Death penalty for terrorists?

[Leigha]

Where's you evidence that rehabilitation decreases repeat offenders.

"In short, the average offender today leaves prison at a greater disadvantage (and more primed for trouble) than his predecessors did. Yet fewer participate in prison rehabilitation and work programs than a decade ago. When I was cochair of California's Expert Panel on Rehabilitation in 2007, the panel found that California spent less than $3,000 per year, per inmate, on rehabilitation programs, and that 50 percent of all prisoners released the year before had not participated in a single program." - https://www.nij.gov/journals/268/pages/p...ubble.aspx

Who said anything about "killing them all"?

Inhumane? Are you opposed to putting a dog, that has attacked a small child, down? Certainly dogs are more amiable to retraining that humans, since they have very simple reward mechanisms. Skills alone do not change a lifetime of bad thinking. And too much support can very often just enable the continued bad patterns of thinking and behavior. Unless, of course, you what to care for them for life...even after they leave prison. Then it just becomes a welfare state as solution...which incentivizes bad behavior.


And you STILL keep avoiding simple questions.

Which abortion cases are necessary?
Are police and military murderers?
Are you a murderer for killing someone never found guilty in self-defense?

None of that has anything to do with the death penalty. I don't need to answer irrelevant questions, because you are pro-death penalty. There is nothing to gain by executing murderers. Will it bring the dead back to life? No. Will it ease the minds of those who are grieving? No. Their loved one(s) are still dead. This idea of an eye for an eye, just doesn't solve much. Violence will always beget more violence. Because you want to see ''some'' murderers put to death (you cherry pick who gets to live and who doesn't, I guess), then that means we all should automatically agree with you. 

I actually answered you about self defense, in general. No, a person isn't a murderer if he/she is responding in self defense to an attacker, likewise, the state isn't a murderer if it puts someone to death, by the way of the justice system. But, I PERSONALLY find it unethical. If you feel that it is ethical, you should explain why. Leave random biased studies out of it, please?

[Secular Sanity]

I PERSONALLY find it unethical. 

You’re in good company.  Your position on abortion and the death penalty is similar to Christopher Hitchens'. He said that one of the Chancellors in the UK pointed out that people were less likely to find someone guilty if they knew they were facing the death penalty.

The Abolition of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom

[RainbowUnicorn]

I PERSONALLY find it unethical. 

You’re in good company.  Your position on abortion and the death penalty is similar to Christopher Hitchens'. He said that one of the Chancellors in the UK pointed out that people were less likely to find someone guilty if they knew they were facing the death penalty.

The Abolition of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom

that would be UK not USA.
completely different set of morals & values.

[Syne]

I don't believe in the DP for any reason, really. Then we become no better than them...right? After all, every murderer has his/her reasons for why he/she takes the life/lives of others.

Many if not most murders are committed in anger / passion and other states of unreasoning (drunkenness or substance abuse, mental illness episodes, temporary pathological mind-sets, etc). Where consequences would be disabled as a deterring influence on action, anyway. In addition murder can be a contingent and unprepared event happening in connection with other types of crime gone wrong or turning desperate in terms of escape.

Yes, and those are the extenuating circumstances that terrorism avoids....which is why I specifically asked about it.

---

culture of sexual predators sanctioned by US familys...

why is that ?

Probably because isolated imprisonment is considered "cruel and unusual" and there's only so much anyone can do to protect prisoners from a whole community of criminals.

---

Where's you evidence that rehabilitation decreases repeat offenders.

"In short, the average offender today leaves prison at a greater disadvantage (and more primed for trouble) than his predecessors did. Yet fewer participate in prison rehabilitation and work programs than a decade ago. When I was cochair of California's Expert Panel on Rehabilitation in 2007, the panel found that California spent less than $3,000 per year, per inmate, on rehabilitation programs, and that 50 percent of all prisoners released the year before had not participated in a single program." - https://www.nij.gov/journals/268/pages/p...ubble.aspx

Who said anything about "killing them all"?

Inhumane? Are you opposed to putting a dog, that has attacked a small child, down? Certainly dogs are more amiable to retraining that humans, since they have very simple reward mechanisms. Skills alone do not change a lifetime of bad thinking. And too much support can very often just enable the continued bad patterns of thinking and behavior. Unless, of course, you what to care for them for life...even after they leave prison. Then it just becomes a welfare state as solution...which incentivizes bad behavior.


