Capital Punishment (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Roverbhoy
- Start date
If I Remember Correctly.
As to the topic under discussion, my answers are no and yes.
The way I see it, your right to life is part of the rights granted you by society, which are conditional on you maintaining the responibilities that come with it.
Too many people are hung up on peoples rights and not enough on their responsibilities.
As to the topic under discussion, my answers are no and yes.
The way I see it, your right to life is part of the rights granted you by society, which are conditional on you maintaining the responibilities that come with it.
Too many people are hung up on peoples rights and not enough on their responsibilities.
This is the main argument of people, who are against capital punishment: a miscarriage of justice.
I dont believe in that, not these days, not here.
Perhaps you watched too many American movies about trials.
Besides, in such cases, noone would get capital punishment without absolutely irrefutable evidences.
Again: not here.
I dont believe in that, not these days, not here.
Perhaps you watched too many American movies about trials.
Besides, in such cases, noone would get capital punishment without absolutely irrefutable evidences.
Again: not here.
In such cases, you will always have a little bit part of revenge in justice.
Cause it comes to people's feelings, emotions. They usually ask: how someone who killed 5 children, cause he likes doing that, should have right to live further?
So when some case is really cruel, disgusting, or threaten people's main rights, they say: it's not fair, that he lives, when he killed so many people.
Cause it comes to people's feelings, emotions. They usually ask: how someone who killed 5 children, cause he likes doing that, should have right to live further?
So when some case is really cruel, disgusting, or threaten people's main rights, they say: it's not fair, that he lives, when he killed so many people.
Here is something I wrote.....
Don’t Kill The Death Penalty!
The death penalty, legalized in the US in 1976 (R. Halperin), has been the focus of hundreds of papers, articles, and speeches. As it has slowly become more widespread, the already fierce debate over it has become increasingly controversial. Yet, as an institution, the death penalty has not yet reached its peak effectiveness. When it does, its benefits will be apparent to even the most stubborn critics. But even now, imperfect as it is, the death penalty is an effective and just institution.
Death is widely acknowledged, as the ultimate sanction-it is irrevocable. While this is one of the reasons that the death penalty has so many detractors, it is also one of the death penalty’s greatest strengths. A criminal that is dead can never commit another crime. An executed murderer will never kill again. It is the final measure for the worst criminals.
Who can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent? People quote statistics to that effect, but the statistics are easily misinterpreted, and are often presented in a biased way. For example, to quote David Bruck in a 1985 essay: “The state [Florida] went through almost all of 1983 without executing anyone: Its rate of intentional homicide declined by almost 17 percent. Last year [1984] Florida executed eight people-the most of any state, and the sixth highest total for any year since…. Elsewhere in the United States last year, the homicide rate continued to decline. But in Florida, it actually rose 5.1 percent.” While may seem valid judging on first impression. After all, where is the connection between the murder rate going up and the and the death penalty being established? The chances are that these two facts aren’t related-it defies common sense, and there are so many other factors that could cause the murder rate to rise. It could even be pure coincidence! And since there is no clear proof that the death penalty either deters murderers or not, it seems that we must rely on common sense. And what do you think would work best at keeping a 16-year-old boy from getting a ticket (i.e. breaking the speed limit) in his new car-the threat of not being allowed to drive for a month, or having his car permanently taken away from him?
There are many arguments against the death penalty, but few of them are strong or stand up to thorough analysis.
The assertion that the death penalty is immoral is one of the most common, and yet one of the weakest arguments used. The most common premise for this argument is God’s commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. However, this argument is refuted both by the fact that in the original Hebrew, the commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Murder”, not Thou shalt not kill, and even so, it wouldn’t be valid-there is no proof that there is a god, therefore it is logically invalid.
“There could be mistakes-innocent people could be executed.” This is a strong argument, but not against the death penalty-it is the court’s job to convict and sentence the right man-not the death penalty’s. That is like arguing that a judge’s decision in a competition is right or wrong, which is impossible. It is the judge who made the decision, there for it is the judge who is right or wrong.
