-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Pope Francis declares death penalty inadmissible in all cases
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
You know what? I'm not going to engage with nonsense like this. You made a claim, and when I asked for you to back it up, you refused to answer and acted like I made a claim.
It's weird that you are talking about rehabilitation in the first place, when I talked about steps to avoid committing a crime in the first place, via treatment.
What about the innocent people who would have been put to death along with the murderers and rapists? What about the people who have to pay less taxes, because keeping murderers and rapists alive is actually cheaper? What about Erwin James and Philippe Maurice, who contributed to society after not being executed and turned into productive members of society?
Should the British government have executed Erwin James? He's now no longer in the murdering business.
That's not a problem with executions, that's a problem with the process to get there.
Almost every country on Earth is wrong. IMO of course.
Yes.
-The process for conviction needs work, that isn't a flaw with killing criminals.
-A bullet in the back of the head is inarguably cheaper than room and board indefinitely, it costs more because of appeals. Appeals are necessary because of how flawed the justice system is in convincing. Fix the cause, not the symptom. And, after all that, if it was still somehow more expensive still--so be it. Removing one more monster from the face of this Earth is more than worth the price.
-Can't read the second link, but Erwin James deserved death.
Prisons are far more inhumane than death, so anyone trying to make a plea to morality against the death penalty but in defense of imprisonment--fair warning, you're wasting your time. Nothing will change my mind.
Envisioning a world where the criminal system isn't rife with racism and prejudice is about as realistic as envisioning a world where rape and murder no longer occur.
if you make rape a capital crime equivalent to murder in punishment, one thing might happen, one thing definitely will happen.
Rape might go down.
Murdering women will definitely go up.
Rape might go down.
Murdering women will definitely go up.
There is no system currently possible that can guarantee that no innocent person is executed.
Capital punishment does nothing at all to deter murder rates. So I doubt it would deter rape at all.
1. "The process needs work": No amount of work will prevent it from failing at some point. And the more work is done, the more safety measures we include, the more expensive it gets. Btw, why are you changing your argument? You said nobody benefits, I'm telling you innocents will benefit, and you're giving me some "Well, in theory..." talk. We're talking about real life. Innocent people benefit from not being able to be put to death, and rather getting punishments which can be ended and somewhat repaid.
2. Basically you're saying saying that in a magic fantasy world where appeals are unnecessary, it would be cheaper. Spoiler: This is impossible. You might as well argue for wishing criminals away. The death penalty will always remain extremely expensive, because there is no such thing as a cheap and flawlessly working justice system. But nice moving of the goal posts again: You said nobody benefits from "no death penalty", now you're just ignoring that people are benefiting monetarily?
3. Who are you to judge who lives and who dies? Seriously. Who are you? What are your qualifications? And what is this goal post moving every time? From "who benefits" to "I don't care if society benefited, he deserved death" this time around.
4. Prisons that are run properly are not more inhumane than death. Have you ever seen what prisons in some countries can look like? But hey, you already warned us you'll just go "LALALA I don't care".
Long story short, you've completely abandoned your claim that "nobody benefits" and are now arguing that in some fantasy world, the death penalty could be fair and without any dangers. How about you save these arguments for the day when there is a flawless justice system that enables 100% reliable verdicts and cheap executions?
This would be Erwin James the Guardian columnist who has lived a relatively blameless life since his release 14 years ago. Who, in your scenario, is the monster? You would add just one more to the funeral pyre, thereby extinguishing any moral high ground we might possess over the most nihilistic thug.
If you really believe that the prisons that somehow succeed in rehabilitating thousands of prisoners are in some way "far more inhumane than death" then you should suggest how we can make the prison environment more comfortable for the inmates.
Last edited:
It's absolutely insane to me that someone could look at a rehabilitated man who is contributing to society after having done prison time and go "Man, I wish we had killed him. Should have killed him."
Some people are just hellbent on murdering people, I guess.
Well that a problem for prison reform not for keeping them in prison.
Of course, if you can't see the flaw in the idea "I definitely want to see people get killed, so lets do that now and worry about how to make sure innocent people don't get killed later down the line" I don't know what to say
Holy shit, this is evil as hell. You're a bigger monster than you think James or Maurice are.
There's no such thing as a humane cage. Death is more humane IMO than any cage. I applaud your attempt to use my own words against me though.
His victim remains a victim, his crime cannot be undone. There is no possible "rehabilitation", the deed is already done. Crimes that warrant death are irreversible and heinous crimes. Pretending he's "rehabilitated" is an insult to his victim. You can rehabilitate people who commit wrongs that can be righted, but not this.
I knew this was coming. "You want a guilty murderer executed?? You're worse than the guy that killed an innocent person!"
Executions don't happen that often LMAO. They do other stuff too.
So taking this to its absurd conclusion, you would suggest all criminals are put to death as the more humane solution to crime?
Okay, Frank Castle.
All I'm hearing is "I don't know what rehabilitate means". Seriously. How about you google it before you talk nonsense?
Hahaha, I bit my tongue, but I was actually also going to say that originally. Seriously, what a twisted value system.
And remember there was a time when executions would be administer merely months after conviction.
Kids with no lawyer are accused of killing someone. 2 months later, he is convicted. 3 months later he is killed. You can look up a list of people executed by each state. There is no time to look for mistakes and due process is an afterthought to the political vision of the court's power.
This is without talking about lynching condoned and protected by this country against black people.
The early 1900s is filled with minorities being murdered as the papers cheered on the carnage with their names etched in history as "gang member."
