Capital Punishment

[EquALLity]

I think we can do it if we stop spending money on pointless wars and weapons, and make corporations and the rich pay reasonable amounts in taxes.

While I do believe a strong military is necessary, there is massive amounts of waste, and pointless wars. In most areas of government there is massive waste, fraud, and little oversight. Until there are serious changes in the way the money is managed, give the government more and they will find more ways to waste it. http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/22/top-6 ... book-2014/

If we must keep them alive, I like the idea of "you don't work, you don't eat". At the very least, they should be able to contribute to the cost of their incarceration.

Oh my god, how did almost a million dollars get spent on a study of lions on treadmills? Jesus Christ.
How did that even get thought of?

There is a lot of wasteful spending, particularly with the military (ie building trillion dollar weapons we literally never use). But I don't think that there is some kind of systematic issue with the examples you gave- I think they were just crazy things that happened. The military is different in that the reason we waste so much on it is because are politicians are essentially bribed to.

Anyway, despite the waste, I think it's still going to be better to increase social security etc.. I don't see how spending towards that could be used for stuff like what you listed.
And we could use some of the money to keep prisoners alive.

What work should they do, and for what (the government?)?

[EquALLity]

Hasn't been shown that they don't.

If you want to change the way something currently works -- whether that means abolishing the death penalty where it exists, or implementing a death penalty where it doesn't -- you have to show why we should make that change.

In the case of unknowns, we should leave things alone and remain agnostic and impartial to the situation. (Which is why I won't answer if I support it or not )

It has been proven that abolishing it, everything else the same, would be better than leaving it how it is (because of cost and by extension ethics).
So it's right to abolish it for the time being.

But I think it's more reasonable to believe that it would still be right for it to be abolished if we changed other things, because I think some elements of the social programs are less important than the prisoners lives.
There's also what Jebus said about how it devalues human life in the eyes of citizens, and almost IMO encourages vengeance and barbarism.

If prisoners are made to work to pay for themselves -- and enough so that they compensate for the environmental and moral harm of just existing on this Earth -- then those economic arguments for killing them go away.

What work would they do?

So that they compensate for the environmental and moral harm of living? You mean by eating animal products?
If you are using that way of thinking, then we could just make prisons vegan, and then that's not an issue.

If you don't think that's realistic, though, because it's forcing veganism into government, you can't have it both ways and say that they should be forced to make up for not being vegan as a matter of prison policy.

Maybe, maybe not. Everything has to be tallied up carefully. There are too many variables to guess at this.

I don't think so. I think that some things in social programs are less important than the lives of prisoners.

I also think that, and what I think is what really matters in practice, is that the consequences of abolishing the death penalty now would be better than leaving it be.
Maybe after other reforms it'd be right to bring it back (though I doubt it), but at the moment the best decision is to abolish it.

Sure, but where does that money go?

Killing them means more court appeals, more lawyers -- much of the money is going to legal defense and administration, which is providing a lot of public sector jobs, although burdening the courts.

Ok, so it costs more money.

When you keep them alive, more of the money is going in to buying them food -- meat, etc. -- which is more damaging to the environment and other beings. Some of it is going into medical expenses, which is providing some jobs, but more burdening our medical system.

You can't factor in veganism if you won't concede prisons should be made vegan.

I think the medical expenses are worth taxing the rich a bit more.

We need better lie detectors, for example.

How can you fix that some people can just lie without nervousness?

[brimstoneSalad]

It has been proven that abolishing it, everything else the same, would be better than leaving it how it is (because of cost and by extension ethics).

Everything else is not the same, though. As I mentioned, prisoners do more than cost money.

It's also true that ending appeals would save much more money still. Just put in an express lane, then death is cheaper than life by a huge margin.

You can't just point to one thing being better than how it is in one way, and say therefore we should do that thing. If that were true, then we should all put in express lanes.

I think some elements of the social programs are less important than the prisoners lives.

Why? If they're spending the rest of their lives imprisoned, their lives naturally have less value than somebody who is free to participate in the economy, in broader social interactions, and generally contribute to the world.

There's also what Jebus said about how it devalues human life in the eyes of citizens, and almost IMO encourages vengeance and barbarism.

