View Full Version : Death penalty
This has probably been discussed before, but I want to know your opinions about death panalty.
Me myself is pro death penalty. Firstly, I think immediate execution leads to fewer crimes. Secondly, the death penalty removes the murder/rapist forever. Why shall we for example let childrapists live? I think those who actually not want to see these sick people dead, indeed are sick themselves and lack alot of empathy.
Note that when I talk of immediate executions I mean that, and not just sporadic executions (see Texas).
So gentlemen... Have any opinions?
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 23:15
I used to believe in the death penalty. However, I've had a change of heart and mind. I believe that as long as we allow for it, we allow for a culture of death. The only justifiable reason for killing somebody else is self-defense.
King of Atlantis
07-05-2005, 23:17
well the problem with killing people immediately, is that people arnt always guilty of their crimes. Some guy just got out recently after being in jail for 20 years for being falsly accused of rape. If he had just been killed 20 years ago then an inoccent man would have died.
scooter_the_shooter
07-05-2005, 23:19
Ok don what if some one kills your family when you are not around. If you found him after and he put down his weopons would you still kill him? (if you had the means gun knife etc)
_Martyr_
07-05-2005, 23:21
Here we go again... :dizzy2:
I believe that as long as we do not allow for it, we allow for a culture of sickness.
Think of all the victims Don... Think of the all the children in the world who have been raped by sick men. Justice and common sentce demands execution. Do you in some way feel sorry for the rapists? I can´t understand why anyone would want these perverts to live.
PanzerJaeger
07-05-2005, 23:22
I too believe in your immediate execution concept.
The reason the statistics show the death penalty doesnt deter criminals is because it is used so rarely. If it is to be of any use it needs to be the punishment for all murderers.
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 23:23
First, I want to state categorically, I hope I never find out.
Second, I don't know. I'm a Christian, and as my life wouldn't be in jeoprady at that point, Christ calls me to let it pass and find a way to forgive the person. Without a doubt, the hardest thing I would ever have to do in my life.
If I failed to follow Christ, and killed the guy anyway, I would most certainly be on the hook for aggrevated manslaughter, at the very least. That much I would expect. That's not even capital punishment, that's vigilantism, and if I indulged in it, I would be prepared to face the consequences (including, possibly facing the death penalty myself).
I am against the death penalty for so many reasons I will refrain from listing them all.
However I will point out the absurdity in your position Radier.
I think immediate execution leads to fewer crimes.
Wrong. Every single study into the death penalty has shown that it does NOT prevent anyone from murdering others and murder rates taken when the death penalty was in place and then after when it was stopped, show no difference. The death penalty is no deterrent.
Secondly, the death penalty removes the murder/rapist forever. Why shall we for example let childrapists live? I think those who actually not want to see these sick people dead, indeed are sick themselves and lack alot of empathy.
Firstly, what happens if you murder an innocent who you believed was a criminal? Well? Collateral damage? Great.
Secondly you want to live in a society which instead of facing the great problems caused with criminals of this extent, prefer to simply get rid of them? Stick all your problems in a cupboard and never open the door! That approach only causes more problems in society, whether you like it or not you have to confront the root causes of problems at some point, not simply keep bumping off the end result.
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 23:25
I believe that as long as we do not allow for it, we allow for a culture of sickness.
Think of all the victims Don... Think of the all the children in the world who have been raped by sick men. Justice and common sentce demands execution. Do you in some way feel sorry for the rapists? I can´t understand why anyone would want these perverts to live.
I never said I would feel sorry for the guy, and you're making many of the same arguments I myself have made. At the very least, I would argue that life w/out possiblity of parole isn't handed out anywhere near enough. Second, if there was irrefutable evidence, such as DNA or something... I think society should lobotomize the guy.
I too believe in your immediate execution concept.
The reason the statistics show the death penalty doesnt deter criminals is because it is used so rarely. If it is to be of any use it needs to be the punishment for all murderers.
Not avery murderer shall be executed in my opinion. If my children had been killed or raped by someone I definatly would have killed him. I don´t think I deserve death-penalty for that.
JAG
You cought your girlfriend cheating on you with another guy. You take up your gun... In which situation are you most likely to kill the guy:
1. You will immediatly be executed for manslaughter?
2. You will be put ten years in prison (Swedish style; Good food, good "cell", computer, internet etc.) ?
The government-sponsored killing of individuals is wrong.
Often people who do wrongs things can be "sick", as you put it, and do truely abhorrant things. This is no reason to kill them, just because it is too hard to try cure them. Mental illness should not be ignored.
As to the Death Penalty, this is wrong. I would much rather see the person imprisoned for the rest of his natural life. While there he is provided with food, water and shelter and is made to work for 8-10 hours a day to pay back his cost to soceity. If you kill him how is he meant to pay us back.
Additionally, what if you kill someone who is later proved to be innocent, due to faulty police work or newly discovered evidence or a subsequent confession. How can you repay the families for their loss.
No Justice system is perfect, so why deliver such a final solution to the crime.
BTW: I think in the US, at least it has the concept of a "Death Row", whereby if some new evidence or confession comes to light there is the right of appeal to the Governor. This is not a bad compromise, in a country where the Death Penalty is accepted as the norm.
Well how many are innocent? One out of thousand? Of course there must be very good evindence before the execution is taking part...
Sjakihata
07-05-2005, 23:51
"What does the law say? You shall not kill! How does it say it? By killing!" - Victor Hugo
Im against it
The Death penalty is an excellent deterrant. Without the death penalty, the 'rule of law' won't be taken seriously.
That argument does not fit with the reality. Just try once and imagine if your own near and dear got raped or murdurerd this very night. I promise, you won´t quote Victor Hugo tomorrow Sjakihata...
JAG
You cought your girlfriend cheating on you with another guy. You take up your gun... In which situation are you most likely to kill the guy:
1. You will immediatly be executed for manslaughter?
2. You will be put ten years in prison (Swedish style; Good food, good "cell", computer, internet etc.) ?
You see that is why you do not realise the reality. In reality sane people will NOT think - oh yes, I best kill that person now because he is cheating with my girlfriend! So thus the whole issue means diddly squat in your parameters.
But if you are talking about someone who is going to kill someone else in that situation, do you really think they are of a mind which analyses the consequences and jail term / death penalty situation before they choose to kill someone? Of course not. That is precisely why the death penalty is not a deterrent. If you want to commit a crime, you will commit a crime, regardless of the consequences, hell anyway when have you met a criminal who thought they would get caught?
You are trying to make logical inferences from terrible premises.
Don Corleone
07-06-2005, 00:29
Jag,
There is such a thing as cold blooded murder. Perhaps our friend Radier is using a poor example for such a thing, but what if the tables were turned, and said girlfiend and cuckolding newbie decide to off the boyfriend for his insurance money?
Claiming that anybody who murders somebody is acting under undue influence and is therefore innocent is not the way to win this argument.
But I agree with Jag, for radically different reasons.
Where have I stated they act 'under influence', not at all. We control our emotions, we are in total control when we make our choices, I am not stating that people who murder do not realise what they are doing. But what I am stating is that when people kill the vast majority do so not caring about / considering / or thinking they will face, the consequences. And for that reason the death penalty is not a deterrent.
Yes that was a bad example... Sorry.
