NationStates Jolt Archive


Death penalty............

Pages : [1] 2
Globes R Us
06-09-2005, 13:04
Hanging, electric chair, gas, lethal injection, none deter murder. Fact.


THE DEATH PENALTY HAS NO BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON MURDER RATES:
“I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point.”
- U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (January 21, 2000)

* Recent studies in Oklahoma and California failed to find that capital punishment had a deterrent effect on violent crime and, in fact, found a significant increase in stranger killings and homicide rates after the death penalty had been reinstated. (William Bailey, “Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty,” Criminology, 1998; Ernie Thompson, “Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California.” Homicide Studies, 1999)
* The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 40% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976. (Amnesty International)
* A Texas study determined in 1999 that there was no relation between the number of executions and murder rates in general. (Victoria Brewer, Robert Wrinkle, John Sorenson and James Marquart)
* A New York Times survey demonstrated that homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, “Absence of Executions,” New York Times, September 22, 2000)
* The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:05
And if the death penalty were in place solely to deter crime, you'd have a really great argument.
Pure Metal
06-09-2005, 13:06
And if the death penalty were in place solely to deter crime, you'd have a really great argument.
its there for punishment and revenge then? :confused:
Compulsive Depression
06-09-2005, 13:09
its there for punishment and revenge then? :confused:
It prevents the perpetrator of a first offence from committing a second offence.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:09
its there for punishment and revenge then? :confused:

Well, that and the financial argument, I'm afraid.

Although it is a sad sign for any society to choose one's wallet before human life.
NianNorth
06-09-2005, 13:09
Strange I can't support a death penalty but expect the police to shoot to kill someone who is threatening the lives of others. As in these cases the act of killing is the surest way to prevent death or injury to others.

I would not think twice about killing to protect my wife or children.

But find it hard to accept the state says to it's citizens you cannot kill but we can. And there is no going back should a mistake be made.
Swilatia
06-09-2005, 13:10
Looks like the death penalty is not only cruel, but also does not deter murder.
Since it is cruel and useless, the death penalty should no longer be used.
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:10
its there for punishment and revenge then? :confused:

Sure. Also to protect society. I agree that life in prison would achieve the same effect, but since criminals are paroled early despite life terms, the only sure way to keep murderers off the streets these days is death row. Sad, isn't it?
NianNorth
06-09-2005, 13:10
It prevents the perpetrator of a first offence committing a second offence.
So does locking him up and making him work for his keep.
Swilatia
06-09-2005, 13:12
Oh, and I forgot to tell you in my last post that the death penalty encourages police misconduct.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:12
Sure. Also to protect society. I agree that life in prison would achieve the same effect, but since criminals are paroled early despite life terms, the only sure way to keep murderers off the streets these days is death row. Sad, isn't it?

So, why not simply abolish paroles?
FairyTInkArisen
06-09-2005, 13:13
Sure. Also to protect society. I agree that life in prison would achieve the same effect, but since criminals are paroled early despite life terms, the only sure way to keep murderers off the streets these days is death row. Sad, isn't it?
the answer to that isnt killing murderers, it's giving them real life sentences that mean they rot in prison till the day they die
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:13
So does locking him up and making him work for his keep.

I find strange satisfaction in putting serial killers--who are notoriously afraid of death--on death row.
Compulsive Depression
06-09-2005, 13:14
So does locking him up and making him work for his keep.
Not if they escape.
Are you willing to risk it?
Are they going to earn their keep?
Secluded Islands
06-09-2005, 13:15
murderers are not afraid of life in prison anymore. free food, tvs, magazines, books, excersise....they basically have freedom inside a brick wall...
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:20
the answer to that isnt killing murderers, it's giving them real life sentences that mean they rot in prison till the day they die

If prison cells were smaller and prison life harsher--one meal a day, no TV, no internet, etc.--then I'd be on board. As prisons are now, they're not enough of a punishment for child molesters, rapists, and murderers.

And I'd be down with abolishing parole for certain offenders. I'm not a staunch defender of the death penalty - I just recognize its positive and negative attributes. I also don't understand why everybody's so anti-revenge.
FairyTInkArisen
06-09-2005, 13:22
murderers are not afraid of life in prison anymore. free food, tvs, magazines, books, excersise....they basically have freedom inside a brick wall...
and the answer to that isn't killing them, stick them in a basic cell with basic food rations for the rest of their days
Secluded Islands
06-09-2005, 13:23
and the answer to that isn't killing them, stick them in a basic cell with basic food rations for the rest of their days

id agree to that, as long as they dont live like kings...
FairyTInkArisen
06-09-2005, 13:24
If prison cells were smaller and prison life harsher--one meal a day, no TV, no internet, etc.--then I'd be on board. As prisons are now, they're not enough of a punishment for child molesters, rapists, and murderers.

And I'd be down with abolishing parole for certain offenders. I'm not a staunch defender of the death penalty - I just recognize its positive and negative attributes. I also don't understand why everybody's so anti-revenge.
i agree prison life should be a lot harsher, and i'm most certainly not anti-revenge, i think the death penalty is too much of an escape, if i had my way they'd be locked in a prison cell for the rest of their lives with nothing else to do but think about what they did to get them there
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:24
murderers are not afraid of life in prison anymore. free food, tvs, magazines, books, excersise....they basically have freedom inside a brick wall...

Seeing that the original statement quite clearly indicated that punishment of any kind is no deterent for violent criminals, you are obviously looking for revenge in punishment rather than effects on society or the rehabilitaion of individuals.

If they are not afraid of the death penalty, of course they are not afraid of prison sentences. That is, most violent criminals won't stop to consider such consequences of their actions anyway.
Seeing that killing them doesn't deter them, why go on killing them and not try a new approach?
Germania United
06-09-2005, 13:26
i mean really, lemme go kill your mom, rape her dead corpse, then eat her, and tell me you wouldn't want me to get the death penalty instead of life in prison.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:26
I also don't understand why everybody's so anti-revenge.

As a victim of violent crime, I have no interest in revenge. Why are you so keen on it?
Secluded Islands
06-09-2005, 13:27
Seeing that the original statement quite clearly indicated that punishment of any kind is no deterent for violent criminals, you are obviously looking for revenge in punishment rather than effects on society or the rehabilitaion of individuals.

If they are not afraid of the death penalty, of course they are not afraid of prison sentences. That is, most violent criminals won't stop to consider such consequences of their actions anyway.
Seeing that killing them doesn't deter them, why go on killing them and not try a new approach?

dont get me wrong, im not for the death penalty. i dont want to see a guy convicted of rape and murder continue a happy life on the inside of the prison bars. he should not be given so many luxuries...
Gronde
06-09-2005, 13:28
murderers are not afraid of life in prison anymore. free food, tvs, magazines, books, excersise....they basically have freedom inside a brick wall...

I love the irony there. Lol.

Back on topic, I think that the death penalty would be a deterent if it was more cruel and publicized. Bring back public hangings like the good old days. Or maybe being lowered into a giant meat-grinder...really, really, slowly.

For those of you who don't want to go so far back into the middle ages, I do like life in hard labor. However, it should be HARD labor, at gun point. Get the chinese over here to build some slave sweat-shops for us. Throw all the murderers, rapists, and what-not in them.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:33
dont get me wrong, im not for the death penalty. i dont want to see a guy convicted of rape and murder continue a happy life on the inside of the prison bars. he should not be given so many luxuries...

Have you ever been inside a prison?
I was helping a friend of mine who was doing counseling in a prison for underage offenders in Germany (she was a novice back then), and believe me, luxury is different.
yes, they do get a roof over their heads and three meals a day, and it should be an element of shame for all societies where there are people outside prison who don't even have that.
The prison I've been two largely had cells with 4 people, that's to say there were 4 bunks, a table, a small mirror and a toilet per cell.
The routine was getting up at 6, shower, breakfast, exercise in the yard, work, Lunch, work again, exercise again in the yard, 1 hour of personal time in which they could watch TV if they wanted to, then lock in and lights out at 9.30
If that's luxury to you...

edit : And no, they weren't getting things for free (apart from food and the bed) They got a rudimentary pay for their work, I think it was around 5 Euros per day, with which they could buy personal things, like chocolate, cigarettes, soap, etc.
Mazalandia
06-09-2005, 13:34
As a death penalty supported in a country that no longer has it (Australia). I would like to see it re-introduced. I would put more conditions upon it, but I would still support it's reintroduction.
Having said that, I find that the American death penalty is used too often on shaky evidence, such as the West Memphis Three and Tookie Williams
http://www.wm3.org/
http://www.tookie.com/
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:39
As a victim of violent crime, I have no interest in revenge. Why are you so keen on it?

As a victim of violent crime, you should presumably understand why other victims or families of victims might want to seek revenge.

I'm not 'keen' on revenge, I just understand the impulse. I also know that if anyone harmed a member of my family, it'd take a lot of self-control, not to mention a handful of sedatives, to restrain me from taking the guy out myself.
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:40
Have you ever been inside a prison?
I was helping a friend of mine who was doing counseling in a prison for underage offenders in Germany (she was a novice back then), and believe me, luxury is different.
yes, they do get a roof over their heads and three meals a day, and it should be an element of shame for all societies where there are people outside prison who don't even have that.
The prison I've been two largely had cells with 4 people, that's to say there were 4 bunks, a table, a small mirror and a toilet per cell.
The routine was getting up at 6, shower, breakfast, exercise in the yard, work, Lunch, work again, exercise again in the yard, 1 hour of personal time in which they could watch TV if they wanted to, then lock in and lights out at 9.30
If that's luxury to you...

edit : And no, they weren't getting things for free (apart from food and the bed) They got a rudimentary pay for their work, I think it was around 5 Euros per day, with which they could buy personal things, like chocolate, cigarettes, soap, etc.

More luxury than a baby rapist deserves.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:41
As a victim of violent crime, you should presumably understand why other victims or families of victims might want to seek revenge.

I'm not 'keen' on revenge, I just understand the impulse. I also know that if anyone harmed a member of my family, it'd take a lot of self-control, not to mention a handful of sedatives, to restrain me from taking the guy out myself.

In all fairness, I don't. I do see the need to ensure that that person never harms anybody else, but I don't see what I or my family would ever gain from seeking revenge.
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:43
In all fairness, I don't. I do see the need to ensure that that person never harms anybody else, but I don't see what I or my family would ever gain from seeking revenge.

Peace, maybe. Justice. Who knows, nobody in my family's ever been murdered or harmed.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:45
More luxury than a baby rapist deserves.

One criminal act determines the entire person to you?
I'm not saying it isn't a detestable crime, but that still doesn't make the criminal any less human.
Kakkalo
06-09-2005, 13:46
ha ha, this is a very good one !

put people in Prison for killing other people, am I right?

well, I say there is nothing wrong with murder -- because there isn't!

try to control others, am i right? you're doing someone a favor if you kill them, yeah!

earlier i held a mouse in my hand (((i had gloves on))) and i said to my friend, "YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE ABOUT LIFE," and then after i confused my friend and he said WHAT?!?!?!?!!? i broke the poort little mouses heart (literally haha!) and said "HOW QUICKLY IT CAN END."

then i laughed and threw the mouse corpse in the trash, but only after thinking about how silly people are for imprisoning others.

am i right?

OBVIOUSLY!
Malashaan
06-09-2005, 13:46
What about those who've murdered when they were say 18, done 25 years and then come out to do a lot of good work reducing the risk of further murders? Obviously there are serial killers who can never be let out into the community but in the case of one time murderers the situation is not so clear cut.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:47
Peace, maybe. Justice. Who knows, nobody in my family's ever been murdered or harmed.

I know I wouldn't find it just to harm somebody simply because I was harmed. And it wouldn't give me any peace either.
What would give me paece would be understanding from the perpetrator, and the feeling that he understands and regrets what he did.
Compulsive Depression
06-09-2005, 13:49
Seeing that killing them doesn't deter them, why go on killing them and not try a new approach?
1) What makes you think rehabilitation is plausible?
2) It prevents them committing further crimes.
3) You don't have to build secure storage for them, feed them, look after them for the rest of their lives.

It just seems more efficient. People will commit crimes regardless of the consequences, so you might as well minimise the damage they can cause.
Kakkalo
06-09-2005, 13:50
As a victim of violent crime, you should presumably understand why other victims or families of victims might want to seek revenge.

I'm not 'keen' on revenge, I just understand the impulse. I also know that if anyone harmed a member of my family, it'd take a lot of self-control, not to mention a handful of sedatives, to restrain me from taking the guy out myself.

hey, Why would you Kill a guy you're mad at?????? You're setting him free into a carefree world of nothingness! The best way to hurt someone is to hurt the people they care about, ha ha ha . isn't that what you Want for a revenge?

dont kill him, kill his dog! and his FAMILY!!! he'll be sad then, am i right?

unless he doesn't have family. or a dog. or has a brain in his head and doesn't let anything bother him, am i right?

OBVIOUSLY!
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:50
One criminal act determines the entire person to you?
I'm not saying it isn't a detestable crime, but that still doesn't make the criminal any less human.

Yeah, you molest a child, psychologically devastate that child, possibly ruin that child's ability to develop healthy emotional or sexual relationships for the rest of his or her life, and I'm going to make that determination. Child molesters, rapists, and murderers don't deserve any luxuries whatsoever.
FairyTInkArisen
06-09-2005, 13:51
hey, Why would you Kill a guy you're mad at?????? You're setting him free into a carefree world of nothingness! The best way to hurt someone is to hurt the people they care about, ha ha ha . isn't that what you Want for a revenge?

dont kill him, kill his dog! and his FAMILY!!! he'll be sad then, am i right?

unless he doesn't have family. or a dog. or has a brain in his head and doesn't let anything bother him, am i right?

OBVIOUSLY!
go away
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:52
I know I wouldn't find it just to harm somebody simply because I was harmed. And it wouldn't give me any peace either.
What would give me paece would be understanding from the perpetrator, and the feeling that he understands and regrets what he did.

Some human beings are mentally incapable of feeling remorse. (Example: sociopaths.) Also, I don't much care what you personally would or wouldn't gain from the death penalty. I've read enough stories over the years from victims who would benefit from revenge. I've also read stories from people who wouldn't. Regardless, I see how some people might and that's all I was arguing.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:53
Yeah, you molest a child, psychologically devastate that child, possibly ruin that child's ability to develop healthy emotional or sexual relationships for the rest of his or her life, and I'm going to make that determination. Child molesters, rapists, and murderers don't deserve any luxuries whatsoever.

That's what happened to me and I still see my attacker as a human being... you don't do the victim any favour by dehumanising the criminal. It just doesn't work that way.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 13:55
1) What makes you think rehabilitation is plausible?

The fact that it did/does work


2) It prevents them committing further crimes.
3) You don't have to build secure storage for them, feed them, look after them for the rest of their lives.

It just seems more efficient. People will commit crimes regardless of the consequences, so you might as well minimise the damage they can cause.

If you are going to apply efficiency to humanity, why not just kill of all uneffeicient people? And only keep the efficient alive?

Prevention is a good idea, but you will have to work with humans, not against them.
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 13:55
and the answer to that isn't killing them, stick them in a basic cell with basic food rations for the rest of their daysI quite agree, but sadly that's not the way it's done (at least here in the UK) anymore. I really don't care about whether it deters crime or not; crimes deserve punishment, and ordinary law abiding people deserve to be protected from the criminal scum who perpetrate them. To that end, theoretically, I am totally in favour of the death penalty (given the current dire system of incarceration). However, in practice, I have to remain against it - solely on the basis that there is a small chance you could be executing an innocent person. Were that risk somehow eliminated, I wouldn't think twice about sending some evil bastard to their death, though I agree with Tink that it would be better if prisons were actually tough and you could make the bastards suffer for the rest of their natural lives.
Orangians
06-09-2005, 13:56
That's what happened to me and I still see my attacker as a human being... you don't do the victim any favour by dehumanising the criminal. It just doesn't work that way.

Yes, you see your attacker as human. Some victims of child molestation don't, nor should they. I wouldn't dare speak for all victims of violent crimes, that's not what I am suggesting. I'm only claiming that some victims or families of victims find revenge beneficial in some capacity. I know you speak from personal experience, but a lot of other people who speak from personal experience would disagree with you. I also don't think people who violate your natural rights are entitled to their own. But that's a side issue.
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 13:59
I also don't think people who violate your natural rights are entitled to their own. But that's a side issue.This is one thing that really irritates me. People keep banging on about a criminal's human rights. What about the human rights of the innocent person they violated in the first place? Victimology is an expanding area in Criminology, certainly, but the majority of writers on the rights of criminals still seem to have overlooked this.
Balipo
06-09-2005, 13:59
Well, that and the financial argument, I'm afraid.

Although it is a sad sign for any society to choose one's wallet before human life.

Actually, given the current set-up of the justice system, it is more expensive enact the death penalty than to keep them in prison for life. Given that a lifer usually only gets one appeal, deathrow, 5 appeals (that can go on for years). A lifer gets nearly inedible prison food and lousy garb. Death row folks get nicer clothes and better meals (some sort of guilt in the system makes their quality of life worht more since they are dying soon). Then there's the last meal, last conjugal visit, last rites, the media, the family, the victim's family, all paid for by the state.

Oh and of course, the cost of actually executing people. Then on top of all that. The state pays for the funeral, which is nicer than the one of a person who just died in prison.

So, the death penalty costs more.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 14:00
Yes, you see your attacker as human. Some victims of child molestation don't, nor should they. I wouldn't dare speak for all victims of violent crimes, that's not what I am suggesting. I'm only claiming that some victims or families of victims find revenge beneficial in some capacity. I know you speak from personal experience, but a lot of other people who speak from personal experience would disagree with you. I also don't think people who violate your natural rights are entitled to their own. But that's a side issue.

No, actually, that's the key issue.
The discussion about the death penalty is about the idea that a person can actually loose his or her natural, inalienable human rights by trying or succeeding in taking away another person's.
It's my belief that they can't. Whatever they do, they will remain human beings, their rights cannot be compromised.
Otherwise, these rights aren't natural but simply graciously granted by the state, who will take them away again on misbehaviour.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 14:01
This is one thing that really irritates me. People keep banging on about a criminal's human rights. What about the human rights of the innocent person they violated in the first place? Victimology is an expanding area in Criminology, certainly, but the majority of writers on the rights of criminals still seem to have overlooked this.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 14:01
Well, that and the financial argument, I'm afraid.

Although it is a sad sign for any society to choose one's wallet before human life.

Actually, in a country that has anything approaching a decent legal system with rights of appeal, keeping someone in prison is probably cheaper than killing them.

As if cost should dictate whether the state is allowed to murder people or not.
Kakkalo
06-09-2005, 14:01
go away
you don't like the truth? i must be right! obviously!
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 14:02
It prevents the perpetrator of a first offence from committing a second offence.

It also prevents an innocent person from mounting an appeal, winning, and embarrassing the legal authorities. Can't have that.
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 14:03
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"Indeed, but the world wouldn't have to be blind if the first taking of the eye had not occurred in the first place.
FairyTInkArisen
06-09-2005, 14:03
Yes, you see your attacker as human. Some victims of child molestation don't, nor should they. I wouldn't dare speak for all victims of violent crimes, that's not what I am suggesting. I'm only claiming that some victims or families of victims find revenge beneficial in some capacity. I know you speak from personal experience, but a lot of other people who speak from personal experience would disagree with you. I also don't think people who violate your natural rights are entitled to their own. But that's a side issue.sure, criminals deserve to be punished, but not because the victim wants revenge but because they did an evil thing, wanting to kill someone for revenge is quite sick imo, and doing it is stooping to their level, cold-blooded murder is not right, no matter what the victim has done
QuentinTarantino
06-09-2005, 14:03
As if cost should dictate whether the state is allowed to murder people or not.

In the end it probably will.
Orangians
06-09-2005, 14:03
This is one thing that really irritates me. People keep banging on about a criminal's human rights. What about the human rights of the innocent person they violated in the first place? Victimology is an expanding area in Criminology, certainly, but the majority of writers on the rights of criminals still seem to have overlooked this.

Hmm. I don't weigh the human rights of the victims versus the human rights of the criminals--although if I were to do that, I'd argue that the human rights of the victims outweigh the criminal's. More importantly, I believe that violators of natural rights surrender their own natural rights. In fact, if violating another's rights doesn't result in a loss of natural rights--permanently or temporarily--then there'd be no ethical justification to even have prisons. You can't lock up innocent people ethically without their consent, right? And we don't exactly ask the consent of criminals before locking them up, right? So, in conclusion, the criminal's violation of another's natural rights results in the temporary or permanent loss of his own. If he permanently loses his own, he no longer has a right to life. Sorry for my long-winded philosophy.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 14:04
I find strange satisfaction in putting serial killers--who are notoriously afraid of death--on death row.

I'm sure you'll like a job as a hangman then.

Only, I hope the hangman is informed when he or she kills an innocent.
FairyTInkArisen
06-09-2005, 14:04
This is one thing that really irritates me. People keep banging on about a criminal's human rights. What about the human rights of the innocent person they violated in the first place? Victimology is an expanding area in Criminology, certainly, but the majority of writers on the rights of criminals still seem to have overlooked this.
if the victim wants to get over the crime they need to move on, it isn't healthy to be hell-bent on revenge
CanuckHeaven
06-09-2005, 14:05
It would appear that the logic of the first post is lost on many posters to this thread:

“I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point.”
FairyTInkArisen
06-09-2005, 14:06
Indeed, but the world wouldn't have to be blind if the first taking of the eye had not occurred in the first place.
that isn't the point at all, you can't turn back time and stop the crime happening
Orangians
06-09-2005, 14:07
No, actually, that's the key issue.
The discussion about the death penalty is about the idea that a person can actually loose his or her natural, inalienable human rights by trying or succeeding in taking away another person's.
It's my belief that they can't. Whatever they do, they will remain human beings, their rights cannot be compromised.
Otherwise, these rights aren't natural but simply graciously granted by the state, who will take them away again on misbehaviour.

Yeah, see, I do believe they lose their rights. If they don't, then there'd be no ethical justification for prisons because prisons deny the right to liberty.

Also, natural rights aren't necessarily permanent rights. For example, I have the right to defend myself in an attack, even if my defense results in the death of my attacker. There are certain situations under which an individual can lose his natural rights.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 14:08
Indeed, but the world wouldn't have to be blind if the first taking of the eye had not occurred in the first place.

But it has. If you want to stop it, do it by leaving other people's eyes alone, no matter what they did.
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 14:10
Hmm. I don't weigh the human rights of the victims versus the human rights of the criminals--although if I were to do that, I'd argue that the human rights of the victims outweigh the criminal's. More importantly, I believe that violators of natural rights surrender their own natural rights. In fact, if violating another's rights doesn't result in a loss of natural rights--permanently or temporarily--then there'd be no ethical justification to even have prisons. You can't lock up innocent people ethically without their consent, right? And we don't exactly ask the consent of criminals before locking them up, right? So, in conclusion, the criminal's violation of another's natural rights results in the temporary or permanent loss of his own. If he permanently loses his own, he no longer has a right to life. Sorry for my long-winded philosophy.Don't apologise - an interesting post. On a similar note, I think, I would tend to subscribe to the idea that with rights - natural or otherwise - come responsibilities. If you (deliberately) forfeit the responsibilities, you ought also to forfeit the rights that go with them.

if the victim wants to get over the crime they need to move on, it isn't healthy to be hell-bent on revengeThat's not really what I meant. There are plenty of avenues for victims to explore in order to come to terms with what has happened to them, and of course they should avail of them. A system of justice, however, is meant to exist, and seeing justice done can help many victims. It is a different concept from revenge. If it were simply about revenge, we would have nothing but vigilante attacks rather than use of the police and the judiciary.
Orangians
06-09-2005, 14:10
I'm sure you'll like a job as a hangman then.

Only, I hope the hangman is informed when he or she kills an innocent.

Oooh, burn. I didn't realize it was a controversial statement to condemn serial killers, individuals who brutally torture and killer their victims, to death.
Zaxon
06-09-2005, 14:11
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

I'd say it just leaves a few without depth perception. Most of the rest would get the idea, and stop trying to take eyes from others.

I am one of those folks that thinks if you take away someone else's rights, you willingly just gave up your own.

It's a human right, and if you can't be human (by taking someone else's rights), you don't have your rights anymore. It isn't a state issue--it's an individual issue.
Jakutopia
06-09-2005, 14:12
Execute the murderers and castrate the rapists. While the number of murders may not decrease, I'm betting the number of rapes will!
Zaxon
06-09-2005, 14:12
I'm sure you'll like a job as a hangman then.

Only, I hope the hangman is informed when he or she kills an innocent.

That responsibility goes to the jury, not the excecutioner.
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 14:13
But it has. If you want to stop it, do it by leaving other people's eyes alone, no matter what they did.OK, fair enough - it's happened and that's that. I accept that point. But if we leave other people's eyes alone completely, in the long run, then we have no system of law enforcement or government whatsoever. I really do not comprehend how society could be improved for all in it if everyone was allowed to do exactly as they pleased, regardless of who else it may or may not hurt.
Orangians
06-09-2005, 14:13
I'd say it just leaves a few without depth perception. Most of the rest would get the idea, and stop trying to take eyes from others.

I am one of those folks that thinks if you take away someone else's rights, you willingly just gave up your own.

It's a human right, and if you can't be human (by taking someone else's rights), you don't have your rights anymore. It isn't a state issue--it's an individual issue.

I agree. I'm the biggest anti-statist there is. :) I definitely don't support giving the government any unnecessary or unethical power over individuals. I just recognize that natural rights can be lost in certain situations.
CanuckHeaven
06-09-2005, 14:13
Sorry for my long-winded philosophy.
It would appear that countries that follow YOUR philosophy tend to have higher rates of murder.
Orangians
06-09-2005, 14:17
It would appear that countries that follow YOUR philosophy tend to have higher rates of murder.

Fallacy of post-hoc. Unless you can show a direct link between the death penalty and higher murder rates, your argument is invalid. Or maybe you're just pointing out a statistic that has no relevance to this debate. Either way.

But if I conceded that point, I'd merely point out what I said in my first post in this thread: if the death penalty were only in place to deter crime, you'd have a really great argument. Also, most countries with the death penalty don't subscribe to Lockean natural rights philosophy.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 14:17
OK, fair enough - it's happened and that's that. I accept that point. But if we leave other people's eyes alone completely, in the long run, then we have no system of law enforcement or government whatsoever. I really do not comprehend how society could be improved for all in it if everyone was allowed to do exactly as they pleased, regardless of who else it may or may not hurt.

I never said that everybody should be allowed to do just what he wants, I just don't think you need to bodily harm them to enforce law.
I believe in crime prevention and rehabilitation. both are time consuming and expensive, but they seem to bring better results in the end.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 14:19
I'd say it just leaves a few without depth perception. Most of the rest would get the idea, and stop trying to take eyes from others.

I am one of those folks that thinks if you take away someone else's rights, you willingly just gave up your own.

It's a human right, and if you can't be human (by taking someone else's rights), you don't have your rights anymore. It isn't a state issue--it's an individual issue.

Have a look around you... homo sapiens has inhabited this planet for about 500 000 years now, and the "an eye for and eye"-law is one of the oldest examples of written speech in existance. Do you think it'll take another half a million years for them to get the point?
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 14:24
I never said that everybody should be allowed to do just what he wants, I just don't think you need to bodily harm them to enforce law.Theoretically, I would agree. That's why I believe in a proper prison system.
I believe in crime prevention and rehabilitation. both are time consuming and expensive, but they seem to bring better results in the end.As do I, believe it or not, and I agree that, in general, they bring better results. The statistics certainly speak for themselves in that regard. However, the problem is they don't always work. It would be nigh impossible to eliminate crime altogether, so crime prevention is not full-proof. Neither is rehabilitation - many can 'cheat' the systems in place, and for others it simply does not work. For yet others, they simply don't want it to work. While I accept that these individuals are probably in the minority, I do believe we have to have measures in place that account for them. Also, in the cases of those that rehabilitation does work for, as well as rehab, they ought to take responsibility for their actions. That doesn't have to mean physical harm, of course, but incarceration for an appropriate period of time (with rehab programmes within it), seems a fair idea. In this regard, punishment can serve as rehabilitation as well as simply retribution - making an individual accountable and responsible for his/her actions is the path to maturity and empowerment, in my humble opinion.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 14:30
Oooh, burn. I didn't realize it was a controversial statement to condemn serial killers, individuals who brutally torture and killer their victims, to death.

Not at all.

But I like to counter views that the state has the right to take your life because some court that may be right or wrong says you're guilty. I think that the only death penalty that is acceptable is the one dished out by the would-be victim at the time of the would-be crime. I also think anyone who supports the death penalty should serve a five year term as an executioner, and be told of any innocents they happened to kill.

Now that's controversial.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 14:33
That responsibility goes to the jury, not the excecutioner.

No.

If you wrap a rope around someone's neck and hoist them up a tree until they stop kicking, you have just killed them. Not the jury. They just decided you have the right (and indeed the duty) to.

[edit] In fact, they don't even do that. They decide innocence or guilt. The judge passes sentence, and decides whether you as an executioner, get to kill someone.
Compulsive Depression
06-09-2005, 14:49
I believe in crime prevention and rehabilitation. both are time consuming and expensive, but they seem to bring better results in the end.
I found a few statistics about reconviction in the UK (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/offenderindex1.html) (under "Trends Over Time").

Not to oversimplify or anything, but about 50% of criminals are reconvicted. Not such a good result, in my book.

Do you have any methods that would approach the 0% that the death penalty manages so simply?
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 14:54
Do you have any methods that would approach the 0% that the death penalty manages so simply?

Probably about as many methods as there are for the resurrection of the innocent victims of your proposed punishment method.

[edit]

Only court sentences are covered, and only those for ‘standard list’ offences. Standard list offences include all ‘indictable only’ and ‘triable either way’ offences and some of the more serious ‘summary’ offences such as common assault and driving whilst disqualified or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.


Driving while disqualified should be a capital offense?

Now, what's the re-offense rating for murderers, please?
CanuckHeaven
06-09-2005, 14:54
Fallacy of post-hoc. Unless you can show a direct link between the death penalty and higher murder rates, your argument is invalid.
Perhaps if you did some research on your own to prove that the "argument is invalid" then your argument would not be based solely on hollow rhetoric. The premise has been established and you have not disproven it.


Or maybe you're just pointing out a statistic that has no relevance to this debate. Either way.
That is an illogical statement. The topic is "death penalty".

But if I conceded that point, I'd merely point out what I said in my first post in this thread: if the death penalty were only in place to deter crime, you'd have a really great argument.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the original "argument". It is through your post(s) that you are attempting to change the focus of the debate.

Also, most countries with the death penalty don't subscribe to Lockean natural rights philosophy.
Whatever "philosophy" they subscribe to is irrelevant. The facts appear to support that the countries without the death penalty tend to have lower rates of murder. Your desire for "revenge" seems to be based more on personal satisfaction than doing what is right for society as a whole.
Archstantia
06-09-2005, 14:59
It is difficult; in my mind, to label capital punisment as cruel and unusual. It isn't at all unusual, as society has been executing criminals since God was a boy; and anyone who complains that the execution of, say, a serial rapist and killer is cruel needs to get some perspective.

There is always the possibility that an innocent person may be sentened to death, but Thomas Sowell has often said that there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs. If the criminal justice system occaisionally convicts innocent people; and convicting innocent people is wrong, then we would have to do away with the entire criminal justice system. Besides, with today's forensic technology, the odds of sending an innocent person to death row are astronomical.

It's not a nice business, but it's a guarantee against recidivism. And we really need to think about whether those sentenced to die for apalling crimes really deserve our sympathy.
Globes R Us
06-09-2005, 15:00
As someone has already said, the point of the thread is not to do with revenge, it is that capital punishment does not deter murder. So we should try and find a real deterent rather than focus on the past. I also note that few 'pro' capital punisment even acknowledge that most unlawful killings are not contemplated. The attitude of 'top them all' is not just immoral, it's medieval. Fortunately, in countries that don't kill killers, each case is weighed on its merits.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 15:05
It is difficult; in my mind, to label capital punisment as cruel and unusual. It isn't at all unusual, as society has been executing criminals since God was a boy; and anyone who complains that the execution of, say, a serial rapist and killer is cruel needs to get some perspective.

There is always the possibility that an innocent person may be sentened to death, but Thomas Sowell has often said that there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs.


It's not an acceptable trade-off when I'm the innocent.
Zaxon
06-09-2005, 15:07
Have a look around you... homo sapiens has inhabited this planet for about 500 000 years now, and the "an eye for and eye"-law is one of the oldest examples of written speech in existance. Do you think it'll take another half a million years for them to get the point?

Considering it's not really used in the US, no, they won't get it. They've never really seen an example.

The more we postpone the actual implementation, the longer it WILL take for humans to get the picture.

Today, it's just too easy to get out of paying for what one does that is damaging or irresponsible.
Zaxon
06-09-2005, 15:08
No.

If you wrap a rope around someone's neck and hoist them up a tree until they stop kicking, you have just killed them. Not the jury. They just decided you have the right (and indeed the duty) to.

[edit] In fact, they don't even do that. They decide innocence or guilt. The judge passes sentence, and decides whether you as an executioner, get to kill someone.

Either way, the decision isn't up to the executioner--and that was my point.
Cabra West
06-09-2005, 15:13
Considering it's not really used in the US, no, they won't get it. They've never really seen an example.

The more we postpone the actual implementation, the longer it WILL take for humans to get the picture.

Today, it's just too easy to get out of paying for what one does that is damaging or irresponsible.

Considering that the US has only been around for 200 years and that in the rest of the world for most of those half a million years, punishment used to be swift, cruel and in many cases unjust, they ought to have the picture by now, don't you think?
Compulsive Depression
06-09-2005, 15:14
Probably about as many methods as there are for the resurrection of the innocent victims of your proposed punishment method.

Do you think there would be more innocent victims of punishment, or innocent victims of re-offending?
Pick the lesser of two evils.

Bear in mind people tend to start at the bottom and work up.

Driving while disqualified should be a capital offense?

If I had my way:
Driving whilst disqualified (or drunk, etc.)? No.
Causing an accident whilst driving whilst disqualified (etc.)? Yes.

Now, what's the re-offense rating for murderers, please?
Sadly, I don't know. If anyone does, please post them.
Mazalandia
06-09-2005, 15:20
As someone has already said, the point of the thread is not to do with revenge, it is that capital punishment does not deter murder. So we should try and find a real deterent rather than focus on the past. I also note that few 'pro' capital punisment even acknowledge that most unlawful killings are not contemplated. The attitude of 'top them all' is not just immoral, it's medieval. Fortunately, in countries that don't kill killers, each case is weighed on its merits.

While it may not appear to be an effective deterrant, none of the values you give appear to attempt to link the fear of the death penalty to murder rates, and hence your data is open to the influence of other factors.
An more interesting statisitic would be the recidivism (sp) of released murderers, which I did not see. That is if a murderer is not executed, how many kill again when out of prison?
I am for paedophile execution as the reoffending rate is so high, but murder is a different proposition, as there are circumstances where I and many people would kill, but none where I would rape a person/child
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 15:22
Either way, the decision isn't up to the executioner--and that was my point.

Yes, it is. You decide whether you are going to hoist that guy up a tree. You decide whether to get a job as an executioner in the first place. You decide whether you support the death penalty enough to go out and kill people. That's your arms there, that is.

And I think you should be informed if you kill an innocent.
Zaxon
06-09-2005, 15:22
Considering that the US has only been around for 200 years and that in the rest of the world for most of those half a million years, punishment used to be swift, cruel and in many cases unjust, they ought to have the picture by now, don't you think?

Not really, you know how crappy our public school system is? :) Seriously, the history that we're taught is really awful.

The problem is, in the US, we're in the "victim" mentality, where nothing is someone's fault--it's all someone else's fault. There is no more responsibility for oneself.

If we could make some of the punishments on the books today actually stick, I might be a little less animated about having some more stringent punishments.
Zaxon
06-09-2005, 15:28
Yes, it is. You decide whether you are going to hoist that guy up a tree. You decide whether to get a job as an executioner in the first place. That's your arms there, that is.

Well there ya go, then.

Let's let all executioners just have some veto power, eh?

As an excecutioner, you are acting as a tool--a device--that is facilitating the edicts of the decision handed down by a group of peers and a judge. You are not making the decision that the person must die.

The paperwork is handed to you--you do the paperwork, as that is your job. Same for putting a person in front of you. You're not making the choice that the person will die--the only choice you're making is that it will be by your hand. The person is still going to die.

I think we're arguing two different things. You're talking about the direct action of a human mentally actuating their limbs to perform the actual act of killing someone vs. my argument that the person will die, regardless the executioner.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 15:30
I am for paedophile execution as the reoffending rate is so high, but murder is a different proposition, as there are circumstances where I and many people would kill, but none where I would rape a person/child

If that were a capital offense, I wouldn't have reported the guy, and he'd still be teaching <11 year olds. As it is, he's part of the way through serving a three and a half year prison term and he'll be signing the sex offender's register for life.

Actually I'd have been content with him just being out of the reach of children, but there you go.
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 15:33
The rate of a murderer to commit a crime after being released is about 60-80% probable depending on the implications that have to do with mental treatment and life in prison.

Prisons actually can have worse effects on the prisoners then putting them in a cell for 5 years in solitary confinement. Some of the prisoners learn new skills "so to speak" while in jail with other more highly skilled murderers. Besides the mental state of a prisoner can diminish while he is still in prison, and when they get released even if it is at the end of his/her sentence they normally don't fit in our environment, as well as can't hold a job either, and others are just hated by society as a whole being outcasted even if they payed the price for their crimes with a long sentence in jail.

If parol didn't exist most of the jails on the planet would be overpopulated which they pretty much are already. Besides economically speaking, it takes more money to pay guards and personnell as well as electricity for the instalation and feeding the prisoners for the rest of their lives or the entire period of their sentences. It is more profitable for a country to kill and not deal with the same person again, if they get free, or escape, and commit another murder.

Many find capital punishment to be immoral and what not, but if we do send someone to jail a "murderer", he gets paroled, and comes to live right next to you, I am almost a 100% sure that if you know he was a known murderer you would be afraid of your neighbor, and specially when it concerns your families. The most violent human beings should get executed, while lesser crimes should go more severely so people would stop doing them. In third world countries commiting crimes is the only way to survive, while going into jail means its a reward since they wont have to kill in order to get fed, or have to run everyday from the law in order to be able to sleep in a somewhat comfortable place. If you look at things, the better the facilities are, the more of a vacation SPA they are. So I say death means death, and robbery would mean that they have to pay off what they stole. And then that they should be monitored or be put in an environment where they would fit in, where normal peacefull societies who fear them wouldn't be the first choice.
Gun toting civilians
06-09-2005, 15:35
Yes, it is. You decide whether you are going to hoist that guy up a tree. You decide whether to get a job as an executioner in the first place. You decide whether you support the death penalty enough to go out and kill people. That's your arms there, that is.

And I think you should be informed if you kill an innocent.

There is never a shortage of executioners.

Please tell me how many "innocent" people are in prision, let alone on death row.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 15:37
Well there ya go, then.

Let's let all executioners just have some veto power, eh?

As an excecutioner, you are acting as a tool--a device--that is facilitating the edicts of the decision handed down by a group of peers and a judge. You are not making the decision that the person must die.

The paperwork is handed to you--you do the paperwork, as that is your job. Same for putting a person in front of you. You're not making the choice that the person will die--the only choice you're making is that it will be by your hand. The person is still going to die.

I think we're arguing two different things. You're talking about the direct action of a human mentally actuating their limbs to perform the actual act of killing someone vs. my argument that the person will die, regardless the executioner.


I know the decision on whether someone deserves to die or not is not made by the executioner. However, the executioner still does the killing, and I would like the executioner to know if they've killed an innocent. Actually, I'd also like the judge to know if they condemned an innocent. I also stand by my original opinion that anyone who is so vociferously in support of the death penalty should serve a five year term as an executioner, and be told of any innocents they kill.
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 15:40
How many innocents are proven that they have killed a murder or that they have confesed to a murder plz mention one that is innocent after killing and confessing. Or a rapist or child molester and such.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 15:40
There is never a shortage of executioners.

Please tell me how many "innocent" people are in prision, let alone on death row.

Personally I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet the answer is "more than zero". When you're dealing with something as final as the death penalty, that is an unacceptable margin of error.

I also think there would be significantly less people willing to hoist other people up trees (but of course, only in a good cause), if they were to know that if they kill an innocent, they will know about it.
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 15:44
The investigation as well as the legal system is inperfect, the judges as well as jury can and most often will make a mistake, but a high percentage of the people incarcerated by committing murder or other high offenses are most of the time the true criminals. If all the criminals had to die we wouldnt have second time offenses, but we would have innocents killed as we do already have innocent people in jail with true murderers and thieves.
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 15:47
The one thing that truelly should be punished along with the criminals should be the lawyers that are trying to win a case in favor of a criminal a known criminal. When the attorneys know that their client is truelly the one who commited the murders or rapes and any of the other high offenses many of them for money and status, fight to free them and win the case. It is such people and such flukes within the legal system that should also be punished for they are trying to release a criminal into the world without any sort of punishment.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 15:47
Hanging, electric chair, gas, lethal injection, none deter murder. Fact.
Good thing my support (such as it is) for the death penalty has nothing to do with its ability to deter murder.
Zaxon
06-09-2005, 15:49
I know the decision on whether someone deserves to die or not is not made by the executioner. However, the executioner still does the killing, and I would like the executioner to know if they've killed an innocent.


Why? To punish them for a decision they didn't make?


Actually, I'd also like the judge to know if they condemned an innocent. I also stand by my original opinion that anyone who is so vociferously in support of the death penalty should serve a five year term as an executioner, and be told of any innocents they kill.

Hoo boy....So, you want murderers to have it easy, while you want to punish someone for actually performing the executioner.
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 15:54
The rate of a murderer to commit a crime after being released is about 60-80% probable depending on the implications that have to do with mental treatment and life in prison.

Prisons actually can have worse effects on the prisoners then putting them in a cell for 5 years in solitary confinement. Some of the prisoners learn new skills "so to speak" while in jail with other more highly skilled murderers. Besides the mental state of a prisoner can diminish while he is still in prison, and when they get released even if it is at the end of his/her sentence they normally don't fit in our environment, as well as can't hold a job either, and others are just hated by society as a whole being outcasted even if they payed the price for their crimes with a long sentence in jail.

If parol didn't exist most of the jails on the planet would be overpopulated which they pretty much are already. Besides economically speaking, it takes more money to pay guards and personnell as well as electricity for the instalation and feeding the prisoners for the rest of their lives or the entire period of their sentences. It is more profitable for a country to kill and not deal with the same person again, if they get free, or escape, and commit another murder.

