![]() |
Re: The Death Penalty
I support capital punishment but not with our current system. Honestly, if someone is going to be forced to rot in jail for the rest of his life then I see no harm in expediting the process. I would rather see prisoners working for the benefit of society, in which case taxpayer money funding the prison system is an investment in the country, but I see no benefits to condemning a person to die in jail over condemning them to die a little earlier with a lethal injection.
Sadly, our current system with all its bureaucratic nonsense is horribly inefficient and ineffective; in essence, it's a joke. There are so many better things our government could be paying for than housing and feeding criminals condemned to live out their lives in jail. |
Re: The Death Penalty
The problem with that is that you need to draw lines between what kind of crime is worth killing and which isn't. I suppose the expedient of "Anything that would be a life sentence becomes the death penalty instead" but that's basically what states who have the death penalty now do, and the reason other states don't do that is because they've decided through the legislation process that they don't want executions.
I would certainly be in favour of more by way of prison work programs, but the problem is that they are really only useful for unskilled manual labour, since anything more important shouldn't really be left in the hands of criminals (I don't want them building bridges etc) but there's enough unemployment already that you'd really just be generating make-work programs that don't really accomplish much. |
Re: The Death Penalty
I don't support the death penalty for a few reasons. From my sadistic view, I want to see people suffer in jail where I can see them suffering rather than give any of these criminals a hypothetical chance to be in a better state after death. As a caring person, I acknowledge that there may be a few criminals that may be able to turn their lives around and come to their senses through prison life. Also, while it is kind of rare for this occurance to take place, there will always be that chance that an innocent person is locked up in prison and will be sentenced to death.
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Excuse me, but who or what decided that anyone has a right to life at all? I didn't decide that, and neither did anyone contributing to this thread. Did your neighbour give you that right? How about the guy driving that dump truck? No? How about the police officer? No, he has to protect my right to life but he didn't give me the right to life. Maybe it was mayor? No? Then who decided I had the right to live? Someone might say that the right to life is self-evident but that doesn't answer the question.
Somewhere, somehow, people decided that the right to life was that basic foundation of their society and everything else extended from that point on. This belief was so fundamental that protecting that right became enshrined in law. The law became responsible for protecting the individual from arbitrary death at the hands of their neighbour. No longer did the individual have to fear for their lives because they knew that the law protected them and that no one would be allowed to profit from their death. The next question was: What would be an equitable punishment for anyone who did take someone's right to life? It was once declared that justice was 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth but no more than that.' This made sense to people because it was equitable. But how could that apply to a case where someone had lost their right to live? The killer couldn't be forced to take the place of the deceased because it just didn't make sense. How could one unique individual take the place of another unique individual? If we all were cookie cutter copies of each other then, yes, that would work, but we are not. Financial compensation was insulting: how can any amount of money buy back the life of a unique person? It just won't happen! So what does that leave? What does the killer possess that has any value that he or she could be forced to give it up? Do they have something that they value that could match the value of the lost life? Is there some way that by removing the valued possession, the killer would be equitably punished? If justice is 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' then wouldn't 'a life for a life' be equitable also? Cold unemotional logic, dictated that 'Yes, a life for a life would be just.' So it was put into law also. From then on, just as the law was responsible for protecting the individual's right to life, so would the law determine the equitable punishment for removing that right from someone else and if that was the removal of the killer's right to life, then so be it. From then on, everyone was equal under the law. The law gave people their rights and the law determined the appropriate punishment for the illegal removal of that right. No one could act as if they were above the law and everyone had to answer to the law for their actions. Everyone knew and accepted that the law gave and protected their right to life and it was only the law that could determine whether one's actions gave cause for the person to forfeit their right to life. However, as time went on, the society changed. People became less willing to accept the law as the bequeether of rights. They began to argue as to whether someone could actually be held resposible for their own actions and therefore answerable to the law. They began to work harder at protecting what they thought were their rights, and less interested in the honour of accepting their responsibilities. They began to confuse their wants with their rights and bitterly wailed when they could not get what they wanted and claimed it was their right. No longer could they accept that there was equitable punishment for improper actions. They cringed at the thought of justice and, instead, sought 'rehabilitation', thinking that they were better people because they were nicer than their forefathers. Slowly, as time went on, the society started to rot from within. No longer was a high standard accepted in fear that someone might be emotionally damaged. Responsibility was disdained. Wants became rights. 'Do what you want' became the slogan, not 'do what you should.' Self-discipline became a joke and a source of mockery. Integrity was an option. Morality was a distant fairy tale. And justice was non-existant. No longer were sentences equitable. Victims were further victimize by the very institution they hoped would protect them. Slowly, Darwin's law began to take over: only the strongest survive. Society no longer existed. Over the years, people sought out the strongest from among them and made them their chiefs in hope that their strength would protect them. Sometimes this primitive society worked for as long as that chief survived, but it rarely lasted beyond the life of the chief which was sometimes artificially shortened. Then the people realized that in order to survive, they had to recognize what was important to them. Not just possessions or position but what was fundamentally important to them and to have it formally recognized. Somewhere, somehow, people decided that the right to life was that basic foundation of their society and everything else extended from that point on. . . . |
Re: The Death Penalty
You guys are going around in circles.
Guy 1: "An executioner or jury doesn't have the right to decide who lives or dies." Guy 2: "Nobody does!" Guy 3: "But how do we punish them?" Guy 4: "I don't know, but an executioner or jury shouldn't dictate life." |
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
What it all comes down to is that the death penalty is the court's way of protecting people. They give police the right to kill, why? To protect people. They give citizens the right to perform a citizen's arrest, why? To protect people. They give the president the right to declare war, why? To protect people.
I mean, in the concept that the death penalty is simply vengeance, it's bad. But in the concept that the death penalty is set to protect more citizens than it hurts, its good. |
Re: The Death Penalty
Except that you don't actually come close to proving that it protects anybody more than life in prison would.
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Again, with life in prison there's always the possibility of escape.
|
Re: The Death Penalty
And with executions there's the possibility for killing an innocent person. So what?
At least with an escape, there is the chance to catch them before they commit another crime. Once you murder an innocent person wrongfully, you can't take it back. |
Re: The Death Penalty
So, either way there's the possibility of something bad happening. If they escape they may kill again. If they're executed they might have been innocent.
The question is, which is a worse risk? |
Re: The Death Penalty
Killing an innocent person, hands down, bar none, absolutely no chance is the worst possible consequence of the legal and justice system.
|
Re: The Death Penalty
On the right to life, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states as below :
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Ok, so the United Nations declared that everyone has the right to 'life, liberty and the security of persons.' So what? It's a nice statement but what is going to back it up? As it stands, it is a nice sentiment, but when you consider that the majority of nations that make up the UN are despots, or police states it ends up being pretty empty. Therefore, until there is a mechanism in place to punish people or states that remove these rights from others it is pointless and unenforcable. If there is no equitable punishment for murder that is carried out by some accepted institution, then our right to life is an illusion. That is why the death penalty must be an option at the very least, if only to back up the seriousness with which we consider the crime of murder.
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Yes, devonin, but the escapee can kill many more than one innocent person.
|
Re: The Death Penalty
Never really posted before in the forums but rzr I TOTALLY agree with you on the death penalty if someone murders another person intentionally, they should get the death penalty and be punished in a way that is as bad as or nearly as bad as the murder they committed.
ASC |
Re: The Death Penalty
If this hasn't been posted yet: The Death Penalty should be a choice for the one getting the sentence. If they committed a crime that is deemed worthy of the Death Penalty, then they should be able to choose that or the sentence in jail that they would normally get.
Why anyone would choose the Death Penalty, who knows. I would, as I'd prefer that than life in jail. But that's just me. Other than making the Death Penalty a personal choice for the one deemed guilty, I doubt there is any other way of making the death penalty NOT optional that would settle politically and humanely. |
Re: The Death Penalty
Quote:
|
Re: The Death Penalty
And if he does believe it to be the case, he had better have some pretty compelling statistics to back it up. I'd suggest something on the order of at least 1% of all people convicted of murder having to escape and murder again before he can try to suggest that this requires more application of the death penalty.
One or two exceptions every half dozen years is not nearly significant enough. More to the point, if we could compare the number of people convicted of capital crimes who've been later proven to be innocent to the number of people convicted of capital crimes who've later esacaped and continued killing, we could see which side is the more significant. And I know where I'm betting that falls. |
| 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