Bloodgeon11
First time out of the vault
Should the death penalty be allowed? As a country based on freedom, should we be the ones to decide who lives and dies?
Do you agree with the death penalty?
- Thread starter Bloodgeon11
- Start date
First time out of the vault
POOPERSCOOPER
It Wandered In From the Wastes
ya, were overpopulated and pay lots of money to keep prisoners alive so it will be fun and help society.
By this I assume you mean the US, but the topic is also relevenr to all/any other countries.Bloodgeon11 said:
In Britain we banned the death penalty 'bout 50 years ago, but I think that, in special circumstances, it is needed.
There has to be:
A) Absolutely no doubt as to guilty status of the criminal.
and either:
B) No chance of reform for the criminal.
C) A particularly evil crime(s) commited by the criminal.
I also don't think it should be performed in the ways that the US performs it. It shouldn't be over-elaborated (lethal injection) or too bizarre (electric chair) and the prisoner shouldn't be kept on death row for so long. Death row should be a short wait (days) until execution, not drawn out (months, years as it is now).
The method should be quick and simple, and should have the minimum numbers of witnesses (one from the police, one from the courts, one from the Gov't and a few guards). IMO hanging or a firing squad are the best ways to do it. Both are quick deaths (if not particularly clean in the case of a firing squad) and both are cheap & simple. Having members of the criminal's/victim's families there makes it revenge, not justice.
Yet another example of how you earned your title.POOPERSCOOPER said:
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I think that we should have a system, like that in the movie "No Escape" In fact, I remember my teacher mentioning that that kind of system might be put in effect one day. I'm for it, put the criminals on a secluded are, or island, and let them live for theirselves. You take away cruel punishment, for banishment, which I find much better of a system, and if the victim (if there were any) doesn't find this fair, appeal, or go find them and kill them. I heard some asian country practiced(es?) this and the rehab was outstanding, better than ours, which says something. Hell, I would vote for it. Escape from New York anyone?
POOPERSCOOPER
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Gustav_Drangeid said:
IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN....
welsh
Junkmaster
Pooper- spaming and derailing is not the way to make friends. How many warnings are you on?
As for the death penalty- it's been practiced in the US for a long time. Used to be that hangings were part of the way justice was done in some parts of the US, and people would come for miles to see a hanging of a fugitive or particular criminal. THe supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual based on US legal history. One thing is for sure, a lot of folks like it. It's about revenge of the most dangerous type- that's popularly accepted as legitimate.
That said, it's unclear if the death penalty has a deterrent effect. I have heard somewhere that every time a person is put on death row the incidence of violent crime actually go up. The fact that a disproportionate number of people on death row are poor and especially minorities makes me wonder how fair the penalty is applied.
Likewise, in states like Virginia, where we have the death penalty but where public defenders only get paid about $500 per case to defend a criminal suspect, I wonder how good the defense of most suspects can be. DNA evidence has helped make ascertaining guilt easier, and that should help us avoid making mistakes.
There is a part of me that thinks that the bench mark for being treated as a human being is to come to society with a certain degree of humanity. A murder and most other capital crimes would seem to indicate a person has lost that ability, and is no more than an animal that perhaps should be treated like one.
Yet a society can also be judged by how it treats it's lowest castes or most subordinate classes. Few more subordinates exist than prisoners. Do we have the right to kill them? What does that say about our humanity?
We can go back to the argument between whether crimes are caused by free choice or by social circumstances beyond an individual's control. I think that a lot of crimes are personal choices, but a fair number of folks are more likely to commit crimes because of their social circumstances. Since we can't really make a good empirical finding about "what causes crime", the question should perhaps be "what are we willing to do about it as a society."
As for the death penalty- it's been practiced in the US for a long time. Used to be that hangings were part of the way justice was done in some parts of the US, and people would come for miles to see a hanging of a fugitive or particular criminal. THe supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual based on US legal history. One thing is for sure, a lot of folks like it. It's about revenge of the most dangerous type- that's popularly accepted as legitimate.
That said, it's unclear if the death penalty has a deterrent effect. I have heard somewhere that every time a person is put on death row the incidence of violent crime actually go up. The fact that a disproportionate number of people on death row are poor and especially minorities makes me wonder how fair the penalty is applied.
