Your opinion on the Death Sentence?

[Grega]

That might class as torture and encouraging suicide. Sure, they need to be punished and reformed but that would be far too cruel.

**** cruel, they murdered in cold blood. No **** like self defence or something like that. Now im against torture but a little mental stress here and there is OK for someone who decided to kill someone for what ever stupid reason they could think of.

 

[Brosiris]

B. Did you intend to kill your friend? Then I don't intend to kill you. That's what I mean by justice.

No, I didn't intend to kill my friend. That's why this is an accident. Yes, I would have done it differently if given the chance. Am I free to leave, and roam the earth a free man?

 

[Skiwan]

It is not the state, or governments place to carry out acts of vengeance.

I believe, that if you have a justice system in a society that says that there is any kind of authority over human life, you perpetuate that there is a condition that exists where it is acceptable to kill. There are no conditions in which the death of a human being is acceptable. The eye for an eye attitude is degenerative, it's an archaic view of the world where our concept of good and evil is black and white, and that somebody somewhere is able to distinguish that there is just cause in murder, and that human rights are nothing but what we entitle people to where we see fit. This is not only a question of justice, but the kind of society that you want to live in, something progressive, or a society that lets its morality and principles slide for the blood thirst of those who are too short sighted to understand the bigger picture. Eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind.

Death penalty is not a deterrent, generally, people who do these terrible things aren't thinking about what they're going to get when they get caught, because 9 times out of 10, they do them because they think they can avoid getting caught. It's just arrogant slaughter, and I wouldn't want to take part in any kind of society that condones it.

 

[Pain]

Correlation does not imply causation, my friend. Statistics 101.

I really must apologize, you're right, I should have payed more attention in that statistics class. Just like the chances of getting mugged rises sharply when walking alone at night in a bad neighborhood, it's not like one has anything to do with the other one, just correlation and no causation. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

It's possible you read too much into what I was saying. Maybe you thought I was saying that being religious promotes ignorance and ignorance promotes crime. It's possible that you came to the conclusion that I meant over 90% of American convicts are religious, and thus being religious has a higher probability of landing you in jail or committing otherwise immoral actions. Perhaps you deduced that I was referring to the hypocritical nature of religion, with the majority of teen pregnancy also occurring in more religious states.

In any event, I just supply the facts, you'll take it how you want to take it.

:heart:

 

[Brosiris]

The attitude I'm talking about is "I say hitting children to teach them not to hit is the way to go. But that's just me.". I'm assuming I'm right in taking that as an analogy for how people should be treated, not literally talking about children for some reason.

Do you teach adults not to hit? No, you don't. You teach children. Why? Because children have no rights, and presumably in this case, no morals. If a child hits another child, sibling, what-have-you, you tell them not to do it. Different people teach in different ways. Some children get beaten, some get scolded, some get both.

Yes, I was being literal, with a metaphorical and sarcastic hint.

I was comparing the death penalty with teaching children not to hit other people by hitting them.

Do you think hitting a child to teach them not to hit is a good idea? I sure don't. So what do you think my views on the death penalty are?

I'm against the death penalty. I don't think it's anyone's right to take the life of another. It's not the murderer's right to kill someone, just like it's not my right to say "You should be sentenced to death".

Does it not make the person executing the murderer just as bad as the murderer? Someone has to flip the switch, inject the needle, pull the trigger, light the match, etc. They're murderers as well, should they not be sentenced to death?

 

[Majin_You]

In any event, I just supply the facts, you'll take it how you want to take it.

:heart:

Which is why you went into a whole line of reasoning that may or may not rely on spurious links?

 

[Deman]

To me, life is a right, not a privilege. Having a death penalty seems to imply that life is indeed a privilege that can be taken away from you.

 

[Disguise]

Type-O, I don't know anything about you or the situation, but at the very least, I'd say you shouldn't be killed for it. There could be possibilities of preventitive measures to be taken for the future on whatever input you might've had to increase your awareness or whatnot, but I don't think that'd be considered consequence.

Skiwan, I agree with the eye for an eye thing. That's why I'd put him in solitude and let him take both of his eyes, since he clearly can't see the value in himself or others to begin with. Self-redemption is a far greater recovery and lasting inspiration than deciding his fate for him. If he can stand his own company, which for a killer is no easy task, then that's when we begin to help him. Love is the only thing that would get him through a few years in solitude. And after you get out, I think you're more apt to want to talk to people than to kill them. Anyhow, I'm curious what your solution would be.

Type-O, it's interesting you brought up the rights of a child. They have no rights, responsibilities, or moralities. The same could probably be said about cold blood killers. Age is a very generalized standard, and I bet most killers had problems growing up and the part of the brain that matures was stunted. I took a few psychology courses, so I'm under the impression this connection exists. So once you know the problem, you're generally able to find a solution.

Pain, as far as the religious correlations go, I don't think people who are truly religious would go killing others. The wrong religion excludes others and judges them selfishly. Maybe most people who are caught killing say they're religious as an appeal. Most witnesses are either religious or believe in religion, so it's a safe card to play if you're caught. How many of these killers went to church regularly or donated their time to the community... willingly? It's easy to claim you're something you're not.

 

[Brosiris]

Oh, in that case I'm sorry. I thought it was bad thinking of people as children or dogs who need to be punished and taught right from wrong, now I see that's the point you were making anyway.

You thought wrong. Might as well play along since you insist on acting like a child

As for Disguise, how do you know I'm not lying? If I say I killed someone on accident; how do you know I'm telling the truth? Point of the story is this: You can't believe everything everyone tells you. Especially in a case like this. Sure different situations call for different measures. But murder is murder is murder. Fact is, Person A killed Person B. And if one murderer should be sentenced to death, shouldn't all of them? Also, how do you know for a fact Person A is telling the truth or not? What if they're lying (about killing someone or about not killing someone)? Many innocent people are imprisoned and sentenced to death each year. Is it worth sacrificing those lives so some murderers will be sentenced to death while others may not?

Age isn't a general term in the U.S. Age specifically defines what some people may or may not do, which is exactly why i brought it up. Children, people under the age of 18 in America, by technicality, and by law, have no rights or opinions, amongst other things. However, adults 18 years of age and older, do. Fact is, a child, depending on age, may not know right from wrong. Or may have an obscure way of thinking, while an adult, should, through either the teachings of another, or by their own personal experienced, understand what is right and what is wrong. In the world today, that should not be hard, as we have people to police the laws, one should already know that if they commit murder, they may, and most likely will, suffer the consequences.

Do I agree with 100% of the law? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean I'm going to defy it.

 

[Chakra-X]

I loooove threads like these. I wish my history/writing classes discussed things like this. This is probably full of grammar errors I really do not feel like correcting.

Fortnox has actually made me think about things. nuttzy's view of an eye for an eye would be invigorating had I had the chance to kill the person who would have murdered my family member. But such a black and white idea seems so...neanderthal for us now.

I do not think killing is always wrong. I do not support the death penalty because it's not 100% full proof. The courts can't simply say "oops, our bad" when they kill an innocent. If the only way to protect yourself from harm is to kill the assailant, then do what must be done. Revenge on the other hand...I think it does make you feel better. Movies (yes, movies) sometimes make it seem like "oh hey you got your revenge...But it does not make you feel any better", no I think you would enjoy it. But not every case is so simple like that.

I agree that the American justice system, and the same goes for probably the entire world, is immensely flawed. It is the job of the accuser to come up with enough evidence to convince the jury/judge that the defendant is guilty. Sometimes it's a no brainer, and then sometimes it's extremely sketchy. Then you have human bias, intimidation, etc. If every action in the world was recorded by some sentient being who would come down in an Italian suit to every court hearing to show what exactly took place, then that would work. But of course it is impossible, so we leave a person's life up to a flawed system, to which its excuse is "the best we got for now".

But regarding fortnox's notion of rehabilitation. Like he said, it would work great in theory. In a logical world. As society, would we want a man who has raped and critically injured a 15 year old to be "assisted"? That reminds me (note, this is not a direct analogy) of a dog murdering a baby and then saying "bad dog", hoping to teach him not to do it.

I feel there is evil in the world, not just "misguided" people. A civilized world has standards. In a logical world, we would want to teach people how to live by these standards and if they stray away, try to help them.

But we are not robots. Let's say the man who killed my family, who just happens to be a sociopath, gets taken in and is enrolled in a process to teach him not to do that. What if he is just physically not capable of understanding that random murder is wrong? He must be locked away since he is unfit to live in our society.

But then you have me. I no longer have a family because of that man. I want that man to suffer. My most raw feelings want my hands around his neck. And yet, as advanced as we are, shouldn't I feel comfort knowing that he can not harm again? That I must move on since his suffering will not bring my family back? I must hate him, but I must bottle up that hatred. That takes a lot of will power to move on with life and be content with the "rehabilitation" of the killer.

As sick as this sounds, the reassurance that the perpetrator got his just deserts works for many of us still. It taps in to the most primal of out emotions, but we are animals. We're pretty damn advanced, but are we at the point to ignore such drives?


And crime is not always due to poverty. The rich commit crimes too, so what is their excuse? More wealth/power? I do not think humans could live in a long term society where everyone made around the same amount of money and had the same life styles (wait a tic, doesn't Sweden or Norway or someplace do this?). Suburbanite kids steal all the time, and yet they have everything they need.

The prison/death penalty punishment idea is a "don't do this or else" strategy, and like Skiwan said, many people do not plan on getting caught. I would be all for going after the source so that these rapists, thieves, and murders are not created. But that is a tremendous road to pave and you need to do more than throw money at it.

I do not rape. I do not kill. I do not rob people. I can sit back in my suburban house on my Macbook Pro and say that easily. Stealing is a necessity if you are in poverty sometimes. Killing can be a desperate measure to obtain what you feel keeps you alive. Rape can be a product of loose morals bred trough such a life style and just another concept of power. But no one in their right mind would dare pity people who perform such acts.

"I'm just doing what I have to do to survive" is not a valid excuse for killing a person for their iPod or raping a woman in an alley. But if we can not kill this person, we lock them up. I find it funny that people feel that another human has no right to take a life away, but has the right to bar a person from freely "living" his life.



Dear me I am just spurting out things from my brain...In Closing---

If we could eliminate poverty and hunger, the majority of crime in the world would vanish obviously. If the world was a simulation program, it would work. But people would have to sacrifice for others to have. Many of us live relatively comfortably I bet, and if everyone were to have the same life styles, the wealth would have to be spread around. The "every man for himself" is an insufficient strategy. But right now, we DO have poverty and we DO have crimes, ranging from negligible to horrendous. I think "no one has the right to kill" is a black and white idea in itself. The government should not have a right to orderly decide that it is okay to stop a life, but things like war and self protection are different.

The "punishment" system is inadequate on paper...But again, we can visualize logical worlds, but we may not have the mindset to carry them out yet. The more technology improves, the more civilized we become. I never liked the "turn the cheek" ideology because it can not work yet. It's one thing to protect the rest of the innocent from a currently dangerous criminal, but this world has consequences, such as jail, for doing bad things. Throwing drug dealers and muggers in to jail does not halt the process, so I think stronger security is only part of the solution. We need to stop spending all this money trying to kill one person with a needle and direct it towards neighborhoods and programs that are designed bring communities to levels where murder and rape are no longer options to certain residents.

But if you commit a crime, you should not get off scott free just because you are sorry and have "seen the light". You should be punished.

 

[Chakra-X]

Why?

-----
Incidentally, I didn't want to reply to everything, I tried to avoid areas that would result in circular thinking or notions we'll disagree on by nature.

When I became 18, sometimes I would actually think "wow, if I committed this crime and got caught, I could go to jail". While these were hypothetical situations, I still worried over the idea of being sent to prison since it was "for real" at this age and I may not get a mulligan. I actually wished the system was a little bit more lax because some 'crimes' should not lock you up with others, especially is it's the ass-raping prisons.

Murder can be heinous. I say "can' because it can range from accidental, 'temporary insanity', premeditate, etc. Instead of using the "psychopathic killer", who I believe is probably unaffected by 'help' and is unfit for our society, I'll use a more conventional example.

Two men get an argument, they take it outside, gets out of hand and man A shoots man B and he dies. Man A could have been raised or taught better to control his anger and to be more responsible with his firearm. But he is not a child or mentally retarded, and he unnecessarily killed a man.

I am sitting here trying to find a cause and effect reason to why imprisoning him would be best for society. The only thing I can come up with is "another criminal off the street" and "discourage similar behabiors", but that can only do so much. My strongest feeling is "he deserves it", but I am not in an irrational rage and I have carefully analyzed my feelings and "he deserves it" still sticks.

Again, if a computer controlled the world, I would think he would try to teach the killer and correct the "error". I actually hope I am being pessimistic, but I do not think we can ignore all of the feelings of pity, anger, hatred, sorrow, and disgust that develop from certain crimes and simply narrow on the logical method.

And just to add, the phrase "death penalty" is a rather cold one. "5 yard loss" is a penalty, and a human elimination. Again, I am not against killing in certain circumstances, but some laws essentially say "don't do this, or else we will kill you".

 

[Nuttzy]

in all honesty, if this is the way the world is going.

seeing as im unemployed and running out of money, i may as well go murder my neighbor. Whats the worst that could happen, they put a roof over my head and feed me, for free?

 

[shadowcast]

no no, murder a kid that'd give you life sentence

 

[Sicron]

in all honesty, if this is the way the world is going.

seeing as im unemployed and running out of money, i may as well go murder my neighbor. Whats the worst that could happen, they put a roof over my head and feed me, for free?

So the message you want to send to young children is "Kill and be killed"? Yes it may scare them off, but I can sense some kind of morality problem there. You're not allowed to kill someone, unless that person has killed someone else, then it's just fine.

"You shall not murder"

That's one of the 10 commandments, of which I think the entire legal system is based on (do correct me if I am wrong though). Is killing suddenly justified just because they killed someone? Is it moral? Is it ethical? No, no, no, it isn't. Yes, it sucks immensely that you cannot get your revenge because they killed one of your loved ones, but that still doesn't justify to brutally end a brutes life.

Lock them up, it shows them you can show compassion, something they couldn't. It shows them (and the outside world) that you are humane, something they weren't. That's the message you want to send to younger children. Just because someone did something bad, doesn't mean you have to return the favor with equal force. Think outside of that box, think different. Maybe then, you can make a difference.

Learning your children to not kill, or else they will be put to death sentence isn't what you should learn them. Don't learn them that the consequences of their actions would suck for them. Learn them why you shouldn't kill; it-is-just-wrong.

 

[Eon]

I still think Chain Gangs were the way to go.

 

[Brosiris]

If kill or be killed was the answer, wouldn't the human race become extinct?

Guy A kills Guy B, Guy A is sentenced to death. Guy C kills guy A, Guy C should die for killing guy A correct? And then it's an endless road from there.

 

[Darth Revan]

think of it like this the longer they hold prisoners the more the tax payers rates go up

 

[sub]

Madman, it costs more money to put someone to death then it does keeping him in jail for life.

 

[Brosiris]

think of it like this the longer they hold prisoners the more money we save

Fixed it for you.
You're welcome.

 

[Synth]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32875308/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001

If anyone cares.