An argument FOR the death penalty

I heard this pragmatic argument on the radio, I thought I'd share it here.

State sanctioned executions should be maintained, but only used in extremely heinous cases because not having a death penalty would create an incentive for a criminal to murder witnesses to his crimes.

Consider an individual who is committing a robbery who, if caught, would be up against some sort of "three strikes" legislation and, if convicted, would be sent to prison for the rest of his life without the chance of parole. That individual would have an incentive to reduce the chance of being convicted which means getting rid of witnesses. If there was no death penalty, there would be no difference in the punishment of his robbery and the punishment of murder.

The criminal would be more likely to commit murder because the act cannot hurt him anymore and it could help him.

If anything that's an argument against excessive punishments like the three strikes law.

Well, how would you treat repeat offenders? Somebody who has been convicted of the same crime multiple times clearly shows no intention reformation.   Frattracide

Well for one thing the prison system is broken in this country because all Joe Normal and the politicians who cater to him care about are punishing offenders, not reforming them (most people equate "justice" with "revenge"). As a result, not only do offenders not learn any better habits, but they actually learn WORSE ones because of the sociology that we allow to run rampant in prisons. It's a delicious irony that minor criminals who go into prison actually come out as better more hardened criminals. If you want to fix reciedivism you need to fix the penal system. As it turns out harsher punishments don't actually do much to deter criminals since the vast majority of prisoners who are in for non-drug related reasons are prisoners because they lacked impulse control and forethought to begin with.

Hmm... the death penalty as a deterrent from committing crimes? Interesting.foxhound_fox

Amputation could be an even more effective deterrent - so long as the amputation was relevant to the crime committed. 

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Hmm... the death penalty as a deterrent from committing crimes? Interesting.RationalAtheist

Amputation could be an even more effective deterrent - so long as the amputation was relevant to the crime committed. 

Such as theft.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Hmm... the death penalty as a deterrent from committing crimes? Interesting.SpinoRaptor24

Amputation could be an even more effective deterrent - so long as the amputation was relevant to the crime committed. 

Such as theft.

Exactly. Anywhere from 1 to 10 digits for small and medium thefts, or above the elbows for something more serious. First-time offenders could get cautionary tattoos - showing the areas to be amputated next time.

Or stoning. 

This would really seem to be an argument just in favor of not making the punishment for robbery the same as the punishment for murder, not necessarily in favor of a specific punishment for either offense.  If the punishment for robbery and murder was death in both cases, then you'd have the exact same problem.

This would really seem to be an argument just in favor of not making the punishment for robbery the same as the punishment for murder, not necessarily in favor of a specific punishment for either offense.  If the punishment for robbery and murder was death in both cases, then you'd have the exact same problem.

GabuEx

OK, how about enforced coma then? 

What I'm really saying - past all the absurd implications - is that an intellectual discussion about barbarism is absurd.

What I'm really saying - past all the absurd implications - is that an intellectual discussion about barbarism is absurd.

 

RationalAtheist

I know they may sound barbaric, but some of these laws are really effective. You go to Saudi Arabia and most people there don't even need to lock up their stores because thievery is a rarity over there.

Trust me, when you see someone have their hand amputated because of theft, you'll never want to steal anything ever again.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

What I'm really saying - past all the absurd implications - is that an intellectual discussion about barbarism is absurd.

SpinoRaptor24

I know they may sound barbaric, but some of these laws are really effective. You go to Saudi Arabia and most people there don't even need to lock up their stores because thievery is a rarity over there.

Trust me, when you see someone have their hand amputated because of theft, you'll never want to steal anything ever again.

If you made the punishment for every crime from jaywalking to murder death and seriously carried out these punishments, I would imagine that the crime rate in your country would rather significantly drop - but that doesn't exactly make that the best option.  A justice system solely concerned with crime rates is not a very good justice system.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

What I'm really saying - past all the absurd implications - is that an intellectual discussion about barbarism is absurd.

 

SpinoRaptor24

I know they may sound barbaric, but some of these laws are really effective. You go to Saudi Arabia and most people there don't even need to lock up their stores because thievery is a rarity over there.

Trust me, when you see someone have their hand amputated because of theft, you'll never want to steal anything ever again.

I don't doubt that these laws are effective at maiming people. They sound barbaric because they are barbaric. I notice over 18000 car thefts in Saudi in 2002. That's rather a lot, considering most of the thieves wouldn't be able to turn a key.

I don't want to and will never go to Saudi Arabia. This is because they maintain a crazy justice system that persecutes their population and is overly-restrictive and proscriptive of their guests. It also seems one of the most intolerant and self-righteous cultures on the planet. Trust me, when you see videos of people being stoned to death, you'll never want to trust a Sharia regime again.

If you made the punishment for every crime from jaywalking to murder death and seriously carried out these punishments, I would imagine that the crime rate in your country would rather significantly drop - but that doesn't exactly make that the best option.  A justice system solely concerned with crime rates is not a very good justice system.

GabuEx

I don't doubt that these laws are effective at maiming people. They sound barbaric because they are barbaric. I notice over 18000 car thefts in Saudi in 2002. That's rather a lot, considering most of the thieves wouldn't be able to turn a key.

I don't want to and will never go to Saudi Arabia. This is because they maintain a crazy justice system that persecutes their population and is overly-restrictive and proscriptive of their guests. It also seems one of the most intolerant and self-righteous cultures on the planet. Trust me, when you see videos of people being stoned to death, you'll never want to trust a Sharia regime again.

RationalAtheist

Amputating the hand would deter a lot of people away from theft, as opposed to a $50 fine or a month in jail. I believe that unless you're on the brink of starving to death, you should never steal anything. 

I too wouldn't want to live in Saudi Arabia, considering how corrupted and extreme their Government is. However, I don't think you should condemn the Sharia laws over stoning, especially when the people who commit Adultery deserve it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If you made the punishment for every crime from jaywalking to murder death and seriously carried out these punishments, I would imagine that the crime rate in your country would rather significantly drop - but that doesn't exactly make that the best option.  A justice system solely concerned with crime rates is not a very good justice system.

SpinoRaptor24

We wouldn't punish every crime with death, that would obviously be extreme and absurd. Crimes like murder should be dealt with death. A person who kills someone unjustly does not deserve to live.

I'm curious: what is the determinant for whether or not a person deserves to live, and from what basis is it derived?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If you made the punishment for every crime from jaywalking to murder death and seriously carried out these punishments, I would imagine that the crime rate in your country would rather significantly drop - but that doesn't exactly make that the best option.  A justice system solely concerned with crime rates is not a very good justice system.

Android339

A justice system based on stopping crime is not a very good justice system?

As I said: making the punishment for every single crime death would probably cause crime to drop significantly - but that does not make that a good justice system.  A justice system that tramples on human rights as it lowers crime rates is a poor justice system.

I'm curious: what is the determinant for whether or not a person deserves to live, and from what basis is it derived?

GabuEx

As I said before, killing someone unjustly. Eye for an eye.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

As I said: making the punishment for every single crime death would probably cause crime to drop significantly - but that does not make that a good justice system.  A justice system that tramples on human rights as it lowers crime rates is a poor justice system.

Android339

I understand what you said. I'm just asking questions.

How is punishing someone for a crime trampling on their human rights? Especially if they consciously committed the crime and knew of a possible punishment (i.e. death) that would follow?

I see the right to be as a fundamental right.

So murdering a murderer is trampling with their fundamental human right.

I think murderers mostly kill for other reasons than to think they can get away with it.

As for the "eye for an eye" argument, I thought this reasoning was responsible for so much retaliation and vengefulness. One huge advantage of Christianity over Islam is that there's an inherent expectation of forgiveness implicit with the faith that is missing in the Muslin doctrine, where equal vengence is allowed. I'm with Ghandi, who said "an eye for an eye ... ends up making everyone blind".

Eye for an eye.SpinoRaptor24

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I see the right to be as a fundamental right.

So murdering a murderer is trampling with their fundamental human right.

Android339

Is the "right to be" a fundamental right for one who has taken that right from others? Does it matter how many people he murdered? For instance, what if someone killed 100 people in either a long drawn out period of time or in something extravagant like a bomb explosion as opposed to just killing 1 person? Does the justice system have to respect his "right to be" while having taxpayers pay for his prison expenses and rehabilitation?

Yes, no and yes. If you murder a murderer, you vindicate what they do and mirror their values. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I think murderers mostly kill for other reasons than to think they can get away with it.

Android339

So the death penalty has no influence in your eyes in deterring criminals?

