# The Death Penalty?



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Alright, now im a little hesitant putting this up, as i believe this issue is one that gets people very heated, so Mods, if you think its going too far, please lock it.


The death penalty, should countries still use it?

Im personally against it, on the basis that the entire judicial system (in Australia at least) is supposed to be about rehabilitation, not about revenge. Actually going so far as to then (as a community/state/country/whatever) kill someone, makes everyone look bad, and is a step from which there is no coming back from should additional evidence turn up and so forth.

Please keep this clean, im just interested to know what everyone thinks.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 7, 2009)

I agree that it should rehabilitation instead of outright punishment, but I think it should be reserved for severely fucked up people who are a genuine threat to a lot of people. i.e. serial killers and serial arsonists etc as they put a great number of people at risk


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 7, 2009)

To me "life" isn't a precious as some others may think it is. Some people just don't really need to live and some criminals deserve what they get. Not to mention, if you know the death penalty exists, and you weigh the pros and cons of the crime you're about to commit and you decide it's worth it..you've practically given up your right to live.


----------



## auxioluck (Apr 7, 2009)

I personally believe it's circumstantial, but yes, I believe in it. My reason why is actually pretty simple:

If you willfully, knowingly, and consciously take someone's life, you should be aware of the consequences, and therefore be subjected to having your own life taken. 

It's a very difficult thing though, especially with frames, wrongful arrests, mistrials, etc...But I think if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person took another's life in cold blood intentionally, then I would much rather see them die as well, instead of my taxes keeping them alive in prison for the rest of their life. 

I'm also a firm believer in karma, and I think people should get what they deserve. You take someone's life, you lose yours.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 7, 2009)

^ aye


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

auxioluck said:


> It's a very difficult thing though, especially with frames, wrongful arrests, mistrials, etc...But I think if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person took another's life in cold blood intentionally, then I would much rather see them die as well, instead of my taxes keeping them alive in prison for the rest of their life.


 
I remember reading something over here in one of the papers (so please correct me if im wrong) about it actually costing as much as or more to execute someone, than to keep them in prison (with all the hearings, trials and so forth that inevitably ensue...)


----------



## auxioluck (Apr 7, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> I remember reading something over here in one of the papers (so please correct me if im wrong) about it actually costing as much as or more to execute someone, than to keep them in prison (with all the hearings, trials and so forth that inevitably ensue...)



It also comes from a personal standpoint...would I rather spend the same amount of money knowing that a killer is being put down rather than knowing a killer is chilling in a cell while I work? Absolutely I would.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Fair call.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 7, 2009)

I think it should be used on proven serial killers.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 7, 2009)

^ I'm agreed on that.

for the same money would you: 

a) neutralise the threat

b) give the threat a bed and food

I know which one I'd pick.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> I think it should be used on proven serial killers.


 


Scar Symmetry said:


> ^ I'm agreed on that.
> 
> for the same money would you:
> 
> ...


 
I both agree, and disagree. I definitely get it, but at the same time (despite the fact that they've repeatedly done it, and despite the fact that they probably have some psychological disorder) i still have the feeling in my gut that they could/should be rehabilitated  I think i may just be naive...


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 7, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> I remember reading something over here in one of the papers (so please correct me if im wrong) about it actually costing as much as or more to execute someone, than to keep them in prison (with all the hearings, trials and so forth that inevitably ensue...)



I know this will sound wrong..and mind you I have relatives in prison so this isn't just me talking about something I don't know about..but I really think that a good alternative to the death penalty is putting the bodies sitting around in prison to good use. All those tests and procedures that would help various disease patients and whatnot but we can't really test them because it'd be "inhumane"...use inmates. Instead of sending people overseas to fight wars and die, breaking up families and whatnot..send inmates. Instead of using animals for various testing..use humans since that's what we're testing for. Use inmates. Mind you this is for those who have no hope of rehabilitation. Yeah it may sound cruel..but if we're going to kill them anyways, why not use them to make the lives of innocent people better?

Now obviously inmates wouldn't be too keen on "fighting for their country"..so not too sure on how that would work..but for the other stuff I wouldn't be opposed to it at all. You think I'd be heartbroken to find out that the idiot relatives I have in jail who are doing nothing but sucking up oxygen are going to be used for various tests to help some sick kid somewhere?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 7, 2009)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I know this will sound wrong..and mind you I have relatives in prison so this isn't just me talking about something I don't know about..but I really think that a good alternative to the death penalty is putting the bodies sitting around in prison to good use. All those tests and procedures that would help various disease patients and whatnot but we can't really test them because it'd be "inhumane"...use inmates. Instead of sending people overseas to fight wars and die, breaking up families and whatnot..send inmates. Instead of using animals for various testing..use humans since that's what we're testing for. Use inmates. Mind you this is for those who have no hope of rehabilitation. Yeah it may sound cruel..but if we're going to kill them anyways, why not use them to make the lives of innocent people better?
> 
> Now obviously inmates wouldn't be too keen on "fighting for their country"..so not too sure on how that would work..but for the other stuff I wouldn't be opposed to it at all. You think I'd be heartbroken to find out that the idiot relatives I have in jail who are doing nothing but sucking up oxygen are going to be used for various tests to help some sick kid somewhere?




Awesome idea if the judicial system didn't ever screw up.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 7, 2009)

I don't think the judical system is about rehabilitation. I think that defintely where rehabilitation is possible, it should be embraced, but I believe the judical system is for the protection of the law-abiding public. I cases such as paedophiles, murderers and other particularly horrific crimes, I think the death penalty is necessary. There are too many people in the world as it is, you can't rehabilitate murderers or paedophiles, so why pay for them to be looked after?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 7, 2009)

well no because then animal rights activists would be out of a job 

the medicine research thing I agree with, for cancer research etc

the war argument doesn't really hold up though, no morale = we lose.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Awesome idea if the judicial system didn't ever screw up.


 
I couldnt live with that knowledge  Again, probably naivety, but people ahve limits, and some of those people whether through desperation or stupidity passed their limit and did something to land them in jail.

Why should they be further punished and near tortured for something that "just happened" (crimes of passion?) Premeditated murder and multiple murders/rapes i have little problem with something like that though. Once you know what youve done, and you do it again: game over.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 7, 2009)

Good point. Unfortunately people get sent to jail all the time for nothing..however I'm talking repeat offenders, serial killers, child molesters. Yeah we'd still have the death penalty and all, but for people who are clearly hopeless and are your repeat offenders and still violent even in jail..sign them up for the "Redemption Program". You get to make someone else's life better since you've done nothing with yours but make others miserable.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't think the judical system is about rehabilitation. I think that defintely where rehabilitation is possible, it should be embraced, but I believe the judical system is for the protection of the law-abiding public. I cases such as paedophiles, murderers and other particularly horrific crimes, I think the death penalty is necessary. There are too many people in the world as it is, you can't rehabilitate murderers or paedophiles, so why pay for them to be looked after?


 
Paedophiles = no rehab.
Murderers = depends on the crime. If they've gone and shot 47 people, then no. There is no coming back from something like that. But, if they've somehow gotten into a stupid sitation, or (again) commit a crime of passion, i think there is definitely reason, and scope, for rehabilitation.



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Good point. Unfortunately people get sent to jail all the time for nothing..however I'm talking repeat offenders, serial killers, child molesters. Yeah we'd still have the death penalty and all, but for people who are clearly hopeless and are your repeat offenders and still violent even in jail..sign them up for the "Redemption Program". You get to make someone else's life better since you've done nothing with yours but make others miserable.


 
That i think is not an unreasonable prospect. Like stealth said thougn, only if the system never *ever* fucks up.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 7, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Paedophiles = no rehab.



I have to say, I don't agree with that.

Paedophiles are people who need help. Yes, they are extremely twisted and endanger children everywhere, but paedophiles are sick and need help the same way that people with mental illnesses do


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 7, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Paedophiles = no rehab.
> Murderers = depends on the crime. If they've gone and shot 47 people, then no. There is no coming back from something like that. But, if they've somehow gotten into a stupid sitation, or (again) commit a crime of passion, i think there is definitely reason, and scope, for rehabilitation.
> 
> 
> ...



I think for that kind of thing you'd need to judge on a person to person basis. People caught red handed and repeat offenders. Not someone who you can argue might not have done that ONE crime that landed him in jail. You got a criminal record, then that's different than the person going to jail who was "clean" before then.

You've got a guy who has a history of being in and out of jail, has finally landed himself in jail permanently for something he's done..and even in jail he's a pain in the ass and shows no desire to just do his time..then yeah. And hell knows there's a million of those kinds of guys. The same who give that "I'm not scared of jail..it ain't nothing" nonsense. You clearly show you aren't even sorry for anything you've done. Why am I paying for you to get housing and meals when you could be put to good use.

And the Pedophile thing depends. I do agree that Pedophiles need help so you can't just up and kill them....HOWEVER there's a difference between a child molester who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and finally gave in to urges..and someone who actually preys on kids, even to the point of murder which a lot of them do.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I have to say, I don't agree with that.
> 
> Paedophiles are people who need help. Yes, they are extremely twisted and endanger children everywhere, but paedophiles are sick and need help the same way that people with mental illnesses do


 
I agree, but as yet there is no way to "rehabilitate" paedophiles. This is one of the reasons im really twitchy about the death penalty... im middle of the road, and while some people 'deserve it', what they did may not have been able to be helped (psychological disorders adn what not) but by the same token, if they cant _help_ but hurt/kill/whatever, surely it would be better if they were off the streets, but at the same time it doesnt seem fair that they should be punished for something they didnt 'choose' to do... naivety...

/0 :headexplodes:



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I think for that kind of thing you'd need to judge on a person to person basis. People caught red handed and repeat offenders. Not someone who you can argue might not have done that ONE crime that landed him in jail. You got a criminal record, then that's different than the person going to jail who was "clean" before then.
> 
> You've got a guy who has a history of being in and out of jail, has finally landed himself in jail permanently for something he's done..and even in jail he's a pain in the ass and shows no desire to just do his time..then yeah. And hell knows there's a million of those kinds of guys. The same who give that "I'm not scared of jail..it ain't nothing" nonsense. You clearly show you aren't even sorry for anything you've done. Why am I paying for you to get housing and meals when you could be put to good use.
> 
> And the Pedophile thing depends. I do agree that Pedophiles need help so you can't just up and kill them....HOWEVER there's a difference between a child molester who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and finally gave in to urges..and someone who actually preys on kids, even to the point of murder which a lot of them do.


 
This. Just generally. Excellent post.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 7, 2009)

some rehabilitation organisations for paedophiles claim a 95&#37; percent success rate (meaning the paedophile is not convicted again), and I'd like to believe that because I think paedophiles aren't in the same league as serial killers, they just need support and encouragement to take responsibility for what they are, not be selfish and leave children alone.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

^ Another all-round great post, Dave.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 7, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> some rehabilitation organisations for paedophiles claim a 95&#37; percent success rate (meaning the paedophile is not convicted again), and I'd like to believe that because I think paedophiles aren't in the same league as serial killers, they just need support and encouragement to take responsibility for what they are, not be selfish and leave children alone.



This will probably be taken the wrong way..but I don't think Pedophiles can just be "fixed". To me that's like saying gay people can be "fixed". If you have a genuine attraction to children and you're wired to see them in the same way one would see a member of the opposite sex..you can't really just up and change that. This means you'll have to live your life without sex and relationships..and really how often does that work for people? We aren't really wired to go without another person in that type of way..we need companionship and if you're programmed to see children as the answer to that need, you can't just shut that off and just start dating legal age people. It doesn't work that way. This doesn't mean death is the answer in the least..but I'm just saying Pedophiles aren't exactly able to just flip a "normal" switch and stop doing it. If they could they wouldn't have touched the kid in the first place.


Thought occured to me that I'm not even on the original topic anymore..so that's my last post on that issue..honest.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

I think it is at least possible to rehabilitate them enough to function in society... they cant be 'fixed', but theres a strong difference between 'fixing them' and 'rehabilitating them' so they can deal with, or take actions to help themselves with their issues.

Definitely possible, though i dont imagine it would be easy... certainly not easy to deal with and confront without repressing some part of themselves anyway


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 7, 2009)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> This will probably be taken the wrong way..but I don't think Pedophiles can just be "fixed". To me that's like saying gay people can be "fixed". If you have a genuine attraction to children and you're wired to see them in the same way one would see a member of the opposite sex..you can't really just up and change that. This means you'll have to live your life without sex and relationships..and really how often does that work for people? We aren't really wired to go without another person in that type of way..we need companionship and if you're programmed to see children as the answer to that need, you can't just shut that off and just start dating legal age people. It doesn't work that way. This doesn't mean death is the answer in the least..but I'm just saying Pedophiles aren't exactly able to just flip a "normal" switch and stop doing it. If they could they wouldn't have touched the kid in the first place.



Precisely 

They shouldn't be sentenced to death because of a mental issue.


----------



## Carrion (Apr 7, 2009)

"I agree, but as yet there is no way to "rehabilitate" paedophiles."

Why then, in America, only 3.3&#37; of Child victimizers are arrested as repeat offenders within the first 3 years at least? 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Offenders Statistics)

I couldn't get a hold of this information for Australia, so it might be different there.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Carrion said:


> "I agree, but as yet there is no way to "rehabilitate" paedophiles."
> 
> Why then, in America, only 3.3% of Child victimizers are arrested as repeat offenders within the first 3 years at least?
> 
> ...


 
Whilst thats great, what about _after_ the first 3 years?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 7, 2009)

If I saw someone kill my daughter, I would kill them immediately. Death penalty. 

Now, say the police have to solve her murder and they find the killer, just because time may have passed doesnt mean Im going to expect any less than death for the murderer. I do not think its right that someone has to go through life after a loss like that knowing that the cause of it all is living out his days, being fed amd provided for by the state.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

I mean, its all well and good to claim that, but 3 years really isnt a long time...


