An Unusual Pro-Death Penalth Argument

[Michchamp]

The Wyoming House of Reps recently passed a law banning the death penalty in the state, citing, among other things, the shocking number of exonerated people around the country who were on death row due to police and prosecutorial misconduct, the cost of death penalty cases, the fact that there's no evidence it serves justice or as a deterrent to crime, and the other fact that Wyoming hasn't even executed anyone since 1992.

The bill failed in teh Wyoming senate, for various stupid reasons, none of which made sense, but this was the best:

Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne, argued that without the death penalty, Jesus Christ would not have been able to die to absolve the sins of mankind, and therefore capital punishment should be maintained.

?The greatest man who ever lived died via the death penalty for you and me,? she said. ?I?m grateful to him for our future hope because of this. Governments were instituted to execute justice. If it wasn?t for Jesus dying via the death penalty, we would all have no hope.?​

Link.

 

[Michchamp]

fucking typos in the subject line... goddamnit.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I logged in to say something about how stupid that is, but I got nothing. I'm speechless.

 

[Gulo Blue]

But beyond the 'reasoning' of this knucklehead, to me, it's intuitive that the death penalty would be a feature of a big government with greater control over its citizens and anyone in favor of smaller governments with more restricted power would be anti-death penalty.

 

[Michchamp]

But beyond the 'reasoning' of this knucklehead, to me, it's intuitive that the death penalty would be a feature of a big government with greater control over its citizens and anyone in favor of smaller governments with more restricted power would be anti-death penalty.

Gee, you think the whole "small government/big government" line might be a disingenuous argument put forward by people who support government actions that further their own personal interests, and only oppose government actions that don't?

 

[Spartanmack]

But beyond the 'reasoning' of this knucklehead, to me, it's intuitive that the death penalty would be a feature of a big government with greater control over its citizens and anyone in favor of smaller governments with more restricted power would be anti-death penalty.

why is that? because of the resources necessary to properly administer the death penalty? Unless you're unwilling to accept a level of risk of wrongful executions, it doesn't follow that the death penalty would be a big government only policy unless you're equating big government with authoritarianism. Authoritarian, murderous regimes have probably abused capital punishment to fit their needs. but it's really about crime and punishment and what's appropriate - that doesn't seem to depend on the size of government.

 

[Gulo Blue]

why is that? because of the resources necessary to properly administer the death penalty? Unless you're unwilling to accept a level of risk of wrongful executions, it doesn't follow that the death penalty would be a big government only policy unless you're equating big government with authoritarianism. Authoritarian, murderous regimes have probably abused capital punishment to fit their needs. but it's really about crime and punishment and what's appropriate - that doesn't seem to depend on the size of government.

Not a resources argument. It's a death-penalty-is-the-complete-opposite-of-freedom-and-is-the-most-complete-control-a-government-can-have-over-a-person argument.



Doesn't really make a difference if it comes from a government that's more authoritarian or more democratic.

 

[Spartanmack]

Not a resources argument. It's a death-penalty-is-the-complete-opposite-of-freedom-and-is-the-most-complete-control-a-government-can-have-over-a-person argument.



Doesn't really make a difference if it comes from a government that's more authoritarian or more democratic.

I don't see the death penalty as the complete opposite of freedom. If that's what you believe, are you opposed to life sentences? It's a question of whether that punishment is fitting for a particular crime and whether the death penalty can be administered in a way that would make it an effective deterent of crime. The death penalty is not so different from a life sentence when we're talking about freedom. I also think the distinction between an authoritarian dictator and democratic government matters.

 

[Michchamp]

... The death penalty is not so different from a life sentence when we're talking about freedom. ...

Keen observation. Except for the totally minor point that you can't bring someone back after you kill them, they are totally the same.

 

[Spartanmack]

Keen observation. Except for the totally minor point that you can't bring someone back after you kill them, they are totally the same.

I didn't say they were the same. That doesn't make the person with the life sentence any more free, just more alive.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Just talking about freedom...a dead person isn't free to do anything (at least in this life). A person in jail still has the freedom to think for himself, make decisions, and life his life. There are fewer things to choose from, but there's more freedom than if he's dead.


Life sentences are an unfortunate necessity. If there were some way to rehabilitate everyone, that would be better. But there isn't. So sometimes we need life sentences. I don't see preventative value in life sentences as far as deterring others, just the practical prevention of crimes that would be committed by people that will always be expected to commit them if freed.

 

[Michchamp]

"being dead is not the same as being in jail."

LOL that this even needs to be said.

 

[Gulo Blue]

"being dead is not the same as being in jail."

LOL that this even needs to be said.

We're not nit picking, we're just talking about the difference between "not so different" and "same".

 

[Polish-Hammer]

The Wyoming House of Reps recently passed a law banning the death penalty in the state, citing, among other things, the shocking number of exonerated people around the country who were on death row due to police and prosecutorial misconduct, the cost of death penalty cases, the fact that there's no evidence it serves justice or as a deterrent to crime, and the other fact that Wyoming hasn't even executed anyone since 1992.

The bill failed in teh Wyoming senate, for various stupid reasons, none of which made sense, but this was the best:

Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne, argued that without the death penalty, Jesus Christ would not have been able to die to absolve the sins of mankind, and therefore capital punishment should be maintained.

?The greatest man who ever lived died via the death penalty for you and me,? she said. ?I?m grateful to him for our future hope because of this. Governments were instituted to execute justice. If it wasn?t for Jesus dying via the death penalty, we would all have no hope.?​

Link.

USA, definitely not stuck in the 1650s.

 

[Spartanmack]

We're not nit picking, we're just talking about the difference between "not so different" and "same".

not so different in terms of freedom and they're not. Of course there's a significant difference between being dead and being alive. Now where did those goal posts go?

 

[Spartanmack]

"being dead is not the same as being in jail."

LOL that this even needs to be said.

good try, but that's not even close to the point nor remotely close to anything I said.

 

[Gulo Blue]

not so different in terms of freedom and they're not. Of course there's a significant difference between being dead and being alive. Now where did those goal posts go?

In terms of freedom. Very different. See post 11.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Still think it's crazy you repeatedly call me the nitpicker here.


Where'd that pot/kettle thread go?

 

[Spartanmack]

Just talking about freedom...a dead person isn't free to do anything (at least in this life). A person in jail still has the freedom to think for himself, make decisions, and life his life. There are fewer things to choose from, but there's more freedom than if he's dead.


Life sentences are an unfortunate necessity. If there were some way to rehabilitate everyone, that would be better. But there isn't. So sometimes we need life sentences. I don't see preventative value in life sentences as far as deterring others, just the practical prevention of crimes that would be committed by people that will always be expected to commit them if freed.

yeah, there's more just not a whole lot more unless you think freedom to think and make decisions like whether or not to eat or shit in your toilet instead on the floor, or whether or not to hang yourself with a bed sheet is a high degree of freedom.

Edit: I'm starting to see your side here as I think about all the decisions a lifer w/ no chance for parole can make, like whether or not to murder or rape a cell mate, they can choose whether or not to use their commissary to start an illegal business in the prison economy, make toilet wine or write the great American novel (that they can't profit from). I bet in some states they can choose whether or not to get state funded gender reassignment surgery. It's almost as much liberty as actual freedom. A death sentence is the antithesis of freedom (even thought it's really just a form of punishment for certain types of crime) while life w/o parole is like freedom-light.

 

[Spartanmack]

Still think it's crazy you repeatedly call me the nitpicker here.


Where'd that pot/kettle thread go?

this isn't a nit.