“The death penalty is a huge drain of valuable state resources, with hundreds of sentenced inmates on the death row. There are people advocating the construction of expensive buildings specially for those on the death row.” But think about this-is it really the death penalty’s fault that so much money is being poured into it? Again, the answer is no. It is the systems fault-it is the systems fault that murderers and rapists aren’t dealt with promptly. Were the process more streamlined, then this problem would virtually disappear.
“The United States is the only major democracy to have a death penalty” The US gives more freedom to its citizens than just about any other country, ever. Therefore, the consequences for breaking its laws should be harsher. After all, “To him much is given, much is expected.”
In closing, after weighing these arguments, it seems that while the death penalty is neither perfectly administered nor utilized to greatest positive effect, it is still a just and moral institution. And while the judicial system may never be perfect, it can be made increasingly efficient, rendering the just laws of the United States increasingly effective.
Don’t Kill The Death Penalty!
The death penalty, legalized in the US in 1976 (R. Halperin), has been the focus of hundreds of papers, articles, and speeches. As it has slowly become more widespread, the already fierce debate over it has become increasingly controversial. Yet, as an institution, the death penalty has not yet reached its peak effectiveness. When it does, its benefits will be apparent to even the most stubborn critics. But even now, imperfect as it is, the death penalty is an effective and just institution.
Death is widely acknowledged, as the ultimate sanction-it is irrevocable. While this is one of the reasons that the death penalty has so many detractors, it is also one of the death penalty’s greatest strengths. A criminal that is dead can never commit another crime. An executed murderer will never kill again. It is the final measure for the worst criminals.
Who can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent? People quote statistics to that effect, but the statistics are easily misinterpreted, and are often presented in a biased way. For example, to quote David Bruck in a 1985 essay: “The state [Florida] went through almost all of 1983 without executing anyone: Its rate of intentional homicide declined by almost 17 percent. Last year [1984] Florida executed eight people-the most of any state, and the sixth highest total for any year since…. Elsewhere in the United States last year, the homicide rate continued to decline. But in Florida, it actually rose 5.1 percent.” While may seem valid judging on first impression. After all, where is the connection between the murder rate going up and the and the death penalty being established? The chances are that these two facts aren’t related-it defies common sense, and there are so many other factors that could cause the murder rate to rise. It could even be pure coincidence! And since there is no clear proof that the death penalty either deters murderers or not, it seems that we must rely on common sense. And what do you think would work best at keeping a 16-year-old boy from getting a ticket (i.e. breaking the speed limit) in his new car-the threat of not being allowed to drive for a month, or having his car permanently taken away from him?
There are many arguments against the death penalty, but few of them are strong or stand up to thorough analysis.
The assertion that the death penalty is immoral is one of the most common, and yet one of the weakest arguments used. The most common premise for this argument is God’s commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. However, this argument is refuted both by the fact that in the original Hebrew, the commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Murder”, not Thou shalt not kill, and even so, it wouldn’t be valid-there is no proof that there is a god, therefore it is logically invalid.
“There could be mistakes-innocent people could be executed.” This is a strong argument, but not against the death penalty-it is the court’s job to convict and sentence the right man-not the death penalty’s. That is like arguing that a judge’s decision in a competition is right or wrong, which is impossible. It is the judge who made the decision, there for it is the judge who is right or wrong.
“The death penalty is a huge drain of valuable state resources, with hundreds of sentenced inmates on the death row. There are people advocating the construction of expensive buildings specially for those on the death row.” But think about this-is it really the death penalty’s fault that so much money is being poured into it? Again, the answer is no. It is the systems fault-it is the systems fault that murderers and rapists aren’t dealt with promptly. Were the process more streamlined, then this problem would virtually disappear.
“The United States is the only major democracy to have a death penalty” The US gives more freedom to its citizens than just about any other country, ever. Therefore, the consequences for breaking its laws should be harsher. After all, “To him much is given, much is expected.”
