Original Post
What''s your oppinion? Is it ok or isnt'' it ok?
🔒 Locked
Death penalty
Advertisement
First of all, innocent people do seem to be executed. Unless a system can guarantee this is not the case then I can''t see how it can even be considered.
The moral and ethical issuses now muddy the subject. The question is what is gained and what is lost in a humanity sense ? Does society sink to the level of the accused ? We are faced with a moral/ethical dilemma which can only be understood if we understand ourselves. I believing it is the effort of eliminating evil to the satisfaction of society. Does mental illness play a part ?
If in futuristic society, a consideration of a possible cure. The elimination of the persons memory or changing of their personality. Would this deem the same satisfaction in society as the death penalty. Or maybe they are innately evil though life experiences do play a part in the making of the individual.
For such answers we must look to the future and try and predict the ethical and moral trends we will adopt. This in hope that we would adhere to better standards. We have very little understanding of the human condition and are not capeable of making such decisions of life over death. We tend to look back in history uopn orselves and are somewhatr shocked by our past beaviour and laws of society. We think we have evolved more since then. In a few hundread years, would the view of the death penalty be viewed in such a dark way ?
Guy
My opinion? It''s been debated in the Lounge enough.
Start a topic on Iraq or flamewars to get something fresh going.
Seriously: it''s probably fine within reason.
Start a topic on Iraq or flamewars to get something fresh going.
Seriously: it''s probably fine within reason.
I can''t stand the argument against the death penalty because the odd innocent person is executed. Bathtubs are responsible for many drowning deaths, but I don''t see all the bleeding hearts attempting to remove them from the market.
Drowning in a bathtub is accidental; not intentional.
I am for the death penalty, but I''m disturbed by the fact that innocents have died from it.
swift URL | browse my bookmarks [server may not always be on]
SotteD | View/download my Song of the Day
Sensimed | Info/download
I am for the death penalty, but I''m disturbed by the fact that innocents have died from it.
swift URL | browse my bookmarks [server may not always be on]
SotteD | View/download my Song of the Day
Sensimed | Info/download
Executing an innocent is accidental as well, not intentional.
quote:
Original post by Estese
Executing an innocent is accidental as well, not intentional.
You might change your tune if it is every you or someone you know that is accused and has their head on the chopping block.
Death penalty should only be used if there is absolutely 100% no doubt. IE. you are caught on film or caught in the act.
Far too often people are imprisoned and sometimes sent to death by mere circumstantial evidence. This is why you have innocent people being executed. Convictions with no smoking gun and only circumstantial evidence.
[edited by - Wikkyd on January 10, 2003 6:55:16 PM]
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
I have no penis.
Agreed.
To get ontopic again; the death penalties are no way of bringing justice. Its used as much as a political weapon as a punishment. I cant really see the point of killing someone, since it doesnt help anyone and there is far worse things than dying. Not to mention the obvious that already been said above.
I don''t agree with the death penatly, however I don''t agree with letting the offender live in a comfy hotel room or not making him/her realize what he/she did wrong.
quote:
Original post by Fuzztrek
I don''t agree with the death penatly, however I don''t agree with letting the offender live in a comfy hotel room or not making him/her realize what he/she did wrong.
Huh?
quote:
Original post by Fuzztrek
I don''t agree with the death penatly, however I don''t agree with letting the offender live in a comfy hotel room or not making him/her realize what he/she did wrong.
I doubt there is a prison in this world that is a comfy hotel room that dont make you realize or feel the punishment. Except for those rich people that buys their own prisons that is.
Like this ass in CA who was found guity of killing that 7 year old kid. He got the death penalty but will be in prison likely 40 years before he gets the needle.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"
RIPPL Sports - NFL Statistical Analysis and Prediction System
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"
RIPPL Sports - NFL Statistical Analysis and Prediction System
IMHO the criminals don''t matter, it''s the victims and potential victims that matter. Why should the public have to pay just to keep criminals alive in prison?
