Capital Punishment: For or Against? |
Post Reply | Page <1234 5> |
Author | |||
mystic fred
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 13 2006 Location: Londinium Status: Offline Points: 4252 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 03:29 | ||
I disagree with death penalties, and even more with appeal systems - in the USA people spend years on death row awaiting the result of pending appeal system judgements.
Life imprisonment should mean life - not just an 18 year sentence reduced to 4 for good behaviour ("well we'll let him out he hasn't killed / raped / sexually abused anyone while he's been here) .
Community Service orders of 250 - 500 hours should be given out for lesser crimes such as Tax evasion, damaging / stealing property or fraud, but sex criminals or muderers should be given 35 / 50 year sentences - if they are off the street the public is safe from them...simple
|
|||
Prog Archives Tour Van
|
|||
someone_else
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: May 02 2008 Location: Going Bananas Status: Offline Points: 24295 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 03:56 | ||
Against. I don't think that any judge should have the right to decide about human life, not even of someone who is proved guilty of murder. Whether capital punishment is practised or not might be a major indicator for a nation's standard of civilization.
Edited by someone_else - November 27 2009 at 03:57 |
|||
|
|||
valravennz
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: March 20 2005 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 2546 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 04:01 | ||
No - I think Capital Punishment tends to make martyrs of criminals and/or in many cases the condemed die an easy death compared to their victims if murder was the crime. I think the old adage of "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" is more appropriate ie: Life should be life with no parole. The punishment would then be translated into a life long suffering of the consequences of criminal actions. Death does not deem to be an appropriate punishment. A Life behind bars without freedom is.
|
|||
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
|||
Moogtron III
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 26 2005 Location: Belgium Status: Offline Points: 10616 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 04:06 | ||
I'm against it, even though I know there are no easy answers.
|
|||
progkidjoel
Prog Reviewer Joined: March 02 2009 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 19643 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 04:10 | ||
I agree more than 100% with what you've said. I mean, I'd find it more frightening as (random example) a 30 year old murderer to have to spend every single day of my life until I die in a jail cell than have everything over rather painlessly and near instantly. |
|||
|
|||
UMUR
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 3069 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 05:01 | ||
The same for me.
Cruel punishments create cruel criminals and as a consequence an unpleasant society for us all. Life in Denmark means 16 years to life ( the longest serving convict in modern time in Denmark sat in prison for 33 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palle_S%C3%B8rensen)) and while I understand this seems like a very soft punishment to some people, we actually believe in giving criminals a second chance, which in turn also means that we donīt have many really unpleasant criminals in our country.
|
|||
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 05 2007 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 2720 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 05:34 | ||
Erm... Capital Punishment: For or Against. Would 'yes' mean: Yes, I'm for it, or yes, I'm against it?
|
|||
Slartibartfast
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 05:43 | ||
^ I was thinking the same thing based on the poll title, but the question heading up the thread clarifies things.
For the most part no. Reason one: usually given out to people in this country based on their wealth, if you have enough money you can commit a capital crime and ultimately not face the ultimate penalty. Reason two: if someone is wrongly convicted and executed you can't give them their life back, if you lock them up and evidence comes forward later that exonerates them, you can at least set them free. Reason three: being locked up for the rest of your miserable life may be harsher punishment anyway. By the way, when someone is convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to a longer term than their life expectancy, shouldn't the corpse be kept behind bars until the full sentence is served? Edited by Slartibartfast - November 27 2009 at 06:21 |
|||
Epignosis
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 06:04 | ||
Says whom? I could point out a dozen things wrong with that statement. I'll stick with this: Executing somebody could cost more than a life sentence, if say the convicted felon was 98 years old. You actually believe the cost of an execution exceeds the cost of housing and feeding someone who gets life in prison at age 21? Also, people who quote how much it costs to execute people for the sake of creating shock value are adding in imprisonment costs, investigations, and perhaps most expensively, the cost of appeals not the cost of an execution itself. Again Henry- you are arguing against the procedure, not against the idea. |
|||
Slartibartfast
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 06:20 | ||
You did not just use "execute" and "shock value" in the same sentence. |
|||
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|||
Diaby
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 15 2007 Location: Hungary Status: Offline Points: 774 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 09:34 | ||
I'm for it. However, only for the most serious crimes. The incident has to be investigated very carefully, and if the police have enough proofs, a dangerous criminal really should have his/her life taken away. Some may say, it has no retentiveness. I say, it does have. Look at the Middle Age.
|
|||
yeah
|
|||
jampa17
Prog Reviewer Joined: July 04 2009 Location: Guatemala Status: Offline Points: 6802 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 10:05 | ||
Sorry but no, It doesn't have to be an indicator for a nation standard of civilization... Talk to whoever sociologyist or anthropologyst and they can explain you very easily that "civilization" is a relative topic deppending of the differents points of view...
Now, the capital punishment has been practice since the beggining of mankind... now is relative to those countries who considered themselves the example of civilization and pression the "so primitive" countries that still support it... I mean, maybe in your country a killer get better in jail, maybe, but in most of the poor countries the jails are almost school to kill and steal... so basacilly in Latin America and Asia and Africa, that means that a thief goes to jail to recieve examples of how to kill, he has a very quiet life paid by the people and then go out and he is not a thief anymore, he became a murderer...
So, Capital punishment is meant to separate people who have become a threat to society... and no, it's not more expensive... I support the capital punishment but only when judges and laws are clear and respected... that's the problem in most of the nations... the respect of law...
|
|||
|
|||
The Pessimist
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 13 2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3834 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 10:29 | ||
Attention to detail my friend. I think Slarti has already explained. Now for my views on the subject: - For one thing - and this is very important - I do believe people can change. I have changed myself over the years through chemical turbulences in my body, my father has changed a hell of a lot for his family and I can name a good few people (junkies included) that have completely turned their lives around. So I think, even if someone has such a strong personality disorder that they are capable of killing another human, that even the strongest willed serial killers can change. If people have beaten addiction, cancer and mental illness, then they can beat the urge to kill. - There is also the criminal mind to consider. A very delicate subject, and it is often considered taboo to justify their killings, but let's look at Jeffrey Dahmer for a minute. If anyone has read up about him (I have, criminal psychology has always been something I'm interested in), you will know he had urges to have sex with dead teenage boys since he was very young. Not exactly outright, but a few strange incidents have led people to believe that, and he himself has stated it's been a childhood thing. He faught those urges until his first killing at the age of 18. Does this indicate that he was trying to be normal? Studies have hypothesised that this particularly desperate resistance against his urges drove him mad, and the killing was in fact a product of his madness. Ultimately, the point is that it is possible that serial killers such as Dahmer were simply born with a bad hand, and just the same as being straight is imbedded into our hormones and being gay likewise, serial killers' urges are in fact uncontrollable in the sense that we are all sexually attracted to other human beings. And for that reason I wouldn't comfortable killing someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, simply because his actions may be psychologically justifiable. - Now I know in theory capital punishment will never make a mistake and the people that "deserve" it will always be treated appropriately and innocent people let to live on their own terms. However, life cannot be analysed by theories. Social and law related issues can be written down in a scientific and definite way, however the practicallities of it are a completely different kettle of fish. Governments will always make mistakes because no matter how powerful they are, they are governed by human beings, and we have reputation for making mistakes. - Also, it is not a proven deterrent in today's society. There are still terrorists, serial killers, rapists and child molesterers walking the street today, and there is absolutely nothing stopping them. In fact, these people's morals are so clouded over, I doubt they can even see the consequences, let alone be deterred by them. Even in countries that do operate a capital punishment scheme. - Now for a personal view. If, god forbid it, someone came in cold blood and burnt my house down, my car, raped my mother, tortured my father, killed them both and slaughtered my dog, leaving me with burns for the rest of my life and nowhere to go and my loved ones no more, I think the death penalty would be going easy on them. I would like to see them chastised and tortured for the rest of their life. Call me sick, but that is the only real amount of pain that would be nearly justice for what I would suffer. I know this juxtaposes a couple of my points, but it doesn't juztapose my outright view at all. So all in all, I am against capital punishment. |
|||
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg |
|||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 35847 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 11:01 | ||
I'm all for the crucifixion of enemies of the state/ establishment, and society. It doesn't matter to me if the person is seen as a murderer, a traitor, a thief, a drug dealer, a heretic, or a malcontent, they should all be nailed and/or burned at the stake.
