Conquer Club

A fair bit of recent debate about the death penalty over the Pope's recent remarks. Is it a deterrent? And is it morally right to kill someone based on what other people might do if they weren't executed?

Sorry, slight bump, poll added.

I don't see how it is. I would fear life in prison more than dying.

It's not a deterrent, nevertheless I'm pro death penalty.

waauw wrote:It's not a deterrent, nevertheless I'm pro death penalty.

Why, may I ask? If it's not a deterrent, do you feel it's a revenge? Or something else?

Army of GOD wrote:I don't see how it is. I would fear life in prison more than dying.

It's essentially the same thing though, for the prisoner, isn't it?

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:It's not a deterrent, nevertheless I'm pro death penalty.

Why, may I ask? If it's not a deterrent, do you feel it's a revenge? Or something else?

I feel like extreme cases like mass-murders(non-military) and serial murderers have no place in society. They can't be reintegrated. It's better just finishing them off and be done with it.

Symmetry wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I don't see how it is. I would fear life in prison more than dying.

It's essentially the same thing though, for the prisoner, isn't it?

Depends. If it's solitary confinement I'd argue it's worse as AoG mentions.

Can you please be slightly more precise about how you define deterrence?

waauw wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:It's not a deterrent, nevertheless I'm pro death penalty.

Why, may I ask? If it's not a deterrent, do you feel it's a revenge? Or something else?

I feel like extreme cases like mass-murders(non-military) and serial murderers have no place in society. They can't be reintegrated. It's better just finishing them off and be done with it.

But that doesn't justify death, as opposed to a life sentence though, does it?

waauw wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I don't see how it is. I would fear life in prison more than dying.

It's essentially the same thing though, for the prisoner, isn't it?

Depends. If it's solitary confinement I'd argue it's worse as AoG mentions.

Well, I've been a long term opponent of long term solitary confinement, and I don't see it as an either\or.

Metsfanmax wrote:Can you please be slightly more precise about how you define deterrence?

What do you find unclear?

A deterrent? Not likely. If there's anyone who considers not doing a crime only because they might get the death penalty, they're probably a psycho anyway. I'm not sure that represents as large enough portion of the population to warrant institution of the death penalty. But really I'm only opposed to the death penalty because I don't believe the government should have the authority to kill its citizenry.

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:It's not a deterrent, nevertheless I'm pro death penalty.

Why, may I ask? If it's not a deterrent, do you feel it's a revenge? Or something else?

I feel like extreme cases like mass-murders(non-military) and serial murderers have no place in society. They can't be reintegrated. It's better just finishing them off and be done with it.

But that doesn't justify death, as opposed to a life sentence though, does it?

What's your take on, say, property damage liability? For example, through your own negligence while driving you rear-end a car.

-TG

Symmetry wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Can you please be slightly more precise about how you define deterrence?

What do you find unclear?

Suppose I think that the existence of the death penalty prevents 1% of murders each year. Should I consider it a deterrent?

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:A deterrent? Not likely. If there's anyone who considers not doing a crime only because they might get the death penalty, they're probably a psycho anyway. I'm not sure that represents as large enough portion of the population to warrant institution of the death penalty. But really I'm only opposed to the death penalty because I don't believe the government should have the authority to kill its citizenry.

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:It's not a deterrent, nevertheless I'm pro death penalty.

Why, may I ask? If it's not a deterrent, do you feel it's a revenge? Or something else?

I feel like extreme cases like mass-murders(non-military) and serial murderers have no place in society. They can't be reintegrated. It's better just finishing them off and be done with it.

But that doesn't justify death, as opposed to a life sentence though, does it?

What's your take on, say, property damage liability? For example, through your own negligence while driving you rear-end a car.

-TG

I'm against the death penalty in such cases. But then again, I'm against the death penalty in general.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Can you please be slightly more precise about how you define deterrence?

What do you find unclear?

Suppose I think that the existence of the death penalty prevents 1% of murders each year. Should I consider it a deterrent?

I would ask you to present your case, and be willing to discuss it, if that is your position.

Relating to the OP I would ask if you think it right to use such an extreme form of punishment based not on the crime, but on potential future crimes by a tiny minority of other people.

I find the question troubling.

Symmetry wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Can you please be slightly more precise about how you define deterrence?

What do you find unclear?

Suppose I think that the existence of the death penalty prevents 1% of murders each year. Should I consider it a deterrent?

I would ask you to present your case, and be willing to discuss it, if that is your position.

OK, so are you not going to answer the question? That would be strange given that you specifically asked people whether they think the death penalty is a deterrent. We can certainly also discuss the related question of whether this level of deterrence morally justifies the death penalty, which is an interesting one, but my query was about the first question you asked, not the second one.

