The Death Penalty

[Vendetta21]

Re: The Death Penalty

I support that with every life sentence without parole that is given, a person has the legal option of committing suicide at any point during their sentence, because I think if they think their sentence is worth than death, than it is cruel and inhumane not to allow them respite. Otherwise just forget about it because it's just too damn expensive to try to enforce it (appellation costs) and it really doesn't have any statistically provable purpose that I've ever heard of (though it does have philosophical justification, don't confuse the distinction here.)

Now as for the original anecdote: we shouldn't base criminal policy around institutional incompetency. If the argument is based on the institutions incompetency then there is a latent submission that we can't trust the institution to do its job as it is supposed to. The two have nothing to do with each other, and that isolated example lends no weight to the wide-spread solution suggested.

[TrueBOSS]

Re: The Death Penalty

The Death Penalty is suppost to be scary. It was originally meant to scare the crap out of you so you wouldn't think of killing others, commiting treason, or anything else considered hainus to the local culture. The original death penalties achieved this by killing you in the most brutal way IN PUBLIC so everyone see's what happens to you if you commit the crimes. The best one, in my opinion, that achieved this was the English Quartering (I won't say what they did in this because it may be to gory for some people to read). I believe that you should suffer if you get the death penalty not be put to sleep in the most humane way possible. Today's death penalty is worthless because of how humane it is. What's so scary about going to sleep and not waking up again (Leathal Injection)? If there is going to be a death penalty it should be done right or not at all. Do it to scare potential commiters of the same crime from doing it and not to just remove the person from our presence. Jail does that just fine.

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

What's so scary about going to sleep and not waking up again

Clearly you haven't put enough thought into the second portion of that statement. I'm also pretty sure that punishment has shown to be not much by means of a deterrant to any crime regardless of punishment. I think you'll find that most people committing crimes of the sort that might get you executed aren't doing it for the fun of it, or because they don't think they'll get caught.

In most cases, I'd instead suggest that these people would be moved to commit that crime regardless of the consequences. Most of the murders in my country are gang related. And the nature of that sort of arrangement tends towards people desperate enough to do whatever they felt they needed to regardless of the consequences.

Bringing back some horrible method of execution woudln't be a deterrant at all. And giving such executions publically, as youtube has already shown us, barely shocks anybody anyway.

[TrueBOSS]

Re: The Death Penalty

Yeah, I wouldn't be suprised to find that a more horrible execution has no effect on todays people. It might if everyone was physically present first hand to the gore and blood. Even today seeing that kind of stuff can completely change someone. Your right though because most people would only see it on TV where they are used to seeing that sort of thing thus having no effect. History does show though that countries with morbid death penalties that are executed to anyone deserving of it had very little crime and it's from there that I spoke. Your right though, public death penalties wouldn't work nowadays. As I said, the death penalty was initialized long ago as a way of scaring the public from doing crime. I still believe that that should be the ONLY reason for using it. If it stops being a deterint, it should be removed. So, in a lot of ways, I guess you could say we've developed beyond the use of the death penalty being any good. At least for in the U.S.

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

History does show though that countries with morbid death penalties that are executed to anyone deserving of it had very little crime and it's from there that I spoke.

History shows that to be true in places where the government had the full power of fiat to simply order people executed. Where guilt was often determined well before a trial assuming there even was a trial, and the people had very little access to what we now take for granted as human rights.

In a place where the local magistrate can just -kill you- with no repercussions at all to themselves, yes, the prospect of the death penalty acts as a strong deterrant against criminal behavior.

I don't think that suggesting the government start ruling through fear is the right way to go.

[TrueBOSS]

Re: The Death Penalty

nope, me either. The government should never have that sort of power.

[Clarissa_Rainbow]

Re: The Death Penalty

Honestly, the death penalty doesn't make sense to me. We're teaching people it's bad to kill other people by killing them??? Does that make any sense at all to you...

[TrueBOSS]

Re: The Death Penalty

nope, not really.

[1961casey]

Re: The Death Penalty

Devonin,

You have been asked directly to answer the question: 'If there is no doubt as to the murderer's guilt, would you accept that the death penalty is a suitable punishment for the crime."

Do not deflect the question by not accepting the premise of 100% guilty. You have already stated many times that you do not support the death penalty because you have no confidence in the judicial system. Granted that you may be justified in your concern, you still have not answered the question put to you.

I now charge you to answer the question directly, without rationalizing or evading: 'Do you accept that the death penalty may be used as a suitable punishment for the crime of murder?' If you do not, then please explain why it would not be suitable.


Okay, I went back and reread this thread. Devonin has answered this question in post #188.

Sorry.

[TD_Project]

Re: The Death Penalty

Keeping in mind I have not read the other 14 pages of this thread, I may accidentally recap what someone has said, in which case I apologize.

I am somewhat debated on the topic however.

Pro?
- IF the sentenced is 100% guilty, keeping him in an institution such as jail for like until death, would waste tax dollars. It is unreasonable to inevitably kill someone slowly like that, when you can end it fast and save the tax money for those who can get a second chance to enter the workforce, therefore economy.

Con?
- The judicial system of the United States isn't very trustworthy, and with the corruption that some places have, to kill an innocent man is not acceptable. Also, the morals of the death penalty are pretty obvious.

I guess the con's outweigh the pro's, which sucks because I voted Pro in the poll. Sorry.

[AquaTeen]

Re: The Death Penalty

The reason that I don't support the death penalty is because for 10 most people sentenced to the death penalty are typically charged with 1st degree murder. For 20 if you kill the person on death row, you're stooping down to the level of that criminal being euthanized so the death penalty is considered (in my opinion) Counter-murder.

[~kitty~]

Re: The Death Penalty

The idea of the Death Penalty is a vengeful one (as well as expensive).

I do not support the death penalty...

I think there are better ways to go out there and say "Thou shall not kill" and add onto it "therefore you shall die".

[Hayden_444]

Re: The Death Penalty

they should just get life and not let them escape

[bobeck2]

Re: The Death Penalty

For all of those who are saying that no one should have the power to take another's life, then I'm assuming that you also realize that means that no war is justified if a person is killed, and that use of deadly force for self defense is also unjustifiable as your are "choosing" to end a persons life, albiet the choice is a compelling one in the case of self defense.

The question to resolve capital punishment then is, who has the power to take a life? Should it not be the one who gave it? Now i realize that what I'm about to say will probably raise more controversy than even the topic itself but please bear with me. As a Christian I hold the premise that God created life via Creation. Thus only God is the one who can take it. However, he has through his laws, delegated that duty to the current civil authority. Thus our civil Government does indeed have power, yet limited power, to take ones life. (The limits of this power are for another discussion or for someone else to discuss ).

All this to say that I believe that the death penalty is justified on the premised that the one who gave life also allowed it to be taken away under certain circumstances and has implemented the Civil government to carry on that task.

[Lipidman]

Re: The Death Penalty

I'm assuming you haven't heard the phrase "separation of church and state"?