It's a job. It's not "I'm getting paid, therefore xxx", it's "The state said this person should be executed, they also pay me to do it, therefore I should execute them".

Why not "I'm getting paid, therefore said person should be locked in this cell for the next few decades"? Everything you're bringing up can be related to life imprisonment, to make it seem just as vengeful. Except neither of them actually are.

Quote from Exilement

It's a job. It's not "I'm getting paid, therefore xxx", it's "The state said this person should be executed, they also pay me to do it, therefore I should execute them".

I'll admit that the executioners may or may not do it on revenge, though I wasn't really talking about the executioners. I was mainly talking about the prosecutors, the judge, the jury and the whole system; the people who actually sentence the criminals. Either way, just because "it's a job", it doesn't make it okay. Do you condone hitmen?

Why not "I'm getting paid, therefore said person should be locked in this cell for the next few decades"? Everything you're bringing up can be related to life imprisonment, to make it seem just as vengeful. Except neither of them actually are.

What's the point of executing them when prison will suffice then?

Also, it's clear if you've heard any prosecutors argument for someone getting the death penalty that they're doing it out of hatred and revenge.

Quote from Exilement

It's a job. It's not "I'm getting paid, therefore xxx", it's "The state said this person should be executed, they also pay me to do it, therefore I should execute them".

They chose the job of an executioner

Quote from Fusion

They chose the job of an executioner

So what? That doesn't mean he has a personal vendetta against everyone on death row, and he does his job to exact "revenge" on anyone. That's ridiculous.

Quote from Preserve

What's the point of executing them when prison will suffice then?

What's the point of keeping them in prison for their whole lives instead of just executing them? I'm fine with either. You aren't, so you should ask yourself why prison "suffices" where executing them doesn't. Aside from an unsupportable claim that the "system" sentences people to death based on revenge, you still haven't made a clear distinction between the cruelty of the death penalty and the cruelty of life in prison, and why that distinction makes one okay and not the other.

Quote from Exilement

So what? That doesn't mean he has a personal vendetta against everyone on death row, and he does his job to exact "revenge" on anyone. That's ridiculous.

But if they do choose to be an executioner, then that means they have few qualms with killing [certain specific] people.

Quote from Exilement

What's the point of keeping them in prison for their whole lives instead of just executing them?

The judicial system isn't perfect. Death is absolute, if there were advances in the case that point fingers at a new suspect and a new verdict arises it would be too late to take back what has already been done.

Unless were still on the topic of psychopaths, which would be a more complicated situation.


also, I want to know what you all mean by executioner. We don't live in the stone age anymore lol, the execution would be lethal injection. That would involve paying the doctors who monitor the injection, the pharmacutical company that produced the agent and even the equipment used for the procedure. It wouldn't be a very large profit either. They wouldn't buy the stuff by the gallon.

Quote from Exilement

What's the point of keeping them in prison for their whole lives instead of just executing them? I'm fine with either. You aren't, so you should ask yourself why prison "suffices" where executing them doesn't.

So you can prevent them from killing other people, while at the same time giving them their right to life. Also, death is permanent and prison keeps them alive to give them a chance to redeem themselves.

Aside from an unsupportable claim that the "system" sentences people to death based on revenge, you still haven't made a clear distinction between the cruelty of the death penalty and the cruelty of life in prison, and why that distinction makes one okay and not the other.

It's hard to pull out sources to say that the death penalty is revenge when there's no real statistics to show because it's an emotion. But I doubt that you would hear a prosecutor argue "Well, this person should receive the death penalty because it's a much harder life in jail and the executioners need to get paid" rather than "this person killed so he should feel the same way that person when he died." Or something along those lines.

Quote from blacktrilogy

The judicial system isn't perfect. Death is absolute, if there were advances in the case that point fingers at a new suspect and a new verdict arises it would be too late to take back what has already been done.

I agree, but I don't really think that's a strong enough reason to never use it. It should be reserved for situations were there's virtually no doubt that they're guilty, if conclusive evidence isn't found then the death penalty does seem extreme.

Quote from blacktrilogy

also, I want to know what you all mean by executioner. We don't live in the stone age anymore lol

"executioner" is shorter and easier to say than "the doctors, pharmaceutical technicians and other related staff that oversees the procedure that ends the prisoners life". You know exactly what we mean, we're not picturing some black-masked, axe-wielding giant standing next to a chopping block.

