Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   The Death Penalty (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=91213)

rzr 04-14-2008 12:41 AM

The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 12:44 AM

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

rzr 04-14-2008 01:00 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 01:03 AM

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

devonin 04-14-2008 01:35 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 01:43 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 04:15 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rzr (Post 2119088)
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 04-14-2008 04:49 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 05:03 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 07:12 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2119247)
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 04-14-2008 11:31 AM

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

XUioX 04-14-2008 11:50 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 12:41 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KgZ (Post 2119417)
"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 04-14-2008 01:31 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KgZ (Post 2119420)
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 04-14-2008 04:13 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 09:16 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KgZ (Post 2119420)
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.

Quote:

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 04-14-2008 09:55 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I believe we all have to go to prison now as a precaution, seeing how we all have the potential to kill.

omgitznpv 04-14-2008 10:08 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 10:19 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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 04-14-2008 10:27 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
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."

rzr 04-14-2008 10:43 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
There's no need to defend your inadequate post, and that one alone was pointless.

See, the way to defend a pro-death penalty point is generally only through an example;

Person x is a child. Person x is 16. Person x kills his parents then progresses to kill 854 students and faculty at his school. Person x is said to be mentally unstable and therefore committed to a psychiatric facility. Person x spends 15 years there. Person x escapes. Person x is at a gas station. Person x kills the cashier. Person x kills 6 people in the gas station. Person x kills 46 more people before jumping off a building. That's one scenario

Another one would be this:

Person t kills 84 people in a gang fight. Person t is let off because there is no evidence. Person t re-joins th gang. Person t and person e kill 4574 more people by bombing a... [insert largely crowded area here].

In both cases had they killed the offender there would have been NO more deaths. But they didn't. So there were.

rzr 04-14-2008 10:58 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2119153)
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.

True, we weren't there and do not have all of the facts. But that is why there are unbiased juries to take the factual evidence we do have and come to a rational conclusion. The best solution to a he-said she-said scenario is to simply get ALL of the conceivable facts then combine them with the hersay etc, and come to a logical conclusion and eventatally reach an acceptable punishment.

For an example both you and I can relate to, use my TWG ban. There was absolutely no physical proof that I hacked any account. But because I could have I still got banned. See, there was enough evidence to say "it could have happened, so let's still punish him."

Zythus 04-14-2008 11:00 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Oh was it inadequate? Just a little summary of your arguments.

Person x is a child. Person x is 16. When person Y rampaged Person X's house, Person X grabbed the gun from person Y's hand and braced himself to shoot, but person Y stabbed himself and died. Person Y kills 854 students and faculty at his school before coming to kill Person X's parents. Person x was convicted due to the gun in his hand is said to be mentally unstable and therefore committed to a psychiatric facility. Person x spends 15 years there, until finally court sentenced a death penalty.

Deemed fair by you? One as the authority only engages solving with the obvious evidence. Authorities wasn't there. Authorities didn't know. I believe this also concludes this thread, none of us makes the dominate point to what is controversial, not to mention a meaningless topic with no definable conclusion.

And no Rzr, an administrator or moderator can by all rights track your IP address and refrain from having it disclosed to you. The hacked account had the same IP access in history as you on the same day it was hacked? bingo.

rzr 04-14-2008 11:07 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Something tells me people would recognize the difference between x and y when y killed 854 people at a school and x wasn't there because he was at home.

And zythus, this is CT. I'm not going to personally argue with you. If you disagree with a thread, state your opinion maturely and stop posting. That's not very hard to do, especially if you want to be taken seriously. If you have a conflict with me, feel free to PM me and I'd be happy to clear things up.

Zythus 04-14-2008 11:20 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quite, but know that you do not have any position to say:

"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... "

Your authority is unfounded, and frankly, from your arguments of repetition, assumption, with no evidence, you don't differ much from the "retarded" posts in this thread, and I am not the only person who thinks that. So get your head down from the clouds, because you do not own CT nor FFR, so quit acting like it. You can PM and rant at me, but my point is clear.

