TheGiftedFlareon
Tactician's Gambit
I think it depends what they have done. If they have murdered somebody, then they should be on Death Row! They deserve it!
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Capital Punishment
- Thread starter WizardTrubbish
- Start date
I don't agree with the idea that murderers should be put to death.
The Federation
Why Not?
The issue isn't about retribution. We no longer live in a world where "an eye for an eye" is the best methodology to follow when delivering justice, and we have extensive procedures to follow that will ensure this remains a fact. The simple truth that innocents might face death gives us even more reason to be hesitant when considering killing or fellow man.
The death penalty doesn't need to be on the board at all when we have the option to lock up those who would cause harm in our society. We have trial by jury and double jeopardy, to maximize the justice system's effectiveness. Why do we have to resort to killing others when we so clearly have alternatives? If anything, living in a cage your whole life is worse than being killed, IMO. Even if there is no chance of false execution, the "kill the killer" mindset is obsolete and unneeded.
The death penalty doesn't need to be on the board at all when we have the option to lock up those who would cause harm in our society. We have trial by jury and double jeopardy, to maximize the justice system's effectiveness. Why do we have to resort to killing others when we so clearly have alternatives? If anything, living in a cage your whole life is worse than being killed, IMO. Even if there is no chance of false execution, the "kill the killer" mindset is obsolete and unneeded.
But there is no PROOF that a completely innocent person has been executed!
For certain crimes, the DP should remain an option.
The Federation
Why Not?
Like what? I can't think of crimes where the DP needs to be on the table, especially when we have solitary. Solitary is a bit much in most cases, but some people deserve it.
Why do these people have to be killed, but mass murderers get a pass? You haven't offered anything to back your claims. Just saying the justice system passes judgment that way doesn't ethically warrant the killing of these people. The issue is predominantly a moral one, is it not?
Rape, maiming, murder, attempted murders involving more than one victim, kidnappings, child molestors.
The Federation
Why Not?
These aren't cases where you need to kill the attempted killer or defiler. Why is it better to kill them than to lock them up, morally? I am not talking cost effectiveness, I want a strictly moral reasoning for following through on the issue in this way. These people aren't going to be a danger to others, to themselves, or in danger from others in proper conditions. The DP is not a necessary evil.
Says you. Some crimes are so heinous and wrong that there is no chance of recompense or rehabilitation.
Unfortunately, short of total solitary and lifelong confinement, some people continue to be a danger to others. They convince others to follow their guidance using the internet, mail, or even books. They harm fellow inmates or guards, they plot and pay hitmen to attack their victims on the outside, they convince a parole board or judge that they are now reformed and deserve a second chance, or laws change and so called "safe" inmates are released only to reoffend as soon as they can. Look at the recidivism rates of child molestors.
The Federation
Why Not?
Yeah, that's why we have life without possibility of parole and solitary or advanced confinement. There is nothing killing them can do that locking them away can't.
Why does it have to be total solitary? Simple advanced lockup could be an easy solution. They can't get others to follow them on the internet with no internet, to read their mail if s/he can't send it, or their books if they can't be submitted to a publisher. You can't harm others if you are by yourself, pay a hitman if you have no money and are extensively monitored, or convince a board you need parole if it isn't even an option for you. Recidivism has nothing to do with any sort of potential or existing advanced lockup plans for high-risk prisoners. Killing where no killing is necessary is murder.
Just to get this straight, you are a pro-lifer on the abortion issue, right? Why is it that you see life as so precious when it comes to something we haven't yet determined to be a living human, but so quick to throw it away unabashedly in the faces of those who are quite clearly human beings? I am pro-choice on the abortion issue, but I still think human life is important. The hypocrisy is almost Republican in nature, as if the issues they support scream "we'll support you, until you are born. Then you're on your own, no matter the circumstances."
Executing someone convicted of serious crimes is not murder. How many guards, lawyers have been caught helping prisoners? How long till a court rules that whatever measures you make to prevent outside contact are unconstitutional?
When a pregnant women gives birth to kittens, then we can argue about whether a fetus is human. A baby has committed no crimes. It has so much potential for good in it. A convicted criminal has chosen to do whatever it was that got them convicted. There is a clear difference between the two.
The Federation
Why Not?
That's speculative. Killing them right now because it is convienent and there are ways around some parts of the system doesn't make it ok to go ahead and execute them. Guards and lawyers should of course have limited contact with such a person as well.
Kittens? Lol, what? That literally has nothing to do with the personhood of a fetus. Ignoring that, you are still throwing away the life of someone who could live, which is an anti-life stance. To see nothing but potential for good in babies and nothing but potential for evil in inmates ignores the reverse in both scenarios.
Show me why any given person absolutely has to be killed, and quit with the convience arguments. Just because it is easier to kill them and wash away all responsiblity you have to preserve life doesn't mean it is the course of action that we owe to fellow hum beings.
One legitimate argument, if it can be proven, is if the death penalty has a deterrent effect that lowers the murder rate, such that the overall loss of life is minimised by allowing the death penalty, rather than banning it, then the logical course of action is to allow the death penalty. I personally hate the idea of ever having to do something like this to a human being. It is NOT justice, IMO.
The Federation
Why Not?
Yeah, but even that is a utilitarian, convience-based methodology. A slightly lower murder rate isn't going to stop the real sickos that LDS believes will ignore or circumvent all laws and changes to the system deterring them from any further harm to society or individuals, so a broad argument like that isn't going to do too much to prove CP is needed.
On justice, I don't really know. I am never really for killing anyone or anything under most circumstances, so killing people who "just deserve it, those evil freaks" isn't something I support.
You said "living human." Every woman every where who has had a child has given birth to a human child. So every abortion kills a human child. Or are you going to deny that an abortion kills what is a living human at an early stage of development?
See, I've given reasons why and you just don't agree with them. How much "potential good" is a criminal able to do when you have him locked away from everyone?
The Federation
Why Not?
We need to move this to the abortion debate section. I'll quote this over there and we can continue, yeah?
EDIT: Actually, I can't. I posted last there, lol.
I never said they could do any good, I simply said they couldn't do any bad. Why is this hard to understand? If you need a reason to live, it's because life itself has inherent meaning. Life itself isn't reason enough to live, I'm no existentialist, but it is a punishment and segregationist safety tactic, so who cares?
You still haven't answered my question to the satisfaction of anyone other than yourself; why is death the only option when there is always an out that doesn't involve killing the offender?
The Federation
Why Not?
I have already readily refuted every single premise of every argument you have made. I'll go over them, mmk?
1. Extremely dangerous criminals have a high rate of resurgence to their criminal activities after release.
a) Don't allow them parole.
2. Guards and lawyers help prisoners.
a) Prisoners have rudimentary rights. Under a special confinement plan, we could limit what goes in and what goes out of any meeting between prisoner and lawyer/guard.
3. Dangerous criminals will be be an issue in jail, threatening inmates and maintaining a following.
a) Assuming that is even true for most of these type of prisoners, if they are kept seperate and aren't allowed information exchange that won't be a problem.
Tell me again how anything you say can't convince me? Was that a tacit admission that you're simply wrong and have no evidence to support your views?