![]() |
Re: The Death Penalty
i just think people who commit crimes shouldn't be executed. death is merely another comfort. if you broke the law in something serious like sexual harassment, you killed someone, you tricked people, you witnessed useless conflicts around the world, you damaged people around ou for futile reasons, etc; you should work your way out. as i think it's right, who is in jail should be forced to work, thus helping the country's economy and paying his/her debt towards society. jail shouldn't be a holyday residence. not to mention criminals cost a lot of money, because of prisons manteinance, personnel, food. why would people pay taxes to mantain criminals? makes no sense.
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If we're assuming a system where everyone can just escape whenever they fele like it, we're talking about a substantially different set of issues. Given a justice system that works the way America says its justice system works, the mere chance that someone (who would be in a maximum security prison also) would just "escape" and not be caught again is so miniscule as to make it irellevant to the discussion at hand. "Oh no, 1 in 500,000 convicted murderers might escape and keep killing! Better Execute every murderer!" is not a valid conclusion from those premises. |
Re: The Death Penalty
Guys, it's well proven that the death penalty acts horribly as a deterrent. Often people willing to kill others when there's the possibility of life in prison aren't exactly thinking about the repercussions. They don't think, "oh, well life in prison away from everything I once knew and loved, well I could go for that, but damn it man I don't want to be executed!"
Now for a musing (I'm hoping dev will respond): The lack of a proper form of execution may in some cases undermine the value of the victim's life, just as the lack of a proper trial and execution made without clear evidence undermines the value of the defendant's life. |
Re: The Death Penalty
Pardon me, let me clarify my response to 'skybeam'. What I meant was: "I would like to think that the person whose life was being defended would at least be grateful enough to testify at the trial of their defender." And yes, maybe I should reread my own posts to make sure that they are clear.
Also, this whole discussion is based on 'what if' scenarios. As such, all scenarios should be considered, even if the possibilities may be small. Therefore, the possibility that any convicted serial killer may escape, is one that can and should be considered. Especially in the case, however small, of a repeat serial killer. Therefore, I ask that such a situation be considered as a justifiable death penalty case. I have already raised the case of Charles Ng as one such example. Richard Speck, a video of whom is on youtube, is another. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy are further examples. I am sure that you can add to this list a whole host of others. Should not the death penalty at least be considered in their cases? (And yes, I know, Ted Bundy has already been executed for his crimes.) The guilt of these criminals has been well established beyond any and all reasonable doubt, not once but several times over. Note that I am not talking about the possibility of any mistake. So remove that possbility from any response. I am not talking about some vague, circumstantial case, or corrupt police investigation, or media frenzy inspired hyperbole. I am talking about a case where, after a thorough and proper investigation and trial, and after a carefully considered jury conviction with plenty of corroboration, witnesses, videotape and DNA evidence, a man is convicted of several first degree murders. At what point do you say 'Justice must prevail. The death penalty must be executed'? |
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Therefore, Devonin, your position on the death penalty is not based on logic or critical thinking but on a belief that taking the life of another person is wrong. If that is the case then your position in indefensible. You have not demonstrated why the death penalty is not just. You have been asked several times to defend your position but have only reiterated your belief.
Let's try this from a different angle: Life is invaluable and must be protected. Justice demands punishment equivalent to the crime. What statement are you making when a person who has committed several murders is not equitably punished? Let me answer that for you: The lives of the victims are not important enough that we would consider any and all options because to do so would be to go against your personal beliefs. Compensation is out of the question, because the victim is no longer there to receive it. Apologies? Useless! Jail time? Ha! He still has the right to food, clothing, shelter and medical care and his own life and his right to vote, and the right to privacy! Do you recall the hue and cry when a convicted murderer is killed by his own jail mates? Why aren't these same people raising a bigger stink over the death of the victims? It should always be about the victims. How can we have confidence in a justice system that seems to do more to protect the rights of the killer than those of the victims, even after the killer has been convicted. If a man were to be convicted for a single murder, I would personally be concerned about the possibility of making a mistake, but that is not the situation I'm talking about. I am talking about a situation where the killer has shown no remorse, not once but several times. Where is the equitable justice? As I have said before, sometimes even a death sentence is not equitable justice. If the death penalty can never be just, please explain why. And this time do not use your beliefs as an explanation. |
Re: The Death Penalty
death penality isn't just because the extermination of the criminal is the easier way out- a few seconds and it's all over. if, instead, this person is forced to work for the rest of his/her life it'll not only bring a benefit to many people, but it will also be a fair punishment; or you think taking away the rest of that person's life isn't enogh? the "an eye for an eye" criteria is something that has no meaning in the 21st century. it's something unreasonable and barbaric. i'm bothered sbout people still thinking it's a good way to prevent criminality, while statistics show no perceivable difference compared to countries in which the death penailty has been abolished.
