Death Penalty

[Admiral Odin]

After thinking about I want to know what everybody here thinks. So here is my question.

 

1.Should we have a death penalty?

 

2.Should it be viewable to the public?

 

3.Shoudl it be nice, or should it be painful?

 

This is for a discusion in a class so please answer them and not hijack this until later.

 

------------------

"Dulce bellum inexpertis."

(Sweet is war to those who have never experinced it.) Roman Proverb

[Taarkin]

1) Yup.

2) Hmm, probably not.

3) Sorry, no cruel punishment.

 

------------------

Was I supposed to eat the heads too? 'Cause I took nooo prisioners!

 

Once again, evil is defeated through the use of decorative agricultural technology!

 

Official forum Psychic

[Admiral Odin]

I forgot to post my views.

 

1.yes.

2.yes (the public needs to see the consquence of their actions)

3.it should be painful, people avoid pain, so they would avoid doing crime if it promises a lot of pain.

 

------------------

"Dulce bellum inexpertis."

(Sweet is war to those who have never experinced it.) Roman Proverb

[Nitro]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Painful as hell... I think we should bring back tar and feathering.

[Nitro]

On the other hand, I also think that in the case of capital punishment, the phrase "... beyond a reasonable doubt..." should be replaced with "...with not one inkling of a thought to the contrary..."

 

And there should be a minimum period between sentencing and execution of 20 years... 15 at the very least.

 

Canada, as you may know, has not had capital punishment for a very long time... And I think that most of Canada regretted that during the trial of Paul Bernado and Karla Homolka for their murder/rape of two young women. I would still like to see those two people hanged.

[JR2000Z]

1. Umm...no- government killing the criminal is exactly the same thing as the criminal killing the public. Their death wont bring lost loved ones back. 1000 Life sentences is fine though

 

2. Sure, not much is good on TV these days.

 

3. Whats the point? The criminals going to die...

[Admiral Zaarin]

I'm only going to answer question 1 - NO.

The death penalty, IMO, is no better than cold-blooded murder. The taking of a life is wrong. Period.

I have heard the deterrant argument, but that simply does not come anywhere near making up for it. Besides, spending the rest of your life confined to a small space, cut off from the outside world is just as much of a deterrant.

[Guest Rogue 9]

Yes

No

Yes

 

maybe something equal to their crime would be appropriate, so if they say used an axe to murder someone they would then be beat with an axe, this would deter any reasonable person...for lesser crimes such as graffiti I think we should line 'em up on a wall in front of about twenty people with paintball guns and light them up, or we could just beat them like in singnapor(sp?)

 

[This message has been edited by Rogue 9 (edited May 13, 2001).]

[Nute Gunray]

Three words: HANG 'EM HIGH

[Nute Gunray]

Originally posted by JR2000Z:

government killing the criminal is exactly the same thing as the criminal killing the public.

 

NO ABSOLUTELY NOT.

It's called "PUNISHMENT." COLD BLOODED MURDER isn't what an execution is. An execution is the forfeiture of the life of a criminal because he took someone's life away from someone.

The instant you pulled the trigger, thrust the screwdriver, blew up your carbomb, whatever, you forfeited your right to exist.

Or think of this: you damage someone's property so they make you pay back damages on it to whatever the value of the property was. So you destroy someone's life so you have to pay back something of equal value. What's equal to someone's life? ANOTHER LIFE, I.E. YOURS.

[Keyan Farlander]

In general, I don't think there should be one. The circumstances that I would find acceptable for its use do not exist in the United States today.

[Admiral Zaarin]

You can't measure the 'value' of a life. What right have we to decide when it is given and taken away? IMHO, none whatsoever.

[Guest rosencrantz]

i'm not totally sure what i think about the death penalty. there are positives and negatives to either side.

 

my one comment is this: in Asian countries where punishment is so severe for small infractions of the law, there are less violent crimes. i wonder if north america counldnt learn from this...

 

and my one final word: CANE-ING

(as you can see, i wasn't sure how to spell it)

CANING, PEOPLE! CANE-ING!

[Nute Gunray]

Originally posted by Admiral Zaarin:

You can't measure the 'value' of a life.

 

Aren't all lives inherently equal? You can't say that one life isn't equal to another. A person is a person.

A cop shot by some drug dealer is just as dead as the people blown up by McVeigh, but since it was "only" one cop the drug dealer gets life, but since McVeigh killed 168 then he gets killed because of sheer numbers?

 

 

[Guest Redwing]

1. Yes, but I think it should be "quite beyond reasonable doubt." IE there's NO DOUBT but that the person is guilty. Otherwise I'd say life sentence.

 

2. I really never thought about that...

 

3. NO. No torture, it's inhumane and immoral as well IMHO.

 

------------------

At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi.

At last we will have revenge.

[ME_Jeldren]

1. only for truly findish criminals the rest should be sent to labor

camps.

2. not public execution

3. no torture

 

[Flying Beastie]

1. No.

 

2. No.

 

3. No cruel & unusual punishment.

 

I "studied" (i.e., listened to the teacher's informed, incontrovertible statements ) CP in Moral Reasoning class. From the evidence teach' brought up (from government studies and statistical analysis), deterrence isn't really a factor.

 

Logically, deterrence just won't work against criminals who don't consider getting caught.

 

In general, you'll find that people contemplating murder/suicide aren't at their intellectual best.

 

------------------

"Do fish-people eat fish, or would that be like humans eating monkeys?"

"Humans do eat monkeys. In fact humans eat other humans. . . Y'know, as a species, we are really quite unpleasant."

[Rogue Nine]

I gotta draw on my religious beliefs for this one. No one has any right to be in control of anyone else's fate. I'm drawing this from the Bible. But as is seen, God uses violence and killing to accomplish his goals. So I'm not sure what I believe...

[Admiral Zaarin]

Originally posted by Nute Gunray:

Aren't all lives inherently equal? You can't say that one life isn't equal to another. A person is a person.

A cop shot by some drug dealer is just as dead as the people blown up by McVeigh, but since it was "only" one cop the drug dealer gets life, but since McVeigh killed 168 then he gets killed because of sheer numbers?

 

In a way, you are correct, but still, my basic point was that I simply don't think we have any right to pass judgement on a life, no matter how vile and evil. I do have some extreme opinions when it comes to things like this though, such as being against the killing of even insects, so I'm probably in a minority here.

 

Also, another point to consider is that no trial is perfect. There just can't be 'no doubt'. In many cases, people have claimed this, then innocence has been proven years too late, when nothing can be done about it.

[Guest garyah99]

1. NO

2. HECK NO

3. N/A

 

100 years in solitary confinement would be much more painful.

 

[This message has been edited by garyah99 (edited May 14, 2001).]

[Guest Rogue 9]

of course that would cost us millions to feed and take care of the murdering slob for the rest of his life, we could just beat him everyday that would be okay.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Rogue Nine:

I gotta draw on my religious beliefs for this one. No one has any right to be in control of anyone else's fate. I'm drawing this from the Bible. But as is seen, God uses violence and killing to accomplish his goals. So I'm not sure what I believe...

 

God told the Jews that the punishment for certain crimes was death. This was often needed for the protection of the whole comminuty. These days it is practical to lock someone up for the rest of his life - in those days, it was not. So, you might say that the death penalty is OK from a Christian perspective when the safety of the community is threatened. In our country today, however, we do not HAVE to kill ciminals to protect society from them, so it should really be avoided, in my opinion.

 

 

[Rogue Nine]

That's somewhat my point, Keyan.

 

I just think that killing is wrong, even though some people richly deserve to be rotting in hell.

 

------------------

Love people. Use things. Not vice versa.

XWA's Resident Finance Manager

[Guest Rogue 9]

it was practical for people to be locked up for there whole lifes then perhaps more practical then it is now. Some people just need to die, I beilieve Murder is Wrong, I do not beleive self defense is wrong. a cop can shoot someone before their gun clears the holster and it is self defense, a murderer will kill again it is a proactive deense to remove them from society before they can do more harm.

[Nute Gunray]

The Catholic Church also supports the death penalty. Always has. (The Pope doesn't, but official policy does).

Are you ALSO aware that 'life' is usually 35 years? That means that if I killed someone today, I could conceivably get out of prison when I'm 54. Is that justice? No.

What about war criminals? The captured Nazi high command guys (the convicted ones) were all hung. Do you anti-death penalty people think that they shouldn't have died? What about this guy that drove around Pittsburgh last year and killed five people and gloated about it? He's getting the death penalty.

There's no question the Nazis did those crimes and that guy in Pittsburgh, hell i saw him do it on TV. We can't pass judgement on THOSE?