I think stats overwhelmingly show the death penalty has no effect on murder rates - particularly comparing the UK and US. I heard anecdotally that in some places in the USA, you can actually prolong your expected lifespan by killing someone, since you'll outlive your peers while on death row.

Stats:

USA - 428 murders per million people

UK - 141 murders per million people

(from here) 

So is punishment in any sense ever justified? In what way would you hold murderers accountable for their actions?

Android339

I think so. though I wouldn't hold murderers accountable personally. I can leave that to judges who will never execute a criminal. I think the penal reform system needs some serious investigation and investment though. But I think the more serious problems are the underlying and fundamental ones in society that drive people to murder in the first place. 

 

I actually read from Amnesty International USA that states that have no death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states that do have the death penalty. I don't want to take the statistic at face value without exploring other options, although the statistics do seem to agree. The death penalty has little effect on the deterrence of murderers from a statistical standpoint.

Android339

Amnesty International are hardly unbiased! And I would say the situation in the US is rather distorted because of the ready acceptance of gun-ownership in most places there. The reality is that there is no moral argument for murder (I don't think eyes for eyes is moral) and there is no particular deterrent effect either.  

One must only seek restitution on the same level as the crime committed. Such as seeking monetary compensation to pay for the training and support of a seeing eye dog, and money to cover expenses while the newly blinded person finds a means of supporting themselves.
foxhound_fox

Islam actually has that in Sharia, and it's even encouraged, although the eye for an eye law still exists.

Islam actually has that in Sharia, and it's even encouraged, although the eye for an eye law still exists.

ghoklebutter

Yes, that is called Diyat in Islam (Blood Money) in which the offender must pay his or her victim some form of compensation. However, the victim can still choose retaliation should he or she refuse Diyat.

Did you not just say, though, that adultery is deserving of stoning?

Android339

Islam actually has that in Sharia, and it's even encouraged, although the eye for an eye law still exists.

ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

Islam actually has that in Sharia, and it's even encouraged, although the eye for an eye law still exists.

foxhound_fox

The Islamic ban on interest is another that I like. 

The Islamic ban on interest is another that I like. 

GabuEx

Could you explain more about this ban please?

By the way, I hope everyone's watched Pat Condell's latest video - its highly relevant.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The Islamic ban on interest is another that I like. 

RationalAtheist

Could you explain more about this ban please?

By the way, I hope everyone's watched Pat Condell's latest video - its highly relevant.

I don't know much about it, but many forms of usury are considered grave sins in Islam. And ugh, Pat Condell? If you watch his videos, you'll see that most of his arguments amount to "I don't understand their Religion, so I hate it!".

He pits Islam with Islamic countries who most of the time don't even seem to follow Sharia laws properly (or at all). Exactly where, in Islam, is it ok to execute children? Because Pat certainly didn't mention it in the video, yet he still associates it with Sharia anyway.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The Islamic ban on interest is another that I like. 

SpinoRaptor24

Could you explain more about this ban please?

By the way, I hope everyone's watched Pat Condell's latest video - its highly relevant.

I don't know much about it, but many forms of usury are considered grave sins in Islam. And ugh, Pat Condell? If you watch his videos, you'll see that most of his arguments amount to "I don't understand their Religion, so I hate it!".

He pits Islam with Islamic countries who most of the time don't even seem to follow Sharia laws properly (or at all). Exactly where, in Islam, is it ok to execute children? Because Pat certainly didn't mention it in the video, yet he still associates it with Sharia anyway.

That's not a problem, since I wasn't asking you - unless you think its a problem that you don't know much about (again) what you defend.

I think you yourself talked up Saudi Arabia as a shining example of non-thievery (before you said it was a corrupt Sharia regime) earlier in this very thread.

Your complaint about Pat is that you think he does not understand your faith, but you also say that you don't understand it either. I can believe that, just as I can believe the Islamics he mentions are trying to make it illegal in Europe to criticise Islam.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The Islamic ban on interest is another that I like. 

RationalAtheist

Could you explain more about this ban please?

By the way, I hope everyone's watched Pat Condell's latest video - its highly relevant.

What's to explain?  Islam says that people should not take or give interest.

That's not a problem, since I wasn't asking you - unless you think its a problem that you don't know much about (again) what you defend.

