|
posted:
8/29/2009 10:21:07 PM
|
Sunshine
rank: 1543
|
The title says it all: Do you think some criminals are worthy of the death penalty for the crimes they have commited? Or, do you think the death penalty is to harsh a punishment for any criminal?
Personally, I'm all for capital punishment. If you watch the news, or American Justice, America's Most wanted, or another factual crime show (No CSI), then you can see some crimes that have been commited, and how people are capable of such crimes. And, if they are worthy of death. Or, if they should be spared.
Or, you can always pop open a history book.
This is my case for why I condone the death penalty: Certain people on this planet have commited criminal acts that have killed innocent people, who did not deserve death. They knew what they were doing, they did not care about who it hurt, about the victims themselves, etc. They have ruined lives, and now we are returning the favour. If they wanted to live they shouldn't have done such a thing. What makes it even more applicable, is if they have no regrets about killing who they have. Also, imagine the tax payer money we save on killing them.
Well, those are my thoughts. So, I want to know, do you think the death penalty is a way of justice? Or, is it a inhumane act? Explain.
Please post!
|
The title says it all: Do you think some criminals are worthy of the death penalty for the crimes they have commited? Or, do you think the death penalty is to harsh a punishment for any criminal?
Personally, I'm all for capital punishment. If you watch the news, or American Justice, America's Most wanted, or another factual crime show (No CSI), then you can see some crimes that have been commited, and how people are capable of such crimes. And, if they are worthy of death. Or, if they should be spared.
Or, you can always pop open a history book.
This is my case for why I condone the death penalty: Certain people on this planet have commited criminal acts that have killed innocent people, who did not deserve death. They knew what they were doing, they did not care about who it hurt, about the victims themselves, etc. They have ruined lives, and now we are returning the favour. If they wanted to live they shouldn't have done such a thing. What makes it even more applicable, is if they have no regrets about killing who they have. Also, imagine the tax payer money we save on killing them.
Well, those are my thoughts. So, I want to know, do you think the death penalty is a way of justice? Or, is it a inhumane act? Explain.
Please post!
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/1/2009 7:33:15 PM
|
Sunshine
rank: 1838
|
Well, people who kill others should be locked away forever........but i don't think that they should be killed...........what they did was WRONG and they should be punish for that, but killing them to get even isn't right either.......two wrongs don't make a right........and i know that if a friend or family member got killed by a certain person i would hate that person.......and i could never forget that.......but it's times like these that we need to put god in our hearts....my faith helps me to belive in the goodness of everyone........hello?The old pope forgave the person who shot him and when he died the man that tried to kill him cried........i think that moment was personally beatiful, and please, this is my opion, don't go against me on this...
~think calm colours~
-dream12
|
Well, people who kill others should be locked away forever........but i don't think that they should be killed...........what they did was WRONG and they should be punish for that, but killing them to get even isn't right either.......two wrongs don't make a right........and i know that if a friend or family member got killed by a certain person i would hate that person.......and i could never forget that.......but it's times like these that we need to put god in our hearts....my faith helps me to belive in the goodness of everyone........hello?The old pope forgave the person who shot him and when he died the man that tried to kill him cried........i think that moment was personally beatiful, and please, this is my opion, don't go against me on this...
~think calm colours~
-dream12
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/1/2009 8:24:04 PM
|
rank:
|
.....You are quite capitalistic ghostchild...
The death penalty in a way is too harsh, yet at the same time not harsh enough. If the criminal is guilty, he's facing death and thus won't really pay for his crimes, yet at the same time if criminal is actually innocent, well you just killed someone who didn't deserve it. There have been MANY cases where mistakes have been made and an innocent man was put to death, only after several years did they find out he was in fact innocent. Poor blokes never got a chance to prove innocent. Really in the end, what makes you different from what the man your executing? Your belief in justice? Lets look at that word for a sec.
Justice: The concept of moral righteousness based on ethics, law, rationality, fairness and equity.
Since when is killing moral? Since when is it based on ethics and rationality?
Justice has a different meaning for everyone, so one persons view on justice cant mean anything when someones life is on the line and lets face it, the court has been wrong many times with it's views on justice.
