For the super "evil" people like those who commit genocide or treason, putting a person in prison shouldn't be much of a problem. It is kind of hard to commit genocide behind prison walls. Any information that the traitor might somehow secretly reveal to our enemies after being put in prison will have probably already become obsolete by the time the trial is over.
The history of both good guys and bad guys suggests that putting political opponents in prison isn't so effective in many cases. Nelson Mandela is an excellent example of this point, except he was one of the good guys, so the world is better off because of it.
Which means that the solution is to execute them instead?
If there is reason to believe they will drag a society back into oppression and genocide? Fuck yes.
Mandela is a perfect example of why using the death penalty as a political statement is a REALLY BAD IDEA. Because sometimes people get locked the fuck up for things they really shouldn't be locked up for. And suddenly you wind up with a lot of dead people whose only horrific crime was disagreeing with the government.
But there's rarely any reason to think a prisoner will drag a society to anything: they're in prison. Now, you can argue their followers will be pissed, but the basic logic is the followers would be just as or more pissed if you killed their leader.
Basically, it doesn't solve shit, and as a political statement the only think you're saying is "we're barbaric, don't fuck with us", which doesn't seem to keep anyone from fucking with you in the modern age.
As opposed to certain people who are posting, "I bet MS13 is hiring people, LOL?"
They've all made thought out reasoned arguments already though. You have failed exceedingly in this regard and just continue to post your good guy bad guy nonsense.
As opposed to certain people who are posting, "I bet MS13 is hiring people, LOL?"
They've all made thought out reasoned arguments already though. You have failed exceedingly in this regard and just continue to post your good guy bad guy nonsense.
Your inability to grasp my points doesn't point to their absence anymore than your inability to see bacteria means the germ theory of disease is wrong.
As opposed to certain people who are posting, "I bet MS13 is hiring people, LOL?"
They've all made thought out reasoned arguments already though. You have failed exceedingly in this regard and just continue to post your good guy bad guy nonsense.
Your inability to grasp my points doesn't point to their absence anymore than your inability to see bacteria means the germ theory of disease is wrong.
I'm a little late to the discussion. Could you reiterate what's up please?
If there is reason to believe they will drag a society back into oppression and genocide? Fuck yes.
Fortunately this doesn't actually happen outside of comic books.
Already posted an example. Suharto, who deserved to be executed, continued to live in unethical excess with stolen money and his family engaged in political corruption of which he was almost certainly at least tangentially related.
He didn't lead to anything world shatteringly bad, but as I see it, when you've already killed up to half a million people, your life isn't really worth a lot to balance against future bad acts.
Already posted an example. Suharto, who deserved to be executed, continued to live in unethical excess with stolen money and his family engaged in political corruption of which he was almost certainly at least tangentially related.
What, by 1945? No, Hitler's influence wasn't substantial in Germany at that point in time. He himself was tucked away in his bunker, his generals were countermanding his insane orders in the field and even members of his inner circle were betraying the cause. The only absolute loyalists to Adolf Hitler by the time he took his own life were Eva Braun & Joseph Goebbels.
Did Hitler have loyalists who would continue to fight for him though he was incarcerated: Yes/No
No, he did not. The Allies didn't endure any sort of guerrilla campaign after Germany was defeated (in large part because such much of the German population had been depleted & displaced). His generals & friends knew the war was lost and were eager to sign a peace treaty, even if they were sympathetic to their Fuhrer.
Did Hitler have any value as a human being beyond a labrat to extract research from: Yes/No
He did. He had, before the 1st World War, been an okay painter and an advocate for largely progressive politics. He believed in animal rights (ironically) and was a vegetarian right up until his suicide.
He hadn't gone crazy until inhaling mustard gas at the end of WWI and was more than likely terminally syphilitic by the end of WWII. It was while he was working for the German Worker's Party with a damaged brain that he became inculcated into a realpolitik mentality that saw German power and a unified Europe under an Aryan utopia as the only solution to the problems of the world (which he blamed on communists, Jews & gypsies - like any people in Europe at the time).
The idea of Hitler as a moustache-twirling sociopath like Joseph Stalin is ignorant (and even 'Uncle Joe' had his share of redeeming qualities), even if contemporary hatred of him & his regime is more than justified. his life was a tragic one, and even if I can't feel sympathy for him in the full knowledge of the cruelties his ambitions gobbed over Europe, I wouldn't have wanted him executed.
