Death Penalty
Well it has been a while since we have had a good debate, and this topic is rather interesting. So where do you guys stand: Should the death penalty be legalised and implemented?
I believe that is shouldn't, simply because I am religious and believe that we do not have the right to end another's life. Also, I am stuck on the paradox:
If everyone in a society obeys the following: no one is able to kill themselves, and all murderers are killed. Also, if one person kills someone else, only one (or no) person in the society will not die.
The reason being that the person who hangs/shoots/whatevers the murderer becomes one themselves, and must then be killed.
Well thats my opinion, happy debating.
I believe that is shouldn't, simply because I am religious and believe that we do not have the right to end another's life. Also, I am stuck on the paradox:
If everyone in a society obeys the following: no one is able to kill themselves, and all murderers are killed. Also, if one person kills someone else, only one (or no) person in the society will not die.
The reason being that the person who hangs/shoots/whatevers the murderer becomes one themselves, and must then be killed.
Well thats my opinion, happy debating.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
Wow, we just had this debate in Social Studies.
I honestly believe an eye for an eye, however I'm not sure the government can decide if someone keeps their life or not...
I honestly believe an eye for an eye, however I'm not sure the government can decide if someone keeps their life or not...
| Stewbond wrote: |
|---|
| I'm staying out of this one. |
That is kind of like saying: "I'm Humble" or "I'm not talking to you"
Because you said it, it isn't true.
| Lumpkin wrote: |
|---|
| I honestly believe an eye for an eye, however I'm not sure the government can decide if someone keeps their life or not... |
Okay so now you believe that a decision made by a group of people can certainly not be wrong? Also, according to the statement "an eye for an eye" the person or people who kill the murderer the should be killed, or did I miss something?
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
Given a certain context, I believe pre-meditated murder should be met with death penalty. I believe mass murder should be met with death penalty. And I'm on the fence on just about everything else lol.
For instance, if I were to get into a fight and nearly kill someone in self defense, by glitches in our justice system, I might be put in prison for a life sentence (in Texas, immediately if multiple people saw me and I wasn't able to claim self defense for whatever reason). There are cases all over where people are put in jail for multiple life sentences... for murders they had absolutely nothing to do with, to the point it sickens me every time I think about it.
The definition of "undeniable evidence" now a days has certainly wavered to have a definition of "if I don't like him". Reminds me of the movie, "12 Angry Men"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RelOJfFIyp8 Youtube has really gotten out of hand with DMCA reports....
For instance, if I were to get into a fight and nearly kill someone in self defense, by glitches in our justice system, I might be put in prison for a life sentence (in Texas, immediately if multiple people saw me and I wasn't able to claim self defense for whatever reason). There are cases all over where people are put in jail for multiple life sentences... for murders they had absolutely nothing to do with, to the point it sickens me every time I think about it.
The definition of "undeniable evidence" now a days has certainly wavered to have a definition of "if I don't like him". Reminds me of the movie, "12 Angry Men"
Considering the fact that all justice systems are fallible and the shear number of cases of wrongful convictions, I cannot in good conscience support the death penalty.
closed account (13bSLyTq)
I would say, Death Penalty SHOULD BE legalised mainly because having this penalty would not only oppose a more Crime-Free zone as criminals would need to take more thought before they commit it, in addition doing so would help the Government to save millions of dollars on Murders being hosted in prison where they most likely come out and do other crimes.
I look at it this way, if a murder killed your loved family member - would you not want them to be killed and also their life could depend on others life. For example if you were a Cardiologist, and you were killed before you work and there was no more Cardiologist available in maybe 100s of miles\Kilometers, this would mean the patients who could have possibly could have been treated and alive are dead.
These are types of cases are pretty logical in 3rd world countries such as Somalia.
I look at it this way, if a murder killed your loved family member - would you not want them to be killed and also their life could depend on others life. For example if you were a Cardiologist, and you were killed before you work and there was no more Cardiologist available in maybe 100s of miles\Kilometers, this would mean the patients who could have possibly could have been treated and alive are dead.
These are types of cases are pretty logical in 3rd world countries such as Somalia.
closed account (9wqjE3v7)
| having this penalty would not only oppose a more Crime-Free zone as criminals would need to take more thought before they commit it |
I agree to some extent, though I still think, which is evident in many other situations, that many would overlook the consequences and commit the crimes regardless.
I personally wouldn't want legalisation of death penalties, since I do not think death should be enforced upon anyone, rather force them to suffer life imprisonment.
Last edited on
closed account (N36fSL3A)
| Okay so now you believe that a decision made by a group of people can certainly not be wrong? Also, according to the statement "an eye for an eye" the person or people who kill the murderer the should be killed, or did I miss something? |
IMO death penalty is off the table. But I think people who kill other people have to pay from another way than just spending their life in a place which has better conditions than a lot of senior homes and lets even bring up the fact that all of us are paying for their food, their beds, the prison equipment, etc.
For me the ultimate solution is that the convicts instead of going to prison are put use for society with some sort of advanced electronic bracelet that controls them and prevents them from performing any harm. Of course this sort of technology that can control a person brain is years away and it's also completely of the table because there is no way, no matter of what someone did, taking someone liberty away is as wrong as killing.
For me the ultimate solution is that the convicts instead of going to prison are put use for society with some sort of advanced electronic bracelet that controls them and prevents them from performing any harm. Of course this sort of technology that can control a person brain is years away and it's also completely of the table because there is no way, no matter of what someone did, taking someone liberty away is as wrong as killing.
The way I see it.... the question for the justice system is... do we want a system that is focused around rehabilitation? Or on punishment?
The death penalty is basically "giving up" on rehabilitation and is going for a permanent means of punishment. This makes sense for repeat offenders where we've tried rehabilitation and it simply does not stick... but not for first time offenders -- though you could make the case for an exception if the first offense is extremely heinous, and the person was clearly the guilty party (like a public mass shooting or something).
The way our prison system is set up now... we claim we focus on rehabilitation, but clearly that's not what is going on my any stretch of the imagination. We're gravitated much more on the "punishment" side of things. So... going with that philosophy... capital punishment seems logical... though personally I think it's the wrong philosophy.
The even colder reality is that our (USA's) judicial system is based less on rehabilitation/punishment then it is based on finance... which is the real problem. A large number of prisons in the country are privately owned and receive governmental funding based on the number of prisoners. This means there is financial incentive to keep as many people locked up for as long as possible.
This shows in statistical data, too. The US has the highest incarceration percentage worldwide. We've made quite a successful business out of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Combine that with the state of these prisons and the concept of rehabilitation seems laughable. Or at least it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic and depressing.
So I think the question of the death penalty is really just a dodge for the bigger issue. We should focus less on whether or not we should implement that... and focus more on getting our shit together with our prison system.
The death penalty is basically "giving up" on rehabilitation and is going for a permanent means of punishment. This makes sense for repeat offenders where we've tried rehabilitation and it simply does not stick... but not for first time offenders -- though you could make the case for an exception if the first offense is extremely heinous, and the person was clearly the guilty party (like a public mass shooting or something).
The way our prison system is set up now... we claim we focus on rehabilitation, but clearly that's not what is going on my any stretch of the imagination. We're gravitated much more on the "punishment" side of things. So... going with that philosophy... capital punishment seems logical... though personally I think it's the wrong philosophy.
The even colder reality is that our (USA's) judicial system is based less on rehabilitation/punishment then it is based on finance... which is the real problem. A large number of prisons in the country are privately owned and receive governmental funding based on the number of prisoners. This means there is financial incentive to keep as many people locked up for as long as possible.
This shows in statistical data, too. The US has the highest incarceration percentage worldwide. We've made quite a successful business out of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Combine that with the state of these prisons and the concept of rehabilitation seems laughable. Or at least it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic and depressing.
So I think the question of the death penalty is really just a dodge for the bigger issue. We should focus less on whether or not we should implement that... and focus more on getting our shit together with our prison system.
| jonhy31 wrote: |
|---|
| IMO death penalty is off the table. But I think people who kill other people have to pay from another way than just spending their life in a place which has better conditions than a lot of senior homes and lets even bring up the fact that all of us are paying for their food, their beds, the prison equipment, etc. |
I take it you've never seen the inside of a prison. I don't know of anyone who would choose to live in a prison over even the worst of the worst senior home.
I don't think "prisons are too cozy" is the problem here.