Likewise, in states like Virginia, where we have the death penalty but where public defenders only get paid about $500 per case to defend a criminal suspect, I wonder how good the defense of most suspects can be. DNA evidence has helped make ascertaining guilt easier, and that should help us avoid making mistakes.
There is a part of me that thinks that the bench mark for being treated as a human being is to come to society with a certain degree of humanity. A murder and most other capital crimes would seem to indicate a person has lost that ability, and is no more than an animal that perhaps should be treated like one.
Yet a society can also be judged by how it treats it's lowest castes or most subordinate classes. Few more subordinates exist than prisoners. Do we have the right to kill them? What does that say about our humanity?
We can go back to the argument between whether crimes are caused by free choice or by social circumstances beyond an individual's control. I think that a lot of crimes are personal choices, but a fair number of folks are more likely to commit crimes because of their social circumstances. Since we can't really make a good empirical finding about "what causes crime", the question should perhaps be "what are we willing to do about it as a society."
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
I agree totally with death penalty. There are some criminal elements that are unreformable (sp?) and that will never readapt to live in a society. People without conscience like that boy that killed another boy because he felt like it. If a boy shows such a lack of conscience and humanity, I don't see why should society bother with keeping his worthless flesh alive. I agree with Big T in that the process should be swift (like in China), inexpensive and as painless as possible (you are not getting even with the person being executed. You are merely putting a way a problem as easily as possible). Sure, there are some injustices with the system (there are no guilty or innocents, only the dead) but seeing how we see a massive climb in violence and rampant disregard for life (like mine and corporations, for example), it seems more than appropriate. Life is cheap after all.
quietfanatic
Ancient One
Murder is bad because it involves depriving people of a fundamental human right, the right to live. Obviously if everyone took out the people who annoyed them or provided competition for resources, there would be nobody left. Killing people is unnecessary within a modern society because problems can be solved through more peaceful means, respecting the wishes of others.
As to whether people should be given the death penalty for whatever reason IMO we should be practical. Because we can never really be sure of the conditions below, we can not execute people.
People make mistakes and new evidence can always emerge that totally disproves the previous verdict. Mental illness, impulsive behavior and accidents are examples of reasons for crimes occurring that we cannot understand. We can never really know what people are thinking and what drives them and therefore cannot predict their future actions, determine if they are 'guilty' and execute them. The ever precent element of doubt and a lack of more information convinces me that we should not decide to kill an alleged criminal.
But to be practical, it is still terrible to take people and put them in prison. But such isolation policies do need to exist to protect society or at least make them feel safe. It is unlikely that the impulsive murderer would strike again but that fact would not be much use to the next victim of terrible crime. I think that if a society can afford to look after people, we should. If it is much too dangerous and costly (and I mean costly by welfare state standards), to keep people in prison then maybe we should whip out the guillotine, but in the Western modern world this situation cannot occur.
We do need to find the cause of a problem to try to prevent it but we will still always have deal with people who commit serious crimes.
If you interview prisoners on long jail terms you find that most of them are just very stupid and poor. Their social circumstances are instrumental in putting them in such situations. Many would never kill if they lived comfortably in a peaceful environment. Furthermore, should intellectually sub-normal (ISN) people be held accountable for there crimes? The line between ISN individuals and the mentally ill is blurred to the extent that we cannot think we have the right to sentence people to death. More financial/legal equality between classes, a change in mindset (if one can change your own culture) and better education reduce violent crime but are very difficult measures to carry out. Even if this happens, there will always be those accused of murdering their fellow man. So what to do with them? Prison is obviously a poor and inefficient system.
Because most of the inmates are poorly educated, ISN and from a violent background of crime, such a system would fail because the class ratio would be unbalanced (like Alpha island from Brave New World) and the society would collapse into violence and anarchy.
However if the above causes of crime were addressed, a slightly more balanced spread of social groups would emerge (equating intelligence with less of a tendency to commit violent crime). Although it would actually take an immense amount of money and aid in the form of a service of councillors, psychologists and of course non-involved security forces, such an exile policy could work. A fairly normal society could exist that would have the full compliment of professions and could contribute to the national economy, or at least recoup the costs, while experiencing a fairly high standard of living. 'Truman show' prisons would have to be graded by crime and would all be self governing as far as the real government would allow. They would behave well as the threat of a spell in the 'old fashioned prison' would be a good deterrent and a comfortable life would make re-offending seem insane. The truly evil people who do not fit into any society can stay in normal prison but can be given a chance to prove their good intentions. A large network or mega city would need to be established to let people have families and not become imbred. People might even be released back into the real world if they gained enough brownie points and one day, the walls of entire isolation suburbs could come down. Will this society be evil, I think not. Stalin's children were not homicidal maniacs and my country of origin used to be a colony of convicts and is now one of the most peaceful and civilised nations in the world.