JAG not every criminal are stupid. There are those who actually think and also consider the conseqenses.
Firstly, I think immediate execution leads to fewer crimes.
If there were such a thing as immediate execution, you'd have a point. There are plenty of good arguments that can be made for the death penalty, but deterrence is not one of them.
Among prisoners on death row, the annual execution rate is 2%. (I'm pulling this from an economics book in my lap, so I can't link to my source. Beg pardon.) The annual chance of death for a street-level dealer during the height of the crack epidemic was 7%. As you can see, death row doesn't hold much threat to these guys.
What would be interesting to know is whether places linke Saudi Arabia, where the death penalty is meted out within a few days of conviction, has more success using it as a deterrence.
Yes that was a bad example... Sorry.
JAG not every criminal are stupid. There are those who actually think and also consider the conseqenses.
You still have not answered or responded to any of my criticisms of your position.
If there were such a thing as immediate execution, you'd have a point. There are plenty of good arguments that can be made for the death penalty, but deterrence is not one of them.
Among prisoners on death row, the annual execution rate is 2%. (I'm pulling this from an economics book in my lap, so I can't link to my source. Beg pardon.) The annual chance of death for a street-level dealer during the height of the crack epidemic was 7%. As you can see, death row doesn't hold much threat to these guys.
What would be interesting to know is whether places linke Saudi Arabia, where the death penalty is meted out within a few days of conviction, has more success using it as a deterrence.
Some friends of mine spent their holiday in Saudi Arabia and one day they got pushed in to a cheering crowd to stare at two executions. They were westerners so the arabs pushed them as close as 5 metres from the execution scene. I can say they were horrified and yes I think using it as a deterrence works better than many think.
You still have not answered or responded to any of my criticisms of your position.
Wrong. Every single study into the death penalty has shown that it does NOT prevent anyone from murdering others and murder rates taken when the death penalty was in place and then after when it was stopped, show no difference. The death penalty is no deterrent.
As Lemurmania says: The annual execution rate is 2 %. Of corse this do not prevent murders with so low numbers. I want this execution rate to be way higher.
Firstly, what happens if you murder an innocent who you believed was a criminal? Well? Collateral damage? Great.
That does not happen often. We must make sure there are strong evidence.
Secondly you want to live in a society which instead of facing the great problems caused with criminals of this extent, prefer to simply get rid of them? Stick all your problems in a cupboard and never open the door! That approach only causes more problems in society, whether you like it or not you have to confront the root causes of problems at some point, not simply keep bumping off the end result.
That is what I do! I face the problem. How many thousand murders were comitted in the US last year? I don´t know, but what I do know is that there were many. Why not start to be much more stricter to the criminals, and I mean MUCH more, and see what happens. I promise the murder rate will fall. If every man and woman knows that if I kill someone without VERY good reasons, I will get killed to... I think that drasticly will change the number of murders.
ICantSpellDawg
07-06-2005, 01:07
Me myself is pro death penalty.
awesome - i am going to start using that statement.
Like Don, I also used to be in favour of capital punishment, but not any more.
The fact that it may act as a deterrent for crime doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good thing for our society.
Brain chips with explosive devices , implanted in the citizenry, would also be a deterrent for crime. Doesn't mean we should adopt it.
The cost is too high, IMHO, when even one innocent person is executed for a crime they didn't commit.
It isn't reasonable to use the "if your loved ones were killed" hypothetical if you're considering the law for an entire country. I'm sure there's plenty of nasty things I'd like to do to such a perpetrator, in the heat and rage of the moment, if I was a survivor of such a horrible event in my family.
But if those emotions were to dictate legislation and punishment, we'd be living under a far worse regime than even Sharia law...
Unless you are planning/premeditated on killing someone, you have nothing to worry about the death penalty. That's why it is a deterrant.
Sjakihata
07-06-2005, 01:44
That argument does not fit with the reality. Just try once and imagine if your own near and dear got raped or murdurerd this very night. I promise, you won´t quote Victor Hugo tomorrow Sjakihata...
That is a very easy point to make. And a point you cannot take into consideration when you are discussing something objectively.
We need to keep personal feelings aside here, or else nothing can be discussed rationally.
I am against capital punishment, because it brutalizes the society - and it is simply wrong to kill people, no matter.
Where have I stated they act 'under influence', not at all. We control our emotions, we are in total control when we make our choices, I am not stating that people who murder do not realise what they are doing. But what I am stating is that when people kill the vast majority do so not caring about / considering / or thinking they will face, the consequences. And for that reason the death penalty is not a deterrent.
I agree. Ever seen your "wife" under the influence of PMT. Acting rationally is one of their traits during that period.
Unless you are planning/premeditated on killing someone, you have nothing to worry about the death penalty. That's why it is a deterrant.
Would you suggest that it is equally reasonable to adopt mutilations/amputation as punishment for crimes like stealing?
I mean, I'm not planning on stealing anything, so why should I be worried about that kind of thing happening within my society?
Sorry man, but I don't see it as being that simple.
Radier you are merely reiterating your previous statements, not answering my points.
You cannot change the death penalty rate because it is slow for a reason - the evidence needs to be scrutinised and checked thoroughly because someones life is literally on the line. Even with this system innocents are killed - you seemingly do not have a problem with that, I do - so with a system like you are suggesting of killing people 'on the spot', it is only realistic to think the number of innocents slaughtered by the state will grow drastically.
You have no evidence that the death penalty will act as a deterrence even if used for all crimes, there is none because it wouldn't. You can state 'but it will' as much as you want but it doesn't and wouldn't if implemented as you suggest.
Now I stated I didn't want to have to go in the huge number of reasons for being opposed to the death penalty - there are literally double figure reasons - but I can't help but mention this one having seen some of your other posts. You state you are an arch conservative, yet here you are wanting the state to not only expand and have a greater role in everybodys life but also you are handing over to the state a HUGE chunk of power. The power of life and death over it's citizens with great ease. Does that not bother you? As a conservative don't you think the idea of the state interfering in peoples lives, expanding, costing more meaning taxes are higher, etc etc, make your blood boil?
I happen to think having the state with the power to make life and death choices over its citizens is disgusting, the state should never have power like that.
Unless you are planning/premeditated on killing someone, you have nothing to worry about the death penalty. That's why it is a deterrant.
I fail to see your reasoning. If you are not planning on killing anyone, then the death penalty is a deterrent? Huh? Come again?
If you are trying to make a point such as 'if you are not going to kill someone don't worry about it!' Then that my friend is rubbish. Not only will I worry about it because it is an abhorrent thing to have in society but also I could quite easily be questioned for a murder, even if I didn't commit it, and I do not even want the risk of getting the chop, thank you very much.
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 02:40
Well I agree with the death penalty, but I think a Singapore style caning for young offenders would probably do more to reduce crime than anything else. Stopping criminals while they are still young is the best method, and having reduced levels of punishment for young offenders seems counter-productive. Harsher and alternate punishments such as electronic ankle bracelets, probation, and 6 months picking turnips on a farm might be a better way to go.
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 02:51
I happen to think having the state with the power to make life and death choices over its citizens is disgusting, the state should never have power like that.
The state has that power in any case!
