Notices

View Poll Results: Is it right?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 41.67%
  • No

    21 58.33%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 119

Thread: Capital Punishment: Is it right?

  1. #1 Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8
    Over 1,000 in America have been executed either by electrocution or Lethal Injection, Gas Chamber, Hanging or Firing Squad.

    Here is a list of the crimes of each state that will pursue Death Penalty:

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...id=144&scid=10

    There is also a table on http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/ in which they state that you don't have to be involved in killing the person in order to not get the Death Penalty.

    But is the Death Penalty justified? If it's justified in one case, then why not all?

    Another site states that the Death Penalty reduces more murders, but isn't the act of killing the murderer the same for what he committed, what justifes that? The famous film called " The Life of David Gale ", which is about him supposed to be getting killed by Death Penalty, when in fact he didn't do anything at all, he was innocent.

    " The Death Penalty is no more, at best, than a deterrant than a sentence of life imrpisonment ", would that be true?

    Theres an interesting argument in which people think that Saddam Hussein should be put up for Capital Punishment and killed off, if it happens to him why not more?


    My opinion on this is that it shouldn't be used under any circumstances, if you put someone up for the Death Penalty, then you would be just as bad as the killer himself, which is intentionally going out to kill someone themself.

    It's a waste of money and time and a greater punishment would be life imprisonment because you could give punishment inside the prison, that would be worse. Theres more harrowing updated statistics on the Amnesty Website:

    http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

    On a later post, I'll post the physiological and methodology of certain punishments.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    I think the death penalty just doesn't solve any problem. The assumption behind using the death penalty as a heavy deterrent is that people take some time to consider the costs and benefits of commiting a certain crime before deciding to do so. But this just isn't the case if we're talking about such crimes as murder. I don't have statistics to back this up, but I suspect a great majority of murders are commited under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or by people who were mentally incapacitated in the first place. Deterrents have no effect in such circumstances.

    In Chinese philosophy (Legalism) a slightly different argument is used for the death penalty. The idea is that if every crime is punished heavily (even ordinary theft or fraud), then people wont dare to ever cross the law. So for a long time stealing a few televisions or so resulted in the death penalty in China. For some cases this idea may work, as people often go from small crimes to bigger ones, losing their sense of moral bit by bit. Punishing small crimes heavily may stop them before going any further. But again crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol will not be prevented.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    I don't think it's immoral. I just think it's hypocritical. You can't teach a society not to do something when the government does it all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    In addition to what you say Pendragon, many murders are committed by friends or family members, as a result of an argument. They occur in the heat of the moment, where anger has taken over and rational thought has deserted the killer. The deterent effect is zero in these circumstances.

    And is it really logical that it is acceptable for the state to take a life, but not an individual? Does the fact that it is the amorphous and anonymous society that is doing the killing, suddenly make it ethical and proper?

    Edit: I was writing this post while Dimension was entering his, so I have duplicated his thoughts. (Or hers, as the case may be.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    It would be his.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Nothing justifies killing someone!!!

    With that being said I also believe in democracy. If the vote shows that more people believe in this punishment than well.. what can you do. I think we should teach criminals how to meditate. It would start out as pure torture (most likely) and end in a very healthy minded person (I hope ). Anyways I believe there is always an alternative. Maybe we should spend some time and money in developing a way to teach people instead of punishing them. Or at least teaching them after we punish them.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    I expect I'll get slaughtered here....

    I am completely in favour of capital punishment for the crime of homicide (single or multiple) where there is NO doubt about who the (primary) perpetrator is.

    I believe this should apply equally amongst all, whether president, prince or pauper. And that whether killing a single individual, or indiscriminate retaliatory action against another people or country - ALL should be held to account. Irrespective of age.

    I am convinced the world is overpopulated and the loss of a few individuals who have taken the lives of others would not affect humanity as a whole.

    I have heard many times the argument of 'the heat of the moment' and although I respect this POV we have all had moments where perhaps we'd like to kill someone BUT the civilised part of our being ruled the animal side and we declined realising the disasterous consequences that would follow. I also believe the manner of execution should be long, drawn out and as painful as possible.

    Edit: oops! Executioners excepted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Earth isnt over populated. it can support about 9-10 billion people with out current technology
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Earth isnt over populated. it can support about 9-10 billion people with out current technology
    This is a matter of how one personally defines overpopulated.
    I think your estimate refers to 'overcrowded' which is different.

    Ask youself this question - How long can man continue to comfortably inhabit the planet at the rate he is destroying it today?

    I like many, consider that whilst man is using more resource than either he, or nature, or both can replace then the planet is overpopulated.

    I would recommend you familiarise yourself with the history of Easter Island as a micro example of what is happening today. - Further your observation of 9-10 Billion people also requires we push virtually all other wild land animals to extinction. I maintain if (through sheer number) we cannot live in harmony with our planet and ALL other species of life then the planet is overpopulated. I think you see that 'extending the limit' is pushing aside the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Whether or not the earth is overpopulated is off-topic, and irrelevant anyway. Ethically I don't really have a problem with capital punishment, but the standard of evidence needs to be as high as possible.

    In addition to what you say Pendragon, many murders are committed by friends or family members, as a result of an argument. They occur in the heat of the moment, where anger has taken over and rational thought has deserted the killer. The deterent effect is zero in these circumstances.
    Well, this is why murder is broken down into a number of different offenses, in the U.S. at least. If capital punishment is reserved for 1st degree murder, in which premeditation is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, then crimes of passion such as you mentioned don't qualify anyway. Personally I don't have much of a problem with capital punishment if it's reserved for the most heinous of crimes. Premeditated slaughter, murder of children, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    capital punishment of course serves as no detterent as prison does not seem to act as such either, i personally can see life imprison as being worse than death as i just have to go through a more painful ordeal before giving in to the inevitable.

    so if its obviously not a deturent and is hardly morally justifyable then why in the first place.

    well keeping prisoners in jail costs money, unless there treatment is substandard or inhuman, and this money comes from the tax payers. (i think) to why waste money on a person who just commits murder after murder after murder. i personally wouldn't want to fork out the bill for keeping Ted bundy alive. would you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    I am completely in favour of capital punishment for the crime of homicide (single or multiple) where there is NO doubt about who the (primary) perpetrator is.
    So th the woman who has been beaten up by her husband routinely for the last six years, and has been repeatedly raped by him, should be executed for the occassion she resists a rape by sticking breadknife in his chest?

    The father whose children were murdered by a burglar should be executed for shooting the accused on the steps of the courthouse?

    The son whose father has a painful, terminal illness, should be executed for administering an overdose of morphine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wallaby
    well keeping prisoners in jail costs money, unless there treatment is substandard or inhuman,
    In the US it costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him in prison for his entire life, because of the cost and duration of appeals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    I am completely in favour of capital punishment for the crime of homicide (single or multiple) where there is NO doubt about who the (primary) perpetrator is.
    So th the woman who has been beaten up by her husband routinely for the last six years, and has been repeatedly raped by him, should be executed for the occassion she resists a rape by sticking breadknife in his chest?