Does it, though? This is an empirical question.

Whether a country has or doesn't have the death penalty, I don't think that's an issue that's black and white enough (or big enough) to spend time or brain power on right now.

What work would they do?

Usually some kind of manufacturing. They'd have to earn over 30k a year, which means hard work and long hours (and probably slightly dangerous work).

If you are using that way of thinking, then we could just make prisons vegan, and then that's not an issue.

IF we were able to do that, then that would be great. It would save a lot of the harm they do.

If you don't think that's realistic, though, because it's forcing veganism into government, you can't have it both ways and say that they should be forced to make up for not being vegan as a matter of prison policy.

That doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem with making them vegan, but we don't have control over these things.
I'm saying we shouldn't try to end the death penalty since it's not clear that this would be better in practice, because we can't make them vegan. Making them pay a carbon tax (or something like this) would be more politically plausible -- and it would also encourage them to choose to go vegan in order to reduce the taxes they have to pay.

I'm not saying we should make them make up for it, because we don't have control over that either -- I'm saying if we did that, then it would be more justifiable to keep them (and it's more plausible).

The consequences of them living, even considering killing them is currently more expensive, may be worse than the consequences of them dying -- this based on the current choice at hand, to abolish the death penalty or not.

There are other reforms that could make me for or against the death penalty by making the outcome more clear. If prisons all went maximum security and vegan, and prisoners worked to pay for themselves and offset their now smaller footprint too, there would be little to no argument to kill them left, and I would agree with abolishing the death penalty.

I don't think so. I think that some things in social programs are less important than the lives of prisoners.

If that's true, then we should end less important social programs and put all money into those social programs that are more important than the lives of prisoners. Ineffective social programs should not be funded, but to me there seem to be social programs that do more good with the over $30,000 a year than putting it to keep up a prisoner. How many children could we save from AIDS or starvation with that much money, every single year?
We have to look at the opportunity cost, and what it's going to (social programs at home for at risk youth, funding for life saving scientific research, subsidies on life saving drugs, or international aid).

Sure, if you're putting it into the national endowment for the arts, it may be better to use it to keep the prisoner alive (assuming the harm footprint can be reduced too).

Maybe after other reforms it'd be right to bring it back (though I doubt it), but at the moment the best decision is to abolish it.

Or just put in an express lane and deny them any appeals. There are other things that are even cheaper than abolishing it.

We can't assert that only one change out of multiple options is the one to go for. You should support the best reforms available, and if you're looking at cost, it's probably the express lane argument. Or better yet, we should probably try to stay out of the politics of it, since it's too controversial and there are too many unknowns.

You can't factor in veganism if you won't concede prisons should be made vegan.

I never said they should not be made vegan. We don't have that option, though.
The most politically expedient options available now are the fast lane, and abolition. Or we could leave it alone, because it's a minor issue.

The bigger issue is the overwhelming number of prisoners not being executed, who are often in prison for drug crimes, who probably just shouldn't be there at all.

I think the medical expenses are worth taxing the rich a bit more.

Or we could tax the rich more, and do something even better with the money.

How can you fix that some people can just lie without nervousness?

Those "lie detectors" aren't functional, they're just nervousness detectors. Something like FMRI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_detection#fMRI
Very intelligent and well practiced people could fool it (currently), but most criminals are not intelligent. As the algorithms advance, it will become increasingly difficult to fool lie detectors like these. We need to reach a degree of confidence that allows them to be submitted as court evidence.
Some tests report 100% success rate with an average population. And, importantly, false positives would be very unlikely (you'd have to try to fool it). So, this is very promising technology.

If you killed all of the death row prisoners this year without appeals, and put in all of the money you save into research into reliable lie detection, you'd never kill an innocent person again (or even imprison one, and you'd save billions on court and law enforcement forever after). Criminals would also stop thinking they can get away with things, or that our courts prosecute people randomly whether they do anything or not, which would actually deter crimes by instilling a better sense of consequence to action.

[PsYcHo]

Those "lie detectors" aren't functional, they're just nervousness detectors. Something like FMRI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_detection#fMRI
Very intelligent and well practiced people could fool it (currently), but most criminals are not intelligent. As the algorithms advance, it will become increasingly difficult to fool lie detectors like these. We need to reach a degree of confidence that allows them to be submitted as court evidence.
Some tests report 100% success rate with an average population. And, importantly, false positives would be very unlikely (you'd have to try to fool it). So, this is very promising technology.

If you killed all of the death row prisoners this year without appeals, and put in all of the money you save into research into reliable lie detection, you'd never kill an innocent person again (or even imprison one, and you'd save billions on court and law enforcement forever after). Criminals would also stop thinking they can get away with things, or that our courts prosecute people randomly whether they do anything or not, which would actually deter crimes by instilling a better sense of consequence to action.

Thanks for all the great thinking points guys, and I'll address more soon! I'll start with this one for now. (Specifically the lie detectors)

Lie detectors now are the equivalent of a mother looking at her children, and determining the one who broke the vase is the one who won't look at her. A psychopath can pass them because they do not have normal emotional responses. That is a problem because they are the most likely to be a serial killer. Better ones could help identify most criminals, but not the worst of the worst. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyDMoGjKvNk

[PsYcHo]

It has been proven that abolishing it, everything else the same, would be better than leaving it how it is (because of cost and by extension ethics).
So it's right to abolish it for the time being.

...... I.......agree.

While I would personally be able to execute a 100% guilty murderer with a rusty spoon, and feel absolutely no regret; as the system is now, I cannot condone it. If we are 99% sure a person committed a crime, there is still a 1% chance that he did nothing wrong, and is a true victim of circumstance.

(Remember the personal questions ) I cannot imagine being innocent, and the government sanctioning my murder. Just to be clear, I absolutely have no problem with murdering killers. But I do have a problem with using "they most likely did it" vs. "we have them on video, and they signed a confession".

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Outside of pure logic, how can you ever be 100% sure that anything is the case? Are you sure that the video wasn't forged by the enemies of the suspect? And you're certain that those same enemies didn't coerce the accused into signing that confession?

[PsYcHo]

Outside of pure logic, how can you ever be 100% sure that anything is the case? Are you sure that the video wasn't forged by the enemies of the suspect? And you're certain that those same enemies didn't coerce the accused into signing that confession?

I love this response! (Starts genuine slow clap for Cirion...(join in people!)) (Warning! Graphic details will follow..)

Video tampering is a valid worry, but tampering is evident. (If the "shadow" government wanted to kill you they could. Why create a false tape, and hope the jury is convinced enough to decide to kill this person? But could this happen? Yes. As government power grows, so does their potential for over-reach.) If this is a political prisoner (think Lee harvey Oswald), evidence may lean towards him killing JFK, but his guilt is not confirmed 100%. (For the record, I think he did it. Deniers please set up a thread in the Forums/Serious debates section.)

As for forcing a confession, that is a definite possibility. These are both reasons why I agreed with equALLity (...grudgingly...) on banning the death penalty, for now..... If you have powerful enemies, anything can be faked/forged.

I am not advocating keeping the death penalty as it is now. 1 innocent person dying is too many. But if a person walks into a daycare, pulls out a gun and starts shooting children, and 5 mothers have their phones set to record, the daycare has an additional set of 6 cameras, and the perpetrator posted a post on his page, complete with a screen shot, detailing how he was going to kill a bunch of children, I believe I should be able to end his life
with a rusty spoon.

Killing is always horrible. No life should ever be taken, and no person should ever be in fear for their life. (A short story with no references, but merely an emotional explanation to my thought process. - I have been with the same person for over 10 years. We were taking the dog for a walk two days ago, and another dog jumped from his yard. He was a big dog (like ours) and he acted aggressively towards us. We left the area we were in, and I tried to contact his owners, with no luck. If there is a peaceful solution, that is the best path. The very next day, the same dog jumped the fence again, and charged directly towards our dog and my better-half. I carry a knife at all times (used to be a boyscout..) and I opened my knife (quick release). (This is not a theoretical story. This actually happened,) and ran in front of my partner and the dog, fully prepared to possibly get bitten, but determined to protect my family. Even in my blind rage, (if your loved ones are facing real danger, you will understand blind rage.) It still occurred to me that if I killed this attacker, I would have its blood on my hands. (Figuratively, and literally). I abhor violence, but I was willing to kill to protect my family. Now if this dog had actually gotten past me (He did not. A grown man runs at you with a knife, and yelling, he made the decision to retreat.... thankfully) I would have killed him. Just as if instead of a dog it was a human threatening my family, I would kill them as well to protect the innocent, that in this case is my family.