Did victims of the Holocaust and their families deserve justice, noting that many would reasonably demand a death penalty: Yes/No
I would note that many (most? Anyone know actual figures?) Holocaust survivors demanded jail time, not the noose, for the Nazis who's tormented them. Part of the reason that Speer wasn't sent to the gallows was because survivors of Auswitz lobbied on his behalf (there having already been more than enough bloodshed without adding the body of a lonely & misguided architect to the pile of corpses).
Is Hitler's life so valuable that the deaths created by continuing fighting for his cause due to his existance are justified: Yes/No
...What are you talking about? If Hitler hadn't committed suicide, he & his staff would've been captured by the Soviets when they raided his bunker. The order to surrender, in all likelyhood, would still have been handed off to Donitz (...there's also at least the off-chance that Hitler would've given the order to surrender himself in order to barter for easy treatment of Eva).
Could Hitler be rehabilitated so that he can feed the ducks in Berlin at age 100: Yes/No.
Hitler would've died shortly after the war of syphilis, in all likelihood. Does it make you feel better, out of curiosity, knowing that Adolf final days were full of not only the misery wrought by his own psychological maladies & racism, but the excruciating pain of being torn apart by parasites?
I'd have preferred Hitler to have lived until 100 with the memory of his tremendous failings burning at the back of his brain and, just perhaps, a sense of awe that the rest of the world was not as vindictive or prejudiced as he was.
Donitz & Speer lived out rather unremarkable lives after their incarceration & subsequent releases. Nobody lost anything for it, and nobody would've gained anything for their executions.
Already posted an example. Suharto, who deserved to be executed, continued to live in unethical excess with stolen money and his family engaged in political corruption of which he was almost certainly at least tangentially related.
Uh, was Suharto even jailed? If memory serves me correctly, his health prevented any successful attempts to do so.
He was under house arrest for a while IIRC. But considering his holdings make "palatial" and "rich beyond measure" both seem like understatements, well, it meant jack shit.
Already posted an example. Suharto, who deserved to be executed, continued to live in unethical excess with stolen money and his family engaged in political corruption of which he was almost certainly at least tangentially related.
Uh, was Suharto even jailed? If memory serves me correctly, his health prevented any successful attempts to do so.
He was under house arrest for a while IIRC. But considering his holdings make "palatial" and "rich beyond measure" both seem like understatements, well, it meant jack shit.
In a country with incredible amounts of corruption, which as shitty as the US is generally is not found in the 1st world countries, people can retain significant power behind prison bars, and some jackass warlord being broken out of prison by his followers could reasonably happen, making eliminating them at least somewhat defensible.
This is not going to happen in fucking California.
Mexico maybe.
--
I would also like to know how someone with "palatial" surroundings could be considered to be in prison. You may as well say that Dubya is in prison.
Uh, was Suharto even jailed? If memory serves me correctly, his health prevented any successful attempts to do so.
He was under house arrest for a while IIRC. But considering his holdings make "palatial" and "rich beyond measure" both seem like understatements, well, it meant jack shit.
Okay, so you've made a great case for him being imprisoned, for life.
Did Hitler have any value as a human being beyond a labrat to extract research from: Yes/No
He did. He had, before the 1st World War, been an okay painter and an advocate for largely progressive politics. He believed in animal rights (ironically) and was a vegetarian right up until his suicide.
He hadn't gone crazy until inhaling mustard gas at the end of WWI and was more than likely terminally syphilitic by the end of WWII. It was while he was working for the German Worker's Party with a damaged brain that he became inculcated into a realpolitik mentality that saw German power and a unified Europe under an Aryan utopia as the only solution to the problems of the world (which he blamed on communists, Jews & gypsies - like any people in Europe at the time).
The idea of Hitler as a moustache-twirling sociopath like Joseph Stalin is ignorant (and even 'Uncle Joe' had his share of redeeming qualities), even if contemporary hatred of him & his regime is more than justified. his life was a tragic one, and even if I can't feel sympathy for him in the full knowledge of the cruelties his ambitions gobbed over Europe, I wouldn't have wanted him executed.
We also could have kept him around as some kind of transportation consultant. Autobahns and VWs everywhere!
If the country actually worried about him coming back, they would put him in a prison in a different country. Or exile him to a high security island. I suggest Saint Helena.
Didn't intend on coming back to this thread but after reading about people saying Hitler deserved to live, even one person saying he wishes happy endings or something for people who do bad things... you folks should be severely beaten for even suggesting this drivel. I wish I knew what rose-tinted lens you people saw life from or what beautiful world you were raised in where fucking Hitler does not deserve to be brutally tortured and then slowly killed, much less killed at all. If you think "humanity" is in forgiving someone like that, you are inhuman.
If the country actually worried about him coming back, they would put him in a prison in a different country. Or exile him to a high security island. I suggest Saint Helena.
No! Clearly killing him is a decapitation strike and will certainly end his vi-
And you know, Operation Werewolf, which was not stopped by Hilter dieing either.
Didn't intend on coming back to this thread but after reading about people saying Hitler deserved to live, even one person saying he wishes happy endings or something for people who do bad things... you folks should be severely beaten for even suggesting this drivel. I wish I knew what rose-tinted lens you people saw life from or what beautiful world you were raised in where fucking Hitler does not deserve to be brutally tortured and then slowly killed, much less killed at all. If you think "humanity" is in forgiving someone like that, you are inhuman.
Still would have done nothing to stop, slow, or affect anything other that awarding the executor petty revenge.
Didn't intend on coming back to this thread but after reading about people saying Hitler deserved to live, even one person saying he wishes happy endings or something for people who do bad things... you folks should be severely beaten for even suggesting this drivel. I wish I knew what rose-tinted lens you people saw life from or what beautiful world you were raised in where fucking Hitler does not deserve to be brutally tortured and then slowly killed, much less killed at all. If you think "humanity" is in forgiving someone like that, you are inhuman.
Part of what makes humans human is a deviation from their base animal impulses.
Many of the posters on this forum, for example, might feel the twinge to hold Hitler up as an example of somebody who deserved to die for no reason other than revenge killing. They suppress that urge. I strongly encourage everybody to do the same.
The only arguments I have seen from the pro-death penalty crowd here are straw men, ad hominem (although to be fair there have been some of these from the anti-death penalty crowd as well) attacks and appeals to emotion. Nobody has conclusively provided proof that the best thing for society is more death. Objectively, there has been no argument that the death penalty is a better solution than other corrective measures. Subjectively, the only thing to talk about is the value of revenge vs. the value of not being an animal who abides only by his/her base impulses. Since talking about subjective, emotional beliefs will only end up with, "I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS", I'd rather see if anybody has an objective argument in favor of the death penalty that doesn't involve dictators from bygone eras.
Can I use dictators from bygone errors in support of the anti-death penalty position? Napoleon, enemy of mankind, shows the weakness in the claim. Napoleon managed to get off of his island once. He was then quickly defeated. He was never able to get off of his island much farther away. We have much better technology now and could easily secure an arrested despot in a first world country. If 19th century Europe can do it, why can't we?
But see, that's rooted in logic. This is the kind of shit that's been going on in this thread:
Conclusively, the appeal to emotion fallacy presents a perspective intended to be superior to reason. Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.
For instance, it's just natural to want bad people to be dead! If somebody killed a family member of yours, you'd want them dead, wouldn't you?! Because they're bad!
Nobody has conclusively provided proof that the best thing for society is more death. Objectively, there has been no argument that the death penalty is a better solution than other corrective measures. Subjectively, the only thing to talk about is the value of revenge vs. the value of not being an animal who abides only by his/her base impulses. Since talking about subjective, emotional beliefs will only end up with, "I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS", I'd rather see if anybody has an objective argument in favor of the death penalty that doesn't involve dictators from bygone eras.
I agree that there haven't been any objective arguments in favor of the death penalty, however you seem to give the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. As much as the desire for retribution is subjective, so is the desire to preserve life.
Nobody has conclusively provided proof that the best thing for society is more death. Objectively, there has been no argument that the death penalty is a better solution than other corrective measures. Subjectively, the only thing to talk about is the value of revenge vs. the value of not being an animal who abides only by his/her base impulses. Since talking about subjective, emotional beliefs will only end up with, "I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS", I'd rather see if anybody has an objective argument in favor of the death penalty that doesn't involve dictators from bygone eras.
