Do you believe in the Death Penalty?

[swiss]

Throwing around the word justice doesnt help the arguement, because everyone has different ideas of what justice is.

If justice is executing someone for killing an innocent person; then why not chop thieves' hands off; stone unfaithful women to death; and castrate sex offenders.
All the above are some people's idea of justice.

 

[Absinthe]

It's not the only way, but it's a fitting for the crimes it's given to and it's fairly efficient.

I see it as a perpetuation of a crime. And what exactly do you mean by "efficient"? I can't think of any positive effects it has produced.

 

[Sulkdodds]

It certainly doesn't deter crime.

 

[kirovman]

What has suddenly made it a draconian concept? It's the entire basis for the justice system in the first place. It has everything in fact to do with the word justice. It's why we say 'bringing somebody to justice.'

I never said justice (which is the upholding of fairness), I said vengeance(which is about violently inflicting revenge).

It's refers back to the concept of an eye for an eye.

And also I made my beliefs clear... I said that maybe there are some people who don't deserve to live amongst us, but the risk of executing an innocent outweighs performing execution on the guilty.

 

[Kangy]

No, I don't. It's hard to be 102% certain you have the right person, and secondly, what does killing them achieve? The fact is that the crime has already been done. And I believe nearly every person can be redeemed, no matter what his crime, other than those who're truly sick, as opposed to have simply made a huge mistake in their lives.

 

[baxter]

It's not the only way, but it's a fitting for the crimes it's given to and it's fairly efficient.

The death penalty isn't fitting to violent crime. The concept that people opposed to the death penalty, oppose it because it is morally and ethically wrong is not correct.
I oppose the death penalty on the simple belief that life behind bars is a far greater punishment.
Given the choice many offenders would opt the easy way out (Harold Shipmen, Fred West...UK serial killers) rather than spent the rest of their life behind bars.
I really don't believe the death penalty is efficient, acts as a deterrent and genuinely believe in "locking up and throwing away the key".

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Throwing around the word justice doesnt help the arguement, because everyone has different ideas of what justice is.

If justice is executing someone for killing an innocent person; then why not chop thieves' hands off; stone unfaithful women to death; and castrate sex offenders.
All the above are some people's idea of justice.

Because as western society, with disagreements among people in general, we have come to accept a 'general' idea of justice. There will always be someone who disagrees with a sentence length for a certain crime, but it's the average of what everybody wants, and the representation of our views as a society. It's why the far East has different sentences for different thigns. If someone would prefer that society, they surely can freely make the move there. Perhaps not back due to rules of where they go, but in our society one are free to come and go as you please.

I see it as a perpetuation of a crime. And what exactly do you mean by "efficient"? I can't think of any positive effects it has produced.

Efficient at removing the offender.

I never said justice (which is the upholding of fairness), I said vengeance(which is about violently inflicting revenge).

It's refers back to the concept of an eye for an eye.

And also I made my beliefs clear... I said that maybe there are some people who don't deserve to live amongst us, but the risk of executing an innocent outweighs performing execution on the guilty.

We're looking at vengeance in two different lights then- vengeance is an important part of a civilized society. If someone does not fear vengeance they have nothing to stop them from committing whatever offenses they please.
VENGEANCE: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : RETRIBUTION, VINDICATE

As far as innocent convicts, this is why the sentence must not be handed down loosely and as the norm. It really isn't now much either. If anything, today it's the safest time to do it, with overwhelming witness evidence and DNA evidence things can be proven easily in a case where the death penalty is involved.

No, I don't. It's hard to be 102% certain you have the right person, and secondly, what does killing them achieve? The fact is that the crime has already been done. And I believe nearly every person can be redeemed, no matter what his crime, other than those who're truly sick, as opposed to have simply made a huge mistake in their lives.

Killing them gives them what they deserve and have brought upon themselves, and it definately brings a sense of closure to victims. If in the future someone were to kill say my daughter I'd pray to god their execution was swift. If let to live the fact that they're living a free life in a protected environment forever without true hardship would rip me to shreds.

Murderers have no redemption unless they can bring the one they killed back to life and give them back the time they lost.

