Quote from hapaboy:
Damn right it doesn't. First of all, the figure is higher than 200, but to keep things very simple, let's keep it at that number and go with your 98% figure.
Now, 98% may seem like a terrific number in most instances, i.e. medicine X has proven capable of eliminating breast cancer 98% of the time, or such-and-such trading strategy is profitable 98% of the time (!), etc.
The reason 98% is an F grade in this instance and not an A, is obvious, isn't it? Because we're talking about 200 HUMAN LIVES here! If 2% of released murderers shop lifted or went around spraying grafitti on walls, I would join you and say yes, the rehabilitation process is successful. But that of course is not the case. Anything less than 100%, therefore, is failure here.
If the US is successful against 99.99% of the attempts for terrorists to smuggle in and set off a nuclear device in our country, and the one that gets through takes out NYC/LA/SF/Chicago/Atlanta - take your pick - killing millions of people, can we say we've been "successful"?
Many in the against crowd like to say "better no capital punishment than 1 innocent person being executed." This is laughable, because not only has it never occurred (ask dGAB), but murderers are being released and killing again. Why aren't those "innocent persons" ever talked about?
No, we do not agree on that.
Read this thread, especially the last several posts. I've posted data. And of course, execution absolutely positively solves the problem of recidivity, doesn't it?
Maybe you should start a thread on that. Personally, I would be against it. If a pit bull attacks a child, do we torture it before putting it to sleep? Do ranchers torture wolves that have been caught killing their livestock?
Yes, you're wrong. Sorry to disappoint you. Not everything is shades of grey, Optional. US support of Saddam in the 80's is a grey area, although bung argues differently. A lot is grey in our world, but not, IMHO, this.
What I continue to fail to understand is why you and the anti-capital punishment crowd are so eager to champion the rights of murderers over those of innocent citizens.
Seems there is a lot you are failing to understand about the anti-capital punishment perspective.
Imagine a society, that immediately put Down syndrome children to death, upon diagnosis.
Retarded children are killed immediately upon classification.
Children with terminal illnesses are put to death upon that diagnosis.
Why do we spend millions of dollars on research, in the hope that we can find cures for these human beings, who are nothing but an economic drain on society?
We do so, because of our evolved and civilized nature, and the simple fact that science is not complete. Men of science know that over the course of history, advancements have come when they are least expected, which have saved lives and improved the quality of lives.
Why do I argue in favor of jail for a criminal, who has committed murder over death?
It is because I do value life. I believe in the redemption process. I also value science, and I value the opportunity for even the most unhealthy, diseased people to recover.
We have made major strides in the field of human psychology and criminal psychology in the past 50 years. We have discovered that many criminals were driven to their actions due to faulty brain chemistry, not faulty morals.
So, what you suggest is that since we cannot insure that a former murderer won't kill again, we should just kill him.
That same line of reasoning kills down syndrome children, retarded children, terminal children, etc., because we are not sure we can cure them. Why should their parents and family suffer, why should we allow such a burden on society?
You seem to suggest that there can never, or will never be a cure for those who have murdered.
Throughout history, we have seen that murder has consequences, most often the consequence is death. Has it worked? Did it stop people from killing?
No, it didn't.
Why? Why didn't the thought of being put to death for murder stop them?
There is so much we don't know about the human mind, and your suggestion to kill, and not allow them to live as science advances, goes to the heart of the issue.
Who is to say that we won't be 100% successful in rehabilitation at some point? And how will we ever know if we are successful until we release the reformed back into society?
How will we know if we don't try?
If we don't try to find cures for diseases of the body, we won't find them.
If we don't try to find cures for the diseases of the mind that lead one to kill another, we won't find them either.
Yes, from a societal perspective, for the common good of all men, it is worth the risk to keep trying to cure the criminals, and rehabilitate them----rather than kill them.
Really, it is the only humane approach that can be found. It is the only evolutionary and scientific approach that can be supported by a scientific and civilized society.
Now, if you just want to punish, what can I say? That is your right to feel that way, but any argument against rehabilitation or against being able to confine the criminals is failing in the manner you present it.
I have asked you this several times now, and you don't seem to want to answer:
Is there some trauma in your history that makes you so inclined to the death penalty, that perhaps clouds your objectivity in this issue?