    The father whose children were murdered by a burglar should be executed for shooting the accused on the steps of the courthouse?

    The son whose father has a painful, terminal illness, should be executed for administering an overdose of morphine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wallaby
    well keeping prisoners in jail costs money, unless there treatment is substandard or inhuman,
    In the US it costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him in prison for his entire life, because of the cost and duration of appeals.
    Read it again, compare it with your examples, who would you consider the primary perpetrator?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Earth isnt over populated. it can support about 9-10 billion people with out current technology
    This is a matter of how one personally defines overpopulated.
    I think your estimate refers to 'overcrowded' which is different.

    Ask youself this question - How long can man continue to comfortably inhabit the planet at the rate he is destroying it today?

    I like many, consider that whilst man is using more resource than either he, or nature, or both can replace then the planet is overpopulated.

    I would recommend you familiarise yourself with the history of Easter Island as a micro example of what is happening today. - Further your observation of 9-10 Billion people also requires we push virtually all other wild land animals to extinction. I maintain if (through sheer number) we cannot live in harmony with our planet and ALL other species of life then the planet is overpopulated. I think you see that 'extending the limit' is pushing aside the problem.
    *sigh*

    First of all what is confortable?

    There is plenty of resorces on this planet. It is not overpopulation that is running them dry but, our ways of retrieving and using them. Also, there are many other ways of dealing with population... For example: having less babies!!

    P.S.

    I am a Predator (the movie) fan. Maybe whenever someone deicdes to have children they are allowed three. The children must enter a challenge (once they are older and practiced of course). A challenge that may likely result in death. Like an initiation. HAHA!! I am crazy.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Wallaby
    well keeping prisoners in jail costs money, unless there treatment is substandard or inhuman,
    In the US it costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him in prison for his entire life, because of the cost and duration of appeals.
    if thats entirely taxpayer funded then thats silly.
    but i guess the process is nessisary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    The use of capital punishment is not my idea of keeping wrongdoer on the good side of society. One for ethical reasons and two cause it doesn’t reduce crimes (all ready been said).
    Only the money issue stands pro death penalty (if correct?), so we put ethics in the balance with money.
    Furthermore know we’re talking about capital punishment as ideally or optimally used (for the real bad ones – the ones so bad they can’t be helped). But to my knowledge almost all people who end up with death penalty were the one who couldn’t afford the fancy lawyer or belonged to a minority group.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Strugle Town
    Posts
    222
    A crime of passion, killing in self defence, manslaughter do not warrant the death penalty, but a cold act of murder must receive the maximum punishment providing there is no shadow of doubt,
    result = society is safer and that particular gene pool reduced.
    The cost of keeping people in prisons is high because they are treated as guests, [ at least in my country] prison must be a punishment, short but harsh, a great many criminals are recidivists so its really up to them they do have a choice.
    In the end society must be protected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Disposal of drones is accepteble
    Dismanteling of drones is accepteble
    Ineffient drones dont serve the collective enoug. Therefor should be dismanteled.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
    A crime of passion, killing in self defence, manslaughter do not warrant the death penalty, but a cold act of murder must receive the maximum punishment providing there is no shadow of doubt,
    result = society is safer and that particular gene pool reduced.
    The cost of keeping people in prisons is high because they are treated as guests, [ at least in my country] prison must be a punishment, short but harsh, a great many criminals are recidivists so its really up to them they do have a choice.
    In the end society must be protected.
    The fact is that some people may have been brought up wrong or in the wrong environment. The fact is most likely if that individual " The Murderer " was brought up in a more respected area then the murder wouldn't have taken place, so does that person who was once a foetus deserve to die? No!

    And to earlier posters who talked about over-population. Over-population is the amount of land in comparison with how productive it is for a given amount of people. One individual being killed will not make a bit of diference to the population as it will rise exponentially anyway. Ridiculous comment to make!

    The person may have mental conditions, maybe he was abused as a child that affected his mind. You have to understand that they were once foetus' that were growing up, something happens to their minds in particlaur that affects them to kill someone. Of course it's not moral to kill someone, but it's even more non-moral to kill them for that reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    I have often wondered what is wrong with people who support the death penalty. Amendment 8 of the Bill of Rights states that "cruel or unusual punishment" shall not be inflicted upon anyone. HOW is death not cruel? As far as I'm aware, most people view death as a bad thing. It usually involves pain of some sort, and it's taking away the one thing that a person always has for as long as they, well, live. I am absolutely against capital punishment. It simply adds to the number of people dying in an incident, and solves nothing.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    Adding to my previous post... someone earlier mentioned the fact, in other words, that often times, people who commit murder do it kind of just out of chance, and they are not going to go around killing everyone they see, so executing them so that they do not commit any more murders is pointless, because they wouldn't anyway. go ahead and throw them in prison for life, fine, but don't add to the killing. world's negative enough as it is.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    I cannot vote on this one because I do not have a conclusive answer either way. This is one very big gray area. I simply do not know.

    I think that people use words like "Right" and "Wrong" far too carelessly. As if they are magic words that, for one reason or another, do not have to adhere to the realm of logic, rationality or even practicality. I think that peoples emotions are too easily swayed by the concept of death. That’s a bold statement, I know, but death falls under two categories: The inevitable conclusion of life - or - the consequential result of specific choices that are made in life.

    It bothers me when I hear someone say "Killing people is wrong!" Such a statement is blunt, ill-conceived, naive even childish and far too oversimplified. I don't think in terms of right and wrong I think in terms of strength and weakness. To lack understanding and to be without compassion, that is something I would see as a weakness. Humanity often means: working harder to find an alternative. To perhaps give someone a second chance. I don't think killing another human being is as necessarily as bad as giving up on another human being. Mercy is not an act of weakness, Mercy is an act of kindness. Mercy is an act of calmness. Mercy is an act of patients and perhaps greater will. Mercy is an act of strength.

    But there's a flip side - Oh yes. We as a society tend to overindulge those who hold little or no regard for our laws. Instead of giving up, we find ourselves giving "in" to those who prey on the innocent. Prisoners who are sentenced to life don't have it as bad as you might think. We feed them, we bathe them, we house them, we allow them access to books, television and internet. Through schooling and rehabilitation we grant them the freedom of intellect. Remember, education does not necessarily make one more virtuous, it just makes one more capable. These days an inmate can sue, get married or even be on TV. The bottom line is, we are giving these criminals opportunities that can only be found in life. Yet life is the very thing that these criminals have unjustly taken from their victims. Victims who have "Zero" opportunities because they have no life. They're dead.

