Capital Punishment

[Turk]

What do you think about execution? Do you support it or not? If so; why?

[kilted exile]

Nope, I am in favour of rehabilitation not revenge.

[Video Drone]

If you mean death sentence, no, because that leaves out any chance of the person surviving if he was convicted mistakeably or anything. In any case, why do we have to kill someone? The whole concept is morally wrong already. Or is it about costs of prisons?

[papayahed]

I'm not against it (capital punishment), but I lean towards imprisonment because I have to believe life in prison is a way harsher sentence then death.

[Turk]

I'm not against it (capital punishment), but I lean towards imprisonment because I have to believe life in prison is a way harsher sentence then death.

Living in a prison must be better than death (unless it's Russian or Chinese prison :lol: ). Did you read Papillon? :)

[applepie]

I'm for the death penalty. Just not the way it is set up at the moment. I think it should be carried out more quickly. The cost of keeping someone on death row is enormous and often they will be there for 15 years or so. I think once they have their last appeal the sentence should be carried out immediately following. I also tend to think that the things you should be given the death penalty for should be expanded. I think rape should cary a death sentence. Not the first time, or even the second, but more of a three strikes you're out sort of thing. People who abuse their children to the worst degree should also be given the death penalty.

Now, just to be clear, since I know this sounds pretty harsh a bloodthirsty. I don't think they should be given the death penalty in such a way it is viewed as a punishment. To me, the people who commit these kinds of attrocities need to be removed from the human population for the better good. On the practical side, keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives puts a heavy strain on the rest of the public. I don't know about anyone else, but I often find myself resenting the fact that here in Washington my tax dollars are spent keeping alive a man who raped a six month old infant. By removing them from the population, permanently, there is no need to worry about them being a further threat to society.

[Turk]

I don't know about anyone else, but I often find myself resenting the fact that here in Washington my tax dollars are spent keeping alive a man who raped a six month old infant.

:flare: :flare: That guy should have killed with the worst kind of tortures! Goddamn perverts! I think you are right; i heard there's 2,5 million people are in jails in USA. If i would be president maybe half of them (who killed people or raped women or children would have executed).

I support death penalty too. Because a man who doesn't respect human life doesn't deserve to live.

[Video Drone]

I think this is a huge social problem, the people's lust for death sentence, in other words, for violence.

I have to believe life in prison is a way harsher sentence then death.Why are you pleased by the idea that another human being suffers?

[Turk]

I think this is a huge social problem, the people's lust for death sentence, in other words, for violence.
Why are you pleased by the idea that another human being suffers?

I think you don't realize those people who deserves punishment are already threat for society and THEY DID HURT other people. It's justice.

[kilted exile]

I think you don't realize those people who deserves punishment are already threat for society and THEY DID HURT other people. It's justice.

Turk, I think this is going to be another of those situations where I disagree with you completely.

When a society kills people it is simply state sponsored murder. What we should be trying to achieve is a society where:

1) People do not commit crimes because they realise it is wrong to do so - not because they are scared of what will happen to them afterwards.

2) Where people who do commit crimes are rehabilitated and reintroduced into society with no desire to re-offend.

We can not achieve either one of these by killing people.

I had a roommate for a few months from Egypt. He was of the belief that torture was a perfectly valid thing to do. It does not work and neither does the death penalty. The only thing the death penalty does is cut down the recidivism rates.

[motherhubbard]

My parents, husband, close friends, and I have all worked or are currently working in law enforcement and/or corrections. I think that for one to say he is for or against corporal punishment is like saying he is for or against abortion. I think that kind of thinking is often looking to the end without giving thought to the beginning. I am pro life, but instead of outlawing abortion I would like to foster a world in which abortion was unnecessary. It takes more work, money and responsibility from everyone including the person who is not pregnant. I think that we must all ask ourselves where we went wrong and what can we do. It is much easier to place blame, but getting your life in a mess is possibly the easiest thing in the world to do. The same with corporal punishment (however I have no tolerance for pedophiles). People usually are in trouble again and again before they are committing the kinds of crimes that have severe penalties. We blame them and then we tend to kick them while they are down. I don’t know anyone past a certain age that hasn’t broken some kind of law. Once you are convicted of a crime nothing slides anymore. America has the death penalty, if I were to commit a crime that carried that kind of punishment I would be choosing that potential end for myself. But in countries that do not have the death penalty there is less violent crime. While I think that the death penalty is warranted at times I can’t help but wonder if we would be better off without it. However, prison is America is not so much about rehabilitation. In America we blame the poor for their poverty, and the sick for their illness. There is no way we are going to be sympathetic to criminals.

In short I think there is a time for execution, but I think we (society) are, at least to some degree, responsible for the failure in the criminal system. At the same time, I have looked pure evil in the eye and I don’t know what society can do about that.

[Shalot]

I think this is a huge social problem, the people's lust for death sentence, in other words, for violence.
Why are you pleased by the idea that another human being suffers?

I agree with papaya --- the death penalty isn't a harsh enough punishment for the pain some people have inflicted upon others. I can't speak for papaya, but the idea that another person suffers doesn't please me --- nothing about rape, torture or murder pleases me. But people who commit these types of crimes deserve punishment and the death penalty isn't an adequate punishment in my opinion.

[papayahed]

I agree with papaya --- the death penalty isn't a harsh enough punishment for the pain some people have inflicted upon others. I can't speak for papaya, but the idea that another person suffers doesn't please me --- nothing about rape, torture or murder pleases me. But people who commit these types of crimes deserve punishment and the death penalty isn't an adequate punishment in my opinion.


Exactly. Along those same lines, the victims (and friends/family of) have to live with the consequences of the crime why shouldn't the person who commited the crime.

[Stanislaw]

Living in a prison must be better than death (unless it's Russian or Chinese prison :lol: ). Did you read Papillon? :)

heh, worst prisons ever.


:flare: :flare: That guy should have killed with the worst kind of tortures! Goddamn perverts! I think you are right; i heard there's 2,5 million people are in jails in USA. If i would be president maybe half of them (who killed people or raped women or children would have executed).

