Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

echi wrote:

Mame wrote:

If the crime is committed in the heat of emotion, then it follows that the criminal is consumed with his crime, not the deterrent aspect. Life in Prison/CP - virtually no diff to a lifer. If he's going to get the guy, he's going to get the guy - life or no life.

I think you're right, Mame. It is a bit absurd to expect a criminal to possess or utilize any "common sense".


real life,

Can you imagine any punishment that you think might serve as a greater deterrent than CP?

No. Can you?

real life wrote:

echi wrote:

Mame wrote:

If the crime is committed in the heat of emotion, then it follows that the criminal is consumed with his crime, not the deterrent aspect. Life in Prison/CP - virtually no diff to a lifer. If he's going to get the guy, he's going to get the guy - life or no life.

I think you're right, Mame. It is a bit absurd to expect a criminal to possess or utilize any "common sense".


real life,

Can you imagine any punishment that you think might serve as a greater deterrent than CP?

No. Can you?

I can imagine countless forms of execution that would be far more painful and/or humiliating, and so can you. I even gave you a few examples. The question is, would you be in favor of these "more severe penalties"? Yes or no? Why or why not?

real life, I see you ignored my question about getting better behaviour from children by hitting them harder.

The relevance is obvious.

Does the effectiveness of the deterrent of punishing children more severely, make it "right" to do so?

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

echi wrote:

Mame wrote:

If the crime is committed in the heat of emotion, then it follows that the criminal is consumed with his crime, not the deterrent aspect. Life in Prison/CP - virtually no diff to a lifer. If he's going to get the guy, he's going to get the guy - life or no life.

I think you're right, Mame. It is a bit absurd to expect a criminal to possess or utilize any "common sense".


real life,

Can you imagine any punishment that you think might serve as a greater deterrent than CP?

No. Can you?

I can imagine countless forms of execution that would be far more painful and/or humiliating, and so can you. I even gave you a few examples. The question is, would you be in favor of these "more severe penalties"? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Well perhaps I did not understand your question properly.

I thought you were asking 'What other punishment might be a greater deterrent than CP?'

Were you instead asking 'What other form of CP would be a greater deterrent than the form(s) currently used?'

Common sense will tell you ... that a more severe penalty is a greater deterrent than a lesser penalty.

Eorl wrote:

The relevance is obvious.

Does the effectiveness of the deterrent of punishing children more severely, make it "right" to do so?

I think most parents recognize that a more severe punishment is befitting a greater misdeed and is a greater deterrent.

If a child misbehaves , the parent may restrict his computer usage for a day. If the child repeats the behavior or commits a greater misdeed , the computer may be off limits for a week, etc

Is this not the case?

If the child knows that no matter what he does, the greatest penalty will be restriction of the computer usage for 10 minutes, do you think that is as much a deterrent as the greater penalty? Common sense should give you the correct answer.

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

The relevance is obvious.

Does the effectiveness of the deterrent of punishing children more severely, make it "right" to do so?

I think most parents recognize that a more severe punishment is befitting a greater misdeed and is a greater deterrent.

If a child misbehaves , the parent may restrict his computer usage for a day. If the child repeats the behavior or commits a greater misdeed , the computer may be off limits for a week, etc

Is this not the case?

If the child knows that no matter what he does, the greatest penalty will be restriction of the computer usage for 10 minutes, do you think that is as much a deterrent as the greater penalty? Common sense should give you the correct answer.

If you had an adult child who was convicted of capital murder would you seek and/or support his execution?

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

The relevance is obvious.

Does the effectiveness of the deterrent of punishing children more severely, make it "right" to do so?

I think most parents recognize that a more severe punishment is befitting a greater misdeed and is a greater deterrent.

If a child misbehaves , the parent may restrict his computer usage for a day. If the child repeats the behavior or commits a greater misdeed , the computer may be off limits for a week, etc

Is this not the case?

If the child knows that no matter what he does, the greatest penalty will be restriction of the computer usage for 10 minutes, do you think that is as much a deterrent as the greater penalty? Common sense should give you the correct answer.

If you had an adult child who was convicted of capital murder would you seek and/or support his execution?

I'm sure that I would act as most parents in a similar situation would.

That's WHY it would not be left in my hands, because I'm too close to the situation and as a society we want objective persons to dispassionately decide what is proper.

That's why relatives of the victim and relatives of the accused would NOT be allowed on the jury to decide guilt or innocence, or to decide punishment if convicted.