I agree that there haven't been any objective arguments in favor of the death penalty, however you seem to give the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. As much as the desire for retribution is subjective, so is the desire to preserve life.
I haven't given the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. They have provided many useful and good arguments against the death penalty, even ignoring the utilitarians.
Also, that's why I said we're just going to be talking past each other if we talk about the subjective aspects of the death penalty.
Nobody has conclusively provided proof that the best thing for society is more death. Objectively, there has been no argument that the death penalty is a better solution than other corrective measures. Subjectively, the only thing to talk about is the value of revenge vs. the value of not being an animal who abides only by his/her base impulses. Since talking about subjective, emotional beliefs will only end up with, "I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS", I'd rather see if anybody has an objective argument in favor of the death penalty that doesn't involve dictators from bygone eras.
I agree that there haven't been any objective arguments in favor of the death penalty, however you seem to give the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. As much as the desire for retribution is subjective, so is the desire to preserve life.
I haven't given the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. They have provided many useful and good arguments against the death penalty, even ignoring the utilitarians.
Also, that's why I said we're just going to be talking past each other if we talk about the subjective aspects of the death penalty.
"I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS"
Which is boring on both ends of the issue.
There aren't any purely objective arguments in favor or against the death penalty though. There are objective realities: that it costs more to administer under our system, that humans are faulty and thus so is our justice system is faulty, there is a lack of statistical evidence that it acts as a deterrent to violent crime (obviously an incomplete list). If you value these realities highly, then it is likely that you won't support the death penalty.
Those aren't the only objective realities in play though. One is that some murderers will lose their life in response to their crime. If you value this more highly, then you have a reason to support the death penalty.
There hasn't been a lot of disagreement over the objective realities of the death penalty in this thread. It has gotten to this many pages mostly because people have different sets of values, and they want to voice them (both sides).
Edit: I think we're pretty much in complete agreement. This thread will continue like this is people keep voicing their subjective reasons that they support or oppose the death penalty. However, it doesn't seem like there is any reason to discuss the objective realities, because there isn't any real disagreement.
Nobody has conclusively provided proof that the best thing for society is more death. Objectively, there has been no argument that the death penalty is a better solution than other corrective measures. Subjectively, the only thing to talk about is the value of revenge vs. the value of not being an animal who abides only by his/her base impulses. Since talking about subjective, emotional beliefs will only end up with, "I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS", I'd rather see if anybody has an objective argument in favor of the death penalty that doesn't involve dictators from bygone eras.
I agree that there haven't been any objective arguments in favor of the death penalty, however you seem to give the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. As much as the desire for retribution is subjective, so is the desire to preserve life.
I haven't given the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. They have provided many useful and good arguments against the death penalty, even ignoring the utilitarians.
Also, that's why I said we're just going to be talking past each other if we talk about the subjective aspects of the death penalty.
"I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS"
Which is boring on both ends of the issue.
There aren't any purely objective arguments in favor or against the death penalty though. There are objective realities: that it costs more to administer under our system, that humans are faulty and thus so is our justice system is faulty, there is a lack of statistical evidence that it acts as a deterrent to violent crime (obviously an incomplete list). If you value these realities highly, then it is likely that you won't support the death penalty.
Those aren't the only objective realities in play though. One is that some murderers will lose their life in response to their crime. If you value this more highly, then you have a reason to support the death penalty.
There hasn't been a lot of disagreement over the objective realities of the death penalty in this thread. It has gotten to this many pages mostly because people have different sets of values, and they want to voice them (both sides).
Edit: I think we're pretty much in complete agreement. This thread will continue like this is people keep voicing their subjective reasons that they support or oppose the death penalty. However, it doesn't seem like there is any reason to discuss the objective realities, because there isn't any real disagreement.
.. You're saying the numbers provided for the first example (costs, inability to administer fairly, inability to administer accurately, similar crime rates given both options) are not objective (they're pretty objective..)
And are thus exactly the same, logically, as "murderers should die!"
One of those is a personal morality statement. The other is a mess of data. One of these is subjective, the other is objective. While we've wandered off into the morality tangent quite a bit, the initial argument was pretty much solid data: costs, effects on crime rates, and post mortem evidence proving innocence. It wound up down the morality trail because, essentially, the only argument pro death penalty that can't be pretty quickly debunked by data is, well, a subjective moral argument.
