Public Execution: Is it alright? - General

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096125]So that's 1-2%. So it is not 0%. ... and moving justice into a completely different area of thought, away from [B]morality[/B] and into economics.[/QUOTE] You keep bringing this up, why? Morality is irrelevant, the system is there to protect us whilst avoiding innocent people to be mistakenly imprisoned. [QUOTE]Prisons are less efficient than execution. If you get the right man and execute him, there is 0% chance of reoffending or further crime. Incarcerate him and he could be released, re-offend, escape (granted a small chance) and so on. So if anything, the only thing prisons are good at is being cost effective, but you still run a small chance of escape, or a higher risk of re-offending / further crimes in prison.[/QUOTE] Prisons are more efficient in preventing innocent deaths; you cannot revert an execution, but you can revert a prison sentence. Prison facilities can be redesigned to be extremely more efficient, such as to reduce any possibility of escape without an incredibly resourceful outside contact, or any further criminal offense inside the actual prison. You're trading innocent lives for a relatively minor decrease in continued criminal offense. The probability never reaches 0%. The death penalty isn't a bulletproof system if innocent people can end up in it.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096468]Agreed here, the death penalty has proven consistently through empirical evidence to be a poor deterrent. Hence why I don't argue that way at all.[/QUOTE] I just believe that since there is no proven evidence that it makes society safer (and in fact can do the opposite), that there is little reason to actually do it besides revenge and retribution, which I don't think should have much importance, or any at all, in a justice system.

[QUOTE=DeEz;37096487]You keep bringing this up, why? Morality is irrelevant, the system is there to protect us whilst avoiding innocent people to be mistakenly imprisoned. Prisons are more efficient in preventing innocent deaths; you cannot revert an execution, but you can revert a prison sentence. Prison facilities can be redesigned to be extremely more efficient, such as to prevent any possible escape without an incredibly resourceful outside contact, or any further criminal offense inside the actual prison. You're trading innocent lives for a relatively minor decrease in continued criminal offense. The probability never reaches 0%. The death penalty isn't a bulletproof system if innocent people can end up in it.[/QUOTE] I bring it up because you should not bring a financial approach to what is just and unjust, as this clearly goes against the notion of a blind neutral arbiter justice. Correct, you cannot revert an execution, but again my point stands that more people are murdered than are incorrectly executed. Again, I have no real answer for this. Innocents being caught in the system is an issue, one which I think we should work harder at detecting, and increasing the amount of evidence we need, time given to the judicial due process, and general technological advancements to move the percentage as close as we can to 0%. For the time being, innocent people may be executed, but they number so small compared to the number of murders, or deaths through illegal wars, or deaths from famine and starvation, that they are, at the risk of sounding callous and cold, insubstantial. If we want to stop unneccessary deaths we should be stopping guns reaching the streets, increasing foreign aid, removing troops from wars, dearming nuclear weapons and so on. There are many ways we can reduce needless deaths, and the numbers of the deaths due to the death penalty are frankly miniscule compared with other much larger issues.

[QUOTE=Clementine;37096445]Funny you say that, because not only is life imprisonment just as effective, but in states with abolished death penalties tend to be safer. [editline]5th August 2012[/editline] source: [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates[/url][/QUOTE] There you have it. Not only does it decrease the rate of murders but it's also cost-efficient. The pros heavily outweigh the cons.

[QUOTE=DeEz;37096535]There you have it. Not only does it decrease the rate of murders but it's also cost-efficient. The pros heavily outweigh the cons.[/QUOTE] You've chalked off the deterrant approach, congratulations, we all concluded this a page ago. Also, alot of things may be "cost efficient" for us to do, like culling the poor, or cutting benefits or social securities, maybe removing food stamps and education funding, that'd save us loads of money! (Far fetched examples, granted). This argument leads nowhere, cost efficiencies do not mean certain paths of action are automatically the right things to do.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096387]I'm sorry, but Justice is exactly about equality. We want justice (in a retirbutionist standpoint) when we have been wronged, or we want justice to apply equally to all. Like it is unjust to offer white people rights and not black people. Justice and Equality are almost synonymous. We clamour for justice because we know that any of our, or other's actions are judged fairly and equally by an impartial arbiter (the law or the judicial system). To say justice is nothing to do with equality is frankly wrong. The whole reason we have a judicial system is to protect people's basic rights, rights which we believe transcend everything else, and are applied equally and justly to all. To say the justice system is just there to lock wrong-doers up, or to control society is frankly grossly wrong and short sighted. Sorry. [/QUOTE] Wrong. [QUOTE=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice] Criminal justice is the system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts.[/QUOTE] The kind of Justice you are thinking of is not Criminal justice.

If justice is supposed to deter people from doing crime, how could someone possibly say the death penalty is justice when all it seems to do is make it worse? Not only that but the entire basis of it is unable to be used as a deterrent because it literally just ends their lives, it doesn't teach anyone a lesson, at least if they're in jail they can be made an example or something.

