Death Penalty

[PowerWizard]

What do you think of death penalty? Is it justified? Yes, no - why? I think one inclines much more to accepting death penalty, if he lives in a country, where it is an accepted punishment.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Um, if he used the banhammer, you'd be banned.

Anyways, here's my post from the other thread;

I've seen some studies that say for every actual execution, several murders are prevented.



and inevitably results in the murders of innocents and the freedom of some of society's worst criminals due to miscarriages of justice.
The freedom of criminals? How so?

Anyways, I am not theoretically against it. In practicality, I'm leaning against it, because of all the problems with police, prosecutors, eyewitnesses, etc.

CR

[Vuk]

What do you think of death penalty? Is it justified? Yes, no - why? I think one inclines much more to accepting death penalty, if he lives in a country, where it is an accepted punishment.

PS my other thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=115842) was locked and I got infracted, lolwut? Why? For criticizing death penalty and saying that if you support it you missed a few hundred years of social development? For having a firm opinion? Which of the Org rules did I break? Anyway, I hope this OP is acceptable for Banquo's Ghost. If not, would he be so kind to leave a note in the thread or edit out the stuff that contradicts his views instead of instantly pounding down with the banhammer? I've got to reply here, since he ignores my PMs. Cheers.

I believe the problem is that you attacked people, not a belief PowerWiz. You did not just say bad things about the death penalty, you said bad things about people who believe in it. Also, your post was just an attack with very little/no room left for discussion. I believe you will find that BG actually agrees with you on this, so saying that he editted it out because it contradicted his viewpoints is absurd.

[Tribesman]

Kill them all and let god sort out which ones were innocent .

[PowerWizard]

I believe the problem is that you attacked people, not a belief PowerWiz. You did not just say bad things about the death penalty, you said bad things about people who believe in it. Also, your post was just an attack with very little/no room left for discussion. I believe you will find that BG actually agrees with you on this, so saying that he editted it out because it contradicted his viewpoints is absurd.


Ummm... no I didn't attack anyone here. I attacked a political/moral view and talked figuratively in my historical example. People shouldn't take offense at such things. So if I would say (another topic), that if you support the American government that kidnaps people and hands them over to countries who specialize in torture, you are supporting an inhuman, barbarian practice, would that also be an infractable offense at the Backroom + the thread locked? Anyway, I chose a different point of view in this thread, so can we carry on with this one? Thanks.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kill them all and let god sort out which ones were innocent .

But who will kill the killers, after said killers have killed the rest? Do try to think ahead.


Ummm... no I didn't attack anyone here. I attacked a political/moral view and talked figuratively in my historical example. People shouldn't take offense at such things. So if I would say (another topic), that if you support the American government that kidnaps people and hands them over to countries who specialize in torture, you are supporting an inhuman, barbarian practice, would that also be an infractable offense at the Backroom + the thread locked?

Sorry, but you didn't say that. You personally insulted the people who disagreed with you.

CR

[PowerWizard]

Sorry, but you didn't say that. You personally insulted the people who disagreed with you.

No, I didn't. First off, I can't insult ten millions of people personally who support death penalty for no apparent reason other than obstinately sticking to their outdated traditions. Secondly (again), I was talking figuratively in my historical example, not to be meant literally. Come on guys, chill out. Let's continue this debate.

[Vuk]

Kill them all and let god sort out which ones were innocent .

It is like saying that police should not respond to school shootings, because we may accidently inflict freindly fire while saving people's lives. Yeah, it happens, and it really is a shame, but the answer is not to stop doing what saves the lives of innocents, but to take steps to reduce "friendly-fire" by overhauling our :daisy:ed-up justice system. Sure, it still could happen, just like with the best procedures and plans police could accidently hit innocents when they are saving a classroom from a school shooter, but there is always a chance of that and you should do your best to minimize the chance. Oh dear, innocents are killed in car crashez! Banz auots! hhmmmm...or try to minimize the possibility of that happening. You cannot judge something entirely because there is a chance that mistakes can be made, mistakes can be made in many areas of life that lead to innocent people's deaths. The thing to do is focus on making sure that your system minimises the possibility. The death penalty, like police responding to school shootings saves the lives of innocents, and with both of those (and driving) there is a chance innocents can die, but that does not make them bad.
I believe that every murderer and rapist should be put to death. Mainly because it will deter others from doing the same thing, and because it gets rid of the chance of repeat offenders. Another thing is, that if done correctly (unlike the messed up system we have now), it could actually save a lot of money. Give deathpenalty cases highest priority so we can work through the appeals in a few months, then give them a volley in the head. What would that cost, 32 cents per round? That is pretty cheap. Then turn their bodies over to their families to dispose of, and if they do not want them, dump them into the sea or donate them to research and medicine. If people knew that is what would happen to them if they raped someone or murdered someone, you would have a lot fewer rapists and murderers, and probably a lot fewer total deaths, both innocent and guilty.
:skull::hmg: :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

It is like saying that police should not respond to school shootings
Reading problems :yes:

[Vuk]

Reading problems :yes:

Was I wrong then in assuming that you were being sarcastic?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't buy the argument that the death penalty is impractical because you can't undo it if someone is later found to be innocent. You can't give someone back 27 years of their life either. With or without the death penalty, a very, very small minority will suffer injustice and be falsely charged. However, this cannot stand as a barrier to having any sort of effective justice system on the larger scale.

People say you have to be as close as possible to 100% certain of a person's guilt before administering the death penalty, but then I would think the same applies to sentencing a person to prison. What do judges say? "Oh well, he's only going inside for a couple of years so it doesn't matter". Hmm don't think so.

[InsaneApache]

I used to be in favour of the death penalty but recent miscarriagies of justice, here in the UK, has changed my mind.

I still think scumbags like Sutcliffe and Neilson should get the chop though. Contradictory? Of course, it's part of the human condition.

[PowerWizard]

What do judges say? "Oh well, he's only going inside for a couple of years so it doesn't matter". Hmm don't think so.

Which judge said that? Quote and link the source or it didn't happen.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Which judge said that? Quote and link the source or it didn't happen.

Of course it didn't happen, that's my point. Should you not be as close to 100% certain as possibe before sentencing someone to prison?

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, that right! It's Groundhog day!

Time to dig up all those old classics again and repeat one's oft stated views again!


Ahem...

I am FOR the death penalty in principle, but not set for a specific crime. The evidence has to be something like premeditated stabbing caught on CCTV with several witnesses.

The corpse can then be used more productively as either for organ transplantation or for phase 2 and 3 drug trials.

~:smoking:

[PowerWizard]

Of course it didn't happen, that's my point. Should you not be as close to 100% certain as possibe before sentencing someone to prison?

The same applies to capital punishment. If you can't be 100% certain of someone's innocence, how can you kill him? You simply cannot.

[tibilicus]

I've expressed my views on this in the past and most people know them.


I just find there's far to many different factors which can lead to a miscarriage of justice and that even if a criminal is blatantly guilty I still see prison as a more fitting punishment. Let them rot in a hole for 50 years, deaths an easy way out.

[Vuk]

I've expressed my views on this in the past and most people know them.


I just find there's far to many different factors which can lead to a miscarriage of justice and that even if a criminal is blatantly guilty I still see prison as a more fitting punishment. Let them rot in a hole for 50 years, deaths an easy way out.

Those same factors can lead to a miscarriage of justice with prison sentencing, and as you yourself pointed out, death is the 'easy way out'. I for one would much rather recieve a bullet in my head than spend half my life in a prison. That is just torture. I do not think that it is up to us to punish people with things like that. I think that the death penalty should be used to better society, not to get our vengance. "Vengance shall be mine sayeth the Lord"

When we try to punish people and there is a miscarriage of justice, that just makes it all the worse. I think we should have jails to hold people, but not prisons at all. They are inhumane.

[InsaneApache]

I don't know about the rest of the world but in the UK you're more likely to be murdered by someone you know. Killings by strangers are rare. Husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, friends.

A 'domestic' gone wrong in most instances. Now if you'd had the brothers I had, not the mention my first Mrs. you can see a reason for justifiable homicide in every case. :book:

[PowerWizard]

Those same factors can lead to a miscarriage of justice with prison sentencing, and as you yourself pointed out, death is the 'easy way out'. I for one would much rather recieve a bullet in my head than spend half my life in a prison.

Even if you know you are innocent? Sorry, but that makes no sense.

[Furunculus]

British - for the death penalty

there are some people who i believe do not have the right to continue wasting oxygen on.









The death penalty is nothing short of barbarism. It is also exceptionally expensive, totally counter-productive and inevitably results in the murders of innocents and the freedom of some of society's worst criminals due to miscarriages of justice. Basically it's a pre-Enlightenment practice. Wait.. no. It is a notion so barbaric that in 1800BC the Hittites had collectively liberalised their capital punishment laws, reserving it for crimes against the Gods. If you support it you are developed as a early Babylonian shite cleaner.
roflmao

[CountArach]

I'm an Aussie and we got rid of the Death penalty a while back. I'm completely opposed to teh death penalty on pacifistic grounds.

[KukriKhan]

US. My country applies death penalty and I'm AGAINST death penalty.

Too big and indiscriminate a hammer to entrust to my bumbling authorities. Arrest and loss of liberty are plenty big enough sanctions for them to play God with.

That said, I am a hypocrite. Thusly: if some goon kills my wife or child, I will feel compelled to take that guy's life. Not the State; I.

[Marshal Murat]

Kukri, the US doesn't apply the death penalty. Specific states apply the death penalty, others don't. Unfair to states like Alaska, Minnesota, or Wisconsin.
:book:

I'm for the death penalty. Some criminals simply need to be put down like rabid dogs, those who've committed heinous crimes against mankind. No man, no problem. While it's effect as a deterrent are left in the air, it does create a serious punishment for those who commit a serious crime; fair.


Besides, as the Enlightened person that I am, I have realized that with the enormous population growth the world has undergone, some "culling of the flock" needs to happen. How can we support all these people with dwindling resources? So any infraction will result in the death penalty.

[PowerWizard]

I'm for the death penalty. Some criminals simply need to be put down like rabid dogs, those who've committed heinous crimes against mankind. No man, no problem. While it's effect as a deterrent are left in the air, it does create a serious punishment for those who commit a serious crime; fair.

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.



Besides, as the Enlightened person that I am, I have realized that with the enormous population growth the world has undergone, some "culling of the flock" needs to happen. How can we support all these people with dwindling resources? So any infraction will result in the death penalty.

Even though you are joking, you are joking with genocide. Not funny.

[seireikhaan]

The death penalty, on practical terms in the US, generally doesn't work all that effectively. Amazingly enough, appeals processes cost more than simply locking them in a box for the rest of their life. And, of course, the bit that not everyone is actually guilty. Human error and such.

CAVEAT: There are rare cases of indisputable mass crimes against humanity, on the international scene, generally. If Hitler had been captured alive, he would have deserved the death penalty many times over. Others like him- Saddam, Kim Jung Il, etc.... The civil right to use the death penalty should be reserved for these very, very rare cases.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ummm... no I didn't attack anyone here. I attacked a political/moral view and talked figuratively in my historical example. People shouldn't take offense at such things. So if I would say (another topic), that if you support the American government that kidnaps people and hands them over to countries who specialize in torture, you are supporting an inhuman, barbarian practice, would that also be an infractable offense at the Backroom + the thread locked? Anyway, I chose a different point of view in this thread, so can we carry on with this one? Thanks.

Your first thread was specifically offensive. Boil down your post and it read:

A is very bad. Even ancient society C moved past the use of A. If you still support A, you are no more "advanced" than a low-echelon member of society C. This clearly labels any supporter of A as low-echelon type. Indirect attack to any and all readers. Not permissable.

Your US Government example boils down to:

USG does evil act A. If you support USG, you are implicitly supporting A.

There is no direct component of attack on the reader. You are besmirching the USG, but that does not constitute a personal attack, only a politically viscious comment. The key here is in the 2nd example you do not define a negative personal state for the reader, only suggest that they might want to rethink things in light of your argument. Different in tone entirely.

Now, having dealt with the inevitable "why was my thread closed" riff in the nearly-as-inevitable follow on thread, please, all, DO discuss the death penalty. Further "meta" discussions on moderation should be in a thread in the BR watchtower -- the correct venue for such concerns/complaints.

Play on!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't buy the argument that the death penalty is impractical because you can't undo it if someone is later found to be innocent. You can't give someone back 27 years of their life either. With or without the death penalty, a very, very small minority will suffer injustice and be falsely charged. However, this cannot stand as a barrier to having any sort of effective justice system on the larger scale.


Which is better, to spend 10 years in prison and be executed or 11 years and be released? Removing the death penalty allows for the possibility of new evidence coming to light.

[Strike For The South]

I'm pretty much pro-death, Execution, Abortion, youth-in-asia. Do it all, preferably in the same time in the same room.

I'm also willing to take it much further than most people as I consider Joe Horn a Great American

[rory_20_uk]

Which is better, to spend 10 years in prison and be executed or 11 years and be released? Removing the death penalty allows for the possibility of new evidence coming to light.

Not using the death penalty also allows this. There are some situations where guilt is certain. The recent gun rampages america has been enjoying. No doubt they did it. So only use if when certain. The fact that this might not be that often is not in itself a problem. We don't ban nukes just because we don't fire them on a weekly basis.

~:smoking:

[Marshal Murat]

Which is better, to spend 10 years in prison and be executed or 11 years and be released? Removing the death penalty allows for the possibility of new evidence coming to light.

But isn't the obverse true? That someone might be released rather than killed, and then go on killing? What of those who feel no remorse for killing?


Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
If you say so...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But isn't the obverse true? That someone might be released rather than killed, and then go on killing? What of those who feel no remorse for killing?


The "life in prison with no possibility of parole" would replace the death penalty. And I agree that some people deserve death--I just don't trust the justice system to make the determination of "certainly guilty".

[Rhyfelwyr]

The same applies to capital punishment. If you can't be 100% certain of someone's innocence, how can you kill him? You simply cannot.

If you cannot be 100% certain of someone's guilt (I think that's what you must have meant), how can you sentence them to prison? How is it any different?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

So the Guy who killed 3 Offers in my hometown should be given Life in Prison?


Sure! And Lets give life in prison to Child Rapers, Other murders, etc.....


:rtwno:

[KarlXII]

I'm for the death penalty to those who willingly take the life of an innocent.

[Meneldil]

I don't really see on what basis the state is allowed to kill people. So no for me.

[Louis VI the Fat]

EU hman rights provisions prohibit the death penalty in any of its member states.