The death penalty isn't fitting to violent crime. The concept that people opposed to the death penalty, oppose it because it is morally and ethically wrong is not correct.
I oppose the death penalty on the simple belief that life behind bars is a far greater punishment.
Given the choice many offenders would opt the easy way out (Harold Shipmen, Fred West...UK serial killers) rather than spent the rest of their life behind bars.
I really don't believe the death penalty is efficient, acts as a deterrent and genuinely believe in "locking up and throwing away the key".

They aren't living in solitary confinement behind bars for the rest of their life, though. That's not how it works. If it were I'd support that definately in many more cases, but the 'rotting in prison alone' arguement simply doesn't cut it in reality. I feel that death is very fitting to someone who murdered in cold blood. It's efficient costwise. The appeals arguement doesn't really work either because they appeal just the same in a life sentence.

 

[Kangy]

Killing them gives them what they deserve and have brought upon themselves, and it definately brings a sense of closure to victims. If in the future someone were to kill say my daughter I'd pray to god their execution was swift. If let to live the fact that they're living a free life in a protected environment forever without true hardship would rip me to shreds.

Murderers have no redemption unless they can bring the one they killed back to life and give them back the time they lost.

I'm not sure what state of mind I'd be in if that happened, I'm not sure you are about yourself, either, but somehow if I'd lost my daughter, I wouldn't actually care whether they lived or died, because I'd just lost my daughter. What would it be to me, now they've taken my daughter away from me?

But what if they truly are a changed person after their sentence? People can be changed, they can truly understand what they have done, and know just how horrific it is. And I think a lot of people will change because of that, and simply, life is precious, it really does nothing for us when we take yet another just to achieve Stone Age justice.

 

[kirovman]

We're looking at vengeance in two different lights then- vengeance is an important part of a civilized society. If someone does not fear vengeance they have nothing to stop them from committing whatever offenses they please.
VENGEANCE: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : RETRIBUTION, VINDICATE

I think vengeance is more about violent retribution, where civilised justice is about primarily making sure the person cannot harm society again, and secondarily making them pay for the crime.

Also, no court case is 100% sure of guilt, so I do not believe that the death penalty used. The cases of innocent peoplebeing executed shows that.

When you talk about economy, it happens to be more expensive to be execute them anyway than life in jail.

Vegeance just seems to me to be rather tribal and primative... like "Rargh, you burnt down my village, so I'll burn down yours!"

We should be looking at things unsentimentally, and more logically.

 

[baxter]

Killing them gives them what they deserve and have brought upon themselves, and it definately brings a sense of closure to victims. If in the future someone were to kill say my daughter I'd pray to god their execution was swift. If let to live the fact that they're living a free life in a protected environment forever without true hardship would rip me to shreds.

.

You are confusing existing and living. The life we have now is based entirely on freedom and liberty. The freedom and liberty to do as we please, when we please and how we please, remove this and you simply have an existence....A life without meaning and without purpose. Extend this existence and you basically have a living hell.
The concept of bread and water, locked in solitary is idealist but as you point out is not enforced; this doesn't mean that a life behind bars is somehow the easy option. It isn't.
Given the choice what you would you choose....? A quick and painless death or years and years behind bars, with no chance of release, parole and basically a chance to exist rather than live?
Knowing your ultimate fate is death, unloved, uncared for and demonised by all around you.
I know what I would choose.

 

[15357]

15357 scares me.

You're the 5th one to say that. :E


And I wasn't saying that we should expand executions, I'm saying that the threat of executions would keep the criminals from commiting crimes.

 

[Eejit]

I disagree with the death penalty. Everyone has the right to life, no matter what they have done imo.

 

[Raziaar]

I disagree with the death penalty. Everyone has the right to life, no matter what they have done imo.

I'm opposite this opinion... I agree with the death penaltiy. Everyone has the right to life, unless they've stolen the right to life from someone else in a heinous fashion.

The other way rewards heinous criminals.

 

[baxter]

I'm opposite this opinion... I agree with the death penaltiy. Everyone has the right to life, unless they've stolen the right to life from someone else in a heinous fashion.

The other way rewards heinous criminals.