----------



## Carrion (Apr 7, 2009)

Compare this to 67.5&#37; of prisoners in total. Child victimizers fill a small percentage. You are justified in questioning after 3 years, and I will post that information if I can find it.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Tiger said:


> If I saw someone kill my daughter, I would kill them immediately. Death penalty.
> 
> Now, say the police have to solve her murder and they find the killer, just because time may have passed doesnt mean Im going to expect any less than death for the murderer. I do not think its right that someone has to go through life after a loss like that knowing that the cause of it all is living out his days, being fed amd provided for by the state.


 
For me, that comes back to the whole "revenge vs. rehabilitation" thing. No doubt somebody will come back with the whole "what if someone killed your girlfriend" or something, adn yeah, if i _saw_ someone kill my girlfriend, in front of me, i would chances are beat them to death in the heat of the moment.

Possibly hypocritically, however, i would not ask for the death penalty were i not there. One life would be lost already, better leave it at that, and with him living in jail living with what he/she has done.

EDIT: Its a weird view, i know, but i think there is a pretty massive difference between emotional killing, and just killing someone. 



Carrion said:


> Compare this to 67.5&#37; of prisoners in total. Child victimizers fill a small percentage. Your justified in questioning after 3 years, and I will post that information if I can find it.


 
Its a fair point though dude, and if the percentages are similar even after 3 years, then that is really great


----------



## Tiger (Apr 7, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Possibly hypocritically, however, i would not ask for the death penalty were i not there. One life would be lost already, better leave it at that, and with him living in jail living with what he/she has done.



Yea no, he'd be dead. I dont care if he could cure cancer while in prison, he's dead. 

I say that, but keep in mind I'm referring to murder as in he chose her specifically. I would be able to 'understand' if she were killed in a drive by shooting by accident, or shot in a botched robbery. These things happen every day and its nothing personal.

But the law (here) reflects that. You dont just get the death penalty for any slaying.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Apr 7, 2009)

auxioluck said:


> I personally believe it's circumstantial, but yes, I believe in it. My reason why is actually pretty simple:
> 
> If you willfully, knowingly, and consciously take someone's life, you should be aware of the consequences, and therefore be subjected to having your own life taken.
> 
> ...



+1 
I agree


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Yea no, he'd be dead. I dont care if he could cure cancer while in prison, he's dead.
> 
> I say that, but keep in mind I'm referring to murder as in he chose her specifically. I would be able to 'understand' if she were killed in a drive by shooting by accident, or shot in a botched robbery. These things happen every day and its nothing personal.
> 
> But the law (here) reflects that. You dont just get the death penalty for any slaying.


 
Again, a great point. Its weird, i really do understand every argument for the death penalty, and they make a lot of sense logically, but theres just something about it that really gets to me. It may be the lethal injection... that thing is just awful...


----------



## Carrion (Apr 7, 2009)

"But I think if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person took another's life in cold blood intentionally, then I would much rather see them die as well, instead of my taxes keeping them alive in prison for the rest of their life."

If you witnessed a murder, do you then gain the right to murder the murderer right there and now? You know without a doubt that this person has committed the crime, therefore you should be able to conduct the execution yourself. After all, it would be cheapest if the citizens conducted the executions themselves. You cannot argue from a humanitarian position and conclude that the state maintains the monopoly of execution because they provide a humane death as you believe in karma, and the murderer himself should receive the same brutality they conducted. In fact, for the betterment of human kind it is your duty to conduct these executions as justice is all that can come, and you are arguing from the just position. Do you think you would be capable of killing another human being? 

Also, the death penalty typically costs more than life in prison. The amount of court sessions needed to prove without a doubt (Which it isn't a lot of times.) that the person is guilty.

"If you willfully, knowingly, and consciously take someone's life, you should be aware of the consequences, and therefore be subjected to having your own life taken."

So if a wife cheats on her husband knowing of his capability of homicide, she deserves to be killed? Your argument is rather circular as well. People should be killed because they know they will be killed if they commit an act?


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Carrion said:


> "But I think if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person took another's life in cold blood intentionally, then I would much rather see them die as well, instead of my taxes keeping them alive in prison for the rest of their life."
> 
> If you witnessed a murder, do you then gain the right to murder the murderer right there and now? You know without a doubt that this person has committed the crime, therefore you should be able to conduct the execution yourself. After all, it would be cheapest if the citizens conducted the executions themselves. You cannot argue from a humanitarian position and conclude that the state maintains the monopoly of execution because they provide a humane death as you believe in karma, and the murderer himself should receive the same brutality they conducted. In fact, for the betterment of human kind it is your duty to conduct these executions as justice is all that can come, and you are arguing from the just position. Do you think you would be capable of killing another human being?
> 
> ...


 
+1.

EDIT: Hell, +1,000.


----------



## troyguitar (Apr 7, 2009)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> To me "life" isn't a precious as some others may think it is. Some people just don't really need to live and some criminals deserve what they get. Not to mention, if you know the death penalty exists, and you weigh the pros and cons of the crime you're about to commit and you decide it's worth it..you've practically given up your right to live.





for Carrion: You've misinterpreted the statement. It has nothing to do with who "deserves" what - it's merely stating that there are clear consequences to various actions of which everyone ought be aware and to which everyone is subject.


----------



## Koshchei (Apr 7, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Alright, now im a little hesitant putting this up, as i believe this issue is one that gets people very heated, so Mods, if you think its going too far, please lock it.
> 
> 
> The death penalty, should countries still use it?
> ...



Good topic!

Personally, I'm for rehabilitation over execution. 

Here are my issues with the death penalty:

1) If you execute an innocent man, your legal and judicial system has just failed. Even one is too many - if it happens, your system just became guilty of premeditated murder, and is now a liability to society rather than a boon.

2) Public opinion is almost always overwhelmingly in support of giving "bad people" what they deserve. Politicians in countries with the death penalty regularly execute "baddies" in order to win political credibility. What's wrong with this? It's not justice, it's an electoral reign of terror. Note that the crux of democracy is that public opinion is almost always has no basis in established findings or reality. Let's be honest: people are generally really fucking stupid, especially when they don't know the context or consequences of the things they're being so cavalier about.

3) The thin end of the wedge. Once a country endorses murdering dangerous criminals, how long before they start executing just criminals? What if it becomes a crime to say no when your husband wants to have sex with you, like in Afghanistan, or it becomes a crime to be Jewish (or Palestinian, to stir the pot)?

4) It benefits society to not kill its citizens out of hand. By killing the man who scared your 90 year old grandmother to death while stealing her jewelery to sell so that he could feed his children because he lost his job does not right any wrong, it orphans his kids, who without a father, will now become a burden on the system, and possibly become criminals themselves. 

Immediate and disproportionate reprisal is the hallmark of a primitive nomadic society, where people carry their valuables with them from place to place, and have no established legal system to protect them. They must therefore make the risk of of injury or death greater than the reward of stealing from them. A culture of law is the hallmark of an advanced established society that has a system in place to protect citizens - the goal of the system is not to exact vengeance for a wrong, or to deter people by making a bloody example of the person who trespassed on your rights, from but to rehabilitate offenders so that they won't re-offend, and can then continue to benefit society. 