    Look - A man makes his own choices. It's as simple as that. And when a man chooses first degree murder then he should be removed from society. Deleted. Beyond that, I am still not sure if that man should be caged or killed. If the system decides to seek a viable use for that man without contradicting his prisoner status, then I wish them Godspeed on their quest. But if the system decides to kill that man, Well.....hey...S.O.S Pal'. Ya shoulda' fu**in' known better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Astro says" "Another site states that the Death Penalty reduces more murders, but isn't the act of killing the murderer the same for what he committed

    I hate to disillusion you but you know, God slipped up there and failed to make himself clear! He did not mean, for example, that nations should not defend themselves from the likes of Hitler, Al Queda and Saddam Hussain. Enemy armies have to be killed! He meant to say that people should not commit “murder” and then taken the trouble to tell us what the distinction was between the two terms. He failed to do that, apparently assuming people would have enough intelligence to figure it out themselves.

    “Murder” is when an individual kills another person for personal gain or motives. Fortunately, the Church figured all that out way back in the 3rd century.

    Charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    I don't care all that much. If there was a referendum I'd vote 'No' but no great passion. Most western countries have managed fine without the death penalty for the last 50 years.

    The USA, the western country with the death penalty and by far highest incarceration rate still also has a murder rate that exceeds others in the western world. That, however, is probably a reflection of societal issues. Too many 17 year old black and hispanic kids are left out of the greatness america has to offer. A lot of murderers are victims themselves of a negligent society.

    It's in society's own selfish interest to put the the best schools and medical facilities in the poorest districts. Make sure that single mother gets the very best pre-natal care, their child the best nutrition and eventually a ticket to the best college. Better to invest in fostering a teacher or nurse than spend the money later locking up a druggie murderer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    i agree with it, it is a deterrant and stops overcrowding of prisons
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroPro2009
    But is the Death Penalty justified?
    My answer is positively YES!!

    For example, John Couey, kidnapped this little girl, tortured and raped her for three days, then horribly murdered her by burying her alive. She was only 9 years old and was kidnapped from her bedroom.

    http://www.jmlfoundation.com/

    If killing him is not justified then they should remove that word from the dictionary. Call it revenge if you want, but I want him dead.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina

    My answer is positively YES!!....

    ....If killing him is not justified then they should remove that word from the dictionary. Call it revenge if you want, but I want him dead.

    Bettina

    Hot Damn! I love a woman with some fire in her.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolt
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina

    My answer is positively YES!!....

    ....If killing him is not justified then they should remove that word from the dictionary. Call it revenge if you want, but I want him dead.

    Bettina

    Hot Damn! I love a woman with some fire in her.
    Over 40% of posters on Internet forums who claim to be women are male. Over 70% in many categories that were not relationship or woman interest related.

    I bet the numbers are even higher when a 'cutsy' photo is added.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroPro2009
    But is the Death Penalty justified?
    My answer is positively YES!!

    For example, John Couey, kidnapped this little girl, tortured and raped her for three days, then horribly murdered her by burying her alive. She was only 9 years old and was kidnapped from her bedroom.

    http://www.jmlfoundation.com/

    If killing him is not justified then they should remove that word from the dictionary. Call it revenge if you want, but I want him dead.

    Bettina
    I totally agree with you. For that kind of crime they shouldnt just execute him they should torture the bastard.
    Personally id throw him in a room and let him starve to death. That costs nothing. Electricity, bullets, lethal injections cost money; tax payers money, and I would not like to think that I would have been working and paying for a "thing" like that to recieve a quick execution.

    Id want to see him suffer.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    i agree with you Leo but that makes you sound quite sadistic. Murderes like that should be stuck forced to die a horrible death, people talk about 'human rights' but they should forfit them if they commit a murder
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Guest
    Sounds more like revenge than punishment, maybe he suffered some trauma as a kid or was mentally defficient.... Only kidding..

    The only opposition I have to capital punishment is the fact that a percentage of innocent people are executed, even DNA evidence can be 'planted' - for that reason I'd rather see 1000 vicious murderes rot in jail than one innocent man hung.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Freshman Anna_Marie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Quarry, Indiana
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist

    Over 40% of posters on Internet forums who claim to be women are male. Over 70% in many categories that were not relationship or woman interest related.

    I bet the numbers are even higher when a 'cutsy' photo is added.

    LoL! Gee whiz I guess that means I'm a guy right? Hmm let me check just to make sure... ...oh well now thats interesting. Now I am really confused.

    I think capital punishment is a little too vague of concept to be determined wether its right or wrong. I think so much of it depends on the circumstance. It would be easy for me to sit here and be pro life when my own personal life has never been effected by a child rapist/murderer. But I am a optimist by nature and my philosophy is this: If you can help someone help themself it is an improvement on both their character and your own. Even if the effort is an overall failure it is still a positive effort none the less. I think that positive efforts - just like negative efforts - can and will reverberate through out your environment and through out all of society in general. I know that sounds a little corny but its just the way I am. I dunno' maybe I'm just weak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Some drones needs to be shut down. They are resource takers and not worth it
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Anna_Marie
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist

    Over 40% of posters on Internet forums who claim to be women are male. Over 70% in many categories that were not relationship or woman interest related.

    I bet the numbers are even higher when a 'cutsy' photo is added.

    LoL! Gee whiz I guess that means I'm a guy right? Hmm let me check just to make sure... ...oh well now thats interesting. Now I am really confused
    Boys that say things like this are either afraid girls may be smarter than them, are afraid of girls altogether, or have..... other shortcomings. :wink:

    P.S. this Couey guy admitted burying her alive. His comment was "I couldn't believe she didn't cry". Thats why I want him dead.


    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman Jellybird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    66
    If murder is illegal, then why are other guys allowed to execute criminals?? It's as simple as that. Plus in my opinion getting rid of criminals is not really teaching anyone a lesson lesson. How about putting them in prison and wait till they reform???

    In Britain murder is not illegal surprisingly enough, there is no law that prohibits it directly! - it is merely custom to send the felon off to jail for a short spell....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    putting them in prison dosn't work because over 50% *can't remeber the exact figure* of criminals that come out of jail re-offend, now that could be the murder of another person that could be stopped, the rape of another person that could be stopped, the rape and murder of children by peadophiles stopped... would you allow that to happen, in my mind the people who are opposing execution could be an accessory to the murders and rapes because they could have stopped it as it could have been stopped if capital punishment was allowed
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman Jellybird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    66
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    I am not likely to be going on a killing spree any time soon, and if i had a good sense of honour *not to be arrogant but i believe i do* o would take it, in old japanese sociaty, warriors used to commit sepuku *suicide* for failure of tasks, they believed this too be reasonable. yes i am saying we should kill them, over 50% re offend out of jail, should those who are oposing capital punishment be charged with accessory to those crimes? after all, they could have been prevented overwise...
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    If someone attacked you with intent to kill, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself from being killed?