I support death penalty too. Because a man who doesn't respect human life doesn't deserve to live.

I think hard labour is waht is needed, its a harsh punishment, and yet, the person is forced to give backl to society.


I think this is a huge social problem, the people's lust for death sentence, in other words, for violence.
Why are you pleased by the idea that another human being suffers?

It's really about revenge and punishment.


I agree with papaya --- the death penalty isn't a harsh enough punishment for the pain some people have inflicted upon others. I can't speak for papaya, but the idea that another person suffers doesn't please me --- nothing about rape, torture or murder pleases me. But people who commit these types of crimes deserve punishment and the death penalty isn't an adequate punishment in my opinion.

Death is really quite an easy way out, I think labour is the option, there are many tasks that need to be done, or can be done at lower cost if a person does them. So, whay not make them work and give back to the society that they took from...and no work...no food.

[Mortis Anarchy]

heh, worst prisons ever.



I think hard labour is waht is needed, its a harsh punishment, and yet, the person is forced to give backl to society.



It's really about revenge and punishment.



Death is really quite an easy way out, I think labour is the option, there are many tasks that need to be done, or can be done at lower cost if a person does them. So, whay not make them work and give back to the society that they took from...and no work...no food.


I agree. Death is taking the easy way out. I know that sometimes, when I can barely even imagine some of the horrors inflicted upon others, and I think about the pain my family/friends and me as well would have to suffer through...its wrong. But I don't think that if someone were to kill or rape or steal all of my most precious belongings would I want them to die for it. I can't say that I would forgive them, I hope I would be able to someday, but I would rather they would pay by doing something that may be able to help the world than just stop existing...its too easy and complicated at the same time. Comprende?

[Stanislaw]

I agree. Death is taking the easy way out. I know that sometimes, when I can barely even imagine some of the horrors inflicted upon others, and I think about the pain my family/friends and me as well would have to suffer through...its wrong. But I don't think that if someone were to kill or rape or steal all of my most precious belongings would I want them to die for it. I can't say that I would forgive them, I hope I would be able to someday, but I would rather they would pay by doing something that may be able to help the world than just stop existing...its too easy and complicated at the same time. Comprende?

Indeed, I don't think I can forgive, but who knows, maybe someday.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I feel like I wouldn't want to be burden by the pressure of always being angry or the fact that someone died because of something that happened to me...I know that seems rather twisted and weird but I would feel bad. Call me crazy! Hopefully nothing ever happens, but if so, I just wish that I could grow/mature and be able to forgive.

[B-Mental]

I'm in favor of execution...Vince Lombardi the great football coach says that execution and timing is everything. Now if you are asking about Capital Punishment, well, thats something else entirely.

[manolia]

(however I have no tolerance for pedophiles)

Although i agree with this phrase completely (and there were times i believed that they should be stoned to death) i also believe in rehibilitation. But (there is always a but) i don't know if i'd still believe in rehabilitation if someone hurt a person i love dearly ;) . All those things are a matter of perspective.



To me, the people who commit these kinds of attrocities need to be removed from the human population for the better good.

I can see what you mean. But isn't society to blame for those people going asrtay?

[The Atheist]

When a society kills people it is simply state sponsored murder.

Yes/no/maybe.

The whole argument cuts to the chase of a couple of deep moral issues where "right" and "wrong" are shades of slightly different grey. Where does morality come from, and what makes your morality right? Whether hard-wired, based on divine advice, intuition or otherwise, human morality is a human construct.

I have varying opinions on the death penalty, but there is a definite argument that some people commit crimes so heinous that they have renounced their right to life.

The matter's made worse by two separate arguments:

Is the death penalty appropriate for humankind?

How can we ensure 100% guilt?


What we should be trying to achieve is a society where:

1) People do not commit crimes because they realise it is wrong to do so - not because they are scared of what will happen to them afterwards.

2) Where people who do commit crimes are rehabilitated and reintroduced into society with no desire to re-offend.

I agree.

The problem is that that is an idealistic stance and I don't believe it's even remotely possible. Unless human emotions themselves can be contained in some Brave New World fashion, I don't think we could ever remove crime from human society. It should be possible, but no evidence suggests it will be. Accordingly, we must embrace and realism and do the best we can with what we have. Houyhnhyms, we aren't.

Given that we cannot guarantee rehabilitation, the question of whether excision of those criminals beyond some arbitrary of evil is better than retaining them in four walls for maybe 70 years.


We can not achieve either one of these by killing people.

Neither does keeping people in jail indefinitely and as long as there one recidivist murder, how do we weigh the consequences of that against our revulsion of the death penalty used on an innocent? To me, they are one and the same, an innocent person has died.


I had a roommate for a few months from Egypt. He was of the belief that torture was a perfectly valid thing to do. It does not work and neither does the death penalty. The only thing the death penalty does is cut down the recidivism rates.

There's your different cultures coming out. I think I can make a pretty good moralistic case against torture under any circumstances, however. The death penalty, I'm not so sure. I used to be 100% anti-capital punishment, but fifty years without the death penalty hasn't improved things.

[Stanislaw]

I can see what you mean. But isn't society to blame for those people going asrtay?

I would have to disagree...people have choices...I mean, whats stopping me from murdering all my coworkers?

[B-Mental]

a boatload of ninjas?

[Stanislaw]

a boatload of ninjas?

heh, somedays it just doesn't seem like ninjas would be enough :D

[Annamariah]

I'm against the death penalty. Killing criminals isn't any solution to crime problem.

[manolia]

I would have to disagree...people have choices...I mean, whats stopping me from murdering all my coworkers?

You don't get to choose many things in your life.

Stan not everybody has the same opportunities in life or the same experiences. After all the world is a very unfair and unfriendly place sometimes and you never know how more sensitive people (i mean liable people, people with weak understanding or people who didn't have the chance to develop properly- didn't have proper quidance through life-grew up in unhealthy environments-or are mentally unstable) will react to many things. After all i believe noone is BORN a murderer, one becomes a murderer (life, society makes him/her). I don't mean to contradict you. You are entitled to your own opinion. I am just trying to make myself clear.

[kilted exile]

Yes/no/maybe.

The whole argument cuts to the chase of a couple of deep moral issues where "right" and "wrong" are shades of slightly different grey. Where does morality come from, and what makes your morality right? Whether hard-wired, based on divine advice, intuition or otherwise, human morality is a human construct.

I have varying opinions on the death penalty, but there is a definite argument that some people commit crimes so heinous that they have renounced their right to life.

The matter's made worse by two separate arguments:

Is the death penalty appropriate for humankind?

How can we ensure 100% guilt?

I dont subscribe to the 100% guilt aspect. There are circumstances where we can know with 100% certainty that the person is guilty. That doesnt matter, as a society we either need to believe that killing people (unless in situations where you are in imminent danger of being killed yourself) is either right or wrong. I do see the death penalty as premeditated murder. We dont allow lynching we shouldnt allow this



I agree.

The problem is that that is an idealistic stance and I don't believe it's even remotely possible. Unless human emotions themselves can be contained in some Brave New World fashion, I don't think we could ever remove crime from human society. It should be possible, but no evidence suggests it will be. Accordingly, we must embrace and realism and do the best we can with what we have. Houyhnhyms, we aren't.

Given that we cannot guarantee rehabilitation, the question of whether excision of those criminals beyond some arbitrary of evil is better than retaining them in four walls for maybe 70 years.

I am still young enough to be idealistic;)



Neither does keeping people in jail indefinitely and as long as there one recidivist murder, how do we weigh the consequences of that against our revulsion of the death penalty used on an innocent? To me, they are one and the same, an innocent person has died.

We can be outraged at both. As I say the prison service should work towards the rehabilitation of people so that they can become well adapted members of society. Once they are at the stage they do not want (or in some cases need) to commit crimes they are reintroduced to society, until then they remain outside society.



There's your different cultures coming out. I think I can make a pretty good moralistic case against torture under any circumstances, however. The death penalty, I'm not so sure. I used to be 100% anti-capital punishment, but fifty years without the death penalty hasn't improved things.

I dont think that the issue regarding it not improving things is important, the issue is whether or not it has made things worse.

Probably the best place to examine whether it has made things worse or not is probably looking at differences in crime rates (punishable by the death penalty only) between states in the US where the death penalty is in effect and where it is not. Now I am too lazy to do this currently, but I may get to it in the future (unless anyone else has these stats to hand).

**EDIT**
Found some stats here, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=168&scid=12
NB Site itself is created by people opposed to the death penalty, however there are links to the actual stats and there figures do appear (from a cursory look) to work out. Ignore % difference part, still trying to figure this part out (you americans use % in a manner I amore familiar with proportion). Rates appear correct however.

[kiobe]

With a justice system that is not yet perfect, one can not expect to be able to take a life and NOT make a mistake once in a while. A mistake of that magnatude is absolutly unacceptable.

[Niamh]

When a society kills people it is simply state sponsored murder. What we should be trying to achieve is a society where:

1) People do not commit crimes because they realise it is wrong to do so - not because they are scared of what will happen to them afterwards.

2) Where people who do commit crimes are rehabilitated and reintroduced into society with no desire to re-offend.

We can not achieve either one of these by killing people.



I agree with you kilted. Executing someone for their crimes is basicly murder. Hard labour and longer sentences in prison is what they deserve. I think murdering them is letting them off easy. They wont feel the pain and suffer continuously for what they did. Granted they would be dead, no coming back from that but suffering is harder to take.
As for pedo's...should be locked up and the key should be thrown away!

[The Atheist]

I am still young enough to be idealistic;)

We all start out that way...

Realism grows on you after a while.


(you americans .

:flare:

Them's fighting words!!!

Me KIWI, Mate!

:p

Any more of that and I'll start playing Elgar's Pomp & Circumstance!


With a justice system that is not yet perfect, one can not expect to be able to take a life and NOT make a mistake once in a while. A mistake of that magnatude is absolutly unacceptable.

Thanks.

Given you views on the matter, you have just been appointed Special Police Liaison Officer for dealing with bereaved families.

You first task is to talk to Mrs Xyz. Her twin, five-year old daughters have just been murdered by Mr. Abc Def. Mr Abc Def had just completed serving thirty-five years for murdering six children the month after the death penalty was repealed. He was considered to have been rehabilitated, but it looks like the parole board got that wrong.

Please explain to Mrs Xyz why the death penalty wasn't appropriate for Mr Abc Def.

***Please note that I'm not a "capital punishment supporter", but I just don't see this issue as black and white. Also, what is life imprisonment but the death penalty done by old age?***


I agree with you kilted. Executing someone for their crimes is basicly murder. Hard labour and longer sentences in prison is what they deserve. I think murdering them is letting them off easy. They wont feel the pain and suffer continuously for what they did. Granted they would be dead, no coming back from that but suffering is harder to take.
As for pedo's...should be locked up and the key should be thrown away!

Just checking here...

Capital punishment - bad

Torture - good

That's essentially your case?

[Pendragon]

The idea of justice is to see that the punishment fits the crime. As we all know, plea bargins pretty much eliminate that actually happening. As the death penalty now stands, and I live in one of the states where it still is carred out, I could never support it. Why?

Seceniro: Man sentenced is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why then does said man drag out 16 years of legal procedures to put off the day of his date with the chair? He gets 16 years of life, 3 squares a day, media contact, makes the cover of TIME Magazine. During all this time, his victim is dead. His last plea goes to the Govenor, who actually considers clemency, if the man can pass a simple lie-detector test. He fails, and goes to the chair, still protesting innocence. DNA, which is thought about a couple years after he is dead, proves him guilty. He got 16 years his victim never had.

On the other hand. A man dies in the chair, always saying he didn't do it. DNA, also soon after his death, proves he was right. He lost his life, his liberty, and was innocent.

Prove them guilty beyond ANY doubt, then maybe you have Capital Punishment that works. A month to settle things and it's over. We don't keep feeding and paying upkeep on people that are sentenced to die.