Many find capital punishment to be immoral and what not, but if we do send someone to jail a "murderer", he gets paroled, and comes to live right next to you, I am almost a 100% sure that if you know he was a known murderer you would be afraid of your neighbor, and specially when it concerns your families. The most violent human beings should get executed, while lesser crimes should go more severely so people would stop doing them. In third world countries commiting crimes is the only way to survive, while going into jail means its a reward since they wont have to kill in order to get fed, or have to run everyday from the law in order to be able to sleep in a somewhat comfortable place. If you look at things, the better the facilities are, the more of a vacation SPA they are. So I say death means death, and robbery would mean that they have to pay off what they stole. And then that they should be monitored or be put in an environment where they would fit in, where normal peacefull societies who fear them wouldn't be the first choice.


May I add that countries with death penalty have a rise in the crime community but what you didn't read in the fine print is that most of the crimes are that of lesser importance then those of murders and such. Most are robberies and most of them are non-violent (if such a thing exists) which most of the time means nobody got killed. Crimes do go up but thats because the capital punishment crimes do go down in a severe quantity. Just think about it, how many people are willing to kill just to get publicly executed, and how many fear death (if you find the number you are a genius)? The numbers balance themselves as violent crimes so to speak go down the really low crimes become of higher importance and become higher in numbers, as long as the populations that are in those sectors are really high.
Gun toting civilians
06-09-2005, 15:58
The one thing that truelly should be punished along with the criminals should be the lawyers that are trying to win a case in favor of a criminal a known criminal. When the attorneys know that their client is truelly the one who commited the murders or rapes and any of the other high offenses many of them for money and status, fight to free them and win the case. It is such people and such flukes within the legal system that should also be punished for they are trying to release a criminal into the world without any sort of punishment.

This is one thing that makes me angry sometimes, but is one of the best things about our legal system. While I hate the fact that a known criminal can walk on a technicality, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. This is most likely to let a guilty man walk than send an innocent man to prison.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 16:00
Hoo boy....So, you want murderers to have it easy, while you want to punish someone for actually performing the executioner.

Yes. Of course I want murderers to get away with it. And I'm not being sarcastic at all.

Jesus H Christ on a stick, why do death penalty supporters assume I want people to be killed? Or that you should be able to shoot anyone you like (or don't like)?
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 16:02
Which is the reason why lawyers should be more of a police officer then a money hungry prick. If it where a police officer defending him WITH reasonable and truthfull proof, we wouldnt have a problem. But the fact is that one its a civilian who can be threatened by the killer, and a lot of times for the purpose of money they are willing to defend a guilty man who has confessed to them they are guilty. The real eason behind all of this, is that if a police officer is told that the person is really guilty, then he could be send to jail skipping the entire prosecution "go directly to jail phrase perhaps?!".
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 16:04
Yes. Of course I want murderers to get away with it. And I'm not being sarcastic at all.

Jesus H Christ on a stick, why do death penalty supporters assume I want people to be killed?

We don't assume you want people to get killed since you are against it, IT WOULD BE RHETORICAL AND ILLOGICAL. What we assume is that YOU feel guilt of them dying when you actually have nothing to do with it unless you are the jury in the trial.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 16:05
Jesus H Christ on a stick, why do death penalty supporters assume I want people to be killed?
To be fair, they aren't saying you want people to be killed, just that you are trying to make it easier for murderers to go free. Which you are, even though it's a sad side effect rather than your main intention. The changes you propose would make it easier for murderers to go free and potentially find new victims. You feel that it's a fair trade, since you believe you would reduce the number of innocent people who are executed by the state, but other people don't feel it is a fair trade.
Forstona
06-09-2005, 16:05
Well, I'm against the death penalty because a crime can't possibly justify a crime. I am however completely in favor of a less comfortable stay in prison for the most evil of perpetrators. For instance I truly believe that rape and murder are completely horrendous and the time spent in jail should reflect such.

If you murder or rape someone your stay in prison should be a lonely one. Maybe instead of luxuries such as internet and cable television, these monsters could spend life in solitaire, with only the basics to eat - bread and water. There's no point in spending billions in tax dollars giving these people better lives than they might have indulged in their small corner of Chicago.

And with a future like this to look forward to, surely they may think twice before committing a crime.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 16:08
Well, I'm against the death penalty because a crime can't possibly justify a crime. I am however completely in favor of a less comfortable stay in prison for the most evil of perpetrators. For instance I truly believe that rape and murder are completely horrendous and the time spent in jail should reflect such.

If you murder or rape someone your stay in prison should be a lonely one. Maybe instead of luxuries such as internet and cable television, these monsters could spend life in solitaire, with only the basics to eat - bread and water. There's no point in spending billions in tax dollars giving these people better lives than they might have indulged in their small corner of Chicago.

And with a future like this to look forward to, surely they may think twice before committing a crime.

Indeedy.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 16:08
Well, I'm against the death penalty because a crime can't possibly justify a crime. I am however completely in favor of a less comfortable stay in prison for the most evil of perpetrators. For instance I truly believe that rape and murder are completely horrendous and the time spent in jail should reflect such.

If you murder or rape someone your stay in prison should be a lonely one. Maybe instead of luxuries such as internet and cable television, these monsters could spend life in solitaire, with only the basics to eat - bread and water. There's no point in spending billions in tax dollars giving these people better lives than they might have indulged in their small corner of Chicago.

And with a future like this to look forward to, surely they may think twice before committing a crime.
Personally, I'm all for a lifetime of forced labor with no possibility of parole. I think murder and rape both warrant such a sentence, and every dime of money a prisoner earns should go to organizations that help rape survivors or the families of murder victims.

In principle, I support the death penalty. I believe that somebody who rapes or murders should be killed immediately. However, I believe our current justice system is not able to provide adequate certainty of guilt upon conviction, and I cannot support executions in a system where innocent parties may be wrongfully convicted. When we have a 100% accurate way of identifying the guilty parties, then I will 100% support the death penalty.
Zaxon
06-09-2005, 16:11
Yes. Of course I want murderers to get away with it. And I'm not being sarcastic at all.

Jesus H Christ on a stick, why do death penalty supporters assume I want people to be killed? Or that you should be able to shoot anyone you like (or don't like)?

I don't. But perhaps sarcasm isn't the fashion most feasible to converting others to your point of view.

I do, however, believe I should be able to shoot anyone attacking me (which would definitely put them in the "don't like" category). :)

As for murderers not getting the death penalty, they can and do walk (often) in the US, even with life sentences (because life means something different according to the legal system, as opposed to actual life span of the person being incarcerated--or so it seems).

Plus, why should I pay for a murderer to live with three squares a day, entertainment, and education? Criminals have it better than those below the poverty line in the US. And that's just wrong.
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 16:14
Well, I'm against the death penalty because a crime can't possibly justify a crime. I am however completely in favor of a less comfortable stay in prison for the most evil of perpetrators. For instance I truly believe that rape and murder are completely horrendous and the time spent in jail should reflect such.

If you murder or rape someone your stay in prison should be a lonely one. Maybe instead of luxuries such as internet and cable television, these monsters could spend life in solitaire, with only the basics to eat - bread and water. There's no point in spending billions in tax dollars giving these people better lives than they might have indulged in their small corner of Chicago.

And with a future like this to look forward to, surely they may think twice before committing a crime.

Then tell me this, if a guilty person stays alive and GETS paroled even if he did only eat bread and water for who knows how many years of his life in solitary confinement, HOW MANY OF THESE DERANGED LUNATICS WOULD WANT REVENGE? maybe the answer is not so apparent in cities as New York where someone dies everyday by a murder or so, but murderers have a way to become more deranged and sometime better equipped and more resourcefull when getting out of jail. I know this, because in my home country, 12 military officers payed the price for letting a prisoner go on parol. Military jails are close to that of civilians in the part that they can get paroled as well. And when they do, they as deranged if not more sane then civilians, since their lives is to train to defend their countries. these people are easy to catch relative to a civilian who has been running away from the police for all his life if the shoe fits. People have a way to become worse people inside jail, and this is proven by civilians who are wrongfully accussed and go to jail, most of them when they come out come out with irriversible mental conditions, and even worse they are mentally scared for the rest of their lives, if not physically as well. And remember that the guards in most prisons dont make life an easy life for most prisoners specially when they dont do what the guards want.
Forstona
06-09-2005, 16:18
Then tell me this, if a guilty person stays alive and GETS paroled even if he did only eat bread and water for who knows how many years of his life in solitary confinement, HOW MANY OF THESE DERANGED LUNATICS WOULD WANT REVENGE? maybe the answer is not so apparent in cities as New York where someone dies everyday by a murder or so, but murderers have a way to become more deranged and sometime better equipped and more resourcefull when getting out of jail. I know this, because in my home country, 12 military officers payed the price for letting a prisoner go on parol. Military jails are close to that of civilians in the part that they can get paroled as well. And when they do, they as deranged if not more sane then civilians, since their lives is to train to defend their countries. these people are easy to catch relative to a civilian who has been running away from the police for all his life if the shoe fits. People have a way to become worse people inside jail, and this is proven by civilians who are wrongfully accussed and go to jail, most of them when they come out come out with irriversible mental conditions, and even worse they are mentally scared for the rest of their lives, if not physically as well. And remember that the guards in most prisons dont make life an easy life for most prisoners specially when they dont do what the guards want.

Ok. Let me clarify -- Life in prison should mean life in prison and if your crime is so dire as murder or rape you should never get the opportunity for parole or conveniences for good behaviour. I don't think that you should murder a murderer because that makes you a murderer and there's no justice in that.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 16:21
Then tell me this, if a guilty person stays alive and GETS paroled even if he did only eat bread and water for who knows how many years of his life in solitary confinement, HOW MANY OF THESE DERANGED LUNATICS WOULD WANT REVENGE?
I think the point was that there will never be parole for these individuals.

maybe the answer is not so apparent in cities as New York where someone dies everyday by a murder or so, but murderers have a way to become more deranged and sometime better equipped and more resourcefull when getting out of jail. I know this, because in my home country, 12 military officers payed the price for letting a prisoner go on parol. Military jails are close to that of civilians in the part that they can get paroled as well. And when they do, they as deranged if not more sane then civilians, since their lives is to train to defend their countries. these people are easy to catch relative to a civilian who has been running away from the police for all his life if the shoe fits. People have a way to become worse people inside jail, and this is proven by civilians who are wrongfully accussed and go to jail, most of them when they come out come out with irriversible mental conditions, and even worse they are mentally scared for the rest of their lives, if not physically as well. And remember that the guards in most prisons dont make life an easy life for most prisoners specially when they dont do what the guards want.
Well gee, it sounds like we shouldn't imprison guilty people at all, since being imprisoned makes them mad! I mean, being locked up isn't fun, and if we make the murderers unhappy then they will be more likely to flip out and want revenge! So we can't kill murderers, we can't imprison them...what can we do? Maybe, ask them nicely not to kill people? Or might that hurt their feelings, and make them more likely to lash out at somebody? No, best that we don't say anything to the murderers, since it might upset them...
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 16:22
Ok. Let me clarify -- Life in prison should mean life in prison and if your crime is so dire as murder or rape you should never get the opportunity for parole or conveniences for good behaviour. I don't think that you should murder a murderer because that makes you a murderer and there's no justice in that.

Then there is justice in letting them live? even if they are confined into a box where they are more likely to kill themselves, wouldnt that also make you a murderer. The fact that you let someone kill themselves or more like give them either that or escape as their only solutions, people would become murderers just for letting them kill themselves. One way or another someone will die under those conditions. If solitary confinement is only enforced for weeks and months at maximum for most prisoners except those on death row, imagine the criminals who would be let for their entire lifetimes, if they dont turn into lunes, they will most oftenly kill themselves meaning that you are still executing them ... just in an inidrect fashion.
Gun toting civilians
06-09-2005, 16:33
Then there is justice in letting them live? even if they are confined into a box where they are more likely to kill themselves, wouldnt that also make you a murderer. The fact that you let someone kill themselves or more like give them either that or escape as their only solutions, people would become murderers just for letting them kill themselves. One way or another someone will die under those conditions. If solitary confinement is only enforced for weeks and months at maximum for most prisoners except those on death row, imagine the criminals who would be let for their entire lifetimes, if they dont turn into lunes, they will most oftenly kill themselves meaning that you are still executing them ... just in an inidrect fashion.

Good point. If someone is so mentally deranged that they are dangerous, or realises what they have done and think that the only way to attone for their sin is to commit suicide, is it not more humane to execute them quickly and painlessly?
Forstona
06-09-2005, 16:42
Then there is justice in letting them live? even if they are confined into a box where they are more likely to kill themselves, wouldnt that also make you a murderer. The fact that you let someone kill themselves or more like give them either that or escape as their only solutions, people would become murderers just for letting them kill themselves. One way or another someone will die under those conditions. If solitary confinement is only enforced for weeks and months at maximum for most prisoners except those on death row, imagine the criminals who would be let for their entire lifetimes, if they dont turn into lunes, they will most oftenly kill themselves meaning that you are still executing them ... just in an inidrect fashion.

No, he killed himself out of personal will, maybe even with your thought of indirect homicide in mind. And, is there such a thing as justice in the first place? Probably not since in a society of free will and ideology people will have their own interpretation of justice. And if a person kills himself in prison, then so be it. It's his choice, not mine. I will still go to bed knowing that neither I or the State executed him.
Mattneubistan
06-09-2005, 16:49
I agree with the comment by bottle. While I won't argue the state has a doesn't have a right to execute those guilty of certain crimes, I believe it does, this becomes a moot point for other reasons. The absence of a perfect legal system and thus the absence of certain guilt, means innocents will be executed.

The justice of 100 guility men executed does not balance the injustice of 1 innocent man executed. Recent DNA evidence (in US cases) has overturned enough death row cases to demonstrate that the ratio of 100:1 is better than the system actually operates upon. The perfect justice of a murderer receiving the death sentence is certainly appealling, to myself as well, but not worth the currently unvoidable side effect of killing innocents.

Statistics(From an admitedly biased site) (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=292#Part%20I:%20%20The%20Danger%20of%20Mistaken%20Executions)
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 17:12
We don't assume you want people to get killed since you are against it, IT WOULD BE RHETORICAL AND ILLOGICAL. What we assume is that YOU feel guilt of them dying when you actually have nothing to do with it unless you are the jury in the trial.

By supporting it, I have something to do with it. Especially if I vote specifically for it. Hence, I'll always argue against the death penalty. I don't want one innocent person killed by the state. I don't want any innocent person killed at all, but when the state does it, it becomes especially heinous.

Lock 'em up for life, by all means. And I don't mean in a guilded cage where Sky TV and cordon bleu are served up daily.
Khudros
06-09-2005, 17:12
I quite agree, but sadly that's not the way it's done (at least here in the UK) anymore. I really don't care about whether it deters crime or not; crimes deserve punishment, and ordinary law abiding people deserve to be protected from the criminal scum who perpetrate them. To that end, theoretically, I am totally in favour of the death penalty (given the current dire system of incarceration). However, in practice, I have to remain against it - solely on the basis that there is a small chance you could be executing an innocent person. Were that risk somehow eliminated, I wouldn't think twice about sending some evil bastard to their death, though I agree with Tink that it would be better if prisons were actually tough and you could make the bastards suffer for the rest of their natural lives.

I think if you're going to send anyone to prison you'd better send them for life, because penitentiaries don't reform people they make total animals out of them. Even if someone is locked away for a couple years they come out more of a criminal than when they went in. What's ironic is the system was originally justified as a way to reform criminals, not make them worse.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 17:14
Good point. If someone is so mentally deranged that they are dangerous, or realises what they have done and think that the only way to attone for their sin is to commit suicide, is it not more humane to execute them quickly and painlessly?

How can it possibly be "humane" to kill someone?

If someone decides to top themselves, that's absolutely nothing to do with me, dearie.
MechanicaWarfare
06-09-2005, 17:25
Then killing them by making them stay a live untill the day they die of old age or suicide it has to do with you as i said even if it indirectly. If you sentence someone to LIFE! in prison you are still carrying out his death sentence. Even if you don't want to realize it, you are supporting the death sentence but on a more expensive and long term basis. That someone is reformed would be a kind of justice which is at least one person keeps on living for the others in a morlaistic and sarcastic yet punishable way, but sending someone to jail for life is carrying out a death sentence. If he still stays in jail for life (jails are going to be crowded for a long time then and you better build skyscrapers of jails then), and he doesnt commit suicide he is bound to die by old age thus meaning YOU CARRIED OUT A DEATH SENTENCE but you don't care because you perceive it as something else. You think he is paying for his crime by feeding him and letting him live. I prefer death sentence, but let them suffer before dying. Just do the most inhumane things possible to them so they pay the price. And about innocent people being killed. ONE INNOCENT PERSON IS BOUND TO BE KILLED ON YOUR KIND OF DEATHSENETENCE ANYWAYS. the probability that more then one civilian or more like innocent person is going to die by a life sentence is bound to happen. If you kill them years before would be the same thing as letting them live for an eternity waiting for them to die. Who knows maybe someone will prove his innocense by the time he is 62 with any luck, and he enters jail when 20 years old. So don't say you don't support the death sentence, for you do whether its in a long term basis or not. They are bound to die by one of our decisions anyways. Parol is the only humane way to do things that is why it is performed. Reformation although it has failed, was the humane ideal, but as i said before it has failed and it will keep on failing as our morales keep going down within our modern societies.
Unspeakable
06-09-2005, 17:46
I concur the death penalty should only be used with a higher stander of evidence, like DNA perhaps. You also cited excellent examples of how capital punishment is being abused. Besides the prosecution I've never seen anybody think Damien Echolls did it.



As a death penalty supported in a country that no longer has it (Australia). I would like to see it re-introduced. I would put more conditions upon it, but I would still support it's reintroduction.
Having said that, I find that the American death penalty is used too often on shaky evidence, such as the West Memphis Three and Tookie Williams
http://www.wm3.org/
http://www.tookie.com/
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 17:47
I think if you're going to send anyone to prison you'd better send them for life, because penitentiaries don't reform people they make total animals out of them. Even if someone is locked away for a couple years they come out more of a criminal than when they went in. I don't know that that is always true; rehabilitation programmes within prisons can work and even some of the most hardened criminals (with or without rehabilitation) do eventually realise how wrong what they did was. That said, yes, for the most serious of crimes I would send them for life. Not the so-called life sentence that we have here (25 years or so, often out in about 10), but literally for the rest of their life. I also agree with all of Bottle's stance on forced labour etc for those that are the recipients of such a sentence.
Secluded Islands
06-09-2005, 17:56
Have you ever been inside a prison?
I was helping a friend of mine who was doing counseling in a prison for underage offenders in Germany (she was a novice back then), and believe me, luxury is different.
yes, they do get a roof over their heads and three meals a day, and it should be an element of shame for all societies where there are people outside prison who don't even have that.
The prison I've been two largely had cells with 4 people, that's to say there were 4 bunks, a table, a small mirror and a toilet per cell.
The routine was getting up at 6, shower, breakfast, exercise in the yard, work, Lunch, work again, exercise again in the yard, 1 hour of personal time in which they could watch TV if they wanted to, then lock in and lights out at 9.30
If that's luxury to you...

edit : And no, they weren't getting things for free (apart from food and the bed) They got a rudimentary pay for their work, I think it was around 5 Euros per day, with which they could buy personal things, like chocolate, cigarettes, soap, etc.

no, ive never been inside one, but i have seen pictures and videos like most people have. well that sounds a lot like my day to be honest. get up, eat, study, go to class, eat, go back to classes, study, a couple hours of free time then go to sleep...some people that have been in prison for many years would rather remain inside prison the rest of thier lives.(certainly not all i know). they have a system they live by and they are provided everything they need and luxuries like tv...
Borgoa
06-09-2005, 18:59
no, ive never been inside one, but i have seen pictures and videos like most people have. well that sounds a lot like my day to be honest. get up, eat, study, go to class, eat, go back to classes, study, a couple hours of free time then go to sleep...some people that have been in prison for many years would rather remain inside prison the rest of thier lives.(certainly not all i know). they have a system they live by and they are provided everything they need and luxuries like tv...

I think the issue is the lack of freedom. Even if I lived in a luxury room with free food, television, etc etc, I would still feel greatly punished if I could never leave it for the outside world.
Frangland
06-09-2005, 19:06
And if the death penalty were in place solely to deter crime, you'd have a really great argument.

so you're saying that the only logical reason for it -- the hope that it deters future crime (it can't)-- is not the reason for it?

Let me guess, it's in place for vengeance... yeah, nice reason.