If this crazy dog had killed my family member(s), despite the fact that the damage was already done, I know 100% who is responsible. I would have engaged the attacker will full prejudice, (I would have murdered it in cold blood.) The death penalty is not a deterrent, but it is a means for revenge, which is not the best moral path. Revenge seems silly when it is on the news, but when it is a real option for you, morality gets a bit fuzzy.

[brimstoneSalad]

Revenge may be just, and it may feel right, but justice is not the same as morality.

The death penalty is not a deterrent, but it is a means for revenge, which is not the best moral path.

It's not a moral path in itself at all. Revenge is a classic motive for villains, and it can turn an otherwise righteous person off the right path very easily, particularly because it feels so good and aligns with our moral intuitions (which like other intuition, as in statistics, is not always right).

Revenge seems silly when it is on the news, but when it is a real option for you, morality gets a bit fuzzy.

Morality doesn't get fuzzy; it's pretty clear. However, our perceptions of it, or our connections to it in terms of consequence may be lost. If it's fuzzy, it's because we're moving so far from it when we go down that road.

[EquALLity]

It has been proven that abolishing it, everything else the same, would be better than leaving it how it is (because of cost and by extension ethics).
So it's right to abolish it for the time being.

...... I.......agree.

While I would personally be able to execute a 100% guilty murderer with a rusty spoon, and feel absolutely no regret; as the system is now, I cannot condone it. If we are 99% sure a person committed a crime, there is still a 1% chance that he did nothing wrong, and is a true victim of circumstance.

(Remember the personal questions ) I cannot imagine being innocent, and the government sanctioning my murder. Just to be clear, I absolutely have no problem with murdering killers. But I do have a problem with using "they most likely did it" vs. "we have them on video, and they signed a confession".

Is that because:
A) You don't value the lives of people who are murderers.
Or:
B) You think it's justified because it's a danger to society to allow murderers to live, but if it wasn't a significant danger, you wouldn't kill them.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I love this response! (Starts genuine slow clap for Cirion...(join in people!)) (Warning! Graphic details will follow..)

But could this happen? Yes.

That was my point. I'm not suggesting that any of these things are plausible or likely, but rather, that they are possible, and therefore, it is impossible for you to be 100% certain of this without being delusional.

I am not advocating keeping the death penalty as it is now. 1 innocent person dying is too many. But if a person walks into a daycare, pulls out a gun and starts shooting children, and 5 mothers have their phones set to record, the daycare has an additional set of 6 cameras, and the perpetrator posted a post on his page, complete with a screen shot, detailing how he was going to kill a bunch of children, I believe I should be able to end his life with a rusty spoon.

You still can't be 100% certain of this though. Maybe there's some absurd maternal conspiracy whereby mothers and their children perform elaborate scripts with the ultimate goal of trying to steal your rusty spoons. Likely? Fuck no. Possible? Yes.

Killing is always horrible. No life should ever be taken, and no person should ever be in fear for their life.

Then why are you willing to kill people or animals you think will or have killed?

If this crazy dog had killed my family member(s), despite the fact that the damage was already done, I know 100% who is responsible.

You don't know 100%. Maybe you know 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999%, but you can't rule out all possibilities. Human memory can be faulty, maybe you were just reminded of a traumatic dream? (Note: I'm not saying this is the case, and I don't think it is, but rather, that it could be the case)

I would have engaged the attacker will full prejudice, (I would have murdered it in cold blood.) The death penalty is not a deterrent, but it is a means for revenge, which is not the best moral path.

Revenge isn't necessarily bad unless it produces negative consequences.

Revenge seems silly when it is on the news, but when it is a real option for you, morality gets a bit fuzzy.

Strong emotions can make morality less intuitive. When you're watching the news, you aren't facing these strong emotional biases, and can think rationally.