Capital punishment right or wrong?

[ember3579]

1) 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.

 

2) 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.

 

3) 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?

 

4) 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.

 

5) 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.

 

6) 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?

 

I'll number these so you know which I'm talking about with each.

 

1) No, that's not what I'm talking about. Let me give you an example. You like your dog, right? What would you do if he came down with rabies? You'd set your love of the family pet aside and put him down, so he doesn't hurt anybody else. It's a similar thing with the "people" I'm talking about.

 

2) I'm not wanting to use this for the people who make stupid mistakes. I'm wanting to use capital punishment for the true monsters of society. The people I'm talking about are the kind who'd massacre everyone they can just because they like the look of internal organs on their hands, or the people who'd enslave dozens of innocent children for their own profit. THOSE are the kind of people I'm wanting to see excised from humanity. This is what I'm talking about when I think of people who relinquished their claim to humanity.

 

3) This is essentially a retelling of the previous one, but alright. Again, I'm not talking about the people who have made mistakes (the buildings with small cracks in the structure). I'm talking about the people who are little more than animals in regard to their actions (the buildings that are one feather away from crashing to the ground). There is a HUGE difference in my eyes, and they should be treated as such. One can (and should) be repaired, and the other should be removed before it damages/destroys surrounding buildings.

 

4) The people I'm referring to are above and beyond "dangerous prison inmates". These are the people who'd kill anybody just because it's fun. If they're kept anywhere near the redeemable inmates, they can either corrupt or kill them with altogether minimal difficulty. This is an argument for having separate prisons for various crime types, but that's a different discussion.

 

5) Technically, no method of execution ever is painless. However, it is undeniable that a headshot is quick, and is cheap. Also, in the cases that I'm thinking about in reference to capital punishment, there is no other reasonable course of action besides complete lockdown of the inmate for the duration of their life in some underground bunker beneath the ocean. That's the only thing that I can think of that would be damn near inescapable, but I think you can see the problems with that.

 

6) I agree with removing (or at least retooling) the 3 strikes rule in altogether minor cases. I'm also in favor of the creation of higher security prisons for the worse criminals. However, the military prison idea wouldn't work very well unless if kept in a very out-of-the-way place and manned by actual military. The reason being that sort of prison is above and beyond the capacity for normal civilian groups to handle, both in terms of money and clearance (being able to use this stuff in a safe/efficient manner). This would be a somewhat larger money sink than any other prison, too. Do the (forgive the movie references) Freddy Krugers and Michael Myers of this world REALLY deserve that sort of special attention?

[1230abcz]

1) 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.

 

2) 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.

 

3) 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?

 

4) 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.

 

5) 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.

 

6) 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?

 

I'll number these so you know which I'm talking about with each.

 

1) No, that's not what I'm talking about. Let me give you an example. You like your dog, right? What would you do if he came down with rabies? You'd set your love of the family pet aside and put him down, so he doesn't hurt anybody else. It's a similar thing with the "people" I'm talking about.

 

2) I'm not wanting to use this for the people who make stupid mistakes. I'm wanting to use capital punishment for the true monsters of society. The people I'm talking about are the kind who'd massacre everyone they can just because they like the look of internal organs on their hands, or the people who'd enslave dozens of innocent children for their own profit. THOSE are the kind of people I'm wanting to see excised from humanity. This is what I'm talking about when I think of people who relinquished their claim to humanity.

 

3) This is essentially a retelling of the previous one, but alright. Again, I'm not talking about the people who have made mistakes (the buildings with small cracks in the structure). I'm talking about the people who are little more than animals in regard to their actions (the buildings that are one feather away from crashing to the ground). There is a HUGE difference in my eyes, and they should be treated as such. One can (and should) be repaired, and the other should be removed before it damages/destroys surrounding buildings.

 

4) The people I'm referring to are above and beyond "dangerous prison inmates". These are the people who'd kill anybody just because it's fun. If they're kept anywhere near the redeemable inmates, they can either corrupt or kill them with altogether minimal difficulty. This is an argument for having separate prisons for various crime types, but that's a different discussion.

 

5) Technically, no method of execution ever is painless. However, it is undeniable that a headshot is quick, and is cheap. Also, in the cases that I'm thinking about in reference to capital punishment, there is no other reasonable course of action besides complete lockdown of the inmate for the duration of their life in some underground bunker beneath the ocean. That's the only thing that I can think of that would be damn near inescapable, but I think you can see the problems with that.

 

6) I agree with removing (or at least retooling) the 3 strikes rule in altogether minor cases. I'm also in favor of the creation of higher security prisons for the worse criminals. However, the military prison idea wouldn't work very well unless if kept in a very out-of-the-way place and manned by actual military. The reason being that sort of prison is above and beyond the capacity for normal civilian groups to handle, both in terms of money and clearance (being able to use this stuff in a safe/efficient manner). This would be a somewhat larger money sink than any other prison, too. Do the (forgive the movie references) Freddy Krugers and Michael Myers of this world REALLY deserve that sort of special attention?

 

 

This is going to be a huge page now, lol.

 

 

 

1.)Bad example. The dog will die eventually; painfully. If I had a choice of keeping the dog under "prison," and give it the chance to live, then I would. Prison inmates aren't going to eventually die, in a sense, but they can be kept in a prison, away from people they can hurt. Also, I hereby end the use of analogies. They suck.