Or we can do what they did in the 60's... give people random lobotomy's and maybe it'll work o.o
Endlessdragon
|
.....You are quite capitalistic ghostchild...
The death penalty in a way is too harsh, yet at the same time not harsh enough. If the criminal is guilty, he's facing death and thus won't really pay for his crimes, yet at the same time if criminal is actually innocent, well you just killed someone who didn't deserve it. There have been MANY cases where mistakes have been made and an innocent man was put to death, only after several years did they find out he was in fact innocent. Poor blokes never got a chance to prove innocent. Really in the end, what makes you different from what the man your executing? Your belief in justice? Lets look at that word for a sec.
Justice: The concept of moral righteousness based on ethics, law, rationality, fairness and equity.
Since when is killing moral? Since when is it based on ethics and rationality?
Justice has a different meaning for everyone, so one persons view on justice cant mean anything when someones life is on the line and lets face it, the court has been wrong many times with it's views on justice.
Or we can do what they did in the 60's... give people random lobotomy's and maybe it'll work o.o
Endlessdragon
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/1/2009 8:54:14 PM
|
rank:
|
capital punishment is hypocritical in a way.
You have murdered so we will murder you. In that case all the executioners should kill themselves afterwards. Most places have abolished it in any case plus it doesn't seem to really do the justice well. If you want people to stop killing you don't kill more people. That makes people think it's okay to kill with their own juristiction and indignation. Plus the punishment is swift. I'd rather they suffer in prison. Torture is worse than death in most cases. Especially if you die after the torture (life sentence). Besides that, killing a convict doesn't ruin the convict's life. It ruins the people who care for that person. The people who didn't do anything gets the real blow. Then it just creates a circle of hate.
Still I can see why people go for the killers should be killed mindset. I can understand killing to prevent greater killings but I'm mostly against it. In middle school I was on the CONS side for capital punishment.
|
capital punishment is hypocritical in a way.
You have murdered so we will murder you. In that case all the executioners should kill themselves afterwards. Most places have abolished it in any case plus it doesn't seem to really do the justice well. If you want people to stop killing you don't kill more people. That makes people think it's okay to kill with their own juristiction and indignation. Plus the punishment is swift. I'd rather they suffer in prison. Torture is worse than death in most cases. Especially if you die after the torture (life sentence). Besides that, killing a convict doesn't ruin the convict's life. It ruins the people who care for that person. The people who didn't do anything gets the real blow. Then it just creates a circle of hate.
Still I can see why people go for the killers should be killed mindset. I can understand killing to prevent greater killings but I'm mostly against it. In middle school I was on the CONS side for capital punishment.
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/1/2009 10:51:35 PM
|
Sunglasses
rank: 1170
|
Gales is right. They aren't facing their punishment if they get the death sentence. If they are locked up, they get time to think about what they did and possibly even feel guilty and that is when they are truly being punished.
And if they are locked up, sometimes they change their ways and they deserve a second chance.
And when it comes to tax payers over a persons life, I will take someones life over money any day. Even if that life took another life.
Second chances...
Mr_Doomed
|
Gales is right. They aren't facing their punishment if they get the death sentence. If they are locked up, they get time to think about what they did and possibly even feel guilty and that is when they are truly being punished.
And if they are locked up, sometimes they change their ways and they deserve a second chance.
And when it comes to tax payers over a persons life, I will take someones life over money any day. Even if that life took another life.
Second chances...
Mr_Doomed
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/2/2009 9:01:21 AM
|
Schoolsout
rank: 4597
|
I disagree. You see, these criminials have commited horrible crimes, thats were they get the names criminials. Now obviously in order to do this they must have some sort of mental disablility. And I believe the best solution to the problem is to take the criminial and put them in a mental prison, where physiatrists can observe them and figure out what makes they tic. Once we do that, we can hopefully stop more criminials from coming to be. That is the solution of all if not most logical, intelligent people can agree on. If you cant agree on that then... I dont know what to tell yah :/ To simply kill anyone who made these crimes and not think past that is simply foolish. Its like putting a bandaid on the stab wound. It wont help society, the victims or the murders.
ȣ-ÏŊȘƩƇŦǾ-ĦȺ₭₭Ⱥ-ȣ
ȣ-ƦȺ₱-ĦØÜŊĐ-ȣ
|
I disagree. You see, these criminials have commited horrible crimes, thats were they get the names criminials. Now obviously in order to do this they must have some sort of mental disablility. And I believe the best solution to the problem is to take the criminial and put them in a mental prison, where physiatrists can observe them and figure out what makes they tic. Once we do that, we can hopefully stop more criminials from coming to be. That is the solution of all if not most logical, intelligent people can agree on. If you cant agree on that then... I dont know what to tell yah :/ To simply kill anyone who made these crimes and not think past that is simply foolish. Its like putting a bandaid on the stab wound. It wont help society, the victims or the murders.
ȣ-ÏŊȘƩƇŦǾ-ĦȺ₭₭Ⱥ-ȣ
ȣ-ƦȺ₱-ĦØÜŊĐ-ȣ
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/2/2009 9:17:52 AM
|
Sunshine
rank: 1911
|
GalesOfall kinda said what I was going to. : /
Yes, there was I time when, if I had the chance, I wouldn't have hesitated to have murderers killed.
But it just..doesn't seem right, I'm stuck in the middle.
Though they've killed others, it doesn't seem right to take their life away for it. So we're murderers as well?
I can understand that temptation of Capital Punishment, to prevent others from being killed, but it just seems wrong to me.
And what if, say, an innocent man was sentanced? That would be horrible.
So it depends on what is the most prominent factor to death sentances.
To stop a killer from killing others, or to punish them.
Bleah. Okay, it sounds easy when written down, but either way, I'm really not sure. :P
♦ρυяρℓєy/нσℓℓy/vισℓєтραω♦
|
GalesOfall kinda said what I was going to. : /
Yes, there was I time when, if I had the chance, I wouldn't have hesitated to have murderers killed.
But it just..doesn't seem right, I'm stuck in the middle.
Though they've killed others, it doesn't seem right to take their life away for it. So we're murderers as well?
I can understand that temptation of Capital Punishment, to prevent others from being killed, but it just seems wrong to me.
And what if, say, an innocent man was sentanced? That would be horrible.
So it depends on what is the most prominent factor to death sentances.
To stop a killer from killing others, or to punish them.
Bleah. Okay, it sounds easy when written down, but either way, I'm really not sure. :P
♦ρυяρℓєy/нσℓℓy/vισℓєтραω♦
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/2/2009 11:46:27 AM
|
Schoolsout
rank: 4576
|
I have allready said, for a lot of these sick, twisted criminals...death would be an easy way out. I think that life imprisonment is a fate a heck of a lot worse than death...it's basically living a horribly crummy life...then dieing in prison.
But even better, like insecto's opinion which I totally agree with...instead of killing these guys we should put them in a phyciatric asylum, figure out what makes them tic, then rehabilitate them...basically fix them.
Capital punishment is like, in a way, throwing away a broken object instead of fixing it. (I am not trying to compare a human life to an object before people start pulling out that card) it really is quite lazy and pointless.
|
I have allready said, for a lot of these sick, twisted criminals...death would be an easy way out. I think that life imprisonment is a fate a heck of a lot worse than death...it's basically living a horribly crummy life...then dieing in prison.
But even better, like insecto's opinion which I totally agree with...instead of killing these guys we should put them in a phyciatric asylum, figure out what makes them tic, then rehabilitate them...basically fix them.
Capital punishment is like, in a way, throwing away a broken object instead of fixing it. (I am not trying to compare a human life to an object before people start pulling out that card) it really is quite lazy and pointless.
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/2/2009 3:58:11 PM
|
Sunshine
rank: 1961
|
RORSCHACH!
But seriously, do you think that taking away a life justifies someone taking away a life? Anyway, I think life in prison would be much worse - they get to sit there and think about what they've done... for YEARS.
Ghosty, I don't understand you. You seem to have very liberal viewpoints whenever it comes to issues like homosexuality and religion, but very conservative views whenever it comes to abortion or capital punishment.