I think the death penalty is an acceptable choice if:
a) There is solid evidence (like a video tape, or a load of eye-witnesses) that the defendant committed the crime.
b) Rehabilitation is unlikely given the defendant''s track-record (ie, (s)he''s done it before) or mental state ((s)he''s a complete nutter).
If rehabilitation is a serious possibility then it should be attempted, and in the mean time (s)he should be made to do various forms of commmunity service to pay for what they''ve done. Of course, it won''t change things. Of course, it won''t bring victims back. But at least they won''t just be sitting around in (admittedly highly uncomfortable) prisons being fed and paid for by people that have never done anything seriously wrong.
Just my two pence,
John B
I think the death penalty is an acceptable choice if:
a) There is solid evidence (like a video tape, or a load of eye-witnesses) that the defendant committed the crime.
b) Rehabilitation is unlikely given the defendant''s track-record (ie, (s)he''s done it before) or mental state ((s)he''s a complete nutter).
If rehabilitation is a serious possibility then it should be attempted, and in the mean time (s)he should be made to do various forms of commmunity service to pay for what they''ve done. Of course, it won''t change things. Of course, it won''t bring victims back. But at least they won''t just be sitting around in (admittedly highly uncomfortable) prisons being fed and paid for by people that have never done anything seriously wrong.
Just my two pence,
John B
They can be studied aswell as rehabilitated. Just like they studied criminals when the psychological profiling projects were started. If you kill em you cant read their minds. Indirectly such studies might help other victims and if not give us a clearer view on why and what makes a hardcore criminal.
Life imprisonment is a harsher punishment(IMHO) than the death penalty, especially if the prisoner is confined to solitary confinement. The cost of housing a prisoner till death and executing a prisoner are generally the same. (before you disagree please spend 5 minutes researching this)
Also the state, as an entity, is error prone, and absolute judgements should be reserved to absolute resolutions.
Next, certain crimes are escalated(also IMHO) based on the understanding that capture will certainly result in death. Generally those that commit crimes against humanity possess a great deal of cowardice and might be apprehended easier if they knew that they would survive.
Finally, if the state is guilty of killing humans then it may very well breed a culture of death, where death is seen as a solution to a given problem.(Not a good idea)
That said, i still believe that police officers should carry the best in modern firearms and have the state granted right to kill in the line of duty where a crime against humanity has been commited. (if this killing will save the life of innocents or bring to justice a fugitive that is evading or resisting arrest)
Crime against humanity = (Murder, Rape, Hostage taking)
SideNote: This post will not compile.
edit*** just wanted to add, thats a very adult and admirable stance JohnB, hats off.
Dreddnafious Maelstrom
"If I have seen further, it was by standing on the shoulders of Giants"
Sir Isaac Newton
[edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on January 10, 2003 8:56:15 PM]
[edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on January 10, 2003 8:57:04 PM]
Also the state, as an entity, is error prone, and absolute judgements should be reserved to absolute resolutions.
Next, certain crimes are escalated(also IMHO) based on the understanding that capture will certainly result in death. Generally those that commit crimes against humanity possess a great deal of cowardice and might be apprehended easier if they knew that they would survive.
Finally, if the state is guilty of killing humans then it may very well breed a culture of death, where death is seen as a solution to a given problem.(Not a good idea)
That said, i still believe that police officers should carry the best in modern firearms and have the state granted right to kill in the line of duty where a crime against humanity has been commited. (if this killing will save the life of innocents or bring to justice a fugitive that is evading or resisting arrest)
Crime against humanity = (Murder, Rape, Hostage taking)
SideNote: This post will not compile.
edit*** just wanted to add, thats a very adult and admirable stance JohnB, hats off.
Dreddnafious Maelstrom
"If I have seen further, it was by standing on the shoulders of Giants"
Sir Isaac Newton
[edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on January 10, 2003 8:56:15 PM]
[edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on January 10, 2003 8:57:04 PM]
The world is a very bad place, kill the people that do shit bad, practicly anything. They''re eating money out the ying yang in jail. Ok I have it, if they screw up they get a second chance, fine, again... executed omg we''d have a much better world with hardly any crime and much more money (from saving the jail). BTW this wouldn''t include traffic violations, speeding and stuff, or petty vandalism. just violence and car theifs and rapers should be executed first shot and same with murderers.
and innocent ppl dieing? with recent DNA tests it''s not very likely and just bleah!
