If Egypt actually carries out all the death sentences it has recently handed down for Muslim Brotherhood members they're going to rocket to the top of this list in 2014. I think they've had something like 1300 death sentences in the past few months?
China: a lot
Equatorial Guinea: 9
North Korea: probably a lot
Saudi Arabia: 90+
There have been a very large number of death sentences given in Nigeria and Egypt, over 2000, but so far they were not carried out in 2014.
And if 1,300+ get executed some JetPunkers will be upset because then they'll have to take a quiz again to get their 5 JetPunk points back.
@FractalDoom, Sadly, it's true
Imprisoning people for life on false charges is not superior to executing them on false charges. Particularly if we're going to assume that it's so nice in jail that those *not* sentenced to execution get a significantly worse crack at the justice system than those who are. THIS is (the meat of) the argument I'm making. NOT that doing bad things means you deserve to be punished. NOT that the death penalty saves money (though the fact that it doesn't points to one of the problems with the justice system I highlighted above). and NOT that it's effective as a deterrent. I know that what I'm saying is not mainstream and a bit hard to follow but I know you, Wombat, are smart enough to do so. So please read me carefully if you want to respond to something I said.
But generally speaking, i think more measures should be taken to punish individuals in some form in such a way that physically prevents them from repeating their crime, rather than just locking them away. Chemical castration from paedophiles and repeat offending rapists doesn't sound that extreme to me.
... Maybe across the board, there should be less capital punishment and more euthanasia? Or at least, if you're gonna go around executed people, let those people who actually want to die do so?
At least you did understand my point about life in prison being a worse punishment than death. And yes, we disagree on this point.
Human beings are defined by their relationships with other people. Philosophically I think it can be said we don't even exist without them. I've argued in the past that there are two different types of morality- individual and societal, that these two moralities are often in direct opposition to each other and that both have a right to defend themselves. There's a huge difference between society and states defined by nationalism, even if most of us currently live in societies dominated by the former.
In my July 9th comment from 5 years ago, I asked four rhetorical questions. I assume you are honing in on the 3rd and saying that my argument revolves around just that one question, when I personally feel it's the least important of the four. But yes I guess it's implying that perhaps we should invest less effort and attention in to prolonging or improving the lives of murderers and terrorists etc than we should invest in making society safe and pleasant for everyone else, but, like I said, this is way waaaay down my list of reasons. My other stronger (so far unrefuted) reasons are much better. And I wasn't even really making an argument I was asking a question.
In the meantime, yes, please, shine a bright spotlight on all the inadequacies of the justice system. Those need to be addressed. But an imperfect justice system is not a good argument against the death penalty for the reasons above.
In imperfect justice system is NOT a good argument against the death penalty. YES. That is worth repeating. It may seem counter intuitive. But that's because your intuition is terrible.
I'll try to sum up my many long arguments here. Please try to keep up. If the justice system is bad, this is a good argument for improving the justice system. A person falsely convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment is not a good outcome. Life imprisonment is not better than execution. Taking away the sentence of execution does nothing to fix what's wrong with the justice system, if there is indeed a problem. And in the USA, people sentenced to death actually get BETTER access to justice than anyone else.
But... yeah... that's more terrible a crime than straight up cold blooded murder.
So... basically what you are saying is that everyone who is convicted of a crime... lock 'em up and throw away the key!! Because it saves money. Yeah, that's very civilized of you.
On the contrary I believe that free will is an illusion and that a punitive criminal justice system does not make any sense. I believe any criminal justice system should be a system that attempts to correct bad behavior, not punish it. But some criminals are irredeemable. Their continued existence will only cause pain to themselves and to others. Since I do not fetishize the prolongation of life, humanely ending these criminals' lives to permanently remove them from the world that their existing in would only cause further suffering is, I believe, the only civilized and humane thing to do.
Fear of pain, public speaking, imprisonment, etc is all far more rational. These things can and do cause mental anguish in people and that is very unpleasant. Being dead is not unpleasant at all. We fear it, yes, and this fear is probably in our DNA, but that does not make it rational. Any more than cats jumping in panic when they turn around and see a cucumber on the floor behind them is rational. It might be instinctual, natural, normal, common, or understandable - but that doesn't make it rational.
If that's true then the problem is with your imagination. You are projecting your own sentiments on me. A cancerous tumor doesn't have a right to grow inside of my body. If it's causing harm to me, I'll get someone to cut it out. I'm not seeking revenge against the tumor. I'm identifying a problem and dealing with it.
It's extraordinarily relevant. If free will is NOT an illusion, then retributive justice can actually make sense. If people are capable of making choices other than the choices that they make, then it could be argued that they deserve punishment for making bad choices. But if you recognize that people only seem to make choices, and in reality they act the only way that it is possible for them to act, then you can understand that retributive justice makes no sense. In the same way that if a rabid dog is attacking people, you're not angry at the dog, but you may decide to have the dog put down. In the same way that if you are attacked by a bear, you might take precautions against a future attack but you're not angry at the bear. It's just being a bear.
I don't see how executions in the USA are inhumane and the arguments I've read for why they are not are pretty stupid and desperate.
I agree that many of those people voting for the death penalty believe in retributive justice. It's my opinion that they are ignorant. So what? Many people voting for sending aid to starving orphans do so because they believe that an invisible man in the sky wants them to do kind things for other people. Is that a good reason to not help starving orphans?
I understand why evolution selects for a fear of death.
I can see why death is considered bad, as it affects the still-living.
I can see why societies would outlaw murder, even against people that nobody is going to miss.
And yes if you are alive and conscious it's likely that you would prefer to stay that way, it's in your genetic programming to prefer this. But that doesn't mean you would feel the same way once you are dead.
Humans have evolved to want to remain alive, therefore they want to argue that life is good somehow. Acknowledging this non-sequitur is actually much closer to the center of my argument than any desire to punish wrong-doers.
Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1846.
Rhode Island in 1852.
Wisconsin in 1853.
Maine in 1887.
The United States Supreme Court effectively banned it altogether in 1972. Though it was reinstated in some places in 1976.
Belarus still allows the death penalty.
Latvia abolished it in 2012.
The Netherlands (in all its territories) in 2010.
Russia in 2009.
Albania in 2007.
the UK in 2006 (Jersey), or 1998.
If only there were an Olympic medal for fastest mounting of a high horse...
Last execution in the UK: 1964
Last execution in the Netherlands: 1952 (military execution for war crimes)/1948(civilian execution for war crimes)/1860 (peacetime)
Last execution in Belgium: 1950 (war crimes)/1863 (peacetime)
Last execution in Latvia: 1996
Last execution in Albania: 1995
Last execution in Russia: 1996
In fact with the exception of Belarus, the last execution in Europe was in Ukraine in 1997. And when talking about Belgium and the Netherlands, it was abolished in the 19th century and only brought back for war crimes committed in WWII.
So yes, it's in recent memory that some of these countries abolished the death penalty, but practically most Western European countries abolished it in the mid twentieth century and former Communist countries in the 1990s.
But seriously, only 25 people were executed in the United States in 2018. It probably cost the government over $1 million per execution. Even if you are pro death penalty, you have to wonder why we bother. It's just political posturing. The death penalty is effectively null in the United States right now.
I think it's money well-spent. There are plenty other ridiculous things I'd vote to cut over executing people who tear down a society.
Some people only speak one language. Society must be willing to talk to them in a way they understand.
We can assume criminals knew what was they risked when they commited their crime, you don't get the death penalty for singing too loud at church...
Copyright H Brothers Inc, 2008–2023
| Go To Top
| View Desktop Site