribute value to a cancer tumor and such concepts of revenge and retribution are not applicable.. One supporting pillar of the predator cult is the belief that by committing murder the murderer becomes important-a somebody-a person of interest who dominates our thoughts and becomes the focus of our attention.. This is wrong and in the memoirs of many killers written before their murders and capture this wish for importance, fame, infamy, significance is what the very deliberate murderers wanted when they planned their killings... Claiming they are worthy of such human desires of "revenge" or "forgiveness" gives them this importance and strengthens the predator cult indirectly.. we forget people who aren't worthy of revenge and this thought of being forgotten is terrifying to this very deliberate celebrity status seeking murderer..

Another parrot-like spasm from none other than Sally Struthers herself, patron-saint of the predated.

"Anna," the surest way to glorify certain murderers is to single them out for the very punishment you claim they all want. A news editor has no choice but to lead with an execution if they the state only puts to death one after every blue moon.

The only way to deprive murderers of notoriety is to treat them all the same. Can you name a single murderer doing 25-to-life? That's the most common sentence for them. Do you know their victims? I'll wager you can't even Google them.

Execute murderers and none of them become important. Of course, with no mention of murderers who are executed, scant mention, if any, will be made of their victims, but that's already true now. However, at least society is doing the right thing by the victims in expunging their slayers. And among those expunged would be those whom you've fetishized as well.

Your comparison of murderers who are sexual predators to cancer may be apt, but it doesn't make capital punishment any less punitive or retributive in its application. Melanomas, for instance, aren't entitled to the due process you feel these killers should have. All the obstacles which must be surmounted in order to execute a murderer are in place because the state values the murderer more than it does a tumor.

You can call capital punishment anything you like, but in the end it's murderer-disposal at its simplest. It's the harshest penalty we have, and it doesn't become less harsh if we apply it to a particular murderer we hate more than another.

Joseph as far as the condemned go the DP isn't a punishment, but simply a termination or much better a deletion-the media blackout that Japan uses is worth emulating too.. I would define punishment as something that we learn from.. As far as the DP goes only those capable of murdering should see this a poterntial punishment. Executions are messages directed towards them just as an Israeli missile strike is a message towards other potential terrorists, who survive..the dead learn nothing and if their legacy is evil they should be forgotten..

The USA only executes a minority of the very worst of the worst.. you can dream on about all murderers being theoretically executed, but in this country, like it or not, it aint gonna happen..I think it's by the same token unrealistic to expect a turtle to outrun a rabbit-although this has happened in one fairy tale at least.. A realistic goal is to get all of the worst of the worst executed...if you don't like the classification of some murders being worse than others than you simply don't like human nature as it is.. Yes when a child is drowning 30 feet to the right and an elderly Alzheimer patient is drowning 30 feet to the left who will people jump in to save? I know you don't like the "unfair and biased" answer, but that's human nature-learn to live with it and deal with it if you want to get to 1st base at least..

[josephdphillips]

spearmintgal said:

Joseph as far as the condemned go the DP isn't a punishment, but simply a termination

Exactly as intended. That's what they're supposed to think, to the extent each inmate's expectation of execution is palpable.

[josephdphillips]

spearmintgal said:

I would define punishment as something that we learn from.. As far as the DP goes only those capable of murdering should see this a poterntial punishment. Executions are messages directed towards them

This would be a second intention, not mutually exclusive with the first. Every human being is capable of murder, some more than others. The social contract proscribes murder and is clearly understood, as evidenced by the 99.99995% of the population's refusal to commit acts of murder.

Spearmint, you have this unfathomable fixation with deterring certain murderers with capital punishment, contrary to any evidence and contrary to basic common sense. You wish to stop the so-called worst-of-the-worst by giving them the one kind of death they obviously seek -- the one providing the most notoriety.

I'm all in favor of expunging all those who would keep on killing if we don't execute them. However, a harsh, retributive reaction to murder is always justifiable. Why give any murderer a free pass?

You're welcome to tar me with any number of aspersions, SG, but you tar many others with the same brush. Perhaps you'd care to explain to Mamabear why her daughter's murderer requires a lesser punishment than Dru Sojin's. Neither victim asked to die. Both victims had their whole lives ahead of them. Both victims left behind survivors forever grieving their loss.

When you demand capital punishment only for the select few, you necessarily disparage the value of those slain who were not fortunate enough to have been murdered by sexual predators.

[josephdphillips]

spearmintgal said:

A realistic goal is to get all of the worst of the worst executed

It was also realistic to allow slavery in those states dependent upon indentured servitude. The country could certainly have done without a bloody civil war and all the decades of political strife over Reconstruction.

It was also realistic for Rosa Parks to simply have moved to a different seat. And Martin Luther King, Jr. would certainly be alive today, or at least until old age, if he had just kept his mouth shut.

Appeals to realism never impress me. Realists are opposed to social change. Many good things have happened in this country contrary to the desires of realists.