[kilted exile]

:flare:

Them's fighting words!!!

Me KIWI, Mate!

:p

Any more of that and I'll start playing Elgar's Pomp & Circumstance!



Hehehe I know you're a kiwi was referring to the statistics website which is american

(anyway, could've been worse. I could have called you australian.....)

[applepie]

The idea of justice is to see that the punishment fits the crime. As we all know, plea bargins pretty much eliminate that actually happening. As the death penalty now stands, and I live in one of the states where it still is carred out, I could never support it. Why?

Seceniro: Man sentenced is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why then does said man drag out 16 years of legal procedures to put off the day of his date with the chair? He gets 16 years of life, 3 squares a day, media contact, makes the cover of TIME Magazine. During all this time, his victim is dead. His last plea goes to the Govenor, who actually considers clemency, if the man can pass a simple lie-detector test. He fails, and goes to the chair, still protesting innocence. DNA, which is thought about a couple years after he is dead, proves him guilty. He got 16 years his victim never had.

On the other hand. A man dies in the chair, always saying he didn't do it. DNA, also soon after his death, proves he was right. He lost his life, his liberty, and was innocent.

Prove them guilty beyond ANY doubt, then maybe you have Capital Punishment that works. A month to settle things and it's over. We don't keep feeding and paying upkeep on people that are sentenced to die.

I have to agree that the "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't quite enough for me in sentencing someone to death. Definative evidence is necessary and you must be sure that thiey are the guilty party with absolutely no room for doubt. If that is the case, then I'm all for carrying out the sentence within the week.

[Whifflingpin]

Given that there are far too many humans, maybe a swift and painless death should be the penalty for all criminals living above the poverty line, just as a matter of social hygiene.

And if some innocents die too, well, that is no less fair than people dying of cancer or in car accidents - and it is for a better cause.

[The Atheist]

Don't you mean under the poverty line?

[Video Drone]

Realism grows on you after a while.You should tell my father that.


The idea of justice is to see that the punishment fits the crimeAs I have just stated, the idea of justice is to protect the innocent.


Please explain to Mrs Xyz why the death penalty wasn't appropriate for Mr Abc Def.How about you first explain why death penalty is appropriate for anyone in any situation at all? Since the death penalty is the one doing damage, I think you should explain yourself first...


Given that there are far too many humans, maybe a swift and painless death should be the penalty for all criminals living above the poverty line, just as a matter of social hygiene.

And if some innocents die too, well, that is no less fair than people dying of cancer or in car accidents - and it is for a better cause.I can't believe you are from a book forum. I guess books of the sort of 1984, Brave New World, and movies like Gattaca and Equilibrium were never your cup of tea...

That is totalistic. Humans should not fear all their lives. Humans should not be punished randomly. There should be no such thing as social hate for a criminal for it is inhumane. It is barbaric, it's like slavery, like the 3rd world countries.

Hate, revenge, are wrong and destructive. Negative feelings. Hate never makes you happy. Society should not worry about how some people should get punished right, it should worry about how all other people would live better (and that would decrease crime rate), and the manner in which some criminal dies somewhere is the last thing society should be worrying about. Or else, Mr. Renn was right all along. "It's just torture and murder, very, very realistic. I think that is that show that is coming next." People like to make other people suffer, don't they? And the farther, the more they do.

There is no justice if innocents die. The purpose of justice is not to punish the criminals, it is first and foremost to protect the innocent. They don't say "Innocent until proven guilty" for nothing. That is the whole basis of justice. It is made to protect first, punish only as a form of protection, but if a punishment system is planning to sacrifice innocents to punish, it is no longer justice.

[Sancho]

Whoooeeee! What a topic!

Yes, Video Drone, ancient Chinese proverb says, “If you are searching for vengeance, you’d better dig two graves.” (probably, Sun Tzu, … maybe Confucius)

I think that the theory of crime and punishment follows two basic tenets:

Punishment as retribution for wrong-doing…eye for an eye

Or

Punishment as a crime deterrent…holy-crap! If I park in front of that hydrant, it’ll cost me 500 bucks

There’s a word for each one, but I can’t remember what they are right now.

Anyway,


Probably the best place to examine whether it has made things worse or not is probably looking at differences in crime rates (punishable by the death penalty only) between states in the US where the death penalty is in effect and where it is not. Now I am too lazy to do this currently, but I may get to it in the future (unless anyone else has these stats to hand).

Yes, there are many statistics about crime in US States that have the death penalty vs. US States that do not. And even though it is incredibly difficult to do a statistically valid analysis of crime rates in States as diverse as Louisiana and Minnesota, most studies determine that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.

Not the crime of murder anyway. Murder is a crime that is usually committed by a desperate person during a tragically desperate situation, and as the axe is falling or the trigger is being pulled, the assailant does not typically stop to consider the legal ramifications of the penal code of his (or rarely, her) present location. Embezzlement, well that’s a different story. By the way, the best predictor of a high potential for violent crime in a society is the percentage of men between the age of 18 and 30.

So, retribution or deterrent? I don’t know. As with most things, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.

A personal note: I am usually intellectually in agreement with Kilt, but emotionally, not in this case. Two years ago, a close member of my family, in a case of mistaken identity, was murdered with a hand gun after a brief and violent struggle. The murderer has never been found. If this person were to be found, I would like nothing more than to personally strap him to a wheel and systematically break every bone in his body and then dismember his corpse, attach its various parts to pikes, and let the ravens feed.

[The Atheist]

How about you first explain why death penalty is appropriate for anyone in any situation at all? Since the death penalty is the one doing damage, I think you should explain yourself first...

I'm not sure how the death penalty is "doing the damage". I'm not pushing one barrow or the other here, as I said, I'm pointing out that there are two very strong cases to be made - both for and against the death penalty.

The object of my exercise was to show that use of the death penalty may save innocent lives. I don't think any system is perfect, so we need to do the best with what we have. Since the death penalty is clearly an option, we need to look at it rationally and dispassionately, weighing the evidence from both sides.