[QUOTE=DeEz;37096585]Wrong.[/QUOTE] If you want to quote wikipedia......ahem. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice[/url] > Implying justice is an objective notion. I like how you dodged all that thought with a little wikipedia quote. You really showed me up. [QUOTE=Clementine;37096612]If justice is supposed to deter people from doing crime, how could someone possibly say the death penalty is justice when all it seems to do is make it worse? Not only that but the entire basis of it is unable to be used as a deterrent because it literally just ends their lives, it doesn't teach anyone a lesson, at least if they're in jail they can be made an example or something.[/QUOTE] They can't, as you posted, and has been said many times, it is obviously not a functional deterrant. The notion of it as a deterrant is that others will look at the punishment and be deterred, it's not meant to be a deterrant to the person being punished. It is more of the notion of "making an example" of them, like you said, it just doesn't work, according to evidence

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096618]If you want to quote wikipedia......ahem. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice[/URL] I like how you dodged all that thought with a little wikipedia quote. You really showed me up.[/QUOTE] I am sorry but you are completely off-the-rail. Justice and Criminal justice is two different concepts. Executions fit within Criminal justice. Your human intuition is promoting irrationality which the OP specifically asked to keep outside this thread.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096618]If you want to quote wikipedia......ahem. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice[/url] > Implying justice is an objective notion. I like how you dodged all that thought with a little wikipedia quote. You really showed me up. They can't, as you posted, and has been said many times, it is obviously not a functional deterrant. The notion of it as a deterrant is that others will look at the punishment and be deterred, it's not meant to be a deterrant to the person being punished. It is more of the notion of "making an example" of them, like you said, it just doesn't work, according to evidence[/QUOTE] Then why are you arguing in favor of the DP if it literally does nothing good?

[QUOTE=DeEz;37096636]I am sorry but you are completely off-rail. Justice and Criminal justice is two different concepts. Executions fit within Criminal justice. Your human intuition is promoting irrationality which the OP specifically asked to keep outside this thread.[/QUOTE] Yep, I'm off rail. Using wikipedia to back up my points and refusing to return any sort of cerebral notions make you right on track. I'm off to bed anyway, feel free to add some more exciting second hand thought from wikipedia overnight and I'll respond to it tomorrow some time. [QUOTE=Clementine;37096642]Then why are you arguing in favor of the DP if it literally does nothing good?[/QUOTE] I don't know if you've read anything I've been posting over the last two pages, but I've made it clear why I'm arguing in favour of it.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096650]Yep, I'm off rail. Using wikipedia to back up my points and refusing to return any sort of cerebral notions make you right on track. I'm off to bed anyway, feel free to add some more exciting second hand thought from wikipedia overnight and I'll respond to it tomorrow some time.[/QUOTE] Again, you're throwing out statements without anything to back them up with. Evidently you're not a very reasonable person and have little to no understanding of logic. We're done here.

Public executions are wrong. Whether we actually do or not, we shouldn't want to watch people die. While I wish there were a good alternative for the death penalty(for people who really deserve it), what else can be done to them? I mean I could kill a dozen people and get sent to prison. A roof over my head, a bed to sleep on, and food all for free. For some people life in prison is better than anything they could get on the outside.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096650]Yep, I'm off rail. Using wikipedia to back up my points and refusing to return any sort of cerebral notions make you right on track. I'm off to bed anyway, feel free to add some more exciting second hand thought from wikipedia overnight and I'll respond to it tomorrow some time. I don't know if you've read anything I've been posting over the last two pages, but I've made it clear why I'm arguing in favour of it.[/QUOTE] Because you want revenge or retribution? Because that's what you think they deserve because they did mean things? I thought I asked for logic and reasoning, not typical emotional responses about how they're mean people so they deserve to die.

if they kill a man in cold blood why should they earn the right to live their life fully public executions just seems pointless imo

Here's my stance on the issue from the Do Two Wrongs Make a Right? thread. It seems relevant. First of all I think you need to understand that free will is an illusion. I'll allow this video to explain it: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g[/media] If you don't feel like watching it then I'll sum it up for you. All of the decisions that we make are based on our past experiences and the layout of our brains. Because the layout of our brains is beyond our control, and because we don't have control over our environment, we don't have any freedom over the decisions we make. Free will is a very convincing illusion and obviously many people are still confused about it. After admitting this fact, you have to understand that it really isn't the fault of the perpetrator. What's fair about being born with the mind of psychopath and having your condition exasperated by growing up in an abusive home? That's one way somebody could grow up to be a murderer. It's no more Adolf Hitler's fault that he wanted to kill 6 million Jews than it is your fault that you have a certain hair color. Keep in mind this doesn't mean I endorse the Holocaust, I find it disgusting, but I really have to admit that I would've done the exact same thing if I was in exactly the same situation as Hitler. The judicial systems shouldn't be about punishment, but rather should focus on keeping society safe and the rehabilitation of the offenders. If you had an instantly working, infallible cure for psychopathy, there is no valid reason why you shouldn't immediately administer it to every criminal on the planet. If this cure was infallible, it also stands to reason that the criminals shouldn't be in prison anymore, because they would no longer be a threat to society and the crimes they committed weren't really their fault in the first place. Until the day such treatments are possible, I think we should isolate extremely dangerous individuals, not as punishment, but as a safeguard for the rest of society. So obviously I don't support any form of execution.