I think you yourself talked up Saudi Arabia as a shining example of non-thievery (before you said it was a corrupt Sharia regime) earlier in this very thread.

Your complaint about Pat is that you think he does not understand your faith, but you also say that you don't understand it either. I can believe that, just as I can believe the Islamics he mentions are trying to make it illegal in Europe to criticise Islam.

 

RationalAtheist

You have a point. Very well then. I'll watch what I say next time. But I still don't like his smug and arrogant attitude, and his snide comments are uncalled for.

What's to explain?  Islam says that people should not take or give interest.

GabuEx

I don't think it does - that's what's to explain. I think there is a distinction between "Fa'eda" and "Reba" - usury, or excessive interest and "acceptable" interest. Obviously, Islamic financial agreements can and do involve ethical interest payments.

I thought you'd know better than to give ill-formed generalisations about what "Islam says". 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What's to explain?  Islam says that people should not take or give interest.

RationalAtheist

I don't think it does - that's what's to explain. I think there is a distinction between "Fa'eda" and "Reba" - usury, or excessive interest and "acceptable" interest. Obviously, Islamic financial agreements can and do involve ethical interest payments.

I thought you'd know better than to give ill-formed generalisations about what "Islam says". 

Literally every source I can find except for that one says otherwise.

"Every loan in which it is stipulated that something extra must be paid back is haraam, with no difference of scholarly opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said: [the scholars] are unanimously agreed that if the lender stipulates that the borrower must pay extra or give him a gift, and he lends him money on that basis, then accepting the extra payment is riba."

"Islam prohibits the taking or giving of interest or riba, regardless of the purpose of the loan, or the rates at which interest is charged.  'Riba' includes the whole concept of effortless profit or earnings that comes without work or value added production."

"Ribâ literally means increase, addition, expansion or growth. It is, however not every increase or growth which has been prohibited by Islam. Profit also leads to an increase in the principal amount, but it has not been prohibited. So what has been prohibited?  The best person to answer this question is the Prophet himself, peace and blessings of God be on him. He prohibited the taking of even a small gift, service or favour as a condition for the loan. This answer of the Prophet equates ribâ with what is commonly understood to be interest. This meaning of ribâ has become reflected in the writings of all scholars in Muslim history."

"Anyone who deals with interest - gives interest or takes interest - he is waging a war with Almighty God Allah and with the messenger prophet."

"The definition of Interest, the literal meaning of interest or Al-Riba as it is used in the arabic language means to excess or increase. In the Islamic terminology interest means effortless profit or that profit which comes free from compensation or that extra earning obtained that is free of exchange. Riba has been described as a loan with the condition that the borrower will return to the lender more than and better than the quantity borrowed.  As muslims, our main concern when it comes to financial transactions is to avoid Riba in any of its forms, despite the fact that the basic foundation of the world economics and finance today is that of riba and dealing in usury."

Et cetera.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What's to explain?  Islam says that people should not take or give interest.

GabuEx

I don't think it does - that's what's to explain. I think there is a distinction between "Fa'eda" and "Reba" - usury, or excessive interest and "acceptable" interest. Obviously, Islamic financial agreements can and do involve ethical interest payments.

I thought you'd know better than to give ill-formed generalisations about what "Islam says". 

Literally every source I can find except for that one says otherwise.

"Every loan in which it is stipulated that something extra must be paid back is haraam, with no difference of scholarly opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said: [the scholars] are unanimously agreed that if the lender stipulates that the borrower must pay extra or give him a gift, and he lends him money on that basis, then accepting the extra payment is riba."

So, technically, what are the differences between buying a house from a Sharia bank and from a non-Sharia bank? You say you like the "no interest" stance from the Islamics, but don't you mind the "profit"?

 

"Islam prohibits the taking or giving of interest or riba, regardless of the purpose of the loan, or the rates at which interest is charged.  'Riba' includes the whole concept of effortless profit or earnings that comes without work or value added production."

GabuEx

It is rather baffling to me why the "risk" on an investment isn't considered worthy by this speaker for the Islamic Finance Council in Scotland, when the profit from a loan on a house is.

  

"Ribâ literally means increase, addition, expansion or growth. It is, however not every increase or growth which has been prohibited by Islam. Profit also leads to an increase in the principal amount, but it has not been prohibited. So what has been prohibited?  The best person to answer this question is the Prophet himself, peace and blessings of God be on him. He prohibited the taking of even a small gift, service or favour as a condition for the loan. This answer of the Prophet equates ribâ with what is commonly understood to be interest. This meaning of ribâ has become reflected in the writings of all scholars in Muslim history."

