The death penalty should be reinstated and used because fear of punishment deters crime - not rehabilitation. At least in the country of which I reside (UK), when we had the death penalty, the homicide rate was less than half of what it is now. Of course, the obvious rebuttal is that correlation is not causation and factors like population increase. Principally, I'm for the temporary reinstation of the death penalty to see its efficiency and effect on society.
There are posts in this thread regarding the risk of innocent life being taken through the death penalty. Of course, the idea that any innocent life could be taken away through false convictions is concerning (as rare as it is), but as a society we have gone into numerous events where we knew that the deaths of innocents were a possibility, yet pursued them through noble goals. For example, I doubt many of us here would have opposed the UK, or the US's involvement in the Second World War, despite the risk of innocent lives being taken.
The death penalty focuses on first-degree murder charges and rapists. These are criminals who have made society unsafe, who threw away their rights and privileges when they decided that it was worth taking the rights of another. There should be a high concentration on testimonies, witness statements and video footage to determine the verdict. The death penalty shouldn't be something used lightly or carelessly, but as a necessary and appropriate tool to dispose of vermin who have little regard for innocent human life. The death penalty rightly has no regard for guilty life.
There are posts in this thread regarding the risk of innocent life being taken through the death penalty. Of course, the idea that any innocent life could be taken away through false convictions is concerning (as rare as it is), but as a society we have gone into numerous events where we knew that the deaths of innocents were a possibility, yet pursued them through noble goals. For example, I doubt many of us here would have opposed the UK, or the US's involvement in the Second World War, despite the risk of innocent lives being taken.
The death penalty focuses on first-degree murder charges and rapists. These are criminals who have made society unsafe, who threw away their rights and privileges when they decided that it was worth taking the rights of another. There should be a high concentration on testimonies, witness statements and video footage to determine the verdict. The death penalty shouldn't be something used lightly or carelessly, but as a necessary and appropriate tool to dispose of vermin who have little regard for innocent human life. The death penalty rightly has no regard for guilty life.
@Mallymkun
With regards to the deterrence effect of the death penalty - There's no real evidence it does anything.
Taken from here.
Additionally, just run through your head why people kill/rape. It's not often a cold/calculating weighing up of the pros and cons, of incentives and deterrences (and for those who do, they tend to think they're smart enough to not get caught). Usually, there's intense emotions involved. Consequences get pushed aside until after the act.
All that aside, wouldn't you agree that the tradition of retributive punishment is a little bit outdated? Eye for an eye? Bit biblical for my liking. Do you believe in free will? How much of what you do is really under your control? How much of it is a result of your upbringing and your brain chemistry? Have you heard of determinism? You have no choice but to act as you do. Rapists rape and Ele preaches. Lion's gonna lion. Do we kill all lions? If we have no choice in things, as I believe, then capital punishment seems barbaric as fuck. Certainly doesn't seem moral.
With regards to the deterrence effect of the death penalty - There's no real evidence it does anything.
Originally Posted by National Research Council
Most researchers have used post-Gregg data from the United States to examine the statistical association between homicide rates and the legal status, the actual implementation of the death penalty, or both. The studies have reached widely varying, even contradictory, conclusions. Some studies conclude that executions save large numbers of lives; others conclude that executions actually increase homicides; and still others conclude that executions have no effect on homicide rates
Taken from here.
Additionally, just run through your head why people kill/rape. It's not often a cold/calculating weighing up of the pros and cons, of incentives and deterrences (and for those who do, they tend to think they're smart enough to not get caught). Usually, there's intense emotions involved. Consequences get pushed aside until after the act.
All that aside, wouldn't you agree that the tradition of retributive punishment is a little bit outdated? Eye for an eye? Bit biblical for my liking. Do you believe in free will? How much of what you do is really under your control? How much of it is a result of your upbringing and your brain chemistry? Have you heard of determinism? You have no choice but to act as you do. Rapists rape and Ele preaches. Lion's gonna lion. Do we kill all lions? If we have no choice in things, as I believe, then capital punishment seems barbaric as fuck. Certainly doesn't seem moral.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
There are posts in this thread regarding the risk of innocent life being taken through the death penalty. Of course, the idea that any innocent life could be taken away through false convictions is concerning (as rare as it is), but as a society we have gone into numerous events where we knew that the deaths of innocents were a possibility, yet pursued them through noble goals. For example, I doubt many of us here would have opposed the UK, or the US's involvement in the Second World War, despite the risk of innocent lives being taken.
I really don't think these are analogous. The death penalty is a punishment, conscription was necessary to defeat a dangerous ideology that wanted to dominate the entire world and eradicate any who opposed them.
alright guy
Originally Posted by Ele
With regards to the deterrence effect of the death penalty - There's no real evidence it does anything.
Taken from here.
Evidence varies; some studies/statistics arguably say it has some effect based on your interpretation of the data, others say it has no effect. Obviously the US and the UK have different cultures, so the effects may differ slightly. That's why I'm for the temporary reintroduction of it to see if its effects mirror the effects it had in the 1950s. Just for context, the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1965.
Originally Posted by Ele
Additionally, just run through your head why people kill/rape. It's not often a cold/calculating weighing up of the pros and cons, of incentives and deterrences (and for those who do, they tend to think they're smart enough to not get caught). Usually, there's intense emotions involved. Consequences get pushed aside until after the act.
I think it's fairly reasonable to think that a person might feel less-inclined to commit a crime if they'll be executed for it.
Originally Posted by Ele
All that aside, wouldn't you agree that the tradition of retributive punishment is a little bit outdated? Eye for an eye? Bit biblical for my liking.
I see the death penalty as a deterrent - not for vengeful purposes.
Originally Posted by Ele
Do you believe in free will? How much of what you do is really under your control? How much of it is a result of your upbringing and your brain chemistry? Have you heard of determinism? You have no choice but to act as you do. Rapists rape and Ele preaches. Lion's gonna lion. Do we kill all lions? If we have no choice in things, as I believe, then capital punishment seems barbaric as fuck. Certainly doesn't seem moral.
I don't believe in the concept of predeterminism, so I don't agree with you. I believe that everything you voluntarily do is a choice, and choices carry responsibilities. There are no moral implications, as far as I can see, with exterminating someone who gave away their rights when they chose to take the rights from another.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
I really don't think these are analogous. The death penalty is a punishment, conscription was necessary to defeat a dangerous ideology that wanted to dominate the entire world and eradicate any who opposed them.
So the key word here is "necessary", and what we deem is necessary is subjective in this instance. It's a stalemate argument.
Last edited by Mallymkun; Aug 4, 2020 at 09:04 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Evidence varies; some studies/statistics arguably say it has some effect based on your interpretation of the data, others say it has no effect. Obviously the US and the UK have different cultures, so the effects may differ slightly. That's why I'm for the temporary reintroduction of it to see if its effects mirror the effects it had in the 1950s. Just for context, the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1965.
Crime rates rose between 1960 and 1990 THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN WORLD
Don't think I have to state that during this period, the death penalty was used in a lot of US states.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
I think it's fairly reasonable to think that a person might feel less-inclined to commit a crime if they'll be executed for it.
I see the death penalty as a deterrent - not for vengeful purposes.
People are really bad at weighing short-term and long-term benefits and drawbacks, I just don't think it's a factor.
Also 'forfeiting their right to life' sounds pretty vengeful to me, man.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
So the key word here is "necessary", and what we deem is necessary is subjective in this instance. It's a stalemate argument.
bruh
Are you seriously arguing Nazi's could've gone about their business without posing a serious threat to other countries? Is that not necessity?
I'm at a loss for words
alright guy