    I would like to know what your answer would be.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    If someone attacked you with intent to kill, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself from being killed?

    I would like to know what your answer would be.

    Bettina
    What does that question have to do with capital punishment?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    If someone attacked you with intent to kill, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself from being killed?

    I would like to know what your answer would be.

    Bettina
    What does that question have to do with capital punishment?
    I'll tell you when he answers that question.

    Bee
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    If someone attacked you with intent to kill, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself from being killed?

    I would like to know what your answer would be.

    Bettina
    If someone tried to kill me, my wife or my future children. I would kill them. No exceptions.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Anna_Marie
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist

    Over 40% of posters on Internet forums who claim to be women are male. Over 70% in many categories that were not relationship or woman interest related.

    I bet the numbers are even higher when a 'cutsy' photo is added.

    LoL! Gee whiz I guess that means I'm a guy right? Hmm let me check just to make sure... ...oh well now thats interesting. Now I am really confused
    Boys that say things like this are either afraid girls may be smarter than them, are afraid of girls altogether, or have..... other shortcomings. :wink:

    P.S. this Couey guy admitted burying her alive. His comment was "I couldn't believe she didn't cry". Thats why I want him dead.


    Bettina
    Now i feel sick.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    [..] yes i am saying we should kill them, over 50% re offend out of jail, should those who are oposing capital punishment be charged with accessory to those crimes? after all, they could have been prevented overwise...
    There are other solutions to this. If it's clear that a convicted murderer will re-offend they are (in the Netherlands at least) transferred to a different jail, in which they are treated like mental patients. In many cases those people never get out of such an institution, unless they have a clear mental disability which can be cured or suppressed. This is by no means an ideal system, as it actually condems people to lifelong prison and sort of bypasses the judicial system (the judge only has to confirm that the mental institution made a correct diagnosis, and that the convict is indeed dangerously insane). But on the other hand it's not a strange idea that someone who commits a murder and after many years in jail repeats his crime must have some mental disability, assuming that normal people wouldn't do such a thing. Problem is ofcourse that it's very hard to get the right diagnosis, and mistakes are made.

    But I agree with Anna-Marie and Jelly, if it's possible to cure or 'reform' a convict then this is really to the benefit of all. We can try to learn from these people, to try to understand what drives people to such crimes and how we can prevent them. Killing murderers doesn't help us understand what's going on inside those people's heads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Guest
    I reckon there's a lot of sense in that PD, most murderers cannot be 'normal' by definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    If someone attacked you with intent to kill, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself from being killed?

    I would like to know what your answer would be.

    Bettina
    What does that question have to do with capital punishment?
    I'll tell you when he answers that question.
    He? was that directed at me or Jellybird, cos i am male and Jellybird isn't but you have quoted her
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    If murder is illegal, then why are other guys allowed to execute criminals?? It's as simple as that. Plus in my opinion getting rid of criminals is not really teaching anyone a lesson lesson. How about putting them in prison and wait till they reform???

    In Britain murder is not illegal surprisingly enough, there is no law that prohibits it directly! - it is merely custom to send the felon off to jail for a short spell....
    Murder isnt against the law ??? WTF It also comes under a seperate criminal homocide act for which a life sentence is mandatory; it does not however come under the offences against the persons act of 1861

    The closest thing coming under criminal law in the UK under OAPA is Section 1 OAPA 1861, which is defined as "Attempted Murder".

    Certain illegal acts, I believe should be dealt with in the first instance by way of a "treatment plan".

    Murders/rapists/pedophiles etc. (I.E Those who are a danger to the rest of society should be locked up indefinately and/or put to death.)
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Guest
    So you agree, there is no explicit legislation phobiting murder, only a reference that where it occurs the sentence shall be etc etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    So you agree, there is no explicit legislation phobiting murder, only a reference that where it occurs the sentence shall be etc etc...
    Well, it comes under common law. I dont think that "Oh, I wasnt under the impression that was was actually illegal" would somehow stand up in court as a defence. :?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Guest
    That's exactly what I said in my original post, "it is practice to punish".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    No for two reasons. One, that there is always the chance that the person could turn out to be innocent. If your country killed someone that did turn out to be innocent would you not all be murders ?
    Secondly, people that perform the crimes such as the one described earlier don't just sit in prison drinking tea and watching tv in their night gown, many commit suicide because of there treatment from their fellow prisoners and the prison staff themselves. Don't you think that the choice of suicide or the rest of your live being tormented (and sometimes tortured) by your fellow prisoners is more of a punishment than a simple execution?

    I also think that the punishment for murder should be a life (ie until your dead) sentence, so i cant see the point in wasting any money on them trying to reform them.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    No for two reasons. One, that there is always the chance that the person could turn out to be innocent. If your country killed someone that did turn out to be innocent would you not all be murders ?
    I think that's why the law says 'Innocent untill proven guilty'
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    He? was that directed at me or Jellybird, cos i am male and Jellybird isn't but you have quoted her
    My mistake... It was aimed at Jellybird.... and I missed that she was female. Sorry, jellybird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    I also think that the punishment for murder should be a life (ie until your dead) sentence, so i cant see the point in wasting any money on them trying to reform them.
    The punishment for murdering Jessica should be death and the good news is that Jessica's boogeyman is thisclose from burning, and I can't wait for it to happen.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/07/girl.slain/index.html

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    If someone attacked you with intent to kill, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself from being killed?

    Bettina
    i'd jump out and defend her being the nice gentlemen that i am *cough cough* I believe this comes under "resonable force" under our laws
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Guest
    Civilisation truly is a thin veneer, underneath it seems most are after vengence, it won't bring back the victim, it does not deter others, it's about time we climbed above such barbaric practices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Civilisation truly is a thin veneer, underneath it seems most are after vengence, it won't bring back the victim, it does not deter others, it's about time we climbed above such barbaric practices.
    I disagree. Vengence is sweet.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Guest
    Wel then just take their PS2 and MP3 away from them...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    I think that's why the law says 'Innocent untill proven guilty'
    It does but mistakes are made. Once your dead theres no coming back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    The punishment for murdering Jessica should be death and the good news is that Jessica's boogeyman is thisclose from burning, and I can't wait for it to happen.
    Why ? We are all going to die. Wouldn't you rather see him have the shit kicked out of him, every day for the rest of his life and then die ?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Civilisation truly is a thin veneer, underneath it seems most are after vengence, it won't bring back the victim, it does not deter others, it's about time we climbed above such barbaric practices.
    It won't deter every murder but it sure as hell will deter some if only a few. Yourself and others claim that you hate to see one innocent person be put to death if they're wrongfully convincted - well what about the people who otherwise wouldn't have been murdered in the cases where the death penalty IS a deterrent?
    There are different levels of depravity and while some people are beyond the point of deterrents, some are not. The line may very well be at the "I'll be put to death if I do this" for some people in some situations.
    One of my degrees is in criminology and I've seen studies showing that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I've seen studies show that it is. I've seen studies which conclude it actually increases violence. The studies only get you so far here so I've never put much stock in the "studies show it's not a deterrent" argument.

    Also, when did vengeance become synonymous with justice? The guy in Bettina's example doesn't deserve death?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Guest
    If there is doubt as to whether capital punishment is a deterent why use it?
    Most murders are comitted 'on the spur of the moment' the mind is usually in a highly agitated state, the rational thought of "will I be executed" does not come into it, other murders are comitted after being 'well planned' where evidence of suicide or accident is presented, usually for some financial gain.

    What I said was I would rather murderers rotted in jail than execute one innocent yet mis-accused person. I did not say they should go un punished. so many people have been wrongly executed, some even framed - it's not just one innocent executee, it's loads of them!

    Anyway in the UK it's no longer done, jail sentences for murderes here is considered 'light' which is almost universally agreed by ordinary people (myself included).

    In the US as I understand it, if you openly admit to murder and from the begining, you won't be executed anyway, it's the poor sod who is innocent, and maintains his innocence, yet 12 people who weren't there decide he was, who gets the chop - that's about as good a method of justice as the medival ducking stool, drown and you are innocent, survive and you are guilty, ready to be burned at the stake!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    If there is doubt as to whether capital punishment is a deterent why use it?
    Most murders are comitted 'on the spur of the moment' the mind is usually in a highly agitated state, the rational thought of "will I be executed" does not come into it, other murders are comitted after being 'well planned' where evidence of suicide or accident is presented, usually for some financial gain.
    Most murders. Not all. I'd have a hard time believing even staunch opposers of the death penalty if they were to argue that the prospect of losing one's own life would NEVER be a deterrent. The question is, does what you lose with capital punishment outweigh what you gain? I'm not sure, but in terms of ethics I don't think you lose much.

    What I said was I would rather murderers rotted in jail than execute one innocent yet mis-accused person. I did not say they should go un punished. so many people have been wrongly executed, some even framed - it's not just one innocent executee, it's loads of them!
    Well this is a justice system issue, not an issue about the inherent rightness or wrongess of capital punishment.

    In the US as I understand it, if you openly admit to murder and from the begining, you won't be executed anyway, it's the poor sod who is innocent, and maintains his innocence, yet 12 people who weren't there decide he was, who gets the chop - that's about as good a method of justice as the medival ducking stool, drown and you are innocent, survive and you are guilty, ready to be burned at the stake!
    Again, that's a justice system issue which has no bearing on capital punishment. If we were arguing a bill in Congress those issues would be important. But we're on a philosophy board where we are discussing the ethics of capital punishment itself so they don't pull much weight with me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    The punishment for murdering Jessica should be death and the good news is that Jessica's boogeyman is thisclose from burning, and I can't wait for it to happen.
    Why ? We are all going to die. Wouldn't you rather see him have the shit kicked out of him, every day for the rest of his life and then die ?
    Yes.. But it won't happen that way. He will be placed in protective custody with a TV, books, magazines, food, and health care. Compared to the life he led before, he will have a much more comfortable time in prison which allows him to benefit from her death. He should not benefit.

    A question was asked by me earlier whether you would kill someone if your life depended on it..... LeoHopkins wrote back...

    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    If someone tried to kill me, my wife or my future children. I would kill them. No exceptions.
    And, thats where I'm coming from. Jessica wasn't able to defend herself from the monster who was bigger and stronger than she was. At 9 years old, and a lightweight to boot, she had no chance. If she was bigger and stronger she would have killed him to save herself. I know she would have tried.

    So, since she couldn't kill him to get away, then I believe its up to the justice system to do what she was unable to do. Think of me as you wish, but I want him stone cold dead then cremated. I don't want him buried in the same earth that she is in.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    [quote="Bettina"]


    He will be placed in protective custody
    this is a joke. if you were in jail for a day you'd know it was anything but "protective"


    with a TV, books, magazines,
    so is that what you do all day? if not, then i guess jail is not so pretty as you thought..



    [quote]food, and health care[quote]

    if you had to eat even a day of the food they get fed i dont think youd ever say that again.


    ...health care? lol



    anyway let em live in jail forever or die it doesnt matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman Jellybird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellybird
    So you're saying we should just kill them?? And that's morally right? If you murdered someone for example, would you think it was just that you faced capital punishment?
    If someone attacked you with intent to kill, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself from being killed?

    I would like to know what your answer would be.

    Bettina
    well, me dying or the person who attacked me??? hmm.. well, i guess in this case i'll have to defend myself, but i still think killing them as capital punishment is wrong. I would feel guilty for killing them though, even though it was in defence and i dont really have much choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Civilisation truly is a thin veneer, underneath it seems most are after vengence, it won't bring back the victim, it does not deter others, it's about time we climbed above such barbaric practices.
    Okay Megabrain, let's do this.

    Civilisation does not equal moral descentsy. A civilized man is of no greater virtue than an uncivlized man. On the contrary, it has been said that a civilized man in a civilized world can commit an act fowl play be it murder, theft, trickery, deceit, or something as simple as a showing of disrespect from one to another - without the fear of immediate justifiable, or even unjustifiable, retrebution. Such as a blade to the throat or a bullet to the head or just a good ol' plain back hand swap.

    It has also been said that as a result of this latter millienia generation of so called "Civilized Man" the utmost important element of fear and respect for all other Man and Beast, in this case particularly Man, can be found nowhere within the breed of modern day human beings.
    Essentially we have become self indulgent spoiled and weak.

    No. Vengance will not change the past nor will it bring back those who have suffered and/or died. Yet don't be so quick to assume that vengance will not deter others from wrong doing. A human being is still just an animal and like all animals the one thing a man can understand and respect more than anything else is fear.

    I am still not sure as to how this stands in reason on wether or not our society should enforce capital punishment, but on a more personal individual level I do not hold civilisation in such high regards as you might perhaps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Guest
    My intention was not to suggest that a remote tribe may be 'uncivilised' [as is the usual meaning of the term] to me the term 'civil' is more being nice to others, man is not 'civilised' in the sense I was bought up to believe the word meant, as you get older your realise how thin this veneer really is, if it exists at all. I don't think any state in the past or present can truly, totally be described as civilised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    Yeah, I would agree with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Guest
    So back on topic, then you could extend that to :- Crimes for which capital punishment is the sentence should reduce as the world becomes more civilised, indeed crime in total should reduce, but any real improvement I feel would be more than offset by the greed for more scarce resources resulting in wars and disputes. The result IMHO is that by my definition of 'civilised' it simply cannot happen, given the possible exception of "Human Genetic engineering" - Something I hope will not occur until long after I've gone and preferably never. I think I'll start a thread on that....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    Eeh...(With a shrug of the shoulders)...who knows.

    Perhaps theres an alternative as to extreme punishment vs. extreme tolerance. And maybe someday we will become sophisticated enough to understand and use it. Or......maybe we won't. Maybe we shouldn't.

    I simply do not have a difinitive answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    93
    Capital punishment is legalised murder, or revenge killing.

    Fortunately, a large number of countries - I'm not sure exactly how many - have banned it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    ^^^^^^^

    I have read that the US is the last developed country to still use capital punishment .
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Well in sunny RSA we have regular calls for the reinstatement of the death penalty for crimes such as rape (especially child) and murder. But then again we have on average 20 000 murders, 30 000 attempted murders, 52 000 recorded rapes a year - beat that

    Now would the death penalty make an impact in an environment like that, or would it just paralyze an already over stretched legal system with appeal after appeal after appeal. We have some awaiting trial prisoners sit and wait 5 years in overcrowded prisons to go to trial if they cannot make bail.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    ^^^^^^^

    I have read that the US is the last developed country to still use capital punishment .
    And thankfully so. I can't wait until John Couey is executed.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    So John Couey killed 1 child. the american government killed 500,000 children in the last decade. what about them?

    BAGHDAD - A senior U.N. official said Friday about half a million children under the age of 5 have died in Iraq since the imposition of U.N. sanctions 10 years ago.

    Anupama Rao Singh, country director for the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), made the estimate in an interview with Reuters.

    ``In absolute terms we estimate that perhaps about half a million children under 5 years of age have died, who ordinarily would not have died had the decline in mortality that was prevalent over the 70s and the 80s continued through the 90s,'' she said.

    thats right, if john couey is executed, by logic, the same people that are responsible for half a million children dying in iraq should be executed as well, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75 is there a wrong answer to this 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    louisiana
    Posts
    6
    there are so many variables that are needed to answer this question:
    what is the crime?and the effect of the crime/and your moral standing conserning the crime/so is the question one of practes or principle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Sounds more like revenge than punishment, maybe he suffered some trauma as a kid or was mentally defficient.... Only kidding..

    The only opposition I have to capital punishment is the fact that a percentage of innocent people are executed, even DNA evidence can be 'planted' - for that reason I'd rather see 1000 vicious murderes rot in jail than one innocent man hung.
    What about the victims of the murders that will be committed because you let off the 1000? Aren't they innocent as well? I suppose it boils down to whether you think it's a deterrent or not. I think it is, else why the endless appeals filed by death row inmates? It seems they'd rather not be killed! Who'd have thunk it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I don't actually see killing as inherently wrong. To me, killing or harming others is only wrong if you do so recklessly or out of a desire for personal gain.

    Bullying is wrong. Threatening harm in order to exact a unilateral concession is wrong even if you don't carry the threat out. If you do, then it's doubly wrong because we can all see you weren't just bluffing or kidding around.

    The one exception would be that it's ok to threaten someone into withdrawing a threat, or harm someone in order to prevent them from doing harm.

    I don't think society has any obligation to take a chance on someone who has already committed murder. We have the right to an absolute, perfect, guaruntee they won't do so again............ and there's only one thing that can give that to us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't actually see killing as inherently wrong. To me, killing or harming others is only wrong if you do so recklessly or out of a desire for personal gain.

    Bullying is wrong. Threatening harm in order to exact a unilateral concession is wrong even if you don't carry the threat out. If you do, then it's doubly wrong because we can all see you weren't just bluffing or kidding around.

    The one exception would be that it's ok to threaten someone into withdrawing a threat, or harm someone in order to prevent them from doing harm.

    I don't think society has any obligation to take a chance on someone who has already committed murder. We have the right to an absolute, perfect, guaruntee they won't do so again............ and there's only one thing that can give that to us.
    there is a flaw here. why take a chance and place another half a million children 5 years or younger in the hands of a government that doesnt care if they live or die? we are not FREE enough to ensure the absolute, perfect guarantee that this government will be executed and give these children the promise of life. so maybe logical in one sense, status and power can easily cancel out any threat of capital punishment. only the loner crazed people get executed, not the big rich famous and powerful people, they just get promoted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Capital punishment is definitely right. We need to protect society from serial killers, et. al.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I don't think society has any obligation to take a chance on someone who has already committed murder. We have the right to an absolute, perfect, guaruntee they won't do so again............ and there's only one thing that can give that to us.
    there is a flaw here. why take a chance and place another half a million children 5 years or younger in the hands of a government that doesnt care if they live or die? we are not FREE enough to ensure the absolute, perfect guarantee that this government will be executed and give these children the promise of life. so maybe logical in one sense, status and power can easily cancel out any threat of capital punishment. only the loner crazed people get executed, not the big rich famous and powerful people, they just get promoted.

    I guess I mean that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until they betray our trust. After that, they don't deserve it anymore.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    well perhaps, when we are able to prove 100% without a doubt, that someone committed a serious crime and in the present place the crime was commited the death penalty is legal, and the penalty of the crime is death, perhaps i can see the logic there, although i do not believe it to be good logic as i state below. however, this is not the case. it is not unheard of for a prisoner on death row to be proven innocent in the last few days of his life until the execution. nor is it unheard of for the prisoner to be executed, and then proven innocent. the point being we still havent reached the point where we can without a doubt solve who did what 100% of the time. if every for 1000 executions 1 innocent person dies, how much innocent blood needs to be shed in order for the death penalty to make your society perfect? because it never will.

    also, going by the logic that it is ok to kill people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong, why not rape rapists to demonstrate that raping is wrong?
    why not masturbate to child pornography to demonstrate to child lovers that child porn is wrong? and why not smoke a rock of crack to demonstrate to crack abusers that smoking crack is wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Why should we have to be 100% certain? As it is, the odds of getting wrongfully accused and then executed are pretty much up there with the odds of dying in a car accident tommorrow, or contracting a deadly disease by shaking a stranger's hand, etc.......

    I mean, if you're worried about making every possiblity of death 100% impossible, you'll have to lock yourself in your home and never, ever, go outside for any reason.

    As far as the purpose of punishing people..... it has absolutely perfectly nothing to do with showing anybody what is "wrong". What we are doing is what is known in economics as creating a "disincentive" . A perfectly selfish and immoral criminal who is thinking of killing someone will have to think twice before doing so if it puts his/her own life in jeopardy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Well according to this, the US has the highest murder per 1000 people ratio of all the major western country's, which should be enough to show that capital punishment is not a deterrent. If we sentence murderers to life in prison, then on the very rare occasions when someone is later found to be innocent, there is still a chance for them to have somesort of life, which is not an option if they have already been executed. Then we have to look at the fact that it cost more to keep someone on death row with all the appealing then it does to lock them up until they die of old age.

    Of course the person that Bettina mentioned earlier deserves to die, and i'm guessing that most people here would be willing to kill the thing with their own bare hands if given the chance, but is it worth other innocent people dieing (however few) simply to satisfy our desire for revenge.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Factor in the flip side, though. What about the other people in prison who have to deal with them?

