Capital punishment right or wrong?

[mlclm]

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.

That is not a baby.

 

Abortions don't "kill children" any more than masturbation does.

[Zierro]

Abortions don't "kill children" any more than masturbation does.

 

A fetus is a little more developed than sperm. I think you're both going to the most extreme ends of the spectrum here.

[GameWaver]

Even if it doesn't deter anyone else, it'll stop those people from ever doing it again.

 

 

guild wars gold

guild wars money

[Giordano]

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.

About time someone said this. 100% true.

[Saru Inc]

Abortions don't "kill children" any more than masturbation does.

 

A fetus is a little more developed than sperm. I think you're both going to the most extreme ends of the spectrum here.

 

 

True true.

 

My mom believes as soon as the sperm meets the egg there's life. I'm not too much of a fan of studying pregnancy, so I'm not sure when the brain starts to form, but I think as soon as it starts to idk grow body parts you shouldn't abort.

 

 

Now at the topic title:

 

I think that only in extreme cases (i.e. For Hood, 9\11, Bin Laden etc.) should it be used. It's better to late the people rot in jail for 70 years no parole. While it does cause a drain on the funds of our economy... We should find a use for em. Killing em is the easy way out =\ tbh.

[warri0r45]

I'm flirting with the idea of being pro-capital punishment.

 

If a serial murderer or rapist admits to his crimes, has no remorse and psychological intervention doesn't work, I think capital punishment is a viable option. Criticisms?

[1230abcz]

It's been proven that the death sentence does very little in reducing crime rates. In actuality, there's a smaller chance for someone to die while on death row than it is for them to die on gang-infested streets. You can look that statistic up. If I were a criminal, I'd rather take my chances with a poorly put together system than on the streets where someone wearing a different set of colors than me would happily shoot me for some [cabbage]s and giggles.

 

Other than that, I say capital punishment should be eliminated. First of all, I believe that no one's aloud to dictate who lives or who dies in a system that's been known to kill people who were wrongly accused for a crime. I'm not saying let's put down our guns and not shoot terrorists who are about to blow up a bus full of children. What I am saying is that killing someone when they're no longer a threat to the general society is ethically [bleep]ed up.

[ember3579]

Warrior, that's the sort of circumstance that I believe should be what capital punishment is reserved for. When someone commits atrocities above and beyond the normal stuff, and there's no possibility for any sort of reformation, they should be exterminated before they commit another atrocity.

[1230abcz]

I'm flirting with the idea of being pro-capital punishment.

 

If a serial murderer or rapist admits to his crimes, has no remorse and psychological intervention doesn't work, I think capital punishment is a viable option. Criticisms?

 

 

A lot of people admit to crimes they haven't committed. But even then, capital punishment is much more expensive than housing a criminal in prison until they die. This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option.

[ember3579]

I'm flirting with the idea of being pro-capital punishment.

 

If a serial murderer or rapist admits to his crimes, has no remorse and psychological intervention doesn't work, I think capital punishment is a viable option. Criticisms?

 

 

A lot of people admit to crimes they haven't committed. But even then, capital punishment is much more expensive than housing a criminal in prison until they die. This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option.

 

 

This is why I believe that this sort of thing should be wrapped up in it's own sort of special court. Basically, here's the way it works. If someone's accused of a truly evil act, they go to this court. There's 3 basic outcomes of it; they're found not guilty, they're found moderately guilty (not sure of the best term for this, but basically the normal rules apply sans capital punishment), and they're found inexcusably guilty. If they're found inexcusably guilty, which would need ultimately undeniable proof that both they've committed what they're accused of and that they pose too much of a risk to be left alive, they are put to death in one of a variety of cost-efficient ways (firing squad, hanging, etc.). The time between the person being found inexcusably guilty and them being executed should be considerably short (1-5 years max) in order to finalize everything. If at some point during this time period something comes up that throws ANY doubt onto the conviction, they are transferred to a non-death row prison until either they're reconfirmed guilty or proven innocent. Please keep in mind that if they're deemed inexcusably guilty, then almost all appeals would be redundant (considering the fact that most of them are on petty [cabbage] that has nothing to do with whether or not they're guilty, they would be removed from this process except when actual evidence to innocence is presented). Would this work? Of course, anybody with power could abuse any system whatsoever, so please leave that sort of excuse out of this.

[1230abcz]

I'm flirting with the idea of being pro-capital punishment.

 

If a serial murderer or rapist admits to his crimes, has no remorse and psychological intervention doesn't work, I think capital punishment is a viable option. Criticisms?

 

 

A lot of people admit to crimes they haven't committed. But even then, capital punishment is much more expensive than housing a criminal in prison until they die. This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option.

 

 

This is why I believe that this sort of thing should be wrapped up in it's own sort of special court. Basically, here's the way it works. If someone's accused of a truly evil act, they go to this court. There's 3 basic outcomes of it; they're found not guilty, they're found moderately guilty (not sure of the best term for this, but basically the normal rules apply sans capital punishment), and they're found inexcusably guilty. If they're found inexcusably guilty, which would need ultimately undeniable proof that both they've committed what they're accused of and that they pose too much of a risk to be left alive, they are put to death in one of a variety of cost-efficient ways (firing squad, hanging, etc.). The time between the person being found inexcusably guilty and them being executed should be considerably short (1-5 years max) in order to finalize everything. If at some point during this time period something comes up that throws ANY doubt onto the conviction, they are transferred to a non-death row prison until either they're reconfirmed guilty or proven innocent. Please keep in mind that if they're deemed inexcusably guilty, then almost all appeals would be redundant (considering the fact that most of them are on petty [cabbage] that has nothing to do with whether or not they're guilty, they would be removed from this process except when actual evidence to innocence is presented). Would this work? Of course, anybody with power could abuse any system whatsoever, so please leave that sort of excuse out of this.

 

 

I think you're thinking of magic because, realistically speaking, a court that efficient and devoid of all prejudices doesn't exist, no matter how much you want one to exist. I completely agree with you that that would be the route to take if we could establish a system in which the government could enforce capital punishment efficiently and fairly, considering creating such a system doesn't require too many resources.

[warri0r45]

I'm flirting with the idea of being pro-capital punishment.

 

If a serial murderer or rapist admits to his crimes, has no remorse and psychological intervention doesn't work, I think capital punishment is a viable option. Criticisms?

 

 

A lot of people admit to crimes they haven't committed. But even then, capital punishment is much more expensive than housing a criminal in prison until they die. This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option.

 

A lot of people admit to crimes they haven't commited to get a lighter sentence. In this case the lighter sentence is death. You could argue some people will see a painless jab in the arm as the easy way out and it's not a good idea to allow this kind of exit, and to be honest I'm quite sympathetic to this view.

 

I'm aware of the economic argument against capital punishment as well.

 

The only good argument against life in prison I could think of is the chance of escape, but that's quite rare (can't remember the figures I saw a while ago - I'll have to do some research again).

 

For the most part you've reminded me why I'm against capital punishment to be honest. Still kind of on the fence though. I'll have to give it some more thought.

[1230abcz]

Instead of captial punishment, we should randomly select 200 people sentenced to death, and place them on a random (empty) island in Hawaii, surrounded by electrical walls. The island only has the resources it starts with. We just drop them there, and put some hidden cameras all over the place. All the footage gets made into a reality TV show, and two months later we return and everyone who survives is given 15 years in prison, and then freedom.

 

Damn straight.

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

Mental note: If Rocco ever becomes president, move to china.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Mental note: If Rocco ever becomes president, move to china.

I'll go to north Korea to get away from that!!

 

Edit: or even Burma.

[Grim_]

Instead of captial punishment, we should randomly select 200 people sentenced to death, and place them on a random (empty) island in Hawaii, surrounded by electrical walls. The island only has the resources it starts with. We just drop them there, and put some hidden cameras all over the place. All the footage gets made into a reality TV show, and two months later we return and everyone who survives is given 15 years in prison, and then freedom.

Are you kidding there is a much better way than that! (this violates several human rights laws and is morally despicable)

Every person who is convicted with sentance that could be construed as capitol punishment gets sent to an arena. We would then revive the gladiators and if someone survived a whole year fighting against other murderers pedos etc. (we would have to have certain brackets obviously) they would get taken out and given a good 25 years in prison. All of this would be televised and bet upon hell we could even include ring side seats! Another benefit is it would drastically reduce prison over population...

[Giordano]

Instead of captial punishment, we should randomly select 200 people sentenced to death, and place them on a random (empty) island in Hawaii, surrounded by electrical walls. The island only has the resources it starts with. We just drop them there, and put some hidden cameras all over the place. All the footage gets made into a reality TV show, and two months later we return and everyone who survives is given 15 years in prison, and then freedom.

No, just no.

 

That'll make the criminals like celebrities. Poor "Chainsaw" Bill got slapped by Steve! People will forget that these people are criminals and instead see them as their favourate reality TV show person.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Instead of captial punishment, we should randomly select 200 people sentenced to death, and place them on a random (empty) island in Hawaii, surrounded by electrical walls. The island only has the resources it starts with. We just drop them there, and put some hidden cameras all over the place. All the footage gets made into a reality TV show, and two months later we return and everyone who survives is given 15 years in prison, and then freedom.

Are you kidding there is a much better way than that! (this violates several human rights laws and is morally despicable)

Every person who is convicted with sentance that could be construed as capitol punishment gets sent to an arena. We would then revive the gladiators and if someone survived a whole year fighting against other murderers pedos etc. (we would have to have certain brackets obviously) they would get taken out and given a good 25 years in prison. All of this would be televised and bet upon hell we could even include ring side seats! Another benefit is it would drastically reduce prison over population...

I actully support this idea, the problem is that some people won't be as strong as others; last man standing? if you win you do two years in prison and get out, if you commit another crime your penis and arm are chopped off.

[Grim_]

Instead of captial punishment, we should randomly select 200 people sentenced to death, and place them on a random (empty) island in Hawaii, surrounded by electrical walls. The island only has the resources it starts with. We just drop them there, and put some hidden cameras all over the place. All the footage gets made into a reality TV show, and two months later we return and everyone who survives is given 15 years in prison, and then freedom.

Are you kidding there is a much better way than that! (this violates several human rights laws and is morally despicable)

Every person who is convicted with sentance that could be construed as capitol punishment gets sent to an arena. We would then revive the gladiators and if someone survived a whole year fighting against other murderers pedos etc. (we would have to have certain brackets obviously) they would get taken out and given a good 25 years in prison. All of this would be televised and bet upon hell we could even include ring side seats! Another benefit is it would drastically reduce prison over population...

I actully support this idea, the problem is that some people won't be as strong as others; last man standing? if you win you do two years in prison and get out, if you commit another crime your penis and arm are chopped off.

I said 25 years and if you get out and commit another crime then we would have another special event... The beast attack (The basic idea is arming the person with a melee weapon of their choice and setting them against a succession of beasts if they survive then the whole gladiator thing repeats itself)

[ember3579]

ABC, would you prefer the alternative of risking true monsters to be released into the public? I'm not expecting this to be perfect, but I'm expecting this to be better than the current system. Everything can be improved.

[Zierro]

This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option.

 

Why shouldn't they take those same measures when dealing with life sentences? To some people a life sentence is worse than a death sentence.

 

ABC, would you prefer the alternative of risking true monsters to be released into the public?

 

Not only that, but they are a threat to the other prisoners too.

[1230abcz]

ABC, would you prefer the alternative of risking true monsters to be released into the public? I'm not expecting this to be perfect, but I'm expecting this to be better than the current system. Everything can be improved.

 

No, I expect them to be kept in high security prison for life. I also expect them to work in prisons and at least pay off some of their debt to society.

 

 

This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option.

 

Why shouldn't they take those same measures when dealing with life sentences? To some people a life sentence is worse than a death sentence.

 

ABC, would you prefer the alternative of risking true monsters to be released into the public?

 

Not only that, but they are a threat to the other prisoners too.

 

 

I'm going to assume that there are factions of prisons where criminals that are high threat are also kept with criminals of the same level of threat. At the very least, I'm not worried about prisoners killing each other as much as I am of prisoners killing innocent bystanders.

[warri0r45]

This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option.

 

Why shouldn't they take those same measures when dealing with life sentences? To some people a life sentence is worse than a death sentence.

 

With a life sentence you have the change to appeal. Not so when you're dead.

 

I think this brings up an interesting question. I'm aware that the death penalty is generally considered more expensive than life in prison, but does that calculation consider appeals while in prison?

[Grim_]

I like the gladiator idea too, except we have brackets:

 

male murderer

female murderer

rapists

pedos

etc

 

and they can choose from a wide variety of weapons, but none of them are true weapons.examples

 

frying pan

letter opener

baseball bat

etc

Hmm the baseball bat would be a real weapon...

How about we let them choose from an array of household items and tools as well as some rusty old (dull) actual weapons?

[1230abcz]

This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option.

 

Why shouldn't they take those same measures when dealing with life sentences? To some people a life sentence is worse than a death sentence.

 

With a life sentence you have the change to appeal. Not so when you're dead.

 

I think this brings up an interesting question. I'm aware that the death penalty is generally considered more expensive than life in prison, but does that calculation consider appeals while in prison?

 

Yes. After a certain point, a criminal can't appeal for their case anymore and has to take their sentence or commit suicide the manly way (duct tape, Dora the Explorer episode, and condoms).