I agree this thread will go nowhere from here, but let's not pull a fair and balanced media thing and go "well this one side provided a shitload of research, and the other side said nuh uh, so I guess there's a lot of data on both sides of this discussion!"
There aren't any purely objective arguments in favor or against the death penalty though. There are objective realities: that it costs more to administer under our system, that humans are faulty and thus so is our justice system is faulty, there is a lack of statistical evidence that it acts as a deterrent to violent crime (obviously an incomplete list). If you value these realities highly, then it is likely that you won't support the death penalty.
Those aren't the only objective realities in play though. One is that some murderers will lose their life in response to their crime. If you value this more highly, then you have a reason to support the death penalty.
There hasn't been a lot of disagreement over the objective realities of the death penalty in this thread. It has gotten to this many pages mostly because people have different sets of values, and they want to voice them (both sides).
Edit: I think we're pretty much in complete agreement. This thread will continue like this is people keep voicing their subjective reasons that they support or oppose the death penalty. However, it doesn't seem like there is any reason to discuss the objective realities, because there isn't any real disagreement.
.. You're saying the numbers provided for the first example (costs, inability to administer fairly, inability to administer accurately, similar crime rates given both options) are not objective (they're pretty objective..)
And are thus exactly the same, logically, as "murderers should die!"
One of those is a personal morality statement. The other is a mess of data. One of these is subjective, the other is objective. While we've wandered off into the morality tangent quite a bit, the initial argument was pretty much solid data: costs, effects on crime rates, and post mortem evidence proving innocence. It wound up down the morality trail because, essentially, the only argument pro death penalty that can't be pretty quickly debunked by data is, well, a subjective moral argument.
I agree this thread will go nowhere from here, but let's not pull a fair and balanced media thing and go "well this one side provided a shitload of research, and the other side said nuh uh, so I guess there's a lot of data on both sides of this discussion!"
In fact I said the complete opposite. I said very clearly that those are objective realities, and the research points to the truth of those objective realities. These facts have not been in serious contention in this thread. There isn't an objectively right answer to this question though because everyone will evaluate those realities differently (subjectively).
If you chase a reason far enough on either side of the debate, the answer is 'Because.' If you value human life highly, then the reality of the our faulty system will give you pause. If you value 'fairness' even more, then you might be willing to accept the failures of the system.
There aren't any purely objective arguments in favor or against the death penalty though. There are objective realities: that it costs more to administer under our system, that humans are faulty and thus so is our justice system is faulty, there is a lack of statistical evidence that it acts as a deterrent to violent crime (obviously an incomplete list). If you value these realities highly, then it is likely that you won't support the death penalty.
Those aren't the only objective realities in play though. One is that some murderers will lose their life in response to their crime. If you value this more highly, then you have a reason to support the death penalty.
There hasn't been a lot of disagreement over the objective realities of the death penalty in this thread. It has gotten to this many pages mostly because people have different sets of values, and they want to voice them (both sides).
Edit: I think we're pretty much in complete agreement. This thread will continue like this is people keep voicing their subjective reasons that they support or oppose the death penalty. However, it doesn't seem like there is any reason to discuss the objective realities, because there isn't any real disagreement.
.. You're saying the numbers provided for the first example (costs, inability to administer fairly, inability to administer accurately, similar crime rates given both options) are not objective (they're pretty objective..)
And are thus exactly the same, logically, as "murderers should die!"
One of those is a personal morality statement. The other is a mess of data. One of these is subjective, the other is objective. While we've wandered off into the morality tangent quite a bit, the initial argument was pretty much solid data: costs, effects on crime rates, and post mortem evidence proving innocence. It wound up down the morality trail because, essentially, the only argument pro death penalty that can't be pretty quickly debunked by data is, well, a subjective moral argument.
I agree this thread will go nowhere from here, but let's not pull a fair and balanced media thing and go "well this one side provided a shitload of research, and the other side said nuh uh, so I guess there's a lot of data on both sides of this discussion!"
In fact I said the complete opposite. I said very clearly that those are objective realities, and the research points to the truth of those objective realities. These facts have not been in serious contention in this thread. There isn't an objectively right answer to this question though because everyone will evaluate those realities differently (subjectively).
If you chase a reason far enough on either side of the debate, the answer is 'Because.' If you value human life highly, then the reality of the our faulty system will give you pause. If you value 'fairness' even more, then you might be willing to accept the failures of the system.