Anyhow, again with assumption. We are hypothetically speaking is it not? like mentioned in the OP. And this is why there is no definable conclusion, because judgment varies with person, and a situation can not be fully understood and relived by a 3rd party, ever.

rzr 04-14-2008 11:30 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
*rolls eyes* read the rules.
I think I will refrain from posting until devonin can come talk some sense into this thread. Again, you're contributing absolutely nothing to the thread except non-constructive criticism that defies the rules of this forum.

devonin 04-15-2008 12:18 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Okay, where to begin. I'll start with content related posts, then *gasp* double post if I have to, to address the name-calling and idiocy.
Quote:

Originally Posted by KgZ
If you kill my child, I want your child to die as well, so you can go through the same pain as I bear. It's the ultimate form of fairness.

One: It is never right to harm the innocent even out of revenge for someone else harming the innocent. If you seriously think you are capable of supporting the murder of an innocent child out of a sense of "justice" for the death of another child, I think you need to seriously consider your priorities. Two: If I'm the kind of person who can murder children, chances are very good that I'm not exactly attached to my children, so killing them probably won't bother me overmuch. Certainly not as much as it effected you if it hurt you so badly that you were prepared to murder innocents for revenge...er...justice.

Quote:

don't give me that man- don't wanna hear it 8(
I'm sorry you don't want to hear about a perfectly logical and useful arguementative tactic. if you suggest a point is good, and I can show you how that point can be applied in a way that is bad, it calls into question the validity of your point. That's just logic, I'm sorry you didn't care for the example.

Quote:

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

Even if the vast majority are guilty, there is still a chance, proven to occur frighteningly often, that people on death row are innocent. As such, I can't in good conscience agree to execute them because there isn't sufficient proof of their guilt.

Quote:

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.
I have a harder time dealing with the idea that I would convict and execute an innocent than I do the idea that a guilty person might somehow escape from prison and continue to commit crimes like that. The fault there is with the justice system failing to do its job by only releasing criminals who have been rehabilitated. It does not lie with an insufficience of executions. Further, states with the death penalty show no reduction whatsoever in the instance of violent crime of that magnitude. Texas doesn't have the fewest murders per capita despite having the largest instance of the death penalty per capita. It clearly isn't a deterrant to other criminals, so how is there a purpose to it?

Quote:

In both cases had they killed the offender there would have been NO more deaths. But they didn't. So there were.
In your first case, the fault lies in insufficient security in the mental facility, not a problem with there being no death penalty. If they had managed their guest properly there would have been no death. In the second case, hyperbole isn't your friend. I deny that someone could be brought up on 84 charges of murder with inufficient evidence to get a conviction. Had you picked a more realistic number, I'd have said that if there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict, then no, they should certainly go free. If there wasn't enough evidence to convict they ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be KILLED. There's a reason capital crimes have a larger burden of proof. You have to be pretty sure you've got the right person to try and have them killed. The fact that even with those standards, innocents are executed or sentenced to death just drives home the problems with the death penalty.

Quote:

See, there was enough evidence to say "it could have happened, so let's still punish him."
But your analogy says "It could have happened, so lets ban him from TWG forever, with no exceptions or chance to prove he's learned from his mistake" Death Penalty is to Permaban, not one-game ban. They said "We have enough evidence to suspect his guilt, so we're only giving him a short sentence"

devonin 04-15-2008 12:24 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Gasp! Moderator Double Post!

This is surprisingly short and easy. RZR stop minimodding. You aren't a moderator, you aren't a supermoderator, you aren't an administrator. I read this forum religiously, if someone is doing something improper in these forums I will see it, and I will tell them. At absolute most, report posts or contact me via private message. You have no business telling other users what they are or aren't doing correctly.

Zythus' criticism was perfectly valid, and delivered in a perfectly okay manner for this forum. You hadn't addressed an objection others raised, and were simply reminded of it. I would criticize Zythus for bringing up a personal issue like your TGB ban in a discussion that had nothing to do with it, but you brought it up yourself.

Zythus, you did cross a line there in your last post, making a blatant personal attack on RZR and implying (fun for the topic: with no evidence) that "a bunch of people" have a problem with him. He's correct to say that if you have an issue with -him- to take it up in private and not air dirty laundry in the forum.

But rzr, please don't try to do my job for me. Zythus was contributing, Zythus was making criticisms that -were- valid and -were- in line with forum rules. It was only after you started being hostile that he crossed over into hostility himself. You both need to either deal with your crap in private, or stop posting in this forum.

