Capital Punishment

[warri0r45]

You just don't get it do you? You've completely missed the whole point... it's not about punishment. It's about deterrent!

 

 

 

I'm not vengeful, I don't to punish people for the sake of it or "to get my own back". It's not about that in the least. All I care about is stopping the crimes from happening in the first place.

 

 

 

Perhaps if it really was a deterrent then there might be a convincing argument for it. As it stands, the states in the US which have the death penalty also have the higher crime and murder rates. When people commit a crime they don't weigh up the potential sentences they might get, they don't plan on getting caught.

 

 

 

Ok, here's a chart of total crimes commited as an average per population. The higher up the graph, the worse it is right?

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... per-capita

 

 

 

Now here's a graph showing actual sentence length. I was operating on the theory, that the longer the sentence, the less likely people are to commit said crime in the first place...

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_s ... nce-length

 

 

 

With a very few exceptions, the graphs show that in general my theory is supported. The countries with the shortest sentences (and I've got another graph somewhere that shows money spent per criminal), have the highest crime rates and vice versa.

 

 

 

What I'm trying to say, is that in these countries people are discouraged from commiting crime as they know the sentences are harsh. This would translate here and in the US. Would you not agree? Higher sentences and worse jail conditions would reduce crime somewhat?

 

 

 

You are absolutely correct that the death penalty has little effect in the states that it's in place. However, less than 1% of murders warrant the death penalty. It is likely (although no one has evidence for it), that would be murders are well aware of this fact and think that they are quite likely to sidestep an actual death sentence, given how rare such a sentence is.

 

 

 

It's not an effective deterrant as the odds of being given a death sentence are incredibly small.

 

 

 

You make a good argument. I was leaning towards the figures that assassin was alluding to but now you've made me rethink longer scentence times as a deterrant. Perhaps, as you've discussed a little, an actual life sentence in prison would be the biggest deterrant of all and more effective than the less than common death sentence.

 

 

 

And I'm amazed to see New Zealand so high up that crime frequency chart. Lol.

[BlueTear]

Ok, here's a chart of total crimes commited as an average per population. The higher up the graph, the worse it is right?

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... per-capita

 

 

 

Now here's a graph showing actual sentence length. I was operating on the theory, that the longer the sentence, the less likely people are to commit said crime in the first place...

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_s ... nce-length

 

 

 

With a very few exceptions, the graphs show that in general my theory is supported. The countries with the shortest sentences (and I've got another graph somewhere that shows money spent per criminal), have the highest crime rates and vice versa.

 

 

 

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. You haven't accounted for social factors , such as poverty, nor the severity of the crimes on question, or the little paragraph at the bottom of the crime rate chart that reads:

 

 

 

"DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

 

 

 

I guess that explains the crime rate figures listed for New Zeeland, as well as those for Colombia. 'cause quite frankly, 100 crimes per thousand people in the USA and 4 per thousand people in Colombia?

[doomy]

Depends on the evidence he did it, if he killed somebody in the most horrible way, he desrves to be killed in that horrible way etc...IMO it's a good idea, people getting 20 years for a murder is bull tbh.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Depends on the evidence he did it, if he killed somebody in the most horrible way, he desrves to be killed in that horrible way etc...IMO it's a good idea, people getting 20 years for a murder is bull tbh.

 

But can't you understand the hypocracy of that statement. You're condeming someone for murder, and then condoning the murder of that person. You're saying something's wrong, then using that wrong yourself to punish someone.

 

 

 

The death penalty completely undermines respect for the law.

[____]

Depends on the evidence he did it, if he killed somebody in the most horrible way, he desrves to be killed in that horrible way etc...IMO it's a good idea, people getting 20 years for a murder is bull tbh.

 

But can't you understand the hypocracy of that statement. You're condeming someone for murder, and then condoning the murder of that person. You're saying something's wrong, then using that wrong yourself to punish someone.

 

 

 

The death penalty completely undermines respect for the law.

Who said anything about condoing the method of killing someone? Just make the law "you kill someone and you die in the exact same manner regardless". Don't have to approve of it on your own moral grounds. It's just the way things are then.

[sour_tacos]

I saw something on AOL news about this guy who promised to tell a joke at his execution, but said that the "Biggest joke is me finally being free through death." He also said something to the lines of "I'm not ___________" I forgot what his name was, but his name was supposed to go in the blank. What's your opinion?

[adam_ross0]

I say, if you don't want CRIMES..make the penalty for murder either a life sentence or death row. And to get rid of some people wanting to go to prison (I'll explain if you ask)..make it to where theyre working, and not sitting around in a cell watching TV.

[____]

I actually just had any amusing throught. A while ago on Rove Live (aussies will know) pete brought up a topic on corporal punish back into schools. Then he did a short sketch on having CAPITAL punishment in schools. Damn that was hillarious and that gave me an idea....

 

 

 

 

 

Just randomly sentance people to death for even the most minor of effences. Oh would that make it an interesting community to live in where jay-walking could get you executed :ohnoes:

[assassin_696]

Who said anything about condoing the method of killing someone? Just make the law "you kill someone and you die in the exact same manner regardless". Don't have to approve of it on your own moral grounds. It's just the way things are then.

 

 

 

So you're just going to make laws without any ethical basis just for the sake of it? Ethical laws shouldn't just 'exist', they need a reason.

[Led-Zeppelin]

Depends on the evidence he did it, if he killed somebody in the most horrible way, he desrves to be killed in that horrible way etc...IMO it's a good idea, people getting 20 years for a murder is bull tbh.

 

But can't you understand the hypocracy of that statement. You're condeming someone for murder, and then condoning the murder of that person. You're saying something's wrong, then using that wrong yourself to punish someone.

 

 

 

The death penalty completely undermines respect for the law.

 

 

 

If someone takes someone against their will and locks them in a room for a year, what should you do? Not send them to prison and lock them in a room, cause that would be hypocrisy? :lol: You'd be "saying something's wrong, then using that wrong yourself to punish someone."

 

 

 

Get over it, an eye for an eye, send a message to the bastards that do these terrable crimes. Life can't all be roses, fruit and bunnies.

 

 

 

I guess that explains the crime rate figures listed for New Zeeland, as well as those for Colombia. 'cause quite frankly, 100 crimes per thousand people in the USA and 4 per thousand people in Colombia?

 

 

 

New Zealand. :(

[Giordano]

Depends on the evidence he did it, if he killed somebody in the most horrible way, he desrves to be killed in that horrible way etc...IMO it's a good idea, people getting 20 years for a murder is bull tbh.

 

But can't you understand the hypocracy of that statement. You're condeming someone for murder, and then condoning the murder of that person. You're saying something's wrong, then using that wrong yourself to punish someone.

 

 

 

The death penalty completely undermines respect for the law.

 

Killing a inocent person is wrong, killing a gulity person isn't.

 

That's the way I see it, and it's not the same.

[Ambassadar]

Why do people insist on calling executing a convicted prisoner that did something to warrant the death penalty murder?

 

 

murÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷der (mÃÆÃâÃâûrdr)

 

n.

 

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

 

 

 

An execution is not murder.

 

1. It is lawful.

 

2. It is not done out of malice.

 

 

 

People basically live under a contract that says behave by the law. When you break that law you forfeit rights you had and must face predetermined penalties for your actions. That is something everyone knows and understands. When a person murders another person they know they have voluntarily placed themselves in a position where if caught they will face the penalties to the law. It is the murderer that is responsible for his/her own death by execution because they made that choice when they chose to violate the contract we all live under called the law.

[doomy]

Depends on the evidence he did it, if he killed somebody in the most horrible way, he desrves to be killed in that horrible way etc...IMO it's a good idea, people getting 20 years for a murder is bull tbh.

 

But can't you understand the hypocracy of that statement. You're condeming someone for murder, and then condoning the murder of that person. You're saying something's wrong, then using that wrong yourself to punish someone.

 

 

 

The death penalty completely undermines respect for the law.

 

Killing a inocent person is wrong, killing a gulity person isn't.

 

That's the way I see it, and it's not the same.

 

Yeah, what I said was i'm using that punishment to condem somebody who deserves it, its not like he's an innocent man...?

 

^^And what Nick_6464 said is what is, and should be the law.

 

 

 

You really think murdur rates will go up if the death penalty is brought back?

 

 

 

And I'm amazed to see New Zealand so high up that crime frequency chart. Lol.

 

For some reason it seems plausible...At Rotorua, there graffiti everywhere, and i don't want to be racist so I won't add anything here.

[assassin_696]

Why do people insist on calling executing a convicted prisoner that did something to warrant the death penalty murder?

 

 

murÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷der (mÃÆÃâÃâûrdr)

 

n.

 

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

 

 

 

An execution is not murder.

 

1. It is lawful.

 

2. It is not done out of malice.

 

 

 

People basically live under a contract that says behave by the law. When you break that law you forfeit rights you had and must face predetermined penalties for your actions. That is something everyone knows and understands. When a person murders another person they know they have voluntarily placed themselves in a position where if caught they will face the penalties to the law. It is the murderer that is responsible for his/her own death by execution because they made that choice when they chose to violate the contract we all live under called the law.

 

 

 

Execution is only lawful because some people in society made it so many years ago. Laws should be reviewed.

[Ambassadar]

xecution is only lawful because some people in society made it so many years ago. Laws should be reviewed

 

 

 

What if the majority of the society still believe it should be kept lawful which is the case where I live?

[assassin_696]

xecution is only lawful because some people in society made it so many years ago. Laws should be reviewed

 

 

 

What if the majority of the society still believe it should be kept lawful which is the case where I live?

 

 

 

Then it should be kept lawful, democracy should prevail. But that shouldn't be the end of it, and the voices of the minority who are against capital punishment should be given equal weighting and opportunity to present their views in the democratic process. If both sides are given equal attention and unbiased review the decision is still in favour of the death penalty then that's democracy, and that should not be challenged on principle because that would be hypocritical.

 

 

 

But that doesn't mean we should silence the minority or accept the majority, it should still be reviewed now and again, just as it should be reviewed if people voted against the death penalty.

[Rebdragon]

I find it hilarious how many people here support torture and then the death penalty. We aren't barbarians people. "An eye for an eye" is a little outdated, so please stop acting so barbaric.

 

 

 

Once a criminal is either given the death penalty of sentenced to prison for life, he's out of society, and people aren't in danger. They're no longer a danger to society. So, what's the point of torturing them? Set your mind at ease by giving them revenge? Yes, genius, revenge always sets your mind at ease. Let the family of the victim know that the criminal is getting the punishment that they gave to the victim? That'll just make them feel guilty and possibly just as bad as the criminal. There isn't a reason to torture the criminal. We only need to make sure that they aren't a danger to society. Seriously, what is your logic behind torturing them? Just sadistic?

[Ambassadar]

Just because you can't comprehend how the death penalty can be in place without "sadistic tortuous revengeful passions" being involved doesn't mean many many other people don't just see it merely as justice being served.

 

 

 

To me the criminal is the one that is at fault in their execution and not society because the criminal made that choice when they performed an act they knew had the consequence of them being put to death. It was their choice. Your anger should be at them, not at society.

[Rebdragon]

Just because you can't comprehend how the death penalty can be in place without "sadistic tortuous revengeful passions" being involved doesn't mean many many other people don't just see it merely as justice being served.

 

 

 

To me the criminal is the one that is at fault in their execution and not society because the criminal made that choice when they performed an act they knew had the consequence of them being put to death. It was their choice. Your anger should be at them, not at society.

 

I support the death penalty. Not strongly, but I see it as an option.

 

 

 

What I don't see as an option is torturing the criminal. Killing 'em is bad enough, and it permanently seperates them from society. I mean, it's already a huge moral topic whether or not capital punishment should even exist; there shouldn't even be a question whether or not torture should be a part of it.

[assassin_696]

Just because you can't comprehend how the death penalty can be in place without "sadistic tortuous revengeful passions" being involved doesn't mean many many other people don't just see it merely as justice being served.

 

 

 

To me the criminal is the one that is at fault in their execution and not society because the criminal made that choice when they performed an act they knew had the consequence of them being put to death. It was their choice. Your anger should be at them, not at society.

 

 

 

You're assuming that the criminal's act was a rational, deliberated choice, when in fact it so rarely is. Dispassionate premeditated murder is rare, many murder's are spontaneous and/or committed under the influence of drugs or emotional surges.

[Ambassadar]

Reb, I haven't kept up with all of this thread so I don't know what others said but I completely agree with you that torture should play no part in the legal system.

 

Dispassionate premeditated murder is rare,

 

Statistics? Most of the murder in my city is gang violence which is premeditated.

 

 

 

many murder's are spontaneous and/or committed under the influence of drugs or emotional surges.

 

 

 

Taking drugs (which is illegal anyways) is that person's choice and a person must face the consequences for their actions.

 

 

 

Emotions can be controlled. A person makes the choice whether or not to follow their mad passions.

[Marco]

Just because you can't comprehend how the death penalty can be in place without "sadistic tortuous revengeful passions" being involved doesn't mean many many other people don't just see it merely as justice being served.

 

 

 

To me the criminal is the one that is at fault in their execution and not society because the criminal made that choice when they performed an act they knew had the consequence of them being put to death. It was their choice. Your anger should be at them, not at society.

 

 

 

You're assuming that the criminal's act was a rational, deliberated choice, when in fact it so rarely is. Dispassionate premeditated murder is rare, many murder's are spontaneous and/or committed under the influence of drugs or emotional surges.

 

 

 

I see you've never studied law.

 

 

 

Ahem.

 

Just to clarify to everyone, the definition of Murder here in England is 'The unlawful killing of another human being (the actus reas) under the Queen's Peace (in any situation outside of war) with malicious intent (the mens rea).

 

 

 

Assasin, there are 'partial defences' to murder which would reduce a murder charge to that of a voluntary manslaughter charge (which would produce a lesser sentance).

 

These include what you have said;

 

Provocation as you said, 'spontaneous' or 'emotional surges'

 

Diminished Responsibility could also contain 'emotional surges' for example with 'battered woman syndrome' - an illness, women beaten over a long course of time by their husbands who may kill their husband from the smallest of provocations.

 

The last defense to murder is a Suicide Pact, but is has no relation here.

 

 

 

And voluntary intoxication is not technically a defense, and I honestly have no idea why you think it should be.. :-s

 

 

 

Therefore, anyone who successfuly pleads one of those defenses will have a Voluntary Manslaughter charge, and would not recieve the same punishment as they would with murder, so in this topic, they wouldn't be put to death.

 

 

 

Don't question me on the law please, I've studied it for long enough now. Everything above is fact, not opinion.

 

 

 

Oh, and here's a map which seems more reliable than the table in the previous page.

 

It shows the murder rate per 100 000 of the population.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, my opinion is that capital punishment should be put in place, as Ambassadar said, the guilty person foreits the rights of the normal person when he comits the crime.

 

 

 

(this is not to you, assasin);

 

Taking the life of another as punishment is not barbaric lol. Just because we are at an age where my mobile phone has more memory than a PC 5 years ago doesn't mean we should turn our noses up at previous ways of dealing with the scum of the earth.

 

 

 

Times do change yes, but murder is committed now just as it was back in the Babylonian times, the crime is just the same. Are you saying that morally we are far superior to those times? Ah yes, I see. I guess it is right that by killing someone today you'll have a better life in prison than the avarage homeless person, or in fact some people living on the poverty threshold holding down 2 jobs everyday just to pay the rent. :roll:

[Rebdragon]

Taking the life of another as punishment is not barbaric lol. Just because we are at an age where my mobile phone has more memory than a PC 5 years ago doesn't mean we should turn our noses up at previous ways of dealing with the scum of the earth.

 

 

 

Times do change yes, but murder is committed now just as it was back in the Babylonian times, the crime is just the same. Are you saying that morally we are far superior to those times? Ah yes, I see. I guess it is right that by killing someone today you'll have a better life in prison than the avarage homeless person, or in fact some people living on the poverty threshold holding down 2 jobs everyday just to pay the rent. :roll:

 

-.-

 

 

 

How many times do I have to say it? I support the death penalty. Reading is your friend.

 

 

 

Again, what I don't support is torture. This is a human life we're talking about. You can't be so twisted as to think there's any reason at all to torture the person before killing them, right?

[Marco]

Taking the life of another as punishment is not barbaric lol. Just because we are at an age where my mobile phone has more memory than a PC 5 years ago doesn't mean we should turn our noses up at previous ways of dealing with the scum of the earth.

 

 

 

Times do change yes, but murder is committed now just as it was back in the Babylonian times, the crime is just the same. Are you saying that morally we are far superior to those times? Ah yes, I see. I guess it is right that by killing someone today you'll have a better life in prison than the avarage homeless person, or in fact some people living on the poverty threshold holding down 2 jobs everyday just to pay the rent. :roll:

 

-.-

 

 

 

How many times do I have to say it? I support the death penalty. Reading is your friend.

 

 

 

Again, what I don't support is torture. This is a human life we're talking about. You can't be so twisted as to think there's any reason at all to torture the person before killing them, right?

 

 

 

I don't know who it was that said it was barbaric, I didn't want to go back to previous pages while in the middle of posting something. But if it was you who said it was barbaric I thought you meant the act of capital punishment was barbaric, not the torture part. Of course, personally I think that torturing someone before executing them is just [developmentally delayed]ed and doesn't really make any sense. If you want to inflict that much harm on them then why not keep them alive and continue torturing?

 

 

 

Again, I don't think that torture before death is right in anyway.

 

 

 

I guess my misunderstanding led to yours eh? : My fault.