GabuEx

The best person to answer it is probably the one who made it up, since its utterly incomprehensible and contradictory! 

Have you seen this bank's home and motor finance pages? How is getting the bank to buy your car for more than it's worth any different to them loaning you the money?

  

"Anyone who deals with interest - gives interest or takes interest - he is waging a war with Almighty God Allah and with the messenger prophet."

GabuEx

I can see how this silly sentiment arrived in the Muslim doctrine. But I can't see how people are blindly accepting it while pretending they are doing something else that's far more worthy.

   

"The definition of Interest, the literal meaning of interest or Al-Riba as it is used in the arabic language means to excess or increase. In the Islamic terminology interest means effortless profit or that profit which comes free from compensation or that extra earning obtained that is free of exchange. Riba has been described as a loan with the condition that the borrower will return to the lender more than and better than the quantity borrowed.  As muslims, our main concern when it comes to financial transactions is to avoid Riba in any of its forms, despite the fact that the basic foundation of the world economics and finance today is that of riba and dealing in usury."

Et cetera.

GabuEx

Oooh dear - Does that mean Islamics are against global economics? What about Fa'eda?

This place has an apr of 7.2 - not bad!

If that's what you like, I can accept that. 

I never knew "Islamics" was a word.SpinoRaptor24

 You learn something new every day (- so my Dad used to say). I do get slightly confused between the true meanings of Islamists, Islamics, Muslims, etc. 

Second page of Google search.

How about that.

When Islam was introduced there was NO such thing as "inflation", the laws of the pre-inflation era are not worth anything now. But obviously for the deluded all they know is that interest is haraam. The majority of "educated" muslims in pakistan DO take and give interest so I dont care what the scholarly verdict is, clearly many people have the brains to not follow such a stupid thing.

Where is the alternative to interest? If you think islamic banking then you will dissapoint me gabu as they simply change the terminology when practically it's the same thing. Clearly the creator of islam had no idea where the world was going and now so many of his rules are completely impractical.

Taking interest from personal loans is what Islam prohibited. For instance, if I lend you 1,000 dollars, then according to Islam, it is totally sinful for me to take advantage of you and have you sign an agreement saying that you will return 1,500 to me with in let's say 1 year.SpinoRaptor24

That's 50% APR. I could get a far better deal if I shopped around!

What happens for late payments? 

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]Taking interest from personal loans is what Islam prohibited. For instance, if I lend you 1,000 dollars, then according to Islam, it is totally sinful for me to take advantage of you and have you sign an agreement saying that you will return 1,500 to me with in let's say 1 year.RationalAtheist

That's 50% APR. I could get a far better deal if I shopped around!

What happens for late payments? 

It was an example. A sin is a sin whether it's in small or large amounts. Most people, when taking a mortgage loan, will probably end up paying well above a house's market value.

You shouldn't charge interest even on late payments. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]Taking interest from personal loans is what Islam prohibited. For instance, if I lend you 1,000 dollars, then according to Islam, it is totally sinful for me to take advantage of you and have you sign an agreement saying that you will return 1,500 to me with in let's say 1 year.SpinoRaptor24

That's 50% APR. I could get a far better deal if I shopped around!

What happens for late payments? 

It was an example. A sin is a sin whether it's in small or large amounts. Most people, when taking a mortgage loan, will probably end up paying well above a house's market value.

You shouldn't charge interest even on late payments. 

I don't susbscribe to Islam, so I'm ok with doing as I wish regarding interest rates. The Islamic banks are too, although they "say" they don't charge interest, but make "profit" instead. The "profit" made would equal the interest, like in your example above (where 1500 dollars represents the ROI made charging 50%APR for 1 year on 1000 dollars).

Why can't you tell me the real difference between interest charged on a loan and profit made on it? The Islamic banks Gabu linked to earlier couldn't explain this.

Because Muslim scholars often differ on what kind of loans and payments constitute as Riba. I don't know what Muslim banks do or don't do, as I said before I have little knowledge on the subject of interest.SpinoRaptor24

Although I respect you for speaking your mind, I do find it odd that you defend what you don't understand.