Phil Ochs has a great song about the Death Penalty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWamd3jh3TY
In the courtroom, watch the balance of the scales
If the price is right, there's time for more appeals
The strings are pulled, the switch is stayed
The finest lawyers fees are paid
And a rich man never died upon the chair
You're focusing on restoring the victim not rehabilitating the criminal. Those are entirely different issues.
That isn't what I said. MOST crime can be dealt with through voluntary rehab, fines and community service. I'm all for rehabilitation and forgiveness... for things that aren't rape and murder.
I'm talking about the state acting under ideal circumstances (the process being fixed). Not me personally being a vigilante.
You may not be doing it yourself but you're still encouraging and rooting for the same kind of values as someone who roots for The Punisher. Not everyone may be able to be rehabilitated but it's worth doing for those who can be, regardless of their crime. If you can't see that, you're a legit bad person.
You said death is better than any 'cage', so by your own standards and definitions, taken to their absurd conclusion, its better to kill people than to lock them away for any amount of time. Which is the standard response for most crime, which you deem a fate worse than death.
I'm all for rehabilitation and forgiveness... 'cept for when I am for vengeance.
I see how lots of people can be rehabilitated. Just not murderers and rapists. By the very nature of those two specific crimes, the victims can never have justice. The rape victim is going to carry that trauma for life, and the dead... that's permanent. I feel very strongly about it. I'm not trying to convince you, but I just can't agree that supporting the execution of a guilty murderer is just as bad, much less worse, than that murderer killing an innocent person to begin with.
Don't know what you really want here. I have not advocated the death penalty for anyone except murderers and rapists, and as a separate matter, I also don't approve of prison as a solution to... most other crimes, because I think there are better punishments that don't involve cages or death. The logic does not then follow that all those people I would never have locked up to begin with are then put to death. Thats on you. That isn't the absurd conclusion to my position, its an entirely different position.
And for future reference, since this apparently isn't obvious enough: I recognize our system currently has MASSIVE flaws from arrest through sentencing, so my advocacy for specific crimes to be worthy of death are not a stamp of approval for the system as-is to carry that out. The system is too broken here to be trusted with such a thing. My position is rhetorical and for purposes of discussion on an internet forum only. The justice system would need massive reform for me to even actually trust it with my far lighter sentences I mentioned (rehab, community service, etc)
Yes, I have different standards for different levels of crime. Very astute.
Again. Please look up what "rehabilitation" means. It is entirely unrelated to the victim getting what you call "justice" (which is actually vengeance). Murders can absolutely be rehabilitated (and some obviously have been).
Also:
So you're for the death penalty... in theory? If there was a vote to get rid of it from all human societies right now, what would you do?
EDIT: And if your position is purely theoretical, what was that clearly non-theoretical "nobody benefits from keeping murderers alive" stuff, which is obviously wrong in our current reality?
I know what rehabilitation means, please stop telling me to look it up. Rehabilitation is not the priority (IMO) in those two stated cases. I know rehabilitation has nothing to do with the victim.
If there was a vote on the death penalty today, as an American, I would have to vote to ban it.
As for your edit: my statement involves "perfect knowledge". I didn't say people convicted in our justice system of murder, I said murderers. That is, people who have definitely murdered. Obviously I don't have any practical way to determine which is which here in front of my computer, so yes, in that sense it was theoretical too. If that wasn't clear, now it should be. The gentleman mentioned before, Erwin James, is the only non-hypothetical case I made a statement on, and he himself admits to his crime even to this day according to that wiki entry so there's little chance he's secretly innocent. What makes him rehabilitated? Because he hasn't killed again? Many murders are one-off acts that aren't repeated, they don't even need to be caught for this to be the case. Are killers who commit one murder, and never get caught but never do it again, rehabilitated as well?
It depends what you mean by "progressive." His state, The Vatican, is situated adjacent to the nexus of a modern democratic continental entity that rejected capital punishment many decades ago. Catholic hermeneutics have consistently promoted the sanctity of human life (even to the point of opposing barrier contraception and hormonal contraception) for countless decades. I'm not a Catholic, nor an apologist for Catholic teaching. I simply want to point out that Roman Catholic teachings have opposed capital punishment for a long time without any taint of progressivism.
Then why do you keep saying things like "There is no possible "rehabilitation", the deed is already done."? Could you explain what you mean by that? Because it's obviously possible, per definition, and by looking at examples.
You know, maybe you actually don't know what rehabilitated means. Because someone who isn't caught and convicted can't be rehabilitated. I don't mean to be offensive, sorry if it comes across that way. But you seem to be using a different definition from mine.
(alternatively: "restore (someone) to former privileges or reputation after a period of disfavour.")
It's about making people who do something horrific, and who have served time in prison, a functioning, non-reoffending part of society again.
You're using the term like it's somehow connected to being forgiven, or being free of guilt. That's not the case.
Yeah, now it's clear. Weird to me that in a discussion about a real-life issue (the death penalty, and whether or not it should exist in our current world), you're talking about theoretical things that have nothing to do with what's actually happening.
EDIT: edited a part to be less abrasive
Last edited:
That being so, I wonder what we're arguing about.
Since rehabilitation is basically about neutralising the threat to the public, obviously a secret murderer who never reoffends is exactly the same in that regard as one who has been rehabilitated by imprisonment and education. However this scenario still makes most people feel queasy, because it implies an assumption that murder is okay if you only murder once and get away with it. I'm quite happy with the idea of aiming at 100% detection of murders and spending serious money on rehabilitation. A high detection rate promotes deterrence, as long as the sentence also contains a substantial penalty (the retributive element of the sentence.) It would definitely be a bad idea to foster a situation in which we all felt that we could murder just once with impunity.