But seriously, I'm against capital punishment and execution generally for various reasons. I do not think that the state should have such power (or give juries that power). Not only have there been various cases where the evidence points to convicted murdered not having committed the crimes they've been accused of, but I personally find it morally repugnant. Additionally, once a society or state condones killing for certain crimes (say murder), it becomes more difficult to condemn it for other crimes. Around the world, capital punishment is used for various "crimes" -- including being a "traitor" -- treason/ sedition. I find it simpler not to sanction execution at all. It's been done before, and I believe that someone can still be executed for treason in the US. To me that's very scary and creates a conflict of interest. To cite a famous case: Do people here think it was just for Ethel and Julius Rosenberg to be executed? It also saddens me because of the effect it had on their children (and in other cases, the effect on the executed one's family). EDIT: Oh, and call me evil, but despite Saddam's atrocities, I felt so sorry/sad when he was executed. Execution does seem barbaric to me. We all have to die sometime... Maybe I do value the sanctity of life too much. Edited by Logan - November 27 2009 at 11:14 |
|||
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 26 2008 Location: Declined Status: Offline Points: 16715 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 12:28 | ||
Yes Rob, I was counting appeals, but I was under the impression that people on death row appeal more than lifers, which is why it costs more. I was just pointing out that executing people to save money (which I think is a terrible reason) is a false reason because we're always going to have appeals. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this is true.
While I'm not a great fan of John Paul II, he said that execution is only necessary to protect society, and I don't think it's necessary anymore. That is not to say I was sad when Saddam and the DC sniper were executed, but if we had let them live maybe they would have repented. However, I can say with absolute certainty that public executions would be barbaric. Someone's death should not be a spectacle.
It absolutely does. Do you think you have a greater capacity for pain than the relatives of the victims of Jeffrey Dahmer? If not, then why should your criminal be tortured for life, which is even more cruel than the death penalty, and Jeffrey get off scot free? If you let your responses to legal codes be governed by emotion then we might as well be a society of vigilantes. But we're not, so we don't appoint victims to be the judge and jury of their attacker. Edited by Henry Plainview - November 27 2009 at 12:36 |
|||
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|||
rushfan4
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2007 Location: Michigan, U.S. Status: Offline Points: 66264 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 12:33 | ||
Saddam deserved to be kept alive and endlessly tortured for the remainder of his life. He should have been injected with one of his chemicals and forced to slowly die from some painful and debillitating disease while all the while receiving a daily session on the Iron Maiden and maybe some Chinese Water Torture.
|
|||
|
|||
Visitor13
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: February 02 2005 Location: Poland Status: Offline Points: 4702 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 12:45 | ||
This. The death penalty in the US does not seem to be an actual penalty anymore. The executioners are actually making sure the convict suffers as little as possible! In that way they're gentler than some doctors. I'm willing to bet the average law-abiding citizen dies a far more torturous death in hospital. Gone are the days when people would turn pale at the bare mention of any one of the countless 'creative' methods of execution. And rightly so. I don't want them back. Yes, life imprisonment should mean imprisonment for life. Though again, if a prison is just a mandatory hotel, that's no punishment either. |
|||
A Person
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 12:58 | ||
I agree, vengeance does not equal justice. |
|||
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 13 2006 Location: Xanadu Status: Offline Points: 16111 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 13:07 | ||
you've got millions and millions of prisoners who are never going to be released for their heinous crimes against society, or they'll be released and reoffend. I think it can't be used unless it's an extreme situation - but there are a lot of those.
I'm for it, when it's used without abuse. |
|||
The Pessimist
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 13 2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3834 |
Posted: November 27 2009 at 13:12 | ||
Now this is where I thought a lot of people would grab the wrong end of the stick. I think most people would want vengeance in the harshest form possible if someone inflicted that sort of pain on them. Therefore, I think the death penalty would go against the majority vote indirectlyif you see where I am coming from. the Jeffrey Dahmer incident that I brought up was from a pure logical and moral perspective, i.e. from an inhuman perspective. The last point was from a majoritive heart-felt perspective. Both reasons disagree with capital punishment, so I think they did their job. |
|||
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234 5> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |