The Death Penalty

[rzr]

I recently saw something where a cold-blooded killer escaped from his mental rehabilitation clinic and continued to murder. Upon seeing this I began to question the under-use of the death penalty.

I ask you, my fellow CT members, is it [hypothetically] fair that a man could kill his wife. Then go to jail with a life sentence. Then escape, rob a bank, kill the teller, rape her, steal a car to get away, and hit a teenager while he was drunk, killing him? All because he was given a life sentence, and not taken down.

Personally I am in favor of the death penalty. I say, karma bitch. This is what you get. Now others may say "what if person x is innocent?"
To that I say "sucks for person x."

Now I know that sounds rough and harsh, but don't judge me. I see it as a safety precaution. I mean, is the life of one person really such a price to say to save the potential lives of many he may murder? Yes, I say, his life does not need existance. Again, don't judge me.

Now let's throw some ideas around, come to conclusions, debate a little.

[EnR]

If they do kill Mr/Mrs x while being innocent, the killer is still out there and looks innocent.

[rzr]

Which is why they should NEVER let their guard down. NEVER close the case. But still, the death penalty atleast assures the most efficient means of stopping the killer.

[EnR]

I think they should keep the places locked down better. A kid from my school escaped from juvie (dunn how to spell) >_>

[devonin]

It is better that 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be be made to suffer wrongfully.

This is an easy question with an easy answer: There is no 100% absolutely objectively correct way to prove someone's guilt short of a direct and explicit confession. Unless offered, there should never be even the consideration of the death penalty.

[Bynary Fission]

The justice system is flawed. With the cowardly, twisted lawyers that dominate today's legal field, there just isn't justice anymore.

Did you hear about the man who was given a life sentence for a murder he did not commit? All it would have taken was his spineless lawyers to tell a secret to save him, but in turn they'd jeopardize their own careers. Did they do that? Of course not. They saved their own skins and put him behind bars for 26 years. Think about the fact that dozens of people have been given the death penalty when innocent. Can you imagine killing an innocent person? As William Blackstone put it: It is better for ten guilty persons to go free then to let one innocent suffer". The flaws in the legal system are detrimental to the overall success that the death penalty can potentially give.

Now I want a homicidal psychopathic person executed. Immediately. But the death penalty is also a free way to escape your punishment. Would you rather execute a serial killer within one year of being convicted, or languish behind bars for the rest of his life? At least then he's truly being punished instead of getting an easy way out of his punishment. Oh, and don't forget what prisoners do to killers, child molesters, and other kinds of criminals. That, my friend, is TRUE justice. While the death sentence is the final and quickest solution to a problematic person, it also gives us something in common with the extremely religious and fanatical East. The Death Penalty. I do not want association with zealots who execute gays and kill those who don't praise Muhammad. Remember what happened to the teacher who named a teddy bear Muhammad after a bunch of elementary schoolers voted on it? Yeah. Exactly my point.

In some ways, I support the death penalty. But it is becoming a quick and easy solution to a complex issue. You cannot always be sure if a person is guilty, and the fact that even one innocent person forever scars those who loved them. Can you imagine what it would be like to die with your name tarnished for all eternity? For your family to remember you as a murderer and not the person who they loved? That is a fate worse than death, and for an innocent person to suffer that fate is beyond anything I would ever hope to experience or even think about. I believe that when assigning the death penalty to those who are fit to receive it, double, triple, then quadruple check your facts. This is just not being done. A failure rate of 0.0001% is unacceptable, because as rzr stated, it is the Ultimate Punishment.


~Bynary Fission

[Lipidman]

Originally Posted by rzr

Now I know that sounds rough and harsh, but don't judge me. I see it as a safety precaution. I mean, is the life of one person really such a price to say to save the potential lives of many he may murder? Yes, I say, his life does not need existance. Again, don't judge me.

This doesn't make any sense.

You make it sound like:

1) The innocent individual was intentionally judged wrongfully.
2) That judging said innocent person would stop the real culprit from murdering again.
3) That lawfully killing said innocent person would prevent them from killing "again", despite the fact that they haven't killed in the first instance.