I'm a republican and am proud to say that I deplore the death penalty because it makes no sense ... the only leg it stands on is vengeance, and sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. And I don't want to hear the bleeding-heart stories ... not from fellow repubs, for crissakes. Whether or not the murderer of a beloved family member is incarcerated or dead should make no difference to the offended family.
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 19:14
Have you ever been inside a prison?
I was helping a friend of mine who was doing counseling in a prison for underage offenders in Germany (she was a novice back then), and believe me, luxury is different.
yes, they do get a roof over their heads and three meals a day, and it should be an element of shame for all societies where there are people outside prison who don't even have that.
The prison I've been two largely had cells with 4 people, that's to say there were 4 bunks, a table, a small mirror and a toilet per cell.
The routine was getting up at 6, shower, breakfast, exercise in the yard, work, Lunch, work again, exercise again in the yard, 1 hour of personal time in which they could watch TV if they wanted to, then lock in and lights out at 9.30
If that's luxury to you...

edit : And no, they weren't getting things for free (apart from food and the bed) They got a rudimentary pay for their work, I think it was around 5 Euros per day, with which they could buy personal things, like chocolate, cigarettes, soap, etc.Since I did my research in both my degrees to date on prison culture, I've been in a few a number of times. My step father was also a prison officer before his untimely death. Based on his tales and my own experiences, all I can say is that the system must be very different in Germany.
Moonshine
06-09-2005, 19:20
Then killing them by making them stay a live untill the day they die of old age or suicide it has to do with you as i said even if it indirectly. If you sentence someone to LIFE! in prison you are still carrying out his death sentence. Even if you don't want to realize it, you are supporting the death sentence but on a more expensive and long term basis. That someone is reformed would be a kind of justice which is at least one person keeps on living for the others in a morlaistic and sarcastic yet punishable way, but sending someone to jail for life is carrying out a death sentence. If he still stays in jail for life (jails are going to be crowded for a long time then and you better build skyscrapers of jails then), and he doesnt commit suicide he is bound to die by old age thus meaning YOU CARRIED OUT A DEATH SENTENCE but you don't care because you perceive it as something else. You think he is paying for his crime by feeding him and letting him live. I prefer death sentence, but let them suffer before dying. Just do the most inhumane things possible to them so they pay the price. And about innocent people being killed. ONE INNOCENT PERSON IS BOUND TO BE KILLED ON YOUR KIND OF DEATHSENETENCE ANYWAYS. the probability that more then one civilian or more like innocent person is going to die by a life sentence is bound to happen. If you kill them years before would be the same thing as letting them live for an eternity waiting for them to die. Who knows maybe someone will prove his innocense by the time he is 62 with any luck, and he enters jail when 20 years old. So don't say you don't support the death sentence, for you do whether its in a long term basis or not. They are bound to die by one of our decisions anyways. Parol is the only humane way to do things that is why it is performed. Reformation although it has failed, was the humane ideal, but as i said before it has failed and it will keep on failing as our morales keep going down within our modern societies.


Somebody is imprisoned, yet on new evidence is found innocent. Net result: said person is apologised to, given a healthy dose of compensation and set free.

You can't do that if they are dead.

There will always be miscarriages of justice. The system will always fail at some point. The best you can do is limit the damage when it does fail. You can't undo death.
Frangland
06-09-2005, 19:28
Somebody is imprisoned, yet on new evidence is found innocent. Net result: said person is apologised to, given a healthy dose of compensation and set free.

You can't do that if they are dead.

There will always be miscarriages of justice. The system will always fail at some point. The best you can do is limit the damage when it does fail. You can't undo death.

yeah... it's impossible to know how many innocent people have been wrongfully executed, but it is certain that some have been wronged thusly.

a)Cost

b)Not a deterrent at all (murderers don't stop to think, "Gee, maybe I shouldn't kill this person because I might get the death penalty..."). I'll expand this argument if anyone wants me to (wrote a 10-page Criminology paper on the DP's failure/inability to deter heinous crime).

c)Killing the wrong person occasionally

d)Government-sanctioned murder -- great example to set: "You can't kill people, but it's okay for us to do it."

e)Better punishment available, if that's what people want: 3 by 3 by 3 cell (or smaller).
Gun toting civilians
06-09-2005, 19:42
Unfortunatly, most criminals are pretty stupid, but don't realise it. They don't usually consider the punishment for thier actions because they believe that they are smart enough to not get caught. Until that changes, not much else will.
CanuckHeaven
06-09-2005, 19:54
so you're saying that the only logical reason for it -- the hope that it deters future crime (it can't)-- is not the reason for it?

Let me guess, it's in place for vengeance... yeah, nice reason.

I'm a republican and am proud to say that I deplore the death penalty because it makes no sense ... the only leg it stands on is vengeance, and sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. And I don't want to hear the bleeding-heart stories ... not from fellow repubs, for crissakes. Whether or not the murderer of a beloved family member is incarcerated or dead should make no difference to the offended family.
While I don't agree with you on a lot of issues, on this particular one, I am in total agreement.
CanuckHeaven
06-09-2005, 19:55
yeah... it's impossible to know how many innocent people have been wrongfully executed, but it is certain that some have been wronged thusly.

a)Cost

b)Not a deterrent at all (murderers don't stop to think, "Gee, maybe I shouldn't kill this person because I might get the death penalty..."). I'll expand this argument if anyone wants me to (wrote a 10-page Criminology paper on the DP's failure/inability to deter heinous crime).

c)Killing the wrong person occasionally

d)Government-sanctioned murder -- great example to set: "You can't kill people, but it's okay for us to do it."

e)Better punishment available, if that's what people want: 3 by 3 by 3 cell (or smaller).
All excellent points!! :)
Bottle
06-09-2005, 20:02
so you're saying that the only logical reason for it -- the hope that it deters future crime (it can't)-- is not the reason for it?

Let me guess, it's in place for vengeance... yeah, nice reason.

I won't speak for anybody else, but I can say that I don't believe the death penalty is justified for either of those reasons (detering crime or vengeance). I believe it's simply the appropriate punishment for a certain set of crimes, much like how you probably believe that imprisonment is the appropriate punishment for certain crimes. To me, there is no point in rehabilitating a murderer or rapist, and they should never be allowed to have contact with the rest of the world ever again, and I don't feel society should have to support their continued existence...so they can't go free, and we won't pay to keep them, therefore the only appropriate course is to see that they no longer exist.

If I wanted vengeance, I would sentence them to life in a forced labor camp with others like them and no protection against assault, rape, etc from the other inmates. If I wanted vengeance, I would want them tortured, or killed in horrible ways. But I don't. Sure, part of me wishes that a rapist could be tortured for a while, because we all have that nasty dark corner of the soul that hungers for "an eye for an eye," but I don't want to give in to that dark voice. I want to be led by the better side of my nature, the side that craves justice more than vengeance. And it is that side of my nature which supports the death penalty for murderers and rapists.

Of course, it is only a fair system when you can be 100% certain of guilt (which we currently cannot), but the fact remains that I would fully support the death penalty as a just consequence if guilt for these crimes could be determined without a doubt.
[NS]Antre_Travarious
06-09-2005, 20:04
its there for punishment and revenge then? :confused:
Yes, that is what it is for, and that is why it is abhorrent.

Punish by imprisonment, let God have the revenge.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 20:05
So hey, there's a side question:

IF (warning, big IF here) it were possible to be 100% positive in our convictions for crimes, would you support the death penalty? If there were ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that an innocent person would ever be executed, would you support it?

I know some people believe the death penalty is wrong no matter what, and I respect that opinion, but I am interested to see if there are other people who only oppose the death penalty because of the potential for executions to be carried out on innocent parties.
Drunk commies deleted
06-09-2005, 20:06
I'm morally opposed to the death penalty because I think that once you have a criminal in custody you no longer have any reason to kill him. He's already rendered harmless to society by being locked up. Still, I'm not militant about my anti-death position. I'm not trying to force government to enforce my moral judgement over that of the majority of the people when it comes to criminals who commit brutal crimes.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 20:06
Antre_Travarious']
Punish by imprisonment, let God have the revenge.
And for those of us who don't believe in God...? Don't propose "solutions" that only work for religious people.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 20:07
I'm morally opposed to the death penalty because I think that once you have a criminal in custody you no longer have any reason to kill him. He's already rendered harmless to society by being locked up.

But what about when he is released, as most violent offenders are?
Kazcaper
06-09-2005, 20:09
So hey, there's a side question:

IF (warning, big IF here) it were possible to be 100% positive in our convictions for crimes, would you support the death penalty? If there were ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that an innocent person would ever be executed, would you support it?

I know some people believe the death penalty is wrong no matter what, and I respect that opinion, but I am interested to see if there are other people who only oppose the death penalty because of the potential for executions to be carried out on innocent parties.Yes, I would certainly support it in that circumstance, for similar reasons to those you have already outlined. I am not against other means of dealing with criminals such as rehabilitation, but I think that (a) these are not necessarily foolproof and (b) they are not necessarily proportional to the gravity of the offence committed.
[NS]Antre_Travarious
06-09-2005, 20:10
And for those of us who don't believe in God...? Don't propose "solutions" that only work for religious people.
Who said I believe in God? Don't be so quick to jump on someone just because they believe differently.
San Welu
06-09-2005, 20:10
SAN WELU doesn't have enough crime for there to be a death penality! Thats the secret.
PRIVATE PROPERTY CREATED CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frangland
06-09-2005, 20:10
But what about when he is released, as most violent offenders are?

don't release him

...especially if he is a sociopath (IE, he did not commit a crime of passion but was simply playing with his toys)
Drunk commies deleted
06-09-2005, 20:10
But what about when he is released, as most violent offenders are?
I'm not in favor of releasing violent criminals who aren't rehabilitated. The fact is that some people can be rehabilitated, others are dangerous animals who need to be confined. We need to find a way to tell the difference and rehabilitate those who can be saved.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 20:11
Antre_Travarious']Who said I believe in God? Don't be so quick to jump on someone just because they believe differently.
I didn't realize I was jumping on you. If you felt I was being rough, you had better watch out...NS General isn't exactly a ball of cuddly puppies 24/7 :).
Frangland
06-09-2005, 20:12
also, if someone is trying to put death penalty words in Jesus' mouth... not good.

The Code of Hammurabi was "eye for an eye" ... while Jesus taught us to forgive.
Utracia
06-09-2005, 20:13
I'm not in favor of releasing violent criminals who aren't rehabilitated. The fact is that some people can be rehabilitated, others are dangerous animals who need to be confined. We need to find a way to tell the difference and rehabilitate those who can be saved.

Too bad that keeping the real rotten people locked up is hard to do. Perhaps we need more funding for the prison system so that DA's aren't forced to accept plea bargains to help keep space in jails. Keeping assholes in jail is what needs to be done, not having them released early from reduced sentences.
Bottle
06-09-2005, 20:14
I'm not in favor of releasing violent criminals who aren't rehabilitated. The fact is that some people can be rehabilitated, others are dangerous animals who need to be confined. We need to find a way to tell the difference and rehabilitate those who can be saved.
Why?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm honestly asking. Why should we rehabilitate people who choose to be violent against others? Why not spend our time and money helping those who didn't choose to hurt somebody else? These are questions I ask myself when I am trying to reconcile my views...see, I've worked in Corrections before, and I've worked with criminals and rehabilitation programs, yet I'm somebody who supports the death penalty. It's hard to sort through what I feel on the subject, sometimes, so I am interested to know what other poeple have come up with.
Oekai
06-09-2005, 20:15
Originally Posted by Pure Metal
its there for punishment and revenge then?

Yes, that is what it is for, and that is why it is abhorrent.

Punish by imprisonment, let God have the revenge.

Find an island with VERY limited resources.
Put all "lifers" on this island.
Let them survive there as best they can with their own kind.
If they'd prefer a humane euthanasia, give it them.

Nobody leaves the island, no non-native resources go to the island.

Permanent imprisonment is the best punishment possible if it has no cost.

The problem is that it does have costs, and thus there is the expediency of
the death sentence.

Punishment is a legitimate quality of society.

Revenge is also a legitimate quality of society, because revenge is really
nothing more than another word for punishment. Punishment of evil acts
should be paid for.

(( My opinion of course. :) ))


-The REAL Iakeo
CricketEaters
06-09-2005, 20:18
There is no such thing as freedom inside prison walls. Freedom is very much in the mind; we would consider freedom the ability TO do something regardless of whether we actually perform the action itself - the entire point of freedom is that we could have done if we wanted to. So it's not true that prison enjoys the freedoms, or the vaster majority of them at any rate, that people who are not imprisoned have got. We always have the freedom to make choices. In prison you don't have the freedom to make choices.
A prison with freedom is, by definition, no longer a prison.

I personally (though this is of course only my point of view) consider the Death penalty to be a useless waste of human life, and a very good way for countries who still support the death penalty (ie. USA) to present a bad image to the rest of the world. America considers itself cultured and civilised, and in killing its members is not being so. Why kill someone as punishment for murder when in doing so you commit a murder yourself, even if it is one which is within the laws? An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is not considered the humane way of dealing with things.
If the prisons are functioning properly, then prisons fulfill what the death penalty is meant to achieve, plus a little bit extra:

It prevents repetition of crime
It deters from committing crimes
It gives the possibility of rehabilitation
It is comparatively humane
It can be used for mild offences as well as serious


Plus it is a safe environment for prisoners to be reformed. not everyone can reform. Not everyone deserves the chance to, or will be able to. But its a damn sight better than dying - in prison you have to suffer for what you did. In Death, you don't have to do anything. Which is both a strong deterrent (the one good thing, not many people want to die), and a very pointless punishment.
Drunk commies deleted
06-09-2005, 20:19
Too bad that keeping the real rotten people locked up is hard to do. Perhaps we need more funding for the prison system so that DA's aren't forced to accept plea bargains to help keep space in jails. Keeping assholes in jail is what needs to be done, not having them released early from reduced sentences.
Not locking up people for victimless crimes like drug possesion and prostitution could probably save some prison space and funds to keep the genuinely dangerous criminals locked up too.
Drunk commies deleted
06-09-2005, 20:21
Why?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm honestly asking. Why should we rehabilitate people who choose to be violent against others? Why not spend our time and money helping those who didn't choose to hurt somebody else? These are questions I ask myself when I am trying to reconcile my views...see, I've worked in Corrections before, and I've worked with criminals and rehabilitation programs, yet I'm somebody who supports the death penalty. It's hard to sort through what I feel on the subject, sometimes, so I am interested to know what other poeple have come up with.
Why? Think of it as recycling. You take a violent criminal and transform him into a functional member of society. Instead of wasting money to warehouse him for life, or put him to death (which isnt' cheap), you instead turn him into someone who can pay society back.
Utracia
06-09-2005, 20:25
Not locking up people for victimless crimes like drug possesion and prostitution could probably save some prison space and funds to keep the genuinely dangerous criminals locked up too.

I suppose if you want to go that way you could. I understand that a good percentage of everyone in prison is inside on a drug charge.
Yupaenu
06-09-2005, 20:33
Well, that and the financial argument, I'm afraid.

Although it is a sad sign for any society to choose one's wallet before human life.
one human life, for the sake of the betterment of all of it(by removing them), is worth nothing.
Secluded Islands
06-09-2005, 20:36
Why? Think of it as recycling. You take a violent criminal and transform him into a functional member of society. Instead of wasting money to warehouse him for life, or put him to death (which isnt' cheap), you instead turn him into someone who can pay society back.

i still have my doubts about letting a murderer/violent criminal back into society. what keeps them from going back to thier old ways after they have been released?
Morvonia
06-09-2005, 20:36
Why? Think of it as recycling. You take a violent criminal and transform him into a functional member of society. Instead of wasting money to warehouse him for life, or put him to death (which isnt' cheap), you instead turn him into someone who can pay society back.



yes that also costs money,you still have to "store" the guy somewere not just realease him and trust him to come back.


Also it is easier said then done....if the man commites a crime all he has to do is bullshit his way through your "idea" and boom he is on the streets again.Prison is the best way.


BTT:If a man kills alot of people by all mean send him to the chair.....i am not heartless,but there are no certinty that this guy will come out a functional member of society,and can you take that chance?
Globes R Us
06-09-2005, 20:41
Why?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm honestly asking. Why should we rehabilitate people who choose to be violent against others? Why not spend our time and money helping those who didn't choose to hurt somebody else? These are questions I ask myself when I am trying to reconcile my views...see, I've worked in Corrections before, and I've worked with criminals and rehabilitation programs, yet I'm somebody who supports the death penalty. It's hard to sort through what I feel on the subject, sometimes, so I am interested to know what other poeple have come up with.

Most convictions for murder are for crimes of 'passion', IE they were not premeditated. Some are borne of frustration and or violence, say a wife against an abusive husband. We must not allow ourselves to get into a 'Foxnews' mindset. Only a minority of killers are serial or planned the act. With most convicts it's not a matter of 'choice', indeed, the word 'choice' debases the argument about deterence. Very few people change their views as a result of a discourse on the web and we're all entitled to our opinions. The arguments for capital punishment are clear. 'Deterence'.....well, I hope it's now accepted that it doesn't deter, that's the point of the thread. 'Get them away from us'.........prison does that equally effectively. 'Stop them from reoffending'.......a valid point, but a system that cares can be fairly sure that it can keep potential reoffenders in while rehabilitating those whos crime was a 'passionate' one. 'Revenge'.......the nastiest, least credible reason, it might be fitting for some fundamentalist societies but I would think we all want to live in moderate democracies. The arguments against are equally clear, and as an anti capital punishment man, I'm not gonna argue against them. First and possibly foremost, 'it doesn't deter'....second, in my view the most important, 'it's morally wrong'.........third, 'there is no system that can guarantee not to kill perfectly innocent people', in fact you can absolutely guarantee innocents will be executed.........

I just believe that if we have any right to regard ourselves as civilised, we have to find and use any punishment and deterence to killing, other than killing.

By the way Bottle, how are you these days? Long time no 'chat'.
Froudland
06-09-2005, 20:44
I also don't think people who violate your natural rights are entitled to their own. But that's a side issue.
That's the thing though, natural rights cannot be lost or removed, that is what makes them different from state-appointed rights. At least if we are assuming that so-called "natural" rights are the same as fundamental human rights, which are pretty much limited to: the right to life, liberty and the security of person; freedom from slavery or servitude; freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and equality before the law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes on, but the above are the basics. Someone who violates someone else's fundamental rights isn't stripped of their own, they still have them. Even the right to liberty. Punishment for a crime by imprisonment recognises this and is considered the only acceptable violation of an individual's rights.

The UN has actually instructed all it's members who still impose the death penalty to produce plans to withdraw what is considered "cruel and unusal punishment" by the UN. Until recently (1998) the death penalty was still punishment in the UK for high treason and bombing her majesty's docklands (or something, I'm a bit hazy on that bit!) but we complied with the UN's instruction and no longer impose the death penalty for any crime. The UN are still waiting for China and the USA (among others) to comply, they have recently been pressuring China in the wake of the new Iraqi government reinstating the death penalty. The four nations who execute the most people per year are China, Iran, USA and Viet Nam. Just a little fact so the US readers of this know which countries your "justice" system is comparible to.

Regardless of financial cost, I believe the only viable way to tackle crime is to examine the causes. Isn't it better for society to consider the causes and attempt to remove them, thereby preventing many (not all) crimes from occuring in the first place? And those that do occur should be punishable by means considered acceptable by the international community. There are currently 120 countries that do not impose the death penalty and 76 that do.
Globes R Us
06-09-2005, 20:47
Find an island with VERY limited resources.
Put all "lifers" on this island.
Let them survive there as best they can with their own kind.
If they'd prefer a humane euthanasia, give it them.
Nobody leaves the island, no non-native resources go to the island.
Permanent imprisonment is the best punishment possible if it has no cost.
The problem is that it does have costs, and thus there is the expediency of
the death sentence.
Punishment is a legitimate quality of society.
Revenge is also a legitimate quality of society, because revenge is really
nothing more than another word for punishment. Punishment of evil acts
should be paid for.
(( My opinion of course. :) ))
-The REAL Iakeo

People who argue the pros and cons of capital punishment based on monetary cost have no right to enter the debate, this is about peoples lives, both the victim (who should always be considered first) and the criminal. Revenge is not about punishment in a civilised society. Punishment is designed to deter. Do we punish children for revenge?
Finnsylvania
06-09-2005, 20:49
one human life, for the sake of the betterment of all of it(by removing them), is worth nothing.

OK. A condemed man's life is worth nothing. Worth 0. But what is 2 X 0? Hmm? 0. 10 X 0? 0. 6,000,000 Jews X 0? 0.
If you say a human life can be worth nothing, then you've already paved the way for god knows what. All it takes is for someone to decide the removal which life is most 'beneficial'.
History is full of people who would agree with you. And it is very important that we do not forget where that took us.
Drunk commies deleted
06-09-2005, 20:49
i still have my doubts about letting a murderer/violent criminal back into society. what keeps them from going back to thier old ways after they have been released?
Same thing that keeps you from doing it. That's what rehabilitation means. They're "cured" of the idea that they can kill folks because it's profitable, or because they feel offended.
Secluded Islands
06-09-2005, 20:53
Same thing that keeps you from doing it. That's what rehabilitation means. They're "cured" of the idea that they can kill folks because it's profitable, or because they feel offended.

if they really are rehabilitated...
Screwtheworld
06-09-2005, 20:55
Meh... I say we go with the whole "Eye for an eye" idea. I know what Gandhi said about it, but I really couldn't care much less. If we take the ba*ta*d outside and put a bullet through his brain, we no longer have a problem with him, that simple. If you kill somebody (out of cold blood), you die.

Of course you'd have to have a very fine definition of what 'Murder' is, things such as self defence and whatnot wouldn't count. So, yes.
Morvonia
06-09-2005, 20:55
rehabilitating those whos crime was a 'passionate' one



yes....but how do you prove otherwise....you have lawyers getting convicts a break by saying he was crazy...that he had no control of himself.


Also i would have to disagree with that.....passion dose not matter if you take a persons life....if they make that choice they have to live with it,not get off with rehabilitation.
Finnsylvania
06-09-2005, 20:57
yes that also costs money,you still have to "store" the guy somewere not just realease him and trust him to come back.