In closing, after weighing these arguments, it seems that while the death penalty is neither perfectly administered nor utilized to greatest positive effect, it is still a just and moral institution. And while the judicial system may never be perfect, it can be made increasingly efficient, rendering the just laws of the United States increasingly effective.
yes and yes.
but under Islamic law, there are very very strict conditions for it to take place. (in other words, the punishment must fit the crime and it has to be %100 sure that the person in fact did commit the crime threw a trial, many witnesses or a confession...also, the person's state of mind must be examined because a lunatic can't be punished with death, nor a child...etc.)
but under Islamic law, there are very very strict conditions for it to take place. (in other words, the punishment must fit the crime and it has to be %100 sure that the person in fact did commit the crime threw a trial, many witnesses or a confession...also, the person's state of mind must be examined because a lunatic can't be punished with death, nor a child...etc.)
Would you feel the same way if someone walked into your home while you were away and killed your whole family?
I live in the US and obviously, we have it, and I agree that we should have it. Someone who would commit a crime as heinous as murder apparently has no value for life and the right to it, so why should they be given that right as well?
Because some of them are not regular people who can just be killed off, and how does killing a murderer make things better? I belive the real question is why do we punish? If the answer is revenge, then yes, capitol punishment is a good idea. If the answer is something else (and IMO it should be), then no.
We don't have capital punishment. It's been many many many many many many years since we got rid of it.
I don't agree with it. It just doesn't seem right. "Hey man! You killed someone, that's illegal, now we're gonna kill you" hmmmm....
But I understand that people would like to see the man who killed their brother, mother, sister, father, son, daughter, friend, wife, husband... dead. Just imagine how you'd feel towards a man who just killed your best friend or some relative.
Oh come on!!!!! F*ck! We have all these motherf*ckin' abbreviations for f*ckin everything. Cut the crap and start talking like a f*ckin' normal human being. Before you know it, we're talking like f*ckin robots. F*ck!
TISPMOFPGDYLAF <- try figuring that one out.
Just felt like getting that out, no offence to you Mikhail.
I don't agree with it. It just doesn't seem right. "Hey man! You killed someone, that's illegal, now we're gonna kill you" hmmmm....
But I understand that people would like to see the man who killed their brother, mother, sister, father, son, daughter, friend, wife, husband... dead. Just imagine how you'd feel towards a man who just killed your best friend or some relative.
Oh come on!!!!! F*ck! We have all these motherf*ckin' abbreviations for f*ckin everything. Cut the crap and start talking like a f*ckin' normal human being. Before you know it, we're talking like f*ckin robots. F*ck!
TISPMOFPGDYLAF <- try figuring that one out.
Just felt like getting that out, no offence to you Mikhail.
we are not gods usa.
we can not create and we have no right to take life from anyone.
i believe that imprisoned for whole life is worse than death.
and i also belive that ppl must dudge and punish up to a human level.
not God's.
if a person does not deserve to live,let God do what He thinks it's right.
we can not dudge if someone deserves life or not.
and even for my worst enemies i would not kill them.
i would let them suffer instead for their whole lie if possible.
so,in my mind....that';s worse than death.
and lastly,i agree sooooo much with gray.
why do we kill ppl,to teach ppl who kill ppl that killing ppl is wrong???
we can not create and we have no right to take life from anyone.
i believe that imprisoned for whole life is worse than death.
and i also belive that ppl must dudge and punish up to a human level.
not God's.
if a person does not deserve to live,let God do what He thinks it's right.
we can not dudge if someone deserves life or not.
and even for my worst enemies i would not kill them.
i would let them suffer instead for their whole lie if possible.
so,in my mind....that';s worse than death.
and lastly,i agree sooooo much with gray.
why do we kill ppl,to teach ppl who kill ppl that killing ppl is wrong???
i dont thing this capital punishment is correct at the moment.
what we should do with people who kidnap large familys and make milk shakes with them is torture them..When they get hanged, the pain is just fer a few minutes at most.
we should take them criminally insane bastards and do something alot heinous to them and THEN lock them up in a solitary life cell for life in the dark
what we should do with people who kidnap large familys and make milk shakes with them is torture them..When they get hanged, the pain is just fer a few minutes at most.
we should take them criminally insane bastards and do something alot heinous to them and THEN lock them up in a solitary life cell for life in the dark