5) It's more expensive for the state to kill a dangerous offender than it is to simply keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. Believe me that these people don't get pampered by the state on your dollar.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> Good topic!
> 
> Personally, I'm for rehabilitation over execution.
> 
> ...


 
Fantastic post. Everything i wanted to say, but with more finesse.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 7, 2009)

^ +1

They also released a study that showed crime rates wern't affected by the death penalty at all. I still think people like those college kids that ran around in the ukraine killing people deserve to be executed though, but even then the system is too unreliable to risk implementation of the death penalty so its not really an option


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 7, 2009)

Its just such a touch and go subject, it makes it difficult to implement blanket death penalty crimes and so on without exceptions, which lead to more exceptions and precedents being set...


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Apr 7, 2009)

The justice system isn't 100&#37; and can never be. Even if just innocent person out of a thousand guilty is executed then it shouldn't be done.


----------



## troyguitar (Apr 7, 2009)

Even if executing that one innocent person prevents those 999 criminals from executing WAY MORE than just one innocent person?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> Even if executing that one innocent person prevents those 999 criminals from executing WAY MORE than just one innocent person?



You my friend need to do your research!

http://www.nodeathpenaltywi.org/PDF/Deterrence Fact Sheet 9 20 06.pdf

Homicide rates in Canada have dropped by 27% since we abolished execution of criminals. Theres more in there as well, so read it.


----------



## troyguitar (Apr 8, 2009)

Correlation does not imply Causation.


----------



## arktan (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> Even if executing that one innocent person prevents those 999 criminals from executing WAY MORE than just one innocent person?



How does it prevent them?


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> Even if executing that one innocent person prevents those 999 criminals from executing WAY MORE than just one innocent person?



No.

My counter to this is if you were that one innocent person convicted of a crime would you be okay with having your life taken because it could possibly prevent others from dying. Assuming that it did prevent others from dying, by your own logic, would it not also be morally prudent to begin selecting even more innocent people to be randomly executed if it prevented more deaths?

The greater good arguement always seems to end up. Bad... Trading a life for a life is as wrong as murder because it is murder even if it saves the lives of others. That is unless that person expressly consents to trading their life for the lives of others (aka firemen, rescue workers, soldiers).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> Good topic!
> 
> Personally, I'm for rehabilitation over execution.
> 
> ...



firstly, the point you made about the children not having a father and then becoming a burden to our system is a good point but, if their father is already a thief, do you not think they are likely to turn out this way anyway? the kind of father who would steal to feed his children is not a great father in my eyes.

taking someone's life for a burglary doesn't make any sense anyway.

and the "how far will it go?" argument personally I don't think has legs to stand on, Afghanistan's culture is very primitive and has a while to go to catch up with advanced Western countries, there's no way that our culture would degress back into that barbaric, primitive way of living, there would be such an uproar from the public, I don't ever see that happening. 

look at how politically correct we are these days, we THINK that we are so advanced now, and while that's true to some degree, we've adapted so much to a more thought-out existance that I never see us degressing back into chaos, unless something like a nuclear holocaust or natural disaster forced us there.



ILd&#208;&#198;Mc&#186;&#179;;1449863 said:


> The greater good arguement always seems to end up. Bad... Trading a life for a life is as wrong as murder because it is murder even if it saves the lives of others. Unless that person expressly consents to trading their life for the lives of others (aka firemen, rescue workers, soldiers).



As discussed earlier, if you knowingly take someone's life, especially two or more times, you've given up your right to live and have become a threat to the rest of us, especially when you know exactly what the consequences will be. That IS consent to trading your life away. Fight fire with fire, there's no reasoning with murderers, and I don't see any good reason why we should give them the opportunity to take away more people's lives, by granting them the right to live the rest of theirs.


----------



## arktan (Apr 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> As discussed earlier, if you knowingly take someone's life, especially two or more times, you've given up your right to live and have become a threat to the rest of us, especially when you know exactly what the consequences will be. That IS consent to trading your life away. Fight fire with fire, there's no reasoning with murderers, and I don't see any good reason why we should give them the opportunity to take away more people's lives, by granting them the right to live the rest of theirs.



Murder murderers. Kill killers... I see.

So that's a standard there that can not be adopted to other crimes. Following that logic we must steal a car from someone who stole a car? Rape a rapist? Break an arm of someone who broke an arm of someone else? Shoot someone in the leg who shot someone in the leg? Puke at someone who puked at someone? Fight fire with fire... yeah, and i spit at the sky when it rains.

The argument that "If you take a (million) life(s), your life will be taken too" is definately not based on rational thought. And emotional arguments do not belong in such matters.
All i see in these discussions are self-righteous semi-rational arguments that are packaged in "neutral" argumentations. Every crime must be seen from a neutral and rational point of view. Everything else is barbaric (i'm using that word to describe ethics, not ways of life that people have, you should rethink your description of the Afghani people and study their history a bit.).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

arktan said:


> Murder murderers. Kill killers... I see.
> 
> So that's a standard there that can not be adopted to other crimes. Following that logic we must steal a car from someone who stole a car? Rape a rapist? Break an arm of someone who broke an arm of someone else? Shoot someone in the leg who shot someone in the leg? Puke at someone who puked at someone? Fight fire with fire... yeah, and i spit at the sky when it rains.
> 
> ...



there's a difference between puking on someone, and taking someone's life. you took what I said out of context and have basically trashed the views of everyone else in this thread, well done.

and I'm not sure about you, but I'd call raping women and public beheadings barbaric.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Apr 8, 2009)

I do think it has a place in society. Not a very big one, just one place reserved for criminals where it's obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person did it, but the trial comes down to "Why did he do it?"

Take the case of Brian Nichols here in Atlanta. 

Brian Nichols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it's a wiki, but believe me when i say that it is consistent with the trial/event as I remember it happening. 

This dude basically went on a killing spree fleeing a rape case in which he killed several people, the judge, and a deputy in the court room to name a few. 

The trial absolutely did not take place to prove whether he did it, but WHY. Personally, I don't care why. It took place in broad daylight essentially live on television. 

Cases like this, I'm more than OK with putting down the criminal. Cases that result in he said she said BS, probably not. When it's obvious without a shred of doubt whether he is guilty, then put him down by all means. Slippery slope be damned, this guy has it coming.


----------



## mustang-monk (Apr 8, 2009)

the police and court systems are imperfect and can lead to false convictions so no. Sean Hodgson was released in march after serving 25 years in prison for murder, if we had the death penalty he would have been executed. he was mentally handicapped and a compulsive liar and confessed, but then retracted his statement. Theres loads of cases where peoples bodys are exhumed and it turns out they were wrong.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

EDIT: I love bacon


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> PEOPLE AREN'T READING THE THREAD.
> 
> what's been agreed is: for one off instances that cannot be proven 100%, they shouldn't serve the death penalty as it would be unjust and unfair. but where the is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that this person killed others in a malicious context and is a danger to law abiding citizens, then nip it in the bud and 'neutralize' them.



Its not so much about "agreeing" in this thread, i just wanted to hear opinions.

Ultimately, im against it, but i can understand why people would be for it. It just doesnt sit right with me.

Not everyone is _going_ to agree one way or another, its why i was so hesitant starting the thread, this stuff really does get people heated. just, for gods sake, everyone stay civil.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

haha yeah sorry I got carried away, it just annoys me when people post without reading the thread. I'll edit my post and the discussion can continue


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

^ Cheers dude. Just don't want to see an interesting thread closed


----------



## mustang-monk (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> Even if executing that one innocent person prevents those 999 criminals from executing WAY MORE than just one innocent person?



The death penalty is a punishment not a prevention, those 999 criminals assuming they have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty would be in prison for life anyway. Theres always gonna be murders but if society kills an innocent person then theyre just as bad


----------



## RenegadeDave (Apr 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> haha yeah sorry I got carried away, it just annoys me when people post without reading the thread. I'll edit my post and the discussion can continue



Today (this morning) was the first time I saw this thread, I read about 20 of the posts and decided to cut to the chase because I have to leave for work now


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm not as sensible as you, I actually missed my bus to work this morning for the sake of posting the really long post I made earlier. I guess when you really have something to say you have to say it!


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

mustang-monk said:


> The death penalty is a punishment not a prevention, those 999 criminals assuming they have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty would be in prison for life anyway. Theres always gonna be murders but if society kills an innocent person then theyre just as bad



I always end up back at the moral high-ground situation. One is convicting a murderer for killing a human being. What, then, gives one the right to murder them without consequence?


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Apr 8, 2009)

Whereas I appreciate the logic of death being an appropriate punishment for murder, and the fact that it would stop said murderers from carrying out attacks on other inmates or committing other crimes (plenty of gang leaders in jail remain in contact with the outside world and even continue to manage criminal operations), the fact remains that with a police force and justice system whose objective is obtaining _convictions_ rather than _justice_ - and the fallibility of the judicial process in general - there's just too much risk of wrongful conviction, and even one innocent person being executed is too many.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm all for the better good, and I think where there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that a murderer committed the crime(s) and may kill people again, do you not then think it is a fitting punishment for the crime?


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm all for the better good, and I think where there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that a murderer committed the crime(s) and may kill people again, do you not then think it is a fitting punishment for the crime?



I think the issue honestly more comes from a moral standpoint, and a "justice not revenge" standpoint. Because the idea of the judicial system is supposed to be based on redemption rather than revenge, the notion that one such punishment is "death" means that the entire idea has just gone down the drain. They have no chance for redemption, even if they have done it multiple times, the point is they should have the chance to redeem themselves as a human being.

Unlikely to happen? Quite probably. But i think a large proportion of modern Western law comes from Christianity as well, and the one thing that set Christ apart from everyone else was forgiveness. Its just generally really hypocritical, and totally undermines an entire system that is (supposedly) built upon, and based on, penance.


----------



## arktan (Apr 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> there's a difference between puking on someone, and taking someone's life.



Yes there is. The difference is the severeness of the crime. Both are crimes. We laugh at one and we point fingers at the other. But technically both are crimes and are to be handled with the same standard (not the same punishment!).
I'm not saying that puking and killing are equally bad crimes. You're taking my words out of context here.



> you took what I said out of context and have basically trashed the views of everyone else in this thread, well done.


"Fight fire with fire", that's what you wrote and that is not a tolerable standard in terms of punishments for crimes. No matter how "just" it seems. My words may have sounded rude and i apologize for that but the message of my post still stays.



> and I'm not sure about you, but I'd call raping women and public beheadings barbaric.


So women are only raped in Afghanistan? Or by Afghanis? You mean that they are being raped more often there, right? That's no news to me but could you please explain what exactly you mean?
If you meant that new stupid law that the guy in power in Afghanistan pushed through then i can calm you, it's under review and it's probably going to be cancelled.
And to answer you: Categorizing a country as barbaric with that explanation is somehow too easy. Women being raped is a *global* *problem* (especially in patriarchal regions -> which sadly still is 100&#37; of this planet) and is not limited to Afghanistan and it has not been invented there. It is not a specific Afghan thing. It's all around the world. It is nonsense to judge the Afghan culture for that. I rarely hear that raping women is considered a cultural thing (there are retarded exceptions) since it is mostly a machistic male "the-woman-is-there-for-that" complex.

As far as the public beheadings go, they are almost the direct predecessor of todays "not-barbaric" death penalties. Yes, we had public beheadings here in Europe and public hangings and even public torture... you should look up how they were justified and compare the argumentations with today. You'd be surprised. Morally we're still those barbarians that beheaded people publicly but we like to comfort ourselves with the fact that the death penalties are "more humane" nowadays.


EDIT: Holy crap! When i wrote this all the posts in between haven't been here yet  
a very lively discussion indeed


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

arktan said:


> Morally we're still those barbarians that beheaded people publicly but we like to comfort ourselves with the fact that the death penalties are "more humane" nowadays.



Yeah.. except that the Lethal Injection is one of the single most awful ways of killing someone i can imagine.. id rather the Guillotine personally... at least its _fast_.


----------



## DavyH (Apr 8, 2009)

Snide answer: the death penalty was banned here in 1994, since when there have been a shitload more repeat offenders.

Considered answer: the death penalty is an act of vengeance, not justice, and as such is demeaning to all involved - the offender, those who sentence him/her and carry out the punishment, and the society that demands its imposition. If the victim of a murderer deserved to live, the murderer deserves the same, _ceteri paribus_.

At least, that's what my head says. My gut feels very differently about gratuitous killings and sex crimes.

Another of life's great imponderables.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

DavyH said:


> At least, that's what my head says. My gut feels very differently about gratuitous killings and sex crimes.
> 
> Another of life's great imponderables.



Yeah, i get the same thing a lot of the time... its confusing and infuriating.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 8, 2009)

More on the Death Penalty in the US.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

arktan said:


> Yes there is. The difference is the severeness of the crime. Both are crimes. We laugh at one and we point fingers at the other. But technically both are crimes and are to be handled with the same standard



so we should treat all criminals the same? that makes no sense to me. there are different types of criminals, different crimes and different laws... I think every crime should be looked at in context rather than handled all the same. 



arktan said:


> "Fight fire with fire", that's what you wrote and that is not a tolerable standard in terms of punishments for crimes. No matter how "just" it seems. My words may have sounded rude and i apologize for that but the message of my post still stays.



what I meant by you took my post out of context is that you were implying that my logic insists that all crimes must be treated the same which as stated above, I do not agree with. you say the crimes must be treated with the same standard though, so they're your words not mine.



arktan said:


> "So women are only raped in Afghanistan? Or by Afghanis? You mean that they are being raped more often there, right? That's no news to me but could you please explain what exactly you mean?
> If you meant that new stupid law that the guy in power in Afghanistan pushed through then i can calm you, it's under review and it's probably going to be cancelled.
> And to answer you: Categorizing a country as barbaric with that explanation is somehow too easy. Women being raped is a *global* *problem* (especially in patriarchal regions -> which sadly still is 100&#37; of this planet) and is not limited to Afghanistan and it has not been invented there. It is not a specific Afghan thing. It's all around the world. It is nonsense to judge the Afghan culture for that. I rarely hear that raping women is considered a cultural thing (there are retarded exceptions) since it is mostly a machistic male "the-woman-is-there-for-that" complex.
> 
> As far as the public beheadings go, they are almost the direct predecessor of todays "not-barbaric" death penalties. Yes, we had public beheadings here in Europe and public hangings and even public torture... you should look up how they were justified and compare the argumentations with today. You'd be surprised. Morally we're still those barbarians that beheaded people publicly but we like to comfort ourselves with the fact that the death penalties are "more humane" nowadays.



you're being condescending again and posting like I don't know what I'm talking about. of course we had public beheadings in Europe but we've EVOLVED. our countries are now so moral-centric and politically correct that we can rarely disguise barbarism within our own countries. speak for yourself when you say we are barbarians, I am not a barbarian and I think you calling Westerners barbarians is ridiculous, if anything we are OVER cultured. completely disagree with your post dude, you're making some pretty bold statements,

and _obviously_ women are raped everywhere but in Afghanistan, that's just what happens. in our countries it's considered out of the norm and awful but over there, it _just happens_. and to answer YOUR question, it IS a cultural thing over there. women are the underdog. women aren't allowed to show their face, education, to show their face, to argue with a man or to refuse him sex. that is their culture.

is that the culture where you live?


----------



## arktan (Apr 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> so we should treat all criminals the same? that makes no sense to me. there are different types of criminals, different crimes and different laws... I think every crime should be looked at in context rather than handled all the same.



You forgot to quote "(not the same punishment!)".




> what I meant by you took my post out of context is that you were implying that my logic insists that all crimes must be treated the same which as stated above, I do not agree with. you say the crimes must be treated with the same standard though, so they're your words not mine.


see above.




> you're being condescending again and posting like I don't know what I'm talking about. of course we had public beheadings in Europe but we've EVOLVED. our countries are now so moral-centric and politically correct that we can rarely disguise barbarism within our own countries. speak for yourself when you say we are barbarians, I am not a barbarian and I think you calling Westerners barbarians is ridiculous, if anything we are OVER cultured. completely disagree with your post dude, you're making some pretty bold statements,


I'm sorry man but when you say:


> and I'm not sure about you, but I'd call raping women and public beheadings barbaric.


it didn't give me the feeling that you know what you're talking about since it just looks like a comment that i hear all over the place here by people who do not know what they're talking about. That's why i wrote that way. Sorry if it offended you, i did not intend to add tension here by answering to your previous post.



> and _obviously_ women are raped everywhere but in Afghanistan, that's just what happens. in our countries it's considered out of the norm and awful but over there, it _just happens_. and to answer YOUR question, yes it is a cultural thing over there. women are the underdog. women aren't allowed to show their face, education, to show their face, to argue with a man or to refuse him sex. that is their culture.


That's the result of patriarchal society. It influences culture but it's not part of it. Or do they have, for example, music about raping women? Or poetry? You just say that it IS their culture. 
Our culture wasn't much more different 40 years ago and yet women didn't have the right to vote in every region of Switzerland for example. Was it a culture thing back then to deny them voting rights? No, it was a fucking complex of the men in power and men in general.



> is that the culture where you live?


I live in Switzerland. We're all barbarians.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

well personally I think it is barbaric, I apologise for not expanding on my original statement about that, I just wanted to fit that point in. I would continue to debate but I don't see the point of this opinion volley now, we obviously have different perceptions of the way the world is.


----------



## troyguitar (Apr 8, 2009)

I have a question for those opposing the death penalty:

What do you think about war?

To put a finer point on it, consider the following:

Should we (the USA) have fought in World War II?

That may sound ridiculous, but I assure you it is not. There is NO DOUBT that we killed innocent people during the war (Dresden and Tokyo, anybody?), much like there is no doubt that we have killed innocent people with the death penalty...

If you are against the death penalty because you think it is unacceptable to kill even one innocent person no matter what, then you must also believe that it is unacceptable to go to war no matter what because innocent people are always killed in war.

Sieg Heil!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2009)

^ a very good point!

sometimes, the greater good comes at a price: loss of innocent human lives.

a lot of soldiers lost their lives too, a lot of men who maybe didn't want to go to war, so you could argue they were innocent too.


----------



## Koshchei (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> I have a question for those opposing the death penalty:
> 
> What do you think about war?
> 
> ...



Let's lay out some definitions before I tackle your question:

First of all, what is war? War is an interesting case, because it has nothing to do with a society trying to hold itself together. War is either a clash between societies over territory or ideology, or the return to square one in a failed society, where it has been deemed by the dominant revolutionary movement that there is nothing salvageable in the present system.

Second, does war, by virtue of what it is, necessarily require the killing of innocent by-standers or civilians? Not at all. When a nation goes to war, it does so for a reason, which determine the conditions for victory and ultimately policies that dictate the conduct of those fighting. 

For example: In a text-book territorial war, the conditions for victory involve the withdrawal of opposing forces and some sort of treaty ("Uncle!"). The easiest way to win a territorial war is to treat your enemy with respect - abide by the articles of war, provide medical care to people injured in the fighting, and by no means torture, terrorize, loot or pillage anything - these people are your future subjects, and they will remember if you raped Farmer John's wife or burned his crops. By making it easy for the enemy to surrender and by keeping the population happy, you both reduce the resistance to surrender, and reduce the chance of a civilian uprising down the road. 

Case study: Fidel Castro adhered to these rules when he started the Cuban Revolution. As a result was able to wage a successful campaign against 80,000 heavily armed soldiers with less than 3,000 guerillas in 25 months.

Now, to your question:

Do I think that the US should have entered World War 2? 

I don't think it was necessary. The war in Europe was already decided by that point, as the Soviet Union was steam-rolling the German forces. To open a can of worms, I *do* think that the war wouldn't have gone on as long as it did if the Americans hadn't been selling weapons and fuel to the Nazis up until they got involved.

Your point, however, was regarding civilian casualties.

No, Hiroshima was not necessary, and neither was fire-bombing Dresden. They were done, not to ensure victory, but to cause terror. These were crimes against humanity, not a blow against the German or Japanese governments. We like to tell ourselves convenient little lies now about how Japanese people are so irrational and barbaric that they can't see when they're beaten, instead needing a friendly memo in the form of 180,000 dead civilians to get the point across.

While we're on the subject, I don't think that My Lai was necessary either. Looting, raping and murdering an entire village of children, women, and old people was not a decisive blow against the Viet Cong, it was morally reprehensible, unjustified war crime that the US refused to stop or hold their military accountable for.

Nisour Square was also a really bad move on the part of the Americans.

