Capital punishment right or wrong?

[Giordano]

Your picture of an ideal judiciary system is flawed anyway, because we would still need judges and so on even if the aim was rehabilitation, and prisons would still be necessary as part of rehabilitory process. Humankind may not be like that now, but people can be changed.

 

ANY "justice" system will be flawed because of one thing and one thing only: we can't erase the crime. It will always be there marked in history; cannot bring back the dead. And other thing is, human kind cannot be (as a whole) open, accepting, and loving. We're greedy, lets face it. For instance, capitalistic societies flourish much more than those that don't because of greed. It's a survival of the fittest but with rules, so to speak. Those rules come out of our good moraled minds to make it fair, but the rest, free for all.

 

 

 

 

 

So, you're saying that obeying the instinct of revenge and justice provides the best quality of life? There is no law, we do need a "golden rule" (or standard, but never mind the details); But revenge is an instinct--it is 'designed' for the survival of our genes, and whilst it may have helped humankind when we had fight to survive, that doesn't give it any value in modern society. We have outgrown instinct and should see it as something to be treated with deep suspicion and scrutiny

 

Again, the best quality of life was if people never did these things but that is not a realistic possibility. Like Zierro is saying, if we introduce harsher punishments (not necessarily capital punishment) it would lower crime.

 

 

 

You, and everybody, must realize that actions have conquences, that every single thing we do is our responsibility. Driving drunk, you crash. Some say it's not their fault because they were drunk, but they still choose to drink away from home, which the only way to returning home is by car. People have to cross this line, dividing guility and innocent, and you can't "accidentally" cross this line. No way in hell you can. You, willingly, must cross it. Willingly you knew the damage it was going to cause. Willingly you went through without any regard to your fellow man. You willingly are making another human suffer. And by all logical means, the more damage you did the more punishment you would receive.

 

 

 

You can't go around preaching "peace and loving" and promote the rehabilitation system if you haven't been in the victim's shoes. With all these judicial system debates, it seems the majority of the people forget about the victims, the sole reason why we have a system in the first place.

 

 

 

So think these thoughts before continuing: your daughter got raped how would you feel? You were kidnapped, beaten, and robbed. Your best friend got murdered by a guy who was robbing a bank. These criminals didn't do it on accident, they willingly knew what there were going to do and no way in hell can these people be considered as a human being.

 

 

 

It's all about a Fair Free for All. Take out the fair, and you're not playing anymore.

[Lateralus]

[removed]

 

 

 

I dislike your ethical and political stance (as judged from previous posts), and I think your jokes are in bad taste. I like your posting on the forums because you're somewhat controversial and that's always interesting. Beyond that, please don't direct jokes like that at me.

[Housepig]

Your picture of an ideal judiciary system is flawed anyway, because we would still need judges and so on even if the aim was rehabilitation, and prisons would still be necessary as part of rehabilitory process. Humankind may not be like that now, but people can be changed.

 

ANY "justice" system will be flawed because of one thing and one thing only: we can't erase the crime. It will always be there marked in history; cannot bring back the dead. And other thing is, human kind cannot be (as a whole) open, accepting, and loving. We're greedy, lets face it. For instance, capitalistic societies flourish much more than those that don't because of greed. It's a survival of the fittest but with rules, so to speak. Those rules come out of our good moraled minds to make it fair, but the rest, free for all.

 

 

 

So, you're saying that obeying the instinct of revenge and justice provides the best quality of life? There is no law, we do need a "golden rule" (or standard, but never mind the details); But revenge is an instinct--it is 'designed' for the survival of our genes, and whilst it may have helped humankind when we had fight to survive, that doesn't give it any value in modern society. We have outgrown instinct and should see it as something to be treated with deep suspicion and scrutiny

 

Again, the best quality of life was if people never did these things but that is not a realistic possibility. Like Zierro is saying, if we introduce harsher punishments (not necessarily capital punishment) it would lower crime.

 

 

 

You, and everybody, must realize that actions have conquences, that every single thing we do is our responsibility. Driving drunk, you crash. Some say it's not their fault because they were drunk, but they still choose to drink away from home, which the only way to returning home is by car. People have to cross this line, dividing guility and innocent, and you can't "accidentally" cross this line. No way in hell you can. You, willingly, must cross it. Willingly you knew the damage it was going to cause. Willingly you went through without any regard to your fellow man. You willingly are making another human suffer. And by all logical means, the more damage you did the more punishment you would receive.

 

 

 

Agreed, up untill the last sentence. The sentence, or "punishment", should depend on whether the perpetrator is a danger to society (rehabilitation), the amount of damage they caused (reperration), and the likelihood that failing to punish to punish the criminal would result on more crime (deterration). Basing punishment purely on damage caused is illogical.

 

 

 

You can't go around preaching "peace and loving" and promote the rehabilitation system if you haven't been in the victim's shoes. With all these judicial system debates, it seems the majority of the people forget about the victims, the sole reason why we have a system in the first place.

 

 

 

Essentialy you're arguing the case for reperration. Agreed, but there are more, and often more important, things to consider than the victims feelings.

 

 

 

So think these thoughts before continuing: your daughter got raped how would you feel? You were kidnapped, beaten, and robbed. Your best friend got murdered by a guy who was robbing a bank. These criminals didn't do it on accident, they willingly knew what there were going to do and no way in hell can these people be considered as a human being.

 

 

 

It's all about a Fair Free for All. Take out the fair, and you're not playing anymore.

 

 

 

This isn't rational at all. Why should willingly harming people make the someone no longer a human being? We don't have to disown people to "punish" them properly. Yes, harsher punishments do lower cime, but that doesn not mean criminals should not be rehabilitated--otherwise they'll just commit more crime.

 

 

 

As you said above, "peace and loving" may not be easily achievable, but the vast majority of people (well, around 90% now, thanks to western society) have the capacity to behave in a peaceful and loving way. There are no bad deeds, just bad consequences.

[Giordano]

Essentialy you're arguing the case for reperration. Agreed, but there are more, and often more important, things to consider than the victims feelings.

 

What. The. Hell. Then what is the point of a justice system, put in place to protect and aid the people, aka the victims? The victim's say is of the highest priorities in any case. They're the ones who suffered, they're the ones who went through this crime. Not you. Not the defendant. Not the defense attorney. The victim. And while we can't have criminals hanged for stealing $100 cuz the victim said so, we have to always defend the victim, not the criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So think these thoughts before continuing: your daughter got raped how would you feel? You were kidnapped, beaten, and robbed. Your best friend got murdered by a guy who was robbing a bank. These criminals didn't do it on accident, they willingly knew what there were going to do and no way in hell can these people be considered as a human being.

 

 

 

It's all about a Fair Free for All. Take out the fair, and you're not playing anymore.

 

 

 

This isn't rational at all. Why should willingly harming people make the someone no longer a human being?

 

The bolded word is the key factor of this discussion. If you cannot understand this then you cannot understand justice and the mentalities of victims.

[Zierro]

This isn't rational at all. Why should willingly harming people make the someone no longer a human being?

 

 

 

If you murder a human, you are defying society's simple moral standard of not killing. If you defy this standard, then you shouldn't be able to use it for your own defense and tell the government, "Don't kill me. Killing is wrong!" The standard doesn't apply to you anymore when you proved that you don't care about it, you know, since you willingly defied it.

 

 

 

I don't think he literally meant they are no longer biologically classified as humans. Just that they should lose their human rights, since they showed us how they clearly don't care about human rights by murdering innocent people.

[BlueLancer]

Research aside, personally I don't believe the death penalty has any preventive effect in society. It's obviously not very rehabilitating either.

 

 

 

Life in prison without the possibility of parole, in solitary confinement & eventually dying of old age in your feces inside a cell you've been in for 40 years is worse than being injected with chemicals and dying peacefully.

 

 

 

There are more effective punishments than death if you want revenge. If my own child was killed or molested, why would I want the offender to simply die? (if there was no way to extract vigilante justice on him) It wont bring anyone peace of mind, least of all to my kid. Western countries have something to learn from pseudo-democracies like China that have different judicial systems.

 

 

 

If your crime is bad enough, like murdering bystanders during an armed robbery, you can be sentenced to intense forced labor camps for life. There are no parole hearings or ways to get out, as the heavily armed military police guards those camps. They are strategically placed near army barracks so there is no way to escape. You work for 12 or more hours a day in a coal or salt mine, get enough food to stay alive, and continue every day for the rest of your life.

 

 

 

That way, the offender both creates economic resources back to the society he hurt, plus he loses all control of his life. So instead of ending up costing the state money in forms of prisoner upkeep or the death penalty, he will actually generate resources for the rest of his life & have an extreme punishment at the same time.

[is472001]

If it is done with no pain, or without giving the illusion of pain, it is not much of a deterrent.

[Bloodstain]

If it is done with no pain, or without giving the illusion of pain, it is not much of a deterrent.

 

Little late to the party. Didn't even contribute much anyway

[warri0r45]

I'm a bit on the fence with capital punishment. In principle I'm not opposed to killing a serial offender to prevent them from committing another crime. Having said that, I think life in prison is a far worse punishment than death. In this sense, the death penalty seems like a cop out - these people aren't forced to sit in a cell and face the fact that they've done something wrong. Theyre effectively given a get out of jail free card. Im also a bit uneasy about the possibility (however rare it may be) of wrongful convictions.

[superson]

In this sense, the death penalty seems like a cop out - these people aren't forced to sit in a cell and face the fact that they've done something wrong. Theyre effectively given a get out of jail free card.

 

The problem with this is that not everybody shares this view - many people would rather spend life in prison then be killed.

[Nenga]

I know i'd rather be dead than rot in a jail cell. Living in horrible conditions with no hope of escape or rescue is just another form of torture in my mind. And i'm not talking physical escape. If a person does escape, or even if he is just let off, he is turned away by everyone around him. Humans need interaction, otherwise you're just a shell walking around. I'd rather die than be alive with no sense of purpose.

[michel555555]

I'm against it. As other people have said it gives no chance to appeal in light of new evidence and actually costs more for a death row inmate then a person whos in jail for life.

 

apparently hanging is supposed to be one of the best ways of dying as you die instantly wheras lethal injection is actully really bad.

 

you only die instantly if the fall breaks your neck and even then its not a guarentee. either you die instantly, become fully paralized and slowly suffocate not even able to scream, or at wors you neck doesn't break and you slowly choke to death trying to scream, flailing around and do what normal people do when they lose the ability to breathe.

 

and wow the new quote thing is confusing

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Heres my opinion, its extremly simple and short but basically I think this: If you wish to be killed rather then spend a life in prison you should be killed. you should be killed by nitrogen asphyixiation (The calmest way to go)

[DAE2008]

I've been reading this as I go along, and I'd like to ask about you peoples' religeous stances. If you want to say, fine, if you don't, don't. I really don't mind, I'm just curious.

 

I believe in the death penalty, if it's a dead certain case. If someone has murdered someone, kill them. You took someone's life away, you deserve the same. No more killing from you. Oh, boo hoo, human rights etc. You've just killed someone, and taken away their most basic right, and all others. Do you deserve them for the rest of your lifetime? Nope.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Heres my opinion, its extremly simple and short but basically I think this: If you wish to be killed rather then spend a life in prison you should be killed. you should be killed by nitrogen asphyixiation (The calmest way to go)

Why?

 

If someone is convicted of a crime for which the punishment is death, then they deserve to die. And why give them a calm way to go? I don't mean act like a barbarian and chop them up with a machete, but honestly, why spend thousands killing a person when you could hang them for a fraction of that? Plus you can reuse the rope when you hang them...

Rocco, you remind me of who's in charge of execution at the moment in north America :D

 

Because killing of a person is completly wrong, I myself would rather live the rest of my life in prison then be killed. by your logic, (removing the bit about doing bad things) I could go and kill my sister because she's costing me 50p on sweets or whatever. Aswell as that couldn't you just make the prisoners work, you could make them make number plates or some other useless task that creates income.

 

I think that it is classed as torture to be killed in a harsh way also, Rocco. I can't find an article now but a form of torture is to taken to be executed and go through a whole thing - just to scare them.

 

 

EDIT: Human right... number 1 = right to life. We don't live in an eye for an eye culture and it just wouldn't work; if say I pushed Rocco off a cliff, Would I be forced to be pushed off a cliff or face a worse more painful death with the lethal injection ?

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

In my opinion the govermental system of America and England and China and India and nearly everywhere else is wrong; the best thing would be a "controlled anarchy" I know its oxymoronic but you can imagine what I mean.

 

They have been giving the wrong dosage of anasthetic for ages; its not an anasthetic; its a very strong sedative. so basically you can't move and you suffocate.

 

Also, i'm not religious but I still fear death.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Oh great... can't find a source after lots of googling :'(

 

Just to close your eyes and know that it ends there, that your going to lose love, happiness, passion and that smile you get sometimes when someone tells a joke.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Because i'm scared of the unknown, what if I don't sit at the top of the chocolate rainbow - thats what scares me, what if I just see black; keeping my sentient but slowly rotting away with no chance of moving only seeing black.

[Seraphi]

You don't know what's going to happen tommorow, are you scared of tommorow?

Tommorow is going to come whether you're scared or not, though.

 

Edit: Rocco explained it in a simpler fashion anyway.

[ember3579]

Personally, "capital punishment" is used in a wrong manner. It's not really much of a punishment, because the person in question won't be around after to learn from it, and unless if it's a public execution, most others wouldn't either. I think that it should be primarily used as a removal agent. It should be reserved for only the most dangerous offenders, those that simply cannot be rehabilitated and will, without a doubt, inflict suffering on as much people as they can in their own personal manner. Execution's point isn't to teach a lesson, it's to make sure that rabid dogs get put down and can't cause any more harm. If they're at that point, then all that really needs to be done is the legal work that affirms there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that this person is innocent of the atrocities that would put him in this manner, the procurement of a very powerful firearm and appropriate ammunition, and the disposal of the body, which should take about a year from the end of the trial. Keep in mind that if this were to occur, then the whole process would have been gone through on every possible detail so much so that appeals would be redundant. If there is any doubt whatsoever that someone DIDN'T do the things they're accused of, then they're shifted in to the less permanent consequences (imprisonment comes to mind).

[cnc85]

I think the fact we have to waste hundreds and thousands of dollars on decide whether to kill comeone is the real crime...

 

If someone does something really really bad, just take them out the back and shot them.

[stonewall337]

The irony I see in this whole debate, not just on TIF, but in the entire world, is that people have no problem killing children through abortion, who are innocent, yet think that a person guilty of rape, kidnap, or murder, should not be killed for ruining other people's lives.

 

I don't think it is as important a question to ask whether others should learn from the death of a criminal, as it is to ask whether or not the criminal deserves to live. In cases of multiple rapings, or murders, I think the answer is rather obvious.

 

Also, capital punishment prevents repeat offenders. Often, people guilty of heinous crimes get out of jail before their time is served, even if the sentence is live in jail.

[Bloodstain]

The irony I see in this whole debate, not just on TIF, but in the entire world, is that people have no problem killing children through abortion, who are innocent, yet think that a person guilty of rape, kidnap, or murder, should not be killed for ruining other people's lives.

 

 

Fetus' aren't self aware for one thing and don't really know the difference between being alive and being dead. And I find that bringing an unwanted child into this world, who may be messed up from alcohol or drug abuse, only to be neglected/hated by their parents/be brought up in bad living conditions to be undesirable to say the least.

 

 

E:

 

 

Also, capital punishment prevents repeat offenders. Often, people guilty of heinous crimes get out of jail before their time is served, even if the sentence is live in jail.

 

Rehabilitation and pro active programs prevent recidivism. Also, I'd like to see more government funding go to restorative justice programs and more research in that area

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

If someone wants to start a new thread about abortion please do that.

I personally think abortion is right; but please... KEEP ON TOPIC.

 

Cnc, what if say someone had a family and stuff and they loved there daughter and they killed someone and stole drugs to help her dying daughter; is he going to get shot?

[Bloodstain]

If someone wants to start a new thread about abortion please do that.

I personally think abortion is right; but please... KEEP ON TOPIC.

 

Cnc, what if say someone had a family and stuff and they loved there daughter and they killed someone and stole drugs to help her dying daughter; is he going to get shot?

 

I think a better example to use would have been a drunk driver who killed someone as a result