I posted this ealier, clearly you didn't read it.

You are confusing existing and living. The life we have now is based entirely on freedom and liberty. The freedom and liberty to do as we please, when we please and how we please, remove this and you simply have an existence....A life without meaning and without purpose. Extend this existence and you basically have a living hell.
The concept of bread and water, locked in solitary is idealist but as you point out is not enforced; this doesn't mean that a life behind bars is somehow the easy option. It isn't.
Given the choice what you would you choose....? A quick and painless death or years and years behind bars, with no chance of release, parole and basically a chance to exist rather than live?
Knowing your ultimate fate is death, unloved, uncared for and demonised by all around you.
I know what I would choose.

 

[Last One In]

I think that instead of the death penality they should delimb people; the limbs that they take would depend on the severity of crime: if you kill someone, you get your arms cut off. If you rape and murder someone, you get your dong and legs cut off. They could take random body parts as well. That would teach the muderer what's up and make them an example to convicts everywhere.

 

[Absinthe]

Efficient at removing the offender.

What, prison doesn't suffice?

 

[Raziaar]

What, prison doesn't suffice?

Prisons are growing more and more and more crowded. More and more and more prisons are having to be built. Either you keep building more and more prisons, hire more and more guards to staff those prisons, or you start letting the criminals out into the populace cause you just can't contain them.

 

[Absinthe]

Prisons are growing more and more and more crowded. More and more and more prisons are having to be built. Either you keep building more and more prisons, hire more and more guards to staff those prisons, or you start letting the criminals out into the populace cause you just can't contain them.

You can thank the drug war for current prison populations. Drug "abusers" outnumber real criminals by and large in such establishments.

I think you have a really short-sighted view of things if you believe that the justice system thinks "Damn, Rapist Bob. We don't have any more room! Go on your way and we'll get back to you once some people get the chair."

 

[Raziaar]

You can thank the drug war for current prison populations. Drug "abusers" outnumber real criminals by and large in such establishments.

No doubt about that.

I think you have a really short-sighted view of things if you believe that the justice system thinks "Damn, Rapist Bob. We don't have any more room! Go on your way and we'll get back to you once some people get the chair."

HUH?

 

[Absinthe]

HUH?

That was in response to this.

...or you start letting the criminals out into the populace cause you just can't contain them.

 

[Raziaar]

Well... I didn't say that in all seriousness, but the fact is... the populations in prisons are rising, and there's going to be more and more that need to be built, which will be filled, and more and more and more. The costs are just gonna keep increasing.

 

[baxter]

Well... I didn't say that in all seriousness, but the fact is... the populations in prisons are rising, and there's going to be more and more that need to be built, which will be filled, and more and more and more. The costs are just gonna keep increasing.

Any solutions ?..oh wait heres one.

I agree with the death penaltiy. Everyone has the right to life, unless they've stolen the right to life from someone else in a heinous fashion.

The other way rewards heinous criminals

emmmh

 

[Jintor]

I think that instead of the death penality they should delimb people; the limbs that they take would depend on the severity of crime: if you kill someone, you get your arms cut off. If you rape and murder someone, you get your dong and legs cut off. They could take random body parts as well. That would teach the muderer what's up and make them an example to convicts everywhere.

I really hope you're joking.

Do soldiers, political prisoners, government killers etc. count? Traitors? Frauds?

 

[baxter]

I really hope you're joking.

Do soldiers, political prisoners, government killers etc. count? Traitors? Frauds?

Maybe car drivers who speed should loose their pinkies, or beggars and vagrants should have their toes taken one by one dependant on the severity of their desperation.

Joking aside,please stop pushing torture and mutilation as a justifiable form of punishment...it isn't.

 

[Raziaar]

Any solutions ?..oh wait heres one.



emmmh

Umm... pardon me, but that doesnt solve the further expanding prison populations...

Unless you'd just like to let those people out of prison?

 

[Absinthe]

Stop putting drug users in prison. That should solve the problem. Then you can shove all the murderers and rapists you want into concrete cells.

 

[Raziaar]

Stop putting drug users in prison. That should solve the problem. Then you can shove all the murderers and rapists you want into concrete cells.