Relating to the OP I would ask if you think it right to use such an extreme form of punishment based not on the crime, but on potential future crimes by a tiny minority of other people.

I don't know. How can we evaluate that? What if removing the death penalty resulted in a 10% increase in crimes? 25%? 100%? If you cannot even begin to address the discussion of when a deterrent effect is important enough to morally justify such an extreme form of punishment, then you are not really asking the question, you are just providing rhetorical flourish.

Symmetry wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:A deterrent? Not likely. If there's anyone who considers not doing a crime only because they might get the death penalty, they're probably a psycho anyway. I'm not sure that represents as large enough portion of the population to warrant institution of the death penalty. But really I'm only opposed to the death penalty because I don't believe the government should have the authority to kill its citizenry.

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:It's not a deterrent, nevertheless I'm pro death penalty.

Why, may I ask? If it's not a deterrent, do you feel it's a revenge? Or something else?

I feel like extreme cases like mass-murders(non-military) and serial murderers have no place in society. They can't be reintegrated. It's better just finishing them off and be done with it.

But that doesn't justify death, as opposed to a life sentence though, does it?

What's your take on, say, property damage liability? For example, through your own negligence while driving you rear-end a car.

-TG

I'm against the death penalty in such cases. But then again, I'm against the death penalty in general.

Sorry, I should've clarified. No death results from the crash, it's merely a crash that results in damage to the other driver's car. Are you liable for %100 of damages incurred?

-TG

I answered your question mate. You asked me what I'd respond to a supposition, and I told you how I'd respond. Is that your actual position?

I'm not sure you've really understood this thread. It's a point to be discussed and debated.

There's an "I don't know" option in the poll for you, if that helps.

Symmetry wrote:I answered your question mate. You asked me what I'd respond to a supposition

Specifically I asked you "should I consider it a deterrent" if it prevents 1% of murders. You did not answer this question. Therefore I have no idea what you think it means for the death penalty to be a deterrent, and so it does not make any sense to get into the actual establishment of such a proposition.

In other words, it is you who has not understood the thread, because you haven't actually defined what it is we are to debate about.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Sorry, I should've clarified. No death results from the crash, it's merely a crash that results in damage to the other driver's car. Are you liable for %100 of damages incurred?

-TG

I don't really see how it relates to the thread, and I'm not a driver, so I'm going to use the "I don't know" option for that one. If I had to hazard a guess, I think in the UK, it's an insurance matter, and the driver behind is usually at fault for not leaving room to brake. But yeah, it's not a death penalty thing.

Who puts the percent symbol in front of the number?

Army of GOD wrote:Who puts the percent symbol in front of the number?

Fucking Tails does, that's who.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I answered your question mate. You asked me what I'd respond to a supposition

Specifically I asked you "should I consider it a deterrent" if it prevents 1% of murders. You did not answer this question. Therefore I have no idea what you think it means for the death penalty to be a deterrent, and so it does not make any sense to get into the actual establishment of such a proposition.

In other words, it is you who has not understood the thread, because you haven't actually defined what it is we are to debate about.

Specifically, you've edited out the context to suit your argument. You asked me to suppose something, I replied, and explained my reply. Which you have also edited to suit you.

As I've explained, this is a point to be discussed. I'm sorry if it's not the point you want to discuss. Debates and discussions often work out that way, and, as above, you have your "I don't know" option.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Who puts the percent symbol in front of the number?

Fucking Tails does, that's who.

You're goddamn right I do. Nah, I'm just a moron and made a typo. Suck it, AoG.

Symmetry wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Sorry, I should've clarified. No death results from the crash, it's merely a crash that results in damage to the other driver's car. Are you liable for %100 of damages incurred?

-TG

I don't really see how it relates to the thread, and I'm not a driver, so I'm going to use the "I don't know" option for that one. If I had to hazard a guess, I think in the UK, it's an insurance matter, and the driver behind is usually at fault for not leaving room to brake. But yeah, it's not a death penalty thing.

And insurance is simply a means to make sure you have the resources to compensate fully any damages you might be responsible for.

The point being, in cases of mere property damage we expect full recompense by the at-fault party, yet you seem to indicate here you're opposed to both the death penalty or solitary confinement, even in cases like mass murderers. Where does the mass murderer pay back against the victim or their family, and how can this be paid in full? And don't say punishment shouldn't be about revenge or recompense, because it clearly is, or we wouldn't have things like insurance.

So, really I don't have a problem with a "life-for-a-life" punishment, as that's one way to demand recompense, I just don't think the courts or the government should have the ability to kill.

-TG