I don't believe you can subjectively evaluate an objective reality.
When people read that the cost of the death penalty is higher, and it absolutely must be in order to prevent the execution of innocents, there are two groups:
1) These costs are unacceptable. Life imprisonment achieves the same societal result without the same high cost!
2) WE SHOULD KILL PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY TO REDUCE COSTS
Group 2 is, um, looking at the objective reality wrong, to say it politely.
So while I get what you are saying, what it boils down to is:
"Some people look at the facts and then make a decision, while others don't care for facts and feel that an arbitrary, morally subjective standard is more important!"
I think we both know which of these two groups consists of silly geese.
I don't know, I think the value of life does have some objectivity to it. I mean, there are examples of people who are sentenced to death that contribute positive effects on society at some level. The flaws that lead to the negative effects of incarceration are things that can be dealt with without a need for death. There's a chance for postive gain in valuing life, while in considering death only there is no gain to be had.
Almost all of the positives argued for the death penalty are based on fantasy and theorycraft. There's the families feeling better stuff, but that's on a personal level providing no larger benefit.
I don't know, I think the value of life does have some objectivity to it. I mean, there are examples of people who are sentenced to death that contribute positive effects on society at some level. The flaws that lead to the negative effects of incarceration are things that can be dealt with without a need for death. There's a chance for postive gain in valuing life, while in considering death only there is no gain to be had.
Almost all of the positives argued for the death penalty are based on fantasy and theorycraft. There's the families feeling better stuff, but that's on a personal level providing no larger benefit.
Right, and this is the other facet of my meaning when I say anti-death penalty posters are being objective. All of the arguments stemming from them are based in real-world situations. By contrast, every person starting a pro-death penalty argument has to start with, "But what if..." or forming some weird-ass morality system with a framework specifically built around how the death penalty would just be really swell.
By evaluate, I mean 'assign a value to' (that might not be the textbook definition of the word).
It doesn't really matter.
If you assign a low value to cold, hard facts but a high value to a made-up morality system where the death penalty is a good idea in this sterile, non-real-world environment, you are not really being objective.
By evaluate, I mean 'assign a value to' (that might not be the textbook definition of the word).
It doesn't really matter.
If you assign a low value to cold, hard facts but a high value to a made-up morality system where the death penalty is a good idea in this sterile, non-real-world environment, you are not really being objective.
You can't hold an objective opinion about the death penalty though? It's a contradiction in terms. There are plenty of objective arguments to be made surrounding an opinion, but the opinion itself (for or against) will always be predicated on a subjective value system.
What about the roots of that value system though? For me, in the value of life it's as I explained before. There is an objective aspect intrinsically linked to that value, that being the evident chance that positive outcomes for society will occur. When constructing the value concerning life, there's an objective reason to base it on, i.e. it's doesn't lay purely in emotional roots.
Posts
Mandela is a perfect example of why using the death penalty as a political statement is a REALLY BAD IDEA. Because sometimes people get locked the fuck up for things they really shouldn't be locked up for. And suddenly you wind up with a lot of dead people whose only horrific crime was disagreeing with the government.
But there's rarely any reason to think a prisoner will drag a society to anything: they're in prison. Now, you can argue their followers will be pissed, but the basic logic is the followers would be just as or more pissed if you killed their leader.
Basically, it doesn't solve shit, and as a political statement the only think you're saying is "we're barbaric, don't fuck with us", which doesn't seem to keep anyone from fucking with you in the modern age.
Your inability to grasp my points doesn't point to their absence anymore than your inability to see bacteria means the germ theory of disease is wrong.
I'm a little late to the discussion. Could you reiterate what's up please?
Fortunately this doesn't actually happen outside of comic books.
Already posted an example. Suharto, who deserved to be executed, continued to live in unethical excess with stolen money and his family engaged in political corruption of which he was almost certainly at least tangentially related.
He didn't lead to anything world shatteringly bad, but as I see it, when you've already killed up to half a million people, your life isn't really worth a lot to balance against future bad acts.
And this happened in a 1st world country?
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
What, by 1945? No, Hitler's influence wasn't substantial in Germany at that point in time. He himself was tucked away in his bunker, his generals were countermanding his insane orders in the field and even members of his inner circle were betraying the cause. The only absolute loyalists to Adolf Hitler by the time he took his own life were Eva Braun & Joseph Goebbels.