If you support Public execution, you're probably so much of a psychopath that you're a perfect candidate to be executed yourself. [editline]5th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Death_God;37097074]if they kill a man in cold blood why should they earn the right to live their life fully public executions just seems pointless imo[/QUOTE] They don't earn that right, they already have it and it's not up to the state to take that away.

[QUOTE=Clementine;37094236]Did they also turn themselves into animals? Like, are they no longer humans not deserving of the basic human rights? You want to give the government the ability to take away people's basic human right to life? That and give them the ability to murder their own civilians? That's not even the only thing, morally execution is fucked up, how could you support useless revenge? Its not like you're stopping a violent person, they are done with their crimes, they are pacified, there is no reason to kill them besides idiotic revenge. Another thing is that it costs like 6x more to kill them, if that's the only thing you care about.[/QUOTE] Once you infringe on someone's rights, you don't deserve those rights.

When someone commits a crime, they often don't think about the consequences significantly. It's either something done in the heat of the moment or they don't think they'll be caught. Having trials and punishments brought further into the public mind by making them out in the open for everyone to see weighs on both of these factors. With the thought of being publicly beheaded the first thing coming to mind, a heat of the moment action has an added fear of death and someone may lose that sense of invulnerability by seeing those like them cut down. Viewing it purely as a deterrent, it is more effective than semi-private executions. This is of course ignoring the issues with the death penalty and the obvious authoritarianism of the act.

[QUOTE=Falubii;37097167]Here's my stance on the issue from the Do Two Wrongs Make a Right? thread. It seems relevant. First of all I think you need to understand that free will is an illusion. I'll allow this video to explain it: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g[/media] If you don't feel like watching it then I'll sum it up for you. All of the decisions that we make are based on our past experiences and the layout of our brains. Because the layout of our brains is beyond our control, and because we don't have control over our environment, we don't have any freedom over the decisions we make. Free will is a very convincing illusion and obviously many people are still confused about it. After admitting this fact, you have to understand that it really isn't the fault of the perpetrator. What's fair about being born with the mind of psychopath and having your condition exasperated by growing up in an abusive home? That's one way somebody could grow up to be a murderer. It's no more Adolf Hitler's fault that he wanted to kill 6 million Jews than it is your fault that you have a certain hair color. Keep in mind this doesn't mean I endorse the Holocaust, I find it disgusting, but I really have to admit that I would've done the exact same thing if I was in exactly the same situation as Hitler. The judicial systems shouldn't be about punishment, but rather should focus on keeping society safe and the rehabilitation of the offenders. If you had an instantly working, infallible cure for psychopathy, there is no valid reason why you shouldn't immediately administer it to every criminal on the planet. If this cure was infallible, it also stands to reason that the criminals shouldn't be in prison anymore, because they would no longer be a threat to society and the crimes they committed weren't really their fault in the first place. Until the day such treatments are possible, I think we should isolate extremely dangerous individuals, not as punishment, but as a safeguard for the rest of society. So obviously I don't support any form of execution.[/QUOTE] We do control our brain, we control what it feels, what it accepts into it, we can change it, we can meld it. Saying we can't control it is is some hilarious gibberish poppycock conspiracy bullshit, and I don't quite think anything of it. [editline]5th August 2012[/editline] Saying we don't control our brain is about as silly as the claim you also made, that we cannot control our environment.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;37097609]When someone commits a crime, they often don't think about the consequences significantly. It's either something done in the heat of the moment or they don't think they'll be caught. Having trials and punishments brought further into the public mind by making them out in the open for everyone to see weighs on both of these factors. With the thought of being publicly beheaded the first thing coming to mind, a heat of the moment action has an added fear of death and someone may lose that sense of invulnerability by seeing those like them cut down. Viewing it purely as a deterrent, it is more effective than semi-private executions. This is of course ignoring the issues with the death penalty and the obvious authoritarianism of the act.[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised how many murderers go to extreme lengths before they actually commit the crime to cover it up. The problem with public execution is that it would have no deterrent effect. Back in the middle ages, executions and the display of violence would actually trigger someone to commit a crime, it would make them snap. I think public execution would predispose people to the emotion the criminal displayed before they were executed, this could cause people to snap.

[QUOTE=download;37085466]While ever there is the tiniest hint (and there always will be, no matter who did what) that the person is innocent, I will never support execution. The idea that innocent people have been killed in the name of justice is disgusting what if you saw them do it?