Aside from its utter uselessness as a deterrent, aside from the high possibility of miscarriages of justice
(Fallacy) [Admittedly, the appeals system has improved a lot from what it once was (Sacco and Vanzetti anyone?) however, the possibility remains.] aside from the fact that it is (In America at any rate.) only ever applied to people who couldn't afford a good lawyer
(Fallacy) [Time to open your eyes man. On the whole, the people who are put to death are not those whose crimes were most abhorrent, or their guilt most obvious but those who lack the resources to defend themselves adequately. Ted Bundy is an *exception* not a rule.] and aside from the fact that it makes an excellent tool of opression
(Not in the U.S.) [But the thread isn't about the US.], I'm against the death penalty in theory as well as practice.
B's argument makes sense at face value, logically, but fails to take into account that we do not actually practice "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Deprivation of liberty is the most humane punishment we have yet devised
(Dependant on your definition of humane)[Well, I'll go with the United Nations and Amnesty International]. Thus we do not torture the torturer, we do not **** the rapist, and most people would balk at the idea of doing so.
(Dependent on the country in question)[Doesn't make it right because some countries do it.] Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment
(Fallacy).[See that there? in the bold but without italics? Thats an expression of opinion dressed up as one of fact.]
Additionally, the death penalty serves no useful purpose. Community service, fines and imprisonment do (Although I guess the latter depends on the prison system, this is theoretical and ethical at this point, the practical side having been addressed at the top.) If a killer can be rehabilitated and re-integrated into society after a suitable punishment then I'm all for that
(What if they cannot?)[Then we throw away the key, which has already proven to be cheaper.]
Finally, a small conundrum: Given the punishment involved, the moral condemnation and the loathing it inspires, the trauma it could cause the killer eventually, and most importantly the abhorrence of the act itself, you must be insane to commit a murder. You cannot be put on trial if you are insane
(You are stereotyping murderers).[This was more food for thought than a proper argument, I don't necessarily agree with it. I'm not stereotyping murderers, but the act of murder, which remains a constant.]<hr></blockquote>
Goody. The usefulness as a deterrent in the society is equal to the value that life is given and the fear that death invokes. The death penalty in the Mayan society would be considered lenient and slow torture the big one to avoid.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about you, but over here we've given up human sacrifice and cannibalism.
The number of "miscarriages of justice" is very low, since only the most brutal of crimes warrants the death penalty and the evidence against them is usually overwhelming (Sometimes to the point that they where caught in the act with a camera and several witnesses).<hr></blockquote> Possibly, but like I said, the possiblity remains.
Having a good or bad lawyer doesn't guarantee the death penalty. Ted Bundy had an excellent lawyer, but was still killed for his crimes.<hr></blockquote>
Again, the exception not the rule. His high profile was probably a more likely reason.
The death penalty wouldn't work as a tool of oppression in the US. Europe's history taught us a lot, which is why we created a series of checks and balances almost everywhere. And our Bill of rights guarantees our freedoms. However, if a tyrant were to try and oppress the people of the US, they would find themselves facing down a nation of extremely patriotic and violent people you would not like to know. And since a tyrant could not use our military against us they would be defenseless against the will of the people.<hr></blockquote>
How very pretty. They wrote anti-tyranny safeguards into the Weimar constitution too. Dictators almost always have the support of a significant chunk of the population. Hitler did, Stalin did, Mao did, Mussolini did. Again, why assume we're talking about the US? Stalin re-introduced the death penalty in the USSR, and we all know what happened next.
Um, your "eye for an eye" remark doesn't work here. Death has been punishment for a long time. Same with torture. We don't **** rapists because there is no point to, we do kill murderers to remove them society. A person with no regard for human life and very little hope for rehabilitation shouldn't be a drain on our resources. Hang him. You can even use the rope over again. And as we do it to murderers, it should also be done to rapists or anyone else who tortures his victims.<hr></blockquote>
If you kill murderers to remove them to society, why not just imprison them for life? That argument holds less water than a donut. Again, it is cheaper. Those safeguards against miscarriages of justice cost a lot of money. If you hang someone straight after conviction, you'll save a lot of cash, but nobody's going to be impressed if they find out he was innocent.
By all means, kill rapists. Kill torturers. Kill traitors. Kill people who looks at child porn. Kill them all to cleanse our society.
Community service, fines, imprisonment and the like do nothing to rehabilitate an individual. <hr></blockquote>
Nowhere did I say that they could, but they can all provide society with useful money, service or labour. Rehab is an entirely seperate concept, but not one that can be carried out of the person in question is dead.
Only people who feel guilty for what they did, not guilty for getting caught, can be rehabilitated in this fashion. There are a number of people who are just insane or don't care. Anything short of psychometric readjustment would mean nothing in terms of rehabilitation. For those, give them death.<hr></blockquote>
You can't be tried if you are insane. For those who don't care, again, throw away the key.
You seem to regard "anyone that could kill someone" as a madman.<hr></blockquote>
I'd like to see where I said that. There is a difference between a killing and a murder.
Our military is constantly training to do just that. Would you call a soldier who kills his enemy insane? If I were to defend myself and my only alternative to death was to kill, would I be a madman? Your theory doesn't stick.<hr></blockquote>
My theory wouldn't stick if that
was my theory. Read closer and stop trying to insert meanings where they don't belong.
You have a very European point of view. Normally I would respect that. But in this case you are blatantly wrong. I do not know what to suggest.<hr></blockquote>
Why do you think European states abolished the death penalty in the first place? Becuse we really love murderers? No. The death penalty is endemic in the hypocrisy and decay of any society, be it Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the former USSR or the US. It saddens me to know that people still endorse it.
[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Massy ]
[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Massy ]</p>