No, he did not. The Allies didn't endure any sort of guerrilla campaign after Germany was defeated (in large part because such much of the German population had been depleted & displaced). His generals & friends knew the war was lost and were eager to sign a peace treaty, even if they were sympathetic to their Fuhrer.
He did. He had, before the 1st World War, been an okay painter and an advocate for largely progressive politics. He believed in animal rights (ironically) and was a vegetarian right up until his suicide.
He hadn't gone crazy until inhaling mustard gas at the end of WWI and was more than likely terminally syphilitic by the end of WWII. It was while he was working for the German Worker's Party with a damaged brain that he became inculcated into a realpolitik mentality that saw German power and a unified Europe under an Aryan utopia as the only solution to the problems of the world (which he blamed on communists, Jews & gypsies - like any people in Europe at the time).
The idea of Hitler as a moustache-twirling sociopath like Joseph Stalin is ignorant (and even 'Uncle Joe' had his share of redeeming qualities), even if contemporary hatred of him & his regime is more than justified. his life was a tragic one, and even if I can't feel sympathy for him in the full knowledge of the cruelties his ambitions gobbed over Europe, I wouldn't have wanted him executed.
I would note that many (most? Anyone know actual figures?) Holocaust survivors demanded jail time, not the noose, for the Nazis who's tormented them. Part of the reason that Speer wasn't sent to the gallows was because survivors of Auswitz lobbied on his behalf (there having already been more than enough bloodshed without adding the body of a lonely & misguided architect to the pile of corpses).
...What are you talking about? If Hitler hadn't committed suicide, he & his staff would've been captured by the Soviets when they raided his bunker. The order to surrender, in all likelyhood, would still have been handed off to Donitz (...there's also at least the off-chance that Hitler would've given the order to surrender himself in order to barter for easy treatment of Eva).
Hitler would've died shortly after the war of syphilis, in all likelihood. Does it make you feel better, out of curiosity, knowing that Adolf final days were full of not only the misery wrought by his own psychological maladies & racism, but the excruciating pain of being torn apart by parasites?
I'd have preferred Hitler to have lived until 100 with the memory of his tremendous failings burning at the back of his brain and, just perhaps, a sense of awe that the rest of the world was not as vindictive or prejudiced as he was.
Donitz & Speer lived out rather unremarkable lives after their incarceration & subsequent releases. Nobody lost anything for it, and nobody would've gained anything for their executions.
How is this relevant?
He was under house arrest for a while IIRC. But considering his holdings make "palatial" and "rich beyond measure" both seem like understatements, well, it meant jack shit.
Wait, what good would his death have done?
In a country with incredible amounts of corruption, which as shitty as the US is generally is not found in the 1st world countries, people can retain significant power behind prison bars, and some jackass warlord being broken out of prison by his followers could reasonably happen, making eliminating them at least somewhat defensible.
This is not going to happen in fucking California.
Mexico maybe.
--
I would also like to know how someone with "palatial" surroundings could be considered to be in prison. You may as well say that Dubya is in prison.
Okay, so you've made a great case for him being imprisoned, for life.
Now argue for his execution.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Not that it justifies executing them, though.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No! Clearly killing him is a decapitation strike and will certainly end his vi-
And you know, Operation Werewolf, which was not stopped by Hilter dieing either.
So
Still would have done nothing to stop, slow, or affect anything other that awarding the executor petty revenge.
Many of the posters on this forum, for example, might feel the twinge to hold Hitler up as an example of somebody who deserved to die for no reason other than revenge killing. They suppress that urge. I strongly encourage everybody to do the same.
The only arguments I have seen from the pro-death penalty crowd here are straw men, ad hominem (although to be fair there have been some of these from the anti-death penalty crowd as well) attacks and appeals to emotion. Nobody has conclusively provided proof that the best thing for society is more death. Objectively, there has been no argument that the death penalty is a better solution than other corrective measures. Subjectively, the only thing to talk about is the value of revenge vs. the value of not being an animal who abides only by his/her base impulses. Since talking about subjective, emotional beliefs will only end up with, "I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS", I'd rather see if anybody has an objective argument in favor of the death penalty that doesn't involve dictators from bygone eras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Scilingo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Karadzic
All tried, convicted, and serving their sentences for genocide or will be after a fair trial. What do I know. The ICC is just some stupid court. Obviously, they would go about executing people if they were a real court that dealt with war crimes.
