The Death Penalty

[wwwJ4mmYcouk]

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]

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]

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]

Re: The Death Penalty

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: The Death Penalty

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

@ 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.

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]

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]

Re: The Death Penalty

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.