Sfdebris.net

Why not? Due to the other thread I cooked up.

My feeling is, there are absolutely situations it's justified, and if some bleeding-heart easy-forgiver wants to call this "revenge," so be it. Justice, to an extent, is NEVER impartial. You'd might as well have to cut out our feelings before you could get truly impartial justice centered around logic. That said, I still have my limits. I roll my eyes when I see right-wingers I KNOW insist we need to just whip them raw or torture them with castration before death and do so by setting them on fire or something. I think, the death IS the punishment. That is the POINT. If anything, I'd say, sedate the criminal before putting the needle in. Death is punishment enough, we don't need to sink to the level of inhuman cavemen to do so. But what and which and where do we exercise this? I'm still uncertain. If anything, I'd figure if they ever outlawed capital punishment, then there must still be a reserve clause in the books listed under "special circumstances." Say crime went down, and then suddenly somebody like Adam Lanza showed up again? That would fall under those special circumstances, subject to a trial and jury. And if they don't choose that, so be it then, life in jail it is, or the system fails and he's let go, and God help us all when that happens. But that's just my feelings.

Until you can completely, 100% guarantee you'll never, ever convict the wrong person, no. Even if that was the case I'm torn between good riddance, the world's a better place without that bastard and realising that anyone can change, even if for some people it's incredibly unlikely.

I'm an atheist - that's why I do not believe in the death penalty.

Because there is no Hell where the evil are punished, there is no Heaven where the good can rest after their long suffering; there is only here. Only we can punish the guilty and only we can help the victims. A prison cell is the closest a criminal will ever get to Hell. That said, I have no problem with shooting a criminal and sparing them that punishment if it is clear that they are going to cost others their lives.

Equally, because I believe that there is only one life, then accidentally executing an innocent man and sacrificing that one life is morally repugnant to me. I also believe in rehabilitation. Some men can and do change.

clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:28 pm I'm an atheist - that's why I do not believe in the death penalty.

Because there is no Hell where the evil are punished, there is no Heaven where the good can rest after their long suffering; there is only here. Only we can punish the guilty and only we can help the victims. A prison cell is the closest a criminal will ever get to Hell. That said, I have no problem with shooting a criminal and sparing them that punishment if it is clear that they are going to cost others their lives.

Equally, because I believe that there is only one life, then accidentally executing an innocent man and sacrificing that one life is morally repugnant to me. I also believe in rehabilitation. Some men can and do change.

This is me as well.

I am down for a bullet between the eyes if there is absolutely no doubt about that convicted did the things he did. Likewise, the actions of what he did has to warrant the execution. He raped and murdered three families with clear video evidence of the crime? Yep bullet to the brain.

As an atheist as well I have to disagree with clearspira. We only have one life, we also only have that many resources, to waste resources punishing people is well, wasteful. Waste not want not.

As for the 100% proof some of you seem to be asking for, I'm a bit more realistic. We have to decide when collateral becomes acceptable.

AlucardNoir wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:54 am As an atheist as well I have to disagree with clearspira. We only have one life, we also only have that many resources, to waste resources punishing people is well, wasteful. Waste not want not.

An attitude that results in a hell of utilitarianism trumping all else. We're not scraping by, having to put every single resource towards basic survival. We can afford some degree of civilisation.

As for the 100% proof some of you seem to be asking for, I'm a bit more realistic. We have to decide when collateral becomes acceptable.

When it comes to someone's life, and there are alternatives, never. Because as soon as you get it wrong the system is just as guilty of murder as anyone you're putting to death for murder.

Riedquat wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:50 pm An attitude that results in a hell of utilitarianism trumping all else. We're not scraping by, having to put every single resource towards basic survival. We can afford some degree of civilisation.

You're definition of civilization seems to be "waste or resources".

Riedquat wrote:

As for the 100% proof some of you seem to be asking for, I'm a bit more realistic. We have to decide when collateral becomes acceptable.

When it comes to someone's life, and there are alternatives, never. Because as soon as you get it wrong the system is just as guilty of murder as anyone you're putting to death for murder.

Then you should probably not look into triage and how the term "collateral" is used in a military setting. Your comment makes you sound like the kind of guy that can't handle reality.

I don't see Atheism as a necessary ditch of ethics and morals on the issue, though on the other hand I feel like clearspira was incorporating notions of divinity just a tad bit.

As far as resources, I'm pretty sure you can find data on what is generally more efficient, but the discrepancy for one thing isn't that great enough to ignore the moral considerations, and also separately it isn't supposed to as Riedquat is saying.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:44 pm I don't see Atheism as a necessary ditch of ethics and morals on the issue, though on the other hand I feel like clearspira was incorporating notions of divinity just a tad bit.

As far as resources, I'm pretty sure you can find data on what is generally more efficient, but the discrepancy for one thing isn't that great enough to ignore the moral considerations, and also separately it isn't supposed to as Riedquat is saying.

In the US the death penalty is actually quite expensive. Everything from the substances used to euthanize, to the conditions on death row, to the period of time people sentenced to death are actually kept incarcerated before execution means a death row inmate might end up costing more then someone just sentenced to prison for 20-30 years. But that's mainly a result of laws made to accommodate people like Riedquat and pressures from people like him against companies providing the chemicals used for the execution.

I'm an atheist and I'm for it. I'm also for removing minimum sentences for stuff like minor drug possession and actually rehabilitating (non-murderer/rapist) felons. We REALLY need to unclog our prison system.

Crimes worthy of Execution: pre-meditated homicides (especially multiple cases), sexual assaults (especially multiple, violent, cases), War Crimes, High Treason (ie, selling WMDs to North Korea).

Method: Guillotine. Cheap, simple, quick, painless, relatively clean.