The Death Penalty

[rzr]

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Zythus

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by KgZ

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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