Also it is easier said then done....if the man commites a crime all he has to do is bullshit his way through your "idea" and boom he is on the streets again.Prison is the best way.


BTT:If a man kills alot of people by all mean send him to the chair.....i am not heartless,but there are no certinty that this guy will come out a functional member of society,and can you take that chance?

But you don't just say 'Aah, twenty years is up! Therefore, he must be a fully-functioning member of societey!'. No, you go through a series of interviews, and investigations, to see if it is safe to let him out.
And yes, I dare say he could kill again, but there is a lot of people out at the moment who haven't killed, but very easil could. DO we lock them up? No, because that is calles Fascism, and is naughty and wrong, little children.
Have you ever seen the Shawshank Redemtion? You know Red? Did it seem like he would go on a killing spree as soon as he was let out? No. yet he spent fourty years in jail. Does that make sense?
Morvonia
06-09-2005, 21:01
no i have not seen the movie so i cant give a answer...please explain more of that point so i can give a educated answer plz.
Finnsylvania
06-09-2005, 21:03
Meh... I say we go with the whole "Eye for an eye" idea. I know what Gandhi said about it, but I really couldn't care much less. If we take the ba*ta*d outside and put a bullet through his brain, we no longer have a problem with him, that simple. If you kill somebody, you die.

Of course you'd have to have a very fine definition of what 'Murder' is, things such as self defence and whatnot wouldn't count. So, yes.

Well, Mein Furher, who defines what deserves death? First murder. Then theft. Then standing up for yourself. Soon enough, just because your different. It's happened before. And don't give me this 'Well, in America' bullsh*t. Apart from the deliberate attempt at genocide on the native population of the country (the native's country), the countinued rascist violence in places like LA, by the very police who are supposed to protect people.
Frangland
06-09-2005, 21:03
yes that also costs money,you still have to "store" the guy somewere not just realease him and trust him to come back.


Also it is easier said then done....if the man commites a crime all he has to do is bullshit his way through your "idea" and boom he is on the streets again.Prison is the best way.


BTT:If a man kills alot of people by all mean send him to the chair.....i am not heartless,but there are no certinty that this guy will come out a functional member of society,and can you take that chance?

how about mandatory life in prison (real life... until death) for all those found guilty of first-degree homicide? That'd take care of the fear of ever seeing the Worst of the Worst on the streets again.
Drunk commies deleted
06-09-2005, 21:09
if they really are rehabilitated...
Yep. Some will fake it, but if the system is designed correctly many if not most people who commit a violent crime will be recycled into usefull parts of the social machine.
Morvonia
06-09-2005, 21:09
But you don't just say 'Aah, twenty years is up! Therefore, he must be a fully-functioning member of societey!'. No, you go through a series of interviews, and investigations, to see if it is safe to let him out.



THAT! my friend is were complication comes in....what you are discribeing in some sence is a parole hearing.....you cannot say "well you were in jail for all this time but we think a couple of more years should do it."


both points contradict each other
MechanicaWarfare
07-09-2005, 01:30
The best examples we can use including for the German guy is that his example in DeutshLand is including that of their Fuhrer wanted death to those who are different in a sense. And about what happens in LA thats called racism. Racism should be punished by the law (not death sentenced though). Look at most people who go on murder rampages WILINGLY! might I add are people who can NEVER! be let into society again. Second those who say that the ways in which the government kills people is expensive, is because at no time have they wanted to come up with cheaper solutions. The cheapest way to get rid of a human being for a somewhat good purpose would be to use him as target practice in middle of an army training facility:
"Boys today you will know what it feels like to kill another human being". Not the best example, but they are going to waste the bullets on papermashe dummies anyways.

What I am trying to get is to, that there are easier ways to get rid of them economically, but just because it is found to be immoral to use other human beings as test subjects or being hunted down if you will, they will never agree upon doing such a thing.

Now about studies about death penalty and detering crime:
A) crimes of passion shall never make a person think for a second be4 killing whomever about the consequences of what they are going to do in that moment of rage.
B) premeditated murders are found everyday, and such murderers should be executed in the most painfull way possible.
C) Life imprisonment even if it is in a box many and I do mean many of convicted fellons who kill for the joys of it, will think that they won just because they are still alive, thus leaving them a chance to excuse themselves by writing books, and have or creatively makeup reasons to excuse them on the eyes of society (we have had at least one or two cases that have happened in the U.S.).
D) The cost of maintaining someone for their entire existence is like giving them welfare as well as paying guards to make sure they dont escape into the world.
E) If you think its immoral to kill someone right there and then or make him suffer to the point where he begs to die, then is it morral to send someone to die after 90 years have passed of their lives? in other words your still sending them to die after a life time of imprisonment.
G) No examination or jury has been able to be a 100% effective on the parolee hearings. On more then one ocation have they let people go who commit murders but by the second time they know what to expect normally. (kind of trial and error vs cops?).
H) last but not least. We talk about civilized world and what not, but the truth is civilization is the same way as hundreds of years ago. we just have more technology and there are more people thats it. We still go into foolish wars for either greed or for territory, or for any excuse accepted by a society. So we haven't either evolved or changed we are still the same primitive apes who used to call the weather GODS OF ... w/e. What I mean is that society will always have people who will kill no matter how much technology we have. Civilization is just a word relative to the present technological developments nothing more. It has nothing to do with society in itself. For we still have necromagnons among our so called civilized world.

So I say kill the irrefutably guilty ones, just make them beg for death before killing them.
Globes R Us
07-09-2005, 01:41
'H) last but not least. We talk about civilized world and what not, but the truth is civilization is the same way as hundreds of years ago. we just have more technology and there are more people thats it. We still go into foolish wars for either greed or for territory, or for any excuse accepted by a society. So we haven't either evolved or changed we are still the same primitive apes who used to call the weather GODS OF ... w/e. What I mean is that society will always have people who will kill no matter how much technology we have. Civilization is just a word relative to the present technological developments nothing more. It has nothing to do with society in itself. For we still have necromagnons among our so called civilized world.'

Civilisation is most certainly not the same as 'hundreds of years ago.' Civilised societies don't trade in slaves, they have proper law and order and a jury system, care for the elderly, care for the sick, and so on. My civilisation doesn't go in for 'foolish' wars for greed and territory, you speak for yours. As for 'gods', only miserable, conceited and unstable nations invoke god as the cause for their woes and the champion of their battles. You make your own list, I know what countries are on mine.
CanuckHeaven
07-09-2005, 01:46
So I say kill the irrefutably guilty ones, just make them beg for death before killing them.
How cruel and utterly sadistic of you. :eek:

Killing people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong, is not only immoral but it also has a negative impact upon society.
MoparRocks
07-09-2005, 02:11
Oh, I'm a stupid left-wing teen girl! I think that the death penalty should be outlawed because it's like, mean! What did that serial killer do to deserve to be killed in a totally painless and efficient method? Like, nothing. And besides, some of them probably like, deserved it, or something...

I'd like to bring out a quote from GTA: Vice City:

Congressman Alex Shrub (on Giggle Cream, a desert with potentially deadly results): That's not true! Only 23 people have died from it, and some of them probably deserved it!

How long to you think it would take before our prison's were overcrowded to the point of their obsolecence?! Huh? How-fucking-long?!?

If anything, we should do it more often. Cheaper and easier, besides, he's a serial rapist, anyway.
Globes R Us
07-09-2005, 02:17
You know the difference between the 'right' and the 'liberal left'? The right is lazy. Too lazy to think beyond its guts. Crime? Kill 'em, preferably painfully. Foreign problems? Nuke 'em. Domestic upheaval? Send the troops in. The 'left' tries to think of causes rather than patch up the effects. Oh, and most of the 'right' pray after not thinking too hard and hope god will have an answer. Lazy.
Aldranin
07-09-2005, 03:06
Hanging, electric chair, gas, lethal injection, none deter murder. Fact.

Wrong, none have been definitively shown to deter murder.

Let's Play: Why Aldranin Hates Death Penalty Statistics

* Recent studies in Oklahoma and California failed to find that capital punishment had a deterrent effect on violent crime and, in fact, found a significant increase in stranger killings and homicide rates after the death penalty had been reinstated. (William Bailey, “Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty,” Criminology, 1998; Ernie Thompson, “Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California.” Homicide Studies, 1999)

Yes, and the murder rate in North Dakota, a state without the death penalty, more than doubled from 1995 to 2003. Your point?

* The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 40% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976. (Amnesty International)

Yeah, but they have the same gun laws and don't shoot each other nearly as often. But no, it's a death penalty issue. It doesn't have anything to do with how violence-prone the average Canadian really is.

* A Texas study determined in 1999 that there was no relation between the number of executions and murder rates in general. (Victoria Brewer, Robert Wrinkle, John Sorenson and James Marquart)

Then it must be true.

* A New York Times survey demonstrated that homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, “Absence of Executions,” New York Times, September 22, 2000)

This, of course, has nothing to do with location, gang prevalence, police strength, or any number of other factors that may affect murder rate which may be traits commonly shared by states without capital punishment.

* The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)

This, it would seem, has absolutely nothing to do with who the top five countries are for each category. Obviously the only determining factor in murder rate is application the capital punishment.

Anyway, in case my sarcasm did not make apparent enough my beef with statistics on capital punishment, my main problem is that it tries to blame an increasing or decreasing murder rate on one factor, while in reality there are many things that can affect the death penalty in an area. The type of people that live there, the percentage of youths in gangs, the strength of the police force, racial tension, et cetera, et cetera; can all have an influence on murder rate. And what gets me even more is that some go so far as to claim that abolishing the death penalty would decrease the murder rate.

Think about that for a second. First of all, this would suggest that the majority of murderers are aware of the death penalty laws in their state - a hefty assumption to make, in my not so humble opinion. Moreover, assuming that the majority of homicidal criminals are aware of the laws in their state, to say that these people would kill less in the absence of the death penalty implies that more people with tendencies which could develop into a criminal state would decide to kill if they knew that the state would kill them back. This simply doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, there's my two cents.
Aldranin
07-09-2005, 03:10
You know the difference between the 'right' and the 'liberal left'? The right is lazy. Too lazy to think beyond its guts. Crime? Kill 'em, preferably painfully. Foreign problems? Nuke 'em. Domestic upheaval? Send the troops in. The 'left' tries to think of causes rather than patch up the effects. Oh, and most of the 'right' pray after not thinking too hard and hope god will have an answer. Lazy.

You know the difference between people who are politically intelligent and people who are politically retarded? Politically intelligent people don't group entire voting sects into unsupported generalizations.
Aldranin
07-09-2005, 03:12
If anything, we should do it more often. Cheaper and easier, besides, he's a serial rapist, anyway.

It's not cheaper, but that's a problem with the American justice system. It's not easier, either, but, then again, it shouldn't be.
Globes R Us
07-09-2005, 03:30
You know the difference between people who are politically intelligent and people who are politically retarded? Politically intelligent people don't group entire voting sects into unsupported generalizations.

Who's talking about voting 'sects?'
Aldranin
07-09-2005, 03:39
Who's talking about voting 'sects?'

:rolleyes: No one. But a few are coming awfully close.
Globes R Us
07-09-2005, 03:40
Anyway, in case my sarcasm did not make apparent enough my beef with statistics on capital punishment, my main problem is that it tries to blame an increasing or decreasing murder rate on one factor, while in reality there are many things that can affect the death penalty in an area. The type of people that live there, the percentage of youths in gangs, the strength of the police force, racial tension, et cetera, et cetera; can all have an influence on murder rate. And what gets me even more is that some go so far as to claim that abolishing the death penalty would decrease the murder rate.

Think about that for a second. First of all, this would suggest that the majority of murderers are aware of the death penalty laws in their state - a hefty assumption to make, in my not so humble opinion. Moreover, assuming that the majority of homicidal criminals are aware of the laws in their state, to say that these people would kill less in the absence of the death penalty implies that more people with tendencies which could develop into a criminal state would decide to kill if they knew that the state would kill them back. This simply doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, there's my two cents.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176

'i I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point.
-- Attorney General Janet Reno, January 20, 2000
All of the scientifically valid statistical studies—those that examine a period of years, and control for national trends—consistently show that capital punishment is a substantial deterrent.
-- Senator Orrin Hatch, October 16, 2002
It happens all too often. Each side in a policy debate quotes studies that support its point of view and denigrates those from the other side.................
................So who is right, Janet Reno or Orrin Hatch? And why can they not at least agree on what the data show? The problem is that each of them refers to bodies of research using different research methods. Janet Reno’s statement correctly describes the results of studies that compare homicide trends in states and countries that practice capital punishment with those that do not. These studies consistently show that capital punishment has no effect on homicide rates. Orrin Hatch refers to studies that use econometric modeling. He is wrong, however, in stating that these studies all find that capital punishment deters homicide. In fact, some of them find a deterrent effect and some do not.
But this is not a matter of taste. It cannot be that capital punishment deters homicide for comparative researchers but not for econometricians. In fact, the comparative method has produced valid, useful, and consistent findings, while econometrics has failed in this and every similar area of research.
The first of the comparative studies of capital punishment was done by Thorsten Sellin in 1959. Sellin was a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the pioneers of scientific criminology. He was a prime mover in setting up the government agencies that collect statistics on crime. His method involved two steps: “First, a comprehensive view of the subject which incorporated historical, sociological, psychological, and legal factors into the analysis in addition to the development of analytical models; and second, the establishment and utilization of statistics in the evaluation of crime” (Toccafundi 1996).

Sellin applied his combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in an exhaustive study of capital punishment in American states. He used every scrap of data that was available, together with his knowledge of the history, economy, and social structure of each state. He compared states to other states and examined changes in states over time. Every comparison he made led him to the “inevitable conclusion . . . that executions have no discernable effect on homicide rates” (Sellin 1959, 34).

Sellin’s work has been replicated time and time again, as new data have become available, and all of the replications have confirmed his finding that capital punishment does not deter homicide (see Bailey and Peterson 1997, and Zimring and Hawkins 1986). These studies are an outstanding example of what statistician David Freedman (1991) calls “shoe leather” social research. The hard work is collecting the best available data, both quantitative and qualitative. Once the statistical data are collected, the analysis consists largely in displaying them in tables, graphs, and charts which are then interpreted in light of qualitative knowledge of the states in question. This research can be understood by people with only modest statistical background. This allows consumers of the research to make their own interpretations, drawing on their qualitative knowledge of the states in question.

Hundreds of comparisons of this sort have been made, and they consistently show that the death penalty has no effect. There have also been international comparative studies. Archer and Gartner (1984) examined fourteen countries that abolished the death penalty and found that abolition did not cause an increase in homicide rates. This research has been convincing to most criminologists (Radelet and Akers n.d.; Fessenden 2000), which is why Janet Reno was told that there was no valid research linking capital punishment to homicide rates.

It is time to abandon the illusion that mathematics can convert the real world into the mythical land of Ceteris Paribus. Social science can provide valid and reliable results with methods that present the data with as little statistical manipulation as possible and interpret it in light of the best qualitative information available. The value of this research is shown by its success in demonstrating that capital punishment has not deterred homicide.'

My two cents.
Globes R Us
07-09-2005, 03:41
:rolleyes: No one. But a few are coming awfully close.

Not me. Assume nothing, read the words.
Moonshine
07-09-2005, 03:51
So hey, there's a side question:

IF (warning, big IF here) it were possible to be 100% positive in our convictions for crimes, would you support the death penalty? If there were ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that an innocent person would ever be executed, would you support it?

I know some people believe the death penalty is wrong no matter what, and I respect that opinion, but I am interested to see if there are other people who only oppose the death penalty because of the potential for executions to be carried out on innocent parties.

I'll repeat myself as I have done many times before: The only death penalty I will ever support is the one dished out by the would-be victim to the would-be attacker at the time of the would-be crime. And even that's not an automatic right to blow someone's brains out for trespassing on your lawn.

But if someone just happens to reach out and grab a knife or sharp object as they are being raped, and just happens to embed the thing in the attacker's face.. five times.. I wouldn't shed many tears for the rapist.
MechanicaWarfare
07-09-2005, 03:54
Globes R Us you do realize that most of these studies do not go further then statiscial values of what happens in a region and what doesn't upon given information by the states and countries. Just think about it, if someone was forced to go and actually evaluate the situation in which the countries, cities, and states (wrong order) in which countries with death penalties are at, you would see that it is beneficial for the countries at times to have death penalty. They don't feed them and they kill them end of story. Even if a person is innocent or not, they would not care it means one less out of the entire system to be taken care off. In a third world country, one of the best solutions that governments have found IS to exterminate the vicious criminals because in SOME! situations the numbers are just too great of vicious sadistic bastards.
Aldranin
07-09-2005, 04:00
My two cents.

Actually, someone else's two cents. And most of what I said was not addressed by the article you cited.
Ice Hockey Players
07-09-2005, 04:03
Hmmm...the death penalty. I usually find myself tweaking my overall picture of a good criminal justice system when I think about one or two aspects of my idea and say, "Nah...that won't work." So here's what I have now.

1. No more death penalty. Ever. Period. Not even for multiple premeditated murders. There are so many things worse than death. Any caused death found to be reasonably intentional will be classified as murder. Any caused death known to be accidental is counted as manslaughter. Any caused death that is accidental but a result of mind-altering substances counts as severe manslaughter and is punished almost as harshly as murder in the following sequence.
Murder - life in prison, no parole. When you're 75, you are moved to a medium-security-type-place where they don't expect you to work quite as hard but are still very limited in what they do. Also, prison is a minimum 35-year sentence, so anyone found committing murder after 40 still has to serve their 35 years. It's not like people after 75 are really going to be able to escape easily, though I suppose I could raise the age.
Conspiracy to commit murder or "severe" manslaughter - life in prison, no parole if you commit one screw-up in prison. (I refer to serious things. One fight isn't severe. Causing a riot is.) Beyond that, minimum 20 years plus an additional 10 per death in addition to one (basically, 10 years for the act plus 10 years per death.)
"Standard" manslaughter - so you kill someone with you car while trying to avoid a wreck, effectively causing more damage than you saved. Off to prison with you for 10 years, plus 5 years for each additional death past one. Again, cause any major trouble in prison and it's off with you for life.
Child molestation - life in prison, no parole. We treat child molestors like murderers. I refer to "child" as being prepubescent for lack of a better place to draw the line.
Adult rape - Same as conspiracy or "severe" manslaughter for punishment purposes.
Repeated abuse - I refer to domestic violence-type cases, and those are punished in a comparable manner to "standard" manslaughter. Ten years in prison ought to chill abusers out.
Trafficking of drugs - hmmm, well, I guess it depends on who they are in cahoots with. Supporting international terrorism with drug money gets you 20+ years in prison if you do it knowingly and 10+ if you're lazy and support terrorists unknowingly. No terrorism or other illegal activity? Well, I guess you're free to go, but watch what you put in your drugs.
Possession of drugs - We have better things to worry about, people.
Parental negligence or flagrant abuse - well, for starters, you lose the kids and are instantly sterilized and placed on all adoption agencies' blacklists. I don't fuck around with parents. Oh yeah, and you probably go to jail for several years.

OK, now for the conditions of these jail-type places.

Prisons - and I refer to the MAN prison, for lack of a better word...you know, the one where murderers, child molestors, and drunk drivers go. Let's see...how's this: A work day of a MINIMUM of 10 hours. No matter how sick you are, you work. No TV, no Internet, no magazines, no visits from the outside, and very little basic human dignity. You are known by a number, not a name, within the walls of prisons. Work weeks are seven days a week, and there are no holidays. None. You eat in the morning and the evening, and that's it. People are roomed 8 to a cell. All prisoners wear shock collars. Prisoners are allowed to report abuse, but guards are innocent until proven guilty and cases are hard to prove. Guards who are found guilty of abuse, however, are fired and spend a year in this prison.

Jails - where we keep people who steal, rob banks, commit insider trading, and other minor crimes. Work days are 8 hours, prisoners get one day a week off plus certain federal holidays. Visits are allowed but are very limited. Inmates can eat three meals a day. Inmates who are sick enough are sent to an infirmary instead of work, but infirmary is not meant to be a reward of any sort. People are known by a name and a number, there are no shock collars, people are roomed 4 to a cell, and outside entertainment is extremely limited (no Internet whatsoever, very little TV, and only a few types of magazines.) Guards found guilty of abuse here are fired and go to prison for one year.

The focus would be on rehabilitation, even in prison, where people who are on good behavior will be allowed time away from work to attend rehabilitation classes. Rehabilitation will be an off-day exercise for those merely in jail. Inmates in either facility would be allowed to work out, or in prison, forced to work out in physical training once a day.

Sorry it's a little long here. It's probably going to be revised in awhile when I look at something and say, "Nah, that won't work." Constructive criticism and debate is always welcome. People posting stupid comments and flames will be told to go fuck themselves.
MechanicaWarfare
07-09-2005, 04:11
Its pretty and all, but still you dont care about costs, and how well basically your taking care of the animals (life in prison in other words).

The idea is solid and it probably work in a country where they dont care about costs like A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. a democratic where people have a say even if it is just a say that won't be taen into advice, will probably have a hell hole about such atrocities so to speak.

The costs are probably meaningless but just one question ... what happens when you overpopulate the prisons? put 8 in normal jails and 16 in the MAN jails as you put them to be? I mean the costs to try and keep the prisoners from escaping will raise a long with the numbers of convicts they have to take care off and building that have to be added for new cells. specially when parole is non-existent.
Globes R Us
07-09-2005, 04:20
Actually, someone else's two cents. And most of what I said was not addressed by the article you cited.

