Capital Punishment (12 Viewers)

[Enron]

Killing a criminal is the best preventive way to make other people who may think of doing the same crime think twice before doing anything...

Not necessarily. The fact that the death penalty has been around for centuries, yet crimes still occur disproves that claim.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[HelterSkelter]

Its not about being superior or being inferior.Its about different situations.You are suggesting that taking a life is the same in all situations,regardless of wether it is ordered by a court of law upon a murderer,or wether it is done by a random citizen in Malice.

Going by what you're saying,If taking a life is the same in all situations,then the punishment should be the same too in all murder cases..regardless of factors like Neglect etc.But we all know that isnt the case.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

In your village of 50, yes. In the US apparently it costs more to execute people after 15 years in jail than just to keep them in jail. That's when you add all the costs of due process and so on.

Does economy trump humanity? Apparently in your view...

as you are a Marx i am a Hobbes, in man's state of nature that is

 

[HelterSkelter]

A person steals because he's broke. Another steals for sport. Which one should be killed?

When you start with the assumption that someone must die, there's no way out.

The assumption that someone should die should start and end on Murder.That is it.

 

[David01]

So your whole argument is based on the fact that the prison isn't safe enough. Which I agree is a damning accusation to a prison, it's their only cause. That doesn't make it okay to kill people, the moral argument hasn't changed.

which takes us back to the beginning
isn't society better off killing a convicted murdere and rapist who can never be allowed back in society
you are always referring to the unsafety of prisons but that is not really the point
he is a threat to anyone around him and always will be as long as he lives
why should society give him a free meal and shelter when it got only terror , pain and suffering in return?

 

[Martin]

Its not about being superior or being inferior.Its about different situations.You are suggesting that taking a life is the same in all situations,regardless of wether it is ordered by a court of law upon a murderer,or wether it is done by a random citizen in Malice.

Going by what you're saying,If taking a life is the same in all situations,then the punishment should be the same too in all murder cases..regardless of factors like Neglect etc.But we all know that isnt the case.

No, it's not the same. Nevertheless it's wrong no matter the circumstances. You might say that a man who catches his wife cheating and kills her in a moment of "passion" deserves more sympathy than the serial killer, but is he still going to jail? Yes, he is. Probably not forever, he might get out in 15 years. The serial killer won't.

You just don't think jail is bad enough, do you?

The assumption that someone should die should start and end on Murder.That is it.

I think you've just defined barbarism.

 

[ReBeL]

Not necessarily. The fact that the death penalty has been around for centuries, yet crimes still occur disproves that claim.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact. This hypothesis is widely disputed.

A study by Emory university in Georgia in 2002 concluded that every execution resulted in around 18 fewer serious crimes...

And all of us know that the human would do many forbidden things if not knowing in advance he will be punished badly for it.

 

[Martin]

which takes us back to the beginning
isn't society better off killing a convicted murdere and rapist who can never be allowed back in society
you are always referring to the unsafety of prisons but that is not really the point
he is a threat to anyone around him and always will be as long as he lives
why should society give him a free meal and shelter when it got only terror , pain and suffering in return?

Because we are not barbarians?

 

[Martin]

A study by Emory university in Georgia in 2002 concluded that every execution resulted in around 18 fewer serious crimes...

Check earlier in the thread. There have been studies quoted that negate the assumption you make.

And all of us know that the human would do many forbidden things if not knowing in advance he will be punished badly for it.

That's why we have laws and police.

 

[Martin]

as you are a Marx i am a Hobbes, in man's state of nature that is

You love talking so that most people don't understand, don't you? I try my best, I swear

 

[ReBeL]

why should society give him a free meal and shelter when it got only terror , pain and suffering in return?

Nice question. The criminal has used the resources which were avaliable to him in a very bad way. He should not be dealt with like a normal person, because simply he is NOT.

 

[David01]

Martin I think it is safe to say we agree to disagree
no hard feelings but we cannot expect to solve such a delicate discussion on a forum
you believe prison is an adequate punishment and I believe that in some cases society is better off with a death-sentence
that sums it up right doesn't it?

 

[HelterSkelter]

Ah, so heinous crimes would be given the death penalty.

Because sentences are handed down by either a panel, jury or judge a justice system can never be flawless. Human error, emotions, experience, as well as cultural and ethnic biases are all factors that could give the wrong sentence to the wrong fellow. Even with a strong appellate court system, bad cases slip through the cracks. A simple case study of Texas executions over the last fifteen years will reflect that.(Just trust me)

That said no Justice system will ever be flawless no matter how complete or good it is. Therefore there is no chance that an alleged criminal will always be treated the same. And as every murder case is different there can be no precedents to set standards. The sentence of death has been and will always be an imperfect science and people who probably shouldn't get the death penalty from time to time be sentenced to just that. So since there can never be a flawless justice system you cannot always be 100% sure when sentencing a person to death.

Another note: Why not accommodate the innocent? After all they are who the Justice system in any country is there to protect.

Removing a punishment to accomodate the innocent means that you also unwillingly accomodate the guilty.Im not talking about Capital Punishment alone here,but all sorts of punishments.I wouldnt say that every Murder case is different.The reasons behind murder are not inifiniate in number.Theoretically,there is a precedent in Law.You cannot go against a ruling given in the past on a similar case that you are handling at present.I fully go by the 'innocent until proven guilty' notion,which is why i mentioned on the last page that a person who has been correctly found guilty of murder,should be executed,but if there is even a shred of doubt in the entire case,then he is innocent and he should avoid punishment.The system of justice cannot be 100% flawless everytime,but there will be transparent cases from time to time,and the murderer in these transparent cases should not escape execution simply because the punishment was removed to protect the innocent.

 

[ReBeL]

That's why we have laws and police.

When you know in advance that police won't kill you whatever your crime is, then you won't fear them at all, and you'll kill everybody that disagrees with you knowing that you'll get free meals and shelter in prison for years and years for nothing but a crime.

 

[Martin]

When you know in advance that police won't kill you whatever your crime is, then you won't fear them at all, and you'll kill everybody that disagrees with you knowing that you'll get free meals and shelter in prison for years and years for nothing but a crime.

I reiterate. Your personal belief does not magically become fact.

In this country noone gets killed by the police for any crime, and that doesn't make people kill even for the promise of free food and shelter.

 

[David01]

I have to agree with Martin here, I believe there can absolutely be no margin for errors when you talk about death penalty
too many men in the US (to name one) have been sentenced to die and later were found innocent
I have always been talking of cases were there is absolutely no doubt that this person is a danger to society lacks any form of respect for another human being without any chance of rehabilitating him
only then can this form of punishment be even considered

 

[Enron]

A study by Emory university in Georgia in 2002 concluded that every execution resulted in around 18 fewer serious crimes...

And all of us know that the human would do many forbidden things if not knowing in advance he will be punished badly for it.

It's really difficult to prove a strong correlation between execution and crime rate. Especially when you consider variables such as increased police presences, stronger non lethal penalities, and the fact that the majority of crime tends not to end it murder. Add those in with the fact that executions aren't widely publicized and its easy to see how the correlation may not equal a causation in this case. I believe the publication you're referring to has been questioned and criticized rather heavily since 2002.

 

[Martin]

Martin I think it is safe to say we agree to disagree
no hard feelings but we cannot expect to solve such a delicate discussion on a forum
you believe prison is an adequate punishment and I believe that in some cases society is better off with a death-sentence
that sums it up right doesn't it?

Well, it's your choice. To me it seems like you would sleep better at night if this guy Marc was dead. I think we should hold prisons to a standard high enough that people like him don't escape. I also think we should hold ourselves to a decent standard.

 

[David01]

Well, it's your choice. To me it seems like you would sleep better at night if this guy Marc was dead. I think we should hold prisons to a standard high enough that people like him don't escape. I also think we should hold ourselves to a decent standard.

oh I sleep fine thank you. Apparently I'm not such a humanist as you are.
I believe some human life just isn't worthy of being
you asked for a standard, well I talked about my standard before
at a certain point I think you lose your right of living
not as a rule but as an exeption
you can't just take other lives without possibly losing the right of your own life
somewhere down the line it stops

 

[Martin]

you can't just take other lives without possibly losing the right of your own life

Interesting statement. With wide implications concerning those who execute as well as those who kill.