And you STILL keep avoiding simple questions.

Which abortion cases are necessary?
Are police and military murderers?
Are you a murderer for killing someone never found guilty in self-defense?

None of that has anything to do with the death penalty. I don't need to answer irrelevant questions, because you are pro-death penalty.

They have everything to do with the death penalty, because they speak to moral consistency. If you're saying moral consistency can go hang...well, I guess that's your prerogative. But inconsistency cannot make any pretense at being morally superior.

There is nothing to gain by executing murderers. Will it bring the dead back to life? No. Will it ease the minds of those who are grieving? No. Their loved one(s) are still dead. This idea of an eye for an eye, just doesn't solve much. Violence will always beget more violence. Because you want to see ''some'' murderers put to death (you cherry pick who gets to live and who doesn't, I guess), then that means we all should automatically agree with you. 

Closure arguments are a relatively recent rhetorical development, both in the news and in court...the former feeding the use in the latter, as juries came to accept it. An eye for an eye denotes a certain degree of revenge. I don't argue either of those.

But there's no cherry-picking. Those that are most premeditated and without extenuating circumstances are simply the least likely to respond to ANY attempt at rehabilitation, since the premeditated nature involves justifying the behavior, to themselves, in advance. Violence only begets violence where the victim survives. Are you saying the the families or friends of the executed are more likely to become murders?

I actually answered you about self defense, in general. No, a person isn't a murderer if he/she is responding in self defense to an attacker, likewise, the state isn't a murderer if it puts someone to death, by the way of the justice system. But, I PERSONALLY find it unethical. If you feel that it is ethical, you should explain why. Leave random biased studies out of it, please?

So once again, something that you find "personally unethical" (like abortion) is fine for others. Your judgement of murder only applies to yourself? So you have no morality...just a personal ethic?

More often than not, people DO NOT find closure with a death sentence, but neither do they with a life sentence. This is because every appeal/delay only serves as a reminder of their trauma. In this regard, a life sentence is only better because it is afforded fewer appeals. So by that reasoning, it is only the delays that prolong a family finding some closure (cessation of reminders). But everyone is aware that their taxes care for those prisoners. IOW, some amount of the effort you spend to make money is, quite literally, on their behalf. This is a lifelong reminder.

"As a death row lawyer who fights to keep his clients alive, I believe life without parole denies the possibility of redemption every bit as much as strapping a murderer to the gurney and filling him with poison.
...
When the Campaign to End the Death Penalty sent surveys on Prop 34 to more than 200 California death row prisoners, fifty inmates responded. Forty-seven opposed the measure.

For California's 725 death row inmates, having their sentences commuted to life without parole would mean automatically losing their right to state-appointed lawyers to pursue their habeas corpus appeals. For a huge proportion, this would instantly rob them of every last ember of hope and increase by up to 20 percent the number of California inmates who will grow old and die behind bars. One California death row inmate recently wrote an op-ed opposing Prop 34 suggesting that he’d rather be executed than have his opportunities for appeal taken away. In a state that has executed only thirteen people since 1976, it would take two millennia to kill every current death row inmate, a fact that also helps explain how prisoners might oppose Prop 34. " - https://www.thenation.com/article/life-w...h-penalty/

Quite literally, a life sentence is at least somewhat tortuous for both the family and the murderer. This makes a life sentence more of an eye for an eye than you may realize. It's actually more like an a couple of limbs for an eye. Maybe out of sight and out of mind is good enough for your ethics. An eye for an eye is at least equitable. And it is ethical, because it is a fair result of that person's premeditated choice. After all, if someone were there to stop them, self-defense, police, etc., they would likely have faced the same fate...or worse, just decide to wait for a more opportune time.

You can call that revenge or whatever all you like, but inequitable justice is injustice.

[Leigha]

You can't be pro-death and pro-life, Syne. It's your morality you should question, not mine.

[Syne]

You can't be pro-death and pro-life, Syne. It's your morality you should question, not mine.

You're pro-allowing-innocent-death (since you can't seem to detail, and justify, where you draw the line) and anti-guilty-death.
I'm anti-innocent-death and pro-guilty-death.