 

2,3,4,5.) Killing people, not matter how dangerous they are, shouldn't be exercised, but this is just a matter of personal ethics. You're saying that people should be killed cheaply, efficiently, and quickly, right? But, answer this, how can a court system (short of being magical) ever be perfect in the sense that people are never wrongfully executed? Even after spending close to a hundred million on capital punishment cases, people STILL get killed for things they haven't done. You might say that it could be reserved for people who are undeniably caught in the act (on a video or whatever), but then the obvious question is how should we kill them? The reason we spend so much money for capital punishment is because it's meant to be painless. It has been argued that lethal injections are painful, but they paralyze every muscle in the body, effectively destroying all capabilities to feel pain, so any pain that is felt is psychological. Even if it is painful, it doesn't mean we should condone such acts just because they are the LEAST painful. The Constitution protects against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, so this procedure has to be taken so that it's not violated. Gas chambers also work -- new methods are painless and effective -- but they're even more expensive than lethal injections because criminals need to be housed in special chambers so that gases don't leak out in large quantities, which could be harmful to communities or animals within a few miles. Putting a bullet through someone's head wont work... At all. I'm assuming you think it's painless, but it's not. People survive bullets to the brain a lot, and anyone that does is left a vegetable. Think of how expensive it would be for the government to keep a person in a permanent vegetative state alive forever because an execution didn't go as planned? Also, it's not painless. Shooting the brain doesn't mean all nerve endings are automatically cut off; it just means that whatever the bullet damaged wont function. All pain is felt through nerves, which go up the spine, and into the the brain to register pain; if you shoot the brain directly, it causes massive pain to go throughout the entire body until the person dies (if they die). Any methods that might be quick aren't exactly painless, so the entire idea of capital punishment for a select few is too expensive. Even if there was a way to do this, there aren't many prison inmates who are complete monsters of humanity, and creating an entire branch of the government to deal with them is useless.

 

6.) Branching off from that, the only viable solution is to either abandon all sense of ethics and go on a killing spree, or create a higher level of prison, where only a few hundred hundred inmates are kept (Alcatraz) and are kept under tight lock down. There's no need for the military or a special police forces to deal with these people, only normal prison guards with technology developed by many private and military companies that create non-lethal weapons. If inmates were to ever escape, all the guards would have to do is release some tear gas, turn on a siren that can easily shatter the ear drums of the escapees, and subdue them with force (maybe some high voltage in the form of tasers). There are a lot of options, and all of them are economically and ethically better than capital punishment.

[ember3579]

This is going to be a huge page now, lol.

 

 

 

1.)Bad example. The dog will die eventually; painfully. If I had a choice of keeping the dog under "prison," and give it the chance to live, then I would. Prison inmates aren't going to eventually die, in a sense, but they can be kept in a prison, away from people they can hurt. Also, I hereby end the use of analogies. They suck.

 

2,3,4,5.) Killing people, not matter how dangerous they are, shouldn't be exercised, but this is just a matter of personal ethics. You're saying that people should be killed cheaply, efficiently, and quickly, right? But, answer this, how can a court system (short of being magical) ever be perfect in the sense that people are never wrongfully executed? Even after spending close to a hundred million on capital punishment cases, people STILL get killed for things they haven't done. You might say that it could be reserved for people who are undeniably caught in the act (on a video or whatever), but then the obvious question is how should we kill them? The reason we spend so much money for capital punishment is because it's meant to be painless. It has been argued that lethal injections are painful, but they paralyze every muscle in the body, effectively destroying all capabilities to feel pain, so any pain that is felt is psychological. Even if it is painful, it doesn't mean we should condone such acts just because they are the LEAST painful. The Constitution protects against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, so this procedure has to be taken so that it's not violated. Gas chambers also work -- new methods are painless and effective -- but they're even more expensive than lethal injections because criminals need to be housed in special chambers so that gases don't leak out in large quantities, which could be harmful to communities or animals within a few miles. Putting a bullet through someone's head wont work... At all. I'm assuming you think it's painless, but it's not. People survive bullets to the brain a lot, and anyone that does is left a vegetable. Think of how expensive it would be for the government to keep a person in a permanent vegetative state alive forever because an execution didn't go as planned? Also, it's not painless. Shooting the brain doesn't mean all nerve endings are automatically cut off; it just means that whatever the bullet damaged wont function. All pain is felt through nerves, which go up the spine, and into the the brain to register pain; if you shoot the brain directly, it causes massive pain to go throughout the entire body until the person dies (if they die). Any methods that might be quick aren't exactly painless, so the entire idea of capital punishment for a select few is too expensive. Even if there was a way to do this, there aren't many prison inmates who are complete monsters of humanity, and creating an entire branch of the government to deal with them is useless.

 

6.) Branching off from that, the only viable solution is to either abandon all sense of ethics and go on a killing spree, or create a higher level of prison, where only a few hundred hundred inmates are kept (Alcatraz) and are kept under tight lock down. There's no need for the military or a special police forces to deal with these people, only normal prison guards with technology developed by many private and military companies that create non-lethal weapons. If inmates were to ever escape, all the guards would have to do is release some tear gas, turn on a siren that can easily shatter the ear drums of the escapees, and subdue them with force (maybe some high voltage in the form of tasers). There are a lot of options, and all of them are economically and ethically better than capital punishment.