I myself sway back and forth. I don't feel any urge to kill people, nor do I feel particularly inclined to protect the right to life of some people.

I do not have any moral objection to the killing of certain people, other than that it wastes the opportunity to make their life miserable.

More life sentences are fine with me. I particularly struggle with the irriversability of the death sentence in combination with horror stories, that we're all familiar with, of people turning out innocent after sometimes decades of imprisonment. :shame:

[rajpoot]

It's like this, a life term in prison, (in India atleast) is not a life term at all....it's 14 years I think.
Now, there are some people, who kill, despite knowing that it's wrong....they are aware of everything, and yet they do it. Such people ought to be executed themselves. They don't deserve to live. It's like show respect and earn respect....if you don't respect the other person's right to live, you don't have right to live either.
In my opinion, all people who commit a murder ought to be executed. This is something that should be absolutely 'not-negotiable'. And if not this, then atleast, atleast they ought to make life imprisonment mean a chap should remain in prison until he dies. It's useless otherwise send a man to prison once, and he won't think so much of going in again.
I remember reading this news in paper several years back. The police had caught a killer for hire, who'd committed quite a few murders. Political ones mainly. They'd shown a pic of him in the paper as he went into the courtroom, and he was grinning in it. As if he feared nothing. Such a man, a cold blooded killer....does he not deserve to die? ofcourse he does. you sentence him for life, he gets out after some 10-20 years, comes back out and starts on hiw old profession again....what then?
I'm for stricter laws. You abide the laws if you want to stay well. If you toe the line, you pay the price. No dilly-dallying then.
Infact I'd say, in such cases the courts should only be used to decide if the person in question even deserves a quick death or a slow one.

[Husar]

Well, it sort of takes away a life, that is usually not a good idea IMO.

As has been said it's a bit too definite for my taste.

[Vuk]

Well, it sort of takes away a life, that is usually not a good idea IMO.

As has been said it's a bit too definite for my taste.

And yet that is its strength and weakness. If you put the rapist to death, they definately are not going to rape someone again. For instance (perhaps Lemur will remember this, as he is from WI), in my home state, just a 5 minute drive from where I live about 10 years back I believe, some childmolester grabbed a little girl who was biking and molested and killed her. Turns out he had done it before, and he ended up getting out and doing it again. If that :daisy: had been killed the first time 2 innocent girls would not have been horribly degraded, tortured, and killed. That is reason enough in my opinion. I remember reading somewhere that most capital crime is commited by repeat offenders. (like 80-90%) That means that theoretically you could prevent at the least close to half of the rapes in murders by putting the worthless :daisy: down the first time. You would be saving the lives and pain of all those innocent people by giving the trash just a tast of what they deserve in the first place. Of course that is forgetting a deterrant effect completely.

[Prince Cobra]

Life prison dooms you to a horrible existence for the rest of your life (+ the guilt, conscience) so I don't think it is more lenient punishment than the death penalty.

My motives to oppose the death penalty are the irreversibility of the capital sentence. And despite the long period most of the countries put between the death sentence and the execution, there is always chance to kill an innocent person. There is another aspect: by death sentence you involve physicians in the process of murdering. I think this opposes the moral of this profession.

:bow:


And yet that is its strength and weakness. If you put the rapist to death, they definately are not going to rape someone again. For instance (perhaps Lemur will remember this, as he is from WI), in my home state, just a 5 minute drive from where I live about 10 years back I believe, some childmolester grabbed a little girl who was biking and molested and killed her. Turns out he had done it before, and he ended up getting out and doing it again. If that :daisy: had been killed the first time 2 innocent girls would not have been horribly degraded, tortured, and killed. That is reason enough in my opinion. I remember reading somewhere that most capital crime is commited by repeat offenders. (like 80-90%) That means that theoretically you could prevent at the least close to half of the rapes in murders by putting the worthless :daisy: down the first time. You would be saving the lives and pain of all those innocent people by giving the trash just a tast of what they deserve in the first place. Of course that is forgetting a deterrant effect completely.

Well, whether he is in prison for life or is killed does not make such a big difference.

[Vuk]

There is another aspect: by death sentence you involve physicians in the process of murdering. I think this opposes the moral of this profession.

:bow:

You are right, it should be soldiers. Lethal injection, electrocution, all BS. What they really need is 8 06's in the head. That will put the scum down at a really good price too.


Well, whether he is in prison for life or killed does not make such a big difference.

Not really, because as noted above, death is final. You do not have any BS getting out for good behavior, escaping from prison, etc, and it does not give him the opportunitty to prey on prison mates. Unless you are Jesus Christ, death is final, and that is why you need it to keep scum like that out of society.

[Prince Cobra]

Not really, because as noted above, death is final. You do not have any BS getting out for good behavior, escaping from prison, etc, and it does not give him the opportunitty to prey on prison mates. Unless you are Jesus Christ, death is final, and that is why you need it to keep scum like that out of society.

I presume you know the prisoners are not killed immediately after the capital punishment. I also think you know it takes years for the execution to take place. Years. This is plenty of time for a person to escape.

You can not have a man with life long sentence allowed to go home for his good behaviour. Escaping from prison is relatively rare.

[Vuk]

I presume you know the prisoners are not killed immediately after the capital sentence. I also think you know it takes years for the execution to take place. Years.

Which is not the fault of the death penalty, but of a justice system in need of overhaul. I already stated that for the death penalty to work correctly the justice system would need to be overhauled. That is as I said though, not an argument against the death penalty, but agains teh justice system in its current state. Capital punishment cases and appeals should be given first priority and be gotten done with as quickly as possible. Hopefully the average scumbag would not be in jail for more than a year, then you can take them out to a firing range and put 8 shots into their worthless heads and dump their filthy bodies into the ocean. Think of the costs we would save?


You can not have a man with life long sentence allowed to go home for his good behaviour. Escaping from prison is relatively rare.

People who are supposed to be in for life get off early all the time, and many times commit more crimes. Scum should not be supported by the people OR have a chance to harm more people in prison anyway. They should be disposed of quickly and efficiently.

[Prince Cobra]

Which is not the fault of the death penalty, but of a justice system in need of overhaul. I already stated that for the death penalty to work correctly the justice system would need to be overhauled. That is as I said though, not an argument against the death penalty, but agains teh justice system in its current state. Capital punishment cases and appeals should be given first priority and be gotten done with as quickly as possible. Hopefully the average scumbag would not be in jail for more than a year, then you can take them out to a firing range and put 8 shots into their worthless heads and dump their filthy bodies into the ocean. Think of the costs we would save?



People who are supposed to be in for life get off early all the time, and many times commit more crimes. Scum should not be supported by the people OR have a chance to harm more people in prison anyway. They should be disposed of quickly and efficiently.


.


What about the innocent? Or kill them all and then send letter to the families of the innocent how good citizens these people were and that they have been killed by mistake?


People who are supposed to be in for life get off early all the time, and many times commit more crimes. Scum should not be supported by the people OR have a chance to harm more people in prison anyway. They should be disposed of quickly and efficiently.
About the second: I think this is easier to be fixed with reforms of the judicial system.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, that approach usually serves America well...

~:smoking:

[Vuk]

What about the innocent? Or kill them all and then send letter to the families of the innocent how good citizens these people were and that they have been killed by mistake?