    My cousin's husband is a prison guard. We were talking about capital punishment once, and he put the following scenario to me for consideration:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    A man we'll call Man A goes into jail on a 5 year charge for dealing pot. He sits down in the cafeteria by anyone who will let him sit down, because he's new and doesn't want trouble with anyone.

    Accross the table from him, a man we'll call Man B, who's in for 5 consecutive life sentences sits down.

    Man B says to Man A : " I like your shoes. I think you should give them to me."

    If Man A concedes, Man B will start wanting other things, like maybe even gay sex. Sooner or later Man A will find that he's being faced with really only 2 options:

    1) - Be Man B's bitch. In every way let Man B take whatever he wants, and abuse him in whatever way he feels like. And accept that, when Man B is tired of him, he might be killed just for fun.

    2) - Get a shiv, and kill Man B.

    Let us remember that Man A came in on a drug charge!!! Now he's got to contemplate murder?

    As for Man B, why shouldn't Man B kill Man A? What would happen to him? Add more years onto a sentence that's already longer than his natural life? A few months in solitary? What protects the other inmates form Man B?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Junglist_Movement
    also, going by the logic that it is ok to kill people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong, why not rape rapists to demonstrate that raping is wrong?
    why not masturbate to child pornography to demonstrate to child lovers that child porn is wrong? and why not smoke a rock of crack to demonstrate to crack abusers that smoking crack is wrong?
    This is the most illogical thing I've ever heard, and every anti-capital punishment person tends to bring it up. Perhaps the term "capital punishment" is misleading. I prefer "death penalty". Capital punishment isn't really punishment in the conventional sense of the word (you aren't learning anything from it, are you?).

    The purpose of capital punishment is simply to rid society of potentially harmful persons; though some see it as a means of obtaining revenge, that isn't the reason the law employs it. Raping a rapist wouldn't accomplish the same thing that killing a murderer would. Where this illogical idea comes from is that murder = murder, and rape = rape, so if we're using murder to punish murder, we should use rape to punish rape. Carefully read the bolded bit, and see how illogical it really is. It's the same logic with masturbating to child porn to punish child molesters (though this one is even more ridiculous, since it's not even punishment).
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    just a note: it's been stated that all western democracies except the USA have abolished the death penalty. Actually, just about all western democracies still have the death penalty as a punishment for treason and as a punishmnet for military members in specific situations.

    I was a junior officer in the Canadian military and part of our training involved carrying out the ultimate discipline when necessary. To my knowledge, however, no Canadian soldier has been officialy executed 'in the field' since WW1.

    I spoke too soon when saying I was against the death penalty. I support the death penalty in extraordinary circumstances such as the above. People who commit treason are probably more rational in their decisions than murderers and thus more likely to be deterred by the prospect of the death penalty.

    Re a comment above about locking up someone for life and the dangerous position it puts guard in. This is the reason that in many countries there are not 'life' sentences that actually mean life. Life usually means 'possibility of parole' after 'x' amount of time but not guaranteed parole. Here in Canada you won't spend the rest of your life in prison because of the crimes you commit but because after a reasonable amount of time in incarceration you still are deemed unfit to enter society. A small minority of those convicted of 1st degree muder and so on ever spend more than 15 to 20 years in prison. Few murderers are released and go out and start murdering again. The handful of psychopaths are not released.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87 Re: Capital Punishment: Is it right? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroPro2009
    Over 1,000 in America have been executed either by electrocution or Lethal Injection, Gas Chamber, Hanging or Firing Squad.

    Here is a list of the crimes of each state that will pursue Death Penalty:

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...id=144&scid=10

    There is also a table on http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/ in which they state that you don't have to be involved in killing the person in order to not get the Death Penalty.

    But is the Death Penalty justified? If it's justified in one case, then why not all?

    Another site states that the Death Penalty reduces more murders, but isn't the act of killing the murderer the same for what he committed, what justifes that? The famous film called " The Life of David Gale ", which is about him supposed to be getting killed by Death Penalty, when in fact he didn't do anything at all, he was innocent.

    " The Death Penalty is no more, at best, than a deterrant than a sentence of life imrpisonment ", would that be true?

    Theres an interesting argument in which people think that Saddam Hussein should be put up for Capital Punishment and killed off, if it happens to him why not more?


    My opinion on this is that it shouldn't be used under any circumstances, if you put someone up for the Death Penalty, then you would be just as bad as the killer himself, which is intentionally going out to kill someone themself.

    It's a waste of money and time and a greater punishment would be life imprisonment because you could give punishment inside the prison, that would be worse. Theres more harrowing updated statistics on the Amnesty Website:.
    why be so obsessed with stacking criminals away for life in prisons instead of putting them out of their misery? When we have a pet that has grown to old to have any quality of life, don't you have it "put to sleep"? You don't ask it what it wants you to do; you do what is the most merciful. Of course, we all have the will to live, even when it is a torture. What one wants is often not what is best for him or her. Otherwise, why would there be so many obese people?

    If it costs a lot to execute the criminal, it is because the "bleeding hearts" make it so costly.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    kojax i like that way of thinking. i never thought of it like that. i dont know much about prisons, but if they dont already i think they should separate violent offenders from non-violent offenders. infact if someone is selling pot i dont think they even have a place in jail. i guess if man B was on numerous life sentences, if he fucked around they could just throw him in solitary confinement for a year or so. but then maybe hed come out more crazy than he was before. good point. it also puts gaurds in danger too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Is it just me or are people trying to 'pluck out of the air' any reason they can think of to justify the death penalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    If it costs a lot to execute the criminal, it is because the "bleeding hearts" make it so costly.
    No, it's because of the insane right wing, pro christian, republicans who still believe in An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Outside of obsolete treason laws and extreme military punishment the practise is non-existent in all the other western democracy's.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Factor in the flip side, though. What about the other people in prison who have to deal with them?
    I was under the impression that murderers were kept separate from other criminals, for the very reasons you mentioned. Perhaps it's different in your country, if it is then it should be changed to include a separate wing in the prison for such people, not used as a reason to justify executing them.

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The purpose of capital punishment is simply to rid society of potentially harmful persons; though some see it as a means of obtaining revenge, that isn't the reason the law employs it.
    No the purpose of capital punishment IS simply revenge. Locking people up indefinitely serves the same purpose.

    -------------------

    Capital punishment costs more then simply locking them up indefinitely.

    If the person is later found to be innocent, there is no going back.

    It is not a deterrent.