Do you think this would work?
Revenge is a very powerful force of human nature but we must try to forgive and forget to make the world a better place instead of escalating problems. Wouldn't it be nice if Christian people actually tried to act on their own doctrine and be more like Jesus.
As to whether people should be given the death penalty for whatever reason IMO we should be practical. Because we can never really be sure of the conditions below, we can not execute people.
People make mistakes and new evidence can always emerge that totally disproves the previous verdict. Mental illness, impulsive behavior and accidents are examples of reasons for crimes occurring that we cannot understand. We can never really know what people are thinking and what drives them and therefore cannot predict their future actions, determine if they are 'guilty' and execute them. The ever precent element of doubt and a lack of more information convinces me that we should not decide to kill an alleged criminal.
But to be practical, it is still terrible to take people and put them in prison. But such isolation policies do need to exist to protect society or at least make them feel safe. It is unlikely that the impulsive murderer would strike again but that fact would not be much use to the next victim of terrible crime. I think that if a society can afford to look after people, we should. If it is much too dangerous and costly (and I mean costly by welfare state standards), to keep people in prison then maybe we should whip out the guillotine, but in the Western modern world this situation cannot occur.
We do need to find the cause of a problem to try to prevent it but we will still always have deal with people who commit serious crimes.
If you interview prisoners on long jail terms you find that most of them are just very stupid and poor. Their social circumstances are instrumental in putting them in such situations. Many would never kill if they lived comfortably in a peaceful environment. Furthermore, should intellectually sub-normal (ISN) people be held accountable for there crimes? The line between ISN individuals and the mentally ill is blurred to the extent that we cannot think we have the right to sentence people to death. More financial/legal equality between classes, a change in mindset (if one can change your own culture) and better education reduce violent crime but are very difficult measures to carry out. Even if this happens, there will always be those accused of murdering their fellow man. So what to do with them? Prison is obviously a poor and inefficient system.
Because most of the inmates are poorly educated, ISN and from a violent background of crime, such a system would fail because the class ratio would be unbalanced (like Alpha island from Brave New World) and the society would collapse into violence and anarchy.
However if the above causes of crime were addressed, a slightly more balanced spread of social groups would emerge (equating intelligence with less of a tendency to commit violent crime). Although it would actually take an immense amount of money and aid in the form of a service of councillors, psychologists and of course non-involved security forces, such an exile policy could work. A fairly normal society could exist that would have the full compliment of professions and could contribute to the national economy, or at least recoup the costs, while experiencing a fairly high standard of living. 'Truman show' prisons would have to be graded by crime and would all be self governing as far as the real government would allow. They would behave well as the threat of a spell in the 'old fashioned prison' would be a good deterrent and a comfortable life would make re-offending seem insane. The truly evil people who do not fit into any society can stay in normal prison but can be given a chance to prove their good intentions. A large network or mega city would need to be established to let people have families and not become imbred. People might even be released back into the real world if they gained enough brownie points and one day, the walls of entire isolation suburbs could come down. Will this society be evil, I think not. Stalin's children were not homicidal maniacs and my country of origin used to be a colony of convicts and is now one of the most peaceful and civilised nations in the world.
Do you think this would work?
Revenge is a very powerful force of human nature but we must try to forgive and forget to make the world a better place instead of escalating problems. Wouldn't it be nice if Christian people actually tried to act on their own doctrine and be more like Jesus.
APTYP, cats arent self aware. They just act on instincts. We however, are self aware. We know that we are we. We know that we feel pain, love, all that stuff. It's not all automation its choice. And murder is depriving the victim of choice.
Why shouldn't society go through all the effort to avoid murder? Why not try to make everyones place better? Chances are, if society really didnt go; out of their way to stop murder we wouldnt have progressed this far and we wouldve had a MUCH smaller population.
Your views are quite disturbing.