As you have stated yourself, the death penalty is not a worse punishment than life imprisonment. And as I stated earlier in the thread, the answer is not to get rid of the death penalty, but to fix the justice system to minimize such mistakes. Innocents die in car accidents, we should not ban autos though. Far more innocents would be saved if you had the death penalty Asen. Sure, some would die, and that really does stink, but as I said, the answer is to minimize friendly fire, because you are saving innocents in the long run. Or we could just tell the family of Cora Jones that we let her daughter be brutally raped and murdered because we did not have the balls to put the :daisy: who did it to her to death the first time.

EDIT: I used to bike down the exact same place where he got her. After I found out about it, I couldn't stand to go there for quite a few years. He had raped, tortured, and attempted to murder a woman before in the 60s, and was supposed to get a life sentence, but got out in less than 15 years.

EDIT2: And to be honest with you, I would much rather die by a quick bullet to the face than rot my life away in a prison. I think prisons are one of the most inhumane things in the world. (that being said, I used to grill up the burgers that were serverd to prisoners for people participating in Hunters Safety courses. Darn they get good food. :P Those burgers really were good stuff)

[Prince Cobra]

As you have stated yourself, the death penalty is not a worse punishment than life imprisonment. And as I stated earlier in the thread, the answer is not to get rid of the death penalty, but to fix the justice system to minimize such mistakes. Innocents die in car accidents, we should not ban autos though. Far more innocents would be saved if you had the death penalty Asen. Sure, some would die, and that really does stink, but as I said, the answer is to minimize friendly fire, because you are saving innocents in the long run. Or we could just tell the family of Cora Jones that we let her daughter be brutally raped and murdered because we did not have the balls to put the :daisy: who did it to her to death the first time.

Better make stricter legislation. Let the people with lighter crimes go if they good behaviour, keep those with serious crimes.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

What about the innocent? Or kill them all and then send letter to the families of the innocent how good citizens these people were and that they have been killed by mistake?


About the second: I think this is easier to be fixed with reforms of the judicial system.




How about the innocent Stephen, When you lock them up for 20-40 years, released them, and say "Sorry, we wrongfully convincted you" and now they can't do anything since they are getting old if not old already.


Death Penalty is needed.

[Vuk]

Better make stricter legislation. Let the people with lighter crimes go if they good behaviour, keep those with serious crimes.

Why? So they can commit crimes in prison? So their families can pull strings to get them out? So the taxpayers and victims of their crimes can pay for them? Think of it, that is what we do to victims? Make it their responsibilty to support the scum who raped them/killed their family/friend? That is hardly justice.

[Prince Cobra]

Why? So they can commit crimes in prison? So their families can pull strings to get them out? So the taxpayers and victims of their crimes can pay for them? Think of it, that is what we do to victims? Make it their responsibilty to support the scum who raped them/killed their family/friend? That is hardly justice.


Better this than paying money to the orphanes of those innocent killed by your system.

Warman, better wait some years for justice than die without any. 20-40 years are quite an extreme case, I think.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Better this than paying money to the orphanes of those innocent killed by your system.

Warman, better wait some years for justice than die without any. 20-40 years are quite an extreme case, I think.



I highly disargee with you here Stephen. I have heard of cases of people being locked up 20 years and getting out in their 40's, 50's and 60's, and their lives ruined due to false impirsionment.


If someone does a terrible crime, they must be excuted then. But I'm to tired to argue anymore today.

:hanged:

[Vuk]

Better this than paying money to the orphanes of those innocent killed by your system.

Warman, better wait some years for justice than die without any. 20-40 years are quite an extreme case, I think.

Innocents hardly every are wrongly sentenced to death, and if you were to overhaul our BS justice system, a lot less (and dare we hope none) would. On the other hand, criminals repeat their crimes in and out of prison quite often. Sure, an innocent could die (as an innocent could get hit by a car crossing the street), but you would be saving thousands of innocents by puttint the trash to death. And you know what? Next time David Spanbauer decides he would like to rape and torture a little girl, he is not gonna think "Yeah, well if I get caught I will just get out again anyway!", he will think, ":daisy:, if I get caught, my no good :daisy: is toast!". Under which circumstance do you think he would be more likely to commit the crime?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Vis-a-vis the social contract, the government of the polity in question is duty-bound to remove the threat of such predators from society. Chronic recidivists and those committing the most heinous of crimes MUST be removed permanently from society. I do not feel this requires the death penalty, and the absence of such a penalty as sentence of court gives us space to correct mistakes and time for the violent criminal to choose to repent and to seek peace in their own hearts. But such persons need not be freed again, save if new evidence causes us to know they are not responsible and that justice has miscarried.

Note: This means that those who guard inmates in such facilities should receive distinctly better training and compensation than they currently recieve. They are playing "point" with the predators so that we don't have to endure their threat.

[Vuk]

Vis-a-vis the social contract, the government of the polity in question is duty-bound to remove the threat of such predators from society. Chronic recidivists and those committing the most heinous of crimes MUST be removed permanently from society. I do not feel this requires the death penalty, and the absence of such a penalty as sentence of court gives us space to correct mistakes and time for the violent criminal to choose to repent and to seek peace in their own hearts. But such persons need not be freed again, save if new evidence causes us to know they are not responsible and that justice has miscarried.

Note: This means that those who guard inmates in such facilities should receive distinctly better training and compensation than they currently recieve. They are playing "point" with the predators so that we don't have to endure their threat.

But that will never work Sea, esp with well connected scum. You are right, the government does have that responsibility, but it does not have the resposibility to burden the people with keeping trash alive who have no right to be alive. If they want to repent, then a deadline will give the trash motivation. I do not believe in punishing them, only removing them from society. The problem is that if one 'repents' and is set free, he could just go back and do something else equally as evil. Kill the trash, and if they want to repent, then their souls will be safe, and if not, then the trash will get what they deserve later on.

[Prince Cobra]

But that will never work Sea, esp with well connected scum. You are right, the government does have that responsibility, but it does not have the resposibility to burden the people with keeping trash alive who have no right to be alive. If they want to repent, then a deadline will give the trash motivation. I do not believe in punishing them, only removing them from society. The problem is that if one 'repents' and is set free, he could just go back and do something else equally as evil. Kill the trash, and if they want to repent, then their souls will be safe, and if not, then the trash will get what they deserve later on.

Belief. This is the key word. You do not believe the government and the system.

Do you think the capital punishment will make it work better? Better than reforms?

Death penalty is only the surface. I doubt you will reduce the crime rate or decrease the numbers of the victims.

[Vuk]

Belief. This is the key word. You do not believe the government and the system.

Do you think the capital punishment will make it work better? Better than reforms?

Death penalty is only the surface. I doubt you will reduce the crime rate or significantly reduce the victims of crimes.

I belief the government and justice system itself needs serious reforms, but I believe that if it had those reforms, the death penalty would save the world a ton of suffering, AND cost a heck of a lot less money.

[Furunculus]

EU hman rights provisions prohibit the death penalty in any of its member states.



comes back to the question of inalienable human rights again. :)

i don't believe in them which is one reason why i have less qualms than some about the death penalty.

in the case of britain, i do not suggest that britain should have the death penalty, only that if the british people want it then it should exist.

i support the death penalty but i realise that i am not the sum-total of british opinion.

[Tribesman]

i support the death penalty but i realise that i am not the sum-total of british opinion.
Well there was a big clamour for reintroducing the death penalty over there a while back , public opinion was quite strong on the issue wasn't it , you had the criminals bang to rights with plenty of definate evidence to string them up no doubt about it, the public was all for it .
Them poor bastards got released didn't they , after years of trying , on the legal technicality of them being innocent and the evidence being bollox .

only that if the british people want it then it should exist.

Pretty lucky for them fellas that the British government didn't give in to what the British public wanted isn't it:yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

So just because a very small number of people might be wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, we are giving all the criminals a lighter punishment, in the hope that those later found to be innocent might get a some time off their sentence?

The fact is that with the death penalty or without it, a minority will be wrongly convicted. You can't give them their life back any more than you could return the years they lost in prison.

The justice system can't be perfect, like it or not the reality is there has to be a balance between effective punishment and confident sentencing. Maybe we should never sentence anyone to prison in case they didn't deserve to be there?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In what way is life in prison with no possibility of parole a "lighter punishment" compared to the death penalty? It basically is the death penalty. Death by imprisonment.

[Thermal]

For Death Penalty

Advantages:

-Saves money - Money can be reinvested in law system to improve it
-A deterrent to other criminals
-Undoubtedly lower crime levels
-Justice for the Victim & Family, revenge
-Lessens risk to the public & criminals escaping.
-Possibly seen as a mercy, relieving someone from countless years behind bars.


Disadvantages:

-Disregards forgiveness - religiously unethical
-Makes us 'as bad as the criminal'
-Whoare we to take there life? bla bla etc.



The advantages seriously out way the disadvantages


Case closed


Thread closed

[Thermal]

In what way is life in prison with no possibility of parole a "lighter punishment"

Life imprisonment isn't life, it's 10 years, that's why, the word 'life' should mean life,instead it's misused massively.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Life imprisonment isn't life, it's 10 years, that's why, the word 'life' should mean life,instead it's misused massively.


Of the lifers in prison, one in four (26.3%) is serving a sentence of life without parole,

It can mean life. :book:

[Thermal]

It can mean life. :book:

26% is hardly a majority now is it?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

26% is hardly a majority now is it?

A majority of what? Those who could have been given the death sentence but were given life instead? That is what is being discussed here.

[Thermal]

A majority of what? Those who could have been given the death sentence but were given life instead? That is what is being discussed here.

If someone is going to really get life imprisonment (and mean life), the death sentence sounds good to me.

[Hooahguy]

for it, but in very, very, very few cases.
but im also in support of special "eye for eye" cases. like a sniper who was caught should be thrown in jail. but then a prison guard should be given a sniper rifle with orders to kill him. but- he can do it wherever and whenever he wants, when the criminal isnt expecting it. this way he will be just like his victims- he wont expect it.
but in cases like stabbing/shooting deaths, i wouldnt do that.
only for the really horrific crimes.

[Strike For The South]

for it, but in very, very, very few cases.
but im also in support of special "eye for eye" cases. like a sniper who was caught should be thrown in jail. but then a prison guard should be given a sniper rifle with orders to kill him. but- he can do it wherever and whenever he wants, when the criminal isnt expecting it. this way he will be just like his victims- he wont expect it.
but in cases like stabbing/shooting deaths, i wouldnt do that.
only for the really horrific crimes.

8th amendment anyone?

[Hooahguy]

i know, and i know it would never be done, but it still sounds interesting idea.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But that will never work Sea, esp with well connected scum. You are right, the government does have that responsibility, but it does not have the resposibility to burden the people with keeping trash alive who have no right to be alive. If they want to repent, then a deadline will give the trash motivation. I do not believe in punishing them, only removing them from society. The problem is that if one 'repents' and is set free, he could just go back and do something else equally as evil. Kill the trash, and if they want to repent, then their souls will be safe, and if not, then the trash will get what they deserve later on.

Sorry if I was unclear. I did not mean that their repentance could secure their release. I merely said they should have time -- locked away from society -- in which to contemplate repentance. I am referring to "life in prison without parole" as the appropriate sentence.

[KukriKhan]

Sorry if I was unclear. I did not mean that their repentance could secure their release. I merely said they should have time -- locked away from society -- in which to contemplate repentance. I am referring to "life in prison without parole" as the appropriate sentence.

Repentance. Hence = penitence, hence = penitentiary.

If I, or you, or YOU, dear reader, took another's life. Would not I or you expect to be denied the right to move about in life, unscathed and unfettered? I would not. And I suspect: neither would you. No matter how righteous the killing seemed.

If somebody killed my wife or kid, I would kill him. I'd see that as my duty. I would also accept that my friends and neighbors and fellow citizens would object to my action, and remove me from their midst, since I've killed once, I might kill again. That is their duty. To which I would not object.

Flipping it, if I were amongst those friends and neighbors and fellow citizens, I can clearly see that our first duty is to remove the killer from our midst, so he does not kill another. But that is all that is necessary to satisfy my duty as friend, neighbor and fellow citizen. Our group-killing of the killer goes too far - might be (and often is) incorrect - and brutalizes us all.

And I agree: prison guards, like teachers, get paid wa-a-a-ay less than they deserve for their service to we, the people.

[Furunculus]

Well there was a big clamour for reintroducing the death penalty over there a while back , public opinion was quite strong on the issue wasn't it , you had the criminals bang to rights with plenty of definate evidence to string them up no doubt about it, the public was all for it .
Them poor bastards got released didn't they , after years of trying , on the legal technicality of them being innocent and the evidence being bollox .

Pretty lucky for them fellas that the British government didn't give in to what the British public wanted isn't it:yes:

yes, miscarriages of justice do happen. in respect of this judgement i would set the barrier for 'entry' correspondingly high.

yes, democracy is a bitch.

[Vuk]

Repentance. Hence = penitence, hence = penitentiary.

If I, or you, or YOU, dear reader, took another's life. Would not I or you expect to be denied the right to move about in life, unscathed and unfettered? I would not. And I suspect: neither would you. No matter how righteous the killing seemed.

If somebody killed my wife or kid, I would kill him. I'd see that as my duty. I would also accept that my friends and neighbors and fellow citizens would object to my action, and remove me from their midst, since I've killed once, I might kill again. That is their duty. To which I would not object.

Flipping it, if I were amongst those friends and neighbors and fellow citizens, I can clearly see that our first duty is to remove the killer from our midst, so he does not kill another. But that is all that is necessary to satisfy my duty as friend, neighbor and fellow citizen. Our group-killing of the killer goes too far - might be (and often is) incorrect - and brutalizes us all.

And I agree: prison guards, like teachers, get paid wa-a-a-ay less than they deserve for their service to we, the people.

The problem is though that we cannot allow someone to kill whoever they want, because their reason for the thinking that the person deserves death may not be right. (I think that goes without saying :P) That is why it is the duty of the state as an impartial body to decide that instead, and see justice done where the individual could not. Of course the government has to do it correctly, and it is the job of the people to make sure that that happens. As I said before, it would not work correctly with our justice system in the sorry state it is in now, but what exactly does? It is like the difference between handling a knife and a spoon. The knife is more dangerous, its verdict more final, so greater caution needs to be taken with it so that you do not cut yourself. That does not mean that it is not a good tool to use though, simply that it must be used carefully and responsibly.

[rory_20_uk]

And I agree: prison guards, like teachers, get paid wa-a-a-ay less than they deserve for their service to we, the people.

A good teacher is worth their weight in gold. There aren't that many of them. A bad teacher is worthless. There are more of them. An empirical way of telling the difference has yet to be found.

There are others who I feel also justify a greater salary. Some that come to mind are Nurses, Ambulance crews, health visitors, midwives. An increased salary to encourage the good ones to stay in clinical work and not run off te wards as fast as they can.

I'd rather spend my money on getting the best to look after the sick and in need rather than those keeping the guilty incarcerated.

~:smoking:

[Vuk]

A good teacher is worth their weight in gold. There aren't that many of them. A bad teacher is worthless. There are more of them. An empirical way of telling the difference has yet to be found.

There are others who I feel also justify a greater salary. Some that come to mind are Nurses, Ambulance crews, health visitors, midwives. An increased salary to encourage the good ones to stay in clinical work and not run off te wards as fast as they can.

I'd rather spend my money on getting the best to look after the sick and in need rather than those keeping the guilty incarcerated.

~:smoking:

I find it funny that everyone says that, yet most of the teachers I know live in big houses on a hill, with a lake at the bottom. :P Sure, I know some who get paid crappy money too, but most I know are doing very well off.
I think the real problem is not the money, I think it is society. We live in a society where women are taught to reject their maternal instincts and where a woman wanted to have children and be motherly is a negative stigma. Where men are taught to be worthless drones who care about no one but themselves instead of being responsible husbands and fathers. EVERY good teacher I know loves their job, loves their children, and takes helping the children VERY personally. Good teachers are made of a personal conviction to help children and foster an understanding and knowledge in them (something that is shunned in today's society), not a high salary. If you want more good teachers, society needs to encourage people to embrace their parental instincts, to care about children, and not just themselves. A good teacher takes love. You cannot buy love. If a teacher's main concern is money, and not being there to help the children, then you do not want them. I think there are plenty of people out there who DO really care about the future of our children, but they are crowded out by people who are motivated by money. The imediate answer IMO would be to start firing below par teachers, and looking for good ones. If teachers are not doing a good enough job, then kick them out and get ones who will. People will realise that if they want the job they will need to do it well, and those who think they can get an easy paycheck will not apply. Love cannot be bought, and you cannot have a truely good teacher unless they are truely concerned about our children.

EDIT: Sorry for the completely off-topic post :P I have been involved in the education system on more than one level, and my sister is a teacher, so I find it hard not to respond to such things. :P

[Thermal]

like teachers, get paid wa-a-a-ay less than they deserve for their service to we, the people.

My science teacher already admitted to having a wage of £44,000 a year ($60000-70000 approx) I wouldn't be complaining, depends what part of teaching though obviously.

[Marshal Murat]

My teachers get paid WAAAY less than they should be. Floridian education is in shambles.

We also have alot of people in jail.

No coincidence.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Senior teachers in the better school districts can make 40-60k annually. Teacher starting salaries vary from the high 20s to the mid 30s depending on district. All figures in USD.

[Tribesman]

Senior teachers in the better school districts can make 40-60k annually.
Which isn't exactly good wages is it , though they do get long holidays

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK holidays are often filled with government backed paperwork to ensure that every lesson is planned and work is tailored to each child.

Gone are the days where my excellent chemistry teacher who exuded the love of his subject could walk in, open the syllabus and start talking about it. It must have worked - the entire class went to either Cambridge or did Medicine.

~:smoking:

[Hax]

I'm against the death penalty for several reasons, one of the main reasons being that I do not think we should be judging people without fully knowing the consequences.

Or does anyone know what happens after you die?

[rory_20_uk]

We don't know fully the consequences of anything. But we do know for certain we all eventually die.
Ergo, death is a more natural punishment than incarceration as few are locked up for long periods, but all die.

~:smoking:

[PowerWizard]

Your first thread was specifically offensive. Boil down your post and it read:

A is very bad. Even ancient society C moved past the use of A. If you still support A, you are no more "advanced" than a low-echelon member of society C. This clearly labels any supporter of A as low-echelon type. Indirect attack to any and all readers. Not permissable.

Your US Government example boils down to:

USG does evil act A. If you support USG, you are implicitly supporting A.

There is no direct component of attack on the reader. You are besmirching the USG, but that does not constitute a personal attack, only a politically viscious comment. The key here is in the 2nd example you do not define a negative personal state for the reader, only suggest that they might want to rethink things in light of your argument. Different in tone entirely.

By these standards the Republicans and Democrats couldn't argue with each other sincerely on public forums, simply because they would be compelled to say "please rethink your position dude" instead of saying X government (f.e. the Bush administration) committed insupportable crimes, and if you support them, you are claiming these crimes not to be crimes. Better yet, claiming that it is a crime would be a crime in itself! The same goes with positions in certain policies like gun control or capital punishment.... Nevermind.

[rory_20_uk]

By these standards the Republicans and Democrats couldn't argue with each other sincerely on public forums, simply because they would be compelled to say "please rethink your position dude" instead of saying X government (f.e. the Bush administration) committed insupportable crimes, and if you support them, you are claiming these crimes not to be crimes. Better yet, claiming that it is a crime would be a crime in itself! The same goes with positions in certain policies like gun control or capital punishment.... Nevermind.

Look, if you expect us to sink to the level of politicians I'm afraid many members will need lobotomies as they are clearly too well read and able to think for themselves and not just emote and spew rhetoric like a North Korean peasant.

~:smoking:

[Hax]

We don't know fully the consequences of anything. But we do know for certain we all eventually die.
Ergo, death is a more natural punishment than incarceration as few are locked up for long periods, but all die.

But at least we can oversee the consequences of locking someone up for a period of time; perhaps incarceration compels people to review their deeds done in the past; while when you kill them you throw them into the unknown.

I do agree with you that we may be unable to oversee all consequences of our actions.

[PowerWizard]

Look, if you expect us to sink to the level of politicians I'm afraid many members will need lobotomies as they are clearly too well read and able to think for themselves and not just emote and spew rhetoric like a North Korean peasant.

~:smoking:


No one expects you or anyone to "sink" to the "level of politicians" (whatever unfounded claims those implications may lead to), don't distort please what I said.

[rory_20_uk]

No one expects you or anyone to "sink" to the "level of politicians" (whatever unfounded claims those implications may lead to), don't distort please what I said.

Aww bless... it warms my heart to hear such sentiments uttered without sarcasm. A blast of fresh air, young blood, greenhorn, etc etc...

Distort? Where do you think you are? This is the BACKROOM!!! (300, how I love that film :thumbsup:)

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

By these standards the Republicans and Democrats couldn't argue with each other sincerely on public forums, simply because they would be compelled to say "please rethink your position dude" instead of saying X government (f.e. the Bush administration) committed insupportable crimes, and if you support them, you are claiming these crimes not to be crimes. Better yet, claiming that it is a crime would be a crime in itself! The same goes with positions in certain policies like gun control or capital punishment.... Nevermind.

I'm not moderating the GOP or the Dems. Nor would they like me to do so. Round about the 3rd time I said "X, you just spewed 3 talking points without answering the question, please answer the question, ma'am." I'd probably get the toss. I am moderating the Backroom. I will have something resembling -- at least vaguely -- polite debate here or I will shut the thread down. If you find that troubling, you have my condolences.

[Kralizec]

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

It's "last refuge", actually.

Anyway, abolished and against. Philosophically speaking I'm not against the death penalty, though I wouldn't execute every murderer like some people here suggested. What about that woman who set the man on fire who had raped her daughter?
I'm against because miscarriages of justice. I also don't approve of the argument that the death penalty is potentially cheaper as long as you don't give convicts right of appeal.

