Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Messiah Why do we not believe in cruel and unusual punishment? Why should the death penalty be removed?
I'm going to try and adress the basic points here briefly.
1) Because we have nothing to gain. Torture is an extremely, extremely unreliable method of gaining information; you see the reason behind this if you've ever been present when a child was being beaten by their parent as a punishment, or whether you were that child- here I include "moderate" forms of corporal punishment. If you hit someone, they will say whatever they think is most likely to get you to stop. A child who promises never to be bad again is not going to actually be a saint for the rest of their life; if anything, most studies about physical punishment show the opposite. I was reading a very eloquent, very old book on crime and punishment that adressed another basic flaw with extreme punishments; the belief in one's own immortality. The extremity of the punishment is less relevant because most criminals, whether justifiably or not, think they won't be caught. It's a natural arrogance most people have. Therefore, a punishment that can be administered reliably to offenders is a better deterrent than a haphazardly applied, yet extreme punishment. So far from preventing crime, the death penalty is more or less glorified in a lot of mainstream culture. There aren't a ton of movies, music videos, comic books or record labels focusing on someone who got Life in Prison. Furthermore, a slain criminal, besides the appeal process for the death penalty actually costing the taxpayer more than simply holding them for life, cannot return the debt to through society through labor.
2) Because the corruption of a government is directly proportionate to it's power. It boggles the mind that conservatives who don't want the government to have the power to tax over a certain percentage or tax certain products are perfectly alright with giving the government the power to take away life. Invariably, innocent are killed, and if they're found to be innocent ten or fifteen years later it's too late to be of any help. Invariably, over time, the power over life and death will be actively abused; there's a natural progression from putting treasonist terrorists to death to putting treasonous dissidents, then simply dissidents and anti-establishment figures of all kinds.  It turns us into monsters. I realized that some of you have no idea what you look like when you gleefully talk about wanting to watch another human being be killed, and then defend yourself by saying that he or she "deserves" it. Whether or not they do is besides the point. It lessens the humanity in a being to take joy in the suffering of another. Some anger and hate are natural in humans, and I don't think they should be completely repressed; but at the point at which you're actively delighting in the torture and murder of others, we're way too far down the other extreme. If we were talking about someone who had slain your loved ones specifically, it would be one thing; but cut through the bullshit. When you read about some stranger being murdered in the newspaper, you don't set down the newspaper and cry. You don't call their relatives and console them. You don't go to the funeral and lay roses on the grave. You make no pretense of mourning the death, so pretending to some sort of righteous anger in an effort to present your basest desires as noble is meaningless. When we grow up with murder and abuse and torture as condoned activities, we become jaded to the actual suffering of others and lose all empathy. Children learn by example; if you teach them by hitting them, they're much more likely to consider violence an acceptable means of solving problems. If you show them that it's alright to kill and torture those who wrong you, they practice those ideals. |
for your first point: torture is not an effective interrogation method, i agree. personally, i say trick them into giving us the information and then hold them until it's verified. then either release or torture to death, as necessary.
for your second: impressive hypothesis, though completely unjustifiable. economics cannot be compared to human life, not even by my cynical viewpoint. economics are much, much more apparently important.
for your third: haha, can't you be liberal and not have such stereotypical arguments? jesus christ. i'm apathetic towards politics in general, so i can make fun of either party when they annoy me - often. when you say it lessens the humanity of a human to enjoy another's death, that's so unjustified and unjustifiable that it's laughable. as human beings, everything we do is human. we cannot violate nature because we partake in it. we are nature, we are humanity, and when we do anything we are simply making known an aspect of our nature. whether we love or hate it, are glorified or terrified of it is another story. but it is in our nature nonetheless, in my and your nature, whether you admit it or not.
i don't give a shit when other people are killed, as you've said, but it's the principle of the thing that merits their punishment. those who stray from society should be removed from society. would you feel better stranding violent criminals on a desert island in the middle of the pacific? 90% of the costs would be reduced - in fact, profit could be made in the trip (take passengers along for a cruise, lol) drop the sickos off, let them live with, kill, eat, and screw each other. let it be hell on earth - or whatever they choose to make of it. give them their own society. and forget them. would that be any more humane than dispatching them to the next world?