    It is one of the few things that makes the U.S no different in the eyes of the world then North Korea, Iran etc
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The purpose of capital punishment is simply to rid society of potentially harmful persons; though some see it as a means of obtaining revenge, that isn't the reason the law employs it.
    No the purpose of capital punishment IS simply revenge. Locking people up indefinitely serves the same purpose.
    I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Simply locking up a person gives them the possibility of, by some way or the other, getting back into society and thereby causing harm. Countless times there's been stories (true) of people escaping prison and committing horrendous crimes. Further, about it being for revenge, what about persons who have been killed who have no close family or friends? What about persons who have been executed, despite the fact that the victim's family is against the death penalty?

    You stated that we're trying to seek "any reason [we] can think of to justify the death penalty"; let me prove to you that I'm not simply looking towards the positives of the death penalty by giving you some of the negatives:
    -The death penalty is basically reverse-victimization: the criminal now becomes the victim of society, rather than vice-versa.
    -The death penalty is at times used as a means of revenge.
    -The death penalty costs a lot.
    -Given the large number of errors that the legal system often makes, the death penalty may result in the death of an innocent person.
    Of course there are more negatives, but these are the major ones.

    Now, let me refute those 4 arguments:
    -It's better to protect society against the individual, than to protect the individual against society (that is, when the individual is in the wrong).
    -While parents/family members may get katharsis (In the words of H.L. Menken [?]), the legal system employs it solely for the sake of protecting society. Since we are concentrating on whether the legal system should employ the death penalty, it follows that we should look toward how it applies to the legal system.
    -Well, at least our tax dollars are going somewhere.
    -Well...what about when they're guilty (which, usually they are)?
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Well according to this, the US has the highest murder per 1000 people ratio of all the major western country's, which should be enough to show that capital punishment is not a deterrent.
    If capital punishment is not a deterrent, then jail time would surely not deter anyone either. And if we cannot deter a crime we might as well legalize it, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    [quote="Cat1981(England)"]Is it just me or are people trying to 'pluck out of the air' any reason they can think of to justify the death penalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    If it costs a lot to execute the criminal, it is because the "bleeding hearts" make it so costly.
    No, it's because of the insane right wing, pro christian, republicans who still believe in An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Outside of obsolete treason laws and extreme military punishment the practise is non-existent in all the other western democracy's.

    Is it the "eye for an eye" Jewish doctrine that is at the base of your intensity on the subject? If the chisel we are working with slips and I cuts out your eye, then you remove my eye too. That sort of thing? That is an awful doctrine and not at all what any of us are talking about. By that doctrine, a serial killer could be exected many times, but short of that, then tortured. I am totally against any torture of prisoners.

    When you put your old blind and deaf dog to sleep because there is no longer a happy alternative, I would never consider that an "eye for an eye" Would you? It is the humane thing to do. When a criminal has nothing but twenty years to life to look foreward to, the humane thing to do is to "put HIM to sleep" also.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If capital punishment is not a deterrent, then jail time would surely not deter anyone either. And if we cannot deter a crime we might as well legalize it, right?
    Very sorry Harold, thats not what i meant to say. The point i was trying to make (very poorly) was that capital punishment is not a greater deterrent than an indefinite prison sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Simply locking up a person gives them the possibility of, by some way or the other, getting back into society and thereby causing harm. Countless times there's been stories (true) of people escaping prison and committing horrendous crimes.
    Very true, but most people sitting on death row spend a decade or two with the same opportunity. The only alternative of course, is that when they are found guilty you immediately take them to the electric chair.

    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    If the chisel we are working with slips and I cuts out your eye, then you remove my eye too. That sort of thing? That is an awful doctrine and not at all what any of us are talking about.
    Very sorry, but that was the impression i was getting. Obviously a wrong impression, but we all make mistakes don't we. Thank god juries never make mistakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    When you put your old blind and deaf dog to sleep because there is no longer a happy alternative, I would never consider that an "eye for an eye" Would you? It is the humane thing to do. When a criminal has nothing but twenty years to life to look foreward to, the humane thing to do is to "put HIM to sleep" also.
    So you are justifying capital punishment because you have sympathy for the criminal :? because you want to do whats best for them, you want to save them the twenty or so years of their prison sentence ? Well thats very nice of you, but im not sure that the (very rare) wrongly convicted person would agree with you, seeing as he/she has had to lose his life because of your sympathy for the genuinely guilty murders. Now I'm going to have to love you and leave you. Just going into the kitchen to get the bread knife as the 100 year old woman next door who's husband died before i was born, needs me to do her a favour.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If capital punishment is not a deterrent, then jail time would surely not deter anyone either. And if we cannot deter a crime we might as well legalize it, right?
    Very sorry Harold, thats not what i meant to say. The point i was trying to make (very poorly) was that capital punishment is not a greater deterrent than an indefinite prison sentence.
    The reason I doubt that is that condemned murderers rarely go willingly to the execution chamber, but rather file endless appeals. If a life sentence was just as undesirable, they wouldn't bother, would they?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    If you had already committed the murder and you had to choose between another twenty years in prison alive or execution within the next couple of weeks, then yes, you would choose to appeal as many times as you could, but whether it is more likely to stop you performing the murder if the first place is another matter. I hope to be able to provide some statistics tomorrow or the following day to back that claim up.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Here's the overall truth to it:

    "Capital punishment: is it right?"

    The question is quite subjective. The question "is it practical?" is a more objective question, to which my answer would be 'yes'.

    When you pose the question of whether capital punishment is right, you get people throwinging in the argument "well, the SOB killed my mother, so let 'im fry!" and "capital punishment is not moral: you're punishing murder with murder". So there is no clear answer to this question, as morals are, for the most part, relative to the individual.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    It's not the moral side that concerns me so much. I don't like the idea of people who have done no wrong (admittedly very rare) being killed and then later found innocent. If capital punishment does reduce the numbers of murders (deterrent) in any country then i would be all for it, i just don't think it does.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    wow, is this thread still going?

    If not capital punishment there should at least be corperal. Bring back the stocks...
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Sorry it's taken longer then i said Harold, my old modem has gone to electrical heaven.

    -----------

    Rather then comparing different country's (which was obversely not very convincing) i have decided to compare some of the states of America which don't have the death penalty with those that are next to them and do have the death penalty. Blue for those that don't and red for those that do.

    Murder rate per 100,000 people....

    North Dakota 1.1
    South Dakota 2.3

    West Virginia 4.4
    Virginia 6.1

    Wisconsin 3.5
    Illinois 6.0

    Michigan 6.1
    Indiana 5.7

    That is only 4 of the 12 states of USA that don't have the death penalty ( I really don't have it in me to look up all of them). Obviously there are other factors such as where the major city's are etc etc, but to my mind (living outside of the US) it tells me that there is no extra deterrent by having the death penalty. All the information has been taken from this website.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Well...I'll agree with you about the death penalty having no deterant. I live in Texas...the king of capital punishment...and I don't think it has much effect.

    Although in your example..your kinda comparing apples to oranges. The stats are based on murders per 100,000 people...North and South Dakota are sparsely populated..780K for S...650K for N..so the data is kinda iffy.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •