Penn and Teller argue against the death penalty.Penn and Teller argue against the death penalty.Penn and Teller argue against the death penalty.
Photos
Steven Banks
- Billy the Mime
- (as Billy the Mime)
Joshua Marquis
- Self - District Attorney, Astoria Oregon
- (as Josh Marquis)
Storyline
Did you know
- ConnectionsReferences Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
- SoundtracksLa Marseillaise
(1792) (uncredited)
Written by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle
Arranged by Gary Stockdale
Featured review
The Death Penalty
Penn and Teller did an episode on "Anger Management".
The key thing to know about that episode is that what was key is that in the eyes of trained professionals, venting or releasing that anger only reinforces and builds that visceral and violent response a person gets when provoked.
So it is with the death penalty.
It is not a deterrent in a nation at peace domestically, and where the death penalty gets little publicity. FBI statistics bear that out. It is killing another human being, plain and simple.
The counter argument, the non-moral argument, that Penn and Teller put forth for sparing convicted murderers, is that at some time they may talk. Their conscience may get to them. For someone who murdered for profit or passion, that is to satiate an emotional need (stealing money to improve life style for pleasure) that is so. For a sociopath, it is not so.
When a nation is at war, or in a state of conflict or plane of social existence whereby violence is known as a consequence of initiating an act against social codes, then the death penalty, or the preponderance of it, is a deterrent, for it is seen and known to be the ultimate injury of flirting with the possibility of violent retribution.
Executing terrorists in prison will not deter terrorism. Nor will it deter serial killers. Nor organized criminals who killed as part of their business practice. It will deter a segment of population who are willing to take up arms in some cause, criminal or not. But those are extraordinary circumstances.
The "death penalty" works in the animal kingdom. Herds of animals, on some level, know the consequences of letting predatory animals get close to and capturing them. We are still simians, but we do have a higher social order than groups of predator animals out in the wild.
Therefore, it seems to me, that those who need the preponderance of the death penalty, aren't getting the message. And those who want the preponderance of the death penalty, aren't getting their message out.
Me, personally, I still believe in the death penalty as matter of punishing traitors whose acts put the whole of society at risk of death. Beyond that, I'm for life in prison.
Enjoy.
The key thing to know about that episode is that what was key is that in the eyes of trained professionals, venting or releasing that anger only reinforces and builds that visceral and violent response a person gets when provoked.
So it is with the death penalty.
It is not a deterrent in a nation at peace domestically, and where the death penalty gets little publicity. FBI statistics bear that out. It is killing another human being, plain and simple.
The counter argument, the non-moral argument, that Penn and Teller put forth for sparing convicted murderers, is that at some time they may talk. Their conscience may get to them. For someone who murdered for profit or passion, that is to satiate an emotional need (stealing money to improve life style for pleasure) that is so. For a sociopath, it is not so.
When a nation is at war, or in a state of conflict or plane of social existence whereby violence is known as a consequence of initiating an act against social codes, then the death penalty, or the preponderance of it, is a deterrent, for it is seen and known to be the ultimate injury of flirting with the possibility of violent retribution.
Executing terrorists in prison will not deter terrorism. Nor will it deter serial killers. Nor organized criminals who killed as part of their business practice. It will deter a segment of population who are willing to take up arms in some cause, criminal or not. But those are extraordinary circumstances.
The "death penalty" works in the animal kingdom. Herds of animals, on some level, know the consequences of letting predatory animals get close to and capturing them. We are still simians, but we do have a higher social order than groups of predator animals out in the wild.
Therefore, it seems to me, that those who need the preponderance of the death penalty, aren't getting the message. And those who want the preponderance of the death penalty, aren't getting their message out.
Me, personally, I still believe in the death penalty as matter of punishing traitors whose acts put the whole of society at risk of death. Beyond that, I'm for life in prison.
Enjoy.
helpful•03
- Blueghost
- Mar 17, 2015
Details
- Runtime30 minutes
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content