Zythus 04-15-2008 12:44 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I apologize, I did step too far. Rzr would like to apologize too.
We disscussed our differences and came to a truce, and we hope to abide by it.
I apologize to both Rzr for the sniping and Devonin for disrupting his religiously guarded fourms XD.

We hope this won't happen again.

rzr 04-15-2008 07:14 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zythus (Post 2120458)
I apologize, I did step too far. Rzr would like to apologize too.
We disscussed our differences and came to a truce, and we hope to abide by it.
I apologize to both Rzr for the sniping and Devonin for disrupting his religiously guarded fourms XD.

We hope this won't happen again.

Agreed, I PMd him last night and we resolved everything. Sorry for the disturbance in the force =p

Back to the subject at hand...

wwwJ4mmYcouk 04-15-2008 07:33 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I am using an on screen keyboard at the moment so i can't type to much.

My theory is - if the defendant confesses the crime (therefore there is not a possibility that they are an innocent person and depending on the seriousness of the crime, or if they are caught red handed) then they should get the death penalty.

If the crime is really bad but they do not admit it but are found guilty from whatever evidence or if there is a crooked/legit lawyer prosecuting them i believe life is punishment enough as they can still be taken out of prison if the defendant turns out to be innocent.

You can't bring back the dead.

I know you will all say, but no one will confess to a crime if it means they are getting the death penalty - but a lot of criminals like to confess as they like the infamous attention ect.

I maybe wrong but hey - first CT post :-) - i tried.

devonin 04-15-2008 02:01 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
That raises the question: If the person confesses knowing that they could be executed because of it, because they feel a great deal of remorse, ought we to kill them anyway? If they've demonstrated that they know what they did was wrong, that they feel remorse for having done it, and are willing to put in the effort to become rehabilitated and become a useful member of society again, is it the right thing to say "Well, better safe than sorry, we're executing you anyway"?

The justice system is supposed to serve three puposes: Punishment, Deterrence, and Rehabilitation. Lately it seems that the prison system anyway only tries to serve the purpose of punishment, and most people posting in this thread seem to be along those lines too.

It seems to me that the -least- important purpose of the system is to punish the offender. Yes people who commit crimes should face some kind of punishment for having done it, but the primary purpose of the system should be to rehabilitate people into productive members of society, followed by trying to deter crime through the threat of the punishment.

I've always maintained that the prison system is too much like a happy vacation for a lot of classes of criminal. If you live on the street, and are willing to kill people or at least hurt them seriously to protect your interests, then prison is pretty much a nice hotel with consistant food, a good library and all the cable channels. A certain class of homeless persons actually aim to commit crimes with 6 month sentences around the start of winter because it gets them out of the cold. If prison is a -happy- alternative to the way someone's life is going, or even an acceptable one, then they are failing miserably to use prison as a deterrence or punishment.

The quality of life you have in prison should be inversely proportional to the seriousness of the crime and the length of the sentence. Someone in prison for 3 months for a bar fight can get the prison system they have now. Someone serving 10 years for murder should be living off bread and water in a room just big enough for a cot, sink, toilet, and stool, with no access to anything else.

Once the system is actually set up to provide a proper degree of punishment and deterrent effect for inmates, I think it becomes even -more- inappropriate to be executing people. You want them to suffer, so you end their life? The best way to make them pay for what they did is to keep them alive as long as possible in the barest minimum subsistance they can handle and survive.

The revenge people get their revenge, the justice people get their justice, and the knowledge that you face the rest of your life living in a box might be a little more of a deterrant to future criminals who currently view prison as the often referred to club fed.

Also, wwwJ4mmYcouk, welcome to CT, nice first post :)

Frozen Beat 04-15-2008 02:32 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Well, the death penalty does rid us of bad people. Then again, if we zap a good guy, then we just made a freaking huge mistake...

devonin 04-15-2008 03:21 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KgZ (Post 2120950)
This point is irrelavent and breaks the fifth rule in CT, as holds no merit value and it is your belief. Also, as a moderator, you should know better than to make indirect attacks in CT. You are entitled to your opinion on behalf of me, however this is not the place to express it.