[Craterus]

I don't think it's a great deterrent and it's certainly not the best of rehabilitative schemes so the death penalty only really serves as a method of retribution. Which achieves nothing.

But it is a handy little money-saver.

[Thermal]

I don't think it's a great deterrent and it's certainly not the best of rehabilitative schemes so the death penalty only really serves as a method of retribution. Which achieves nothing.

But it is a handy little money-saver.

So if you realized committing a bad crime could get you the death penalty you wouldn't reconsider not killing? of course it acts as a great deterrent, slightly distorted views IMHO...

And yes it does achieve something, Probably reduce crime if applied enough.

[Brenus]

“Undoubtedly lower crime levels”
When Death penalty was a deterrent: middle Ages, 18th or 19th Century? Were these period exempt of violence? Err. No, there were in fact the most violent periods in term of civil unrests. But they were hanging, decapitating, killing by thousand, on public places, exhibiting heads on piques, gathering thousands to watch the blood, and still, people were robbed, tortured for their money, attacked on the roads…

“A deterrent to other criminals”
Husband finds his wife with his best friend in bed in position which doesn’t allowed reasonable doubts: kill them both. Death penalty wasn’t a deterrent because act was done on impulse…
Paedophile/psycho adducts young boys and girls, rape them and kill them. It is part of a monster within him/her. Death penalty wasn’t a deterrent because act was done with force he/she can’t control.
Contract killer execute 300 men and women. Part of the plan was to escape the police. So death penalty wasn’t a deterrent,

“Saves money - Money can be reinvested in law system to improve it”
Does it save money?
If you look at the number of murders and killing, you will find that just a little number are in fact punishable by Death.
So, only if you are willing to extend the kind of cases punishable by death in order to make some profit, you will have to increase the case of misconduct of justice, or just kill people for what they’ve done, regardless of circumstances, mental or reason why.
So doesn’t save money.

“Justice for the Victim & Family, revenge”:
Depend of the victims, of course. To kill the paedophile will give what justice to the kids exactly? Please develop, as would have said my teachers…
Family Revenge: No doubts for this one. Provided of course that Blood feud is the kind of justice you would endorse in case of mistake…

“Lessens risk to the public & criminals escaping.”
Criminals will kill more in order to cover any tracks, and won’t surrender when chased by police. Kill hostages because they’re already dead anyway…

“Possibly seen as a mercy, relieving someone from countless years behind bars.” That is only if they’ve got the choice. But all the “pro-life” (anti-abortion) movement will demonstrate against this option.:beam:

“Case closed”: You were too hasty in this case…:smash:

[Thermal]

“Undoubtedly lower crime levels”
When Death penalty was a deterrent: middle Ages, 18th or 19th Century? Were these period exempt of violence? Err. No, there were in fact the most violent periods in term of civil unrests. But they were hanging, decapitating, killing by thousand, on public places, exhibiting heads on piques, gathering thousands to watch the blood, and still, people were robbed, tortured for their money, attacked on the roads…

“A deterrent to other criminals”
Husband finds his wife with his best friend in bed in position which doesn’t allowed reasonable doubts: kill them both. Death penalty wasn’t a deterrent because act was done on impulse…
Paedophile/psycho adducts young boys and girls, rape them and kill them. It is part of a monster within him/her. Death penalty wasn’t a deterrent because act was done with force he/she can’t control.
Contract killer execute 300 men and women. Part of the plan was to escape the police. So death penalty wasn’t a deterrent,

“Saves money - Money can be reinvested in law system to improve it”
Does it save money?
If you look at the number of murders and killing, you will find that just a little number are in fact punishable by Death.
So, only if you are willing to extend the kind of cases punishable by death in order to make some profit, you will have to increase the case of misconduct of justice, or just kill people for what they’ve done, regardless of circumstances, mental or reason why.
So doesn’t save money.

“Justice for the Victim & Family, revenge”:
Depend of the victims, of course. To kill the paedophile will give what justice to the kids exactly? Please develop, as would have said my teachers…
Family Revenge: No doubts for this one. Provided of course that Blood feud is the kind of justice you would endorse in case of mistake…

“Lessens risk to the public & criminals escaping.”
Criminals will kill more in order to cover any tracks, and won’t surrender when chased by police. Kill hostages because they’re already dead anyway…

“Possibly seen as a mercy, relieving someone from countless years behind bars.” That is only if they’ve got the choice. But all the “pro-life” (anti-abortion) movement will demonstrate against this option.:beam:

“Case closed”: You were too hasty in this case…:smash:

-This isn't the 18th century, sorry to burden you with that. Media ensures knowledge with what happens in the world as a whole, it wasn't a deterrent because most criminals back then were criminals because they were desperate for food, they were punishable for much lesser crimes than I'm talking about. There is never a poverty crisis (poor but not homeless) in all major countries as there is always somewhere you can be accommodated, which is often at the core of crime.

-Comparing serious crime with various irrelevant remarks, the the ones having an affair are killed for having an affair, then yes it would still be a deterrent to others obviously not for the ones murdered, but if they committed the act they deserve it, and I'm talking about killing which just so happens to be more serious than relationships. Using pedophiles and saying they can't control themselves is ridiculous & rather sickening if you can pass them off for what they do.

-What!? Why would killing someone mean having to kill loads of people to save money? Why so dramatic? If someone is killed straight off it saves all there upkeep whilst behind bars, but that is only applicable for terrible criminals, it just means it saves small amounts of money instead of giant amounts, either way it does save money in some proportion, simple as.

-Justice to everyone but the criminals victims, nothing can be done about the victims, but it is a justice for there victims in a way with the thought that there nightmares, there killers or injurers etc. have been removed, if a victim can watch from above after life, then who knows they could see it as a justice, I would.

-Or not be so brash in the first place, only massively skilled criminals could survive doing this leading to dwindling numbers of them.

-Don't follow, though I guess behind bars might be better seeing as they get more money spent on their meals than school children, they get xbox's too, soon prisoners will get ferrari F40's because there will be complaints prison life got boring.

-Case double closed?

[Thermal]

Also the backroom intimidates me, I'm leaving before some rugby tackles me.

[Furunculus]

Husband finds his wife with his best friend in bed in position which doesn’t allowed reasonable doubts: kill them both. Death penalty wasn’t a deterrent because act was done on impulse…
Paedophile/psycho adducts young boys and girls, rape them and kill them. It is part of a monster within him/her. Death penalty wasn’t a deterrent because act was done with force he/she can’t control.
Contract killer execute 300 men and women. Part of the plan was to escape the police. So death penalty wasn’t a deterrent,


the latter two examples are precisely why i do support the death penalty.

i am not looking to rehabilitate them into society, i want to permanently remove them from society.

the first example is why you treat the ultimate sanction with care and responsibility, and certain not apply blanket verdicts against all examples of certain crimes.

[Thermal]

the latter two examples are precisely why i do support the death penalty.

i am not looking to rehabilitate them into society, i want to permanently remove them from society.



Exactly :yes:

[Lord Winter]

-This isn't the 18th century, sorry to burden you with that. Media ensures knowledge with what happens in the world as a whole, it wasn't a deterrent because most criminals back then were criminals because they were desperate for food, they were punishable for much lesser crimes than I'm talking about. There is never a poverty crisis (poor but not homeless) in all major countries as there is always somewhere you can be accommodated, which is often at the core of crime.

There has been studies down which shows no correlation among the death penalty and a decline in murder rates. I don't remember the name of the major study done but if you can find similar studies with Google.


-Comparing serious crime with various irrelevant remarks, the the ones having an affair are killed for having an affair, then yes it would still be a deterrent to others obviously not for the ones murdered, but if they committed the act they deserve it, and I'm talking about killing which just so happens to be more serious than relationships. Using pedophiles and saying they can't control themselves is ridiculous & rather sickening if you can pass them off for what they do.


I don't belive that his point was to justify the pedophiles act, but rather to state that they are beyond logic in their thought process.


-What!? Why would killing someone mean having to kill loads of people to save money? Why so dramatic? If someone is killed straight off it saves all there upkeep whilst behind bars, but that is only applicable for terrible criminals, it just means it saves small amounts of money instead of giant amounts, either way it does save money in some proportion, simple as.
In the U.S. it's more expensive to execute someone then to imprison them. Furthermore, cost shouldn't be a factor when we're arguing about fundamental rights. We can save a ton of money by not having a police force, but at the same time we wouldn't be safe.



-Justice to everyone but the criminals victims, nothing can be done about the victims, but it is a justice for there victims in a way with the thought that there nightmares, there killers or injurers etc. have been removed, if a victim can watch from above after life, then who knows they could see it as a justice, I would.
I won't say much on this besides that I disagree. Revenge is not justice, but if you think it is that's your right.



-Or not be so brash in the first place, only massively skilled criminals could survive doing this leading to dwindling numbers of them.


Eugenics is a slippery slope which we shouldn't touch. It's a slippery slope which promotes social darwinism and injustice. Besides, life in prison already establishes this.

[rory_20_uk]

It's odd that we appear to be very happy to enact reverse darwinism on society - helping those that are genetically weaker live longer, and even reverse eugenics - throwing money at the "socially disadvantaged" so they can continue to have larger families earlier than their richer, cleverer peers. These are already massive injustices, but for some reason are socially acceptable.

It does cost more to execute than inprison in America. So what? That is the failings of the system. Compare the costs in China for example.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't belive that his point was to justify the pedophiles act, but rather to state that they are beyond logic in their thought process.

So should we imprison them then? It's just a different form of punishment.

[Brenus]

“This isn't the 18th century, sorry to burden you with that”: Er, irrelevant for the purpose to show that Death Penalty is a deterrent or not. The past centuries with heavy death sentences (even for collecting dead wood in forests) show as it is not.

“Using paedophiles and saying they can't control themselves is ridiculous & rather sickening if you can pass them off for what they do.” Two things: mad persons can’t control their impulse (and that why they have to be follow even after jail or psychiatric units. You don’t do that with “ordinary” criminals.), so dismissing this as ridiculous is not good enough.
I don’t intend to “pass off” for what they do, I just pointed out that in case Death penalty is not a deterrent as they have no choice in their madness.

“The ones having an affair are killed for having an affair, then yes it would still be a deterrent to others”: Er, do you means the killed lovers are a deterrent for the others who want to have an affair?
And no, it doesn’t work. Still a lot of people are engaged in affair…

“Why would killing someone mean having to kill loads of people to save money”; Er, it is one of your point in favour of Death Penalty. But due to the little percentage of people de facto due to die, if you want to save money you have to kill more people than the few hundred per years… Simple maths…

“Justice to everyone but the criminals victims, nothing can be done about the victims, but it is a justice for there victims in a way with the thought that there nightmares, there killers or injurers etc. have been removed, if a victim can watch from above after life, then who knows they could see it as a justice, I would.” Well, I do agree on your first point. The reparation of the victims is one part missing in the actual system.
However revenge is not justice.
Does a drunken driver should be executed if the survivors want his head because he killed one of their loved ones? According to this line of thought he should…

“they get more money spent on their meals than school children, they get xbox's too, soon prisoners will get ferrari F40's because there will be complaints prison life got boring.”
That is because politicians know they won’t go back to school but they are not sure about jail…:beam:
Joke apart, the sentence is privation of freedom, not something else. You can give me all the X boxes of the world I won’t like to be en cage.
The fact is my sister did work in jail as a nurse when temping. If your idea of 5 people in a cell on 4 or 5 square meter is your idea of paradise!!!!

“Case double closed?” Not at all. You answered to none of the objections:
Death Penalty is not a deterrent, doesn’t save money, give justice to families.

[Thermal]

I have answered your objections, not to your liking clearly, but I have answered them.

The reason I don't visit the backroom often is because I'll only get involved in something that will not convince the opposite party, no matter how right it is in my own eyes.

So even if the thread isn't closed, your conversation with me is ~;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

The reason I don't visit the backroom often is because I'll only get involved in something that will not convince the opposite party, no matter how right it is in my own eyes.

Tell me about it.

[Thermal]

Tell me about it.

hehe


:balloon:


(you don't actually want me too do you? :grin: )

[Lord Winter]

So should we imprison them then? It's just a different form of punishment.

Yes, the point was that the death penalty will not do anything to prevent murders in someone who doesn't care about the consequences of their actions.

[Brenus]

“I have answered your objections, not to your liking clearly, but I have answered them.” Nope. You just added sentences not answering your own points.

“So even if the thread isn't closed, your conversation with me is”. Fair enough.:2thumbsup:

“no matter how right it is in my own eyes.” Frustrating, I know.:beam:

[Louis VI the Fat]

The reason I don't visit the backroom often is because I'll only get involved in something that will not convince the opposite party, no matter how right it is in my own eyes.

So even if the thread isn't closed, your conversation with me is ~;)I get frustrated with the Backroom when I don't read anything new, or interesting. Or when two sides shout the same old rehashed points over the fence to one another. :snore:

In all other cases, a poster always succeeds in changing my mind. Not by me doing a 180 degree u-turn, but by enriching my knowledge, by questioning what I know, by providing new perspectives, by insight into the thoughts of others, etcetera.


Consequently, even when I state that '2+2=4, case closed!' I would be very disappointed if people would accept that as case/thread closed. (For a start, two and two really does not equal four, but that's for another thread...)



Also the backroom intimidates meIt shouldn't! :grouphug:

Just follow the three habits of Highly Succesful Posters:
- don't debate with imbeciles. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you from experience. :wall:
- don't challenge Brenus in matters of history. :skull:
- have a laff. It's just a smoke-filled backroom where a few pompous pisses bluff at one another. Gentlemen of all ages have spend their evenings playing a few games, followed by a retreat to the backroom to discuss world politics while enjoying a good cognac and cigar. :beam:

[Furunculus]

nvm

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I have answered your objections, not to your liking clearly, but I have answered them.

The reason I don't visit the backroom often is because I'll only get involved in something that will not convince the opposite party, no matter how right it is in my own eyes.


Ha! The goal isn't to convince the other person, it's to win the argument. If anyone says anything you don't know how to respond to, just say: "But that begs the question!" No one knows what that means, so you win. :2thumbsup:

[Thermal]

Ha! The goal isn't to convince the other person, it's to win the argument. If anyone says anything you don't know how to respond to, just say: "But that begs the question!" No one knows what that means, so you win. :2thumbsup:

:laugh4:
Thank you for your points sasaki and Louis the...fat...


:yes: