Capital Punishment

[DjangoCribbs]

1. The Death Penalty is Immoral
I'll start of with the most obvious one: that the death penalty is unjust. How can the state ever have the power to end somebody's life? And how can you be 100% sure the person you're executing is guilty?


2. The Death Penalty is Pointless
Perhaps I could grit my teeth and put up with the death penalty if it served some sort of practical purpose, but alas, it does not.

3. The Death Penalty is Expensive
My third and final argument is that the death penalty is costly.

Before I make my own stance known I'd like to counter this because it's rather weak. I removed much of the waffle, it doesn't change anything.

1. Sometimes you can be 100%. Sometimes you can have unquestionable evidence and sometimes the buggers are open and honest about it. Do a Google search on "Jack Mesrine".

2. It stops a serial killer from continuing with their chosen career path. It guarantees that a recidivist will no longer cidivist. If their crime is suitably horrific then I think we could consider that a grand practical purpose.

3. It's only as expensive as you make it. Few thousand years ago we still used rocks and sticks. Give me a lead pipe and I'll, relatively humanely, kill all the confirmed sickos you got for the cost of getting me clothes drycleaned.

As you may be able to tell, from a personal viewpoint I am all for the death penalty. If I KNOW that someone has murdered several people purely out of hate or desire, or maybe someone who gets their kicks in life from raping and murdering children... These are extreme examples and thankfully rare compared to the amount of minor burglars in the world but it does happen, sadly... then I think the best, most practical and prudent way forward is to cave their skull in.

From a social viewpoint I am dead set against capital punishment because justice systems are far too flawed. And while he opposes me ideologically, Ian Hislop makes a superb case against capital punishment on a UK show called Question Time. YouTube it, I'd link it but am restricted from posting links at present.

 

[Scaldaver]

It's always been on my hardened opinion that, regardless of race, position, sex, religion or mentality, all people should be treated equally and, above all, be given access to life. Life, above all, must be held sacred, lest what could people become if life or death begin to mean nothing? A precedent would more easily be set; executable-crimes would become less and less extreme. Do we think Hitler was able to form all his genocidal laws up at once? Or did he implement them slowly, allowing public opinion to shift in his favour so he could keep hold of his grasp on power? It is good that our current terminology is shifting away from murder-laws - it will be much harder to implement them.

But they, of course, are merely my personal thoughts.

Here's another thought: who do we punish when we kill? Sure the criminal is put to death painlessly, but is that really punishment? I mean, once you're dead, you're dead. What about the mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and friends and countless relatives that must suffer when a loved one - insane, murderous or not - is put to death? Is it fair they must suffer too? They have done nothing wrong. Surely enough have suffered due to the hands of this person that appears to warrant death?

And it is a sad fact that there are unpleasant jobs out there that have to be filled - why not adopt the terminology that they give up their human rights when the kill (etc), but instead of throwing away such a person, why not put them to good use filling necessary jobs? Or better yet, try and reform these people? The key to cancer cures or world peace could be in their descendants - although I recognise the argument to suggest the opposite may be true too (dictators, etc, may also crop up in their descendants. However it is worth noting that a person inspired to do good will be helped far more than a person inspired to kill or rule - simply as more people would resist, say, another Hitler, but would barely resist a cure to cancer or any other disease).

And I think this will be my final tid-bit of the night: where death is concerned, there is no going back. Appeals will fail. Does everyone here really think that every single person killed was guilty? Sheer probability makes it unlikely. This same probability makes it a near certainty that at least one person will be murdered for a crime he didn't commit in the future if these laws remain.

I leave you all for the night - I daresay next time I check there will be a reply. I daresay much of what I have said may be deemed unworthy of thought due to lack of facts: I do not pose to give these, but to offer an alternate idea. Just imagine if, by some twisted fate, you had been framed and the courts found you 'Guilty beyond doubt', and you had just finished your last meal (or whatever it's called) and were awaiting death. Would the penalty be a fair thing now?

I do not mean any offence to anyone reading this, and if I have I humbly apologise: when trying to get a point across I may become confused as to what is mean to say or not.

 

[BJPalmer85]

I am completely for the death penalty, I am also for more inventive forms of execution and in some crimes torture before death because sometime death just isnt enough. I am also for forced labor camps of some kind. A Hunger Games type scenario would also be cool to watch, you could commercials during it like the Super Bowl!

B

 

[Maedar]

I am completely for the death penalty, I am also for more inventive forms of execution and in some crimes torture before death because sometime death just isnt enough. I am also for forced labor camps of some kind. A Hunger Games type scenario would also be cool to watch, you could commercials during it like the Super Bowl!

B

Uh, right. Maybe you didn't read how that entire trilogy ended... Or maybe you didn't see The Running Man a which it ripped off, uh, excuse me, which it was similar to.

 

[BJPalmer85]

Uh, right. Maybe you didn't read how that entire trilogy ended... Or maybe you didn't see The Running Man a which it ripped off, uh, excuse me, which it was similar to.

I havent read the entire series and have no plans to. I was only talking about the Hunger Games specifically. I have also never heard of The Running Man. I was just say that that kind of death match set up would be cool.

B

 

[DjangoCribbs]

I havent read the entire series and have no plans to. I was only talking about the Hunger Games specifically. I have also never heard of The Running Man. I was just say that that kind of death match set up would be cool.

B

I'd love to see you in the first round, getting your eye gouge out by a twelve year old.
Go read Battle Royale.

 

[Maedar]

I havent read the entire series and have no plans to. I was only talking about the Hunger Games specifically. I have also never heard of The Running Man. I was just say that that kind of death match set up would be cool.

B

Short version: It ended with Kantriss leading a rebellion that overthrew the government, with the President executed! In case you forgot, that was the very thing the Hunger Games were supposed to prevent, to punish the citizens because of a failed insurrection and prevent it from happening again. Which means, the Capitol was run by a bunch of blithering idiots who thought of a plan that not only caused another one, but a successful one.

Which is why I think that the whole concept behind this book is dumb. I have no idea how it got so popular.

 

[aT0Msk]

Two wrongs don't make a right, I bet most people have heard that saying before. My stance on this topic is inspired by those principals, I simply don't think it is justice. For example, you can't punish an individual who has taken the lives of others by taking their life too, that is stupidly ironic and hypocritical. Besides why do you think so many prisoners are on a suicide watch? I imagine confinement from the rest of the world and your loved ones is a fate far worse than a quick death.

 

[BJPalmer85]

I'd love to see you in the first round, getting your eye gouge out by a twelve year old.
Go read Battle Royale.

ok....

Short version: It ended with Kantriss leading a rebellion that overthrew the government, with the President executed! In case you forgot, that was the very thing the Hunger Games were supposed to prevent, to punish the citizens because of a failed insurrection and prevent it from happening again. Which means, the Capitol was run by a bunch of blithering idiots who thought of a plan that not only caused another one, but a successful one.

Which is why I think that the whole concept behind this book is dumb. I have no idea how it got so popular.

Fair enough. I thought the first book/movie were good enough.

Since when did this become a Hunger Games Spoiler Thread....

Blame the guy who actually thinks the system used by the evil government in a fictional dystopia would work in America. (It's absurd, of course.)

Actually you can blame your damn self, since you were the one that just typed up the quick summary.

Also, of course the idea of some sort of actual fight to death is absurd, i was being ****ing sarcastic.

As for the topic, i support the death penalty. I feel that it should be used in other crimes besides murder. Sexual assault of a minor for example, if the person is found guilty, drive them to the Grand Canyon and push them over the edge, or hell just take them out back and shoot them there. I actually feel that a crime like that doesnt deserve a painless death, in fact i think they should be tortured to the brink of insanity and then put to death.

B

 

[LDSman]

ok....



Fair enough. I thought the first book/movie were good enough.





Actually you can blame your damn self, since you were the one that just typed up the quick summary.

Also, of course the idea of some sort of actual fight to death is absurd, i was being ****ing sarcastic.

As for the topic, i support the death penalty. I feel that it should be used in other crimes besides murder. Sexual assault of a minor for example, if the person is found guilty, drive them to the Grand Canyon and push them over the edge, or hell just take them out back and shoot them there. I actually feel that a crime like that doesnt deserve a painless death, in fact i think they should be tortured to the brink of insanity and then put to death.

B

I'm not in favor of combat to the death type executions. Too much risk of armed escapes, corruption for ratings, etc. I wouldn't be adverse to extremely painful, televised deaths for certain crimes.

 

[Maedar]

I'm not in favor of combat to the death type executions. Too much risk of armed escapes, corruption for ratings, etc. I wouldn't be adverse to extremely painful, televised deaths for certain crimes.

And you people wonder why you get bad press.

 

[BigLutz]

And you people wonder why you get bad press.

There are some times in which televised, even painful deaths could be therapeutic for the nation or community. For a recent case take the Boston Bombers for example, they killed people, but they also maimed and disfigured many people who will live with pain for many years if not for the rest of their life. Should the guilty not be forced to experienced even a fraction of the pain so many of his victims feel before he dies? Or should have have a nice, peaceful death, not feeling pain, not feeling what he has inflicted onto so many.

 

[BJPalmer85]

And you people wonder why you get bad press.

What do you mean by "you people"?

B

 

[LDSman]

And you people wonder why you get bad press.

I should feel sympathy for child rapists, rapists, spree killers, serial killers, people who maim and torture people for the fun of it, etc?

Give those people a clear example of what happens when they willingly commit those crimes and maybe the crimes will decrease. They won't reoffend for certain.

 

[7 tyranitars]

I should feel sympathy for child rapists, rapists, spree killers, serial killers, people who maim and torture people for the fun of it, etc?

Give those people a clear example of what happens when they willingly commit those crimes and maybe the crimes will decrease. They won't reoffend for certain.

Giving sympathy is not the same as not executing someone. Also if you want to see public executions Saudi arabia or Iran is the place to be.

 

[Maedar]

There are some times in which televised, even painful deaths could be therapeutic for the nation or community. For a recent case take the Boston Bombers for example, they killed people, but they also maimed and disfigured many people who will live with pain for many years if not for the rest of their life. Should the guilty not be forced to experienced even a fraction of the pain so many of his victims feel before he dies? Or should have have a nice, peaceful death, not feeling pain, not feeling what he has inflicted onto so many.

So, you Republicans say the Second Amendment is sacred, but the Eighth is garbage?

Hypocrite.

 

[BigLutz]

So, you Republicans say the Second Amendment is sacred, but the Eighth is garbage?

Hypocrite.

One would have to wonder if giving the same punishment that the perpetrator gave his victims or at least some semblance of it, is an actual cruel punishment.

 

[JDavidC]

Repaying evil with evil IS cruel punishment. Repaying evil with long prison sentences, or LWOP in severe cases, is not.

 

[BigLutz]

Repaying evil with evil IS cruel punishment.

First you need to define what you believe is cruel punishment.

Second you need to actually have evil intent to repay evil. by and of itself the Justice System is not supposed to have emotions one way or another toward a person's punishment.

Repaying evil with long prison sentences, or LWOP in severe cases, is not.

And how are those not evil? Either way you are taking away a person's life. Long Prison sentences take away the most productive years of a person's life, thus depriving them of any type of fulfilling life. LWOP is merely a extended death sentence in which the state's choice of execution is time instead of injection.

 

[Maedar]

Public executions and executions that are meant to inflict pain ARE "cruel and unusual", Lutz, why do you think they outlawed them in this country?

If you like them so much, move to Saudi Arabia or North Korea, two countries where such things are done on a regular basis. I'm sure they'll appreciate your way of thinking. Saudi Arabia especially. It's a place where rich people run the government and they're big on misogyny; the place seems like paradise for today's GOP.