I'm allowed to suggest that I think such a strong desire for irrational revenge is indicative of a set of priorities that I consider less than ideal. That's not a personal attack. This thread is about the death penalty and the moral status of such a punishment, as such, a discussion of morality is inevitable and asked for by the topic. I'm sorry if you want to take it as a personal attack. I simply feel that advocating the murder of the innocent in response to crimes is a horrible standpoint to advocate and said so. Up to you whether you take it personally, but it absolutely has bearing on this discussion.

Quote:

If you kill my child, I want to kill your child. It might be selfish, but this system also recoginizes how that you should very cautious of your actions, in which you should think of the dire consequences before you commit the crime.
The consequences should only be visited on you. Harming other innocent people is a horrific abuse of the justice system. If I murder someone, the "eye for an eye" answer is to murder me, not to murder someone with an equivalent relationship. I kill your child and so you want to kill my child? What if I kill a total stranger, will you kill someone who is a total stranger to me? That's the connection you're making. I simply cannot even begin to justify the murder of an innocent child simply to satisfy someone's bloodlust for irrational revenge.

Quote:

Your logic makes no sense. People can love a child and hate another- there is no boundary considering that if I am capable of killing children, that I can't love my own.
Never said that would be true of all cases. I merely pointed out the fact that there is a certain mindset involved in being capable of murder, especially the murder of children. Such people tend to be incredibly self-centered and caring only about themselves. As such, I suspect that someone who is concerned only with their own personal gratification and desires probably won't be as upset by the death of a child than would be someone whose response to losing their child is to be so consumed with grief and rage that they could justify murdering another innocent child for revenge.

xinpig 04-15-2008 03:46 PM

Seeing this title made me think of the anime DeathNote. IMO killing someone for mudering another person only makes us just as bad as they are. they should be forced to pay some sort of peanance for their actions. life in prison perhaps? "you killed my daughter so now you are going to be murdered and we shall call this 'justice'"

in the anime Death Note Light killed criminals as punishment for their crimes against others. muderers and rapists got the harsher penalties (heart attacks) and petty criminals died of disease or accidents. i know its an anime but what if a real deathnote made its way here and got into the hands of someone like light? would you think he deserved the death penalty as he is killing people? or is it a form of justice? i go with the justice answer on this one. its like a positive reinforcement for criminals. they would know that someone is passing judgement upon them and i believe that criminal activity would go down quite a bit as a result.

FontSize72LOL 04-15-2008 06:58 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Do i believe that there should be a death penalty, yes i do. But i do agree that many reformations are needed to keep the innocent out. Although i don't like the fact that when we put people to death, we run the risk of killing an innocent person. There are just people out there that have done things so terrible that i don't think they deserve the taxpayers money to keep them in jail for life.

Just my two-cents.

UnkownMan 04-15-2008 07:16 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Um...

The death penalty, in my opinion, is a good thing or a bad thing.

Its a good thing because they can't kill anyone any more
The bad thing is that they might have the wrong person
It's a good thing because the police don't have to chase the same guy over and over
The bad thing is because the suspect probably wants to be killed so you give him what he wants...

In other words, I'm speechless

Corbin Wells 04-15-2008 08:26 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Death penalty needs to be legal in all states for extreme situations. the problem is morality messes things up.

Death penalty is necessary for anyone who:
Decides on killing another person after considering other options of punishment for any wrongdoing that was remotely not physically harming to the self

Is emotionally disabled (serial killers)

Anyone who kills in SELF DEFENSE does not deserve a death penalty. But they do deserve SOME punishment for taking another life. But in no way is it reasonable to say that one who defends themself from an attacker should be put to death for killing that attacker. Unless of course the attacker was in no way attempting to take your life or planned on causing intense harm. Then death to the other isn't necessary.

And it's a damn waste of resources to keep someone on death row ALIVE for more than a MONTH. (Granted though it is important to be sure you got the right person...recently there have been cases of people being found innocent of crimes...)
But honestly...keeping them alive is foolish. As far as how to die, just shoot them, head, there done. It's not "barbaric" it's quick, efficient. I love how in a time of war it's okay for us to send out soldiers to go kill with all sorts of weapons but if we talk about death sentence and ways to die there's this whole morality issue, it's ridiculous.

rzr 04-15-2008 08:33 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
The empathy of the mass majority prohibits the generally needed and frankly deserved execution of criminals. Again, because too many people are sympathetic for taking the mortality and defying human rights, it's under used. However, if one kills someone then that murderer deserves to die as well.
But if someone important is killed, they are avenged with the death penalty. But if an average joe then they're imprisoned. Get that?