A very strange sense of morality, you have.
|
RORSCHACH!
But seriously, do you think that taking away a life justifies someone taking away a life? Anyway, I think life in prison would be much worse - they get to sit there and think about what they've done... for YEARS.
Ghosty, I don't understand you. You seem to have very liberal viewpoints whenever it comes to issues like homosexuality and religion, but very conservative views whenever it comes to abortion or capital punishment.
A very strange sense of morality, you have.
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/2/2009 7:41:58 PM
|
rank:
|
Random.....But has anyone noticed how the bad guys in Batman always end up in Archam Asylum?
If only life were like comic books....Hmm... *puts on cape*
Endlessdragon
|
Random.....But has anyone noticed how the bad guys in Batman always end up in Archam Asylum?
If only life were like comic books....Hmm... *puts on cape*
Endlessdragon
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/2/2009 7:46:02 PM
|
Schoolsout
rank: 2061
|
I believe rotting in solitary confinement for 25+ years is a worse fate than being killed. Capital punishment is basically repeating the process that one found so atrocious that they felt that this person needed to die too.
However, I think for a lot of people, jail isn't really a good deterrent. Some people enjoy jail because they're top dog, everyone (as in the inmates) respects them and they get whatever they want. Which isn't really a good punishment.
It's extremely unethical, but I think a mild form of corporal punishment COULD possibly be effective. However, it would tarnish our image in the worlds eyes. o_o
Thinking of us as savages who enjoy inflicting pain on people. o_o But still, you may be top dog, but that's nothing when you're getting whipped in the back. o_o But yeah...kinda too harsh o_o
-Boxix
|
I believe rotting in solitary confinement for 25+ years is a worse fate than being killed. Capital punishment is basically repeating the process that one found so atrocious that they felt that this person needed to die too.
However, I think for a lot of people, jail isn't really a good deterrent. Some people enjoy jail because they're top dog, everyone (as in the inmates) respects them and they get whatever they want. Which isn't really a good punishment.
It's extremely unethical, but I think a mild form of corporal punishment COULD possibly be effective. However, it would tarnish our image in the worlds eyes. o_o
Thinking of us as savages who enjoy inflicting pain on people. o_o But still, you may be top dog, but that's nothing when you're getting whipped in the back. o_o But yeah...kinda too harsh o_o
-Boxix
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/2/2009 9:22:03 PM
|
Sunglasses
rank: 1170
|
Haha endless! That was what I was thinking when I first looked at this topic.
Mr_Doomed
|
Haha endless! That was what I was thinking when I first looked at this topic.
Mr_Doomed
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/3/2009 9:34:11 PM
|
rank:
|
If we could have a way to absolutely prove who murdered someone, I think I would be very much for the death penalty. Once you've killed someone else, I don't really think you count as a person anymore... just a threat. I don't really think anyone should feel guilty about removing that threat from society. It's just self-defense.
Prisoners can and have escaped... and it costs money to keep them alive... Money that could be put to better things than keeping murderers alive. It's far healthier to wash a floor, than it is to just sweep the dirt under the rug.
All this is, of course, if we had definite proof.
|
If we could have a way to absolutely prove who murdered someone, I think I would be very much for the death penalty. Once you've killed someone else, I don't really think you count as a person anymore... just a threat. I don't really think anyone should feel guilty about removing that threat from society. It's just self-defense.
Prisoners can and have escaped... and it costs money to keep them alive... Money that could be put to better things than keeping murderers alive. It's far healthier to wash a floor, than it is to just sweep the dirt under the rug.
All this is, of course, if we had definite proof.
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/5/2009 1:37:47 AM
|
rank:
|
I've always thought the use of it was an interesting subject. I'm for it myself, but in very extreme cases.
We must start with what jail stands for in the first place. It stands as a punishment to individuals for a crime. The punished is to learn that their crime is wrong and that they must change their methods.
The main advantage of Capital Punishment is that it will remove the people who we have deemed a hinderance to society. We don't have to deal with them, nor do we need to waste resources on his or her well being.