Care to give scources for your argument or is it all opinion?
[NS]Canada City
07-09-2005, 04:24
Well, that and the financial argument, I'm afraid.

Although it is a sad sign for any society to choose one's wallet before human life.

It's a sad sign of any society when they believe a criminal is simply a victim.
CanuckHeaven
07-09-2005, 08:05
Let's Play: Why Aldranin Hates Death Penalty Statistics

*CanuckHeaven" wants to know if he can play too?



Yes, and the murder rate in North Dakota, a state without the death penalty, more than doubled from 1995 to 2003. Your point?

Also in the year 2000 North Dakota had 0.6 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 50th highest rate for Murder.

The point is that North Dakota averages 4 or 5 murders a year. Your reach for the sensationalism has failed.

Yeah, but they have the same gun laws and don't shoot each other nearly as often. But no, it's a death penalty issue. It doesn't have anything to do with how violence-prone the average Canadian really is.
Yeah? If us Canucks are so "violence prone", how is it that your murder rates are 3 times higher than ours? BTW, our gun laws are not the same as yours.


* A New York Times survey demonstrated that homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, “Absence of Executions,” New York Times, September 22, 2000)

This, of course, has nothing to do with location, gang prevalence, police strength, or any number of other factors that may affect murder rate which may be traits commonly shared by states without capital punishment.
When you complete your exhaustive research, please get back to us and let us know your findings. Until then, you are just guessing?


* The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)

This, it would seem, has absolutely nothing to do with who the top five countries are for each category. Obviously the only determining factor in murder rate is application the capital punishment.
Yes, it looks like the murder rates are about 1/2 in the five countries without the death penalty than in the countries with the death penalty. A formidible argument to say the least.

Anyway, in case my sarcasm did not make apparent enough my beef with statistics on capital punishment, my main problem is that it tries to blame an increasing or decreasing murder rate on one factor, while in reality there are many things that can affect the death penalty in an area.
Nothing can affect the death penalty? Either a State has it or it doesn't have it?

The type of people that live there, the percentage of youths in gangs, the strength of the police force, racial tension, et cetera, et cetera; can all have an influence on murder rate.
Yes, the murder rates are definitely influenced by a number of factors and you have clearly stated some of those factors.

And what gets me even more is that some go so far as to claim that abolishing the death penalty would decrease the murder rate.
Ummmm, that is the premise of this thread.

Think about that for a second. First of all, this would suggest that the majority of murderers are aware of the death penalty laws in their state - a hefty assumption to make, in my not so humble opinion.
You would think that most would be murderers would know this?

Moreover, assuming that the majority of homicidal criminals are aware of the laws in their state, to say that these people would kill less in the absence of the death penalty implies that more people with tendencies which could develop into a criminal state would decide to kill if they knew that the state would kill them back. This simply doesn't make any sense.
Have you ever tried to look at it from the other perspective? Some murderers if caught would rather be executed than spend the rest of their days in jail?

Then of course, there is the brutalization factor:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif
Cabra West
07-09-2005, 09:59
Canada City']It's a sad sign of any society when they believe a criminal is simply a victim.

Who called criminals vicitms? :confused:
Froudland
07-09-2005, 13:00
It's amazing how many people are just completely unwilling to examine the causes of crime, isn't it? Maybe, just maybe, the link between murder rates and whether or not a country (or state) has the death penalty is that those societies instill better values in its poeple?

What kind of message does it send out when the state is allowed to kill people? If the state doesn't kill its own people it sets a good example, it says there are no exceptions to this, it is always wrong to kill.

Civilization is generally progressive, as in, we tend to be driven forward away from previously held notions about punishment and so on as we learn more about psychology and nature vs nurture. It isn't just about technology, it is about knowledge. Sociologists are working to understand why certain people are willing to commit crimes and what can be done to prevent them.

The death penalty certainly doesn't appear to be a deterrant (on topic), there are conflicting studies, but the numbers speak volumes really: Murder rates are no lower in states that punish murder with the death penalty.

So, with that in mind the remaining justifications for the DP are: financial and "justice"/revenge. Perhaps one of those values I was talking about is the worth of human life. Some people think that when you murder someone your life becomes worthless. You're entitled to that opinion, but I disagree, I don't think the value of a life is dependent on one's actions, it is fundamental and unchanging and all lives are of equal worth. I agree with the UDoHR. The financial cost shouldn't be a factor in punishment, the most effective and ethical punishment must be used and if someone can be rehabilitated they should be. If they can't they should be left to think about what they did for the rest of their natural life.

As for the final justification... well, as far as I'm concerned a civilized country shouldn't think that revenge is ok. Sorry, that's just the way I feel. I'll say it again because I got no reaction the 1st time! America - look around and see who you are comparable to: China, Iran and Viet Nam, your "enemies". Don't you want to be better than them? Don't you want to be more humane and civilized than them? That was the impression I got, but if I'm wrong and you just want to kill them, well....
NianNorth
07-09-2005, 13:08
*CanuckHeaven" wants to know if he can play too?





Also in the year 2000 North Dakota had 0.6 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 50th highest rate for Murder.

The point is that North Dakota averages 4 or 5 murders a year. Your reach for the sensationalism has failed.


Yeah? If us Canucks are so "violence prone", how is it that your murder rates are 3 times higher than ours? BTW, our gun laws are not the same as yours.




When you complete your exhaustive research, please get back to us and let us know your findings. Until then, you are just guessing?




Yes, it looks like the murder rates are about 1/2 in the five countries without the death penalty than in the countries with the death penalty. A formidible argument to say the least.


Nothing can affect the death penalty? Either a State has it or it doesn't have it?


Yes, the murder rates are definitely influenced by a number of factors and you have clearly stated some of those factors.


Ummmm, that is the premise of this thread.


You would think that most would be murderers would know this?


Have you ever tried to look at it from the other perspective? Some murderers if caught would rather be executed than spend the rest of their days in jail?

Then of course, there is the brutalization factor:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif


Well they can take thier own life rather than putting the state to the trouble.
Bottle
07-09-2005, 13:10
Why? Think of it as recycling. You take a violent criminal and transform him into a functional member of society. Instead of wasting money to warehouse him for life, or put him to death (which isnt' cheap), you instead turn him into someone who can pay society back.
Well, one problem I have with that is that I don't believe it is possible to pay back the debt from a rape or a murder. Ever. But the bigger question becomes, why should I "recycle" a murderer or rapist, when I could use that time and money to help a non-murderer non-rapist become an even more wonderful person? With all the non-criminals and children who are in desperate need of guidance, support, resources, and help, why should I use my energy to help people who already made the choice to violate the most fundamental values I hold?
Kazcaper
07-09-2005, 13:13
Who called criminals vicitms? :confused:To be fair, no one specifically did so on this thread. But the majority of my lecturers on my Criminology degrees did. The remainder inferred it.
CanuckHeaven
07-09-2005, 14:44
Well, one problem I have with that is that I don't believe it is possible to pay back the debt from a rape or a murder. Ever.
And what do you expect to gain by supporting a society that exacts revenge? And you don't believe that murderers can be rehabilitated?

But the bigger question becomes, why should I "recycle" a murderer or rapist, when I could use that time and money to help a non-murderer non-rapist become an even more wonderful person?
From what I have read, it costs more money to execute a murderer than to give them life in jail.

With all the non-criminals and children who are in desperate need of guidance, support, resources, and help, why should I use my energy to help people who already made the choice to violate the most fundamental values I hold?
The monies saved from not executing murderers can go towards "all the non-criminals and children who are in desperate need of guidance, support, resources, and help". Also, by supporting a society that has a clear message (that ALL killing is wrong), you may reap the benefits of a lower rate of murder.
CanuckHeaven
07-09-2005, 14:56
As for the final justification... well, as far as I'm concerned a civilized country shouldn't think that revenge is ok. Sorry, that's just the way I feel. I'll say it again because I got no reaction the 1st time! America - look around and see who you are comparable to: China, Iran and Viet Nam, your "enemies". Don't you want to be better than them? Don't you want to be more humane and civilized than them? That was the impression I got, but if I'm wrong and you just want to kill them, well....
I agree. The largest percentage of first world countries have abolished the death penalty, while most third world countries believe in executions.

The Death Penalty Worldwide (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html)

Killing people to say that killing people is wrong is uncivilized.
Flanagania
07-09-2005, 15:09
Any society that exacts revenge on its own citizens is destined to collapse into anarchy.

There is one reason and one reason only why the death penalty is archaic. There are too many cases of innocent people having been killed by society over the centuries because they either didn't have legal representation that they could not afford or the climate for revenge overwhelmed the government of the day.

The last execution ever in Australia is a perfect illustration of my point.

One other point. Those in favour of the death penalty are usually religious nuts who love to quote the old "eye for an eye" garbage. They always forget the rest of the bible quote.

"Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord".

Nobody is "The Lord'!!!!!!!!!!
Froudland
07-09-2005, 15:42
Any society that exacts revenge on its own citizens is destined to collapse into anarchy.

There is one reason and one reason only why the death penalty is archaic. There are too many cases of innocent people having been killed by society over the centuries because they either didn't have legal representation that they could not afford or the climate for revenge overwhelmed the government of the day.

The last execution ever in Australia is a perfect illustration of my point.

One other point. Those in favour of the death penalty are usually religious nuts who love to quote the old "eye for an eye" garbage. They always forget the rest of the bible quote.

"Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord".

Nobody is "The Lord'!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely agree! Although not all pro-death penalty people are religious. Which begs the question, why are they quoting the Old Testament about it anyway?!
Kazcaper
07-09-2005, 15:45
Any society that exacts revenge on its own citizens is destined to collapse into anarchy. Perhaps, but any society that allows its citizens to do exactly as they please without any sanctions or threat of coercion is destined for exactly the same fate.

One other point. Those in favour of the death penalty are usually religious nuts who love to quote the old "eye for an eye" garbage. They always forget the rest of the bible quote.While I don't support the death penalty on a practical level for reasons already cited (risk of executing the innocent, mainly), on a theoretical level I am in favour of it. And I am a complete atheist. I appreciate that you said supporters of it are usually (as opposed to always) 'religious nuts', but I have known many atheists in my life that are for it, and plenty of devout Christians against it (in fact, the majority of diehard Christians I know are against it). Stereotyping tends to be quite an inaccurate pursuit.
CanuckHeaven
07-09-2005, 16:01
Perhaps, but any society that allows its citizens to do exactly as they please without any sanctions or threat of coercion is destined for exactly the same fate.
The topic is the death penalty, not letting murderers off scott free. There will be a penalty exacted, just not a death penalty. So I think your premise is incorrect.
Kazcaper
07-09-2005, 16:08
The topic is the death penalty, not letting murderers off scott free. There will be a penalty exacted, just not a death penalty. So I think your premise is incorrect.The person to whom I was replying used the word 'revenge', rather than the term 'death penalty'. It could be argued that any form of penalty against a criminal is an act of state revenge since it is 'pay back' for the unsavoury act they carried out (I personally don't hold to that, but I've met a few who do). So my premise is only definitively incorrect if 'revenge' equates to 'death penalty', which clearly is not necessarily the case.
Flanagania
07-09-2005, 16:11
I'm not sterotyping. Every country in the world that has the death penalty has a much higher murder rate than those that don't. (Confirmed by Amnesty International and the UN in various surveys over the past decade).

As an aside, when public executions were all the rage in England a couple of centuries ago, pickpockets (also under pain of death if caught) had a field day.

Capital punishment doesn't work!!!!!

And, for those that think life in prison is "luxurious", lack of personal freedom is possibly the worst punishment imaginable. Commit a crime and see if you think it's a piece cake.

The west likes to think it's much more civilised than the rest of the planet. All I can say is that the US shows that, as far as civilisation goes, it is regressing.
Kazcaper
07-09-2005, 16:21
I'm not sterotyping. Every country in the world that has the death penalty has a much higher murder rate than those that don't. (Confirmed by Amnesty International and the UN in various surveys over the past decade).I didn't dispute this, I was disputing your assertion that supporters of the death penalty were 'usually religious nuts'. I can't say I find Amnesty International an especially impartial source - but for once, they seem to be right. It is not an effective deterrent, and pretty much anyone who has looked into it would know that. That, for me, is not the point, but I've already discussed that.

And, for those that think life in prison is "luxurious", lack of personal freedom is possibly the worst punishment imaginable. Commit a crime and see if you think it's a piece cake.Again, see above. I can't speak for every prisoner in every prison, but I met a couple of hundred during my research and they were pretty content. I'm not bullshitting; TVs and DVDs in cells, right to porn and conjugal visits, extensive library, opportunities for excellent education, socialising areas with pool tables et al, etc etc etc. Of course they didn't like the fact that they couldn't go home at night or head down the pub, but on a day to day level, only a few told me they were very unhappy. 'Luxurious' was not a word used, admittedly, but 'comfortable' was in frequent usage.
Unspeakable
07-09-2005, 16:24
Let's face it prison as a punishment doesn't work, it simply breeds more criminals. The social sigma that going to prison used to have is gone to a large degree what we need is a new punishment. We need something shame invoking and with great social stigma that will deter crime, without breeding more criminals. Fear of shame is a huge motivator and stigmatizing crime should looked into more than mere imprisonment. That being said there a a few crimes that do deserve death, multiple aggravated murder, treason, terrorism and piracy, other than those few crimes it should be abolished. If it is not abolished it should be greatly reformed to have a much higher standard of evidence for sentencing and the racial bias in the death penalty needs to be removed, also a defendant in a death penalty case should have legal representation at least equal to the prosecution. There are precious few whom deserve the death penalty and it should be afforded to them and them alone not every two bit hood.
The Knight Templar
07-09-2005, 16:31
Well, when someone does a small crime, not very significant, he has some liberties taken away, has to pay money, house arrest etc. As the crimes get worse, more and more liberties are taken away, the death sentance is just the extreme, taking away the liberty to live.
Flanagania
07-09-2005, 16:44
I didn't dispute this, I was disputing your assertion that supporters of the death penalty were 'usually religious nuts'. I can't say I find Amnesty International an especially impartial source - but for once, they seem to be right. It is not an effective deterrent, and pretty much anyone who has looked into it would know that. That, for me, is not the point, but I've already discussed that.

Again, see above. I can't speak for every prisoner in every prison, but I met a couple of hundred during my research and they were pretty content. I'm not bullshitting; TVs and DVDs in cells, right to porn and conjugal visits, extensive library, opportunities for excellent education, socialising areas with pool tables et al, etc etc etc. Of course they didn't like the fact that they couldn't go home at night or head down the pub, but on a day to day level, only a few told me they were very unhappy. 'Luxurious' was not a word used, admittedly, but 'comfortable' was in frequent usage.


Surely education and learning to socialise properly can only be a good thing for society in the long run. If a prisoner can improve him/herself in whatever way, it can only lessen the perceived threat to society when (or if) they are released. The main problem with prisons at the moment is that some poor bugger who is convicted of a relatively minor crime often comes out having been well educated in the more sophisticated lexicon of criminal activities.

Rehabilitation is the only way to ensure that recitivism is kept to a minimum.
Incarcerating a 19yo drug user with professional criminals is a recipe for disaster, especially when the vast majority of prisoners are from underprivileged backgrounds. They've grown up in an atmosphere of deprivation. Is it any wonder that they develop a chip on their shoulder and many turn to crime, because the rest of society categorise them, almost from birth, as unworthy of the same opportunities as the rest.

If you feel unappreciated why give a fuck!!!
Oekai
07-09-2005, 21:00
Originally Posted by Oekai
Find an island with VERY limited resources.
Put all "lifers" on this island.
Let them survive there as best they can with their own kind.
If they'd prefer a humane euthanasia, give it them.
Nobody leaves the island, no non-native resources go to the island.
Permanent imprisonment is the best punishment possible if it has no cost.
The problem is that it does have costs, and thus there is the expediency of
the death sentence.
Punishment is a legitimate quality of society.
Revenge is also a legitimate quality of society, because revenge is really
nothing more than another word for punishment. Punishment of evil acts
should be paid for.
(( My opinion of course. ))
-The REAL Iakeo

People who argue the pros and cons of capital punishment based on monetary cost have no right to enter the debate, this is about peoples lives, both the victim (who should always be considered first) and the criminal. Revenge is not about punishment in a civilised society. Punishment is designed to deter. Do we punish children for revenge?

I don't debate. I state my opinion, just as you state yours.

Please define what you mean by "revenge". When you say, "Do we punish
children FOR revenge/", (by which I think you mean "Do we punish children
OUT OF revenge?"), the answer is that we punish children to show them and
their "cohorts" that it's not a good idea to be "bad".

Punishment is not ONLY designed to deter, it is also designed to reward. The
reward for bad behavior is pain. The pen-ultimate pain is removal from this
world (termination). The ultimate pain is being stripped of one's humanity
while still conscious (my "devil's island" solution). That's why I prefer a "devil's
island" to capital punishment.

Public punishment deters those who might commit crime by showing them the
results of crime.

Public punishment rewards those who HAVE commited crime by inflicting pain
on them.


-The REAL Iakeo
Conscribed Comradeship
07-09-2005, 21:19
i mean really, lemme go kill your mom, rape her dead corpse, then eat her, and tell me you wouldn't want me to get the death penalty instead of life in prison.

If my mother wasn't already dead, then I would tell you that I would want life imprisonment for you, not the death penalty.
Kazcaper
07-09-2005, 21:19
Surely education and learning to socialise properly can only be a good thing for society in the long run. If a prisoner can improve him/herself in whatever way, it can only lessen the perceived threat to society when (or if) they are released. The main problem with prisons at the moment is that some poor bugger who is convicted of a relatively minor crime often comes out having been well educated in the more sophisticated lexicon of criminal activities. Rehabilitation is the only way to ensure that recitivism is kept to a minimum.I agree with you. I never said that rehabilitation was a bad thing per se, or that prison was an especially useful thing per se. One of the points that I have been making on this thread is that x punishment doesn't work for all of the people, all of the time. That's why there should be more than just one avenue in sentencing policy.

Incarcerating a 19yo drug user with professional criminals is a recipe for disaster, especially when the vast majority of prisoners are from underprivileged backgrounds. They've grown up in an atmosphere of deprivation. Is it any wonder that they develop a chip on their shoulder and many turn to crime, because the rest of society categorise them, almost from birth, as unworthy of the same opportunities as the rest.I've always had problems with this argument. Perpetrators of crime are often somehow seen as victims because they apparently tend to come from lower classes. Firstly, white collar crimes such as tax evasion and fraud are some of the most common in countries such as the UK. By and large, these are committed by fairly well-do-to professional types, clearly members of the middle classes. I think the problem here is that people don't consider them 'real' crimes because they don't affect them. Well, that's not true. Sure, it's preferable to being stabbed/raped/somehow else being violently attacked, but the truth is that these types of crime do affect the public as a whole. They increase both tax and insurance costs.

Secondly, in the cases where the perpetrator does come from an underprivileged background, so what? While I sympathise with the unfortunate background in which they grew up, I sympathise much more with the overwhelming majority of people from such backgrounds who do their best to get along in life via legitimate means. If the causes of crime were as simple as poverty, then all people from impoverished backgrounds would be criminals, and that is simply not the case. I do not dispute that it is one of the known causes of some types of crime, but it's ludicrous to claim that they turn to crime just because of it.
Conscribed Comradeship
07-09-2005, 21:24
I don't debate. I state my opinion, just as you state yours.

Please define what you mean by "revenge". When you say, "Do we punish
children FOR revenge/", (by which I think you mean "Do we punish children
OUT OF revenge?"), the answer is that we punish children to show them and
their "cohorts" that it's not a good idea to be "bad".

Punishment is not ONLY designed to deter, it is also designed to reward. The
reward for bad behavior is pain. The pen-ultimate pain is removal from this
world (termination). The ultimate pain is being stripped of one's humanity
while still conscious (my "devil's island" solution). That's why I prefer a "devil's
island" to capital punishment.

Public punishment deters those who might commit crime by showing them the
results of crime.

Public punishment rewards those who HAVE commited crime by inflicting pain
on them.


-The REAL Iakeo

I think you misunderstand punishment and reward. Except for sadomasochists, inflicting pain on people, is not a reward.
Oekai
07-09-2005, 23:17
I think you misunderstand punishment and reward. Except for sadomasochists, inflicting pain on people, is not a reward.

You might want to look up the definition of "reward".

After you do, get back to me.

-The REAL Iakeo
Homieville
07-09-2005, 23:31
If the person does something like kill someone then they can get the death penalty
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 00:11
Care to give scources for your argument or is it all opinion?

Nice dodge. Okay, here is the source for the one statistic I posted: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169. The rest was basic criminology and psychology. I know forming your own opinions on a subject instead of quoting others is difficult, but please try it.
Globes R Us
08-09-2005, 00:37
I don't debate. I state my opinion, just as you state yours.

Please define what you mean by "revenge". When you say, "Do we punish
children FOR revenge/", (by which I think you mean "Do we punish children
OUT OF revenge?"), the answer is that we punish children to show them and
their "cohorts" that it's not a good idea to be "bad".

Punishment is not ONLY designed to deter, it is also designed to reward. The
reward for bad behavior is pain. The pen-ultimate pain is removal from this
world (termination). The ultimate pain is being stripped of one's humanity
while still conscious (my "devil's island" solution). That's why I prefer a "devil's
island" to capital punishment.

Public punishment deters those who might commit crime by showing them the
results of crime.

Public punishment rewards those who HAVE commited crime by inflicting pain
on them.


-The REAL Iakeo

Yes, more bollocks. Okay.
Of course we all state our opinion, but this is still debate and I have at least backed up my opinion with hard fact. And you demand my definition of revenge? First I will point out that I shouldn't have to explain everything, it's all there for you. But for you, again:
You stated: 'Revenge is also a legitimate quality of society, because revenge is really
nothing more than another word for punishment'
I answered: 'Revenge is not about punishment in a civilised society'
Now see, I think that's as clear as a bell but just to please you I double checked in my OD under both 'revenge' and 'punishment'. Guess what? I'm right, you're wrong.
From there your post goes from weak to piss-poor.
You say: 'the answer is that we punish children to show them and
their "cohorts" that it's not a good idea to be "bad"'
I'm not sure why you brought in 'cohorts' and I don't know about you, I punish children, not to demonstrate that 'it's not a good idea to be bad', I punish them to show clearly that they are wrong. You may choose to dismiss this as pedantic but should you strain a bit you'll see there's a fundamental difference. One that a child has to absorb.
You say: 'Punishment is not ONLY designed to deter, it is also designed to reward'
Who does punishment reward?
You say: 'The ultimate pain is being stripped of one's humanity
while still conscious (my "devil's island" solution)'
Forgive me but do you understand what you're saying? .'stripped of one's humanity
while still conscious? Do you consider that an act more moral than a murder?
'That's why I prefer a "devil's
island" to capital punishment'
So, there it is, you aren't after punishment, you want revenge. Thank god that in the main, our justice systems are not based on revenge because one form of revenge is to inflict pain on a criminals family. That puts everyone at risk.
Globes R Us
08-09-2005, 00:46
Nice dodge. Okay, here is the source for the one statistic I posted: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169. The rest was basic criminology and psychology. I know forming your own opinions on a subject instead of quoting others is difficult, but please try it.

Either you're confused or I am.
Quote"
#173
Aldranin
Deadly


Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 694

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globes R Us
Hanging, electric chair, gas, lethal injection, none deter murder. Fact.


Wrong, none have been definitively shown to deter murder.

Let's Play: Why Aldranin Hates Death Penalty Statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globes R Us
* Recent studies in Oklahoma and California failed to find that capital punishment had a deterrent effect on violent crime and, in fact, found a significant increase in stranger killings and homicide rates after the death penalty had been reinstated. (William Bailey, “Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty,” Criminology, 1998; Ernie Thompson, “Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California.” Homicide Studies, 1999)


Yes, and the murder rate in North Dakota, a state without the death penalty, more than doubled from 1995 to 2003. Your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globes R Us
* The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 40% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976. (Amnesty International)


Yeah, but they have the same gun laws and don't shoot each other nearly as often. But no, it's a death penalty issue. It doesn't have anything to do with how violence-prone the average Canadian really is.

Quote:
'Originally Posted by Globes R Us
* A Texas study determined in 1999 that there was no relation between the number of executions and murder rates in general. (Victoria Brewer, Robert Wrinkle, John Sorenson and James Marquart)


Then it must be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globes R Us
* A New York Times survey demonstrated that homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, “Absence of Executions,” New York Times, September 22, 2000)


This, of course, has nothing to do with location, gang prevalence, police strength, or any number of other factors that may affect murder rate which may be traits commonly shared by states without capital punishment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globes R Us
* The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)


This, it would seem, has absolutely nothing to do with who the top five countries are for each category. Obviously the only determining factor in murder rate is application the capital punishment.

Anyway, in case my sarcasm did not make apparent enough my beef with statistics on capital punishment, my main problem is that it tries to blame an increasing or decreasing murder rate on one factor, while in reality there are many things that can affect the death penalty in an area. The type of people that live there, the percentage of youths in gangs, the strength of the police force, racial tension, et cetera, et cetera; can all have an influence on murder rate. And what gets me even more is that some go so far as to claim that abolishing the death penalty would decrease the murder rate.

Think about that for a second. First of all, this would suggest that the majority of murderers are aware of the death penalty laws in their state - a hefty assumption to make, in my not so humble opinion. Moreover, assuming that the majority of homicidal criminals are aware of the laws in their state, to say that these people would kill less in the absence of the death penalty implies that more people with tendencies which could develop into a criminal state would decide to kill if they knew that the state would kill them back. This simply doesn't make any sense.'

So, I followed you link (mine too) and read this:



Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade.

In the past ten years, the number of executions in the U.S. has increased while the murder rate has declined. Some commentators have maintained that the murder rate has dropped because of the increase in executions (see, e.g., W. Tucker, "Yes, the Death Penalty Deters," Wall St. Journal, June 21, 2002). However, during this decade the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty. (see Chart I, below).

These figures exclude Kansas and New York, which adopted the death penalty in 1994 and 1995 respectively. If these states are included in their proper categories, the results are even more dramatic:

As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%.

This is my point. I fail to understand yours.
CanuckHeaven
08-09-2005, 01:14
Nice dodge. Okay, here is the source for the one statistic I posted: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169.
The one statistic that you quoted was entirely deceiving to say the least and I pointed that out in Post # 187 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9598253&postcount=187).

The rest was basic criminology and psychology. I know forming your own opinions on a subject instead of quoting others is difficult, but please try it.
The rest of your post was for the most part based on opinion with unsubstantiated information, and mixed with incorrect assumptions.
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 02:09
Also in the year 2000 North Dakota had 0.6 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 50th highest rate for Murder.

That's not my point. My point is that in some places the presence of the death penalty does not affect murder rate positively. Besides, here's another way to look at the statistics at the link I posted: 66% of states without capital punishment experienced an increase in murder rates between 2002 and 2003, whereas just 50% of states with capital punishment experienced an increase in murder rates over the same period.

Yeah? If us Canucks are so "violence prone", how is it that your murder rates are 3 times higher than ours? BTW, our gun laws are not the same as yours.

I was implying that you were less violence prone, not more. And they are very similar.


Yes, it looks like the murder rates are about 1/2 in the five countries without the death penalty than in the countries with the death penalty. A formidible argument to say the least.

Again, you managed to miss my point entirely. If the countries are much more violence prone, or the citizens' beliefs are more conflicting, or there is more racial tension between the inhabitants, the murder rate is going to be higher, regardless of capital punishment laws.


Nothing can affect the death penalty? Either a State has it or it doesn't have it?

A typo, and, unless you're an idiot, you knew that. Way to dodge the intended point. Here's the exact same passage with the typo corrected:

Anyway, in case my sarcasm did not make apparent enough my beef with statistics on capital punishment, my main problem is that it tries to blame an increasing or decreasing murder rate on one factor, while in reality there are many things that can affect the murder rate in an area aside from the death penalty.


Yes, the murder rates are definitely influenced by a number of factors and you have clearly stated some of those factors.

Exactly. So the death penalty being on the books in an area may not be (and probably isn't) directly linked to the number of murders.


Ummmm, that is the premise of this thread.

Ummmm, no shit? Which is why I was stating that this annoys me, followed by why.


You would think that most would be murderers would know this?

No, I wouldn't, and if they did, I wouldn't think they cared.

Have you ever tried to look at it from the other perspective? Some murderers if caught would rather be executed than spend the rest of their days in jail?

Immediately, death seems worse than prison with three meals a day and an hour or so of free time.

Then of course, there is the brutalization factor:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif

The brutalization factor is bullshit. Basically, the brutalization factor would suggest that people on average would kill each other more frequently if the government were killing murderers at the time. Why those two should have any effect on one another cannot be explained logically, and the only way to even find a comparison between the two is to bring up statistics that could also have resulted from twenty other factors.
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 02:14
[snip]

Okay, through random quoting you managed to, once again, ignore everything in my post but the statistic. The point of the statistic was to show that murder rates act in a way independent of the death penalty, shown by the fact that some states which do not practice capital punishment, like North Dakota, experience swings in murder rate contrary to what is normally suggested. You have still all but ignored my entire post, and it's getting on my nerves. Forget the statistic if you can't help but reply solely to it and try to respond to at least one other point.
Michaelic France
08-09-2005, 02:19
How can a democratic nation like our's (America, I mean) not guarantee the right to life, it's so basic, and yet we don't guarantee it. The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate petty criminals and keep dangerous ones away from the rest of society, that's it.
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 02:40
How can a democratic nation like our's (America, I mean) not guarantee the right to life, it's so basic, and yet we don't guarantee it.

Living and being free is a right that one gives up when one decides to take away the life of another. When the victim is denied his or her right to life, it is only fair that the same be denied of the killer.
Globes R Us
08-09-2005, 02:55
Okay, through random quoting you managed to, once again, ignore everything in my post but the statistic. The point of the statistic was to show that murder rates act in a way independent of the death penalty, shown by the fact that some states which do not practice capital punishment, like North Dakota, experience swings in murder rate contrary to what is normally suggested. You have still all but ignored my entire post, and it's getting on my nerves. Forget the statistic if you can't help but reply solely to it and try to respond to at least one other point.

It wasn't random quoting, you snipped it but a quick look at my post shows I quoted you fully. Your use of North Dakota is deceitful. Of course there will be short, individual ups and downs in any given area. For reasons I assume are an unwillingness to be proven wrong, you consistantly ignore the fact that the overwhelming trends in non capital punishment states are for higher deterence than for states that kill. How much more evidence does someone like you need? It seems good enough for official bodies, but not you.

I said: 'The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)'
You replied: 'This, it would seem, has absolutely nothing to do with who the top five countries are for each category. Obviously the only determining factor in murder rate is application the capital punishment.'...........(I understand the sarcasm)
You make no sense. What kind of evidence do you need? I have given chapter and verse, you only answer with your opinion. You're entitled to that, but most people base their opinion on facts.
Globes R Us
08-09-2005, 02:59
Living and being free is a right that one gives up when one decides to take away the life of another. When the victim is denied his or her right to life, it is only fair that the same be denied of the killer.

So using your logic, we rape rapists, steal from thieves, abuse the children of abusers, kill killers. What do we do with soldiers who kill? The enemy might use your logic and shoot all prisoners.
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 03:20
It wasn't random quoting, you snipped it but a quick look at my post shows I quoted you fully. Your use of North Dakota is deceitful. Of course there will be short, individual ups and downs in any given area. For reasons I assume are an unwillingness to be proven wrong, you consistantly ignore the fact that the overwhelming trends in non capital punishment states are for higher deterence than for states that kill. How much more evidence does someone like you need? It seems good enough for official bodies, but not you.

By random quoting I did not mean, nor do I think I implied, that you were cutting up the quotes. You just based your entire point on what others have said, and none of your quotes disproved or even attempted to refute anything I said. They were irrelevant and meaningless. To refute the concept of deterence by capital punishment, one would have to find statistics on two areas that are alike in almost every way but the death penalty, and show that the one without the death penalty experienced less homicide.

I said: 'The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)'
You replied: 'This, it would seem, has absolutely nothing to do with who the top five countries are for each category. Obviously the only determining factor in murder rate is application the capital punishment.'...........(I understand the sarcasm)
You make no sense. What kind of evidence do you need? I have given chapter and verse, you only answer with your opinion. You're entitled to that, but most people base their opinion on facts.

Are you truly so dense that you manage to miss my point entirely at every turn? First of all, this is bullshit, unfortunate as it may be. Second of all, quit saying, "What evidence do you need?" It's a petty response that shows an inability to legitimately respond by sticking to refuted points without making any attempt at rebuttal. When I said, "This, it would seem..." I was pointing out that different countries with different customs, population types, levels of diversity, et cetera may experience more (or fewer) murders in a year simply because of these factors, and likely do, regardless of their stance on the death penalty. It's common sense. An extremely diverse nation with increased racial tension, and/or whose police force is lacking, and/or whose people are more desensitized to things like killing and rape and theft via frequent exposure to such things is naturally going to have a higher murder rate, and this rate may or may not be remotely affected by the presence of the death penalty - nobody can really say with certainty either way.

So using your logic, we rape rapists, steal from thieves, abuse the children of abusers, kill killers. What do we do with soldiers who kill? The enemy might use your logic and shoot all prisoners.

If there were someone willing to carry out such a punishment, then yes; if the thief had things to steal which would cause him to suffer to the same extent as his victim, then yes; wrong, this is a bad analogy, abuse the abusers - abusing the children of the abusers makes no sense, the children are the victims of an abuse, not the parents of the children; and nothing, because soldiers that kill enemies are not committing a crime.
Globes R Us
08-09-2005, 03:42
You're becoming a bore but I will try one more time.

'By random quoting I did not mean, nor do I think I implied, that you were cutting up the quotes. You just based your entire point on what others have said, and none of your quotes disproved or even attempted to refute anything I said. They were irrelevant and meaningless. To refute the concept of deterence by capital punishment, one would have to find statistics on two areas that are alike in almost every way but the death penalty, and show that the one without the death penalty experienced less homicide
I started the thread and base my thoughts on the evidence I have seen over the years and of that I put in my first post. You may prefer to blather about statistics (a concept that business and government understands, they base company futures and peoples lives on them) but you merely reply with your opinion, not facts.

'Are you truly so dense that you manage to miss my point entirely at every turn? First of all, this is bullshit, unfortunate as it may be'
Most posters on this thread beg to differ.

Second of all, quit saying, "What evidence do you need?" It's a petty response that shows an inability to legitimately respond by sticking to refuted points without making any attempt at rebuttal.'
Asking for you to give me something other than your personal opinion isn't petty.

'such things is naturally going to have a higher murder rate, and this rate may or may not be remotely affected by the presence of the death penalty - nobody can really say with certainty either way'
I dissagree, I have said why, I have given statistics..

'if the thief had things to steal which would cause him to suffer to the same extent as his victim, then yes'
Would this be instead of prison or other punishment?

'wrong, this is a bad analogy, abuse the abusers - abusing the children of the abusers makes no sense, the children are the victims of an abuse, not the parents of the children'
It's only a bad analogy because your logic leads to it. Your logic dictates a strict 'eye for an eye', read what you said. You've already admitted you like the idea of revenge, that would also include the relations of criminals. Or don't you stand by what you say?

' nothing, because soldiers that kill enemies are not committing a crime'
Who says? Remember the Nuremberg Trials?
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 03:59
You're becoming a bore but I will try one more time.

'By random quoting I did not mean, nor do I think I implied, that you were cutting up the quotes. You just based your entire point on what others have said, and none of your quotes disproved or even attempted to refute anything I said. They were irrelevant and meaningless. To refute the concept of deterence by capital punishment, one would have to find statistics on two areas that are alike in almost every way but the death penalty, and show that the one without the death penalty experienced less homicide
I started the thread and base my thoughts on the evidence I have seen over the years and of that I put in my first post. You may prefer to blather about statistics (a concept that business and government understands, they base company futures and peoples lives on them) but you merely reply with your opinion, not facts.

And which are, all too frequently, incorrect. Perfect example: five years before I was born, all available statistics predicted that there would be too few children left in my two-square-mile city within twenty years for a public school to be necessary. Guess what? Enrollment increased. Why? Too many X-factors were not being considered in the plots.

And, if all that I am spewing is pure opinion, why is it so difficult for you to simply reply with an "opinion" of your own that makes half as much logical sense?

'Are you truly so dense that you manage to miss my point entirely at every turn? First of all, this is bullshit, unfortunate as it may be'
Most posters on this thread beg to differ.

Most posters on this thread would be wrong. If most people based their opinions on fact, no one would be a bleeding-heart. Most people base their opinions on experience, exposure and parenting.

Second of all, quit saying, "What evidence do you need?" It's a petty response that shows an inability to legitimately respond by sticking to refuted points without making any attempt at rebuttal.'
Asking for you to give me something other than your personal opinion isn't petty.

You weren't, you were asking me what I would require you to provide me with in a rhetorical manner.

'such things is naturally going to have a higher murder rate, and this rate may or may not be remotely affected by the presence of the death penalty - nobody can really say with certainty either way'
I dissagree, I have said why, I have given statistics..

And I have pointed out numerous reasons why your statistics could be, and probably are, off, and you repeated, "Dirty opinions!" over and over again instead of trying to think of something legitimate to say to them.

'if the thief had things to steal which would cause him to suffer to the same extent as his victim, then yes'
Would this be instead of prison or other punishment?

In prison's stead. Not that it would really work practically. But it would be nice if it did.

'wrong, this is a bad analogy, abuse the abusers - abusing the children of the abusers makes no sense, the children are the victims of an abuse, not the parents of the children'
It's only a bad analogy because your logic leads to it. Your logic dictates a strict 'eye for an eye', read what you said. You've already admitted you like the idea of revenge, that would also include the relations of criminals. Or don't you stand by what you say?

Are you kidding me? Are you trying to fuck with me or something? You can't seriously have just said that. The analogy was bad because it was completely incorrect under "my logic." By "my logic," if someone abuses a child, that someone gets abused back in a manner that would affect the abuser to an extent mentally and physically equal to that of the child. You suggested that if the abuser abuses a child, someone else should abuse his child. That makes no fucking sense under anyone's logic.

' nothing, because soldiers that kill enemies are not committing a crime'
Who says? Remember the Nuremberg Trials?

... The people on trial at the Nuremberg Trials were accused of various things, but not "killing enemies in a time of war." False comparison.
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 04:03
I'm going to bed. Your inability to reply in a coherent manner and extensive dodging of anything that might be considered a legitimate response is pissing me off, giving me a headache, and driving me toward a massive flaming run. Seeing as I don't want to be banned, I'll reply some time tomorrow if you say anything remotely logical.
Globes R Us
08-09-2005, 04:08
I'm going to bed. Your inability to reply in a coherent manner and extensive dodging of anything that might be considered a legitimate response is pissing me off, giving me a headache, and driving me toward a massive flaming run. Seeing as I don't want to be banned, I'll reply some time tomorrow if you say anything remotely logical.

Sleep well. And perchance dream good things. Who knows? You might wake up and see I'm right.
DELGRAD
08-09-2005, 04:12
I am for the death penalty only when there is indisputable proof of guilt. You can not take the chance of killing an inocent person.
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 11:42
Sleep well. And perchance dream good things. Who knows? You might wake up and see I'm right.

Gee, that was a great reply. I get up to see if you've replied with one worthwhile argument while I've been asleep, and this is all you've said. How can you possibly be "right" when the only points you've made were all-but-destroyed and you never attempted to answer for a single one? Honestly, are you just trying to piss me off? Because it's working.
Oekai
08-09-2005, 17:54
Originally Posted by Oekai
I don't debate. I state my opinion, just as you state yours.

Please define what you mean by "revenge". When you say, "Do we punish
children FOR revenge/", (by which I think you mean "Do we punish children
OUT OF revenge?"), the answer is that we punish children to show them and
their "cohorts" that it's not a good idea to be "bad".

Punishment is not ONLY designed to deter, it is also designed to reward. The
reward for bad behavior is pain. The pen-ultimate pain is removal from this
world (termination). The ultimate pain is being stripped of one's humanity
while still conscious (my "devil's island" solution). That's why I prefer a "devil's
island" to capital punishment.

Public punishment deters those who might commit crime by showing them the
results of crime.

Public punishment rewards those who HAVE commited crime by inflicting pain
on them.


-The REAL Iakeo

Yes, more bollocks. Okay.

Of course we all state our opinion, but this is still debate and I have at least backed up my opinion with hard fact. And you demand my definition of revenge? First I will point out that I shouldn't have to explain everything, it's all there for you. But for you, again:

You stated: 'Revenge is also a legitimate quality of society, because revenge is really nothing more than another word for punishment'
I answered: 'Revenge is not about punishment in a civilised society'
Now see, I think that's as clear as a bell but just to please you I double checked in my OD under both 'revenge' and 'punishment'. Guess what? I'm right, you're wrong.

So what does "revenge" mean to you? You haven't stated what the word
actually means to YOU?


From there your post goes from weak to piss-poor.

To whom? To you? Why do I care what you think? :D


You say: 'the answer is that we punish children to show them and
their "cohorts" that it's not a good idea to be "bad"'

I'm not sure why you brought in 'cohorts' and I don't know about you, I punish children, not to demonstrate that 'it's not a good idea to be bad', I punish them to show clearly that they are wrong. You may choose to dismiss this as pedantic but should you strain a bit you'll see there's a fundamental difference. One that a child has to absorb.

If they are "wrong", then they have been "bad" in some way. Being "bad" is
not a good idea. The reason a child's "cohorts" are also addressed about
the "badness" of one of their number is so that everyone can learn from
everyone's mistakes.


You say: 'Punishment is not ONLY designed to deter, it is also designed to reward'
Who does punishment reward?

It rewards the behavior. In other words, more likely to be understood by your
simple mind, is, "If you do THIS, you will recieve THIS reward."

The quality of the reward is in like kind to the quality of the behavior.


You say: 'The ultimate pain is being stripped of one's humanity
while still conscious (my "devil's island" solution)'

Forgive me but do you understand what you're saying? .'stripped of one's humanity while still conscious? Do you consider that an act more moral than a murder?

Yes, if it is in "reward" for the behavior of killing someone who should not be
killed (murder).

Once again, rewards should be given in slightly more amount than the cost of
what one "spent" to deserve a reward. (If one risks A LOT to save a person's
life, one should be rewarded with MORE than one risked.)


'That's why I prefer a "devil's
island" to capital punishment'

So, there it is, you aren't after punishment, you want revenge. Thank god that in the main, our justice systems are not based on revenge because one form of revenge is to inflict pain on a criminals family. That puts everyone at risk.

Once again, AGAIN, without a definition of what YOU mean by "revenge",
your statement is meaningless.

To me, revenge IS actually a negative word. I was just equating "revenge"
with "punishment" to goad you into actually defining what you mean
by "revenge".

"Revenge", to me, means, "Unjust vengence (violent punishment) which is
unjust because of being applied in overly harsh fashion or applied to the
wrong target."

I believe that murderers (and various other offenders) deserve to be utterly
removed from "normal" society and should live in the hell (or "heaven") of a
society that they and their compatriots-in-mind create themselves.

That particular "torture" would be self created, and give them the opportunity
to "rehabilitate" themselves and their "cohort" into any kind of society they
wish.

(( My quess is, though, that they would further degenerate into the animals
they proved themselves to be at the beginning of their journey. ))

Now, what "FACTS" do I need to justify my opinions?

What "FACTS" can you muster to de-justify (?) MY opinions?

And why is reward in kind such an awful thing? :)


-The REAL Iakeo
Oekai
08-09-2005, 18:00
How can a democratic nation like our's (America, I mean) not guarantee the right to life, it's so basic, and yet we don't guarantee it. The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate petty criminals and keep dangerous ones away from the rest of society, that's it.

Hmmm... where/what is this "right to life"?

Who's job is it to "guarantee" rights?

I am all for your proposition, though.

ALL petty criminals (non-3-time offenders of petty-non-violent crimes) should
be helped to get over their pathologies (rehabilitated), and ALL non-petty
criminals should be transported to a "devil's island", to live within their own
society.

But I am very interested in your concepts of "right to life" and "guarantor of
rights".

Do tell... :)

-The REAL Iakeo
Oekai
08-09-2005, 18:08
Originally Posted by Globes R Us
Sleep well. And perchance dream good things. Who knows? You might wake up and see I'm right.

Gee, that was a great reply. I get up to see if you've replied with one worthwhile argument while I've been asleep, and this is all you've said. How can you possibly be "right" when the only points you've made were all-but-destroyed and you never attempted to answer for a single one? Honestly, are you just trying to piss me off? Because it's working.

Globes is of that non-conversant feel-good pontificating all-but-me-are-fools
category of "intellectual".

I certainly don't expect cogent, or even coherent conversation from the type.

Now,.. if said doof wants to talk (converse, interact, ask questions and
answer questions and state opinions), as opposed to talk-at (the negative of
the aforesaid list of qualities associated with "talking"), THEN said doof would
probably be worth conversing with.

..but what are the probablities of said doof changing his/her (probably "his")
dermal adornments ("spots", to translate for said doof and said doof's ilk)? :)


-The REAL Iakeo
MechanicaWarfare
08-09-2005, 18:16
Hmmm... where/what is this "right to life"?

Who's job is it to "guarantee" rights?

I am all for your proposition, though.

ALL petty criminals (non-3-time offenders of petty-non-violent crimes) should
be helped to get over their pathologies (rehabilitated), and ALL non-petty
criminals should be transported to a "devil's island", to live within their own
society.

But I am very interested in your concepts of "right to life" and "guarantor of
rights".

Do tell... :)

-The REAL Iakeo

What a way to ruin his way of thought ... *applauds congrats. The question is who is going to guarantee that sending them to the "devils island" isn't a death sentence by its own : /. You all are saying I do not support death penalty but I do support sending them to somehwere to die ...


If you don't support the death sentence then just say this I SUPPORT BRAINWASHING REMOVE ALL THOUGHTS AND MEMORIES FROM THE FELONS AND SEND THEM BACK TO SOCIETY WITH A CLEAN SLATE (literally clean). Done no death penalty necesary just stupid people walking and whomever commits a stupid crime and gets brainwashed ... wel at least hes alive.
Oekai
08-09-2005, 18:43
What a way to ruin his way of thought ... *applauds congrats.

The question is who is going to guarantee that sending them to the "devils island" isn't a death sentence by its own : /.

It isn't. And it shouldn't be (a guarantee that it's NOT a death sentence). It's
up to the "society of criminals" to deal with their own problems.

I'm going to go COMPLETELY PARANORMAL now, and spout a grand
halucination of mine:

Every hardened habitual pathological criminal would tell you, if they were
really completely honest (thus the "hallucination" requirement), that they live
their lives as a suicide mission in hopes of causing as much trouble, pain, and
misery in the world as possible to show those "non-their-kind" normal-people
the pain that they feel for their "sickness".

They are utter masochists who's only pleasure is making "normals" feel pain
by making us do their bidding.

They create their own hell, to show us what hell is.

When we allow them to "make us feel bad" for not rehabilitating them, and
keeping them "caged like animals", they are pleased, and feel effective
through their only tool,.. our own misguided "compassion".

If we were to give them what they "supposedly" wanted, namely "freedom to
live a society of their creation", they'd lose the crowbar of "guilt" (misguided
compassion) to beat us over the head with.

That would annoy them no end...

..and it might be such a shock to them, and their pathology, that they'd
actually evolve into a worthwhile sub-culture out on "devil's island".

Think,.. oh I don't know,.. Australia.


You all are saying I do not support death penalty but I do support sending them to somehwere to die ...

If you don't support the death sentence then just say this I SUPPORT BRAINWASHING REMOVE ALL THOUGHTS AND MEMORIES FROM THE FELONS AND SEND THEM BACK TO SOCIETY WITH A CLEAN SLATE (literally clean). Done no death penalty necesary just stupid people walking and whomever commits a stupid crime and gets brainwashed ... wel at least hes alive.

Show me your "Cerebro-shine 2000", and we'll talk. :)


-The REAL Iakeo
MechanicaWarfare
08-09-2005, 18:57
Good try but not everyone now a days knows what surviving in wilderness or even worse in the middle of nowhere means or is. So you are sending them to die in devils island. Whether you are willing to accept or not that sending someone forcefully into a place where they are going to meet their impending doom either by others just like them (or worse) or just by time (jail in other words) is a death sentence. It is basic knowledge keeping someone encarcerated untill they die is a death sentence. (no freedom just living untill they die is a death sentence one way or another he's going to die under your decision.)

My cerebro-shine 2000 is behind the fridge ... want to give it a try I know you would love it ... because my neighbors kid loved it so much he tried it twice ... :D
Oekai
08-09-2005, 20:08
Good try but not everyone now a days knows what surviving in wilderness or even worse in the middle of nowhere means or is. So you are sending them to die in devils island. Whether you are willing to accept or not that sending someone forcefully into a place where they are going to meet their impending doom either by others just like them (or worse) or just by time (jail in other words) is a death sentence.

LIFE is a death sentence..!!

The question is what one does with the time alloted to them.


It is basic knowledge keeping someone encarcerated untill they die is a death sentence. (no freedom just living untill they die is a death sentence one way or another he's going to die under your decision.)

Yes,.. and I willingly and gratefully accept the responsibility of sending
criminals such as these to, preferably, live or die on a "devil's island", or less
preferably, to die by my hand in service to society.

You apparently do not. That's fine. We differ.

How would you deal with the criminal who has proved he can't be
rehabilitated? And how do you deal with the possibility that an innocent
person could be wrongly convicted of a capital offense?

They DO go hand in hand, by the way.


My cerebro-shine 2000 is behind the fridge ... want to give it a try I know you would love it ... because my neighbors kid loved it so much he tried it twice ... :D

I can't get ANYTHING, except fibrous oily dirt and bits of paper dropped from
the counter, from behind my fridge..!!

You are a true genius to be able to configure your kitchen to have behind-
the-fridge storage space..!!

DAMN..! I am in awe of your greatness..!!! :)


-The REAL Iakeo
Frangland
08-09-2005, 20:17
if the only real reason we have the DP (in some states) is to satisfy the injured family's thirst for vengeance (what a healthy thing to base life and death on)...

when incarcerating someone for life takes him out of society just as well as death does...

if it's purely based on punishment-as-vengeance... then why not torture the perp?

cripes, if they want him to suffer, really suffer, then death is too easy.
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 20:51
And how do you deal with the possibility that an innocent
person could be wrongly convicted of a capital offense?

This point hurts you more than helps you. If you sent all criminals convicted of capital offenses to some kind of "Devil's Island," it would be much more difficult to locate and free those that have been falsely convicted.

Personally, I don't like the idea simply because I don't think capital offenders deserve to have a second chance in a new world, even if that world is much shittier than this one.
Spootaria
08-09-2005, 20:57
When a person takes a life on purpose they should die for that act, given:
1. They have the cognitive capacity to understand good, bad, life and death.
2. They purposely took the life, preplanned or were under control at the time of the act but still carried it out.
3. The courts or leader does not find a reasonable doubt.

-Simple and to the point-

!SPOOT!
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 21:09
if the only real reason we have the DP (in some states) is to satisfy the injured family's thirst for vengeance (what a healthy thing to base life and death on)...

when incarcerating someone for life takes him out of society just as well as death does...

if it's purely based on punishment-as-vengeance... then why not torture the perp?

cripes, if they want him to suffer, really suffer, then death is too easy.

Ahhh, if only.

Actually, while I support the death penalty, torture would be a bit much, because there is a small - a very small - chance for error, we cannot risk an innocent being tortured for someone else's crimes. Also, police don't just pull random people out of a hat when hunting down perps - which would lead me to think, though there's no evidence to back this up, that if someone is falsely convicted of a capital crime, there's a pretty good chance that they've done many other things that they were lucky enough not to get caught for. Also, I see the death - although I'm not sure there is anything out there to prove that an innocent has been executed by the modern legal system - of one innocent in one thousand executions is better than fifty of those one thousand executed getting paroled in thirty years to reoffend, as they all-too-often do, because more innocent people are going to die in the latter way. When picking between one or two in a thousand executions killing an innocent and ten or fifteen parolees reoffending, thus killed 10-20 innocents, I have to go with the former every time.
Aldranin
08-09-2005, 21:12
When a person takes a life on purpose they should die for that act, given:
1. They have the cognitive capacity to understand good, bad, life and death.
2. They purposely took the life, preplanned or were under control at the time of the act but still carried it out.
3. The courts or leader does not find a reasonable doubt.

-Simple and to the point-

!SPOOT!

I fucking hate this. Why should these be requirements? If you're killing innocent people, you're killing innocent people. They should get the same sentence as anyone else: either death or life in prison. Crazy or challenged people and rage killers shouldn't get off light.
MechanicaWarfare
09-09-2005, 00:41
LIFE is a death sentence..!!

The question is what one does with the time alloted to them.



Yes,.. and I willingly and gratefully accept the responsibility of sending
criminals such as these to, preferably, live or die on a "devil's island", or less
preferably, to die by my hand in service to society.

You apparently do not. That's fine. We differ.

How would you deal with the criminal who has proved he can't be
rehabilitated? And how do you deal with the possibility that an innocent
person could be wrongly convicted of a capital offense?

They DO go hand in hand, by the way.-The REAL Iakeo

HAHA i prefer to kill them. No costs if it was done in masses. We could destroy several penitentiaries and build more comunities and look forward to other things. Just so u know brainwashing does exist. If you put a person with a tape 24 hours a day for 9 months he will repeat and follow the tapes commands or rules no questions asked and guaranteed. All because the person will become a puppet following his subconscious. This can only be achieved if you hear something while sleeping and practice this (listen to the tapes ) during some time. If we kill them I think it would be much easier and we wouldnt have to worry about them anymore. Innocents will die sure, but more innocents will die if we dont kill the murderers or capital offenders.



I can't get ANYTHING, except fibrous oily dirt and bits of paper dropped from
the counter, from behind my fridge..!!

You are a true genius to be able to configure your kitchen to have behind-
the-fridge storage space..!!

DAMN..! I am in awe of your greatness..!!! :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Well all you need is some brain power and actually the skills to build a safe in the location where your kitchen is. Just don't tell anyone that my money is in there as well. or that the combination is 6L-6R-6L. :p
Globes R Us
09-09-2005, 02:55
Ahhh, if only.

Actually, while I support the death penalty, torture would be a bit much, because there is a small - a very small - chance for error, we cannot risk an innocent being tortured for someone else's crimes. Also, police don't just pull random people out of a hat when hunting down perps - which would lead me to think, though there's no evidence to back this up, that if someone is falsely convicted of a capital crime, there's a pretty good chance that they've done many other things that they were lucky enough not to get caught for. Also, I see the death - although I'm not sure there is anything out there to prove that an innocent has been executed by the modern legal system - of one innocent in one thousand executions is better than fifty of those one thousand executed getting paroled in thirty years to reoffend, as they all-too-often do, because more innocent people are going to die in the latter way. When picking between one or two in a thousand executions killing an innocent and ten or fifteen parolees reoffending, thus killed 10-20 innocents, I have to go with the former every time.

'Actually, while I support the death penalty, torture would be a bit much, because there is a small - a very small - chance for error, we cannot risk an innocent being tortured for someone else's crimes.'
What deep insight. It's okay to take ones only life away for no reason, but not okay to torture that person.

'which would lead me to think, though there's no evidence to back this up, that if someone is falsely convicted of a capital crime, there's a pretty good chance that they've done many other things that they were lucky enough not to get caught for.'
Another great legal insight. We can top a criminal no matter what the crime because he's done so many nasty things. Why stop at ignorance (most posters here don't), why not just kill anyone who commits a crime? Ah, perhaps not, there'd be no government left.
As you say, there's no evidence to 'back this up.' Still, who here worries about evidence?

' Also, I see the death - although I'm not sure there is anything out there to prove that an innocent has been executed by the modern legal system - of one innocent in one thousand executions is better than fifty of those one thousand executed getting paroled in thirty years to reoffend,'
No proof? You should take some time to research how many people are subject to wrongful conviction for all and any crime.
Never mind, we now have a democratic, Christian, Western value judgement: It's better to kill the innocent than to release the guilty. Makes you wonder why we bother to have a judicial system at all, when it seems so easy to solve crime.

'When picking between one or two in a thousand executions killing an innocent and ten or fifteen parolees reoffending, thus killed 10-20 innocents, I have to go with the former every time'
Of course you do.
Kirjesustan
09-09-2005, 03:05
People nowadays seem to forget that we (society) send people to prison to punish them. It's our (society's) was of saying "you've been a bad monkey, now go sit in the corner".

It's my personal belief that there are some people that we just don't need to have around. Mainly child molesters. If you know anyhting about America's penal system, you'll be well aware of the fact that the average child molester makes it less than 6 months in a federal prison. The other inmates usually kill them.

Rapists have it a little easier and last somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2 years, if they don't piss anyone off. The animals will thin there own herd, I see no need for a death penalty. If the crime was heinous enough, then the "evil doers" will take care of it for us.
MechanicaWarfare
09-09-2005, 03:06
Globes as I said if death is too much because an innocent will get killed out of which the guy who was convicted for going on a killing spree of 300 people just to make an exageration but it has happened and could happen again, we will just send him to life not annihalate his sorry existence (torture would be good in this case thats my opinion make him beg for his death). But since its too much I go with the brainwashing solution. Make stupid people who are basically reprogrammed human beings running under a subconscious tape. Who said that science doesn't help society when it involves a crime?

If they did this, it might not be cheap but we would have mindless zombies (figuratively speaking of course) automatons who have nothing to look forward to life except for whatever he was reprogrammed with. If he was reprogrammed to give his meaningless existence for the government and give his/her money to them no questions asked hey why not ... -_-!
Aldranin
09-09-2005, 20:55
Oh, my, he finally replied to something I wrote! Let's see what he had to say.

'Actually, while I support the death penalty, torture would be a bit much, because there is a small - a very small - chance for error, we cannot risk an innocent being tortured for someone else's crimes.'
What deep insight. It's okay to take ones only life away for no reason, but not okay to torture that person.

Exactly. Death is much more merciful than torture.

'which would lead me to think, though there's no evidence to back this up, that if someone is falsely convicted of a capital crime, there's a pretty good chance that they've done many other things that they were lucky enough not to get caught for.'
Another great legal insight. We can top a criminal no matter what the crime because he's done so many nasty things. Why stop at ignorance (most posters here don't), why not just kill anyone who commits a crime? Ah, perhaps not, there'd be no government left.

That's not what I said at all. Don't intentionally misinterpret my words - and it was intentional, unless you're a moron. I didn't say we can stop a criminal no matter what the crime because he's done other things, I said that in the rare event a person is falsely convicted, there's a good chance there are other things that they weren't caught for. And you continued to twist the last part of my point, as well, with this statement:

As you say, there's no evidence to 'back this up.' Still, who here worries about evidence?

...regarding my quote, which you also did not cite in full, leaving out, "Also, police don't just pull random people out of a hat when hunting down perps." While my conclusion was not supported by evidence, that which led me to my conclusion was supported by evidence, and thus not as baseless as you are determined to make it out to be.

' Also, I see the death - although I'm not sure there is anything out there to prove that an innocent has been executed by the modern legal system - of one innocent in one thousand executions is better than fifty of those one thousand executed getting paroled in thirty years to reoffend,'
No proof? You should take some time to research how many people are subject to wrongful conviction for all and any crime.

Again, you're intentionally misreading and saying unrelated things with regards to my point. I said that I was not sure there was any proof of a wrongful execution in recent years. I'm not talking about unjust imprisonment for crimes, I'm talking about unjust execution for capital crimes. If you have evidence to prove otherwise - not from some bullshit source by some nutcase, but by an actual legal website reporting the preceedings and aftermath of a case - please provide it. If not, shut the fuck up and stop saying completely irrelevant things to make it look like you're replying legitimately.

Never mind, we now have a democratic, Christian, Western value judgement: It's better to kill the innocent than to release the guilty. Makes you wonder why we bother to have a judicial system at all, when it seems so easy to solve crime.

No, again, I didn't say that, and you're being fucking childish by making stuff up as if that is my stance. It's better to kill one innocent than release one hundred guilty when considering the high odds of reoffense. I'm also not Christian, or a member of any religion, so you can stick that implication up your ass.

'When picking between one or two in a thousand executions killing an innocent and ten or fifteen parolees reoffending, thus killed 10-20 innocents, I have to go with the former every time'
Of course you do.

Gee, that was an intelligent reply. Way to shoot down my point... oh, wait, you were just acting like you made a point again.
Globes R Us
09-09-2005, 21:28
Gee, that was an intelligent reply. Way to shoot down my point... oh, wait, you were just acting like you made a point again.


'What deep insight. It's okay to take ones only life away for no reason, but not okay to torture that person.
Exactly. Death is much more merciful than torture.'
So it's okay to take a life for no reason. What logic.

'I didn't say we can stop a criminal no matter what the crime because he's done other things'
Yes you did: Quote: 'if someone is falsely convicted of a capital crime, there's a pretty good chance that they've done many other things that they were lucky enough not to get caught for'


'While my conclusion was not supported by evidence, that which led me to my conclusion was supported by evidence, and thus not as baseless as you are determined to make it out to be.'
Nope. You said:
'Also, police don't just pull random people out of a hat when hunting down perps - which would lead me to think, though there's no evidence to back this up, that if someone is falsely convicted of a capital crime, there's a pretty good chance that they've done many other things that they were lucky enough not to get caught for.'

You have made silly mistakes, all the wriggling in the world won't change it.


And you really must calm down and be less offensive.
'he finally replied to something I wrote!

and it was intentional, unless you're a moron.

If you have evidence to prove otherwise - not from some bullshit source by some nutcase,

If not, shut the fuck up

stop saying completely irrelevant things

you're being fucking childish

so you can stick that implication up your ass.'
The Atlantian islands
09-09-2005, 21:36
You know what I find funny, no, funny isnt the word for it, hypocritical. The same people who oppose the death penatly with every ounce of air in their lungs, support abortion with just as much strenght. What the hell is our soceity coming to when, the population bitches about us punishing murderers and rapists, when at the same time, they approve and SUPPORT the killing of babies, the only beings on earth that are 100% innocent. This strikes me as odd :rolleyes: .
Globes R Us
09-09-2005, 21:41
You know what I find funny, no, funny isnt the word for it, hypocritical. The same people who oppose the death penatly with every ounce of air in their lungs, support abortion with just as much strenght. What the hell is our soceity coming to when, the population bitches about us punishing murderers and rapists, when at the same time, they approve and SUPPORT the killing of babies, the only beings on earth that are 100% innocent. This strikes me as odd :rolleyes: .


'The same people who oppose the death penatly with every ounce of air in their lungs, support abortion with just as much strenght'
Any evidence? Or just ranting?
The Atlantian islands
09-09-2005, 21:43
'The same people who oppose the death penatly with every ounce of air in their lungs, support abortion with just as much strenght'
Any evidence? Or just ranting?

Are you joking? EVIDENCE!!!!!!!! Where have you been living, under a rock? Liberals have ALWAYS opposed the death penalty while fully supporting abortion....Ask anyone...Its common knowledge.
MechanicaWarfare
09-09-2005, 21:50
Please don't go into abortion many things are related to that including overpopulation society itself (would you prefer a child to be thrown into a garbage can instead?) and this is another topic which may concern death of innocents but this is death penalty not killing innocents.
Globes R Us
09-09-2005, 21:51
Are you joking? EVIDENCE!!!!!!!! Where have you been living, under a rock? Liberals have ALWAYS opposed the death penalty while fully supporting abortion....Ask anyone...Its common knowledge.

Yes, evidence. 'Ask anyone', that your idea of proof then is it? I'm a 'liberal' and I don't fall into your neat pigeon hole. So, unless you can back up what you say with something more concrete than a recommendation to 'ask someone', I'll just ignore you.