I am not generally a moralist, except when it comes to this one issue. As far as I know, the temporal life is all there is. I value mine a lot. I value the lives of my family members a lot. I even value the lives of drug addicts, petty thieves, and angry, misguided gangsters a lot. The life I don't value is the one that has murdered. That's a bozo no-no. Murder is as wrong as wrong can get. Yes, different murders shock us differently. So what? The social contract is still broken, and we are remiss if we don't answer in kind.

[josephdphillips]

spearmintgal said:

when a child is drowning 30 feet to the right and an elderly Alzheimer patient is drowning 30 feet to the left who will people jump in to save?

Remind me to enter the pool only when you're not around, SG. Keeping you out of extended care facilities wouldn't be such a bad idea, either.

Someone with a mental infirmity has as much right to live as any infant. I used to think that was a tautology. What do you folks think? Am I missing something?

Congratulations. You just gave antis the moral high ground.

[josephdphillips]

spearmintgal said:

that's human nature-learn to live with it and deal with it if you want to get to 1st base at least

So now the punishment of murderers is comparable to a baseball game.

[Donnie]

laffer said:

I'm asking you. You're the ones talking about justice all the time, I would like to have that clarified.

Justice is fair and equal treatment imposed on all parties involved in a transaction.

The likelihood of justice is improved by establishing rules of just treatment in advance of transactions and having a forum for determining what the involved parties actually did. The liklihood of an appropriate result is further enhanced by using previously uninvolved decision makers.

Revenge, on the other hand, is action by an individual based on his personal evaluation of the transaction. Often that evaluation is shortened by a desire for prompt action. Thus, while revenge may have the same result as the pursuit of justice and may be just, it is not the same as justice. In many cases revenge may be more harsh than the social pursuit of justice. Attempts to accomplish revenge may also result in additional unjust acts due to errors in findings of fact or in the degree of harm imposed.

In the case of the pleasant executions that are administered for murder, justice is not achieved and revenge is not even approached. Many extreme examples of this outcome are available. Some easily accessed examples are the Alday family murders, the murders of Heather Muller and her friends, the murders of Dawn McCreery and Wendy Ofreedo, the Utah Hi Fi Shop murders, the murders discussed in Dead Man Walking, the murder of Anita Cobby and the murder of Michelle Thompson.

Retribution is not the same as revenge.

[Donnie]

agaveman said:

I have no problem calling the DP revenge.

I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with revenge. Appropriately done, revenge can be a beautiful thing. But that is not the reason that anti-DP folk wish to confuse revenge and justice.

In general, our culture tends to shy away from revenge due to the excesses that can occur when revenge is a major way of dealing with adverse situations and developments. The movie The Oxbow Incident is a powerful illustration of how such a problem can evolve. Thus "revenge" has a negative connotation. "Justice", on the other hand, has a positive connotation. Even left-wing wackos demand justice when it suits them, as in demands for so-called "social justice". Asserting that execution is revenge and not justice may sway some people to oppose the DP.

[Donnie]

laffer said:

Yes, I am more worried about that. In my eyes not much is worse than the government killing innocent people.

Your eyes are clouded. The government kills many innocent people each year, although none of them are accidentally killed with the DP. In a way, the government participates in the killing of innocent people by failing to execute murderers. That doesn't even include those who are murdered due to the reduction in deterrence caused by the failure to execute suffient numbers of murderers. So you are acknowledging that you don't really care how many innocent people are killed, as long as they are not killed by the use of the DP. That means that you are more concerned about theoretical deaths that have not occured than you are about real deaths that occur on a regular basis.

And with LWOP this is not really a big issue, they will never get out again so innocent people are just as safe.

No, innocent people are less safe when LWOP is used in place of execution. Safety and risk can be measured with some precision. In the case of murderers, a dead murderer poses no risk at all. A live murderer, on the other hand, poses some level of risk. So there is absolute certainty that failure to execute a murderer increases the risk to innocent people. That risk may be small and it may vary depending on which innocent people are considered. But the risk is real.

All other crimes only give jailtime which is meant to keep dangerous people away from society.. here we only do what we have to do, there is no revenge.

That is absurd. Many people who are not dangerous are put in jail. For example, the woman who put a part of somebody's finger in her Wendy's chili has been in jail and will remain there for several years. Her husband, who didn't even do anything was also sentenced to a similar jail sentence. By your twisted definition of revenge, both of those people should be considered to be in jail for revenge.

[Donnie]

californian said:

LWOP exists only at the pleasure of the various legislatures or courts. It could go away tomorrow.

And I have no doubt that if the DP goes away someday and is replaced by LWOP, a crusade against LWOP will be the next item on the anti agenda.

I can hear the argument now: "Surely no one should be locked in a cage forever. Shouldn't we believe in redemption?"

Sadly, what you postulated is not mere theory. It is reality. It has occured in some places and it is occuring right now. There have already been three or four threads on this activity on this website.

[Donnie]

laffer said:

At least you admit that it is in fact revenge, that's cool. I respect that.

One cannot admit that which is not. The Agaveman did not admit anything. Look carefully at what he wrote: "I have no problem calling the DP revenge." That is not an admission of anything. It is merely tolerance of the intellectual errors of others and a courageous willingness to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

"I do not shy away from it; I embrace it." That is not an assertion that the social definitions of "justice" and "revenge" need to be changed. It is an expression of the Agaveman's noble personal feelings.

