What's your opinion on capital punishment?

Leon Mcnichol wrote:It's not about my subjective standard of morality.

Sure it is. This argument is largely contingent upon one's ethical stance.

It's about the old "do as i say, not as i do" biased course of action.

I do not follow. What you are arguing is some material "compensation" (thus far, described as forced labor) for flagrant crimes as opposed to a death sentence.

Well, unless we have a whole island to deport criminals, we have no alternative to that.

We do not require an island. Prisons should suffice, especially with the dismantling of the prison-industrial complex and superior social relations in society.

Death is a compensation? What will society gain with the death of this individual?

I would say that society gains primarily in three ways: it deters potential future crimes, it removes an anti-social threat, and it upholds healthy social relations by demonstrating that crimes worthy of death shall be avenged in kind.

Surely the victim and anyone sympathetic may want him/her to die, but the authority cannot be some sort of vigilante who just acts without an once of rationality of pragmatism. And about my "sense of justice", forced labour for your community doesn't give the state a ruthless irrational power do dish out "justice" with no meaningful reason but to appease the victims or those who demand vengeance. It actually provides a path to some sort of punishment/justice that involves giving back something, as opposed to be an act of pure retribution.

We are not discussing a totalitarian regime which arbitrarily expunges citizens. The topic is capital punishment, and my particular stance pertains to its use as both a deterrent and just retribution for capital crimes within the context of a due legal process.

Besides, i could make the same argument that it's your "sense of justice" that thinks one penalty is merely "worse" then the other.

You have been doing so. Your entire argument rests upon the proposition that capital punishment equates to "murder" on the part of society and that mere penal labor is a superior alternative. I disagree.

Well, since i was quoted directly, i shall make reply, and finish my side argument with Rev Scare too.

Rev Scare wrote:I would say that society gains primarily in three ways: it deters potential future crimes,

It does? Well that is arguable.

it removes an anti-social threat

That can be done without death.

, and it upholds healthy social relations by demonstrating that crimes worthy of death shall be avenged in kind.

Healthy social relations are uphold by demonstrating that our society has the "eye for an eye" mentality and cares more about vengeance than about any other more rational outcomes to problems? The justice system is not supposed to be some cartoon vigilante character, but rather, the care taker of those who harmed society in some way.

You have been doing so. Your entire argument rests upon the proposition that capital punishment equates to "murder" on the part of society

And it doesn't? Murder i murder, i am not a proponent of "corrective" or "state sponsored" murder.

that mere penal labor is a superior alternative. I disagree.

Well, so i guess we can conclude our debate as well.

If we want to show that killing is wrong,we kill someone?It seems that logic is thrown out the window in favour of vengeance.

My opinion of prison reforms,is that it should be based on a level system;the harsher your crime,the less of those reforms you receive.So a rapist won't be able to go out of their cell,without the hope of contact from anyone except from psychologists,fed only bread,and water,so it's pretty much like their in a dungeon,while a narcotics offender will be able to exercise,have a radio in their cell,receive the nutrition they need,get a newspaper,et cetera.If we had it like that,it would be a passive-aggressive alternative to the death penalty

On the larger issue of a penal system (I remain unsure about the death penalty), I think a balance should be found between punishment/compensation and rehabilitation. The example of the Scandinavian justice system shows that rehabilitation can be immensely effective in decreasing crime rates, but I think, in addition, some kind of punishment for the crime or forced labour to compensate the victims is also important.

Anarcho-Edge wrote:If we want to show that killing is wrong, we kill someone? It seems that logic is thrown out the window in favour of vengeance.

I think the point of Celtiberian and others was that the death penalty, if used, should only be used for people who cannot and will not change, i.e., serial killers & rapists. It's not about showing that killing is wrong; people can figure that out regardless of what the jail system tells them. It's about putting down a rabid dog. I say this to clarify, not necessarily to express support.

I understood that point but I disagreed with it. I don't think that anyone is in the position to determine that a situation is so hopeless, but I have already made such views clear.

That's exactly the reason why I currently don't favour capital punishment.

Red Aegis wrote:I don't think that anyone is in the position to determine that a situation is so hopeless

If there isn't a shred of data to suggest that serial killers, child molesters, or serial rapists can be rehabilitated, why should society invest its resources into such endeavors? Moreover, as I previously stated, even if they technically could be rehabilitated that doesn't indicate that they should be. When someone has destroyed the life of an innocent person (not the mention the lives of those who cared for the victim), mercy simply should not be given to the assailant.

This is a hopeless debate because there isn't an objective way to vindicate one side or the other. I would contend, however, that communities be allowed to democratically determine their own penal code.

That last sentiment is why I started the thread on human rights.

I've followed the discussion and I agree with some comrades about the possibility of reintroducing capital punishment under a socialist system. Obviously today I can't accept the bourgeoise justice, so I can't support death penalty under the bourgeoise state. I mean: the state is one of the most cruel criminals and it's justice is clearly classist. But if one day the bourgeoise state will be destroyed (and replaced by a minimum socialist state) , people could decide if death penalty will be or not a good instrument to fight shameful criminals like pedophiles, serial killers or the most dangerous capitalists. But I repeat: the bourgeoise and burocratic legal system must be abolished and replaced with democratic and popular courts. I don't give a damn about sacredness of human life. When a person commits crimes that are inhuman...I can no longer consider him like a human being.

I thought that rights were not able to be given up.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:I'm against capital punishment, mainly because i don't see it as an harsh enough penalty. A life of forced quasi-slave labour for society is a much harsher penalty in my book, and is more pragmatic as well.