They exercise it when they decide that a certain level of impurities in food is acceptable, and that X numbers of deaths, and Y number of serious infection's will be tolerated. Road safety, industrial rulings and any number of other examples exist. They must make these decisions and they would be failing in their duty if they didn't.
The decision to exact the death penalty means at least most of the deaths will be those who have done something to deserve it. This is not usually the case in many of the decisions the state must make.
Would you suggest that it is equally reasonable to adopt mutilations/amputation as punishment for crimes like stealing?
I mean, I'm not planning on stealing anything, so why should I be worried about that kind of thing happening within my society?
Sorry man, but I don't see it as being that simple. Stealing is nothing. Why would you amputate hands for something as petty as that. You can steal a trillion dollars and I won't advocate cutting someone's hands or even a finger.
Death penalty is for the protection of lives. ~:)
I fail to see your reasoning. If you are not planning on killing anyone, then the death penalty is a deterrent? Huh? Come again?
If you are trying to make a point such as 'if you are not going to kill someone don't worry about it!' Then that my friend is rubbish. Not only will I worry about it because it is an abhorrent thing to have in society but also I could quite easily be questioned for a murder, even if I didn't commit it, and I do not even want the risk of getting the chop, thank you very much. If you plan on killing someone and you think of the consequence of the death penalty, would you still do it? Deterrant.
Why would anyone would try to kill anyone in the first place? Well, people kill for money/greed, for example. Would that person still kill for money if they know they will forfeit their life?
If it is not death penalty, what else will preclude a very greedy person for killing for money?
If you plan on killing someone and you think of the consequence of the death penalty, would you still do it? Deterrant.
Why would anyone would try to kill anyone in the first place? Well, people kill for money/greed, for example. Would that person still kill for money if they know they will forfeit their life?
If it is not death penalty, what else will preclude a very greedy person for killing for money?
It.... is... like... talking to a bloody brick wall.
May I suggest you please read some of my posts, because to be frank you are talking rubbish.
Sharrukin - It is quite true the state has the power in an indirect way, but the death penalty gives the state the power in a completely direct way. Their leglislation on traffic situations does not pick who is going to die and who lives, they are simply ruling on something which is likely to cause the death of someone in their country, the death penalty gives the state the power to kill people directly. It concentrates far too much power in their hands, a state should never have the direct power to do so.
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 03:36
Sharrukin - It is quite true the state has the power in an indirect way, but the death penalty gives the state the power in a completely direct way. Their leglislation on traffic situations does not pick who is going to die and who lives, they are simply ruling on something which is likely to cause the death of someone in their country, the death penalty gives the state the power to kill people directly. It concentrates far too much power in their hands, a state should never have the direct power to do so.
But the state already has the direct power to order the death of soldiers, police, and civilians who are killed, or injured by police in the performance of their duties. The only difference is that the state does not will their deaths, rather they occur as a direct consequence of the orders given by the state. The state chooses when, and for what reasons to go to war, what laws to enforce, and who will, or will not be required to obey them. As I indicated earlier, at least in the case of the death penalty, most will be guilty of some crime.
most will be guilty of some crime.And that is the point, "Most". not all. The State, the justice system, the police are imperfect. Why let them deliver the "final" option.
You are only stating exactly what I did with different grammar and slant.
The only difference is that the state does not will their deaths, rather they occur as a direct consequence of the orders given by the state.
Exactly my point.
There is a clear difference between the police acting out of self defence and killing someone and the state ordering someone to death via the death penalty. With the death penalty individuals could be targetted and sent to their death with the other things mentioned that is not possible.
As I indicated earlier, at least in the case of the death penalty, most will be guilty of some crime.
Completely beside the point of the issue I raised.
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 03:57
And that is the point, "Most". not all. The State, the justice system, the police are imperfect. Why let them deliver the "final" option.
Because someone will! Be it the state who deliver's the "final" option, or the criminal, someone will die. The 'life without parole' does not exist, so the men who commit murder will walk among us again, and a certain number of them will kill again. The number of innocents who die will not be lessened by not proceeding with the death penalty. The number of innocents who die, will be increased by not acting. If you accept the responsibility of governing you accept the responsibility for what your actions will do, and the responsibility for what you choose not to do.
I believe that a more "eye for an eye" system of punishments should be in order. Murder is the most difficult crime with which this philosophy is put into practice, since, I think, in order to keep the "eye for an eye" philosophy just that, punishment should be decided by the affected and deemed appropriate or excessive by a third party. Stealing would be an easy case; murder less so.
Ancient Celtic law comes to mind: if a murderer is convicted, the victim's family had the option of taking the murderer as a servant/slave for something like 20 years, if memory serves. If they so wished, I think a victim's family could request that the murderer be executed (but to be fair, a member of the family would need to do it).
In conclusion, I support a death penalty, but it's a much more conditional support than one would expect.
Why should the state be allowed to "kill" innocents anymore the others ?
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 04:25
Why should the state be allowed to "kill" innocents anymore the others ?
The state will kill an innocent by choosing to act or to not act. More will die if they do not act and 'to act' is the only ethical choice IMHO.
Choosing to let more innocents die because of a reluctance to accept responsibility, is putting selfishness, before one's responsibility to one's fellow citizens.
The state cannot walk away from the decision as to who will die, a citizen can, but the state cannot. It must act, or choose not to act, but responsible is what it will be regardless.
Productivity
07-06-2005, 04:38
Given Radier's love of appeals to emotion, let's try this one.
Radier, if you were to be executed tomorrow, for something that you did not commit, but you had been found guilty (there was extremely strong evidence) for, and all appeals had been exhausted, would you still support the death penalty? Would you still accept that 1/1000 was an acceptable murder rate of an innocent, now that 1/1000 is no longer a nameless, faceless number, but yourself.
How about if it was your child? Your brother/sister? Your parents?
Are any of the above an acceptable casualty? Would you sacrifice them to the concept of justice, in an attempt to stop criminals?
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 04:53
Given Radier's love of appeals to emotion, let's try this one.
Radier, if you were to be executed tomorrow, for something that you did not commit, but you had been found guilty (there was extremely strong evidence) for, and all appeals had been exhausted, would you still support the death penalty? Would you still accept that 1/1000 was an acceptable murder rate of an innocent, now that 1/1000 is no longer a nameless, faceless number, but yourself.
How about if it was your child? Your brother/sister? Your parents?
Are any of the above an acceptable casualty? Would you sacrifice them to the concept of justice, in an attempt to stop criminals?
Someone is going to be sacrificed to the concept of some form of justice, regardless. If we do not execute the murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc they will commit further crimes. Are these acceptable casualties simply because we can claim that they are not our problem? Why is the state not just as responsible for their death's as it is for the one's they do execute?
I agree that it must act, but not to kill. If the state has the power to kill, what is stopping it making new laws in the future, that allow it to kill for other reasons. I am reminded of Logan's Run, where the state uses "age" to limit for the size of the population. While far-fetched now, the situation may change in the future, warranting it according to some enviromental need.
I repeat. Killing is wrong !!! Besides the state is there because we want it there not the other way round. We should always be more important than the state.
Productivity
07-06-2005, 05:01
If we do not execute the murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc they will commit further crimes.
From a lifetime prison sentence? That would be very impressive...
You are making up ideas for me that are false. I am well in favour of harsher sentencing, long prison terms etc. Give all those who would be executed life imprisonment, with manual labour as well. But don't kill them.
Proletariat
07-06-2005, 05:02
Someone is going to be sacrificed to the concept of some form of justice, regardless. If we do not execute the murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc they will commit further crimes. Are these acceptable casualties simply because we can claim that they are not our problem? Why is the state not just as responsible for their death's as it is for the one's they do execute?
Your reasoning has never made a lick of sense on this.
"There's no recurrence rate if you just kill them!!!!!"
Yeah, well there's also life sentences which prevent recurrence.
"But those never work!!! No one ever actually gets life!!!!"
Then why isn't your issue with parole boards?
"Let's just kill something!!!!!"
Ad infinitum
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 05:04
I agree that it must act, but not to kill. If the state has the power to kill, what is stopping it making new laws in the future, that allow it to kill for other reasons. I am reminded of Logan's Run, where the state uses "age" to limit for the size of the population. While far-fetched now, the situation may change in the future, warranting it according to some enviromental need.
I repeat. Killing is wrong !!! Besides the state is there because we want it there not the other way round. We should always be more important than the state.
The state is going to kill regardless of which choice is made!
You go one way and some innocents will die wrongful conviction.
You go another, and more will die by the states reluctance to do anything positive.
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 05:18
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Someone is going to be sacrificed to the concept of some form of justice, regardless. If we do not execute the murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc they will commit further crimes. Are these acceptable casualties simply because we can claim that they are not our problem? Why is the state not just as responsible for their death's as it is for the one's they do execute?
Your reasoning has never made a lick of sense on this.
"There's no recurrence rate if you just kill them!!!!!"
Yeah, well there's also life sentences which prevent recurrence.
"But those never work!!! No one ever actually gets life!!!!"
Then why isn't your issue with parole boards?
"Let's just kill something!!!!!"
Ad infinitum
My issue is with parole boards. Why isn't yours?
Those who oppose the death penalty, never campaign for 'life without parole'. The only time you hear about 'life without parole' is when they are arguing against the death penalty, and then it is dropped until needed again in the next argument. It is a false argument used to dodge having to face the consequences of what they want done. They don't care how many innocent people die. Some of us however actually do care! It does matter to some of us.
You act as if washing your hands of the problem somehow cures it!
"Let's just kill something!!!!!" NO!
You see some of us see a difference between the 14 kid who is raped and murdered and the guy who did it.
Lets kill the the guy who did it!!!!!"
Proletariat
07-06-2005, 05:24
My issue is with parole boards. Why isn't yours?
How do you know it isn't?
Those who oppose the death penalty, never campaign for 'life without parole'.
Why don't you?
"Let's just kill something!!!!!" NO!
Then
[QUOTE=sharrukin]
Lets kill the the guy who did it!!!!!"
Why does the state have to kill something for you to be satisfied? (Other than to sate your basest bloodlust) You're clamoring much louder for the death of these guys than for their lives being spent in prison.
You're just as despicable as the ones who want to slap them on the wrist. (And a bit scarier)
For the religious, amongst us. One good commandment is "Thou shalt not kill". What makes the state above God.
I may not be religious, but even I know "killing" is wrong.
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 05:48
For the religious, amongst us. One good commandment is "Thou shalt not kill". What makes the state above God.
I may not be religious, but even I know "killing" is wrong.
The commandment was "Thou shalt not murder" and was transliterated incorrectly. Even at that the commandment was always understood to be 'Thou shalt not murder'. If I was religious this might have more impact but I am not.
Murder is wrong. If I saw someone about to kill the above mentioned 14 year old I would do what was needed to prevent that, and that includes killing if need be.
So no, killing on occasion is the right thing to do. Sometimes it is the only moral choice in an otherwise imperfect world.
For the religious, and non-religious amongst us. We have left the Garden Of Eden and must make our way in the world of sin, and sometimes we have to make uncomfortable choices.
Productivity
07-06-2005, 06:56
Given Proletariat and I seem to be arguing the same (or a similar) point, I'll respond to this as well (although I fear it may just be myself repeating Proletariat).
My issue is with parole boards. Why isn't yours?
Who are you to say it's not my issue. I do have issues with sentencing and parole. That is however, a seperate issue, and not up for discussion here.
Those who oppose the death penalty, never campaign for 'life without parole'. The only time you hear about 'life without parole' is when they are arguing against the death penalty, and then it is dropped until needed again in the next argument. It is a false argument used to dodge having to face the consequences of what they want done.
I oppose the death penalty. I argue for life without parole. I argue for life without parole whenever it is relavent.
It is not a false argument, it is a better alternative. It has all the effectiveness of the death penalty, without the terrible cost of a nation murdering it's own innocent citizens.
They don't care how many innocent people die. Some of us however actually do care! It does matter to some of us.
You act as if washing your hands of the problem somehow cures it!
You see some of us see a difference between the 14 kid who is raped and murdered and the guy who did it.
Lets kill the the guy who did it!!!!!"
I don't care about how many innocents die? I don't see a difference between the victim and the offender? News to me, as I imagine it would be to Don Corleone et al.
Plenty of people oppose the death penalty, because of the terrible consequences it has, and because they beleive that there are better alternatives.
I care about protecting innocents. You have just gone and made a sweeping statement, to the extent that anyone who opposes the death penalty is immoral or mentally sick. I am neither of them, and you are seriously off in your reasoning.
Either redefine your argument, or you owe a lot of people here an apology for false accusations.
Papewaio
07-06-2005, 07:11
For the religious, amongst us. One good commandment is "Thou shalt not kill". What makes the state above God.
I may not be religious, but even I know "killing" is wrong.
Actually I think you will find that in that time period the ten commandments was for individuals. The right to kill was in the hands of the state. Particularly when the King was appointed by God...
Just see how much killing a certain wise son of David did (killed a few of his brothers and such to strengthen his positon for the throne).
Franconicus
07-06-2005, 08:53
Firstly, I think immediate execution leads to fewer crimes.Think again. Do countries like Germany or Netherlans have more crime than countires like the US, or even China or Iran, where you have a lot of immediate executions?
Secondly, the death penalty removes the murder/rapist forever. There are other ways to remove them forever!
Why shall we for example let childrapists live? I think those who actually not want to see these sick people dead, indeed are sick themselves and lack alot of empathy.Everybody has a right to live, even criminals.
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 09:31
Given Proletariat and I seem to be arguing the same (or a similar) point, I'll respond to this as well (although I fear it may just be myself repeating Proletariat).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
My issue is with parole boards. Why isn't yours?
Who are you to say it's not my issue. I do have issues with sentencing and parole. That is however, a seperate issue, and not up for discussion here.
Then address your remarks to Proletariat as I am not the one who brought it up!
I didn't say it wasn't your issue, I said "Why isn't yours?" and was addressing Proletariat.
Then why isn't your issue with parole boards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Those who oppose the death penalty, never campaign for 'life without parole'. The only time you hear about 'life without parole' is when they are arguing against the death penalty, and then it is dropped until needed again in the next argument. It is a false argument used to dodge having to face the consequences of what they want done.
I oppose the death penalty. I argue for life without parole. I argue for life without parole whenever it is relavent.
It is not a false argument, it is a better alternative. It has all the effectiveness of the death penalty, without the terrible cost of a nation murdering it's own innocent citizens.
The state isn't murdering it's own citizens. There is a moral difference between those who murder and those who are murdered! There is no moral equivalence between them. One is lawful execution, and the other is murder. The state is not a person, it is the common will, and those who are part of it are not guilty of murder because the state acts to execute those who transgress. Nor are those who carry out the executions guilty of murder. So I am mystified as to where you get "murder".
As for a better alternative;
“Under the Massachusetts concept of repair rather than revenge, no person is believed beyond redemption, not even a rapist or a killer.” That’s why, despite “the fact that 85 percent of the DOC inmate population has a present or past violent criminal history,” 28 percent of that population had participated in the furlough program as of January 1987. Since the program’s inception in 1972, 121,713 furloughs had been granted to 10,835 Massachusetts inmates; 5,554 of those unescorted leaves were taken by first-degree murderers, supposedly serving “life without parole” sentences.
Massachusetts officials proclaimed a furlough “escape rate” of only 0.5 percent.
This is calculated by dividing the 428 escapees by the 121,713 furloughs granted from 1972 through 1987. However, those furloughs were granted repeatedly to only 10,835 inmates. Dividing 428 by that number reveals an actual escape rate of one out of every 23 participants!
Peter J. Limone sentenced to “life without parole” for a contract murder was one of those, and he got 160 furloughs and used them to manage a local loan-shark operation.
Kenneth McDuff got 'life without parole'
http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plainfield/i-p/mcduff.html
Kenneth D. Williams got 'life without parole' for the murder of a university cheerleader.
He escaped on Oct. 3, 1999, while serving that sentence at the Cummins Unit of the state prison system in Lincoln County, Ark. After 57-year-old farmer Cecil Boren was slain at his home near the prison, Williams fled to Missouri in Boren's truck. He was captured near Urbana after an accident that killed Culligan delivery driver Michael Greenwood, 24, of Springfield, Mo. Williams was convicted for Boren's slaying and sentenced to death. If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.'' At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.
Dawud Mu’Min got 48 years for the 1973 murder of a cab driver.
He escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery and got $4.00.
William D. Davis and Douglas E. Gray to escape a Stringtown, Okla. prison on March 16. Both were serving life sentences for homicide. Davis stabbed a man 80 times with a knife during a 1974 robbery while Gray fatally beat and shot a teacher in 1988.
Michael Rodriguez, sentenced to life for murder, joined six lesser criminals in overpowering prison employees in Connolly, Tex. last December 13 before leaving in a maintenance truck. Police say the "Malevolent Seven" robbed an Oshman's sporting goods store on Christmas Eve, then shot police officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times and drove over his corpse.
After escaping a Florida prison in 1991, John Fred Woolard shot and killed a park ranger. Last May 28, Woolard escaped again, this time from a Mississippi prison, accompanied by armed robber Roy Randall Harper. The two convicts allegedly fired at a sheriff's deputy who stopped them for speeding, then embarked on a high-speed chase in a stolen van last June 14. Woolard surrendered three days later, after a final getaway bid in yet another carjacked van.
James Robert Thomas who escaped the Oklahoma County Jail in 1994, was doing life for the 1993 rape and killing of Jessie Roberts, his 81-year-old neighbor who paid the then 17-year-old to mow her lawn.
Tracy Lynn Harris received life without parole on the felony murder charge and a 20-year sentence on the rape charge.
Madelyn Ruth Bomar, is the 81-year-old woman whom Harris was convicted of murdering and raping in 1998,
http://www.azcorrections.gov/News/2004/murderer_escapes.html
Steve Murphy, O.C. Borden, and Gary Scott. These three murderers, all lifers, escaped a high-security prison in St. Clair Springs, Ala. on January 30. Along with three fellow inmates, they lifted the fence with a broom handle and slithered to freedom. Murphy once escaped this facility in the 1980.
In 1994, Gov. John Waihee commuted the terms of two men convicted of murdering a fellow inmate. They were freed after serving only 15 years of their sentence of life without parole.
The number of murderers who escaped the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1995, was 35 (all males). That's one state, and not a big one.
This is the reality of 'life without parole'!
It is in fact a false argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
They don't care how many innocent people die. Some of us however actually do care! It does matter to some of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
You act as if washing your hands of the problem somehow cures it!
You see some of us see a difference between the 14 kid who is raped and murdered and the guy who did it.
Lets kill the the guy who did it!!!!!"
I don't care about how many innocents die? I don't see a difference between the victim and the offender? News to me, as I imagine it would be to Don Corleone et al.
Plenty of people oppose the death penalty, because of the terrible consequences it has, and because they beleive that there are better alternatives.
I care about protecting innocents. You have just gone and made a sweeping statement, to the extent that anyone who opposes the death penalty is immoral or mentally sick. I am neither of them, and you are seriously off in your reasoning.
Either redefine your argument, or you owe a lot of people here an apology for false accusations.
You know what. You are correct, I was generalizing and should not have done so. One of the reasons I made it a generalized statement is that I did not want it be a personal statement, directed at Proletariat, but I should have thought a second time!
However many of those statements were in fact directed at Proletariat, not you, or anyone else! They were in direct response to what she posted and nothing more. If anyone is owed an apology it would be her.
One statement was generalized
"They don't care how many innocent people die." and should not have been.
If that caused you offence then I do apologize.
You mention terrible consequences;
It is claimed that 23 (12 of whom actually have substantial evidence of guilt) innocents have been mistakenly executed this century and it is said that 77 persons have been released from death row because they were not guilty of the crime for which they had been condemned to death. Some of these are in fact known to be guilty and in at least 29 cases it is unknown as to whether they are or are not.
Bedau and Radelet, the authors of that study, conceded - in 1988 - that neither they nor any previous researchers have proved that any of those executed was innocent: "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/1988).
"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives."
"The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation . . . commit ‘at least’ 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies." American Guardian, May 1997, pg. 26. Incredibly, this slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision".
The expected punishment for murder was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and Punishment in the U.S.", National Center for Policy Analysis, 1997).
It has been said that I am bloodthirsty because I am willing to let 23 people die, while literally thousands are murdered every year and many more brutalized, and I am bloodthirsty?
Spetulhu
07-06-2005, 09:58
It has been said that I am bloodthirsty because I am willing to let 23 people die, while literally thousands are murdered every year and many more brutalized, and I am bloodthirsty?
But you forgot to count in the number of people who don't become repeat offenders. How many of those would you be executing?
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 10:55
But you forgot to count in the number of people who don't become repeat offenders. How many of those would you be executing?
Well, there you have me!
And here comes the bloodthirsty part if you want to call it that. I really don't care about the lives of rapists, child molester's, and some categories of murderers, unless they impact the lives of those more deserving.
As long as they are guilty, my only regret is for what they might have been, not for what they are!
Samurai Waki
07-06-2005, 11:18
I don't really agree with the entire an eye-for-an-eye thing, unless the crime committed by that person was founded with absolutely flawless evidence and they committed a crime so unspeakable that certain damnation would be the only just measure. Such as a man being seen butchering a family or something, or founded conducting acts of Terrorism (such as McVeagh who I had no problem seeing being put down). Obviously, only in critical cases should such an act be considered, especially if a crime involves killing Children.
Revelation
07-06-2005, 12:30
The only quote in the bible which makes any sense...."an eye for an eye"!
For extreme cases, such as mass murderers, sicko bastards in general and paedophiles I think they should administer days of agonising torture before actually dealing the death blow! :furious3:
bmolsson
07-06-2005, 13:40
Revenge is not really to move on. It will only create more violence and it will never end....
When I read all the answers to my posts... I can´t understand, I´m sorry. I will stop posting about death penalty cause I can´t convince someone. It´s in your own mind... Those of you that not would have seen the one that raped or murdered your child killed... You are sick in my opinion.
I can´t understand how you think.
Ja'chyra
07-06-2005, 14:18
I'm all for the death sentence as soon as we find a fool proof, or at least extremely low risk of mistakes, method of implementing it. Until then life should mean life and serial offenders, rapists and paedophiles, should be chemically castrated. I also believe that prison should be a punishment, there shouldn't be TV's in cells (I mean television not transvestites ~:eek: ) or passes for the weekend.
Why does the state have to kill something for you to be satisfied? (Other than to sate your basest bloodlust) You're clamoring much louder for the death of these guys than for their lives being spent in prison.
You're just as despicable as the ones who want to slap them on the wrist. (And a bit scarier)
In your opinion of course, otherwise this could be seen as slightly abusive ~;)
I would also gladly see murderers, paedophiles and rapists put to death so long as the each crime was judged individually (I believe there could be sufficient cause for murder) and subject to the condition above. This is not due to bloodlust, as you have put it, but due to my desire to protect innocents, it could easily be said that leaving these types of people alive and therefore risking innocents is despicable, it all depends on your point of view.
I also think trying to rehabilitate serial rapists and paedophiles is wrong, I don't mean that they can't be I mean they shouldn't be. Why should they be "cured" and then let out to live a normal life probably at great cost to the public to relocate them? No, I believe they should be put away for life, no parol, no holidays, no social clubs just prison and hard labour, the best way they can pay their debt to society is by the chain gang method doing jobs too dirty or dangerous for others.
Lastly I would say that my views are shared by the vast majority of people I know, don't believe everything an opinion poll tells you, most people have enough to worry about in their everyday lives to spare much thought or sympathy for sex pests. JAG's views are all well and good for an ideal world but I don't personally think they have much grounding in the reality of today, but maybe someday these crimes can be eradicated through education before the crimes occur.
Proletariat
07-06-2005, 14:31
Why does the state have to kill something for you to be satisfied? (Other than to sate your basest bloodlust) You're clamoring much louder for the death of these guys than for their lives being spent in prison.
You're just as despicable as the ones who want to slap them on the wrist. (And a bit scarier)
In your opinion of course, otherwise this could be seen as slightly abusive ~;)
Uhm, of course it's my opinion. That's implicit when you read things I've written, barring quotations. That what I say is my opinion.
I should've written that his opinion is despicable, so point taken anyhow. Sorry, sharrukin. I don't think you are despicable. I agree with lots you've posted, but I find this position very disagreeable.
I don't see how so many can acknowledge two routes; Life Sentencing and Death Sentencing. Then agree that the former would be fine if it worked, but then invest all their energy arguing for the latter. It reeks of bloodlust. (Oh yeah, in my very humble opinion.)
Goofball
07-06-2005, 18:27
JAG
You cought your girlfriend cheating on you with another guy. You take up your gun...
*picks self up off of floor after hysterical, uncontrollable giggling fit*
Man, you really don't know JAG very well, do you...
JAG "takes up his gun?"
*falls to floor giggling again after imagining Panzer marching in the Gay Pride Parade dressed in "naughty schoolteacher" drag outfit*
*picks self up off of floor after hysterical, uncontrollable giggling fit*
Man, you really don't know JAG very well, do you...
JAG "takes up his gun?"
*falls to floor giggling again after imagining Panzer marching in the Gay Pride Parade dressed in "naughty schoolteacher" drag outfit*
*ok* ~:)
sharrukin
07-07-2005, 00:53
Uhm, of course it's my opinion. That's implicit when you read things I've written, barring quotations. That what I say is my opinion.
I should've written that his opinion is despicable, so point taken anyhow. Sorry, sharrukin. I don't think you are despicable. I agree with lots you've posted, but I find this position very disagreeable.
Well your not the only one who was a little hasty with words. My apologies to you as well Proletariat!
I don't see how so many can acknowledge two routes; Life Sentencing and Death Sentencing. Then agree that the former would be fine if it worked, but then invest all their energy arguing for the latter. It reeks of bloodlust. (Oh yeah, in my very humble opinion.)
Well if it doesn't work what is the point of investing energy in it? I guess I just see it as putting pragmatism before idealism. To put it mildly, I think we can agree to disagree on this one.
King Henry V
07-08-2005, 11:57
IMO, death to rapists is perhaps a little too extreme. Castration, on the other hand.....
Instead of killing criminals, they can repay their debt to society by having new medecines tested on them. Why be cruel to animals when some humans deserve it?
Steppe Merc
07-08-2005, 20:03
No goverment should have the right to decide whether someone deserves to die, no matter how concrete the evidence may seem. There are still far to many innocents going to jail for anyone to assume that we would never kill an inoccent person, and there is no point to preventing crime if the government is killing innocents.
Instead of killing criminals, they can repay their debt to society by having new medecines tested on them. Why be cruel to animals when some humans deserve it?
Heh. While I'm for sparing the animals, some still may be innocent somehow. And that is again unacceptable, IMO.
Kagemusha
07-08-2005, 20:47
In principle im pro death penalty.But in real life it doesnt work right.If you put a man in jail for twenty years and after a time find out that he or she is innocent you can compensate.But if government kills an innocent human beiing,how can government compensate? :bow:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-08-2005, 21:05
*picks self up off of floor after hysterical, uncontrollable giggling fit*
Man, you really don't know JAG very well, do you...
JAG "takes up his gun?"
*falls to floor giggling again after imagining Panzer marching in the Gay Pride Parade dressed in "naughty schoolteacher" drag outfit*
*reads the part about JAG*
*falls to the floor laughing so hard his lungs pop*
*gets up*
*reads the part about PanzerJager*
*falls to the floor again and breaks three ribs laughing*
Don Corleone
07-08-2005, 21:47
No goverment should have the right to decide whether someone deserves to die, no matter how concrete the evidence may seem. There are still far to many innocents going to jail for anyone to assume that we would never kill an inoccent person, and there is no point to preventing crime if the government is killing innocents.
Heh. While I'm for sparing the animals, some still may be innocent somehow. And that is again unacceptable, IMO.
Steppe, throwing an innocent man in jail and making him fight for his life & anal virginity for 10 years is cruel and unacceptable. Does that mean you're not willing to incarcerate people, because you might be wrong? Sooner or later, we have to accept that a justice system is never going to be perfect. I actually agree with you, you can't test new drugs on them, as this is just a 'death penalty ala Russian roulete'. That is, you might get lucky and live. I just think you need to recognize that the logic you're using pushes you to the rational conclusion that any form of legal punishment is unfair, and I don't think we as a society can go there.
Goofball
07-08-2005, 22:08
Steppe, throwing an innocent man in jail and making him fight for his life & anal virginity for 10 years is cruel and unacceptable. Does that mean you're not willing to incarcerate people, because you might be wrong?
No, because as cruel as it might be to imprison an innocent by mistake, it is still more or less fixable when you realize your mistake. But here's an idea: if you believe that prisons are dog-eat-dog environments where inmates have to fight for survival every day, why not try to change them to places where living conditions still remain very drab and no fun, but are at least safe. Then, the prisons might actually turn out individuals that are not more hardened and violent when they are paroled than they were when they went in.
Sooner or later, we have to accept that a justice system is never going to be perfect.
Canadians have accepted that, that's why we have no death penalty here. It's places that still have the death penalty that seem to be blind to the fact that the justice system is not perfect, otherwise, how could they ever let themselves take the chance of committing state-sponsored murder on an innocent person by mistake?
Red Harvest
07-08-2005, 23:03
I'm pro-death penalty. I think it should be extended to career criminals instead of "wharehousing" the refuse of society. Our public money could be better spent than on that, so for me it is weighing spending tens of thousands per year on incarcerating the non-rehabilitatible, or spending the money on benefits for others. I even figured out how to make it work: set a fixed number of prison beds per population. When we run out of beds and someone new is incarcerated...the individual with the most years in the system loses their bed, but gains a gurney.
I'm also in favor of the death penalty for egregious white collar crimes: theft/fraud exceeding perhaps $1M dollars. That's what I call corporate accountability! Ebbers, Scrushie (acquitted, but guilty as OJ), Ken Lay, etc. Reasoning is that the damage they do to individuals is life shattering and more widespread than individual murder or rape.
The only problem I have with the death penalty is that I think prosecutors should be held to a very high standard when trying someone for a capital offense. There have been too many cases of "railroading" defendants. When these are discovered, those responsible should be incarcerated (or worse...depending on the specific crimes of the prosecutors.) Our legal system does not do anything to punish abuse of power--its a real blind spot.
sharrukin
07-09-2005, 00:37
Canadians have accepted that, that's why we have no death penalty here. It's places that still have the death penalty that seem to be blind to the fact that the justice system is not perfect, otherwise, how could they ever let themselves take the chance of committing state-sponsored murder on an innocent person by mistake?
Canadians and Europeans generally support the death penalty and want it reinstated. We don't have it, not because we are more civilized, but because we are less democratic!
A national poll conducted in June, 1995 found that 69% of Canadians moderately or strongly favoured the return of the death penalty, exactly the same level of support as 20 years ago.
Steppe Merc
07-09-2005, 01:53
Steppe, throwing an innocent man in jail and making him fight for his life & anal virginity for 10 years is cruel and unacceptable. Does that mean you're not willing to incarcerate people, because you might be wrong? Sooner or later, we have to accept that a justice system is never going to be perfect. I actually agree with you, you can't test new drugs on them, as this is just a 'death penalty ala Russian roulete'. That is, you might get lucky and live. I just think you need to recognize that the logic you're using pushes you to the rational conclusion that any form of legal punishment is unfair, and I don't think we as a society can go there.
Well, as Goofy says, it's better than killing them. And I also think that we need to somehow fix the prison system, make it less violent, or something. I have no idea how, however. But when I went to a prison for my Crime and Punishment class feild trip, it scared the shit out of me, especially the solitary confienment fellows. Those people are very scary... But even in a (what looked like) a relatively safer, less dangerous prison, the guards were showing us some of the weapons they've collected over the years, and it was quite scary. Perhaps somehow seperating the different types of criminals more? Like say put the non violent criminals seperate from the rapists, etc.
I don't know enough about the prison system to propose any real sort of plan to fix it, but I think I know enough to know that something has to change for the better.
No goverment should have the right to decide whether someone deserves to die, no matter how concrete the evidence may seem. There are still far to many innocents going to jail for anyone to assume that we would never kill an inoccent person, and there is no point to preventing crime if the government is killing innocents.
I find myself agreeing with that. In order for the death penalty to make an effective deterrent it would need to be meted out swiftly and brutally and an unavoidable side-effect would be that even more innocents would be executed than even now.
A much saner solution would be to make prisons more like prisons and less like country clubs first of all. Murders or repeat sex offenders should get life sentences without the possibility of parole. Also, while prison life should be tough and unpleasant, you should also extend and re-educate or teach marketable job skills to those who are willing to take advantage of it. Use both the carrot and the stick. Make prisons miserable so people don't want to come back, and help those who want help to have a chance at an honest life. :bow:
Of course, lifers should just be warehoused- no need to waste resources 're-educating' them.
Canadians and Europeans generally support the death penalty and want it reinstated. We don't have it, not because we are more civilized, but because we are less democratic!
A national poll conducted in June, 1995 found that 69% of Canadians moderately or strongly favoured the return of the death penalty, exactly the same level of support as 20 years ago.
Polls are usually taken after a well publicised case involving something horrific. In fact if you were to take a poll on the death penalty in the UK today I think you would find the results shockingly high. Things fluctuate with issues like this, but when discussed and the issues boiled down to facts, figures and a rational discussion, I assure you the majority would be against the death penalty being introduced again. It is the reason it isn't. Politicians will mend their policies to public opinion, it is what they do, no pressure or want is significantly there, thus it will never be an issue enough to change the law.
Anyway, more people supporting something does not neccesarily mean it is the best way forward. Not only can there be a tyranny of the majority but also there can be a great movement based on shaky foundations. Neither benefit anyone.
A much saner solution would be to make prisons more like prisons and less like country clubs first of all.
That line has become such a popular myth it is like 'all immigrants take our jobs!'
Everyone who states that should go and live in a prison for a few weeks and see how easy it is, I reckon.
sharrukin
07-09-2005, 03:24
Polls are usually taken after a well publicised case involving something horrific. In fact if you were to take a poll on the death penalty in the UK today I think you would find the results shockingly high. Things fluctuate with issues like this, but when discussed and the issues boiled down to facts, figures and a rational discussion, I assure you the majority would be against the death penalty being introduced again. It is the reason it isn't. Politicians will mend their policies to public opinion, it is what they do, no pressure or want is significantly there, thus it will never be an issue enough to change the law.
They just don't know themselves well enough to be able to give intelligible answers, to those who ask if they do support the death penalty?
Anyway, more people supporting something does not neccesarily mean it is the best way forward. Not only can there be a tyranny of the majority but also there can be a great movement based on shaky foundations. Neither benefit anyone.
And who decides what is the best way forward, if we do not adhere to the principles of democracy?
That line has become such a popular myth it is like 'all immigrants take our jobs!'
Everyone who states that should go and live in a prison for a few weeks and see how easy it is, I reckon.Howabout I just don't do anything to land myself in jail instead? Nice work dismissing the second part of my statement too.
Kagemusha
07-09-2005, 03:44
Thats just bullshit there is no country in Europe that has death penalty.Not even Russia:bow:
They just don't know themselves well enough to be able to give intelligible answers, to those who ask if they do support the death penalty?
No re read what I stated. There are many reasons why the main probably being that at face value the thought of the death penalty for murderers etc, seems great, but on closer inspection it isn't so rosy.
And who decides what is the best way forward, if we do not adhere to the principles of democracy?
Of course we adhere to the principles of democracy. We elect our politicians and they do things on our behalf, simple. If enough people feel strongly enough about the death penalty they can either form their own party or influence a mainstream one. That is how things are changed in democracies. If the death penalty party got enough votes, they could change the situation. However you cannot simply state figures from opinion polls and expect things to happen, even if a majority really did want it changed, that does not make it right if it isn't a huge issue in the public domain. If a party elected on a mainstream liberal platform, suddenly decided to to ban all games played with balls because a majority of people in the country thought it was a great idea - would that be democratic?
Howabout I just don't do anything to land myself in jail instead? Nice work dismissing the second part of my statement too.
If you want to turn this discussion into one about prisons, then fine. But I thought it was about the death penalty.
Proletariat
07-09-2005, 04:22
Thats just bullshit there is no country in Europe that has death penalty.Not even Russia:bow:
What about cultures where revenge is an institution? Italy? Bosnia? Albania?
Kagemusha
07-09-2005, 04:28
In my country revenge is institution ask any Swed or Norsemean.In my language there is saying if you take your blade out never sheet it without honour. :bow:
sharrukin
07-09-2005, 05:23
No re read what I stated. There are many reasons why the main probably being that at face value the thought of the death penalty for murderers etc, seems great, but on closer inspection it isn't so rosy.
Well, the majority of people do not hold with that point of view.
If a party elected on a mainstream liberal platform, suddenly decided to to ban all games played with balls because a majority of people in the country thought it was a great idea - would that be democratic?
Well, a majority party suddenly decided to enforce a firearms registration bill. It was an idiotic idea, IMO, probably not yours, but yes, that is democratic. One day I was a law abiding citizen, the next I was a criminal.
There is no guarantee that the decisions taken by a democracy will be what we would like them to be, nor is there a guarantee that it will not act in a foolish manner. Democracy is essentially trusting the people. It is not, trusting them as long as they largely do what my sort, want them to do.
Red Harvest
07-09-2005, 07:48
Well, as Goofy says, it's better than killing them. And I also think that we need to somehow fix the prison system, make it less violent, or something. I have no idea how, however. But when I went to a prison for my Crime and Punishment class feild trip, it scared the shit out of me, especially the solitary confienment fellows. Those people are very scary... But even in a (what looked like) a relatively safer, less dangerous prison, the guards were showing us some of the weapons they've collected over the years, and it was quite scary. Perhaps somehow seperating the different types of criminals more? Like say put the non violent criminals seperate from the rapists, etc.
I don't know enough about the prison system to propose any real sort of plan to fix it, but I think I know enough to know that something has to change for the better.
I've got an idea. Let's let the criminals out and put the law abiding types in prison. Yes, I'm being facetious. The problem is that you are agonizing over those who don't really deserve it. Why is it dangerous? Why does it scare the $hit out of the rest of us? Because it is full of dangerous criminals. In Texas you are unlikely to even get real prison time unless you commit an act with a weapon. (I got a couple put away for stealing a car right in front of me in broad daylight--they wouldn't have gotten any jail time, except they had a cheesy .25 caliber chrome plated chinese deringer and drove the stolen car to their high school. Lucky for them I was unarmed at the time. Unlucky for them they stole the car of my neighbor's wife--he was a cop.) So by definition, most that go in are dangerous to begin with. I don't see how sorting them is going to help much.
I've known a few people who spent time in the pen and were reformed. They never wanted to risk going back in. They thought they were real hell raisers, until they went to the big house.
Hardened criminals that won't reform? Kill 'em. I've got zero problems with it, and would do it myself if required. If you have a mad dog you put it down. Same thing, only these mad dogs are far more dangerous, and much more difficult to keep around. And every once in awhile, some jacka$$ decides we should release them to prey on society again. Put 'em down. I've had to put diseased cattle and pets down, not any pleasure in it, but had to be done. This isn't any different.
If you want to turn this discussion into one about prisons, then fine. But I thought it was about the death penalty.So you've deemed that discussing alternatives to the death penalty are off topic in a death penalty discussion?
It.... is... like... talking to a bloody brick wall.
May I suggest you please read some of my posts, because to be frank you are talking rubbish. You're saying people who commit murder is not 'abhorrent' enough?
What do you propose they do to the London Bombers when caught?
People killing innocent people is one thinking.
Death penalty is another.
It's like saying there should be no War at all. So, your neighbor countries are firing missiles at your backyard. And you stand there with your peace flag? That will only reinforce and encourage them to keep shooting.
Self preservation. That's what death penalty is about. :charge:
If you're not planning on killing innocent people, there's really no worry.
Samurai Waki
07-09-2005, 09:08
I think the Soviet style Prisoner Battalions should be put back into mainstream use. One prisoner is handed a gun another is handed a clip, the MPs are located in a well protected machine gun bunker... when the man in front you drops his gun, pick it up and continue foreward, if you show cowardice and turn back on the enemy you will be shot, continue foreward and if you succeed in your attack than perhaps one day you will regain your freedom via banishment from the state. I think this might turn a few con-artist, rapists, and pedophiles from even thinking twice about it. of course the chances of death are about 99% meaning only 1 out of every one hundred men stand a chance of survival. Of course this is coming from a totalitarian point of view, but there needs to be something done about America's over extended prison system. Either Prison Camps (ala Construction crews for buildings, transportation use, or military prison squads needs to be used) After all many of the men who went to vietnam were con-artists and convicted thieves, they had two choices, either fight or suffer through the extreme degredation and humiliation of the American Prison system... personally I would choose the latter.
well the problem with killing people immediately, is that people arnt always guilty of their crimes. Some guy just got out recently after being in jail for 20 years for being falsly accused of rape. If he had just been killed 20 years ago then an inoccent man would have died.
So shouldnt the accuser now serve 20 years. After he did 20 hard years for someones lie
Kagemusha
07-09-2005, 10:49
First rule of justice is it has nothing to do with vengeange. :bow:
Steppe Merc
07-09-2005, 16:08
A much saner solution would be to make prisons more like prisons and less like country clubs first of all. Murders or repeat sex offenders should get life sentences without the possibility of parole. Also, while prison life should be tough and unpleasant, you should also extend and re-educate or teach marketable job skills to those who are willing to take advantage of it. Use both the carrot and the stick. Make prisons miserable so people don't want to come back, and help those who want help to have a chance at an honest life.
I can't say whether jail life is tough or easy, though I'd mainly lean towards way to tough, considering the violence that can go on. Most country clubs don't have murders, or attempted escapes (we saw one of those... quite scary, really).
But help the ones who want to be helped get a job, and the others should just serve out their time. In the prison that I went to, they had to work while they were in the prison, otherwise they were shipped to a different prison. I think then hypothetically the prisoners could then use those skills to work when they get out.
Red Harvest
07-09-2005, 18:49
So shouldnt the accuser now serve 20 years. After he did 20 hard years for someones lie
I agree, but it also depends on circumstances/intent. Quite a few are simply bad ID's by the victim. That doesn't imply any willful malice in most instances. If the person or victim honestly thought they had made the right identification, does it do any good to lock them up? No, it leads to victims and witnesses being unwilling to testify. I am more concerned about instances I've read of prosecutors/others hiding contradictory evidence and statements. Those are criminal acts that cannot be justified.
DNA testing has been terrific at correcting some of these aberrations, mistakes, and railroading, but it can't take back the years.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.