 

 

Yes, yes it is. This IS a very hot topic for people in general.

 

1) The dog's not what I'm worried about. What I'm worried about is how many people they're going to maul before they're subdued and/or put down. Ultra-high aggression is one of the symptoms of rabies in animals, which is why I used that analogy. The people I'm wanting CP to apply to are that sort.

 

2A) As I said previous, CP should be reserved exclusively for the cases that it's undeniable that the person(s) in question committed the atrocities they're accused of doing (video being one example, and a few other situational examples). This would remove the chance of a wrongful execution almost entirely.

 

2B) That's the purpose of a double-tap, in case they're not dead from the first shot. Also, we don't need some sort of Saw-like Rube Goldberg machine of death in order to ensure that the person is executed in as quick and painless a way as possible. If a simple double-tap wouldn't work, then maybe a cheap explosive to vaporize the head might cut it. Wouldn't be a pretty sight OR an easy cleanup (unless if the room is designed for that), but it would be pretty painless (head is destroyed before pain is felt).

 

6) When it comes to these sorts of people, if execution is not an option, then I feel that the only thing sensible is to take every possible measure in order to guarantee that nobody or nothing will ever get out of the prison in question without proper and legal authorization. One of the better ways to do that is to put said prison in a place where nobody can get to or off it without serious hardware and have it soaked to the gills with United States military. Nobody short of a Terminator would be able to even swing at a guard without being wtfpwnt before they can blink. The same can't always be said about regular guards, as evidenced by how often prison riots and takeovers occur around the world (and often in places a lot more hardcore than American prisons).

 

 

Thanks for toning down the condescending attitude in your recent post. It was starting to get irritating, but you seem to have caught it on your own.

[Furah]

1.)Bad example. The dog will die eventually; painfully. If I had a choice of keeping the dog under "prison," and give it the chance to live, then I would. Prison inmates aren't going to eventually die, in a sense, but they can be kept in a prison, away from people they can hurt. Also, I hereby end the use of analogies. They suck.

You're a cruel [bleep]. Doing that is going to mentally and physically torment the dog until it does.

[1230abcz]

This is going to be a huge page now, lol.

 

 

 

1.)Bad example. The dog will die eventually; painfully. If I had a choice of keeping the dog under "prison," and give it the chance to live, then I would. Prison inmates aren't going to eventually die, in a sense, but they can be kept in a prison, away from people they can hurt. Also, I hereby end the use of analogies. They suck.

 

2,3,4,5.) Killing people, not matter how dangerous they are, shouldn't be exercised, but this is just a matter of personal ethics. You're saying that people should be killed cheaply, efficiently, and quickly, right? But, answer this, how can a court system (short of being magical) ever be perfect in the sense that people are never wrongfully executed? Even after spending close to a hundred million on capital punishment cases, people STILL get killed for things they haven't done. You might say that it could be reserved for people who are undeniably caught in the act (on a video or whatever), but then the obvious question is how should we kill them? The reason we spend so much money for capital punishment is because it's meant to be painless. It has been argued that lethal injections are painful, but they paralyze every muscle in the body, effectively destroying all capabilities to feel pain, so any pain that is felt is psychological. Even if it is painful, it doesn't mean we should condone such acts just because they are the LEAST painful. The Constitution protects against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, so this procedure has to be taken so that it's not violated. Gas chambers also work -- new methods are painless and effective -- but they're even more expensive than lethal injections because criminals need to be housed in special chambers so that gases don't leak out in large quantities, which could be harmful to communities or animals within a few miles. Putting a bullet through someone's head wont work... At all. I'm assuming you think it's painless, but it's not. People survive bullets to the brain a lot, and anyone that does is left a vegetable. Think of how expensive it would be for the government to keep a person in a permanent vegetative state alive forever because an execution didn't go as planned? Also, it's not painless. Shooting the brain doesn't mean all nerve endings are automatically cut off; it just means that whatever the bullet damaged wont function. All pain is felt through nerves, which go up the spine, and into the the brain to register pain; if you shoot the brain directly, it causes massive pain to go throughout the entire body until the person dies (if they die). Any methods that might be quick aren't exactly painless, so the entire idea of capital punishment for a select few is too expensive. Even if there was a way to do this, there aren't many prison inmates who are complete monsters of humanity, and creating an entire branch of the government to deal with them is useless.

 

6.) Branching off from that, the only viable solution is to either abandon all sense of ethics and go on a killing spree, or create a higher level of prison, where only a few hundred hundred inmates are kept (Alcatraz) and are kept under tight lock down. There's no need for the military or a special police forces to deal with these people, only normal prison guards with technology developed by many private and military companies that create non-lethal weapons. If inmates were to ever escape, all the guards would have to do is release some tear gas, turn on a siren that can easily shatter the ear drums of the escapees, and subdue them with force (maybe some high voltage in the form of tasers). There are a lot of options, and all of them are economically and ethically better than capital punishment.

 

 

Yes, yes it is. This IS a very hot topic for people in general.

 

1) The dog's not what I'm worried about. What I'm worried about is how many people they're going to maul before they're subdued and/or put down. Ultra-high aggression is one of the symptoms of rabies in animals, which is why I used that analogy. The people I'm wanting CP to apply to are that sort.

 

2A) As I said previous, CP should be reserved exclusively for the cases that it's undeniable that the person(s) in question committed the atrocities they're accused of doing (video being one example, and a few other situational examples). This would remove the chance of a wrongful execution almost entirely.

 

2B) That's the purpose of a double-tap, in case they're not dead from the first shot. Also, we don't need some sort of Saw-like Rube Goldberg machine of death in order to ensure that the person is executed in as quick and painless a way as possible. If a simple double-tap wouldn't work, then maybe a cheap explosive to vaporize the head might cut it. Wouldn't be a pretty sight OR an easy cleanup (unless if the room is designed for that), but it would be pretty painless (head is destroyed before pain is felt).

 

6) When it comes to these sorts of people, if execution is not an option, then I feel that the only thing sensible is to take every possible measure in order to guarantee that nobody or nothing will ever get out of the prison in question without proper and legal authorization. One of the better ways to do that is to put said prison in a place where nobody can get to or off it without serious hardware and have it soaked to the gills with United States military. Nobody short of a Terminator would be able to even swing at a guard without being wtfpwnt before they can blink. The same can't always be said about regular guards, as evidenced by how often prison riots and takeovers occur around the world (and often in places a lot more hardcore than American prisons).

 

 

Thanks for toning down the condescending attitude in your recent post. It was starting to get irritating, but you seem to have caught it on your own.

 

 

 

You just repeated everything you said before... I proposed many new ideas that can be applied and can easily work, but you haven't answered any of them.

 

Your blowing up method is unusual punishment, which, as I mentioned before, isn't supported by the Bill of Rights. Also, super-super-mega-giga high security prisons aren't necessary. I've already explained that housing extremely dangerous criminals can be cheap if done effectively. If current non-lethal technology can subdue terrorists with guns and bombs, why is it so impossible to believe that they can't be used to stop prison inmates with shanks as weapons from escaping?

 

I liked this quote: "This would remove the chance of a wrongful execution almost entirely." The fact is that there is no possible way to ensure that any system short of mind reading can entirely condemn someone to a crime. Not even video proof (what if it was someone that looked alike and the person being prosecuted was being threatened to pipe down?) can ensure a sentence without reasonable doubt. If this fact remains, how can anyone support CP?

 

Also, please answer why you think it's feasible to have a system that has been known to waste a crap load of money when there are many other options that are available.

[1230abcz]

1.)Bad example. The dog will die eventually; painfully. If I had a choice of keeping the dog under "prison," and give it the chance to live, then I would. Prison inmates aren't going to eventually die, in a sense, but they can be kept in a prison, away from people they can hurt. Also, I hereby end the use of analogies. They suck.

You're a cruel [bleep]. Doing that is going to mentally and physically torment the dog until it does.

 

 

 

OMG morphine, lol. But I get where you're coming from, which is why I hate elaborate analogies. So many hidden meanings.

[ember3579]

You just repeated everything you said before... I proposed many new ideas that can be applied and can easily work, but you haven't answered any of them.

 

Your blowing up method is unusual punishment, which, as I mentioned before, isn't supported by the Bill of Rights. Also, super-super-mega-giga high security prisons aren't necessary. I've already explained that housing extremely dangerous criminals can be cheap if done effectively. If current non-lethal technology can subdue terrorists with guns and bombs, why is it so impossible to believe that they can't be used to stop prison inmates with shanks as weapons from escaping?

 

I liked this quote: "This would remove the chance of a wrongful execution almost entirely." The fact is that there is no possible way to ensure that any system short of mind reading can entirely condemn someone to a crime. Not even video proof (what if it was someone that looked alike and the person being prosecuted was being threatened to pipe down?) can ensure a sentence without reasonable doubt. If this fact remains, how can anyone support CP?

 

Also, please answer why you think it's feasible to have a system that has been known to waste a crap load of money when there are many other options that are available.

 

 

To me, a sound cannon that could shatter eardrums can be considered unusual. I also consider using attack dogs somewhat of a cruel method of control. That still doesn't change the fact that they're effective without going overboard, right? An explosive helmet is certainly unusual, but it isn't cruel in the sense that it's designed to inflict agony. In fact, it's the exact opposite. That's what we're focusing on, after all; the level of pain the prisoner would feel from the execution method in question.

 

You're still counting the "could possibly be someone else" examples. Again, CP is to be exclusively reserved for when there is undeniable proof, by ANYBODY, that the person that's to be condemned done these things. This removes the "what if" as it applies to guilt. You can come up with better arguments than that.

 

I'm not supporting the current system. What I'm talking about is a refinement of it to increase the accuracy and efficiency of this whole process. I'm willing to accept a small portion of the true monsters into the vaults of this world rather than be executed if it guarantees that the worst of the worst are removed without risking an innocent person to boot. It IS possible to chase these two particular rabbits.

[tedbundty]

According to who? Obviously some people think it's right and some people think it's wrong. It's just an opinion. You might as well just ask "Do you like brownies?"

 

If you mean - "is it right or wrong according to *name of person or religion here*? then people could give answers to that but if some person or religion says it's wrong, what does it really matter? Is there really any ultimate consequence for it?

[Dizzle229]

According to who? Obviously some people think it's right and some people think it's wrong. It's just an opinion. You might as well just ask "Do you like brownies?"

 

If you mean - "is it right or wrong according to *name of person or religion here*? then people could give answers to that but if some person or religion says it's wrong, what does it really matter? Is there really any ultimate consequence for it?

*gives internet muffin*

[ember3579]

Ted, the discussion is an argument between various view points on the matter. This particular topic would allow all sorts of things to be brought to the table. Also, saying something isn't right only because someone or something told you it isn't is the mark of an idiot, and is generally frowned upon in these sorts of debate. Thank you, please try again.

[tedbundty]

Ted, the discussion is an argument between various view points on the matter. This particular topic would allow all sorts of things to be brought to the table. Also, saying something isn't right only because someone or something told you it isn't is the mark of an idiot, and is generally frowned upon in these sorts of debate. Thank you, please try again.

 

K so you just want opinions? Well my opinion is this: use capital punishment if it's effective, otherwise don't. Do what works best. It doesn't matter if you hurt the person, as long as it doesn't result in yourself or anyone you care about being hurt.

[1_man_army]

A person whose username is one letter away from being one of America's most notorious serial killers and is advocating the death penalty...I'm finding this strangely amusing.

 

To get back on topic, the Dog with rabies analogy doesn't work here - they're put down to avoid the disease spreading just as much as they're put down because of the risk to people / other dogs.

[ember3579]

A person whose username is one letter away from being one of America's most notorious serial killers and is advocating the death penalty...I'm finding this strangely amusing.

 

To get back on topic, the Dog with rabies analogy doesn't work here - they're put down to avoid the disease spreading just as much as they're put down because of the risk to people / other dogs.

 

 

Alright, switch out rabid with bloodthirsty. Same effect, really.

[1_man_army]

Generally, most animal analogies don't work in political debates because they aren't treated in the same way as people are treated. They aren't governed by the same rules for obvious reasons and that makes the comparison an awkward one.

[1230abcz]

You just repeated everything you said before... I proposed many new ideas that can be applied and can easily work, but you haven't answered any of them.

 

Your blowing up method is unusual punishment, which, as I mentioned before, isn't supported by the Bill of Rights. Also, super-super-mega-giga high security prisons aren't necessary. I've already explained that housing extremely dangerous criminals can be cheap if done effectively. If current non-lethal technology can subdue terrorists with guns and bombs, why is it so impossible to believe that they can't be used to stop prison inmates with shanks as weapons from escaping?

 

I liked this quote: "This would remove the chance of a wrongful execution almost entirely." The fact is that there is no possible way to ensure that any system short of mind reading can entirely condemn someone to a crime. Not even video proof (what if it was someone that looked alike and the person being prosecuted was being threatened to pipe down?) can ensure a sentence without reasonable doubt. If this fact remains, how can anyone support CP?

 

Also, please answer why you think it's feasible to have a system that has been known to waste a crap load of money when there are many other options that are available.

 

 

To me, a sound cannon that could shatter eardrums can be considered unusual. I also consider using attack dogs somewhat of a cruel method of control. That still doesn't change the fact that they're effective without going overboard, right? An explosive helmet is certainly unusual, but it isn't cruel in the sense that it's designed to inflict agony. In fact, it's the exact opposite. That's what we're focusing on, after all; the level of pain the prisoner would feel from the execution method in question.

 

You're still counting the "could possibly be someone else" examples. Again, CP is to be exclusively reserved for when there is undeniable proof, by ANYBODY, that the person that's to be condemned done these things. This removes the "what if" as it applies to guilt. You can come up with better arguments than that.

 

I'm not supporting the current system. What I'm talking about is a refinement of it to increase the accuracy and efficiency of this whole process. I'm willing to accept a small portion of the true monsters into the vaults of this world rather than be executed if it guarantees that the worst of the worst are removed without risking an innocent person to boot. It IS possible to chase these two particular rabbits.

 

Yo, been a while. Also, this will be my last post in this thread. You obviously have strong beliefs for one side as I do. Before I go, I'll respond to this post. I'll number it by paragraphs for numbering reasons.

 

 

 

1.) "A sound cannon," as you put it, would be a device that wouldn't be used for the sole purpose of inflicting harm; it's purpose is to ward off the inevitable danger that dangerous prison inmates can wreak when they escape into the public. Any type of non lethal technology isn't meant to be cruel since its intent is to make sure no fatal injuries are sustained during the capture of a criminal. The very purpose of non lethal technology goes against cruel and unususual punishment. These types of technology are necessary in order to ensure that a system of extremely high level prisons can function safely and cheaply without the need of specially trained troops with bazookas and high level duct tape. Also, an exploding helmet has its perks, I wont argue, but it's definitely unusual punishment. If you have any qualms with that, then I suggest you send a letter to Congress asking them to rewrite the Constitution. I can only wonder how the family of the criminal (who, I'm sure, would sustain at least some level of respect for their fellow family member even after the horrible crimes they've supposedly committed) would react when they realize that their son, daughter, cousin, etcetera will be killed with little to chance of ever recognizing them again. If I were the family, I'd make damn sure I still had a relative to bury, and certainly, you can't argue that the family hasn't done anything wrong at all and should be given some form of peace and respect.

 

2,3.) Sure I can. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What you're thinking of is magic. I can only think of a handful of cases where the alleged criminal was undoubtedly tried for what he/she did, and a "refinement" of the entire system would cost too much time and money, especially for only a few cases every few decades. I'd rather have a few hundred prisoners be kept in a high security prison until they die and make them do labor. It's cheaper, more effective if certain precautions are taken, and definitely more ethical (in my opinion of course). Sure, it's possible to chase both of these ideas, but what I'm saying is that one is clearly the cheaper alternative. In a capitalistic society, I really can't think of a better reason to argue against CP.

[ember3579]

Yo, been a while. Also, this will be my last post in this thread. You obviously have strong beliefs for one side as I do. Before I go, I'll respond to this post. I'll number it by paragraphs for numbering reasons.

 

 

 

1.) "A sound cannon," as you put it, would be a device that wouldn't be used for the sole purpose of inflicting harm; it's purpose is to ward off the inevitable danger that dangerous prison inmates can wreak when they escape into the public. Any type of non lethal technology isn't meant to be cruel since its intent is to make sure no fatal injuries are sustained during the capture of a criminal. The very purpose of non lethal technology goes against cruel and unususual punishment. These types of technology are necessary in order to ensure that a system of extremely high level prisons can function safely and cheaply without the need of specially trained troops with bazookas and high level duct tape. Also, an exploding helmet has its perks, I wont argue, but it's definitely unusual punishment. If you have any qualms with that, then I suggest you send a letter to Congress asking them to rewrite the Constitution. I can only wonder how the family of the criminal (who, I'm sure, would sustain at least some level of respect for their fellow family member even after the horrible crimes they've supposedly committed) would react when they realize that their son, daughter, cousin, etcetera will be killed with little to chance of ever recognizing them again. If I were the family, I'd make damn sure I still had a relative to bury, and certainly, you can't argue that the family hasn't done anything wrong at all and should be given some form of peace and respect.

 

2,3.) Sure I can. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What you're thinking of is magic. I can only think of a handful of cases where the alleged criminal was undoubtedly tried for what he/she did, and a "refinement" of the entire system would cost too much time and money, especially for only a few cases every few decades. I'd rather have a few hundred prisoners be kept in a high security prison until they die and make them do labor. It's cheaper, more effective if certain precautions are taken, and definitely more ethical (in my opinion of course). Sure, it's possible to chase both of these ideas, but what I'm saying is that one is clearly the cheaper alternative. In a capitalistic society, I really can't think of a better reason to argue against CP.

 

 

1) It is entirely possible to be cruel and non-lethal at the same time. Example number one is right here. If you are anywhere in the area of effect of one of those sound cannons, you're going to be in agony. That's why they're so effective at bringing violent people to heel. Also, while I can rebuttal the unusual argument with the fact that heat lasers and noise blasters are about as unusual as it gets, I see your point with the family thing. I mostly thought up that little idea on the spur of the moment; it would only be really feasible if the only people who're going to give a [cabbage] about this guy's funeral arrangements are the prison officials, either because the douchebag in question doesn't have any family or they don't want them. I'm fairly sure that something could be thought up that's cheap, painless, and effective. Although, I still say the simplest thing would be just giving them a hot lead injection to the cerebellum. Personally, giving them much more consideration is insulting to their victims.

 

2) This doesn't have to be something overly complicated. I'm just wanting something in place that can GUARANTEE, without one shred of doubt, that the monsters of humanity will never be able to harm another person. Prisons can be taken over, and they can even be broken out of. You're not getting out of being dead.

[obfuscator]

Sorry for the necro-bump, but I thought this was an interesting article:

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1149055--a-visit-to-hell-in-bernardo-wing?bn=1

 

The sliding steel gate into hell opened slowly, and reluctantly I stepped into the closed world that is Paul Bernardo's home, and will be for the rest of his life.

 

Moments later, I was looking into the eyes of Canada's most notorious criminal. My heart filled with rage over what he had done. I had the overwhelming urge to scream at him.

 

While his former wife, Karla Homolka, will be a free woman in a few weeks - albeit hounded by the media - Bernardo will live out his life caged in a cell about the size of a walk-in closet.

 

How I came to be inside the Kingston Penitentiary that day is a story on its own.

 

A few days earlier, I had been out drinking with some buddies when one of them leaned over and whispered: "Would you like to see Paul Bernardo?"

 

"Of course," I replied, "but he's in jail."

 

"It can be arranged," said my friend.

 

The next morning I was standing at the front door of Kingston Penitentiary, on the shore of Lake Ontario. I had written about the institution many times, but had never been inside. That was about to change.

 

The door clanged shut behind me as I walked into the facility that was home to the country's worst criminals. There was not a wisp of fresh air inside the walls.

 

My tour took me first to the open range. As I craned my neck upwards and gawked at the rows of cells, I noticed that the receivers on the pay phones at the end of each floor were all off the hook. I was told that, if you wanted to use the phone, you first had to ask for permission from the inmate who controlled that particular floor. This was prison culture. But Bernardo would never be part of that closed society.

 

"Our guest of honour has his own special area," said my guide.

 

It was the ground floor wing for the worst of the worst, the sexual offenders who had to be housed by themselves for their own safety. Plexiglas across the bars in this area of the prison prevented other inmates from hurling objects at them. In prison culture, men who rape and kill children are considered the lowest of the low. Injuring them would be a badge of honour.

 

The gate to the "Bernardo Wing" suddenly opened and I stepped inside, albeit hesitantly.

 

The air inside was pungent with the rancid smell of caged men who are seldom allowed out of their cells.

 

As the gate clanged shut behind me, an inmate in the first cell jerked bolt upright from his bunk, pressing his face tight against the bars. His face was chalk white, his eyes wide as saucers, his gaze not of this world.

 

He stared at me, at times grinning, drool seeping from a corner of his mouth.

 

Opposite the cells was a bank of small television screens, two guards monitoring the activity in each cell via a closed circuit camera.

 

Extending upward from the floor and arching over the guards was a Plexiglas shield that ran the length of the range.

 

"Why the shield?" I naively inquired.

 

Just then, a stream of yellowish liquid came hurtling from one of the cells. "Duck," yelled my guide.

 

I dove for cover as the urine hit the shield and trickled harmlessly to the floor.

 

"That's why," said my guide, somewhat amused as I picked myself off the deck and looked upward at yet another white face peering down at me from the second row, grinning, his front teeth missing.

 

The shield was dotted with urine stains, spit, feces. Then came a second volley of yellow fluid. The two guards seated at the screens never even looked up. Such was life in this special section.

 

One of the inmates started yelling. "Forty-seven," he screamed. "Forty-seven," over and over again. His screams cut through the deathly silence of the range. My temples began throbbing in pain.

 

And then I saw him. A chill ran through my body.

 

Paul Bernardo, probably this country's most despised killer, was standing at the front of his second floor cell, glancing down at the wary visitor in the prison's most restricted zone.

 

Our eyes locked. His appearance was shocking. Gone was the smirk, the cockiness that was Bernardo's trademark. He was heavier, his features blowsy, his face white. The man who terrorized women for years in Scarborough, the monster who killed two teenagers in St. Catharines, the villain who stalked potential prey in Orlando, Fla., was safely behind bars. Hopefully forever.

 

At his trial, I sat three rows directly behind Bernardo in courtroom 6-1 on University Ave. Although I work the court beat, for years afterwards I couldn't bring myself to even venture into that courtroom for fear it would rekindle memories of that gruesome trial.

 

Even though he was shackled and watched closely by several guards during the trial, he still had that trademark smirk, that cocky attitude that somehow he was going to talk his way out of a lifetime sentence behind bars.

 

As his four-month trial dragged on in 1995 I began fantasizing about hurting the man who had hurt so many people. In my daydream, I would vault over the benches, grab him by the neck, throw him to the floor and give him a punch in the mouth for each of his victims. For good measure, I would throw in a couple of extra blows for myself.

 

Was I losing it, I wondered. The Star had brought in a counsellor to talk to those who were covering the trial and editing the copy. "I'm fine," I told her. I wasn't. One evening after court, when a group of reporters covering the trial gathered at a bar to drown our anguish in booze, I blurted out my fantasy.

 

To my surprise, several others had been thinking the exact same thing. Like me, they wanted their frontier-style justice. Such was the hatred for this evil creature staring down at me from his cage.

 

I thought about that as I looked back at him. I suddenly had the urge to yell at him, like two of his friends had done shortly after his arrest, standing outside the Metro East Detention centre and cursing at his cell.

 

But the words got stuck in my throat. His gaze was vacant, the cockiness long gone. My anger eased. He disappeared back into his cell. The moment passed. We continued the tour.

 

"People wanted him to rot in jail, " I said, and my guide finished my thought: "I think they got their wish, " he said.

 

"If you really want to experience what life is like right now for Mr. Bernardo, " said my guide, "you have to go inside a cell."

 

We found an empty one, similar to the cage where Bernardo lives 23 hours a day, 365 days a year, getting out only for his daily bit of fresh air in a small, fenced-in compound, or showering twice a week, always watched.

 

The cell was tiny. If you want the same experience, step into a small walk-in closet and close the door. There was a bunk on one side, a toilet at the far end.

 

The cell was about three paces long, and about as wide as Bernardo's arm span. Claustrophobia set in immediately. I felt trapped, and thought of animals in the zoo in small cages, and how horrible must be their existence.

 

"I've had enough, " I said, turning to leave, just as the bars behind me shut. "What are you doing?" I asked my guide, now my jailer, standing on the other side of freedom.

 

"You wanted the full experience, " he said.

 

"But I didn't mean it, " I pleaded, grabbing at the bars. They didn't budge.

 

I turned back into my new home. I shuddered. The throbbing in my head was now a pounding pain. A minute in a locked cage and the big, tough crime writer was on the verge of tears.

 

My guide fumbled through his pockets. "Oops, " he said, "I may not have the key."

 

"I need to be out, " I pleaded, as he searched his pockets. He was taking his time, enjoying the moment. I was terrified.

 

Finally, he found the key and I was freed.

 

My total time in captivity: a minute, 30 seconds. I vowed never to get so close to a story again.

 

"Someday - not now - but someday I want you to write about your little visit to Kingston, " said my guide.

 

"Mr. Bernardo will live, grow old and die in there. He'll have plenty of time to think about his crimes. The public should know that each and every day for the rest of his life will not be pleasant."

 

The door to the prison shut behind us. I had my freedom. Bernardo never would. He was declared a dangerous offender, which allows the authorities to sentence him indefinitely to jail, pending regular reviews.

 

"Know what?" I said to my guide. "I would rather take a needle in the arm than live like that."

 

"Just be thankful," said my guide, "that we no longer have capital punishment in this country."

[fastortoise]

I'll drop my 2 cents before leaving;

No matter what, nobody can decide that you are a terrible person and deserve to die. Even if keeping them in a prison is seemingly horrific and worse than capital punishment.

That said, I think prisoners should have the right to end their lives on their own accord, on condition that their bodies be donated to hospitals and research purposes.

 

 

As an aside, I just looked at a full-scale replica of the cell described in the article above... its not that bad. My bedroom is only twice its size, and the only thing extra I own is a computer. If you're an introvert, the place looks really decent.

[Quyneax]

Just goes to show how inhuman prisons like that are, there's really no point in hurting people for being criminals. Treatment can be useful, separating them from society can be useful, but vengance doesn't solve anything. I don't believe in these 23-hour-a-day cells, letting people out to play ping-pong helps a lot more. People just need the stress release and no matter what a person did, you can't say that it's unreasonable they want to go for a run at times or w/e.

[Assume Nothing]

It's an interesting thread to revisit. I'd say, on moral grounds, it would be fine to use capital punishment if these conditions are met:

 

1. 
    
   
2. Very high certainty of guilt (a lot of evidence, especially camera based evidence)
   
3. Very unlikely to rehabilitate (crime dependent)
   
4. They must pose a significant threat to society (likelihood of escape)
   
5. And there must be severe consequences of escape (i.e. committing heinous crimes where the prisoner would be likely to reoffend, like rape/murder/armed robbery - given their incentives)
   

 

It would be less about the deterrence than the elimination of a threat - a dead person can no longer pose a threat to society, whereas a prisoner, if escaped, can. It's unlikely, which is why it must be weighed out. I'm not sure how it'll work on war criminals like Gaddaffi though - it may just cause martyrdom.

 

I'd say it is worse to keep a prisoner that would deprave many citizens of society their rights to life, than to withdraw the prisoner's right to life. The ultimate purpose of morality is to allow society to function and prosper effectively - to argue about rights in a deontological respect would be a futile practice. I'd say the death penalty is fine, so long as it's reserved only for the worst of offenders.

[Jonanananas]

It's an interesting thread to revisit. I'd say, on moral grounds, it would be fine to use capital punishment if these conditions are met:

 

1. 
    
   
2. Very high certainty of guilt (a lot of evidence, especially camera based evidence)
   
3. Very unlikely to rehabilitate (crime dependent)
   
4. They must pose a significant threat to society (likelihood of escape)
   
5. And there must be severe consequences of escape (i.e. committing heinous crimes where the prisoner would be likely to reoffend, like rape/murder/armed robbery - given their incentives)
   

 

It would be less about the deterrence than the elimination of a threat - a dead person can no longer pose a threat to society, whereas a prisoner, if escaped, can. It's unlikely, which is why it must be weighed out. I'm not sure how it'll work on war criminals like Gaddaffi though - it may just cause martyrdom.

 

I'd say it is worse to keep a prisoner that would deprave many citizens of society their rights to life, than to withdraw the prisoner's right to life. The ultimate purpose of morality is to allow society to function and prosper effectively - to argue about rights in a deontological respect would be a futile practice. I'd say the death penalty is fine, so long as it's reserved only for the worst of offenders.

 

 

Elimination of a threat is done by a life sentence (And it should obviously really be for the whole life). The likelyhood of escape is really quite small, especially in the high-security cells. And the death penalty still has the problem that

 

1.Even if you are quite certain, you almost never can be 100% certain(The chances of such crimes being caught on tape or being confessed by the suspect without tricks or torture is extremely low)

 

2.It's more expensive (If you do it in a somewhat acceptable way, if you just shoot them the day they're sentenced then I guess not, but it should be obvious that's a problem)

[Assume Nothing]

I guess on a practical level - it's not very feasible to bring in capital punishment. How about reserving it for the very worst in society, like Harold Shipman, or perhaps The Night Stalker?

[Jonanananas]

I see no advantage to the death penalty and only disadvantages, so personally I would always say no. However, I guess if you believe in a justice system based partially on vengeance, I guess it would be acceptable, if the evidence is absolutely failsafe.

[Bonez899]

How much does it cost a year to run places like that prison? How much does it cost for those toxins to kill them? I'd rather have a one time payment of my tax money and see them dead and gone, then have them taking thousands of dollars every year to house them and keep them alive. I know that it is worse for them to be there but we are complaining about money all over the place yet we lock people up for 10, 20, 30 years and pay for all their needs while our goverments go into deficits and bankruptcy.

[The_Gabe]

How much does it cost a year to run places like that prison? How much does it cost for those toxins to kill them? I'd rather have a one time payment of my tax money and see them dead and gone, then have them taking thousands of dollars every year to house them and keep them alive. I know that it is worse for them to be there but we are complaining about money all over the place yet we lock people up for 10, 20, 30 years and pay for all their needs while our goverments go into deficits and bankruptcy.

 

Executions are very, very expensive.