The problem with Capital Punishment is that it will lose any possible input to society that the person may give to society. In addition, we have, ourselves, killed an individual. This also ignores the moral questions that must be asked.
I, myself, have always advocated a restricted usage of Capital Punishment. It must be used as a charge, in which the jury must come to the concensus that the man or woman is indeed unfit to ever re-integrate into society while still relatively intact mentally. This punishment, in my opinion, would nearly be restricted to mass murders and terrorists. In addition, any person assigned to life in prison should be given the option of taking capital punishment instead.
|
I've always thought the use of it was an interesting subject. I'm for it myself, but in very extreme cases.
We must start with what jail stands for in the first place. It stands as a punishment to individuals for a crime. The punished is to learn that their crime is wrong and that they must change their methods.
The main advantage of Capital Punishment is that it will remove the people who we have deemed a hinderance to society. We don't have to deal with them, nor do we need to waste resources on his or her well being.
The problem with Capital Punishment is that it will lose any possible input to society that the person may give to society. In addition, we have, ourselves, killed an individual. This also ignores the moral questions that must be asked.
I, myself, have always advocated a restricted usage of Capital Punishment. It must be used as a charge, in which the jury must come to the concensus that the man or woman is indeed unfit to ever re-integrate into society while still relatively intact mentally. This punishment, in my opinion, would nearly be restricted to mass murders and terrorists. In addition, any person assigned to life in prison should be given the option of taking capital punishment instead.
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/7/2009 6:05:35 PM
|
rank:
|
I don't support capital punishment, and I kinda half agree with kirant. Yes, I can see it's use in those extreme cases, but I still can't 100% agree because it's still a state killing people.
|
I don't support capital punishment, and I kinda half agree with kirant. Yes, I can see it's use in those extreme cases, but I still can't 100% agree because it's still a state killing people.
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/7/2009 9:57:16 PM
|
rank:
|
zse45tgb - What would you use in extreme cases, where it's obvious that there is no hope of redeption or potential for society?
|
zse45tgb - What would you use in extreme cases, where it's obvious that there is no hope of redeption or potential for society?
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/9/2009 2:52:23 AM
|
rank:
|
I don't think it is right people decide whether or not someone deserves life or death based on the evidence that we use to convict. Sometimes trials end with a verdict that inspires great uncertainty. Look at OJ Simpson's trial for a rather famous example. Declared innocent by the court and the law when possibly half the population(maybe more) believes he was guilty.
And therea re hundreds of trials like that, there have been life sentences dealt to people later proven innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Imagine if they had been wrongly killed, there woul;d be an innocent death dealt by the law.
Eye for an eye and everyone ends up blind.
I kinda agtree with redfox3228 though. If we were able to convict with more certainty I'd feel differently, but even then I find the concept a bit vile... :/
With all due respect, jchansfan
|
I don't think it is right people decide whether or not someone deserves life or death based on the evidence that we use to convict. Sometimes trials end with a verdict that inspires great uncertainty. Look at OJ Simpson's trial for a rather famous example. Declared innocent by the court and the law when possibly half the population(maybe more) believes he was guilty.
And therea re hundreds of trials like that, there have been life sentences dealt to people later proven innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Imagine if they had been wrongly killed, there woul;d be an innocent death dealt by the law.
Eye for an eye and everyone ends up blind.
I kinda agtree with redfox3228 though. If we were able to convict with more certainty I'd feel differently, but even then I find the concept a bit vile... :/
With all due respect, jchansfan
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/9/2009 10:11:19 PM
|
rank:
|
I don't think it is right people decide whether or not someone deserves life or death based on the evidence that we use to convict. Sometimes trials end with a verdict that inspires great uncertainty. Look at OJ Simpson's trial for a rather famous example. Declared innocent by the court and the law when possibly half the population(maybe more) believes he was guilty.
Capital punishment, IMO, should be an extension of extreme crimes. I mean, it has never occured that a mass murder charge (to my knowledge) has been incorrectly done. In addition, crown prosecutors, who virtually always represents the general population in these cases, are very, very careful with their work.
And therea re hundreds of trials like that, there have been life sentences dealt to people later proven innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Imagine if they had been wrongly killed, there woul;d be an innocent death dealt by the law.
Which is why I've always felt that it is required only in the extreme cases.
|
I don't think it is right people decide whether or not someone deserves life or death based on the evidence that we use to convict. Sometimes trials end with a verdict that inspires great uncertainty. Look at OJ Simpson's trial for a rather famous example. Declared innocent by the court and the law when possibly half the population(maybe more) believes he was guilty.
Capital punishment, IMO, should be an extension of extreme crimes. I mean, it has never occured that a mass murder charge (to my knowledge) has been incorrectly done. In addition, crown prosecutors, who virtually always represents the general population in these cases, are very, very careful with their work.
And therea re hundreds of trials like that, there have been life sentences dealt to people later proven innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Imagine if they had been wrongly killed, there woul;d be an innocent death dealt by the law.
Which is why I've always felt that it is required only in the extreme cases.
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/9/2009 11:39:31 PM
|
Schoolsout
rank: 8282
|
A criminal kills someone because he feels like he has the right to it. When we kill someone with the death penalty, we also feel like we have a right to it. The only difference between the two is that with the criminal, his right is based on his individual values, whereas with the second the right is based on the values of the majority of society... the line is too thin in my opinion. I think that our legal system should exist for these purposes:
1. Punishing people with the intent of teaching them a lesson, so that they can be rehabilitated
2. Deterrence - the simple fact that someone will be punished if they commit whatever crime
3. Removing people from society through imprisonment if they're a danger to others
It shouldn't be some weird vindictive thing where we play god and decide that someone no longer has a right to exist. I simply don't believe that we as individuals or a society have any kind of right to do that.
|
A criminal kills someone because he feels like he has the right to it. When we kill someone with the death penalty, we also feel like we have a right to it. The only difference between the two is that with the criminal, his right is based on his individual values, whereas with the second the right is based on the values of the majority of society... the line is too thin in my opinion. I think that our legal system should exist for these purposes:
1. Punishing people with the intent of teaching them a lesson, so that they can be rehabilitated
2. Deterrence - the simple fact that someone will be punished if they commit whatever crime
3. Removing people from society through imprisonment if they're a danger to others
It shouldn't be some weird vindictive thing where we play god and decide that someone no longer has a right to exist. I simply don't believe that we as individuals or a society have any kind of right to do that.
|
|
• permalink
|
|
posted:
9/10/2009 4:33:59 PM
|
Schoolsout
rank: 4597
|
| QUOTE (kirant) | | What would you use in extreme cases, where it's obvious that there is no hope of redeption or potential for society? |
I dont believe that. If we were to stick them into a mental instituation, then bserve them, learn about them, then there would be a way to cure them, even if they were incredibly insane. Hitler created a genocide, because he was mentally unstable. If we could learn what made him and other people like him tick, then we can fiugre how to catch them and what drug to perscribe to them, or whatever.
The government should not have any right to kill people. If the government was allowed to kill killers, then whos next? First kilers, then how soon before any crime breakers? Its alot to jump too, sure, but its a possibilitiy.
ȣ-ÏŊȘƩƇŦǾ-ĦȺ₭₭Ⱥ-ȣ
ȣ-ƦȺ₱-ĦØÜŊĐ-ȣ
|
| QUOTE (kirant) | | What would you use in extreme cases, where it's obvious that there is no hope of redeption or potential for society? |
I dont believe that. If we were to stick them into a mental instituation, then bserve them, learn about them, then there would be a way to cure them, even if they were incredibly insane. Hitler created a genocide, because he was mentally unstable. If we could learn what made him and other people like him tick, then we can fiugre how to catch them and what drug to perscribe to them, or whatever.
The government should not have any right to kill people. If the government was allowed to kill killers, then whos next? First kilers, then how soon before any crime breakers? Its alot to jump too, sure, but its a possibilitiy.
ȣ-ÏŊȘƩƇŦǾ-ĦȺ₭₭Ⱥ-ȣ
ȣ-ƦȺ₱-ĦØÜŊĐ-ȣ
|
|
• permalink
|