View Full Version : Debate: - Then again, maybe in the right cases, the death penalty should be allowed
Don Corleone
07-24-2008, 18:10
My argument against the death penalty really comes down to a question of morality and spirituality. Unlike a war or self defense in one's home, execution by its very nature is an unnecessary killing. The state already has the murderer (or rapist) in custody, so it's not necessary to kill them to immobilize them or prevent them from doing further harm. By executing them, you're killing somebody when you don't need to.
And then I watched an ABC News special report last night about this tragic story of poor Denise Lee. (http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080122/TOPICS01/627933503/-1/NEWS12) This poor woman was abducted from her own house in a home invasion, in front of her 10 month old and 2 year old sons. The suspected murderer, Michael King, drove her first to his own house, then to his cousin's house, where he asked for gasoline, a shovel and a flashlight. The victim, Denise Lee, bound hand and foot, escaped from King's Camaro and screamed "call the police, call the police". The cousin, Harold Muxlow, asked King, who told him not to worry about it. Muxlow didn't, and didn't call police. He did tell his daughter about the incident, and she called police. Muxlow later yelled at her for "making him look bad and embarrassing him".
The whole story is horrible on many levels. The victim was brutally raped, shot repeatedly and then buried in a shallow grave by the side of the road. The worst part is, a woman phoned 911 from a cell-phone when she was following King's Camaro and said she could see what appeared to be a woman or a child struggling in the backseat. But because the woman described the Camaro as blue, not green (the car is blue-green), did not forward the information along. Two hours later, Lee was raped again, dead and buried.
I have a hard time with this story. Forget King himself, I want to beat the cousin to death. I don't know why, when they brought King in for questioning... a ticking timebomb scenario if ever there was one, somebody didn't take some pruning shears to him and start taking his fingers off at each knuckle until he coughed up where the body was.
As it was, it took 2 days of intensive searching to find the grave and the victim.
I'm sorry, I know most of the Orgahs are thoroughly modern and disaffected by such stories, and it's cool to be blase', but I really truly want blood. And a lot of pain. Repeatedly. I know this isn't Christian, and in fact, it's pretty dangerous, spiritually speaking, but I don't really care. I think I've had it with the child molesters/rapists/murderers of the world, running around torturing, raping and killing innocent women and children. Maybe it's time somebody starts making them a little nervous and maybe think twice before they do these things. They clearly think they'll get a free ride, even if they get caught. And they're right.
Maybe this country needs its own Sombra Negra.
I see what you mean, sometimes I think like you, don't know what else to say. :shrug:
CrossLOPER
07-24-2008, 18:16
Life in prison for rapists and child molesters is generally not a "free ride".
EDIT: Also, reading into your paragraph more... The police work seems to be pretty awful as well. I think that making the public more willing to report suspicious activity would help, even if it would save a handful of lives.
Lord Winter
07-24-2008, 18:20
Rotting in prision for the rest of their lives can be a worse punishment then just dying quickly. They should have to live there lives with the constant guilt of what they did and relize that by denying life to others there's is now useless. I struggle with the death penelty for multiable reasons who are we to take life away? What if by some long shot we got it wrong? Even if we only save one mistaken innocent men from being exucuted its worth all the other conivied murderes that we leave to rot. You can release some one from prision but you can't bring them back from the dead.
Disgusting, put it down. If you have a problem with actually killing them just stop feeding them.How sick can you be, bah.
Louis VI the Fat
07-24-2008, 18:56
I hear you, Don. I know what you're saying, where you're coming from. Don't really know what to make of all this at times myself. I want blood too. Then again, humanitarian values, a civilised judicial system, and one's own morality, are not tested by small scale tax evading yet otherwise decent citizens, but by brutal acts of horror.
I don't know. Maybe we are the better people for not torturing these men to death in public in reatiliation. Maybe we are stupid for not doing so.
I don't have it in me to stand up for them, or for our judicial system in the face of such horrors, nor do I actively support more brutality in our system. In the end, I simply mentally retract myself. Some things are more than I can bear. ~:mecry:
English assassin
07-24-2008, 22:16
They clearly think they'll get a free ride, even if they get caught.
IMHO this is where the argument breaks down. I just don't believe anyone thinks to himself, I'll abduct a woman from in front of her children, repeatedly rape her, then shoot her and bury her in a shallow grave, because if I'm caught I'll only get life in jail, but heck, if it was the death penalty, I'll just stay home. I really don't think this sort of behaviour is the result of some sort of cost benefit analysis.
Does King deserve to live? No. Should we kill him? Different question.
