Jump to content
VEGHATERMEATLOVER

Capital punishment right or wrong?

Recommended Posts

Not all murderers get a life sentence, and they can also escape or kill someone else in jail. In other words, a life sentence doesn't mean they are nonexistent to society.

 

 

 

Plus, I don't see why you think life in prison is any better than the death sentence. As someone already said, a life sentence is a death sentence by old age. Not only that, but I don't see how keeping someone in the same building for 50+ years until they die is not considered cruel and unusual punishment but killing them quickly and ending their suffering somehow is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have the problem with the 'capital' part, but it's the 'punishment' that concerns me. Using the term 'punishment' implies that the system is based on 'justice' (i.e. petty revenge) and not on rehabilitation and reperation.

 

 

 

In extreme cases (such as incurable sociopaths who cannot be safely contained in a detention centre and/or have a low quality of life), it's all for the greater good--as cliched and euthemesitc as that sounds. But one thing I can't stand is this notion of justice. Murderers do not deserve death because deserving anything is entirely arbitrary and meaningless anyway, and the system should be based on removing crime, not carrying out meaningless acts of retribution.

 

 

 

Actually, justice IS revenge. Rehabilitation wouldn't be justice, it would be help. If human kind had the big enough heart to forgive and help society's criminals we wouldn't need the judicial system. It would just be a system with doctors and psychologist who would help the minds of those guilty change. But human kind isn't like that and you're never going to change it.

 

 

 

If Bob killed my sheep, I'm not gonna discuss with him what he could do better over lamb stew, but I'm going to go over to his farm and kill his sheep.

 

 

 

Actualy, the vast majority of people have the capacity to be "pro-social", and humankind can be changed. 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.

 

 

 

The last part of your argument is frankly not an argument at all but a statement on human instinct. Just because we have revenge hard-wired into our being as an internal instinct, it doesn't mean revenge is desirable. Remember that instincts serve our genes' survival, not our happiness.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd brin g up the argument of "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth." Which, by the way, doesn't mean revenge. It means equal treatment. If at all possible, you kill someone and are found guilty of murder, you die the same way they did.

 

 

 

And how exactly do you ethically justify that? The way I see it, no action is categorically right or wrong, and equilibrium has no value. It's all just means to an end (which is happiness).

 

 

 

And that whole "nothing is bad or good"/"balance"/"Can good exist without evil?" things are all a bunch of crap. In a universal view, there is no law. There are no customs. It's a giant free-for-all. That much is true, take a look at the animal kingdom for instance. But if humans behaved like that, if humans went on to a survival of the fittest, we wouldn't be in the technological age of today. We needed safety first to come up with ideas and research them. If Bob wanted to take my meat, I had to protect it and guard it constantly. Other humans would take my food too or hoard up the animals so I can't hunt any. We don't have time to stop and think about new techology or ideas. We had to keep the house safe.

 

 

 

Which is why we need some sort of "good action" view. When actuality, it's more of a mutual action. Keep to yourself, follow the golden rule and you don't have to donate to charity or work in volunteer to be "good". This provides the most happiness to all of us, where as survival of the fittest the majority of us would be dead or living in crappy conditions.

 

 

 

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.


If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not all murderers get a life sentence, and they can also escape or kill someone else in jail. In other words, a life sentence doesn't mean they are nonexistent to society.

 

 

 

Plus, I don't see why you think life in prison is any better than the death sentence. As someone already said, a life sentence is a death sentence by old age. Not only that, but I don't see how keeping someone in the same building for 50+ years until they die is not considered cruel and unusual punishment but killing them quickly and ending their suffering somehow is.

 

 

 

They may not get life sentences, but they probably aren't going to kill again after over a decade in jail, plus the I would assume the ones that get out before dieing/being incredibly old are those that aren't ruthless killers (example: In a province, I think Alberta, a guy killed his daughter by way of hooking the exhaust through a hose into the car with her in it. She had a condition that basically made her a vegetable IIRC and she was always in pain. He went to jail and got out not too long ago I think. Not exactly a risk to society)

 

 

 

. 89% of murderers went to prison, 3% to jail, 7% probation, and 1% "other" in 2004.

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/s ... 102tab.htm

 

 

 

And check out the mandatory sentences for murder by state:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Pun ... _by_states

 

 

 

People who receive the death sentence got there because they were found guilty (for the sake of argument, we'll say they ARE guilty), take away the death penalty and it'll just be replaced with life in prison likely and no one has to be killed. Prison breaks are really, really, really not likely.

 

 

 

Yeah, they could kill people in jail, but if they're that much of a danger it's likely they'll be locked in their cell for most of the day and not get to interact much, ignoring the fact that OTHER types of offenders kill in jail too. As to whether or not it's worse than death, you can still maintain some socializing and regularity in prison (assuming you aren't a crazy serial killer or super max or whatever). Hell, give them a choice (AFTER psychological tests and a couple years in prison) to stay in jail the rest of their lives or get injected. Then it's voluntary, if they're just going to hang themselves in their cell a little down the line, give them an option. (Although I can't say I agree with this 100% or that it would be a realistic option)


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.


La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


yes.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


In Soviet Russia, glass eats OTers.

 

Alansson Alansson, woo woo woo!

Pink owns yes, just like you!

GOOOOOOOOOO ALAN! WOO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


michel555555.png

[spoiler=click you know you wanna]
Me behave? Seriously? As a child I saw Tarzan almost naked, Cinderella arrived home from a party after midnight, Pinocchio told lies, Aladin was a thief, Batman drove over 200 miles an hour, Snow White lived in a house with seven men, Popeye smoked a pipe and had tattoos, Pac man ran around to digital music while eating pills that enhanced his performance, and Shaggy and Scooby were mystery solving hippies who always had the munchies. The fault is not mine! if you had this childhood and loved it put this in your signature!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)


meatlover.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What about all the non-bad things they've done in their lives?


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?


meatlover.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No, that isn't my logic at all. I said that if they commit a crime that is punishable by death, then they deserve to die.

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 ?

Well, first of all, human rights were made by the western world. It's not our job to tell people that we don't even know what they do and don't get. Of course, I believe that all humans have the right to life liberty and all that, but it isn't my job to go handing out rights to people.

 

And secondly, there's no way lethal injection is more painful than being pushed off a cliff. If administered using the correct method and correct dosage, it is relatively painless. If not administered correctly, however, there can be some painful implications. The "cocktail" consists of three drugs. An anesthetic, a parlyzing agent, and a toxic agent"

If the anesthetic is not powerful enough, the victim could potentially be subject to the painful effects of the paralyzing agent and toxic agent (most often potassium chloride, which creates a caustic and burning sensation, if administered to a conscious person. So in most cases the inmate feels little to no pain. In some cases, however, the inmate may be subject to severe pain, if the drug is not administered properly. This is one of the main arguments against lethal injection in many places where it is being banned.

 

However, I honestly don't care. The majority of people are religious, so as far as they're concerned, they should be more worried about going to Hell / other places religious people don't want to go.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


meatlover.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

As for the first, I disagree. Google legalism. That would be the perfect government imo.

 

For the second, sources or it didn't happen.

 

For the third, what's so bad about it?


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


meatlover.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)

 

But how do you know that you aren't just entering a new life? Maybe even a better life? How do you know that you won't appear on top of a chocolate rainbow with all of your friends and family and then go sledding down on top of a cloud sitting next to the girl you've always wanted to be with?


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.