Capital punishment right or wrong?

[ember3579]

ABC, here's the problem. No containment facility is perfect. If there's any amount of monsters in a particular prison WHEN it fails, they have a high chance of going free, if only for a few days. This puts everything in the surrounding area in danger. I'd prefer to circumvent that, thanks. Although, the idea of having prisoners work while they're locked up does have merit. Maybe the level of security in the prison could determine what variety of work they're doing? For example, a minimum security prison could have gardening and trash clean-up, and a maximum security could do manufacturing and construction. In the case of minor to moderate offenders, what extra cash they made from their work (most is used to pay for their stay in the prison), they can keep so they don't have to resort to crime immediately to get themselves a place to stay and some food.

[1230abcz]

ABC, here's the problem. No containment facility is perfect. If there's any amount of monsters in a particular prison WHEN it fails, they have a high chance of going free, if only for a few days. This puts everything in the surrounding area in danger. I'd prefer to circumvent that, thanks. Although, the idea of having prisoners work while they're locked up does have merit. Maybe the level of security in the prison could determine what variety of work they're doing? For example, a minimum security prison could have gardening and trash clean-up, and a maximum security could do manufacturing and construction. In the case of minor to moderate offenders, what extra cash they made from their work (most is used to pay for their stay in the prison), they can keep so they don't have to resort to crime immediately to get themselves a place to stay and some food.

 

 

 

Or they could not die after the first few lethal injections and then go back to prison where they can escape.

 

Assuming something will happen doesn't mean we should design our system around the probability it will occur. Just the same way we should drive around with a shield over our cars assuming an asteroid could hit and kill us at any moment.

[Lenin64]

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

You actually just set the murder of a man and a women on different levels. I can't tell why.

[ember3579]

ABC, here's the problem. No containment facility is perfect. If there's any amount of monsters in a particular prison WHEN it fails, they have a high chance of going free, if only for a few days. This puts everything in the surrounding area in danger. I'd prefer to circumvent that, thanks. Although, the idea of having prisoners work while they're locked up does have merit. Maybe the level of security in the prison could determine what variety of work they're doing? For example, a minimum security prison could have gardening and trash clean-up, and a maximum security could do manufacturing and construction. In the case of minor to moderate offenders, what extra cash they made from their work (most is used to pay for their stay in the prison), they can keep so they don't have to resort to crime immediately to get themselves a place to stay and some food.

 

 

 

Or they could not die after the first few lethal injections and then go back to prison where they can escape.

 

Assuming something will happen doesn't mean we should design our system around the probability it will occur. Just the same way we should drive around with a shield over our cars assuming an asteroid could hit and kill us at any moment.

 

 

..... I have a few things to say. One, lethal injection is NOT an efficient and cost-effective method of execution, and it's too complicated for it to have minimal realistic chance of failure and infliction of agony. As such, I don't think that it should be used. Two, this isn't an unreasonable assumption. That rule only applies if it is one. Ignoring a plausible possibility (for example, a .01% chance of a medicine killing the patient) is how things go raw so often (the hypothetical drug would kill thousands if used on a wide scale).

[Dizzle229]

Best method of execution I can think of: Single shot to the windpipe. Cheap (some types of ammo are only a few cents per), and the person is guaranteed to die from it in a few minutes, and they suffer for a bit so it's not just letting them go like a headshot is.

 

I'm not 100% sure a shot to the windpipe is guaranteed to kill, maybe someone with more knowledge of this can correct me if I'm wrong.

[1230abcz]

Best method of execution I can think of: Single shot to the windpipe. Cheap (some types of ammo are only a few cents per), and the person is guaranteed to die from it in a few minutes, and they suffer for a bit so it's not just letting them go like a headshot is.

 

I'm not 100% sure a shot to the windpipe is guaranteed to kill, maybe someone with more knowledge of this can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

I think... the most ethical way to kill someone is without pain... at all... Lol. That's why hanging people was deemed illegal because people didn't always die, and it was therefore deemed cruel and unusual punishment. The windpipe thing... I have no idea what you're talking about, lol. I'm pretty sure a shot to the windpipe would sever the spine, which is just like hanging someone. They'd be instantly (or close to it)paralyzed and die from a lack of oxygen, unless it hit an artery, then the person would die from blood loss.

[Lenin64]

Man, you are really bent on them suffering some, aren't you?

 

And rocco, I totally knew that and totally did not leave the "-er" part of those words unnoticed. Nope, definitely not.

[Lateralus]

I really don't think I could be part of a state that shot people in the throat.

[Dizzle229]

Man, you are really bent on them suffering some, aren't you?

 

And rocco, I totally knew that and totally did not leave the "-er" part of those words unnoticed. Nope, definitely not.

 

What I mean is, they're criminals. If they don't suffer in their execution at all, then it's not really a sentence is it? They're not paying for their crime, just getting off the hook.

[1230abcz]

Man, you are really bent on them suffering some, aren't you?

 

And rocco, I totally knew that and totally did not leave the "-er" part of those words unnoticed. Nope, definitely not.

 

What I mean is, they're criminals. If they don't suffer in their execution at all, then it's not really a sentence is it? They're not paying for their crime, just getting off the hook.

 

 

I too consider dieing "getting off the hook." What a bunch of wusses that think dieing is horrible in everyway... BS to them.

[Zierro]

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

 

That is true. I guess you could say that a death penalty is almost objectively worse in this aspect. But what I was getting at is that I think everyone should be entitled to a fair trial. The current system, the one ABC brought up, is implying that they aren't really trying hard unless we're dealing with death sentences. Whether a man is sentenced to a year in prison or sentenced to death, the court should still strive to be as fair as possible and make sure they're not imprisoning the wrong person.

[1230abcz]

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

 

That is true. I guess you could say that a death penalty is almost objectively worse in this aspect. But what I was getting at is that I think everyone should be entitled to a fair trial. The current system, the one ABC brought up, is implying that they aren't really trying hard unless we're dealing with death sentences. Whether a man is sentenced to a year in prison or sentenced to death, the court should still strive to be as fair as possible and make sure they're not imprisoning the wrong person.

 

 

Less is obviously at risk. The difference is how much a person is willing to give up before they're just like "[bleep] it. I'm going to prison for x years," or at a point where they can't battle the court case due to financial limitations.

 

Death sentences are different because the state pays for the defendant's trails (reasonable, since States choose whether they want death sentences to be a part of their government) and because the defendant probably wont just give up and say "Eh, I might as well die." If someone is put to death and everyone figures out that it was a false trial, then it not only brings distrust into the entire system, but a very large amount of compensation would have to be paid to the victim's family. I'd expect nothing less than half of the state or an island or two. Maybe some Hawaiian islands.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Ok, heres the suggestion.

 

All people founded guilty of the "death punishable crimes" so rape, paedophilia, kidnapp, torture, trolling, murder and something else but I forgot.

they are in brackets like this

 

Older female

Younger female

Older male

Younger male

 

they are then made to fight in a city, this city is a damaged city; just so you don't have to pay much for the arena and all, it has an electrfied fence on the outside and security camera's and such all around; this is broadcasted on live television every night to show people what happens if you commit crimes, there are many weapons scattered around the arena; these are basically just things from the scrapyard to cut down cost. to spice it up there are two things which could act as funders for this.

A~ different arena types: minefields, fiery and other.

B~ allowing people to make robots, like in robot wars for a small sum to help the aid of execution

[Lateralus]

Ok, heres the suggestion.

 

All people founded guilty of the "death punishable crimes" so rape, paedophilia, kidnapp, torture, trolling, murder and something else but I forgot.

they are in brackets like this

 

Older female

Younger female

Older male

Younger male

 

they are then made to fight in a city, this city is a damaged city; just so you don't have to pay much for the arena and all, it has an electrfied fence on the outside and security camera's and such all around; this is broadcasted on live television every night to show people what happens if you commit crimes, there are many weapons scattered around the arena; these are basically just things from the scrapyard to cut down cost. to spice it up there are two things which could act as funders for this.

A~ different arena types: minefields, fiery and other.

B~ allowing people to make robots, like in robot wars for a small sum to help the aid of execution

 

This particular idea is extremely stupid, but on the subject of public executions...

 

In Discipline and Punish, Foucalt makes the point that public executions provide a means for the public to become sympathetic towards prisoners (and even in some cases empathy, admiration or worship), and public torture and executions lead to riots in support of the prisoner in some cases. Keeping executions behind closed doors makes things run much more smoothly.

[warren211]

I have a bunch of things to say about this issue and i'm not sure how to word them into one fluent reading, so I'll just write them out in a bunch of segments and hope you all can draw enough conclusions from them.

 

Several of the past few posts only prove that capital punishment is vengeance, not justice. If someone was a serial killer, does killing him do ANY justice for the victims who are already beyond this world? I mean, how do they benefit? How do their families benefit? At least in jail, justice has been served guarenteed (provided that the right person was jailed of course) and for all you suffering-hungry kids out there, the criminals will be suffering if they're put in there for decades or even the rest of their lives. They do no good to anyone when they're dead.

 

In jail, they have the opportunity to see the wrongs of their lives and right them. Many famous people have found the right way in prison, like Malcolm X who found God (through Islam) in prison and became a renowned civil rights leader (albeit he did have rather violent opinions on how the civil rights movement should be done, he still became a martyr for his cause in the end). If a criminal is executed, he can't do himself or anyone else any good.

 

We common people can't even agree on the purpose of jail and capital punishment, so how can we decide if capital punishment is better in any situation? Is the purpose of jail to rehabilitate the criminal, or to punish them, or to segregate them and their dangerous actions from the rest of society? And is the purpose of capital punishment to efficiently remove dastardly, criminals from the world, or again to punish them? Some of you may say that both imprisonment and execution have a bunch of purposes combined into them, but in that case we would have an even bigger issue over when exactly to use capital punishment vs jailtime since their purposes fluctuate so largely.

 

And finally, capital punishment is irreversible. Therefore, if the wrong person is tried and executed and new technology of the future proves him innocent, its too late. A decade ago former Governor George Ryan of my home state Illinois made a statement after 5 people were released from death row because new evidence proved them innocent. He spoke that he would never allow capital punishment in our state for as long as there is even a sliver of doubt that they could not have done it, no matter what the evidence amounts to in their trial. Governor Ryan was later caught in a corruption scandal, but even a person like him who lost his political morals still had the sense to see that death is never the perfect option for accused criminals.

[ember3579]

Let me clarify on my opinions of the legal system. Its purpose should be first and foremost to ensure that dangerous people are not allowed to run wild, and second to reform those that can be reformed. There should be systems in place on every level to assist the criminals to no longer be criminals. Right now, the majority of people in prison are non-violent offenders, and are (comparatively) easily returned to normalcy. Even the violent offenders are redeemable in a lot of cases. However, acting like all people can be saved if given time is a ludicrous idea, and can prove costly in more ways than one. We need to identify these people, and make sure they don't get the chance to destroy any more innocent lives than they already have. If this means an explosive frontal lobotomy by way of hot lead, so be it. The purpose of capital punishment isn't to cast vengeance on people, it is to make sure a rabid dog doesn't maul anybody else. Do you get my point?

[1230abcz]

I've changed my entire views about capital punishment over the course of one day. I believe that people who have committed horrible crimes should die and not have to suffer for their crimes. That's how it should work from now on. Discuss.

[ember3579]

..... Are you even reading my posts, dude? I'm sorry, but my troll detector just went off with that post, and I need to double check.

[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.

 

 

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

 

Wow... You are wrong about the self aware part. Even still, adoption is possible. You are essentially vindicating murder on grounds of a person being unaware.

 

Also, people can commit 'unpardonable" sins. There are things which are so evil, you do not deserve to live if you commit them. Those people you kill/ rape, what about them?We shouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting people who have committed such atrocities. Now, I am not advocating the death sentence in every case, but it should be an option, especially in cases of repeat offends, or multiple murders/etc. (The man who tied up a family, and strangled them one by one with venetian blinds, does he deserve a chance to repent? I think not.) You can get fired from a job for doing wrong, such as stealing or lying. Sure, you can repent and no longer commit those acts, but that doesn't mean your boss will rehire you. You lost your chance.

[1230abcz]

..... Are you even reading my posts, dude? I'm sorry, but my troll detector just went off with that post, and I need to double check.

 

It was just a response to the entire thread.

 

 

 

 

 

Let me clarify on my opinions of the legal system. Its purpose should be first and foremost to ensure that dangerous people are not allowed to run wild, and second to reform those that can be reformed. There should be systems in place on every level to assist the criminals to no longer be criminals. Right now, the majority of people in prison are non-violent offenders, and are (comparatively) easily returned to normalcy. Even the violent offenders are redeemable in a lot of cases. However, acting like all people can be saved if given time is a ludicrous idea, and can prove costly in more ways than one. We need to identify these people, and make sure they don't get the chance to destroy any more innocent lives than they already have. If this means an explosive frontal lobotomy by way of hot lead, so be it. The purpose of capital punishment isn't to cast vengeance on people, it is to make sure a rabid dog doesn't maul anybody else. Do you get my point?

 

I'll respond to this.

 

 

Here's my definition of the prison/capital punishment system.

 

 

Prison: Meant to keep dangerous people away from society; not from other dangerous people. If two murderers want to have a brawl at each other even under the common knowledge that they're currently under lock down, then so be it; let them have their fun.

 

Capital Punishment (CP): Kill people for crimes they've committed.

 

 

 

I've pointed out why CP is pointless, but I'll paraphrase the most important one, in my opinion.

 

It's not ethical in anyway to MURDER someone for something they're currently being detained for. If they're not a threat to society, there's no reasonable justification to kill them. Why not just use them for labor so they can give something back to society? If it were up to me, I'd make them clean up national parks under very close supervision or even have them make some raw products.

 

Assuming that someone might escape while in prison is just idiotic. I'm not calling you an idiot, but basing an entire system around the probability of something occurring undermines entire system in itself. Why have a free market at all if we know it's going to crash and burn sooner or later?

 

CP is very expensive and inaccurate. I can easily name more than 10 people who have been wrongfully killed for not doing anything. The same goes for people who are on death row but haven't been killed; A LOT of them get off because they didn't actually commit the crime they were prosecuted for or it was deemed that their crime wasn't harsh enough to justify CP. My question is, what if they were killed? Suck for them I guess, right?

[Zierro]

Assuming that someone might escape while in prison is just idiotic. I'm not calling you an idiot, but basing an entire system around the probability of something occurring undermines entire system in itself. Why have a free market at all if we know it's going to crash and burn sooner or later?

 

CP is very expensive and inaccurate. I can easily name more than 10 people who have been wrongfully killed for not doing anything. The same goes for people who are on death row but haven't been killed; A LOT of them get off because they didn't actually commit the crime they were prosecuted for or it was deemed that their crime wasn't harsh enough to justify CP. My question is, what if they were killed? Suck for them I guess, right?

 

People have escaped jail before, just like people have been wrongfully sentenced to death. They are both pretty rare occasions if you ask me, but that doesn't mean they should be overlooked.

[Dizzle229]

If you force them do do labor, they most likely won't make up for what it costs to keep them alive. In the end, society is still paying for a worthless individual.

 

As for things like murder: If someone is 100% known to have murdered someone (caught on camera, stuff like that), then that person should be cheaply executed by gunshot. In my eyes, if you murder someone, you have no right to continue breathing. Period.

 

Of course, cases like this where it's 100% sure are rare, but not to be forgotten.

[Blutters]

If we are exclusively considering capital punishment as it is applied to murder sentences then it's really not too effective. The victim is dead. Until we can bring back the dead, they're a lost cause. They're really not able to appreciate the law's wrath on their murderer. From that, if we say the person kills one, two, forty, the death toll is just rising from killing them. People make decisions, and with murderers, often the wrong ones, but they're still alive. Maybe rather than kill them or lock them away, either of which serves no purpose, they could be reeducated. Re-tuned. Changed to make the right decisions. And then released and refit into the public.

The dead are a lost cause but the living are not...

[ember3579]

Let me clarify on my opinions of the legal system. Its purpose should be first and foremost to ensure that dangerous people are not allowed to run wild, and second to reform those that can be reformed. There should be systems in place on every level to assist the criminals to no longer be criminals. Right now, the majority of people in prison are non-violent offenders, and are (comparatively) easily returned to normalcy. Even the violent offenders are redeemable in a lot of cases. However, acting like all people can be saved if given time is a ludicrous idea, and can prove costly in more ways than one. We need to identify these people, and make sure they don't get the chance to destroy any more innocent lives than they already have. If this means an explosive frontal lobotomy by way of hot lead, so be it. The purpose of capital punishment isn't to cast vengeance on people, it is to make sure a rabid dog doesn't maul anybody else. Do you get my point?

 

I'll respond to this.

 

 

Here's my definition of the prison/capital punishment system.

 

 

Prison: Meant to keep dangerous people away from society; not from other dangerous people. If two murderers want to have a brawl at each other even under the common knowledge that they're currently under lock down, then so be it; let them have their fun.

 

Capital Punishment (CP): Kill people for crimes they've committed.

 

 

 

I've pointed out why CP is pointless, but I'll paraphrase the most important one, in my opinion.

 

It's not ethical in anyway to MURDER someone for something they're currently being detained for. If they're not a threat to society, there's no reasonable justification to kill them. Why not just use them for labor so they can give something back to society? If it were up to me, I'd make them clean up national parks under very close supervision or even have them make some raw products.

 

Assuming that someone might escape while in prison is just idiotic. I'm not calling you an idiot, but basing an entire system around the probability of something occurring undermines entire system in itself. Why have a free market at all if we know it's going to crash and burn sooner or later?

 

CP is very expensive and inaccurate. I can easily name more than 10 people who have been wrongfully killed for not doing anything. The same goes for people who are on death row but haven't been killed; A LOT of them get off because they didn't actually commit the crime they were prosecuted for or it was deemed that their crime wasn't harsh enough to justify CP. My question is, what if they were killed? Suck for them I guess, right?

 

 

Thanks for responding. Anyway, I'll get on with my rebuttal.

 

 

I'm not considering ethics in this particular case. In my eyes, the things that people who this would apply to have rescinded their right to ethical treatment and mercy by way of destroying another person(s) physically and/or mentally. Once it gets to this point, and it is certain that they have absolutely no remorse and no good reason for it (don't get cute with this, you know what I'm talking about), then they have revoked their own claim to humanity and should be regarded as such.

 

Deny it all you will, but prison escapes and other acts (hostile takeovers by inmates, for example) DO happen, if only on a limited basis. I want to limit the impact of those as much as is feasibly possible. One method of that is to take the most dangerous offenders (the true monsters) and remove them from the equation entirely. To go with your "free market" analogy, it would be like taking a rotted-out building and deconstructing it rather than risk its eventual collapse damaging surrounding structures and people.

 

Capital punishment is expensive and inaccurate for two reasons. One, the officials in charge absolutely insist on the more complex and expensive disposal methods (namely, lethal injection). Switching these out for something both quick and efficient (for example, a bullet to the brain) should fix that problem nicely. Two, these cases are in all examples drawn out needlessly. A large portion of appeals are on things entirely unrelated to the crime itself, and just multiply the costs while failing to do their job entirely. Refining the original process itself to the point that appeals become redundant is the best counter to this.

 

I'm not advocating capital punishment as it is. I'm advocating a refurbishment of the entire system surrounding it, making it more efficient, effective, and cheap. The current way of doing it is costly, both in money and in innocent blood.

[1230abcz]

Assuming that someone might escape while in prison is just idiotic. I'm not calling you an idiot, but basing an entire system around the probability of something occurring undermines entire system in itself. Why have a free market at all if we know it's going to crash and burn sooner or later?

 

CP is very expensive and inaccurate. I can easily name more than 10 people who have been wrongfully killed for not doing anything. The same goes for people who are on death row but haven't been killed; A LOT of them get off because they didn't actually commit the crime they were prosecuted for or it was deemed that their crime wasn't harsh enough to justify CP. My question is, what if they were killed? Suck for them I guess, right?

 

People have escaped jail before, just like people have been wrongfully sentenced to death. They are both pretty rare occasions if you ask me, but that doesn't mean they should be overlooked.

 

 

I agree, it shouldn't, but it also shouldn't be fixed with an entire revamping of the system. Why not just more security? More workers? Doesn't the economy need more jobs? Bam, I just made a few thousand extra jobs.

 

 

If you force them do do labor, they most likely won't make up for what it costs to keep them alive. In the end, society is still paying for a worthless individual.

 

As for things like murder: If someone is 100% known to have murdered someone (caught on camera, stuff like that), then that person should be cheaply executed by gunshot. In my eyes, if you murder someone, you have no right to continue breathing. Period.

 

Of course, cases like this where it's 100% sure are rare, but not to be forgotten.

 

See next quote for response. Limited time only. Read now and get another response for only half the price.

 

 

Let me clarify on my opinions of the legal system. Its purpose should be first and foremost to ensure that dangerous people are not allowed to run wild, and second to reform those that can be reformed. There should be systems in place on every level to assist the criminals to no longer be criminals. Right now, the majority of people in prison are non-violent offenders, and are (comparatively) easily returned to normalcy. Even the violent offenders are redeemable in a lot of cases. However, acting like all people can be saved if given time is a ludicrous idea, and can prove costly in more ways than one. We need to identify these people, and make sure they don't get the chance to destroy any more innocent lives than they already have. If this means an explosive frontal lobotomy by way of hot lead, so be it. The purpose of capital punishment isn't to cast vengeance on people, it is to make sure a rabid dog doesn't maul anybody else. Do you get my point?

 

I'll respond to this.

 

 

Here's my definition of the prison/capital punishment system.

 

 

Prison: Meant to keep dangerous people away from society; not from other dangerous people. If two murderers want to have a brawl at each other even under the common knowledge that they're currently under lock down, then so be it; let them have their fun.

 

Capital Punishment (CP): Kill people for crimes they've committed.

 

 

 

I've pointed out why CP is pointless, but I'll paraphrase the most important one, in my opinion.

 

It's not ethical in anyway to MURDER someone for something they're currently being detained for. If they're not a threat to society, there's no reasonable justification to kill them. Why not just use them for labor so they can give something back to society? If it were up to me, I'd make them clean up national parks under very close supervision or even have them make some raw products.

 

Assuming that someone might escape while in prison is just idiotic. I'm not calling you an idiot, but basing an entire system around the probability of something occurring undermines entire system in itself. Why have a free market at all if we know it's going to crash and burn sooner or later?

 

CP is very expensive and inaccurate. I can easily name more than 10 people who have been wrongfully killed for not doing anything. The same goes for people who are on death row but haven't been killed; A LOT of them get off because they didn't actually commit the crime they were prosecuted for or it was deemed that their crime wasn't harsh enough to justify CP. My question is, what if they were killed? Suck for them I guess, right?

 

 

Thanks for responding. Anyway, I'll get on with my rebuttal.

 

 

I'm not considering ethics in this particular case. In my eyes, the things that people who this would apply to have rescinded their right to ethical treatment and mercy by way of destroying another person(s) physically and/or mentally. Once it gets to this point, and it is certain that they have absolutely no remorse and no good reason for it (don't get cute with this, you know what I'm talking about), then they have revoked their own claim to humanity and should be regarded as such.

 

Deny it all you will, but prison escapes and other acts (hostile takeovers by inmates, for example) DO happen, if only on a limited basis. I want to limit the impact of those as much as is feasibly possible. One method of that is to take the most dangerous offenders (the true monsters) and remove them from the equation entirely. To go with your "free market" analogy, it would be like taking a rotted-out building and deconstructing it rather than risk its eventual collapse damaging surrounding structures and people.

 

Capital punishment is expensive and inaccurate for two reasons. One, the officials in charge absolutely insist on the more complex and expensive disposal methods (namely, lethal injection). Switching these out for something both quick and efficient (for example, a bullet to the brain) should fix that problem nicely. Two, these cases are in all examples drawn out needlessly. A large portion of appeals are on things entirely unrelated to the crime itself, and just multiply the costs while failing to do their job entirely. Refining the original process itself to the point that appeals become redundant is the best counter to this.

 

I'm not advocating capital punishment as it is. I'm advocating a refurbishment of the entire system surrounding it, making it more efficient, effective, and cheap. The current way of doing it is costly, both in money and in innocent blood.

 

 

Wow, you scare me. I really hope that later on in life you don't teach these things to your kids; seriously. These are the kinds of things that defy the main purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

First of all, what do you mean you're not considering ethics? Isn't that the point of everything that creates society? Do you know what would happen if we didn't take into account ethics when we punished criminals (even the most horrendous)? I'll tell you. Guantanamo Bay. Torture. Stalin. Hitler. Loss of the 8th amendment in our Bill of Rights. And before you respond to my way of slippery slopes, I'll just tell you straight up: most of the things you said are by no means what's represented by a fair and just trail system. Ethics are what define our society as human, and no, I'm not getting cute with you.

 

People make stupid mistakes; people even tend to kill others on basis of irrational thought (read Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcom Gladwell, it's a really good read). Even if they lose all morals and have no remorse for their actions, they haven't given up their right to live, which is what this entire argument is about. I don't know what you think about human character, but I KNOW people aren't mindless killing machines that, once past a certain point, must be killed off for the betterment of society.

 

Here's something you said: "it would be like taking a rotted-out building and deconstructing it rather than risk its eventual collapse damaging surrounding structures and people." No. That doesn't apply. I don't know how you managed to make "killing people" in a user-friendly euphemism, but you did it; somehow. It's like saying you should go about destroying a building with expensive explosives because it MIGHT collapse through a protective wall and hurt innocent bystanders. You could however not risk killing the innocent and go destroy the building, but you run an even greater risk of accidentally destroying a hundred billion dollar building (yes, human life is priceless) on the assumption that there might be a crack in the structure or a small mishap. Instead of going about trying to fix the crack or contain the collapsing building, you decide to destroy it through a long and tedious process that's been proven to not work. Was that a long enough analogy?

 

What you said was that there have been prison escapes, yes, I wont argue with that. But what you are saying is that we should just not bother with dangerous prison inmates and kill them off without any remorse or pity, and I thoroughly disagree with that, with passion. I don't know how to say it, but this very thought irks me. It's not even about a logical debate anymore; it's about what you define to be a fair system of punishment. What I do know is that I have thousands of years of history that tells me that killing people without pity is just as bad as killing innocent people. I'd cite this, but I expect you to look it up yourself, and I'm not being lazy either.

 

The worst part about your post was this: "Capital punishment is expensive and inaccurate for two reasons. One, the officials in charge absolutely insist on the more complex and expensive disposal methods (namely, lethal injection). Switching these out for something both quick and efficient (for example, a bullet to the brain) should fix that problem nicely." Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but, I'm sorry to say, your opinion is wrong. It wont fix up any problem nicely. Read back to my previous posts. The 8th amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments, and shooting people in the brain is by no means fair and painless. I half-expect you to say that people who had no remorse in killing other human beings shouldn't be given the same remorse when it comes to their punishment, but I really hope you don't. This just entails that you don't care enough about human life; that you'd rather just be rid of it instead of trying to preserve it. Violence only creates more violence; there's no just cause in killing another person when there are other, more viable options to pursue.

 

You want to refurbish the entire punishment system? OK. Why not stop putting people in jail for life for three counts of robbery, illegal drug possession, and light assault? This way, prisons wouldn't be as crowded as they are today and the people who truly deserve to be quarantined from society could be supervised with close scrutiny. An even better solution would be to create higher levels of high security prison with more guards and defense gates that fully debilitate the escapees. There are many non-violent methods to prevent prison inmates from escaping that are currently in use by the military in violent, terrorist-ridden areas that work extremely effectively (a directed sound beam that can shatter someone's ear drums from a few hundred feet away would work beautifully). Why go about killing people when you can do these things instead?