I am a bit more radical however. Murderers, career criminals, drug dealers and the like would be punished with a (shorter)life of break-breaking labor under poor conditions. I would also favor using some of the really bad convicts such as child molesters and rapists in human experiments and to test weapons. Offenders that have committed crimes that are not that serious eg possession of narcotics, petty theft ect would be punished but not seriously. They would go to save prisons without hardened convicts to do manual labor in conditions which are humane.

Anarcho-Edge wrote:My opinion of prison reforms,is that it should be based on a level system;the harsher your crime,the less of those reforms you receive.

Agreed. Petty criminals need to be reformed more so then punished.

If there are laws against killing people, that's because we don't think people should have the right to decide who lives and who dies, right? If so, why does them being a murderer magically give us the right to decide they shouldn't live? And if we agree to put an end to every murderer's life, then we might as well allow people to freely walk around stabbing killers in the streets without restriction. Then we have basically half the town with blood on their hands in the name of "justice". To me it just seems like one of those things you do as a kid to feel good because you got your own back. Doesn't do either side any real good. The fact that you are killing a killer doesn't make you any less of a killer yourself.

DSN wrote:If there are laws against killing people, that's because we don't think people should have the right to decide who lives and who dies, right? If so, why does them being a murderer magically give us the right to decide they shouldn't live? And if we agree to put an end to every murderer's life, then we might as well allow people to freely walk around stabbing killers in the streets without restriction. Then we have basically half the town with blood on their hands in the name of "justice". To me it just seems like one of those things you do as a kid to feel good because you got your own back. Doesn't do either side any real good. The fact that you are killing a killer doesn't make you any less of a killer yourself.

I do not believe that anybody here has advocated on behalf executing every murderer. The vast majority of murders would not be punished with death. Capital punishment applies only to capital crimes, which do not include any act of murder. The reason that citizens would be prohibited from carrying out the death sentence externally of the court system is transparent and applies to every crime: due legal process is necessary to try and convict alleged perpetrators because adherence to the rule of law must not be partial and arbitrary.

Rev Scare wrote:I do not believe that anybody here has advocated on behalf executing every murderer. The vast majority of murders would not be punished with death. Capital punishment applies only to capital crimes, which do not include any act of murder. The reason that citizens would be prohibited from carrying out the death sentence externally of the court system is transparent and applies to every crime: due legal process is necessary to try and convict alleged perpetrators because adherence to the rule of law must not be partial and arbitrary.

That is how I understand it, but my point was more that treating death with death isn't a solution. What would we count as capital crimes then?

DSN wrote:That is how I understand it, but my point was more that treating death with death isn't a solution.

One's stance on this issue is ultimately dependent upon one's moral views. As mentioned already, there is little point in continuing this debate. I have already provided my reasoning.

What would we count as capital crimes then?

It has already been touched upon in this thread, but the exact crimes that would fall under the category would obviously vary from one jurisdiction to the other. Crimes such as serial or mass murder, aggravated murder, and serial rape are natural contenders.

In either case, democratic decision making should determine the standing of capital punishment. If a particular locality were to democratically decide to forgo the death sentence, that would be perfectly acceptable.

i think the idea of capital punishment is a very complex issue and is not a black and white act

i think the minimum we all agree on life should mean life

personally i think the death penalty can be introduced for certain acts.....

My main problem with capital punishment is the chance that someone innocent will be executed. In my opinion, the chance that even one innocent person is killed in a millenium of just punishments is enough to not use capital punishment. On the other hand, if someone can be proved without a shred of doubt (which is of course highly unlikely) guilty, I have no problem with capital punishment for serious crimes.

Godfaesten wrote:My main problem with capital punishment is the chance that someone innocent will be executed. In my opinion, the chance that even one innocent person is killed in a millenium of just punishments is enough to not use capital punishment.

That remains the most compelling argument against capital punishment, in my opinion. Nevertheless, if a very high burden of proof can be met, I see no reason to prohibit the act.

Celtiberian wrote:That remains the most compelling argument against capital punishment, in my opinion. Nevertheless, if a very high burden of proof can be met, I see no reason to prohibit the act.

Yeah, I'll agree with that.

I firmly believe we should close down most of the costly prisons and open up a gulags. I am aware ill be called salinist, or even a hitlerite due to my political views. But I stand firmly by my beliefs.

WodzuUK wrote:I firmly believe we should close down most of the costly prisons and open up a gulags. I am aware ill be called salinist, or even a hitlerite due to my political views. But I stand firmly by my beliefs.

Why do you think that would be a reasonable policy? And do you really believe the legal system is so immune to human error that you would be willing to risk the possibility of being wrongly convicted of a crime and sent to such a gulag yourself?

In some instances the most evil and cruelest of people are beyond redemption, and where there is complete an utter proof I believe there should be an otion of the death penalty for such people. I also agree with hard labour as a punishment......though the present Tory led government here in England would probably see that as free labour and a way to make others redundant.

Ultimately our prisons should serve to deny those convicted of their liberty and aim to rehabilitate them as honest human beings.

I think to satisfy both parties on the death penalty debate, convicted criminals can be sent to camps where they will be issued the means to complete any work the community deems appropriate for them to be assigned to. Anyone who refuses to work can spend time in the harshest environment.

I believe in punishing all capitalists capitally. I do not believe in prisons or gulags. Common criminals should be put to sleep, deported, or exiled. Why should workers have to pay $50,000 per year, per inmate, to keep incorrigible types locked up?

You do know what "common" criminals are right? They are theives, burglars, fences, muggers, drug dealers, ect. You support executing them? That seems like an untempered gut-reaction.