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
1/ You've concluded that murderers cease to be people 2/ Your desire to protect life is selective 3/ You don't understand that equivalent doesn't have to mean identical If one of those three things is also representative of your reasoning, then I can see how you could support the death penalty. But an execution violates your first premise, that -life- is invaluable and -must- be protected. Killing someone fails to protect their life. Quote:
Let's try this then. Premise: Life is valuable and should be protected always Following Premise: It is therefore wrong to kill another person because doing so violates the above premise Premise: Criminals should be punished for their crimes Premise: The worse the crime, the worse the punishment Premise: Murder is one of the worst crimes there is because it violates the principle that live is valuable Following Premise: Murderers should therefore recieve the worst punishments Here is where you and I differ. You seem to be saying 'Well, since murder is the worst crime there is, because life is so valuable and worthy of protection, it seems only just that the worst punishment we can hand out is death, since again, the taking of someone's life is the worst thing ever, so if you do it, all you deserve is the worst thing ever' My issue with this is two-fold. One: If all life is valuable and worth protecting, then all life is valuable and worth protecting, you can't just decide to withdraw that protection because you are personally upset and affronted at what someone has done. Two: I deny that an execution is necessarily the worst possible punishment that can be meted out to a criminal. I would suggest that life in prison in squalid conditions just sufficient to maintain life constitutes a much more severe punishment as one would have decades to reflect on the consequences of taking a life, years in which they are barely able to survive, before eventually dying -anyway- of more natural causes. |
Re: The Death Penalty
Devonin,
Thank you for your reply. You first stated a list of assumptions that I may have made. The third one being that 'equivalent doesn't mean identical.' I think you may be right, but even a life in squalid prison conditions it is still difficult to understand as to how it can be equivalent to murder. On the other hand, with the way you describe such a sentence, it just might be more than equivalent. Of course there is no way in the world that such a sentence could be delivered in light of all the rights the prisoners have now, which brings us back to the death penalty being the most efficient method of justice. You state: "If all life is valuable and worth protecting, then all life is valuable and worth protecting, you can't just decide to withdraw that protection because you are personally upset and affronted at what someone has done." You are right, which is why such a decision must be left to a dispassionate justice system. And you are entitled to protection for as long as you operated within the boundries of the law. Step outside of those boundries and protection no longer applies. That is what the court is for: to determine your crime and whether you are still entitled to all your rights and protections without being upset or affronted. |
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
I'd argue that as it currently stands, the prison system is failing in both the arenas of punishment and deterrance. I'm not familiar enough with the numbers to speak to its ablity to rehabilitate, being the third purpose of the justice system. Could you grant that a reevaluation of the ways in which the system punishes and uses that punishment to deter, might obviate the need for the death penalty as the "only way to really punish someone"? Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Devonin,
I think you touched on the main problem: the justice system as we have it today seems to be ineffective in the purposes it was set out to achieve. If the correction system could effectively punish, deter, and rehabilitate then yes, I would agree that a death penalty would not be necessary. By the way, for the record, the justice system, by definition, takes away a persons rights whenever a sentence is handed down. For example, a criminal no longer has the freedom of association, he is in jail. Therefore, the justice system has the responsibility of curtailing a criminal's right and it is unilateral. |
Re: The Death Penalty
The problem is there will not be a perfect system. Too many opinions differentiate. Everyone will disagree. I support the death penalty. Some others don't. If we add it into the system there's a disagreement. No matter what someone will be unhappy. And what happens to the people that are unhappy? They rebel. So, if the people that don't agree with the system are the ones we give what they want, they win. But, that makes what we want not happen. Therefore, based on my logic (which is starting to get odd), the current people who are satisfied would be dissatisfied.
Tl;dr: There's no way to perfect what we have. The best we can hope for is technological advancements that perfect evidence in regards to prosecution. Then, the only argument will be against the morality of the death penalty. |
Re: The Death Penalty
You all have fun debating the smaller, more trivial issues of the death penalty, while I delete+repost my earlier post:
Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
If you think it is wrong to kill someone, i don't see how it is right for you to kill the killer. The death penalty does the same crime the criminal did. Nobody has the right to take away a man's life, not even justice.
The people who say that 'if he did it, he deserves it too' seem to be coming from an older time. This isn't jungle and justice ≠ revenge. And no, I didn't read through the 10 pages, sorry. Just overlook this if I'm repeating something older please. |
Re: The Death Penalty
"Laws, rules and Earthly consequences are set for our actions daily, but is it a law if it contradicts free will? Is living a 'right' or 'privilege' that should be determined by others with the same status but a different role than ourselves? What religious person or organized government would take it upon themselves to end a person's life? Isn't that supposed to be a respectable power of God (for those of you who believe)? But even so, should people still have the free will to end another's life?
This debate is a conundrum. It simply comes down to individual belief and morality." The point is: does any individual have the right to arbitrarily terminate someone else's life. The answer is obviously 'no', because each of us have the right to our own life. It is the law the determines this to be so, and it is the law that decrees the punishment for taking that right away from someone else. As I have stated previously, punishment for a crime must be left with a dispassionate justice system that determines the guilt or innocence of a person and the appropriate punishment for that crime. It is never about any people exacting revenge on someone else. Please do not let someone's free will be an argument in this discussion since it is a systematic result we are talking about and not any one individual's or group's right or free will. |
Re: The Death Penalty
What I was covering, in a roundabout way, was how morality and judgment are the only true factors in this debate. Law means nothing here, because some believe in this law or government, and some believe in another.
The Death Penalty is unnecessary, however I stand for it. I personally believe that only with 100% (and I mean 100%) proof for an evil action should a person be executed. I believe in the Death Penalty as a solace to a family that was broken by someone with nothing left to live for. I also support the Death Penalty if it will save innocent lives. Entirely, it's just a matter of opinion. |
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
I'm saying under the circumstances I would consider it alright.
Even if we couldn't know if it would make the family feel better or save innocent lives, I think better safe then sorry. It would seem as if the person would be better off dead anyway. I know the moment I kill someone, that's the moment my life is over. I see no more reason to live. As far as the 100% proof goes.. if I can't have full evidence, then I might as well have no evidence. I'm sure some of views may be a bit twisted, but that's just how I feel on the issue. I don't believe innocent people should die, and I don't think murderers would be missed. |
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
It is actually difficult to say. The death penalty would work as karma. HOWEVER, you have to actually prove that the crime was done by this person, ensuring whether or not they are innocent or guilty. If they are guilty, and the crime was murder, then I say go ahead. But I voted "no" because it may not be effective if a person was put to death for another person. No one should be on Death Row, because being assigned a day to die should not happen, when they could just leave them there for life, to rot in prison anyway.
I mean, they invented the lie detector (whatever the scientific word for it is) in order to detect the changes in blood pressure caused by the uneasiness of lying. However, it is not used for those accused for a crime as extreme as death, as well as placing people on death row that are innocent. If they aren't given the chance to prove that they are not lying about the crime that they were accused of, then they could be put to death in place of the actual murderer. The system was developed to help improve the community to remove people that try to bring down the name of the society. Instead, they are not investigating far enough to say who is the actual person that committed the crime. Think about it logically, shows like CSI and Law & Order are not cut out for what it is in real life. I mean, you see more reality in crime solving in Scooby Doo. Because the suspicions of one person does not mean that they are the guilty one. You actually have to go deeper than what suspicions or tests show you. If they were to say: "'Person x' was killed by 'Object y', and the fingerprints or blood from 'Person z' is on the body of Person x after we ran tests." Now you see that is how they do it in the shows and the movies. In an actual scenario, they are starting to do that as well, because they do not want to take all the time they have to go deep enough into the crime to figure out who actually committed the crime. It's like a game of Clue. They accuse someone of a crime, and each person finds some way to prove why they were either innocent, or which instrument was used, and where. They already know the instrument used, and where. But do they know the person? The system just finds the person that they suspect the most of the crime, and then put them in prison and Death Row without a single chance. This is why the death penalty system is extremely flawed, and should be removed, if not fixed in any way. Even the most innocent of people get screwed over by the system because of suspicions that they never bothered to think through. If they have an alibi, and the lie detector is used and proves that they are not lying about what happened and where they were at the time. Then they should be let go. If things were like they were in the Old West, it would be easier to find someone, because there are usually witnesses as to what went on because they did nearly everything publicly. And they already knew their man. Even if they didn't, they were located in an open area, with towns so far away from each other, that they would have to come back to town eventually. So, they could easily find the person who ran away as they came back, with a witness to any previous crime able to point them out. It's not that easy anymore. So, each person on Death Row should get a chance to show they are innocent, unless someone can actually point them out because they know what happened, where it happened, and who did it. That is all. - Cursebred |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution