Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

virmilitaris

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps I'm wrong. So if you don't take a utilitarian view of morality (and surely execution is a matter of morality) then what do you base it on?

What do I base my morality on ? Well as Hitchens et al offtimes start their answers to this question, with the golden rule. I wouldn't want the death penalty forced on me, especially if I were of questionable mental health and there was a chance of rehabilitation.

I also firmly believe that this life, our short time in this world, is all we have and I believe that there is almost nothing more important than the time we have.

Why not execute this man if it could be shown that the tangible benefits to society (probably most easily accountable in monetary terms) outweigh any vague hope that this man might contribute to society?

Golden rule ftw.

JimiTime

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I still wouldn't agree with it, myself. If you argue along similar lines:

I'm sure the net advantages to society would be, to a greater or lesser extent, promoted if we implemented eugenics. Perhaps the same would be true if we euthanised or sterilized those with physical and psychological deficiencies. At a stretch the same may be true if we were to forbid the "mating" of those of significantly low intelligence.

All could be argued to be valid using similar logic to what you've suggested. But I doubt that anybody would suggest the above to be valid in practicality, I'd argue that the death penalty should be thought of in the same way.

What about ideologically?

virmilitaris

JimiTime wrote: »

Isn't that the point that FC was making though? The greater good philosophy? Potentially, execution could free up resources that will prevent lives being lost (both potential criminals and the potential victims). Obviously its rhetorical, but if it could be shown to be the case, where would yee stand?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You missed the point of my question.

It seems I did.

If it could be shown that the execution could free up resources, prevent lives been lost etc I still wouldn't support it because it's still taking away the mans choice* and we've no right to do that. Only in the most very extreme of cases could I be persuaded otherwise.

*If we're talking about him been mentally unstable then I also wouldn't support it as he isn't responsible for his actions.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

What about ideologically?

It depends on what your concept of an ideal society would be, I guess. I know I wouldn't be in support of a society that introduced eugenics, forced euthansia and the death penalty.

Perhaps if you were to argue in favour of an ideal utilitarian society the above might seem like viable options. But I doubt a single, sane person would want an ideal utilitarian society if that's what it encompassed. So in that respect I wouldn't just oppose it practically, but ideologically, too.

Donatello

dvpower wrote: »

OK

There was a lot of stuff all mixed into that comment - I couldn't quite parse it. Were you suggesting that we execute abusing priests?

At least one Pope has advocated such a punishment in the past. I'm not sure I would, although some abusers are so wicked that you would wonder.

dvpower

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps I'm wrong. So if you don't take a utilitarian view of morality (and surely execution is a matter of morality) then what do you base it on? Why not execute this man if it could be shown that the tangible benefits to society (probably most easily accountable in monetary terms) outweigh any vague hope that this man might contribute to society

I don't see the tangible benefits of having the death penalty.
First, it's more expensive to execute prisoners than to house them. Even if it wasn't, we could make it cheaper. If money was going to be a deciding factor, sure couldn't we just execute the old, the sick and the long term unemployed?:eek:

But even taking money out of the equation, I wouldn't trust the state with that power.

All that aside, I think humans have a high value (I'm likely to think this because I am one). Allowing unnecessary killing erodes this value.

Donatello

dvpower wrote: »

I don't see the tangible benefits of having the death penalty.
First, it's more expensive to execute prisoners than to house them. Even if it wasn't, we could make it cheaper. If money was going to be a deciding factor, sure couldn't we just execute the old, the sick and the long term unemployed?:eek:

But even taking money out of the equation, I wouldn't trust the state with that power.

All that aside, I think humans have a high value (I'm likely to think this because I am one). Allowing unnecessary killing erodes this value.

What about the innocent unborn? This is where I find the hypocrisy most foul smelling. Spare me the claims that it's not life, it's a bunch of cells, it's a non-person, and all that balloney. It's a little human life and it is snuffed out. If life is so valuable, why murder folks just starting out?

If you can understand this for even a moment, you realise how disgusting it is for me, a Christian, to hear about the right to life of a headhunting maniac, yet the little unborn is shown no such mercy or compassion.

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

I was just replying to this when I noticed you answered it yourself in the last line.

thats for one year, methinks you know this.

Even if it was cheaper to kill them, I wouldn't be for it. I'd be prepared to pay the extra cost.

to the detriment of education and prevention

.

If things got so bad that we simply couldn't afford to keep people in prison, I'd be prepared to allow chronic overcrowding, much worse conditions, less supervision, forced labour, almost any measure before I'd even contemplate state killing of prisoners.

i wouldn't, i asked a question earlier , the answer was solitary confinement. the real answer is not solitary but cause and effect, action and reaction, coupled with the threat of forfeiture of life in extreme cases is the way to go.


the stats i provided back this up.

what stats can you provide to back you up?

or do you 'just think its wrong'?

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

What about the innocent unborn? This is where I find the hypocrisy most foul smelling. Spare me the claims that it's not life, it's a bunch of cells, it's a non-person, and all that balloney. It's a little human life and it is snuffed out. If life is so valuable, why murder folks just starting out?

If you can understand this for even a moment, you realise how disgusting it is for me, a Christian, to hear about the right to life of a headhunting maniac, yet the little unborn is shown no such mercy or compassion.

I didn't mention the unborn

thebullkf

old hippy wrote: »

Is a man possessed surely innocent then & doesn't that go at odds with your view that execution is not killing innocent people?

Do you blame all liberals for the bad things in life? Oddly, I blame religion but I realise I may be in the minority here. Ridiculous, eh?

you blame religon for all the bad things in life

Fanny Cradock

dvpower wrote: »

I don't see the tangible benefits of having the death penalty.
First, it's more expensive to execute prisoners than to house them. Even if it wasn't, we could make it cheaper. If money was going to be a deciding factor, sure couldn't we just execute the old, the sick and the long term unemployed?:eek:

Are you suggesting that it is more expensive to kill a prisoner than to house him in a high security facility for decades? This is surely wrong.

dvpower wrote: »

All that aside, I think humans have a high value (I'm likely to think this because I am one). Allowing unnecessary killing erodes this value.

Agreed.

thebullkf

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps my question got buried under the weight of posts. I'd love to hear an answer to it.

i answered it;)

Fanny Cradock

This thread is not going to turn into another abortion discussion

thebullkf

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is more expensive to kill a prisoner than to house him in a high security facility for decades? This is surely wrong.

.

it is. wrong.

Dvpower used my quotes to agree with himself, it costs more to execute a prisoner than to house him for a year.

thebullkf

thebullkf wrote: »

the stats i provided back this up.

what stats can you provide to back you up?

The stats you provided are selective at best, and deceiving at worst.

Have a read of this. Time and time again it's found that either there aren't enough statistics to conclusively show anything, or that the death penalty provides no deterrent effect whatsoever.

Even if you think about it logically for a second, for a change. If you're commiting a crime of passion then you're not going to consider the implications of what you're doing. If you've premeditated the murder then you plan on not getting caught. And if you've killed somebody because you're mentally ill then the last thing on your mind will be the implications of what you've done.

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

If you can understand this for even a moment, you realise how disgusting it is for me, a Christian, to hear about the right to life of a headhunting maniac, yet the little unborn is shown no such mercy or compassion.

So the words of your own Pope and the catechism of your own Church are disgusting to you?

dvpower

thebullkf wrote: »

thats for one year, methinks you know this.

afaik, the costs of keeping someone locked up for life are less than the legal costs of an execution process. I might be wrong on that - I don't have figures to hand.
Its not so important from my point of view - I really don't see cost as a determining factor.

thebullkf wrote: »

to the detriment of education and prevention

That argument goes nowhere(but to extreme cases). We should shut all of our art galleries as long as there are sick people needing better care in our hospitals...

thebullkf wrote: »

i wouldn't, i asked a question earlier , the answer was solitary confinement. the real answer is not solitary but cause and effect, action and reaction, coupled with the threat of forfeiture of life in extreme cases is the way to go.


the stats i provided back this up.

what stats can you provide to back you up?

What stats to back what up?

thebullkf wrote: »

or do you 'just think its wrong'?

I think its wrong mainly because I put some value on human life an I don't want to see that eroded for no good reason. I think its sensible to start from a position of rejecting the death penalty until there is a very compelling argument for introducing it.

thebullkf

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The stats you provided are selective at best, and deceiving at worst.

how so, can you explain?

Have a read of this. Time and time again it's found that either there aren't enough statistics to conclusively show anything, or that the death penalty provides no deterrent effect whatsoever.

i provided links with sources, you provide one link. From an economist more used to tackling sports betting?

Even if you think about it logically for a second, for a change.

so you're saying i'm illogical:rolleyes:

If you're commiting a crime of passion then you're not going to consider the implications of what you're doing. If you've premeditated the murder then you plan on not getting caught. And if you've killed somebody because you're mentally ill then the last thing on your mind will be the implications of what you've done.

really? you think thats logical?

logic doesn't enter into the mind if one is going to commit murder, logical implies reasoning, most reasoning people do not murder.
crimes of passion are rarely logical.:rolleyes:

Sigh

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

afaik, the costs of keeping someone locked up for life are less than the legal costs of an execution process. I might be wrong on that - I don't have figures to hand.
Its not so important from my point of view - I really don't see cost as a determining factor.

as far as you know.

you're wrong. btw.

That argument goes nowhere(but to extreme cases). We should shut all of our art galleries as long as there are sick people needing better care in our hospitals...

if shutting art galleries prevented even one murder, it'd worth it. no?

What stats to back what up?

your claims, of course.

I think its wrong mainly because I put some value on human life an I don't want to see that eroded for no good reason. I think its sensible to start from a position of rejecting the death penalty until there is a very compelling argument for introducing it.

so what would your compelling arguementy be?

you initially said, it should never happen, now it requires a compelling reason

thebullkf

If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves.

St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: ‘As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty.’ That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty."

Source:Prof. Michael Pakaluk, The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991

dvpower

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is more expensive to kill a prisoner than to house him in a high security facility for decades? This is surely wrong.

Its an ongoing debate - hard to get a conclusive answer.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

I'd say that the jury is out.

thebullkf

thebullkf wrote: »

how so, can you explain?

Because no statistically valid study has shown the death penalty to be a deterrent, at least that I'm aware of.

i provided links with sources, you provide one link. From an economist more used to tackling sports betting?

In 2008 a study was carried out which found that 88% of the US' leading criminologists believed there to be no correlation between the death penalty and decreased crime rates. The believed it wasn't a deterrent. link.

Beyond that, even take a look at the per popula murder rates in non-death penalty states vs. the rates in death penalty states. link. The opposite is startlingly true, though. States with the death penalty have, on average, year after year, a higher homicide rate.

Does it matter that he's an economist? I'd have thought the statistics provided would speak for themselves. Typical ad hominem.

so you're saying i'm illogical:rolleyes:

No, I'm asking you to think about it yourself and see does it make logical sense to conclude that the death penalty is a deterrent.

really? you think thats logical?

logic doesn't enter into the mind if one is going to commit murder, logical implies reasoning, most reasoning people do not murder.
crimes of passion are rarely logical.:rolleyes:

Ok, you've admitted half of what I've asked. "Crimes of passion are rarely logical", that's true. So do you think the person commiting the crime is really thinking about the consequences of his actions? Is he reasoning whether or not to kill the person based on logic? I doubt it. So, it's hardly a deterrent.

Would it be a deterrent to somebody who's mentally unsound? Again, I doubt it. They're hardly in a position to think thoroughly about the consequences of their actions.

And finally, you'll find that premeditated murders are often very logical. The person often considers every conceivable possibility, yet they still commit the crime. Would the death penalty appear to be a deterrent to them?

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

Its an ongoing debate - hard to get a conclusive answer.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

I'd say that the jury is out.

Cost of Life Without Parole: Cases
Equivalent To Death Penalty Cases Cost of Death Penalty Cases 1. $34,200/year (1) for 50 years (2), at
a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus
$75,000 (4) for trial & appeals = $3.01 million $60,000/year (1) for 6 years (5), at
a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus
$1.5 million (4) for trial & appeals = $1.88 million 2. Same, except 3% (3) = $4.04 million Same, except 3% (3) = $1.89 million 3. Same, except 4% (3) = $5.53 million Same, except 4% (3) = $1.91 million




There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.



It should be noted that we were intentionally generous in minimizing life costs within our analysis. Please review we have not included
1)the recent studies on geriatric care at about $70,000/year/prisoner in today's dollars , or
2) the recent explosion of Hepatitis C and AIDS within the prison system, or
3) the cost savings to jurisdictions based on plea bargains to maximum life sentences, which can only occur due solely to the presence of the death penalty. Such should accrue as a cost benefit of the death penalty, and
4) none of the above have been included in our cost analysis. All of which either increase the cost of a life sentence or accrue as a cost credit to the death penalty, and
5) And we have been extremely generous to the anti death penalty position with our numbers to begin with. I suspect that an average life without parole sentence costs closer to $150,000-$300,000, for all pre-trial, trial and appeals, as opposed to the $75,000 used in our study.
Those omissions should not be considered a balancing, because accuracy is paramount.

dvpower

thebullkf wrote: »

as far as you know.

you're wrong. btw.

Link?

thebullkf wrote: »

if shutting art galleries prevented even one murder, it'd worth it. no?

Shutting down art galleries could save many lives. Are you in favour of shutting down art galleries and putting the money into health and selling the art and adding it to the Garda budget?

I'm pretty confident that we could reduce our murder rate if we diverted massive extra resources into the justice system. No?

thebullkf wrote: »

your claims, of course.

Specifically what claims?

thebullkf wrote: »

so what would your compelling arguementy be?

There isn't one that I've come accross. (I'm sure I could think of some fantasy scenarios).

thebullkf wrote: »

you initially said, it should never happen, now it requires a compelling reason

Exactly. It shouldn't happen because there isn't a compelling arguement.

dvpower

thebullkf wrote: »

Cost of Life Without Parole:
[...]

You copy and paste a Pro arguement from a website that argues the pros and cons. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

I'd say that the jury is out (not, as I've said, that it holds too much importance for me).

PDN

thebullkf wrote: »

If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves.

I have to say that is one of the most cack-handed examples of interpretation of the Bible I've ever seen.

The big problem, of course, is that you can use it to argue that the crime of theft deserves not just the death penalty, but a slow lingering painful death in public.

So, do you advocate that shop-lifters should be tortured to death in Grafton Street?

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

So the words of your own Pope and the catechism of your own Church are disgusting to you?

The Pope, the Catechism, and the Church are not advocating abortion whilst at the same time talking about the rights of violent criminals. The Church seeks to protect all human life, born and unborn, whereas those who disgust me advocate the killing of the unborn and the protection of headhunting maniacs. Keep up!

Also remember that the Church must look out for Her members. In the coming persecutions, we would be as well to advocate the non-use of the death penalty... That's just my own thought, which just occurred to me. We no longer live in the Catholic state, so things have changed, including the Church's attitude (attitude, not teaching) to religious freedom and the careful nuances about death penalty.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

The Pope, the Catechism, and the Church are not advocating abortion whilst at the same time talking about the rights of violent criminals. The Church seeks to protect all human life, born and unborn, whereas those who disgust me advocate the killing of the unborn and the protection of headhunting maniacs. Keep up!

You're comparing apples to oranges. Your own argument is so weak that you feel the need to introduce abortion into the mix to try and obfuscate matters. Why bring up abortion when talking about captial punishment? And, especially, why does it matter if, for example, I support abortion yet condemn captial punishment, when the former has nothing to do with the latter? It's just yet another logical fallacy (look here) you use to erroneously debunk otherwise valid arguments.

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

Also remember that the Church must look out for Her members. In the coming persecutions, we would be as well to advocate the non-use of the death penalty... That's just my own thought, which just occurred to me. We no longer live in the Catholic state, so things have changed, including the Church's attitude (attitude, not teaching) to religious freedom and the careful nuances about death penalty.

You're changing your position to save your own skin?
Are there to be no martyrs made in the coming persecutions?:mad:

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

You're changing your position to save your own skin?
Are there to be no martyrs made in the coming persecutions?:mad:

I must say, it is a novel argument:
"The death penalty was grand when we could turn Protestants and other heretics over to the State to be executed, but now it might be used against us we should be anti-capital punishment."

Absolute classic!