Nope, still your morality that's lacking. Ignoring guilt and innocence is amoral. Inverting the penalties for each is flat out immoral.
Without credible justification, you cannot write off fetal human life without flouting science to presume it not human, just as slave owners tried to do to justify owning other humans. Do you really think ANYONE can own another human...even to the extent of having a right to kill it?! O_o

Or are only resolute for yourself? You've said that you don't believe in abortion for yourself, but others should be allowed to. So shouldn't the same apply to the death penalty? Shouldn't you be just as willing to not want to kill anyone yourself but believe the government should be allowed to? Wouldn't that be the minimum moral consistency in your view?

I can fully justify how my morality is consistent. Can you? Or more importantly, will you even bother to? O_o

[Leigha]

You can't be pro-death and pro-life, Syne. It's your morality you should question, not mine.

You're pro-allowing-innocent-death (since you can't seem to detail, and justify, where you draw the line) and anti-guilty-death.
I'm anti-innocent-death and pro-guilty-death.

Nope, still your morality that's lacking. Ignoring guilt and innocence is amoral. Inverting the penalties for each is flat out immoral.
Without credible justification, you cannot write off fetal human life without flouting science to presume it not human, just as slave owners tried to do to justify owning other humans. Do you really think ANYONE can own another human...even to the extent of having a right to kill it?! O_o

Or are only resolute for yourself? You've said that you don't believe in abortion for yourself, but others should be allowed to. So shouldn't the same apply to the death penalty? Shouldn't you be just as willing to not want to kill anyone yourself but believe the government should be allowed to? Wouldn't that be the minimum moral consistency in your view?

I can fully justify how my morality is consistent. Can you? Or more importantly, will you even bother to? O_o

You tend to do this in nearly all threads, with nearly all topics, with nearly all members here. You post things we never claimed, and then ask us to argue against them. 

Again, I'm pro-life, in both innocent life and guilty life cases. I don't believe abortion should be banned however, because if a 12 year old girl is raped and ends up pregnant by her rapist, why should she be forced to have the child? You're a man, you have no idea what that might actually look like, and feel like...to be raped and be asked to carry a child by your rapist, to term. And you never will understand it. I'm not saying that all women who are raped wouldn't want to carry the child to term, but for those who don't wish to, why should they be forced to by the government?

When you decide to stop putting words in others' mouths and ask us to argue against YOUR words, I'll have a discussion with you. Until then, keep having a conversation with yourself.  

[Syne]

You tend to do this in nearly all threads, with nearly all topics, with nearly all members here. You post things we never claimed, and then ask us to argue against them. 

Again, I'm pro-life, in both innocent life and guilty life cases. I don't believe abortion should be banned however, because if a 12 year old girl is raped and ends up pregnant by her rapist, why should she be forced to have the child? You're a man, you have no idea what that might actually look like, and feel like...to be raped and be asked to carry a child by your rapist, to term. And you never will understand it. I'm not saying that all women who are raped wouldn't want to carry the child to term, but for those who don't wish to, why should they be forced to by the government?

When you decide to stop putting words in others' mouths and ask us to argue against YOUR words, I'll have a discussion with you. Until then, keep having a conversation with yourself.  

Obviously I haven't put any words in your mouth.

You are pro-allowing-innocent-death, because you think two wrongs make a right (rape + killing human life = good?...necessary?...allowable?). A natural pregnancy, followed by adoption, is far less likely to be traumatizing than a 12-year-old realizing she killed a child. Aren't you the one who said, "Violence will always beget more violence"? To respond to violence against one innocent victim (woman raped) with violence to another (child conceived) is immoral. If you truly believe "violence will always beget more violence", why do you make an exception to kill innocent life, but refuse to budge on the guilty? O_o

"How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?" complains an indignant supporter of abortion. "And how can you call yourself a loving Christian if you would force a victim of violent rape to give birth to a rapist's child?"
...
But in fact, the welfare of the mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

The reason most people reach the wrong conclusion about abortion in cases of rape and incest is that the actual experiences of sexual assault victims who became pregnant are routinely left out of the debate. Most people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, are therefore forming opinions based on prejudices and fears which are disconnected from reality.

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.[1] This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.

Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many also feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage of pregnant rape victims believe abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children.
- http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/rap...-the-myths



       Nearly 80 percent of the women who aborted a pregnancy conceived in sexual assault reported that abortion had been the wrong solution.

       Most women who had abortions said that abortion only increased the trauma they were experiencing.

       In many cases, the victim faced strong pressure or demands to abort and in some cases, especially those involving teenage girls, was even forced to have the abortion by others.

       In cases of incest or ongoing sexual abuse, abortion was frequently used by the perpetrator to cover up the abuse, and in many cases the girl was given an abortion with no questions asked and then returned to the abusive situation.

       None of the women who gave birth to a child conceived in sexual assault expressed regret or wished they had aborted instead.
- http://www.theunchoice.com/victimsandvictors.htm

Do you believe the child is evil or bad just because of the circumstances of its conception? Are you presuming that children are prepared to make, or live with, decisions that could morally haunt them the rest of their lives? Why do you advocate violence toward the innocent while refusing violence toward the guilty.

Just because you want to say "why should she be forced" instead of "we should allow", doesn't change your stance. And if you're standing on a non-aggression principle (the government should use minimal force/coercion), then how can you say you're pro-life? If you refuse to allow the government to save human life, how is that different from the government taking human life? Isn't it a sin of omission?

[Leigha]

What does this have to do with the death penalty for criminals? Oh wait, it doesn't. Just another strawman.

Just like your abortion scenario above, the death penalty isn't an only option for dealing with violent criminals who have murdered. Adoption is a fine option, I agree. I'm personally against abortion, but my personal ethics don't dictate what should be done in dire circumstances.

Why aren't you content with a murderer serving a life sentence? And what murderers should be killed? Terrorists because their excuses for murder are more offensive, than a non-terrorist murder's excuses? Where do you draw the line? Serial killers? Adults who murder kids? Adults who murder people from a certain ethnicity? Where do you draw the line on who 'deserves' the death penalty?

[Syne]

What does this have to do with the death penalty for criminals? Oh wait, it doesn't. Just another strawman.

Just like your abortion scenario above, the death penalty isn't an only option for dealing with violent criminals who have murdered. Adoption is a fine option, I agree. I'm personally against abortion, but my personal ethics don't dictate what should be done in dire circumstances.

Why aren't you content with a murderer serving a life sentence? And what murderers should be killed? Terrorists because their excuses for murder are more offensive, than a non-terrorist murder's excuses? Where do you draw the line? Serial killers? Adults who murder kids? Adults who murder people from a certain ethnicity? Where do you draw the line on who 'deserves' the death penalty?

You're the one who brought up abortion: "I could have sworn that you mentioned in another thread that you're pro-life...does that only mean you're pro ''innocent'' life?"

So you complaining about it is highly disingenuous. Especially when you whine about it only to immediately compare the two: "Just like your abortion scenario above, the death penalty isn't an only option for dealing with violent criminals who have murdered."

Is what we do with a mass-murdering terrorist NOT a "dire circumstance"? Are you saying that mass-murder is LESS dire a circumstance than rape or incest? If you allow death (of the innocent) in one but not the other (guilty), it would certainly seem you do.

I am content with the average murderer, with extenuating circumstances, even serving less than a life sentence. At least being shy of a life sentence allows them some hope of redemption/rehabilitation. https://www.thenation.com/article/life-w...h-penalty/
Why do you want a life sentence, with no hope of rehabilitation?
But this thread is about terrorists, so who is really doing the straw manning here? O_o

I already told you that the line is called capital crime. 41 Federal Capital Offenses



And as desperately as you may want to, you can't avoid your stance on allowing the innocent to be killed while trying to be self-righteous about preserving the lives of the guilty. Even if you truly believe that a rape/incest pregnancy adds to the trauma, you have to believe that a human life is worth less than one person's trauma to even entertain the option of killing the innocent. And if one person's trauma excuses killing innocent like, then the trauma of many families affected by a mass-murder definitely warrants entertaining the option of killing the guilty.


Rape/incest = trauma = allowed killing innocent
Mass-murder = mass trauma = NOT allowed killing GUILTY

You just can't square that morally.

---

Now if you were both against the death penalty and against abortion (except in cases that threaten the mother's life), then at least that would be morally consistent and justifiable.