This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Capital Punishment
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
buzz3070
im also not sure about were i stand on this issue but if it needs to be done (im not saying that we n eed to kill these people) then i would like to be absolutly 100%sure that he was the person who committed the crime none of this 99.9% chance he did it crap
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
43552
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
119742
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
That being said, I take my severe misanthropy coupled with
the current world population
of approximately 6.8 billion people into account when I say that I am fully for the death penalty.
Saying the death penatly should be allowed because there are to many people in the world is an ass backwards way of looking at it. Besides you would need to kill tens of millions yearly for it to have any effect
You also have to take into account that the money, as mentioned before, could be spent better otherwise, probably executing that one man costs more than supporting those 10 people in a thrid world country. But that's none of the US's problem.
I'm all for the "Hate the sin, love the man" approach, however, as MyTie mentioned, the biggest factor for putting Capital Punishment is deterrence, there is no justice in revenge.
Two wrongs rarely make a right.
Post by
146426
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
I wasn't being sarcastic. I think that public executions would send a very real message. It would at least get people involved in politics and the justice system again. We have to much of an out of sight out of mind community.
wat
The strange thing is, that's not a terrible idea. Only downside is, other countries will hate whoever starts it for being crazy oppressive tormentors or some$%^& like that.
On whether or not the act is just? Let's look at it the way I view most things:
A thoughtless pile of atoms ending the existence of another thoughtless pile of atoms because it did something else to a different pile of thoughtless atoms. Yea, things tend to be different when you break them down like that. Ending the existence of anything else is just stupid in my opinion.
What gives you the authority?
You're a superior pile of atoms?
Your logic and morals are superior to that of another pile of atoms?
They broke the rules of a hyporcritical and corrupt society created by more piles of atoms?
I think you should just lock 'em up for the rest of their life, no parole. Hell, they learn their lesson and even if they don't, they can't harm anyone. Torture isn't that bad eithier, no point though if you're locking them up...
Saudi Arabia already does that. I 100% with capital punishment, you are gonna think twice before murdering someone if you know that you will be killed, but some people might actually take life in prison for killing someone they really hate. It also stops those criminals from ever doing the crime again, and it can be really cheap and painless.
Post by
blademeld
100% with capital punishment, you are gonna think twice before murdering someone if you know that you will be killed
but some people might actually take life in prison for killing someone they really hate.
It also stops those criminals from ever doing the crime again, and it can be really cheap and painless.
100% deterrence means that there would be no murders.
100% chance to make people rethink a planned murder (1st degree) means nothing, they've already reviewed it.
100% chance to make people rethink third degree, or manslaughter, doesn't mean anything, because for it to be manslaughter, they couldn't have thought about killing them.
The only applicable case is second degree murder, and it's not increasing chance to review from 0%, most people will rethink their actions beforehand.
If they hate someone enough to take life imprisonment, they need therapy or a lawsuit against the other, not death.
The argument that the criminals can never do the crime again is stupid, if they're in prison with no parole, there's almost a nil chance of that happening anyways. Executions in US are much more expensive than life imprisonment, that's not even a valid point.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
Capital punishment is justifiable as a punishment
By definition, just = righteous
It's never right to kill a person on any basis, it's covered in their basic human rights.
By definition, it cannot be just.
I find people's belief that the criminal justice system should be about rehabilitation somewhat naive.
Indeed prison is worse than a school, it doesn't model a society. That's why they have therapy for the people who need it.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
If it's not psychological then it must be physical.
The person probably needs to go to the prison hospital.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
100% with capital punishment, you are gonna think twice before murdering someone if you know that you will be killed
but some people might actually take life in prison for killing someone they really hate.
It also stops those criminals from ever doing the crime again, and it can be really cheap and painless.
100% deterrence means that there would be no murders.
100% chance to make people rethink a planned murder (1st degree) means nothing, they've already reviewed it.
100% chance to make people rethink third degree, or manslaughter, doesn't mean anything, because for it to be manslaughter, they couldn't have thought about killing them.
The only applicable case is second degree murder, and it's not increasing chance to review from 0%, most people will rethink their actions beforehand.
If they hate someone enough to take life imprisonment, they need therapy or a lawsuit against the other, not death.
The argument that the criminals can never do the crime again is stupid, if they're in prison with no parole, there's almost a nil chance of that happening anyways. Executions in US are much more expensive than life imprisonment, that's not even a valid point.
-I was merely saying that whole "can't do it again" as an added plus.
-If it is more expensive, you are doing it wrong.
-I didn't really mean it as rethink, what I meant was that it would really make it not consider it very much; people like to live.
Just because someone hates another so much, it does not mean that he needs therapy.
Post by
blademeld
-I was merely saying that whole "can't do it again" as an added plus.
-If it is more expensive, you are doing it wrong.
-I didn't really mean it as rethink, what I meant was that it would really make it not consider it very much; people like to live.
Just because someone hates another so much, it does not mean that he needs therapy.
Pluses actually have to be pluses, on the contrary, those people could develop the cure for cancer in prison for all you know.
It's more expensive because you have to make sure the person is guilty, so multiple retrials as well as investigations are needed. If it's cheaper, you're doing it wrong.
What?
If someone hates another person to the extent of murder, by social norms, yes you need therapy.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.