Corbin Wells 04-15-2008 08:38 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Rzr I've been following your posts in this thread and I simply don't get your logic here at all... =/

devonin 04-15-2008 09:41 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rzr (Post 2121553)
The empathy of the mass majority prohibits the generally needed and frankly deserved execution of criminals.

Prove 100% that a criminal is guilty of such a crime, and you might have a leg to stand on. However I don't see how you can say "The penalty for killing someone is that we kill someone" and not see a pretty serious problem with that.

Quote:

Again, because too many people are sympathetic for taking the mortality and defying human rights, it's under used.
This sentence doesn't make sense, please clarify.

Quote:

However, if one kills someone then that murderer deserves to die as well.
Prove it. What authority are you appealing to in order to claim you know who does or doesn't deserve to die? Also, even if we granted in certain circumstances that some murders are sufficiently heinous and horrific that we might consider executing the offender, where do you draw that line? What kind of murder is bad enough to execute and what kind isn't? I think we can all agree that the death penalty for self-defense killings is probably not warranted, but there are all kinds of extenuating circumstances that make an absolute statement like that logically untenable.

Quote:

But if someone important is killed, they are avenged with the death penalty. But if an average joe then they're imprisoned. Get that?
I get that you're pretty much dead wrong on that subject. Look into the cases of those on death row and I think you'll find that the vast majority killed "some person" in the scheme of global affairs.

rzr 04-15-2008 09:52 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
@ Corbin: keep following, one day you'll see my logic. Or maybe this is just a subject we disagree on, stick around CT and we'll have some fun ;)

@ devonin: ok, well, if I shot... George Bush I would be executed. But if I shot... JKPolk I would be imprisoned. Really it's that way with a lot of higher class people.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm not as up to posting as I usually am and explaining myself adequately. I feel like ****. Expect more sophistication soon... like the old rzr...

devonin 04-15-2008 10:36 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rzr (Post 2121792)
@ Corbin: keep following, one day you'll see my logic. Or maybe this is just a subject we disagree on, stick around CT and we'll have some fun ;)

He didn't say he disagreed with your logic he said he couldn't understand your logic. That means you explain yourself more clearly, that doesn't mean you patronise another user like they are too dumb to see what you mean.

Quote:

@ devonin: ok, well, if I shot... George Bush I would be executed. But if I shot... JKPolk I would be imprisoned. Really it's that way with a lot of higher class people.
Killing the president of the united states has dramatically further reaching consequences than killing a stranger on the street and you know it. If it were only the matter of a dead body, status wouldn't matter, but the leader of a nation dying effects the economy, foreign affairs, you name it. That was not a very good example.

The overall point implying that famous people's killers get harsher punishments, I again direct you to look into the crimes of people on death row, and you'll see how few of them involve the death of anybody you've ever heard of.

Quote:

EDIT: Sorry if I'm not as up to posting as I usually am and explaining myself adequately. I feel like ****. Expect more sophistication soon... like the old rzr...
If you know in advance that you're going to make a crappy point, I suggest waiting until the situation changes to post.

Rad3n 04-16-2008 12:49 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
In Australia there is no death penalty.

I disagree with the death penalty purely due to my fear of being in "the wrong place at the wrong time". A prisoner sentanced to life imprisonment shouldn't escape. If they do then the jail is to blame.

The man you refered to, "rzr", in your first post does have the death penalty... just a longer wait. much worse if you ask me.

wwwJ4mmYcouk 04-16-2008 04:54 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rad3n (Post 2122141)
I disagree with the death penalty purely due to my fear of being in "the wrong place at the wrong time".

This is exactly why i did not go to Thailand with my friends. Imagine if you was in your hotel room and it got raided by authorities and someone had stashed away drugs in there (sounds unrealistic but it has happened on a program i watched called banged up abroad) and you cant speak the language so they arrest you there and then. The next thing you know is you are in a crowded prison room awaiting trial. Then you receive minimum 10 years, or the death penalty.

In Thailand i think its around 80% of drug "criminals" receive the death penalty as they see it as - a murderer may kill 2 or 3 people, but a drug dealer can kill thousands.