Quote from Preserve

So you can prevent them from killing other people, while at the same time giving them their right to life. Also, death is permanent and prison keeps them alive to give them a chance to redeem themselves.

Someone serving 6 consecutive life sentences without parole doesn't have any chance to redeem themselves.

A right to life. What is that exactly? There's no natural order enforcing a "right to life". Animals don't have it and neither do we. Outside of society, there's literally nothing stopping us from ripping each other to pieces.

Most sane people wouldn't consider that to be in their best interests, so a social order was created. In an over-simplified worldview, these societies grant their citizens rights, while also constraining them with laws. As long as you follow these laws to keep society happy, then society will defend those rights to keep you happy.

Think of it like a contract. There are terms that must be meant for it to be valid, and once those terms are broken, the contract is void. Same thing here. If you can't follow the laws of a society, then that society has no reason to grant you any rights. Some do, but a "right to life" is not something that has to be inherently upheld for everyone, no matter what. Unless it's something a collective society (not an individual) chooses to do.

If you have moral reasons for why you think the life of a murderer is too sacred to be ended, that's one thing, but just referring to a "right to life" when there isn't one doesn't make for a good argument.

Quote from Preserve

It's hard to pull out sources to say that the death penalty is revenge when there's no real statistics to show because it's an emotion. But I doubt that you would hear a prosecutor argue "Well, this person should receive the death penalty because it's a much harder life in jail and the executioners need to get paid" rather than "this person killed so he should feel the same way that person when he died." Or something along those lines.

The punishments given for certain crimes is determined by the jurisdiction the crime was committed in, and the laws that jurisdiction follows. A prosecutor's emotional argument is irrelevant. If a prosecutor is for the death penalty, in a state that doesn't allow it, it doesn't matter. If the legislature states "If a person does x, he will be put to death", and someone goes and does x, then they're put to death. It has nothing to do with revenge or retribution or anything.

Quote from Exilement

Someone serving 6 consecutive life sentences without parole doesn't have any chance to redeem themselves.

Why not?

A right to life. What is that exactly? There's no natural order enforcing a "right to life". Animals don't have it and neither do we. Outside of society, there's literally nothing stopping us from ripping each other to pieces.

Most sane people wouldn't consider that to be in their best interests, so a social order was created. In an over-simplified worldview, these societies grant their citizens rights, while also constraining them with laws. As long as you follow these laws to keep society happy, then society will defend those rights to keep you happy.

Think of it like a contract. There are terms that must be meant for it to be valid, and once those terms are broken, the contract is void. Same thing here. If you can't follow the laws of a society, then that society has no reason to grant you any rights. Some do, but a "right to life" is not something that has to be inherently upheld for everyone, no matter what. Unless it's something a collective society (not an individual) chooses to do.

If you have moral reasons for why you think the life of a murderer is too sacred to be ended, that's one thing, but just referring to a "right to life" when there isn't one doesn't make for a good argument.

Human rights are inherent in everyone and cannot be taken away. It's not a privilege or a contract. It's probably originates back to some biological or social evolution. It's clear and evident by examining other people that they wan't happiness and freedom, it's inherent. It's also detrimental. If people keep killing each other, society will not function properly and we'd be extinct, which probably goes back to some natural or biological instinct that we try to avoid. So there is actually "a right to life."

The punishments given for certain crimes is determined by the jurisdiction the crime was committed in, and the laws that jurisdiction follows. A prosecutor's emotional argument is irrelevant. If a prosecutor is for the death penalty, in a state that doesn't allow it, it doesn't matter. If the legislature states "If a person does x, he will be put to death", and someone goes and does x, then they're put to death. It has nothing to do with revenge or retribution or anything.

And where does the death penalty come from? Why implement it in the first place?

Quote from Preserve

Why not?

It sounds like you're saying they have a chance to turn their life around as long as they're alive, but without parole and while serving a 200+ year sentence, that's not going to happen. They're going to spend their life in a cell. How do you "redeem" yourself in that situation?

Quote from Preserve

It's clear and evident by examining other people that they wan't happiness and freedom, it's inherent.

Yes, like I said, most people like being alive and most people have no drive to kill people.

You're not thinking this through. A "right" doesn't mean anything if there isn't a group of people willing and able to defend it. You don't determine or defend your own rights -- if you feel you have the right to steal, you are not justified in doing so, because it disagrees with the society you live in, and you'll be punished accordingly.