What exactly are you trying to say?

[devonin]

As a safety precaution we're going to execute rzr on the grounds that he might one day kill someone, and it is better to kill someone innocent to make sure we get all the guilty people.

[Lipidman]

And the appropriate basis for assuming someone's future killing intent are?
Reasons for murder are subjective. Person A whose spouse cheated on them might use that a justifiable reason to murder their spouse, but person B might simply get angry and request a divorce. Where do you set the standard?

[rzr]

Originally Posted by devonin

As a safety precaution we're going to execute rzr on the grounds that he might one day kill someone, and it is better to kill someone innocent to make sure we get all the guilty people.

Single greatest thing I've ever seen. I'm putting it into my siggy, I'll respond to the other posts when I get out of class.

[JonXia]

Personally I strongly believe in Karma, if the man is innocent, then he must have certainly done somehing to warrant an execution.

[XUioX]

yes, i believe that the death penalty is really needed for those idiotic no-lifes who are just going to cause trouble in our world.

[UnkownMan]

Originally Posted by KgZ

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", I say.

A death for a death. Hm? That's what this thread's about.

[UnkownMan]

Originally Posted by KgZ

I guess you never studied Code of Hammurabi.

Yeah I have. I was just adding on to it...
Cause... Egyptian/Mesopotamian Studiy was a big subject in my school.

[Zythus]

As much as law is the rubrics of judgment, it is also the rubrics of assumption. Despite conviction of misdeeds, there is still a chance, regardless of how small, the person is innocent or does not in any way deserve such a punishment. When convicting, we are making an assumption no matter how much evidence we may have, for we, as 3rd party members, will never know everything about a situation we weren't involved in. It is just that we, the 3rd party, holds the rights to judge with the evidence present.

In short, we will never know the full story, nor can we have a 100% guaranteed rightful judgment. Thus, it would be far fetched to have an immediate death penalty over your head. What I would support is the right to request death penalty when sentenced with a lifetime sentence, if I'm not mistaken, that is already in effect somewhere.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by KgZ

I guess you never studied Code of Hammurabi.

Because if I kill your child, killing my child is fitting punishment? But my child is innocent of any wrongdoing, which means that a fitting punishment for you is to kill -your- child. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

excuse me devonin, but I believe this in not an appropiate post to Critical Thinking, please remove it immediately 8(

Actually it is a perfectly appropriate thing to post in CT. I was taking rzr's standpoint and carrying it out to its inevitable conclusion in order to demonstrate that he was advocating a course of action with very serious implications that he didn't seem to have considered.

[Zythus]

I believe we all have to go to prison now as a precaution, seeing how we all have the potential to kill.

[omgitznpv]

Some of the pointless posts in this thread disgust me.

The death penalty is not exactly something that's effective. Like previously stated, having one innocent man being put to death is much worse than guilty people being left out there. That one person obtained something they did not deserve; this is not the goal of the system, and therefore, it is tremendously flawed. Actually, a high enough percentage of the criminals on death row are innocent. Think about all of that. I mean, seriously, I think being on death row is bad enough because one would be sitting there, knowing the exact date of their death- and they can't help it.

[rzr]

If such a large percent of criminals on death row are innocent, they wouldn't be on death row.

But yeah, it does suck that one innocent person dies when they never did any crime. But it's even worse when someone who did do something escapes because they were not killed and does more damage and destruction.


On another note, I agree, npv, some posts here are retarded. Seriously, people, feel free to vote but if you have nothing to contribute this is not the forum for you. Nor the site really...

[Zythus]

Rzr, read, please. More than one person responded to the "Kill the innocent rather than let one guilty go."

We may convict anyone on death row to be guilty, but we do not have the full evidence to say 100% guilty. Reason being, were weren't involved in the event. They are tagged as guilty enough to deserve penalty because we deem them as so with the obvious evidence present, not full evidence present.

Putting it bluntly, I find that your arguments are quite the joke with absolutely no thought about the consequences of your position. I would beg to differ that this thread is a ground for "Serious Posts Only."