I'm sorry, I know most of the Orgahs are thoroughly modern and disaffected by such stories, and it's cool to be blase',
Straw man, DC.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-24-2008, 22:34
Rotting in prision for the rest of their lives can be a worse punishment then just dying quickly. They should have to live there lives with the constant guilt of what they did and relize that by denying life to others there's is now useless. I struggle with the death penelty for multiable reasons who are we to take life away? What if by some long shot we got it wrong? Even if we only save one mistaken innocent men from being exucuted its worth all the other conivied murderes that we leave to rot. You can release some one from prision but you can't bring them back from the dead.
People, Don't you understand? You giving them a FREE RIDE! You are still paying to keep them in Jail. Yes, if you kill them, your loved one will never come back, BUT.....
1. The Person is still alive
2. The Person will Be Fed, Have a Place to stay, and so forth
3.They won't freeze in the WInter like Poor Homeless People will
Among Other Reasons, and that just for Murderers. I mean, I know some people can't understand why I'm for Death Penalty, but I can't understand why people aren't for it more often.
Reverend Joe
07-24-2008, 23:07
:stare:
Put him in prison. Tatoo the words RAPIST/MURDERER on his uniform. And slip some of the burliest inmates some viagra and give them some alone time with him. I'm sure he will be begging for the chair.
Hell, even all that isn't necessary; just instruct the guards to "let slip" what he did, and the rest will work itself out.
@Warman and Don: I don't think you realize how much of a punishment prison is/can be. There's a reason that a lot of people are arguing that it is just a foul system and should be updated/replaced with rehabilitation. But frankly, people like this deserve that cesspool. They don't deserve the easy way out, especially as I have heard from firsthand accounts that death row inmates are among the easiest to get along with.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-24-2008, 23:25
I doubt rehabilitation will work, if I read correctly, most people that go into rehab commit crimes again anyhow, but I may be wrong.
Realize? I do realize it, HOWEVER, I think if you kill someone, (escally a child or defenless eldery or disabled person), then you should be put on Death Row. That the way it should be.
Lord Winter
07-24-2008, 23:40
What does killing someone do in the end? Does it bring back the dead? Or in the end even deter? There is no difference between the punishment of death which already happens anyway, and wasting away in a prision knowing that your life was a waste. Perhasp the second one is even the worst.
I do not believe in punishment for the sake of punishing. Until it is certain whether he is in the spirit of committing similiar crimes, he should stay in jail for society's security. What's done cannot be undone by punishing him; what should stay in focus is prevention of future crimes and not letting angry thoughts cloud one's vision.
Bottom note: in my eyes the right to live is undeniable.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-24-2008, 23:43
What does killing someone do in the end? Does it bring back the dead? Or in the end even deter? There is no difference between the punishment of death which already happens anyway, and wasting away in a prision knowing that your life was a waste. Perhasp the second one is even the worst.
But Life In prison deter? If I want to murder someone, do you think I would care for example. People, these guys know that murdering someone for example will get them Killed or Life In Jail, so do you think they care even if they did get life? They are Useless Human Beings, derserve to be killed. SInce they kill a fellow Human, In my opninon, they lost their right to live.
Lord Winter
07-24-2008, 23:45
If you're an irrational serial killer do you really think you care anyway?
The true question here seems to be do humans have the justifacation to declare that this man should die, but that man can live.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-24-2008, 23:46
If you're an irrational serial killer do you really think you care anyway?
Didn't I just say that? :juggle2:
The true question here seems to be do humans have the justifacation to declare that this man should die, but that man can live.
Good Point, But Yes We Do. Who do you think should then? Grumpy Bear, My Care Bear? :laugh4:
Lord Winter
07-24-2008, 23:51
Didn't I just say that?
Then why do you think its an effective deterent if they don't care?
Good Point, But Yes We Do. Who do you think should then? Grumpy Bear, My Care Bear?
Christains say God, others say maybe none.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
07-24-2008, 23:59
Then why do you think its an effective deterent if they don't care?
Christains say God, others say maybe none.
1. Effective For the People Who Think about it, Some Don't care becayse they think they can get away with it, then they get caught and say "I'm a good person, please let me have Life in Jail........".
2. Well, God Isn't talking about it, so God will understand, trust me. And the non Believers, if they say none, then.......?
This is horrible indeed. I prefer a long time in prison to the death penalty, and in this case I am still entitled to my opinion. Put the cousin and King together in a nice two-person cell, in which they can together reflect on the awesome deeds they've done.
LittleGrizzly
07-25-2008, 00:50
I don't think the death penalty is really a deterrent, to be honest given the choice i would rather have the death penalty then spend all the rest of my years in prison, quick and painless rather than a horrible long dragged out process.... and this is why i have been rethinking my position on the death penalty, it almost seems more humane to me to kill someone than keep them locked up until the end of thier days.
But then the idea of having someone trapped under our power and then finishing thier life just seems sick to me, not as sick as the original crime but not far from it, as im sure you've all heard many timeres two wrongs do not make a right...
I don't think the death penalty really works as a deterrent, im pretty sure most murderers don't care or think they won't get caught, and crimes of passion usually don't allow enough time to weigh up consequences...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-25-2008, 01:36
I don't think the death penalty works as a deterrent. Frankly, I don't care. Some people deserve death. I remain against the death penalty in most situations, but if the crime was brutal and the evidence conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm for it. For in theory, against in general practice.
Crazed Rabbit
07-25-2008, 03:27
It is morally weak, in my opinion, to accept horrible deeds done by others that we would not do ourselves. It's a way of passing the buck.
And I daresay some exaggerate the conditions in prisons. For child molesters it's one thing what is done to them, but I don't think rapists and murderers get the same treatment - who's going to beat up on them? The armed robbers?
The cousin should be killed. Depraved indifference to human life.
We should be sure to catch all murderers quickly, and send them quickly to Hell. I daresay not giving them 20 years of appeals would highlight the deterrent effect.
CR
PS- Yes, I am aware of false convictions. But as is generally the case when I generalize, I don't care.
LittleGrizzly
07-25-2008, 03:58
For child molesters it's one thing what is done to them, but I don't think rapists and murderers get the same treatment - who's going to beat up on them? The armed robbers?
I heard an interview with a prisnor once, he was saying how those who harm women or children are basically seen as the scum of the prison population, so most of the rapists and some of the murderers would be covered
Aside from that i thought they usually kept child molesters apart for thier own safety ?
KukriKhan
07-25-2008, 04:16
I am a hypocrite.
Offered a chance to vote on whether I want the State to kill bad guys on my behalf: I'll vote NO. Our law enforcement and judicial system get it wrong too often, despite their best, and honorable, intentions. And no matter how I shake it, I can't see society's/government's overwhelming interest in killing a fellow human, however heinous his crime.
Yet...
If it were personal; if some nut hurt and killed my wife, kids, brothers... despite the consequences, and having met my own dark-side a few times, I'm certain of this; at the first opportunity, I would try to exact revenge.
LittleGrizzly
07-25-2008, 04:23
I don't know if i would call that hypocritical KK, its basically my view on the subject, i don't believe in the death penalty but i can be a pretty vengeful person if its personal, but the difference i see is that state is not there to act out our personal vengance, but to punish the person for a crime against the state and to punish them accordingly, jusitice is not carried out by those personally involved... thats called revenge...
Well, you could also ask why is a life worth keeping? What is so bad about killing? Animals kill other animals constantly for food, noone would say that's a bad thing, in war we kill others, in self defense it's even seen as okay but when a murderer or rapist is caught his life suddenly gets some value that has to be kept by locking him up until he dies of something else which basically means ending his life until it really ends because in prison he doesn't have a lot to live for anyway, unless we're talking about Norway which has luxury prisons that everyone leaves as a productive member of society in which case it actually makes sense to lock people up instead of shooting them at the scene which is much cheaper.
When people talk about love, they often come up with how we are still animals and hardwired to do this or that, well yeah, let's apply my animalistic, selfish instincts here as well and say if he isn't doing any good to me let's get rid of him, plain and simple, we're just wired that way.
Despite that, even a murderer is just a hull of protein and water with biochemical reactions inside but I said that before.
Kralizec
07-25-2008, 07:46
People like this guy truly do not deserve to live. But it's not expedient to kill them. While I generally trust the judiciary here they're miles away from being perfect. Even if you give someone a dozen possibilities of appeal (and denying someone an appeal against a death sentence would be horrid) there's still the chance of a wrongful conviction. I'd rather have 9 murderers having a good time rotting in jail till they drop than have one person wrongfully executed.
Lord Winter
07-25-2008, 08:40
Well, you could also ask why is a life worth keeping? What is so bad about killing? Animals kill other animals constantly for food, noone would say that's a bad thing, in war we kill others, in self defense it's even seen as okay but when a murderer or rapist is caught his life suddenly gets some value that has to be kept by locking him up until he dies of something else which basically means ending his life until it really ends because in prison he doesn't have a lot to live for anyway, unless we're talking about Norway which has luxury prisons that everyone leaves as a productive member of society in which case it actually makes sense to lock people up instead of shooting them at the scene which is much cheaper.
When people talk about love, they often come up with how we are still animals and hardwired to do this or that, well yeah, let's apply my animalistic, selfish instincts here as well and say if he isn't doing any good to me let's get rid of him, plain and simple, we're just wired that way.
Despite that, even a murderer is just a hull of protein and water with biochemical reactions inside but I said that before.
I may be missing your point but are you saying that life has no value? Then why in that logic isn't the murderer justified if all he killed is a hull of protein and water with biocehem reactions? I think the thing about opposition to the death penalty is believing that no one has the right to take away life in a cold planned matter. Not even the government.
2. Well, God Isn't talking about it, so God will understand, trust me. And the non Believers, if they say none, then.......?
Divine will isn't that simple.
I may be missing your point but are you saying that life has no value? Then why in that logic isn't the murderer justified if all he killed is a hull of protein and water with biocehem reactions?
I mentioned selfishness didn't I? I happen to like that other bunch of protein more than the killer so I decided that he should die, if you disagree we will see who the stronger is, man that even fits nature again, the stronger survive...
I like Fenring's argument that we cannot always be sure unless someone, preferably many, identified the killer 100%.
Oh and my point was that I cannot see where, as an atheist(who sees humans as the kind of soulless biochemical robots), one draws the value of life from but that's a different topic and I'm sorry for almost deriving this one.
I think the thing about opposition to the death penalty is believing that no one has the right to take away life in a cold planned matter. Not even the government.
How about taking life in a lovingly quickly-decided manner? Does the value of life fade away then or is the murderer just a pervert in that case? :inquisitive:
Reminds me of this book where the father kills his daughter because he loves her so much and wants to protect her from the power of that prince who wants to use her for himself. Is that okay? Is it romantic or trgaic? Consider that she agreed with it. Did her life have no value or should the father be punished for it?
Well, you could also ask why is a life worth keeping? What is so bad about killing? Animals kill other animals constantly for food, noone would say that's a bad thing, in war we kill others, in self defense it's even seen as okay but when a murderer or rapist is caught his life suddenly gets some value that has to be kept by locking him up until he dies of something else which basically means ending his life until it really ends because in prison he doesn't have a lot to live for anyway, unless we're talking about Norway which has luxury prisons that everyone leaves as a productive member of society in which case it actually makes sense to lock people up instead of shooting them at the scene which is much cheaper.
When people talk about love, they often come up with how we are still animals and hardwired to do this or that, well yeah, let's apply my animalistic, selfish instincts here as well and say if he isn't doing any good to me let's get rid of him, plain and simple, we're just wired that way.
Despite that, even a murderer is just a hull of protein and water with biochemical reactions inside but I said that before.
There are all kinds of people that "aren't doing any good to me", perhaps I should slay them all, its how I'm 'wired', isn't it? :yes:
As for the rest of the post; it's straw men galore. :clown:
I mentioned selfishness didn't I? I happen to like that other bunch of protein more than the killer so I decided that he should die, if you disagree we will see who the stronger is, man that even fits nature again, the stronger survive...
So you're much of an anarchist, then? Not interested in law and order in other words.
As for the rest of the post; it's straw men galore. :clown:
Well, I like cereals. :shrug:
So you're much of an anarchist, then? Not interested in law and order in other words.
No, when law and order say that for raping you have to get killed, then so be it. What I actually wanted was areason for it not to say that and Fenring was the only one who gave a good one, human error.
Oh and my point was that I cannot see where, as an atheist(who sees humans as the kind of soulless biochemical robots), one draws the value of life from but that's a different topic and I'm sorry for almost deriving this one.
Actually, one could argue that human life is more valuable for an atheist, since they believe there is no afterlife so when someone is gone, they're gone. However, it is, as you say, off topic.
Regarding the death penalty, as others have said the purpose of the justice system is not to exact vengeance on behalf of the victim. Of course, if someone I love were murdered, while I would hope I would have the strength to forgive the murderer, in truth I would probably want to kill the murderer in revenge. However I don't see why it's the job of the state to exact that revenge for me. If I were sufficiently determined to exact revenge, I should be willing to do the job myself rather than expecting someone else to become a murderer in cold blood for me. If I truly regarded that prison were not enough of a punishment, doing a prison sentence of my own for exacting revenge would surely be a small price to pay.
The state has already done its job by locking the guy up for life, thus preventing him commiting any further crimes.
yesdachi
07-25-2008, 16:18
I have been to this party before and I love it. There is nothing that can make people more alive than talking about death. ~D
I look at the situation from 3 angles. Protection of the people, the cost of the protection and the morality of the consequences of the protection.
Bad people need to be removed from society to protect the good people. If the bad people cannot be rehabilitated or at least learn their lesson after a time, they stay in prison forever, ensuring that society is protected from them forever.
This is where the cost of the protection kicks in for me; IIRC 20% of Michigan’s state budget is spent on jails and prisons and the social impact of having a so many people in prison cant be measured, but how many prison guards turn into jerks after dealing with so many hardcore criminals everyday, how many rehabilitateable inmates are not given a chance because they are influenced by the worst offenders in existence? There are an average of 6-7 hundred murders and 5,000+ rapes in Michigan each year. Other inmates, guards and society in general would be better off with the people who have committed those crimes gone, permanently.
From a moral perspective, I feel bad about it but I simply don’t care about someone who can not be trusted to live next door to my family. rapists, murders, child molesters stop being people and become animals or monsters even, when they commit those types of crimes and just like I don’t have a problem putting down a rabid dog to permanently protect society from it I do not have a problem permanently protecting society from a human who has turned into a monster, is a bad influence on the people around them and a fiscal drag on the state. MI spends nearly 2 billion a year on prisons, that’s more than we spend on public universities. Spending money to keep monsters alive while cutting funds that educate our children is counter productive to me and overrides any moral objection I could have to the death penalty.
That said I do think our judicial system is a mess and there is no “speedy trial” and the current process to convict someone for almost anything is unbelievably long and drawn out and we do occasionally catch the wrong guy, etc. Michigan hasn’t had a death penalty execution since 1837 and I don’t think we are ready to make a change so I am pretty much just talking about my own thoughts on the subject. :bow:
Sometimes there are crimes that stir up our thirst for bloody revenge.
but revenge is an emotional response, it does not equal justice and is not a valid motive.
The justice system is supposed to dish out justice as best as it can, it´s not there to fulfill the blood lust one might feel.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-25-2008, 19:04
Sometimes there are crimes that stir up our thirst for bloody revenge.
but revenge is an emotional response, it does not equal justice and is not a valid motive.
But what is justice? It differs. However, justice is supposed to be fair. In my opinion, a death sentence for a premediated murder is fair.
But what is justice? It differs. However, justice is supposed to be fair. In my opinion, a death sentence for a premediated murder is fair.
a death sentence is a premeditated killing also....
in my view if a society codifies in it´s laws that a certain behavior is incorrect (i.e. murder) then you can´t use the same behavior as punishment....that would be hypocrisy to say the very least.
Crazed Rabbit
07-25-2008, 19:40
So no jailing of kidnappers then?
There goes that argument.
Anyways, revenge can sometimes achieve justice. If justice is someone being executed for a murder, does it matter who shoots the bullet?
CR
Tribesman
07-25-2008, 19:49
dodedodedobedoodeedoobedebeebededo
Capital puinishment right or wrong ?
No but what about , no but in this case ....simple :daisy: question , are you in favor of the death penalty and do you have faith in the judiciatry to get it right every time ?
If the answer is no then drop the bollox because once you make little get outs then you don't feic no more
Tuigim , nach dtuigeann tu ?
So no jailing of kidnappers then?
There goes that argument.
Anyways, revenge can sometimes achieve justice. If justice is someone being executed for a murder, does it matter who shoots the bullet?
CR
I was not aware that kidnappers gave a specific date for release of their captives.. :inquisitive:
...now......stepping out of that joke...I don´t see how you equate a prison sentence to a kidnapping...it seems like a silly comparison.....
societies generally consider killing a fellow human has wrong....I fail to remember a society that considers jail as a punishment as wrong
societies generally consider killing a fellow human has wrong....I fail to remember a society that considers jail as a punishment as wrong
That's a strawman or whatever, societies also generally see locking someone up against their will as wrong, so locking people up against their will should not be a form of punishment if we go by your argumentation.
I tend to agree with Tribesman though(who would've guessed).
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-26-2008, 04:45
a death sentence is a premeditated killing also....
Exactly! Fair is fair.
Crazed Rabbit
07-26-2008, 06:14
I was not aware that kidnappers gave a specific date for release of their captives.. :inquisitive:
...now......stepping out of that joke...I don´t see how you equate a prison sentence to a kidnapping...it seems like a silly comparison.....
Really? Nothing about being held against your will ringing a bell?
societies generally consider killing a fellow human has wrong....I fail to remember a society that considers jail as a punishment as wrong
So? Your argument is based on pure populism, and ignores the fact that the vast US society doesn't have a huge problem with capital punishment. And it ignores the fact that a lot of bleeding hearts hate jail as punishment.
If you're going to use what society wants, we'd have only to take a vote and decide that way. And child rapists could be killed as well as murderers, in the US.
CR
Ironside
07-26-2008, 08:41
This is where the cost of the protection kicks in for me; IIRC 20% of Michigan’s state budget is spent on jails and prisons and the social impact of having a so many people in prison cant be measured, but how many prison guards turn into jerks after dealing with so many hardcore criminals everyday, how many rehabilitateable inmates are not given a chance because they are influenced by the worst offenders in existence? There are an average of 6-7 hundred murders and 5,000+ rapes in Michigan each year. Other inmates, guards and society in general would be better off with the people who have committed those crimes gone, permanently.
Execution for (saving) money? Why do I find that there's something wrong there? :thinking2:
Anyway, unless you got really serious problems in the US, I assume that you're not the nation with the most prisoners in the world (well offical statistics, some dictorships like China might beat you in the unofficial stats) due to murderers and rapists.
So even if you're doing execution for budget reasons it still won't work...
LittleGrizzly
07-26-2008, 08:52
I hear it costs more to kill them with the all the appeals, but you can't really avoid them if you want to make sure you've got the right. Basically if you want to kill someone you have to be prepared to pay more....
Exactly! Fair is fair.
no...wrong is wrong no matter who is doing it...
So? Your argument is based on pure populism, and ignores the fact that the vast US society doesn't have a huge problem with capital punishment. And it ignores the fact that a lot of bleeding hearts hate jail as punishment.
If you're going to use what society wants, we'd have only to take a vote and decide that way. And child rapists could be killed as well as murderers, in the US.
I don´t see how the majority opinion of the US population has any bearing on this discussion....
as I understood it this topic was about if Capital Punishment was "right" or not..not if it should be aplied on the USA or any other specific country
I content that a society that deems that killing another human being as the gravest crime there is, falls face first onto it´s own hypocrisy when it condemns the killer himself to death....you disagree, fine..
as far as the American population, they can do whatever they want in their country...hell...you can impose the death penalty for jaywalking if you want....that doesn´t concern me, since I don´t live there and don´t intend to visit....and you won´t see me protesting against it outside the local US embassy either.
Crazed Rabbit
07-26-2008, 16:33
It matters because you brought up the fact that groups of people are against it. If you want to go that way, bringing up the fact that the US supports the death penalty is reasonable.
I content that a society that deems that killing another human being as the gravest crime there is, falls face first onto it´s own hypocrisy when it condemns the killer himself to death....you disagree, fine..
No, there is not moral equivalence between a crime and a punishment.
CR
Gaius Scribonius Curio
07-27-2008, 04:21
Oh and my point was that I cannot see where, as an atheist(who sees humans as the kind of soulless biochemical robots), one draws the value of life from but that's a different topic and I'm sorry for almost deriving this one.
Firstly, I'm an atheist and afaik you aren't a soulless biochemical robot. :laugh4:
Just because I have no belief in God or an afterlife, doesn't mean that I don't have an animus or soul... But this is all metaphysical speculation, so Back to Topic!
I am anti-death penalty for a number of reasons. Firstly, no matter what the crime, if capital punishment is implemented this gives some people, most probably the government, or select members of the Justice department, the power of life and death over everyone. This means if they believe you guilty for a crime you can be executed. This is giving too much power to those people in these positions, and power corrupts...
This leads directly to my second point. Humanity is most definitely not perfect. Saying executing people was acceptable, did you get the right person, or was the person in fact in the right?There are always going to be mistakes, it is a lot easier to release someone from prison than it is to resurrect someone. Or so I've been told.
Continuing on, the argument that the death penalty is worse than life in prison. I'm sure that not everyone is like me (IE: ridiculously hyperactive, has too much energy, can never be completely still, loves sport etc etc.). However, having your every move restricted is not going to be fun or easy for anyone. There is no guarantee that the criminal will feel remorse, however if they do there is a lot of time to think about it. Death ends everything, all the dreams and hopes for the future (although life imprisonment would do this to), but also any time spent contemplating their crime, any chance for rehabilition into society. The only time the death penalty could be definitively worse than a life of incarcaration, would be if they suffered onehundredfold in the fires of hell, which as I've said I don't believe.
To me the death sentence is a way of venting the victims family's, friends, and societys' spleen on an unfortunate criminal.
There is no justification for ending another person's life.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-27-2008, 05:34
no...wrong is wrong no matter who is doing it...
So we shouldn't imprison kidnappers?
Executing people is all well and good
[...]
There is no justification for ending another person's life.
Hm.. ~;)
CrossLOPER
07-27-2008, 14:11
So we shouldn't imprison kidnappers?
The point is, that you can release prisoners and shower them with a lump sum if you're wrong. You can't raise executed convicts from the dead.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-27-2008, 14:32
The point is, that you can release prisoners and shower them with a lump sum if you're wrong. You can't raise executed convicts from the dead.
That is my only problem with the death penalty. But what if you have irrefutable evidence - such as, hypothetically, if a person stabs someone to death in view of the entire court. Then is it justified?
You can't raise executed convicts from the dead.
Just a matter of time... :sweatdrop:
Gaius Scribonius Curio
07-28-2008, 01:20
Hm.. ~;)
:wall:
(It was a figure of speech... *shifty eyes*)
In all seriousness though, I'm sure you know what I mean.
I am anti-death penalty for a number of reasons. Firstly, no matter what the crime, if capital punishment is implemented this gives some people, most probably the government, or select members of the Justice department, the power of life and death over everyone. This means if they believe you guilty for a crime you can be executed. This is giving too much power to those people in these positions, and power corrupts...
Last I checked, in the USA, you are convicted by a jurry of your peer's. Not the government, the justice department, or the crazed district attorney. People you could have walked past down the street convict you. Honestly if every member of that jurry believes without a reasonable doubt you did it, then there's a pretty good chance it's true.
Now I'm in favor of an express lane. If 3 or more eye witnesses saw what you did, then get rid of all those appeals. Don't pass GO don't collect 200$'s, go directly to the front of the line.
You know there was always that african tribal method that I've always prefered. Let the family of the victim decide his punishment, to live or to die, directly in the hands of those affected the most.
yesdachi
07-28-2008, 14:52
Execution for (saving) money? Why do I find that there's something wrong there? :thinking2:
Anyway, unless you got really serious problems in the US, I assume that you're not the nation with the most prisoners in the world (well offical statistics, some dictorships like China might beat you in the unofficial stats) due to murderers and rapists.
So even if you're doing execution for budget reasons it still won't work...
I am not trying to compare the number of prisoners in china to Michigan or even the US, what I am trying to make note of is our prisoners cost over 30k each per year, even more for the elderly due to failing health and the related medical treatments. If we executed the rapists, murders and child molesters each year we would save at least 200 million dollars a year on just new offenders. The stats are unknown for the deterrent factor on future years but that’s an easy 10% reduction on the budget by just getting rid of this years offenders and we might stand a chance of rehabilitating some of the inmates now that they are not stuck in a cell next to the nastiest criminals around. And I have to believe that the guards are going to be a little nicer to their families when they get home after not dealing with monsters all day.
Yes, I know it can be argued that it costs more to execute someone than it does to sentence them to life in prison (lifers get appeals too, I would like to see a real, unbiased report on it) but I already mentioned that I think the system is lame. Add the cost of all the things a death penalty prisoner gets that are in addition to what a lifer gets then amortize it over the cost of their life expectancy, I have a difficult time believing it can be that different. Fix the system, relieve the burden and protect society – there’s my platform for the next senate race! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Conradus
07-28-2008, 14:56
Now I'm in favor of an express lane. If 3 or more eye witnesses saw what you did, then get rid of all those appeals. Don't pass GO don't collect 200$'s, go directly to the front of the line.
If eye witnesses were ever relieable, we migth do that. But the memory is so easily misguided, or the gaps are filled by clever advocates.
If eye witnesses were ever relieable, we migth do that. But the memory is so easily misguided, or the gaps are filled by clever advocates.
That is why there should be a certain number of eyewitnesses required (for the "express" lane). When 3 4 or more people are telling what occured during a hienous and despicable act. Then you know, I'd be willing to bet the house their telling the truth.
Conradus
07-28-2008, 18:42
That is why there should be a certain number of eyewitnesses required (for the "express" lane). When 3 4 or more people are telling what occured during a hienous and despicable act. Then you know, I'd be willing to bet the house their telling the truth.
Well, we both realize that the odds of several people telling exactly the same are , well, close to zero.
BigTex, sorry, but what a load of bollox, the family of the victim is by no means objective, letting them decide sounds like a bad idea to me. It's also probably similar with a jury, they can have prejudices etc etc. Of course that also goes for judges but they're supposedly tested and get paid for trying to be objective, at least in theory.
And eyewitness accounts are not always relibale either, especially for a quick solution, what if the killer pays them to frame someone else and have that someone else executed quickly and the case closed?
Or did I misunderstand that bit about the express lane?
Don Corleone
07-29-2008, 02:24
:shame: I apologize for wakening the bloodlust in everyone. That was not my intent. One, I wanted to voice an unfathomable anger at the crime itself. Two, I was actually talking about the cousin as the one to find his way to the gallows. Third, my post, in reality, was a call for vigilantism, something of which I am neither proud nor remorseful, sadly.
Catholic dogma teaches that enacting violent fantasies in your mind, indulging your bloodlust, is almost as bad as actually acting upon them. You open a door through which all sorts of boogiemen might creep out. I'm not certain that I believe I'm opening a gate to the lower planes, but I do think I'm channeling parts of my primordial self that are better left buried.
I KNOW, in my heart of hearts and in the deepest recesses of my mind, that execution as a form of vengance, is wrong. I know this. But I'd be lying if I told you all that I'm motivated by trying to protect society. That is an added benefit, certainly, but in reality, I want to visit my wrath upon all this scum that feels entitled to rape, torture, maim and murder women and children. And then I want to get my hands on the scum that enables them...the ones that help them procure their victims, and the lawyers that absolve them of their crimes and help them evade justice, in essence, helping them to rape, torture, maim and kill again.
In short, I am way out of bounds. I apologize, and if anyone would care to play confessor to help me before I stumble too far, be they of the faith or of the mind, I would appreciate PMs. I know that dwelling on vengance to this degree is deeply unhealthy, and I also know that I'm probably not strong enough to leave it behind on my own. :shame:
BigTex, sorry, but what a load of bollox, the family of the victim is by no means objective, letting them decide sounds like a bad idea to me. It's also probably similar with a jury, they can have prejudices etc etc. Of course that also goes for judges but they're supposedly tested and get paid for trying to be objective, at least in theory.
That is the entire purpose, they arent objective. They are completely at the other end of the spectrum. I've personally liked that tradition becuase it puts the life of the person in the hands of those he has affected the most. With that to save him is to forgive and finally be set free of the past, to let him die means living with the guilt of both deaths for the remainder of your's. Or at least what the tradition is, if I get the time I'll dig through and find and article on this.
I have faith in my fellow man though, maybe one of my shortcomings you might say. I firmly believe that my fellow citizens in times of duress and decision can muster enough courage and mental acuity to sit there and objectively decide a persons fate. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to believe that our society hasnt slipped so far down the toilet that the average citizen can't be trusted with such a responsibility.
And eyewitness accounts are not always relibale either, especially for a quick solution, what if the killer pays them to frame someone else and have that someone else executed quickly and the case closed?
Or did I misunderstand that bit about the express lane?
I've already stated it, there's a need to require multiple accounts. That rules out splitsecond laxes in memory of a chain of events. If the killer is paying people to "witness" something false then the person is screwed either way. The chances of finding out he's done that after a conviction are minimal, so even then the person is staying in jail for life. But really, does that happen often? Do they always make sure to pay every witness? Honestly if that ever happened to me, if I had angered or screwed up so badly that enough people purposefully framed me, then really maybe I deserve it... Karma's a B:oops: and all.
I've already stated it, there's a need to require multiple accounts. That rules out splitsecond laxes in memory of a chain of events. If the killer is paying people to "witness" something false then the person is screwed either way. The chances of finding out he's done that after a conviction are minimal, so even then the person is staying in jail for life. But really, does that happen often? Do they always make sure to pay every witness?
I believe the problem is more that people often actually remember a good deal less about the incident than they think, and when they are eager to help the investigation they are liable to be very suggestible about details.
I remember participating in a psychology study at school, in which we were shown a short video of a staged armed robbery, and then asked to give a statement including various details, such as the description of the robbers, what they said and did during the robbery, what their get away car looked like etc. We then had the chance to watch the video again, it was quite shocking how wildly wrong most of our statements were.
Generally I would have thought that eyewitness testimony is a relatively poor form of evidence compared to say, DNA evidence or CCTV footage (although even these are not as infallible as some people seem to think). A lot of people seem to say of the death penalty, "only in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever". However, the problem is that there are no such cases, hence why the courts already require only "no reasonable doubt" rather than "no doubt whatsoever". There is simply no way you can implement the death penalty and be certain you will never execute an innocent person.
Honestly if that ever happened to me, if I had angered or screwed up so badly that enough people purposefully framed me, then really maybe I deserve it... Karma's a B and all.
Well, if we can rely on Karma to sort out those who do bad things, why bother with the criminal justice system at all? Surely it's redundant?
yesdachi
07-29-2008, 16:09
...Third, my post, in reality, was a call for vigilantism, something of which I am neither proud nor remorseful, sadly.
I think that sometimes when the system fails it is the obligation of the people to make things right. I am not sure how I would handle it but if I or someone close to me were done horribly wrong and “justice” was not served I don’t see it out of the realm of possibilities for me to take matters into my own hands and I don’t think I would blame anyone who would in a similar circumstance.
The prosecuting attorney does not want me on the jury to try and convict a guy who has killed his wife’s rapist, mom’s killer or child’s molester. I believe there is such a thing as justifiable homicide and I think it is the duty of the “system” to make sure people don’t feel they have been let down by it. :bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.