I trust the Agaveman will correct me if I am in error.

[anna_marek]

josephdphillips said:

spearmintgal said:

when a child is drowning 30 feet to the right and an elderly Alzheimer patient is drowning 30 feet to the left who will people jump in to save?

Remind me to enter the pool only when you're not around, SG. Keeping you out of extended care facilities wouldn't be such a bad idea, either.

Someone with a mental infirmity has as much right to live as any infant. I used to think that was a tautology. What do you folks think? Am I missing something?

Congratulations. You just gave antis the moral high ground.

Joseph, joseph...your an example of why i am notoriously soft on
" political criminals". If you were my neighbor, i would be absolutely assured that you'd abid by the laws and we'd get along fine with mutual respect etc.. If you were ever somehow in power in the US you would have to stop a bunch of governors, judges, etc.. from stopping your -i estimate 10,000 executions yearly, not to mention the amputations carried out on graffitti artists etc..
In the end you would be seen as a Hitler or a Stalin-overthrown and tried as a political criminal.. and possibly sentenced to death..i think if you really think things through you'd agree that this would probably be your fate..You like many potential political criminals are a lawbiding citizen only you wouldn't respect the balance of power if you were in command.. I try to influence America in a way that America will accept..this extremist bagage-you call it moralism-fine-is a "no go"..

Still i'd strongly oppose your execution as a political criminal should such a theoretical situation arise..

[Curious]

yes

[Curious]

All the inputs here have been terrific so I went with all of these instead of drug in America as problem of fears.

[Grey]

laffer said:

donnie said:

It depends on how many murders you consider acceptable. But bear in mind that the primary purpose of the DP is the pursuit of justice. So even if a few innocents being murdered is not a problem for you, the primary purpose of the DP is still fulfilled.

I am always baffled when anti-DP folk are distraught that there is a remote possibility that someday one innocent person may be accidentally executed, but they are okay with hundreds of innocent people being murdered by murderers who have not been executed.

Yes, I am more worried about that. In my eyes not much is worse than the government killing innocent people.
And with LWOP this is not really a big issue, they will never get out again so innocent people are just as safe.

Also, it is a form of revenge.. explain to me why it's not. What is the difference between justice and revenge here?
All other crimes only give jailtime which is meant to keep dangerous people away from society.. here we only do what we have to do, there is no revenge. This is why many people think that the death penalty is just as much about revenge as it is about justice.

Laffer, the point of the DP is to rid society of dangerous offenders. Even if they are in prison for their whole life they are still considerd dangerous offenders unless pardon from their actions by the president or prime minster.....

[ITS ME]

Yeah, there is a lot of plagerism. Just because you rearrange the words in the sentence does not mean that you are in the clear, you need to totally put the material into your own words. You also need to properly cite your sources. Example, Joe Blow says in his paper on capital punishment that “99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial” (Author page #). Never use statistics unless you cite them, it makes your paper less credible and your arguement week. Also, never use his or her, always use the nuter his, this is more professional. you need to organize your topics and put into paragraphs with transitional sentences between your sub topics.

[Deleted]

>:(the abolisionists would certainly, in my opinion argue that although murder is of course a horrid deed, by then commiting the same crime as the criminal, they then become equal to the wrong doeer, it is like telling a kid not to hit his sister, or else someone will spank him...its downright wrong, do u really believe what u are saying? i am doing an opinion paper at school, about capital punishment, so i wish u luck, even if i do not believe in what um are aruguining, i think u have done a good job.

[bee]

laffer said:

donnie said:

It depends on how many murders you consider acceptable. But bear in mind that the primary purpose of the DP is the pursuit of justice. So even if a few innocents being murdered is not a problem for you, the primary purpose of the DP is still fulfilled.

I am always baffled when anti-DP folk are distraught that there is a remote possibility that someday one innocent person may be accidentally executed, but they are okay with hundreds of innocent people being murdered by murderers who have not been executed.

Yes, I am more worried about that. In my eyes not much is worse than the government killing innocent people.
And with LWOP this is not really a big issue, they will never get out again so innocent people are just as safe.

Also, it is a form of revenge.. explain to me why it's not. What is the difference between justice and revenge here?
All other crimes only give jailtime which is meant to keep dangerous people away from society.. here we only do what we have to do, there is no revenge. This is why many people think that the death penalty is just as much about revenge as it is about justice.

i don't feel implicated when an individual commits a murder. he acts on his own. when the government executes an innocent person, i do feel implicated because i am a citizen in a democracy where the government acts in the name of all of its citizens.

justice is sort of tricky because everyone has a different idea about it. i focus more on the justice involved in the trial process. it is just to hold someone accountable for doing what he actually did. it is not just to hold someone accountable for what he did not do.

punishment is an entirely different thing. there's no end to what some people believe to be appropriate punishment. a huge bit of sadism comes in at this point.

that's why i think our goal needs to be on restraining a person who is dangerous from harming others. that person needs to be restrained until he proves that he can function in society without harming others. some people will probably never be able to do that, but some will.