Again with regards to the death penalty, how long a time should you get before the prison guards say "come on its your turn to be executed" its about 1 hour in Thailand, whereas in America they get a set date so they can take time to accept they are going to die.

I do agree with the death penalty to a certain extent, but for me to say "YES i fully support the death penalty" i cannot. Unless i sat and read every single case that goes to court to see if they "deserve" it.

rzr 04-16-2008 05:45 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Ok, hopefully my EXPLANATION will be better this time... ;)

@ Mr.Nothing: you pretty much spoke my mind, I just had more tact than to point-blank say it.

@ rad3n: why is my name in quotes? And yes, it is the jails fault, but after the killer escapes it's pretty pointless to blame anybody. The focus should be solely on recapturing him.

@www the rest of your name is too long for me to remember: if that's the case I agree with Thailand. I'm VERY anti-drug. In fact, I'd most likely be the guy enforcing it over there. But they're right, a drug dealer does kill more people than a murderer. Actually, they kill exponentially. A murderer gets his licks in and that's it. A drug dealer deals to one perso who shares with another who buys from another who shares with another etc etc. I mean, for drug dealing I wouldn't enforce the DEATH PENALTY, but a life imprisonment, yes.

@ devonin: yeah, I know. Hopefully we've all gotten my point [this time].

Mookage 04-16-2008 06:11 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I think the death penalty is a good way to get rid of people who can hurt society. The problem with the death penalty is if somebody is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death and killed, there is no going back. I think there should be undeniable evidence that the murder was commited by that person. I think the death penalty should come into effect for a murderer.

devonin 04-16-2008 06:23 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
So you're going to pick and choose which crimes are worthy of death and which aren't? Once again I ask where you're getting the validity for your standards other than you just figuring it seems good to you.

I mean, you've all been saying "murderers" but what about someone who kills in self-defense, or someone who was pushed beyond all reasonable limits to not lash out at someone, or someone who wasn't in their right mind etc etc.

What about non-murder crimes? Getting really angry and killing someone in a bar fight who would just as easily have killed you if you lost gets you executed, but raping a child doesn't? Eye-for-an-eye style justice only lets you kill killers, but I'm pretty sure that most people including most of you, could easily rank many non-killing crimes as worse than many killing crimes.

rzr 04-16-2008 07:10 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Self defense murder is still technically murder. However, it's morally granted. And yes, devonin, I am judging the majority of the crimes I deem suitable for the death penalty on my own personal feelings. As are many people in this thread.

devonin 04-16-2008 07:22 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
But do you feel justified in basing the entire actions of say, a nation's legal system, on your own personal feelings?

I'm a fan of Kant in this instance, that you should act as though you would will your action to be a universal maxim. In otherwords: Act as though you wish every person acted that way all the time.

Given that, I'm not prepared to act in a way that suggests "My own personal feelings are correct enough to force them on other people" Because if everyone did that, we would be in an awfully big mess.

rzr 04-16-2008 07:45 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I'm not sure how adequate this response is, but no, I couldn't. I mentally could not make a decision that would set a precedent for the entire universe.

devonin 04-16-2008 08:28 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
And yet you're arguing for the validity of the death penalty, admittedly on the grounds of it being your personal opinion that it should be practiced.

Wanting the law to be willing to kill people is an active stance meaning that it's something that directly effects other people from the status quo. Keeping them alive is a passive stance because even if you're imprisoning them, you aren't taking away their life and their right to life.

That's one of the reasons why I think it is so much more defensible to suggest that the death penalty is a bad idea.

rzr 04-16-2008 08:38 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
So what about torture? Either physical or mental. Based on your logic, we're still keeping the killers alive.

devonin 04-16-2008 08:41 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
The stated purpose of torture when people want to justify it is to gain information from someone that they don't want to give up, so you give them the incentive of making the pain stop to encourage them to tell you what they know.

I don't see how that's applicable in this case. You seem to want to use torture simply as a means of punishment. You did something bad, so I'm going to hurt you a bunch. I can't see how that could possible be helpful any more than normal incarceration would be.

I didn't say "Any punishment that doesn't kill them is okay by me" I said "Not killing them is more acceptable than killing them" Cruel and unusual punishment is also not something I'm particularly willing to get behind. The only way I could justify it ever would be in a case where someone provably knew information vital to saving the lives of a large number of innocent people and was refusing to give it up. Even then, I imagine I'd be carrying an awful lot of guilt around afterwards.

Shadowlessheart 04-16-2008 09:12 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
How far can you take torture before it becomes "involuntary manslaughter"? Here in the great U.S-of-A we can go as fair as to anything that doesn't purposely cause organ failure, though if deemed "Oh...we didn't know it'd do that" it becomes completely legal.

Beautiful things our congress passes...pure beauty, so what I'm saying here is torture never works at all...just in shows, you torture me (or most sane ppl) and we'll tell you what you wanna hear no matter the situation, just so it'd stop.

I believe most people who deem it o.k. to torture use the validity of saying "it was for our country (as torture is only legal for them, any normal joe does it they're screwed)" already know it won't work, so in my opinion i believe that's just as wrong as manslaughter.

Now on the death penalty, who is who to deem what is and isn't morally right or wrong? Over all it's society, so if we all said it was o.k. to kill someone for murder perhaps (eye for and eye...etc [which would mean in Hammurabi's time death penalty would be socially accepted as people wouldn't argue with a king because of their impending fear of eternal damnation, and in that wouldn't think twice]) then the death penalty could work.

I don't know I'm probably completely under analyzing this, and for that I'm sorry, but I guess if my over all statement hasn't been apparent, what I'm trying to say is "Nobody who isn't everybody can deem what is and isn't the context of correct morals."

~Edit~: This is where I got that whole "organ failure" thing if people didn't believe me, I'm sorry I don't remember what part is was I'm thinking 1. Anyway this is a credible source I believe :X.

rzr 04-16-2008 09:28 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Ok, devonin, let's look at it scientifically:

I have two white lab rats. I have four doors. I seperate the rats. Each sat gets two doors. The scenarios are identical: one door is guarded by an invisible electric fence, the other has a slice of Swiss cheese behind it.
Rat A tries to open door 1. He is electrictued. He tries again. Same result. Again. Same result. Finally he tries the other door. He gets the cheese. He no longer tries door 1.

A murderer/rapist/robber etc is put in a dungeon. There is no light. There is no clean air. There is no indoor plumbing. They eat their own feces. They drink their own urine. They see nothing. Every morning a man comes to them and slices a pattern into their genitals. Every evening a different man comes to them and pours boiling water over their naked body. They are released.
Prior to all that they are told that for committing the crime that is their punishment.

Well, something tells me they won't do it again (subtracting the factor of mental insanity etc).



*I know that was graphic, but hopefully it made my point. Torture could be a perfectly effective, not reasonable, but effective, method of enforcing laws.

devonin 04-17-2008 01:41 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Negative reinforcement works on dogs too, but it's still a) less effective than positive reinforcement and b) illegal cruelty.

In fact, what is likely to happen in that case, when you just release the person is that they are going to go after the people responsible for their horrible torture to get revenge. You don't come away from 5 years of horrible torture going "Well, I guess I won't do -that- again, maybe I should go find a nice job" You come away from that swearing revenge and substantially more prone to violence. Hell, you've pretty much -created- the mental insanity you've described as an exception.

Grandiagod 04-17-2008 04:12 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I'd imagine extreme prolonged torture would work less as a deterrent and more as a way to create a mentally instable individual.

tsugomaru 04-19-2008 01:36 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
It probably would considering that for people who do murder, they do not think of the consequences. People who commit murder for several reasons, for those who commit murder for money, they usually completely believe that they can get away with it. People who commit murder for passion will not be stopped because they strongly believe that what they are doing is right. People who commit murder based on a whim do not think of their punishments as they commit murder. Of course there are the people who kill others on accident, there is really no way to avoid that type of killing because it really isn't intentional.

~Tsugomaru

rzr 04-20-2008 12:17 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2123759)
Negative reinforcement works on dogs too, but it's still a) less effective than positive reinforcement and b) illegal cruelty.

In fact, what is likely to happen in that case, when you just release the person is that they are going to go after the people responsible for their horrible torture to get revenge. You don't come away from 5 years of horrible torture going "Well, I guess I won't do -that- again, maybe I should go find a nice job" You come away from that swearing revenge and substantially more prone to violence. Hell, you've pretty much -created- the mental insanity you've described as an exception.

This is pathetic. Four posts on this thread since I've last been on.

Devonin, they don't walk away saying "I'll never do that again" even know. Hence the term 'repeat offender'. It does seem more likely that they would refrain from repeating the actions after extreme torture. I mean, duh, they're going to want revenge. I would too. I would swear it too. But I sure as hell would never commit the same crime again.

devonin 04-20-2008 03:57 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

I mean, duh, they're going to want revenge. I would too. I would swear it too. But I sure as hell would never commit the same crime again.
Huzzah, we've replaced say...someone's willingness to kill a person who was ragging on them, and publically provoking them with someone's willingness to murder your entire family to get revenge for what you did to them. This seems like not a good trade off.

rzr 04-20-2008 11:34 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Seems like someone took my post out of context ;)

devonin 04-20-2008 01:52 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Well, assuming I grant that you're correct (which I dont) and the horrible torture was enough to make someone not do the same crime again, you pretty much explicitly stated "Instead they'll do something worse" which seems to indicate that it's a bad plan.

The important thing to realise is that I'm pretty sure almost anybody will agree that any punishment that doesn't include being killed is better than a punishment where you are killed, and yet places with the death penalty have no lower a rate of crimes for which the penalty can be death than anywhere else.

If "If you do this we'll -kill- you" isn't a deterrant, why should "If you do this, we'll hurt you really badly" going to be more of one?

tsugomaru 04-20-2008 04:07 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Deterrents do not work for the people who do commit murder. Sure, it prevents people from murdering left and right, but it won't actually stop the person who's committing murder when they actually commit murder.

~Tsugomaru

rzr 04-20-2008 08:37 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
On the contrary. I'm saying they will no longer commit large scale crimes. They would perhaps litter, steal a pack of gum, or rip the tag off their mattress. But a tortured criminal will not murder, rape, rob, etc again.

devonin 04-20-2008 08:57 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

But a tortured criminal will not murder, rape, rob, etc again.
Prove it.

heyitsmee 04-20-2008 09:09 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
we dont have it over here
the only Death Penalty was that of Adolf Otto Eichmann

xinpig 04-21-2008 10:18 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Serial killers are already unstable torturing them in hopes that it will "fix" them will not even change them. on the contrary it would only make them more prone to attacking again but doing that in the name of revenge.

rzr 04-21-2008 10:34 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Give me someone to kill, opportunity, and the guarantee I won't get caught. Do the torture. I'll be glad to prove it ;)
Just one thing first. I pick the person :p

xinpig 04-21-2008 11:27 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
What the... but no seriously the method of killing aside i think that we should have the death penalty in some form. people who commit violent crimes need to be punished for their evil deeds no matter how the act was committed even if it be by accident.

rzr 04-21-2008 12:13 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
That's true but the accident thing... I mean, we do have no way to prove if it was or wasn't an accident.

devonin 04-21-2008 02:12 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

guarantee I won't get caught. Do the torture.
These two conditions are mutually exclusive.

rzr 04-21-2008 04:31 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I feel like making a hypothetical "
dee-dee-dee" sound to you :p but where are we going with this?

Zythus 04-21-2008 04:43 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Death Penalty is quite absolute. Black and white, alive and dead.

"Some Form" does not imply in any way.

devonin 04-21-2008 04:50 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rzr (Post 2129908)
I feel like making a hypothetical "
dee-dee-dee" sound to you :p but where are we going with this?

You made a claim.

I asked you to support your claim with evidence.

You said you could show me proof provided we put you in a logically impossible situation.

I'm assuming therefore that you actually have no such evidence, and we can carry on with other aspects of the discussion.

Corbin Wells 04-21-2008 06:22 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by xinpig (Post 2129558)
people who commit violent crimes need to be punished for their evil deeds no matter how the act was committed even if it be by accident.


So if A is enraged because of B proviking A, and A gets into a fight with B, ends up killing B, but does so as an accident, A should be put to death? Shouldn't these types of cases be worthy of lesser punishments such as 15 years or more in prison with provided anger management therapy? Now we are not talking in cases that cannot be proven accidental or not, but rather cases in which the person who killed the other, comes clean the same day or whenever(within a reasonable amount of time) to the proper authorities? Should A still be put to death despite it being crystal clear of it being an accident?


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