Of course every one would prefer the worst of the seniors homes over a prison. That's not my point. My point is that states spend more money taking care of those who were harmful to the others then on the elder that worked an entire life. So now tell me wouldn't you be frustrated if your country was taking better care of some low life scumbags than of you who did noting that caused harm to society
Well, if we're on the topic of the death penalty, I might as well point out my stance. Killing a prisoner is an admission of failure. It is the statement that they are so far gone from society that they could never be reintegrated, nor even held with other individuals in the same boat as them. In other words, it is a statement that nothing can be done to help them in regards to being a productive member of a society; not even inside of a prison can they function. What I have noticed however is that the people that they often give the death penalty are not those who cannot function inside of society or even a prison, and often times those given life sentences are those who would be worthwhile to admit failure towards. Ironically, we don't treat those with a mental illness who committed crimes that would otherwise be regarded with a death sentence with such a statement that they cannot be productive ever again, yet we lock them away in a facility for that purpose. In other words, if this is a society where the death penalty is to be used, it should be clearly demonstrated as to what extent does the penalty cover various crimes. To what extent can someone be shown to be clearly impossible to merge back into even being a productive member of a society behind prison walls? Is it even possible to show this? Until those questions can be answered, is the death penalty even a reasonable idea to have? Can our society be trusted with this responsibility in the first place? Since none of those questions have been truly answered, I feel that it would be unreasonable to continue having the death penalty be a possible punishment, simply because there are too many double-standards and nonsense contradictions for our society to be trusted with the power to decide whether someone lives or dies after the commission of a crime.
My issue with capital punishment is that it's difficult to judge when it's suitable. By condemning someone to death, the legal system is basically saying "what you've done is so horrible that you do not deserve even a chance of living a life worth living, and we don't think you can do anything for us to forgive you". That's quite the statement to make, no?
Furthermore, there's another issue with capital punishment. While it's considerably cheaper to just kill someone rather than imprison them for the rest of their lives, if evidence is introduced that the criminal is innocent but they've already been executed, well, it's too late. An innocent man/woman/etc has already been killed.
-Albatross
Furthermore, there's another issue with capital punishment. While it's considerably cheaper to just kill someone rather than imprison them for the rest of their lives, if evidence is introduced that the criminal is innocent but they've already been executed, well, it's too late. An innocent man/woman/etc has already been killed.
-Albatross
closed account (13bSLyTq)
I am think it should be legal, but the problem is that Killing Someone when they are convicted - The problem arises when a new piece of evidence comes in maybe 10 to 20 years after killing of convicted, suggesting it was not him but someone else.
This could mean many Cases could\would be unresolved.
This could mean many Cases could\would be unresolved.
| Albatross wrote: |
|---|
| if evidence is introduced that the criminal is innocent but they've already been executed, well, it's too late. An innocent man/woman/etc has already been killed. |
That's one of my problems with it. My other thing is that (from my limited research) is that when murder has motive, it is often the case that they could still be rehabilitated. And when it is due in large part to mental illness, psychological treatment is better.
Also holy crap it's Albatross. What is up, good Gentlema'am?
Last edited on
I would fully agree with the death penalty in some cases, but only if people could be 100% surely correctly convicted. Since this is not the case, I don't think the death sentence can be given anywhere.
@ScriptCoder
What about in the situation in which someone is just going to continue to kill? For example:
1) person A has committed 3 murders already and intends to commit more. Police officer B, shoots and kills person A, when person A is seen fleeing a crime scene. This results in 4 deaths.
2) Person A has committed 3 murders already and intends to commit more. Person B has the opportunity to end person A's life, but instead lets them get away. Person A commits 7 more murders before finally being captured by non-lethal means. Result is 11 deaths.
In which case did person B make the correct decision?
@ScriptCoder
| The reason being that the person who hangs/shoots/whatevers the murderer becomes one themselves, and must then be killed. |
What about in the situation in which someone is just going to continue to kill? For example:
1) person A has committed 3 murders already and intends to commit more. Police officer B, shoots and kills person A, when person A is seen fleeing a crime scene. This results in 4 deaths.
2) Person A has committed 3 murders already and intends to commit more. Person B has the opportunity to end person A's life, but instead lets them get away. Person A commits 7 more murders before finally being captured by non-lethal means. Result is 11 deaths.
In which case did person B make the correct decision?
Last edited on