Lastly, your conclusion that because I am against the death penalty, I must be against war as well is erroneous. I believe that there is such a thing as a clean war, in which victory conditions are adhered to, and unnecessary casualties are not inflicted on either side. Therefore, I do support war, specifically: INTERNAL revolution against tyranny and use of the military to defend your borders against an aggressive neighbor. Most importantly though, I support the sovereignty of nations, and their right to determine their own path without external intervention unless they: a) Commit genocide; b) Violate UN anti-proliferation treaties (tangibly - alleged WMDs don't count); c) Wage war on their neighbors; d) Support terrorism.

To address Scar: "sometimes, the greater good comes at a price: loss of innocent human lives."

I don't believe that human sacrifice is really a selling point for western democracy. The Aztecs used to believe that unless they killed a virgin every day, the sun wouldn't come up. The modern equivalent should not be that if you don't sacrifice a few innocent people every year, you'll never successfully make the bad guys pay. Innocent people getting executed is not the reason the bad guys get caught, they're what happens when the system fucks up, and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.


----------



## auxioluck (Apr 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> ^ a very good point!
> 
> sometimes, the greater good comes at a price: loss of innocent human lives.
> 
> a lot of soldiers lost their lives too, a lot of men who maybe didn't want to go to war, so you could argue they were innocent too.





The real point is that criminals receiving the death penalty are not "innocent" human lives. They are not innocent people. The death penalty is not killing innocent samaritans like bombs and bullets do. 

It might be asked, "Who are we to judge whether someone keeps their life or not?" My answer is this: The exact same people as the person who judged whether an innocent kept their life or not. 

Turnabout is fair play.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> I have a question for those opposing the death penalty:
> 
> What do you think about war?
> 
> ...



You're making the assertion that the judicial system cannot function as effectively as possible without the death penalty. Just because we lock our serial killers and other capital criminals up for the rest of their lives without parole instead of killing them doesn't mean that they aren't being removed from society just as effectively.

If the prison system (like it is in many third world countries) was so ineffectual and corrupt that dangerous criminals who had committed capital crimes were easily going free to commit crime again, then I'd agree with you - the application of the death penalty would be called for to ensure that justice was done. However, it blatantly isn't in that state over here or in the States. 

There are some things worth killing (and accepting the risk of innocent people dying) for - however, just having our worst criminals dead rather than locked away for the rest of their lives isn't something which is worth going to that end for. You could look at it as the difference between WW2 and Iraq, for example - one war had to be fought in order to defeat an imperialistic, totalitarian and genocidal enemy, while the other was unnecessary and wasteful (at least for the aims that were stated) - just like the death penalty.


----------



## Carrion (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> I have a question for those opposing the death penalty:
> 
> What do you think about war?
> 
> ...


 
Arguments like these only circumvent the discussion at hand. Instead of proving the very proposition that the death penalty operates on, it is compared to a concept that is already accepted to be morally just. The lesser of two evils is still evil however. Say for the sake of argument I proposed that America was just in joining the war, prove that person x can be given the right to kill person y because they killed person z, that is what is truly worth discussing.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> I have a question for those opposing the death penalty:
> 
> What do you think about war?
> 
> ...


 
I believe that Dresden was a war crime that had absolutely zero reasoning beyond revenge for the bombing of london (like i have said many times before: a valid military and strategic target...)

As for Japan, from what ive read and heard, i believe they would have surrendered anyway without being A-bombed. I could be wrong about that though.

Point is, though, War isn't the death penalty. Its war. When a country starts a war, they expect people to die, innocent people. When a soldier enlists, they expect some risk of injury or death. When a person commits a violent crime, their head may not be in the right place, there are any number of mental/psychological/emotional issues that could be affecting them, and they aren't thinking about the consequences. Thats not to say they shouldn't be punished, but they should be dealt with under the assumption that they _can_ be rehabilitated instead of condemning them to death, an act which IMO reduces the entire judicial system to the same level as criminals, and certainly undermines the notion of "paying ones debt to society".

Like has been said as well, even multiple felons/murderers dont 'go free' after time, they get life without parole.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 8, 2009)

Seeing as the death penalty hasnt been proven to prevent crime theres no point in enacting it...


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Seeing as the death penalty hasnt been proven to prevent crime theres no point in enacting it...


 
Well thats exactly it  that point in itself makes the death penalty nothing more than a simple act of public revenge.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 8, 2009)

"an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."

i hear it's expensive to kill them and it's also expensive to house them in prison. so from a cost perspective, i have no clue. 

looking at it in terms of morality... WHOA... where to begin... 

while i think it's wrong to kill someone, it's just as wrong to punish them in the same manner (hence my opening statment). at the same time, i really don't want that person running the streets BUT i also don't want my tax dollars to go toward feeding and housing the bastard either.

i think we should just clear out an island and ship all the rapists and murders there and let em rape and kill each other off since that's what they seem to want to do anyway. i'd gladly give up my tax dollars for that.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> i think we should just clear out an island and ship all the rapists and murders there and let em rape and kill each other off since that's what they seem to want to do anyway. i'd gladly give up my tax dollars for that.


 
 Holy shit...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 8, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> "an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."
> 
> i hear it's expensive to kill them and it's also expensive to house them in prison. so from a cost perspective, i have no clue.
> 
> ...



Didn't Britain used to send all of their criminals over to Australia?


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

^ only after the American prisons were full  

But, yeah, we're a bunch of convicts


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 8, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Didn't Britain used to send all of their criminals over to Australia?



oh is that what happened? i knew australia was made up of ex british citizens somehow. 

hell, didn't castro dump a bunch of his prisoners in the US at one point? in the 80s or something like that...? i could be way off as i dont follow politics much and i'm horrible with history unless i memorized it for a test...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 8, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> ^ only after the American prisons were full
> 
> But, yeah, we're a bunch of convicts



Yes, you are


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 8, 2009)

but i hear australia is pretty cool now... aside from their ridiculous guitar prices.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> but i hear australia is pretty cool now... aside from their ridiculous guitar prices.


 
Aus is awesome. Not as great as Canada, from what i remember, but close


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 8, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Aus is awesome. Not as great as Canada, from what i remember, but close



funny you should mention canada. there's where i'm trying to go. i'm tired of the US. can't knock it completely. it's just not for me. and i can't go to cuba yet. 

back on subject though. how do you guys feel about extradition for violent crimes that would warrant the death penalty? i know some countries won't send them back and i actually kind of like that too. then i can sit back and say "fuck it... they're france's problem now." AND my tax dollars can go toward something useful like building roads, education, or whatever else needs to be done for the rest of the law abiding (for the most part anyway) citizens.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 8, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> back on subject though. how do you guys feel about extradition for violent crimes that would warrant the death penalty? i know some countries won't send them back and i actually kind of like that too. then i can sit back and say "fuck it... they're france's problem now." AND my tax dollars can go toward something useful like building roads, education, or whatever else needs to be done for the rest of the law abiding (for the most part anyway) citizens.


 
Im all for that, but only in cases where the crime was commited in that country. If the crime was committed here, they stay here for trial and sentencing etc..

It makes sense logically that way too.


----------



## troyguitar (Apr 8, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Seeing as the death penalty hasnt been proven to prevent crime theres no point in enacting it...



Laws have not been proven to prevent crime. In fact, without laws there would _be_ no crime!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 8, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Im all for that, but only in cases where the crime was commited in that country. If the crime was committed here, they stay here for trial and sentencing etc..
> 
> It makes sense logically that way too.



i get what you're saying. i just feel like if they kill someone here and then flee the country but the country they go to won't send them back then we're not left w/ the moral dilemma. but i guess that's the same thing as my first idea except they're removing themselves from the country which doesn't cost us a thing. 

as you can tell i'd rather avoid the moral conundrum altogether. 



troyguitar said:


> Laws have not been proven to prevent crime. In fact, without laws there would _be_ no crime!



i guess that IS kinda true.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> Laws have not been proven to prevent crime. In fact, without laws there would _be_ no crime!



Well then...


----------



## MFB (Apr 9, 2009)

I'm gonna leave it at this since I view the DP from, I believe it's the, Utilitarian aspect in which it's used for :

Take one life to save X lives

It's already been brought up dozens of times earlier in the thread but that's my take on it


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 9, 2009)

What if that one life is innocent and their murder saves no lives?


----------



## arktan (Apr 9, 2009)

The logic behind "take one life to save 2.7685 * 10^39657751 lives" is somehow twisted.
It assumes that there is no way to keep the murderer away from killing people. When a killer stands in front of a trial he already has no chance to harm anybody since he already is in custody. How can killing him at (or after) that point save lives?


----------



## Nick (Apr 9, 2009)

well in the uk its would save lives because you pretty much dont have to pay for your crimes here. If you kill someone youl probably get early release for 'good behaviour'.


----------



## arktan (Apr 9, 2009)

Nick said:


> well in the uk its would save lives because you pretty much dont have to pay for your crimes here. If you kill someone youl probably get early release for 'good behaviour'.



I see...

But shouldn't the system be adjusted then?
I mean there are different types of murder, they're not all the same except for the results. Shouldn't the penalties be measured by that?
And is there some statistical data that shows how many murderers killed again after they came out?
I tried to do a quick search but had no success and i shouldn't be googling all the time...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 9, 2009)

i dont think there's any one system that could stop it. just put em on the island...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 9, 2009)

arktan said:


> The logic behind "take one life to save 2.7685 * 10^39657751 lives" is somehow twisted.
> It assumes that there is no way to keep the murderer away from killing people. When a killer stands in front of a trial he already has no chance to harm anybody since he already is in custody. How can killing him at (or after) that point save lives?



murderers have killed people in custody before. what if they behave co-operatively in prison, get released early and kill again?

killing him eliminates all possibility of him EVER hurting anyone again, and while I understand that maybe even a serial-killer may be able to be rehabilitated, as discussed before: if you willingly take others lives, inflicting grief and unfathomable loss on the family of your victims, and you KNOW what the consequences are, then you've already signed on the dotted line to undergo the death penalty 



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> This will probably be taken the wrong way..but I don't think Pedophiles can just be "fixed". To me that's like saying gay people can be "fixed". If you have a genuine attraction to children and you're wired to see them in the same way one would see a member of the opposite sex..you can't really just up and change that. This means you'll have to live your life without sex and relationships..and really how often does that work for people? We aren't really wired to go without another person in that type of way..we need companionship and if you're programmed to see children as the answer to that need, you can't just shut that off and just start dating legal age people. It doesn't work that way. This doesn't mean death is the answer in the least..but I'm just saying Pedophiles aren't exactly able to just flip a "normal" switch and stop doing it. If they could they wouldn't have touched the kid in the first place.
> 
> 
> Thought occured to me that I'm not even on the original topic anymore..so that's my last post on that issue..honest.



also, going back to this, paedophiles CAN be rehabilitated, as my mum is a councillor and she has worked with a few and she's said she's seen them turn over a new leaf and learn to control themselves and what they are.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> if you willingly take others lives, inflicting grief and unfathomable loss on the family of your victims, and you KNOW what the consequences are, then you've already signed on the dotted line to undergo the death penalty .



that is true. i never thought about it from that perspective before. the rules are in place before the crime is committed. if no one ever killed anyone then we'd have no need to use the death penalty even if that IS the punishment we decide upon. it's like super chicken says (old school cartoon) "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it"


----------



## Tiger (Apr 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> also, going back to this, paedophiles CAN be rehabilitated, as my mum is a councillor and she has worked with a few and she's said she's seen them turn over a new leaf and learn to control themselves and what they are.



Right. Would you let one of these new leafs babysit your 12 year old daughter?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 9, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Right. Would you let one of these new leafs babysit your 12 year old daughter?



HELL-TO-THE-NO

that's like letting Michael Jackson babysit your son...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 16, 2009)

arktan said:


> Everything else is barbaric (i'm using that word to describe ethics, not ways of life that people have, you should rethink your description of the Afghani people and study their history a bit.).



I wanted an example to prove my point about barbaric culture in Afghanistan and didn't have one at the time.

but here it is:

Afghan &#039;Rape Law&#039;: Women Stoned By Crowd Of Screaming Men To Protest New Law In Kabul | World News | Sky News

that's right, rape is now legal inside marriage in Afghanistan. but that's not barbaric...


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 16, 2009)

I have a whole big philosophical rant about the blanket use of stuff like "barbaric", but its way off topic...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 16, 2009)

maybe barbaric is the wrong word I dunno, but if there's one that better fits legal rape within marriage then I'm all ears.


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 16, 2009)

The word fits i guess, but i mean, throughout history every culture on the planet has been at a different stage of development, every culture has had its own vices and virtues, but _now_ all of a sudden everyone judges fucking everyone, claiming "moral superiority" over everyone else by their own standards... 

I mean, i 'get it', cos by our standards it is barbaric, but its their culture. What right do we have as humans to judge them?
EDIT: By which i mean, 'what right do we have as as a culture to judge them?'


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 16, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> The word fits i guess, but i mean, throughout history every culture on the planet has been at a different stage of development, every culture has had its own vices and virtues, but _now_ all of a sudden everyone judges fucking everyone, claiming "moral superiority" over everyone else by their own standards...
> 
> I mean, i 'get it', cos by our standards it is barbaric, but its their culture. What right do we have as humans to judge them?
> EDIT: By which i mean, 'what right do we have as as a culture to judge them?'



well yeah you're totally right. different countries around the world are at different stages of development and I suppose there is no 'right way'. 

I don't think we should try and stop them from doing this, and I know our cultures are still fresh from legal banning of racism, rape, unequal rights etc and these things still go on regardless, I just feel sorry for the women of Afghanistan as I'm pretty sure they don't like being raped, hence the protest. 

I see the irony now though in me calling it barbaric, so well done for calling me out on that


----------



## Daemoniac (Apr 16, 2009)

I just dont like the "judgement" of nations  It doesnt make sense to me...


----------