For instance, it's just natural to want bad people to be dead! If somebody killed a family member of yours, you'd want them dead, wouldn't you?! Because they're bad!
I agree that there haven't been any objective arguments in favor of the death penalty, however you seem to give the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. As much as the desire for retribution is subjective, so is the desire to preserve life.
I haven't given the anti-death penalty crowd a free pass. They have provided many useful and good arguments against the death penalty, even ignoring the utilitarians.
Also, that's why I said we're just going to be talking past each other if we talk about the subjective aspects of the death penalty.
Which is boring on both ends of the issue.
There aren't any purely objective arguments in favor or against the death penalty though. There are objective realities: that it costs more to administer under our system, that humans are faulty and thus so is our justice system is faulty, there is a lack of statistical evidence that it acts as a deterrent to violent crime (obviously an incomplete list). If you value these realities highly, then it is likely that you won't support the death penalty.
Those aren't the only objective realities in play though. One is that some murderers will lose their life in response to their crime. If you value this more highly, then you have a reason to support the death penalty.
There hasn't been a lot of disagreement over the objective realities of the death penalty in this thread. It has gotten to this many pages mostly because people have different sets of values, and they want to voice them (both sides).
Edit: I think we're pretty much in complete agreement. This thread will continue like this is people keep voicing their subjective reasons that they support or oppose the death penalty. However, it doesn't seem like there is any reason to discuss the objective realities, because there isn't any real disagreement.
.. You're saying the numbers provided for the first example (costs, inability to administer fairly, inability to administer accurately, similar crime rates given both options) are not objective (they're pretty objective..)
And are thus exactly the same, logically, as "murderers should die!"
One of those is a personal morality statement. The other is a mess of data. One of these is subjective, the other is objective. While we've wandered off into the morality tangent quite a bit, the initial argument was pretty much solid data: costs, effects on crime rates, and post mortem evidence proving innocence. It wound up down the morality trail because, essentially, the only argument pro death penalty that can't be pretty quickly debunked by data is, well, a subjective moral argument.
I agree this thread will go nowhere from here, but let's not pull a fair and balanced media thing and go "well this one side provided a shitload of research, and the other side said nuh uh, so I guess there's a lot of data on both sides of this discussion!"
In fact I said the complete opposite. I said very clearly that those are objective realities, and the research points to the truth of those objective realities. These facts have not been in serious contention in this thread. There isn't an objectively right answer to this question though because everyone will evaluate those realities differently (subjectively).
If you chase a reason far enough on either side of the debate, the answer is 'Because.' If you value human life highly, then the reality of the our faulty system will give you pause. If you value 'fairness' even more, then you might be willing to accept the failures of the system.
I don't believe you can subjectively evaluate an objective reality.
When people read that the cost of the death penalty is higher, and it absolutely must be in order to prevent the execution of innocents, there are two groups:
1) These costs are unacceptable. Life imprisonment achieves the same societal result without the same high cost!
2) WE SHOULD KILL PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY TO REDUCE COSTS
Group 2 is, um, looking at the objective reality wrong, to say it politely.
So while I get what you are saying, what it boils down to is:
"Some people look at the facts and then make a decision, while others don't care for facts and feel that an arbitrary, morally subjective standard is more important!"
I think we both know which of these two groups consists of silly geese.
Almost all of the positives argued for the death penalty are based on fantasy and theorycraft. There's the families feeling better stuff, but that's on a personal level providing no larger benefit.
Right, and this is the other facet of my meaning when I say anti-death penalty posters are being objective. All of the arguments stemming from them are based in real-world situations. By contrast, every person starting a pro-death penalty argument has to start with, "But what if..." or forming some weird-ass morality system with a framework specifically built around how the death penalty would just be really swell.
It doesn't really matter.
If you assign a low value to cold, hard facts but a high value to a made-up morality system where the death penalty is a good idea in this sterile, non-real-world environment, you are not really being objective.
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/embracingbobskiller.html
You can't hold an objective opinion about the death penalty though? It's a contradiction in terms. There are plenty of objective arguments to be made surrounding an opinion, but the opinion itself (for or against) will always be predicated on a subjective value system.