If I might jump in here, if my son were Jeffrey Dahmer, I'd be sick to my stomach and would be glad he was put to death. I don't care about any of this high-falutin' "sanctity of life" stuff - sometimes nature makes a mistake and we wind up with someone so sick that he cannot be helped.

We put down dogs that go wild;

why not people? Is human life such a very much more precious and valued commodity than an animal's?

Who determines that? We, because we can think and express such a thought?

Not only was Jeffrey aberrant; he was a menace to all that walked. He has no right to stalk and murder people at will. I'm for CP for him because what's the point of his living?

He will not rehabilitate. He has something seriously wrong with him. He should be put out of his own misery.

real life wrote:

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

The relevance is obvious.

Does the effectiveness of the deterrent of punishing children more severely, make it "right" to do so?

I think most parents recognize that a more severe punishment is befitting a greater misdeed and is a greater deterrent.

If a child misbehaves , the parent may restrict his computer usage for a day. If the child repeats the behavior or commits a greater misdeed , the computer may be off limits for a week, etc

Is this not the case?

If the child knows that no matter what he does, the greatest penalty will be restriction of the computer usage for 10 minutes, do you think that is as much a deterrent as the greater penalty? Common sense should give you the correct answer.

If you had an adult child who was convicted of capital murder would you seek and/or support his execution?

I'm sure that I would act as most parents in a similar situation would.

That's WHY it would not be left in my hands, because I'm too close to the situation and as a society we want objective persons to dispassionately decide what is proper.

That's why relatives of the victim and relatives of the accused would NOT be allowed on the jury to decide guilt or innocence, or to decide punishment if convicted.

You would support the death penalty for other people's kids but not your own.

Mame wrote:

If I might jump in here, if my son were Jeffrey Dahmer, I'd be sick to my stomach and would be glad he was put to death. I don't care about any of this high-falutin' "sanctity of life" stuff - sometimes nature makes a mistake and we wind up with someone so sick that he cannot be helped.

So, you feel a responsibility to help people when you feel like you can, but if no one can help them then they should die.

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

The relevance is obvious.

Does the effectiveness of the deterrent of punishing children more severely, make it "right" to do so?

I think most parents recognize that a more severe punishment is befitting a greater misdeed and is a greater deterrent.

If a child misbehaves , the parent may restrict his computer usage for a day. If the child repeats the behavior or commits a greater misdeed , the computer may be off limits for a week, etc

Is this not the case?

If the child knows that no matter what he does, the greatest penalty will be restriction of the computer usage for 10 minutes, do you think that is as much a deterrent as the greater penalty? Common sense should give you the correct answer.

If you had an adult child who was convicted of capital murder would you seek and/or support his execution?

I'm sure that I would act as most parents in a similar situation would.

That's WHY it would not be left in my hands, because I'm too close to the situation and as a society we want objective persons to dispassionately decide what is proper.

That's why relatives of the victim and relatives of the accused would NOT be allowed on the jury to decide guilt or innocence, or to decide punishment if convicted.

You would support the death penalty for other people's kids but not your own.

I would act in a similar manner if he had committed a crime that was NOT a capital crime and the punishment was 'only' jail.

echi wrote:

I'm asking you about capital punishment, not jail. You're saying that if you knew your (hypothetical) adult son was a murderer, you would have no problem having him spend the night at your house? You think you might lock your bedroom door, at least?

Sorry I don't remember you asking any such thing previously. So when you answer 'you're saying.......' , I have said no such thing because the topic has not come up.

What does that have to do with CP?

I would be for Capital Punishment for people who committed heinous, multiple, senseless murders like Jeffrey Dahmer or Clifford Olson, pedophile-extraordinaire.

I don't think they deserve to live while the families live without their loved one.

And why should the State waste money keeping him/her alive? What's the benefit to anyone?

Mame wrote:

I would be for Capital Punishment for people who committed heinous, multiple, senseless murders like Jeffrey Dahmer or Clifford Olson, pedophile-extraordinaire.

I don't think they deserve to live while the families live without their loved one.

And why should the State waste money keeping him/her alive? What's the benefit to anyone?

You've nearly figured it out. Capital punishment should be a last resort for those criminals who are too dangerous to want to keep around and guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever, which would usually mean people guilty of multiple capital offenses. In particular, the usual criteria of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" simply is not good enough for capital punishment since you cannot unhang somebody. DNA studies indicate a strong likelihood that innocent people have been being put to death here and there in America, which is plainly unacceptable.