Eyebrowsbv31
Rookie
Icepick said:
See, that needs to go, should be courtroom to electric chair right away. One good steak and off to the fryer.
Death penalty and vengance?!?
- Thread starter Tylzen
- Start date
See, that needs to go, should be courtroom to electric chair right away. One good steak and off to the fryer.
Tylzen
Rookie
If I am not there and the crime happens, eg. some that is dear to my heart gets killed. And they caught the guy, then I would rather see him either sent to jail for life, or for a long time.
But if I was in the situation, and I saw my family's life get threaten and I knew I could make a difference and saw their life. Then I would do it.
We got strict vigilante laws here, so you are never allowed to use "more force" then the assaliant.
Eg. if someone is punching you in the face, you're not allowed to wield a knife or pepperspray(which both are classified as weapons here and therefor illegal) Because then you will get in jail too. Or just fined.
I've heard in america that in some states, if you've got a burglar, it's okay to shot him.
Or just common practise.
That would make you a murderer here.
But if I was in the situation, and I saw my family's life get threaten and I knew I could make a difference and saw their life. Then I would do it.
We got strict vigilante laws here, so you are never allowed to use "more force" then the assaliant.
Eg. if someone is punching you in the face, you're not allowed to wield a knife or pepperspray(which both are classified as weapons here and therefor illegal) Because then you will get in jail too. Or just fined.
I've heard in america that in some states, if you've got a burglar, it's okay to shot him.
Or just common practise.
That would make you a murderer here.
Eyebrowsbv31
Rookie
Tylzen said:
We're very tough about property laws here. Because of the good old brits, we see robbers as invaders of personal property. It's also why we have the right to bear arms, them damn brits. I blame the UK!
Also, they might kill you, so.
The silly thing is, if a robber hurts himself in your home, he can sue you for it. We had a case of a robber breaking into an old lady's house and he came in through a sun window and fell on a kitchen knife left out on the counter. He sued the lady and won money.
Good old trial lawyers.
Ted Wolff
Rookie
Capital punishment is just an example of how egregious modern-day punishment is: it exists for some unknown society. It in no way is accountable to the person who is damaged and instead punishes society as a whole, as Icepick pointed out: It costs more to fry a man than to fry him some eggs for life. Why should I, or you, who're completely untouched by someone else's misfortune, pay for the frying of or frying for some killer?
But here's the real injustice: the person who is harmed, i.e. the brother or whoever of someone was killed, has to pay to incarcerate or kill the murderer! The victim gets shafted, and then gets shafted again! How "fair."
No, proper restitution is the guilty repaying the crime out of his own pocket. Not for some unknown, so-called justice of society.
Wax on all day about the supposed immorality of capital punishment. The daily immorality going on is making victims (and people wholly untouched) foot the bill for the people who victimized (and did not) them.
But here's the real injustice: the person who is harmed, i.e. the brother or whoever of someone was killed, has to pay to incarcerate or kill the murderer! The victim gets shafted, and then gets shafted again! How "fair."
No, proper restitution is the guilty repaying the crime out of his own pocket. Not for some unknown, so-called justice of society.
Wax on all day about the supposed immorality of capital punishment. The daily immorality going on is making victims (and people wholly untouched) foot the bill for the people who victimized (and did not) them.
Rekkie7
Rookie
I use to be strongly against it growing up. Last couple of years I've started to change my mind though.
We are a very over population planet, and supplies are limited and so forth. Of course, if what your saying is true and it does take more resources to put someone on death row then it does to keep them for like then presently its a bad idea...although I think that's just a matter of inefficiency.
I heard this morning that a study has revealed that America now has 1% of its adult population in jail. 1 in every 100, which is the highest rate anywhere. Now I don't know if that means the crime is worse in your country or your cops are better (or a mixture of both) but it's an awful lot of resources to be spending on people who will likely never add anything to the community.
Of course it's has too depend on the crime, and an eye for an eye doesn't always cut it. If you accidentally kill someone (but responsible enough to be convicted) then obviously that shouldn't be an automatic death sentence...but then you have the problem of when do you draw the line.
