Death Penalty

[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.

[Thermal]

It can mean life.

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, 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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 )

[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.