If what they do is against the law, they should spend some time in prison... but I agree their penalties should not be as harsh, or for as long if that is ONLY what their crime was... Either a tiny amount of time to be served for infringements against the law, or a vastly increased fine...

 

[Absinthe]

If what they do is against the law, they should spend some time in prison...

Hypothetical:

Lollipops are against the law. So if you eat a lollipop, you should spend some time in prison.

That's a ridiculous statement, isn't it? Laws are worthless if they have no sound reasoning backing them up. So no. They shouldn't spend ANY time in prison, regardless of whatever draconian policy dictates that they must do so.

 

[Raziaar]

Hypothetical:

Lollipops are against the law. So if you eat a lollipop, you should spend some time in prison.

That's a ridiculous statement, isn't it? Laws are worthless if they have no sound reasoning backing them up. So no. They shouldn't spend ANY time in prison, regardless of whatever draconian policy dictates that they must do so.

LOL. Well... lolipops aren't hallucinogen.

I agree with anti drug policy... so there's NO way you're going to shift me on this subject. I agree they should get less harsh time, but not none at all.

 

[Absinthe]

LOL. Well... lolipops aren't hallucinogen.

So?

I'm aware that you're firmly entrenched in your anti-drug views. I will just never understand how anybody with a rational thought in their head could come to such unfortunate views.

I don't really want to persist in this any way, as the alcohol is starting to hit me and I'll only get even more aggressive than my usual self. :|

 

[Muffin Man]

u wont like me when im drunk *rips shirt*

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm saying that the threat of executions would keep the criminals from commiting crimes.

But that's not true. :O

 

[15357]

How about horrible ones, like execution via virus infections or radiation?

 

[kirovman]

How about horrible ones, like execution via virus infections or radiation?

There's no point in unnecessary brutality. People are going to commit crimes, whatever the consequences.

 

[DeusExMachina]

The government should outlaw alcohol .

And anyone who drinks can get the death penalty! ^__^.

 

[swiss]

They tried that...remember prohibition? (except u werent executed for drinking)
A black market simply develops; people find other ways when the law outlaws it. If they legalised cannabis then there would not be a need for a black market and less crime would result.

 

[kirovman]

Anyway, the government loves alcohol tax revenue.

 

[Loc-Dog]

That's the problem with a punishment based justice system. People who want to see criminals suffer unfortunately think that justice and venegance are the same thing. Putting someone in total isolation and making them suffer is the most tragic thing you can do.

What you want to do with criminals is remove them from society (if they cant be "rehabilitated"), because it's society in one way or another that they've hurt. And of course, you don't want them to hurt it any further. Killing everybody who disobeys the rules of society is really really stupid, and in the long run will just cause people to hate the goverment.

Putting them in a lock-up for a long time without freedom is the same thing. People suffer in prison, wich makes the system one of revenge, not of justice. It has no practical purpose at all, except to feed the revenge lust of people who were exposed to crime (wich is a big sin according to every popular religion, anyway).

The best justice system would be one without prisons at all. The way to punish a criminal should be more practical and fair. A criminal has damaged society, so as a punishment he won't be allowed to enjoy the benefits of it either.

For example if someone robs a bank, they won't be allowed to buy things and spend any money except for on food. In this way the criminal is being punished fairly. He has stolen money from the community, and as a punishment he is not allowed to enjoy the benefits of having money. But if he were put in prison, he would himself be robbed of life and time. And you can't make up for that.

Serial killers and psychos might need some other form of justice though, since their goal is to kill, not get rich. You could put them in a prison of sorts, but not a confined one that makes them more angry and dangerous. Just a prison to do what it was meant to do - isolate dangerous guys from the heard.

I'm pretty tired. Hope it's not confusing.

 

[kirovman]

Interesting idea, but very difficult to implement in practice, because you'd have to have someone constantly watching them to make sure they didn't commit crime again.

 

[Loc-Dog]

Well, the robbery thing would work out well if you didn't use money in bill-form.

It is expected that everything will be handled by cards and computers in a while, wich would make it much easier to monitor. Somebody would always want to slip through, no matter the crime.