We are a very over population planet, and supplies are limited and so forth. Of course, if what your saying is true and it does take more resources to put someone on death row then it does to keep them for like then presently its a bad idea...although I think that's just a matter of inefficiency.
I heard this morning that a study has revealed that America now has 1% of its adult population in jail. 1 in every 100, which is the highest rate anywhere. Now I don't know if that means the crime is worse in your country or your cops are better (or a mixture of both) but it's an awful lot of resources to be spending on people who will likely never add anything to the community.
Of course it's has too depend on the crime, and an eye for an eye doesn't always cut it. If you accidentally kill someone (but responsible enough to be convicted) then obviously that shouldn't be an automatic death sentence...but then you have the problem of when do you draw the line.
maca2kx
Rookie
/\ 1% of the population serving time seems high, if it's true then we should remember it includes very minor offences as well as very serious so no real conclusion can be drawn from that statistic alone.
As for my thoughts on the matter (which I have refrained from posting until now), I feel that the death sentence has its place in very rare incidents but not in the form it has now. As it stands, the requisite legal procedures taken before actual execution are tied up in bureaucracy so much it takes several years for the trial and the appeals and so on and so forth to actually reach a conclusion, there's the chance that the sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment, the chance of him being found innocent (has happened in the past I think) and probably more that I don't know about and the whole thing ends up costing the taxpayer even more. However, prisons also have their drawbacks. Prisons are only as punishing as their staff, I recently read a report on a corrupt prison in America where the guards would grant special privileges to certain prisoners, funds were used to furnish the communal areas with better facilities than many have at home and drug fuelled orgies were rife. While I'm not saying this is a typical example of the American justice system it is still an example and there is no denying that drugs are more of a problem in prisons than out a lot of the time with prisoners going in clean and coming out addicts. On top of this there is always the risk of escape, after all even the most secure establishment is run by the squishy organics calling themselves guards.
So what does this have to do with the death sentence? Well sentencing serves two purposes, punishment and ensuring the safety of the community. Punishment is pretty self explanatory (though the degree to which it should be exercised is the source of much debate) but ensuring the safety of the community can be accomplished by separating the harmful from the potentially harmed (prison), reforming the criminal (rehabilitation, community services etc) and severing the link between the criminal and the community (execution). Regarding the crime typically thought of as the most serious, murder, it is essential to ensure the safety of the community from the willing murderer so anything that attempts to reform them whilst still in the public area is out of the question but rehabilitation may be possible while inside prison. Does this mean the sentence should be long term imprisonment in the hopes of reformation? Is it sufficient to punish and rehabilitate in an attempt to reintegrate the offender back into the community at a later date? Well if this is possible, yes I do think this should be potential avenue. Occasionally though, there arrives an offender who embodies 'evil', Richard Ramirez comes to mind, these people are truly psychopathic or sociopathic and give nothing back to society and so enters the dilemma: do we kill them or do we allow them to live out their remaining days in prison (with the chance of escape)? I'd argue that most of the time imprisonment would be most suitable but in cases where escape is a high likelihood the lives of the many shouldn't be risked for the life of the offender.
Sam
As for my thoughts on the matter (which I have refrained from posting until now), I feel that the death sentence has its place in very rare incidents but not in the form it has now. As it stands, the requisite legal procedures taken before actual execution are tied up in bureaucracy so much it takes several years for the trial and the appeals and so on and so forth to actually reach a conclusion, there's the chance that the sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment, the chance of him being found innocent (has happened in the past I think) and probably more that I don't know about and the whole thing ends up costing the taxpayer even more. However, prisons also have their drawbacks. Prisons are only as punishing as their staff, I recently read a report on a corrupt prison in America where the guards would grant special privileges to certain prisoners, funds were used to furnish the communal areas with better facilities than many have at home and drug fuelled orgies were rife. While I'm not saying this is a typical example of the American justice system it is still an example and there is no denying that drugs are more of a problem in prisons than out a lot of the time with prisoners going in clean and coming out addicts. On top of this there is always the risk of escape, after all even the most secure establishment is run by the squishy organics calling themselves guards.
So what does this have to do with the death sentence? Well sentencing serves two purposes, punishment and ensuring the safety of the community. Punishment is pretty self explanatory (though the degree to which it should be exercised is the source of much debate) but ensuring the safety of the community can be accomplished by separating the harmful from the potentially harmed (prison), reforming the criminal (rehabilitation, community services etc) and severing the link between the criminal and the community (execution). Regarding the crime typically thought of as the most serious, murder, it is essential to ensure the safety of the community from the willing murderer so anything that attempts to reform them whilst still in the public area is out of the question but rehabilitation may be possible while inside prison. Does this mean the sentence should be long term imprisonment in the hopes of reformation? Is it sufficient to punish and rehabilitate in an attempt to reintegrate the offender back into the community at a later date? Well if this is possible, yes I do think this should be potential avenue. Occasionally though, there arrives an offender who embodies 'evil', Richard Ramirez comes to mind, these people are truly psychopathic or sociopathic and give nothing back to society and so enters the dilemma: do we kill them or do we allow them to live out their remaining days in prison (with the chance of escape)? I'd argue that most of the time imprisonment would be most suitable but in cases where escape is a high likelihood the lives of the many shouldn't be risked for the life of the offender.
Sam
Paradox
Soaring Phoenix
Eyebrowsbv31 said:
after my own heart there.
and i see our semi-annual death penalty topic has arrived. stay tuned next month for the next religious debates thread and arguments about the iraq war is due this summer.
ive made my point countless times on this, this ill cut right to chase.
1.offenders of serious felonys (murder, rape, etc.) will lose thier status as humans. they have become a virus to eradicate before it can infect others.
2. the virus will not languish in prison for 20 years before the sentence is carried out. the execution chamber is located adjacent to the courtroom and sentence will be carried out within one hour of judgement.
3. appeals are denied unless verdict is clouded by a shadow of doubt. in such instance, the case is placed at the top of the queue to be rectifed swiftly.
4. exceptions to execution can be made if an institution requires subjects for a variety of tests (medical, crash test safety, etc). once all tests are complete, the sentence shall be carried out, provided the subject survived said tests.
Rekkie7
Rookie
Silent_Player said:
You may be onto something there, when someone is served jail time they should also be served a large fine whenever possible that pay for their food etc.
Now I've never been to prison or anything or done any in-depth studies but don't a lot of people who come in for lighter offences end up coming out worse as they have had to adjusted to prison life...or am I just thinking of Oz?
maca2kx
Rookie
This went down faster than usual. People, and Paradox in particular, what do you think of child killers. No not the people who kill children, that's easy, I'm talking about the kids who kill.
Sam
Sam
Tylzen
Rookie
maca2kx said:
here the minimum age for criminal behaviour is 15. So you can not get in jail for anything criminal before the age of 15.
With that said it does not mean that you will not get punished.
Mentally sick children get treatment, and are removed into special homes where they get help.
Those that are not mentally ill, they also get to closed institutions where social workers try to help them.
I think it was in 2004 that US of A banned death penalty for minors.
Eyebrowsbv31
Rookie
maca2kx said:
I don't care what age you are, if you kill someone with intent(and that little bastard had plenty of intent), you deserve the same fate.
maca2kx
Rookie
Well extinguishing their life is one way to go about that but can you honestly say that no person you know has changed at all since their childhood? Granted this is a far more extreme circumstance but you're talking about killing someone on the basis of one thing they did when they were developing, at such a young age things can be taught and if they remain psychotic then sure, keep them locked up but killing a child because of one crime is as bad as throwing the book at a kid for slipping a gold bar in their backpack at the Federal Reserve. What they've done is not right but you're taking far more away from a child than you would be from an adult in a similar situation.
Sam
Sam
thetank
Rookie
Slipping a gold bar into a backpack at the Federal Reserve is still stealing. If there's a puppetmaster pulling the strings behind the scenes, you still need some way of cutting those strings, and preventing some manipulative parent from regaining control. I agree that killing a child in that instance is way extreme, but the same logic being applied to alternatives which preserve life but still solve the problem could work.