Why shouldn't society go through all the effort to avoid murder? Why not try to make everyones place better? Chances are, if society really didnt go; out of their way to stop murder we wouldnt have progressed this far and we wouldve had a MUCH smaller population.
Your views are quite disturbing.
welsh
Junkmaster
So ATYPT, are you saying that humans should be accepted just like animals? That the instinct to kill and murder, which as you pointed out has been true of human nature of hundreds of years, should be accepted as just part of our basic nature?
If you drop the whole moral question of whether murder is 'evil' or legitimate, one answer might have to do with the social nature of mankind.
Even your most primative societies have rules against violent self-help. For instance there are rules in primitive societies that if a man kills another man, than that man should be killed as well. The reason is to limit the spread of violence so that a crime of passion does not becomes a crime of rationality. Crime or rationality could spill out of control and cause serious problems to social peace. It is in social peace that mankind generally prospers.
For instance, if murder is acceptable than so is the use of murder to take property. So let's say villager 1 kills villager 2 to take his wife. The family of village 2 kills villager 1 in retaliation. The family of villager 1 decides to get payback on the family of villager 2. Sooner or later both families are at war and because the war has no end, eventually people lose sight of the fact that it all started because someone want to fuck another guys wife.
THere are places all over the world that are like that.
So one of the first acts of a king is usually to mediate disputes as well as to monopolize violence. There are a couple of reasons. For one, if the king can monopolize violence, no one can use violence against him. But more importantly, the king wants peace.
Why? Because he wants to tax. Rather than have the family of villager 1 and the family of villager 2 go to war with each other, he wants them farming the fields and raising crops that he can tax. He wants peace and because he monopolizes violence, if you don't give it to him, he will kill you.
But this has, historically, been one of the first policies on the way to prosperity- the creation of peace through the elimination of violent self-help. Robert Bates writes about this for Europe and Africa in Prosperity and Violence.
In truth, even in your most primative societies you have rules against private, self-interested violence because of the interest of social peace.
If you drop the whole moral question of whether murder is 'evil' or legitimate, one answer might have to do with the social nature of mankind.
Even your most primative societies have rules against violent self-help. For instance there are rules in primitive societies that if a man kills another man, than that man should be killed as well. The reason is to limit the spread of violence so that a crime of passion does not becomes a crime of rationality. Crime or rationality could spill out of control and cause serious problems to social peace. It is in social peace that mankind generally prospers.
For instance, if murder is acceptable than so is the use of murder to take property. So let's say villager 1 kills villager 2 to take his wife. The family of village 2 kills villager 1 in retaliation. The family of villager 1 decides to get payback on the family of villager 2. Sooner or later both families are at war and because the war has no end, eventually people lose sight of the fact that it all started because someone want to fuck another guys wife.
THere are places all over the world that are like that.
So one of the first acts of a king is usually to mediate disputes as well as to monopolize violence. There are a couple of reasons. For one, if the king can monopolize violence, no one can use violence against him. But more importantly, the king wants peace.
Why? Because he wants to tax. Rather than have the family of villager 1 and the family of villager 2 go to war with each other, he wants them farming the fields and raising crops that he can tax. He wants peace and because he monopolizes violence, if you don't give it to him, he will kill you.
But this has, historically, been one of the first policies on the way to prosperity- the creation of peace through the elimination of violent self-help. Robert Bates writes about this for Europe and Africa in Prosperity and Violence.
In truth, even in your most primative societies you have rules against private, self-interested violence because of the interest of social peace.
I just want to point out one little fact. In the United States, the average amount of time that a prisoner spends on Death Row is ten years. This in not because of an inefficient process, but it is purposely set up this way. A Death Row prisoner uses that time to appeal his or her case multiple times, so that their guilt can be disproved if at all possible. If you remember McVeigh, he was executed in a short amount of time, because he purposefully denied all appeals.
I am in support of the Death Penalty, but not just for murder. Actually, crimes of passion I don't think always merit to Death Penalty, but there are some crimes which are unforgivable. One example would be pedophiles, I really don't care about the circumstances, they should be executed.
While personal murder (against equals or betters much of the time, I might point out) has been against the law in many societies, there has always been socially approved warfare.
I am in support of the Death Penalty, but not just for murder. Actually, crimes of passion I don't think always merit to Death Penalty, but there are some crimes which are unforgivable. One example would be pedophiles, I really don't care about the circumstances, they should be executed.
While personal murder (against equals or betters much of the time, I might point out) has been against the law in many societies, there has always been socially approved warfare.
welsh
Junkmaster
I have to admit that I am uncertain on this issue. But if you are going to have the death penalty, there is little reason to reserve it for murder. In the old west you could get hung for stealing a horse.
So possible crimes that merit the death penalty, especially those crimes involving clear intention.
Drug dealing- in large amounts
Drug dealing to children
armed robbery
arson with attempted murder
rape with attempted murder
I am not sure about pedophilia. This may be due to a mental handicap or a mental condition.
Generally speaking those folks who are not of sound mind can neither stand trial nor be put to death.
So possible crimes that merit the death penalty, especially those crimes involving clear intention.
Drug dealing- in large amounts
Drug dealing to children
armed robbery
arson with attempted murder
rape with attempted murder
I am not sure about pedophilia. This may be due to a mental handicap or a mental condition.
Generally speaking those folks who are not of sound mind can neither stand trial nor be put to death.
Executioner
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I think the death penalty has lessened as a deterrent for two reasons: the seemingly endless appeals and the relatively painless executions. It doesn't seem to me that the promise of years until your execution and a painless death would frighten many criminals from committing such crimes.
Murder, sexual assault, and treason are some crimes which should bring the death penalty.
Also, exercise equipment in prisons...bad idea. Sure, let's have them work out day after day in prison so they can leave in even better physical condition. That makes me feel safer.
Murder, sexual assault, and treason are some crimes which should bring the death penalty.
Also, exercise equipment in prisons...bad idea. Sure, let's have them work out day after day in prison so they can leave in even better physical condition. That makes me feel safer.
The death penalty for armed robbery?
I got jumped by two guys with a knife and pepper gas two years ago, in the company of a friend's little brother. After one of them started to push around and search the kid, I somehow managed, as unlikely it seems, to beat the shit out of the dude with the knife, ignoring the peppermint gas all over my face. Then the cops came and continued to beat the shit out of him, and incidentally, me. Had a hard time explaining he was the one that tried to rob me.
I know this isn't exactly robbing a bank with a M-60, but it's still armed robbery.
Life inprisonment is enough for all the "major" crimes IMO. You have no idea what they do to paedophiles in prisons.
I got jumped by two guys with a knife and pepper gas two years ago, in the company of a friend's little brother. After one of them started to push around and search the kid, I somehow managed, as unlikely it seems, to beat the shit out of the dude with the knife, ignoring the peppermint gas all over my face. Then the cops came and continued to beat the shit out of him, and incidentally, me. Had a hard time explaining he was the one that tried to rob me.
I know this isn't exactly robbing a bank with a M-60, but it's still armed robbery.
Life inprisonment is enough for all the "major" crimes IMO. You have no idea what they do to paedophiles in prisons.
is it sexy?
The death penalty should be allowed. Just have it for repeat offenders and serious crimes like stealing yu-gi-oh cards or pushing kids in the dirt!
The justice system at the moment is stupid. As are prisons. They should just have court-yards with moats and stuff. And the guards could dress as knights and shout 'IM GONNA GET MEDIEVAL ON UR @SS!" lol. the prison-time should either be a few weeks or forever and ever. So it's scary enough for people on minor crimes to get raped and beaten by the totally hardcore crazy gorilla people.
Stuff at the moment doesn't seem to work right though? They should have curfews and stuff on ghettos so bulldozers can go up and down the streets to wash away all the shit.
The death penalty should be allowed. Just have it for repeat offenders and serious crimes like stealing yu-gi-oh cards or pushing kids in the dirt!
The justice system at the moment is stupid. As are prisons. They should just have court-yards with moats and stuff. And the guards could dress as knights and shout 'IM GONNA GET MEDIEVAL ON UR @SS!" lol. the prison-time should either be a few weeks or forever and ever. So it's scary enough for people on minor crimes to get raped and beaten by the totally hardcore crazy gorilla people.
Stuff at the moment doesn't seem to work right though? They should have curfews and stuff on ghettos so bulldozers can go up and down the streets to wash away all the shit.
welsh said:
It doesn't matter if it's accepted or not. Who the fuck cares what people think. It's the truth regardless of whether it's accepted or not.
What's your point?
Fear of punishment never stopped anyone who was both interested and capable. You know why? Because it's all superficial. It's a culture thing.