This is a highly emotive issue which ranges from "vengeance is mine saith the lord", through "an eye for an eye" to a liberalistic view of whether crime even exists or is just a result of human-constructed morals. Take for instance, "honour killings". Within their context, honour killing isn't seen as a crime, but as a just act. Now you and I and probably everyone at this forum would say it is an immoral act, but is that because it's a truly immoral act, or because societal conditioning tells us it is?


A personal note: I am usually intellectually in agreement with Kilt, but emotionally, not in this case. Two years ago, a close member of my family, in a case of mistaken identity, was murdered with a hand gun after a brief and violent struggle. The murderer has never been found. If this person were to be found, I would like nothing more than to personally strap him to a wheel and systematically break every bone in his body and then dismember his corpse, attach its various parts to pikes, and let the ravens feed.

Understandably so.

Kind of brings the philosophical argument a bit closer to the bone. Kudos to you for sharing such a distressing part of your life.

[kilted exile]

I am agreement with basically all of this post, but want to specifically address this section



A personal note: I am usually intellectually in agreement with Kilt, but emotionally, not in this case. Two years ago, a close member of my family, in a case of mistaken identity, was murdered with a hand gun after a brief and violent struggle. The murderer has never been found. If this person were to be found, I would like nothing more than to personally strap him to a wheel and systematically break every bone in his body and then dismember his corpse, attach its various parts to pikes, and let the ravens feed.

Firstly, I always find it funny when people say they agree with me intellectually - mainly because I may be possibly the least intellectual/well read person on this forum:p

Now the main point:

I completely understand the emotional aspect to the thing. As I have mentioned previoulsy a couple of years ago my younger brother was attacked badly beaten, left in a bloody heap & is still seeing a plastic surgeon and psychiatrist even now to deal with both the physical & mental anguish he suffers on a daily basis (he has been unable to hold a job for any significant period of time since). The police have caught no-one & the feeling you get from talking to them is that they have stopped looking. My first inclination on getting the original phone call from the hospital at 2:48 in the morning was to grab my sledgehammer and go rearrange their faces. I calmed down thought about it and realised it would not be the right thing for me to do. I do however understand the emotion which can lead to the desire for some form of revenge.

[Video Drone]

I'm not sure how the death penalty is "doing the damage". I'm not pushing one barrow or the other here, as I said, I'm pointing out that there are two very strong cases to be made - both for and against the death penalty.How? It's killing people, no?


The object of my exercise was to show that use of the death penalty may save innocent lives. I don't think any system is perfect, so we need to do the best with what we have. Since the death penalty is clearly an option, we need to look at it rationally and dispassionately, weighing the evidence from both sides.The death penalty is made AFTER the person committed the crime. For the most part, when people commit a crime, they don't think about the punishment, they think about not getting caught. So I don't see how it saves lives. It scares people more? Maybe it does. A tiny-winy bit. Not a big enough bit to implement something as immoral.


This is a highly emotive issue which ranges from "vengeance is mine saith the lord", through "an eye for an eye" to a liberalistic view of whether crime even exists or is just a result of human-constructed morals. Take for instance, "honour killings".What are honor killings????


Kind of brings the philosophical argument a bit closer to the bone.Emotional distress of an event must not, in any way, affect the decision of the judging body.

[the silent x]

we just got finished reading Dead Man Walking by Sister Helen Prejean and she uses the quote, "an eye for an eye" as an argument against capital punishment, if you use that quote, then you should do so for limitation, only an eye for an eye

[The Atheist]

The death penalty is made AFTER the person committed the crime. For the most part, when people commit a crime, they don't think about the punishment, they think about not getting caught. So I don't see how it saves lives. It scares people more? Maybe it does. A tiny-winy bit. Not a big enough bit to implement something as immoral.

I gave a clear example of how lives can be saved. Recidivist murder convictions are not that rare. The recidivist rate with the death penalty is zero.


What are honor killings????

Under extreme Sharia law, a woman who has sex before marriage can be killed by her family for bringing shame on them. It's outlawed in all countries, but there are parts of the world where the family's honour demands the sacrifice regardless of penalty. There are other parts of the world where a blind eye is turned towards honour killings.

There's no honour in it at all, but that's the description given to it.


Emotional distress of an event must not, in any way, affect the decision of the judging body.

Given that pretty much all human emotion is subjective, it's almost impossible to remove it from any moralistic discussion.


we just got finished reading Dead Man Walking by Sister Helen Prejean and she uses the quote, "an eye for an eye" as an argument against capital punishment, if you use that quote, then you should do so for limitation, only an eye for an eye

Sigh.

Again, I think you'll find that is a universal metaphorical usage. The full quote is "an eye for an eye, a life for a life". Simplicity usually stops at the eyes as people are mostly familiar with the saying.

[Turk]

As i observed people who's against CP assumes or thinking we are bloodthirsty beasts and offering CP for every crime.:)

Please remember CP would apply for crimes like pedophilia or murder. Not for accidentaly killing someone or thievery.

[Niamh]

Any more of that and I'll start playing Elgar's Pomp & Circumstance!




Just checking here...

Capital punishment - bad

Torture - good

That's essentially your case?

Since when did "hard labour" as in vigorous manual labour get interpreted as "torture" ? did i mention the word? no! so is that my case? no! As for the pain and suffering, thats just the memories of what they done haunting them. Still no mention of torture.
Dont you just hate it when you get miss interpreted!:p :D

[kilted exile]

Ok, atheist, you seem to be contradicting yourself regarding whether we should allow our emotions to interfere on our opinion regarding the death penalty.

On one hand you say:


Given that pretty much all human emotion is subjective, it's almost impossible to remove it from any moralistic discussion.


However, you also say:

Since the death penalty is clearly an option, we need to look at it rationally and dispassionately, weighing the evidence from both sides.


Could you clarify for me whether or not we should look at the death penalty from a emotional standpoint or rationally and dispassionately?

[Pendragon]

Since when did "hard labour" as in vigorous manual labour get interpreted as "torture" ? did i mention the word? no! so is that my case? no! As for the pain and suffering, thats just the memories of what they done haunting them. Still no mention of torture.
Dont you just hate it when you get miss interpreted!:p :DYou know, that's a question I've often asked. The town I grew up in, (five miles away) has a medium-security prison in it. The prisoners there are generally considered criminally insane, or have mental medical problems. There is a State Hospital up there as well, much smaller now than it used to be. The place where the prision now is, used to house violent inmates of the hospital. There is a farm attached to the Prison grounds. Why not make the prisoners run it? Grow their vegtables, milk cows, etc.

There is another prision across the mountain at Bland. They used to have chain gangs. When I was a boy in the late 60's, they helped build the interstate through here. Neither prison has a factory of any type. Put them to work, they shouldn't have it easy. That's not cruel and unusual punishment, I did it from the time I was 14 until I became disabled in 95 and I'd still go back to work if they'd let me!

[Niamh]

Ah someone who understands what i mean! It can also do a lot for a country this. A group of inmate from Moutjoy here in Dublin recently built a coffee shop and community hall not far from me. Sure werent most of the railroads in america not built by Convicts.

[The Atheist]

Could you clarify for me whether or not we should look at the death penalty from a emotional standpoint or rationally and dispassionately?

Sure, sorry. I see the problem.

I'm saying we need to try to look at it dispassionately, but being human, it isn't easy to achieve. For a start, everyone who has a family member who has either been murdered or is a murderer will see this debate vastly differently than I do.

Only if we remove emotion can we get the right result. That often doesn't happen.


Since when did "hard labour" as in vigorous manual labour get interpreted as "torture" ? did i mention the word? no! so is that my case? no! As for the pain and suffering, thats just the memories of what they done haunting them. Still no mention of torture.
Dont you just hate it when you get miss interpreted!:p :D

No, there's no misinterpretation involved, I deliberately equated "hard labour" with torture, because the two go together like PB & J.

I note in your next post, you talk about inmates at work on community buildings. That isn't "hard labour". Labour, yes, but the meaning of "hard labour" goes beyond that to imply a harsh and restrictive regime.

Do you think prisoners will volunteer for "hard labour"? If not, how are you going to get them to undertake it? In the past, prisoner acceptance has required the use of whips and physical discpline to ensure "hard labour" is completed.

[motherhubbard]

atheist, your mention of pb&j made me think of something

Here is something to consider. In American public schools, children who are without lunch money are often given a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or peanut butter crackers instead of a meal. Many of these children don’t have enough food at home and as a society we could take better care of our children. We don’t feed our children, but criminals get three squares a day. Our elderly must choose between food and medicine, but criminals get excellent medical care. It’s the best plan ever to send our sons to the CCC (a lot of that was really hard work that could be likened to hard labor) so that the family can have the money. When criminals work they get paid. Prisoners have checking accounts and can order food, clothing and other items through the jail system. They have television, video games, phone privileges, exercise equipment. In many ways prison would be easier than being grounded at my house. I realize this is not about prisoner rights, but these things really bother me.

[kilted exile]

Here is something to consider. In American public schools, children who are without lunch money are often given a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or peanut butter crackers instead of a meal. Many of these children don’t have enough food at home and as a society we could take better care of our children. We don’t feed our children, but criminals get three squares a day. Our elderly must choose between food and medicine, but criminals get excellent medical care. It’s the best plan ever to send our sons to the CCC (a lot of that was really hard work that could be likened to hard labor) so that the family can have the money. When criminals work they get paid. Prisoners have checking accounts and can order food, clothing and other items through the jail system. They have television, video games, phone privileges, exercise equipment. In many ways prison would be easier than being grounded at my house. I realize this is not about prisoner rights, but these things really bother me.

A lot of the issues you raise here relate to the social welfare system as it stands in the US currently, I think it is probably needless to say I have ideological differences with the current US welfare & social programs ( I am in complete favour of free NHS style medical treatment for all, and better social assistance for those who require it) however I think addressing that fully would probably draw things way off topic. Countries can have all those things.

[kiobe]

We all start out that way...

Realism grows on you after a while.



:flare:

Them's fighting words!!!

Me KIWI, Mate!

:p

Any more of that and I'll start playing Elgar's Pomp & Circumstance!



Thanks.

Given you views on the matter, you have just been appointed Special Police Liaison Officer for dealing with bereaved families.

You first task is to talk to Mrs Xyz. Her twin, five-year old daughters have just been murdered by Mr. Abc Def. Mr Abc Def had just completed serving thirty-five years for murdering six children the month after the death penalty was repealed. He was considered to have been rehabilitated, but it looks like the parole board got that wrong.

Please explain to Mrs Xyz why the death penalty wasn't appropriate for Mr Abc Def.

***Please note that I'm not a "capital punishment supporter", but I just don't see this issue as black and white. Also, what is life imprisonment but the death penalty done by old age?***



Just checking here...

Capital punishment - bad

Torture - good

That's essentially your case?

I think the parole board owes Mrs. xyz an explanation. When I said the the system wasn't perfect what I meant was it is completly disfunctional. If you murder someone you will most likely get a term of about 7 to 20 years, out in 5 to 15 years. If you get caught with a pound of coke you will get nothing less than 15 years, out in 15 years. If you purposely dump cancer causing agents into a lake or river you might pay a fine of up to 25,000 dollars. The penalties for crimes are upsidedown. That being said, If Mr. abcdef was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death and killed, then that's it. Ten years later, with the advent of DNA testing, they find that Mr. abcdef was actually not guilty then the damage is done, there's no going back. This scenario plays out all the time. Killing the person that killed the twins are not going to bring the twins back and doesn't make things right or even. Nor does it serve the public interest. It also has been shown that capitol punishment is NOT a deterent to crime. Prisions are not full of rational people.


Given that there are far too many humans, maybe a swift and painless death should be the penalty for all criminals living above the poverty line, just as a matter of social hygiene.

And if some innocents die too, well, that is no less fair than people dying of cancer or in car accidents - and it is for a better cause.

You can't possibly really mean that.

[Niamh]

i think he's being sarcastic kiobe.

[The Atheist]

atheist, your mention of pb&j made me think of something

I realize this is not about prisoner rights, but these things really bother me.

It bothers the hell out of me too.

Prisoners' rights here are so entrenched that even solitary punishment may not be given for more than three days at a time in case we do psychological damage to the poor darlings.

Given that solitary confinement is a punishment used almost exclusively for violent prisoners, the irony that the criminals had no respect for the human rights of their victims yet claim those rights themselves isn't lost on me.


It also has been shown that capitol punishment is NOT a deterent to crime.

Going by some US politicians, I think it could be said that the Capitol is an invitation to commit crime!

But capital punishment, you're quite right, is no deterrent. I don't think it's been seen as a deterrent for a long time now and I'd see it more as a guarantee of 0% recidivism than any deterrent value.


Prisions are not full of rational people.

But lots of people in prison are, in fact, quite rational. One error of judgement in a rage can land someone up in jail for 20 years.

[kiobe]

Going by some US politicians, I think it could be said that the Capitol is an invitation to commit crime!

But capital punishment, you're quite right, is no deterrent. I don't think it's been seen as a deterrent for a long time now and I'd see it more as a guarantee of 0% recidivism than any deterrent value.



But lots of people in prison are, in fact, quite rational. One error of judgement in a rage can land someone up in jail for 20 years.

Spelling has never been my strong suit, thanks to your intuitivness you got my point. But that is my point, "an error during rage" is not a rational act, but more an act of impulsivness. But we have to separate the reasons that people end up in jail. A lot of people don't belong there because of mental illness. Others don't spend enough time because the prisions and jails are over filled.

[Themis]

What do you think about execution? Do you support it or not? If so; why?

I do.

Murderers (and only those who are proven guilty; not convicted because of indications) don't deserve to live. Nor do terrorists or any other form of a murderer.

Killing a person is supposed to be difficult. I know I would never be able to do plan to kill someone and do it. When one does manage to do it, they have no longer a right to live. Just in such a case I support the old saying 'An eye for an eye'.

But it should be quick. There is no reason for unneccessary cruetly. Because only a special kind of people can be cruel, I think, and those aren't the sort I want in charge of anybody.

[Pendragon]

atheist, your mention of pb&j made me think of something

Here is something to consider. In American public schools, children who are without lunch money are often given a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or peanut butter crackers instead of a meal. Many of these children don’t have enough food at home and as a society we could take better care of our children. We don’t feed our children, but criminals get three squares a day. Our elderly must choose between food and medicine, but criminals get excellent medical care. It’s the best plan ever to send our sons to the CCC (a lot of that was really hard work that could be likened to hard labor) so that the family can have the money. When criminals work they get paid. Prisoners have checking accounts and can order food, clothing and other items through the jail system. They have television, video games, phone privileges, exercise equipment. In many ways prison would be easier than being grounded at my house. I realize this is not about prisoner rights, but these things really bother me.Made me think of a case I read about. A man broke into a house where an elderly couple lived. He was armed with a large knife and the elderly couple was in bed, where he proceeded to attack them. The elderly man was a tough old bird and kept a pistol under his pillow. He shot the guy in the shoulder. In prision, the man began to study the law, hired a lawyer, and sued the elderly couple for loss of the use of his arm. He won. They lost everything they had. Who has the rights now?

[Turk]

Made me think of a case I read about. A man broke into a house where an elderly couple lived. He was armed with a large knife and the elderly couple was in bed, where he proceeded to attack them. The elderly man was a tough old bird and kept a pistol under his pillow. He shot the guy in the shoulder. In prision, the man began to study the law, hired a lawyer, and sued the elderly couple for loss of the use of his arm. He won. They lost everything they had. Who has the rights now?

Hahahahaha!!! :lol: It's like a comedy movie! Is this justice? What kind of judge may be much stupid, i can't even imagine. Even the most idiotic idiot would know who's right here.

[kiobe]

Made me think of a case I read about. A man broke into a house where an elderly couple lived. He was armed with a large knife and the elderly couple was in bed, where he proceeded to attack them. The elderly man was a tough old bird and kept a pistol under his pillow. He shot the guy in the shoulder. In prision, the man began to study the law, hired a lawyer, and sued the elderly couple for loss of the use of his arm. He won. They lost everything they had. Who has the rights now?

Sounds like a California prision.


I do.

Murderers (and only those who are proven guilty; not convicted because of indications) don't deserve to live. Nor do terrorists or any other form of a murderer.

Killing a person is supposed to be difficult. I know I would never be able to do plan to kill someone and do it. When one does manage to do it, they have no longer a right to live. Just in such a case I support the old saying 'An eye for an eye'.

But it should be quick. There is no reason for unneccessary cruetly. Because only a special kind of people can be cruel, I think, and those aren't the sort I want in charge of anybody.

You mean those caught on camera? Because, indications as you put it, or circumstantial evidence is usually all we have to go on. In one very famous murder case in northern California a body was never found but the guy was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. And what kind of murder would you include in your description. What about a guy that falls asleep while driving and accidently kills someone? What about a death that occures at a construction site that is clearly due to unsafe construction practices? What about a jury that sends a man to the gas chamber based on evidence that turns out, after he is killed, to have been manufactured and a lie? The death penality is not a deturent. Killing the criminal does not reverse what the criminal has done. On a much smaller scale, when teaching your child not to hit someone would you agree that spanking would be an absurd punisment. After all, you are teaching him not to hit by hitting him. Teaching people not to kill by killing people is absurd.

[motherhubbard]

Made me think of a case I read about. A man broke into a house where an elderly couple lived. He was armed with a large knife and the elderly couple was in bed, where he proceeded to attack them. The elderly man was a tough old bird and kept a pistol under his pillow. He shot the guy in the shoulder. In prision, the man began to study the law, hired a lawyer, and sued the elderly couple for loss of the use of his arm. He won. They lost everything they had. Who has the rights now?

I can say a lot a bad about the stupid people in my small community, but that would never fly. Around here you would really be taking a chance breaking in somewhere. people say it should be hard to kill a person, and it is mostly. In a situation like that I could do it and not feel bad. I wouldn't recommend breaking into my house, I can out shoot everyone but my husband, and the people we know have to be proficient with a firearm. I was a victim of violence when I was younger and don’t intend to be again. In a situation like that, if it’s you or me, it won’t be me. Having children cemented that for me. There is no one around here that would blame me. If the old man had aimed true he wouldn't have had that problem

[Themis]

@Kiobe: There is a difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. I know nobody but law students or jurists is interested in the fact the those two are different things but they _are_.
I was talking about murderers only. People who intent to kill, not those who are negligent.

By proven I meant that there was no doubt whatsever of them being the culprit. And no, that doesn't neccessarily mean them being caught on a camera.

[kiobe]

@Kiobe: There is a difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. I know nobody but law students or jurists is interested in the fact the those two are different things but they _are_.
I was talking about murderers only. People who intent to kill, not those who are negligent.

By proven I meant that there was no doubt whatsever of them being the culprit. And no, that doesn't neccessarily mean them being caught on a camera.

Intent.....................................that is the can of worms that you are opening. So you are saying that only the murderers that are proven with absolutly no doubt of intent should be put to death. I am afraid that the line between absolute intent and very possible absolute intent would be blured enough that you are creating a silver plated defence excuse for the lawyers defending the accused to attempt to keep them from the death penalty. The death penalty is not a deturent to major crime. Heck, life in prision doesn't deture major crime either so it isn't an issue of rational thought.

[bazarov]

I don't agree with death penalty; in that case were no better than those killers.

[kiobe]

I don't agree with death penalty; in that case were no better than those killers.

You are absolutly right. Killing the killer turns you into a killer.

[The Atheist]

Made me think of a case I read about. A man broke into a house where an elderly couple lived. He was armed with a large knife and the elderly couple was in bed, where he proceeded to attack them. The elderly man was a tough old bird and kept a pistol under his pillow. He shot the guy in the shoulder. In prision, the man began to study the law, hired a lawyer, and sued the elderly couple for loss of the use of his arm. He won. They lost everything they had. Who has the rights now?

Sounds like an urban legend to me - Stella Awards (http://www.stellaawards.com/caselog.html)have a couple of very similar ones listed which are completely untrue.

Any evidence to back it up?

[vheissu]

Made me think of a case I read about. A man broke into a house where an elderly couple lived. He was armed with a large knife and the elderly couple was in bed, where he proceeded to attack them. The elderly man was a tough old bird and kept a pistol under his pillow. He shot the guy in the shoulder. In prision, the man began to study the law, hired a lawyer, and sued the elderly couple for loss of the use of his arm. He won. They lost everything they had. Who has the rights now?

Something similar happend here as well, but in this case the elderly man managed to shoot and kill the thief. The elderly guy got life in prison. There were oppositions against this decision but I'm not too sure what happend in the end. In my opinion, this was a matter of survival.

On capital punishment: it is wrong for someone to kill an individual, nobody should have the right to do it but how can society then decide to do the same, take the right and kill the killer?
I'm also against prisoners getting certain priviledges such as an almost exclusive education. I remember this case that happened years ago, I think it was in Britain: two boys, both minors, had killed a child of about 3. They were sent to some juvenile prison from which they would be released when they reached 18 or so. In the mean time, they got the best education, new identities and are now free somewhere probably with rather good jobs.
Not that prisoners should be completely banned from any sort of right to read but some are far too priviledged to be considere prisoners and are more like advantaged citizens in certain ways, at the expense of the rest of us who actually pay for their new imprisoned life.

[Niamh]

Over here a farmer, Padraig nally, resently got away with the murder of a traveller, John "frog" Ward, who trespassed onto his land. he shot him a few times and then bet him to a pulp with the gun. He told the courts that he shot the man in defense as he believed he was about to break in to his house. Personally if this was the truth he should have just shot him in the leg and called the gardai. And apparently the man had been bragging that he wanted to shot someone with his gun. Its amazing what a good legal team and prejudice to the travelling community can do!

[The Atheist]

Whoa there people!!

If we're going to have anecdotal stories like this, can we PLEEEEAAASSEEE back it up with links to newspaper/court articles.

I've already pointed out that some of these "cases" sound suspiciously like known urban legend. No names, no times, no details, no links tend to confirm my suspicions. It's certainly fair to discuss actual cases when talking about the death penalty or crime & punishment, but quoting urban legends just renders the discussion meaningless. I'm not suggesting it's deliberate - that's why they're urban legends, lots of people believe they happened.

A good idea, if you have no specific details, is to check a couple of sites which have a database of these stories.

[kilted exile]

Ok atheist just for you, story with link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/717511.stm). There was a large media outcry over his sentencing, much wailing and gnashing of teeth in rags such as The Sun & The Daily Mail. In my opinion of course he was quite right to go to jail.

[Niamh]

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/a-man-left-trapped-in-a-world-of-paranoia-and-crippled-by-fear-73212.html

heres a link (i'm not sure but i think its a bit biased)

[The Atheist]

Ok atheist just for you, story with link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/717511.stm). There was a large media outcry over his sentencing, much wailing and gnashing of teeth in rags such as The Sun & The Daily Mail. In my opinion of course he was quite right to go to jail.

Looks pretty cut & dried to me. I don't see that as an unfair verdict, either.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/a-man-left-trapped-in-a-world-of-paranoia-and-crippled-by-fear-73212.html

heres a link (i'm not sure but i think its a bit biased)

Looks like a good link. The story reads a little differently to your post, however. The acquittal had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, just a stupid mistake by the judge creating a miscarriage of justice.

This one's precisely why links are important.

[Niamh]

Looks like a good link. The story reads a little differently to your post, however. The acquittal had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, just a stupid mistake by the judge creating a miscarriage of justice.

This one's precisely why links are important.

yeah but the Irish Independent news paper whos article it is sometimes arent the best at telling whats going on!