Now the "right to life" -- what happens when someone doesn't feel you have one? And they decide to kill you? Why should the society that defends that right owe that person anything? Why should he still have a right to life, when he blatantly ignored yours?

Societies are give and take. You live among it, you contribute, you follow the laws society demands that you follow, and in return the society grants you rights, and defends them. If you enter a society, disregard their laws and murder its citizens, you are no longer inherently protected by anything. They can choose how to deal with problems however they feel necessary, and if that solution is the death penalty, it's their call.

For a right to be "inherent", it means it cannot be violated under any circumstance. The natural order of things kind of disagrees with you there. There's no logic behind what you're saying. You're just saying people aren't naturally inclined to murder each other, but that doesn't create a "right" in a legal sense. Societies create rights, and since societies have deemed it acceptable to execute criminals for centuries, you need a good reason for why that's "inherently" wrong.

Whether someone *has the ability* to do something about a problem and whether they ought to aren't the same thing.

I don't really know what you're responding to with that.

Quote from Exilement

It sounds like you're saying they have a chance to turn their life around as long as they're alive, but without parole and while serving a 200+ year sentence, that's not going to happen. They're going to spend their life in a cell. How do you "redeem" yourself in that situation?

If you change, that by itself is enough to redeem yourself in my opinion. Also, like I said before, you aren't completely left in the dark when you go to prison. You still have some freedoms that allow you to interact with society in a minimal scale like meeting with friends, family members, and other people on occasion, getting interviewed, and I believe you can right a book if you're incarcerated(I'm not sure about this)

Yes, like I said, most people like being alive and most people have no drive to kill people.

You're not thinking this through. A "right" doesn't mean anything if there isn't a group of people willing and able to defend it. You don't determine or defend your own rights -- if you feel you have the right to steal, you are not justified in doing so, because it disagrees with the society you live in, and you'll be punished accordingly.

Now the "right to life" -- what happens when someone doesn't feel you have one? And they decide to kill you? Why should the society that defends that right owe that person anything? Why should he still have a right to life, when he blatantly ignored yours?

Societies are give and take. You live among it, you contribute, you follow the laws society demands that you follow, and in return the society grants you rights, and defends them. If you enter a society, disregard their laws and murder its citizens, you are no longer inherently protected by anything. They can choose how to deal with problems however they feel necessary, and if that solution is the death penalty, it's their call.

For a right to be "inherent", it means it cannot be violated under any circumstance. The natural order of things kind of disagrees with you there. There's no logic behind what you're saying. You're just saying people aren't naturally inclined to murder each other, but that doesn't create a "right" in a legal sense. Societies create rights, and since societies have deemed it acceptable to execute criminals for centuries, you need a good reason for why that's "inherently" wrong.

I think we disagree what rights should be. I don't think rights should be determined through laws or what the norm or society thinks is okay. Laws and society can be corrupt.

Now the "right to life" -- what happens when someone doesn't feel you have one? And they decide to kill you? Why should the society that defends that right owe that person anything? Why should he still have a right to life, when he blatantly ignored yours?

Also, how is this not revenge?

Quote from Preserve

If you change, that by itself is enough to redeem yourself in my opinion. Also, like I said before, you aren't completely left in the dark when you go to prison. You still have some freedoms that allow you to interact with society in a minimal scale like meeting with friends, family members, and other people on occasion, getting interviewed, and I believe you can right a book if you're incarcerated(I'm not sure about this)

Well, I used to kill people for the hell of it, but this book deal has made me a changed man!

I don't see how redemption matters when death is the punishment for a crime already committed. You can't change what already happened.

Quote from Preserve

I think we disagree what rights should be. I don't think rights should be determined through laws or what the norm or society thinks is okay. Laws and society can be corrupt.

I don't think "we're" disagreeing on anything. I'm stating what rights are and you're refusing to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your worldview. Rights are entitlements to something, and unless a law protects that entitlement, nobody has any reason to give you anything. When the legal system thinks death is an appropriate punishment, you have no legal right to live at that point. You can keep calling that right "inherent" and say it "can't be taken away" but the entirety of written history directly contradicts those claims, so referring to it as if it's a self-obvious truth that proves anything seems a little odd.

Quote from Preserve

Also, how is this not revenge?

How is locking someone in a cell for the rest of their lives not revenge? Aside from honoring this imaginary "right to live" that you believe should exist.