(also i know this will never happen and i don''t really full support it''s almost a joke but, it''d get rid of the dumbasses)
and innocent ppl dieing? with recent DNA tests it''s not very likely and just bleah!
(also i know this will never happen and i don''t really full support it''s almost a joke but, it''d get rid of the dumbasses)
quote:
it''d get rid of the dumbasses
*waves* bye bye
Why don''t you people spend more time worrying about your own ass? I can assure you that most serial killers aren''t too worried about yours, or the ones they murdered, or the victims'' family members, or the victim''s friends, or any damned person at all.
If you wish to argue against something because of accidents which happen in the judicial process, or because of accidental deaths, or accidental deaths which happen as a result of judicial processes, consider arguing about everything under the sun.
If you wish to argue that the death penalty is barbaric, please do me the service of doing just that, so that others may laugh at your circular argument. It goes like this: The death penalty is barbaric. Barbarism is not a quality of civilized society. Civilized societies do not engage in the death penalty. The death penalty is barbaric...
If the death penalty defines barbarism, then the two are one and the same, and calling one barbaric because they institude the death penalty is like saying green is green, altogether a useless statement. On the other hand, if you try and make generalizations about the death penalty and barbarism, you have painted yourself into a corner with a broad brush with an argument which lacks all of the finer points of anything remotely intelligent.
If you wish to argue that justice is served adequately with imprisonment, then please show that pleasure is not found in the little things.
If you wish to argue that rehabilitation is possible, ask yourself if you want to be responsible for a rehabilitated murderer who murders again.
If you wish to argue that the death penalty costs more, get a clue, because cost is not an issue with regard to something that is so rare.
If you wish to argue against something because of accidents which happen in the judicial process, or because of accidental deaths, or accidental deaths which happen as a result of judicial processes, consider arguing about everything under the sun.
If you wish to argue that the death penalty is barbaric, please do me the service of doing just that, so that others may laugh at your circular argument. It goes like this: The death penalty is barbaric. Barbarism is not a quality of civilized society. Civilized societies do not engage in the death penalty. The death penalty is barbaric...
If the death penalty defines barbarism, then the two are one and the same, and calling one barbaric because they institude the death penalty is like saying green is green, altogether a useless statement. On the other hand, if you try and make generalizations about the death penalty and barbarism, you have painted yourself into a corner with a broad brush with an argument which lacks all of the finer points of anything remotely intelligent.
If you wish to argue that justice is served adequately with imprisonment, then please show that pleasure is not found in the little things.
If you wish to argue that rehabilitation is possible, ask yourself if you want to be responsible for a rehabilitated murderer who murders again.
If you wish to argue that the death penalty costs more, get a clue, because cost is not an issue with regard to something that is so rare.
quote:
Original post by bishop_pass
Why don''t you people spend more time worrying about your own ass?
Well we are. We do not want to be executed.
''ROIDRAGE!!! - I wanna work for the chinese communist regime!
ROFL, best post so far.
I''ve made my feeligns known at least once on these boards about my opinion on the death penalty. I''m not getting into a slagging match / flamewar over it again, especially when you get small minded idiots feel that because you have a differing opinion you must be a retard so often on these boards.
Needless to say, America is the only major democracy in the world that still retains the death penalty, yet it''s crime figures are unaffected by using it.
I''ve made my feeligns known at least once on these boards about my opinion on the death penalty. I''m not getting into a slagging match / flamewar over it again, especially when you get small minded idiots feel that because you have a differing opinion you must be a retard so often on these boards.
Needless to say, America is the only major democracy in the world that still retains the death penalty, yet it''s crime figures are unaffected by using it.
Topic Locked
This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.
Sign in to reply to this topic.
Advertisement