jonathan7 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Oh, no, Ctrl. My family does not produce human trash, owing no doubt to our superior genes . My family is a safe, effective means of reproduction, with no hazardous byproducts. That's a matter of opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 If I had to make a choice one way or the other, I would be against the death penalty. The US in the only first-world country that continues to exercise capital punishment. It may have little or no weight, but it simply is an undesirable practice that the US should should terminate. The penalty of a life sentence is great enough that the death penalty would barely have any effect on crime rates. If a person is willing to risk life in prison, I don't see how he could be any more deterred by death. There is no confirmation that states with the death penalty have lower rates of extreme crimes than those without. There is also the matter of executing an innocent. There have been many cases where the defendant has been executed, but later exonerated. You can't free a dead man. Instead, those murders were done by the state. It is simply hypocritical if the state won't set a proper example. As for the burden of imprisonment vs. execution... it is very inefficient to execute. If it was cheaper and easier to execute rather than imprison... maybe there would be merit in that. For now, that's not the case. Executions are much more difficult to implement than a decade of imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnseyy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Let me elaborate on my opinion... Going on what's been said, I'd hate it if I were the person in question to be sentenced to death, because the judge misjudged me, I was wrongly accused, or it was a complete accident. But if someone is imprisoned for killing, set free, kills again, imprisoned, and this cycle goes on - is that more humane than just executing the killer? I'm not saying killing people is right, and someone said it before... I hate the 'you're no better than such a person' argument, but only because I know it's right. Maybe if they knew the punishment, there wouldn't be so many murder incidents. Although another argument can come into it - all killers have to be somewhat mentally unstable, so is it okay to execute someone who just needs help? Is it okay to excuse someone who is seeking revenge on a murderer? All in all, the death penalty is never going to come back in, and if it does, people will probably take the law into their own hands. If there's a chance it can decrease crime, there's always the chance it can increase crime, and whilst I hate the idea of murderers walking about the street, and want them to just stop, we'd be hiring murderers to kill murderers. If you ask me, that's a bit out of control. If anything, prisons should keep people for longer but the prisons are overflowing. But that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Although another argument can come into it - all killers have to be somewhat mentally unstable, so is it okay to execute someone who just needs help? Is it okay to excuse someone who is seeking revenge on a murderer? All in all, the death penalty is never going to come back in, and if it does, people will probably take the law into their own hands. If there's a chance it can decrease crime, there's always the chance it can increase crime, and whilst I hate the idea of murderers walking about the street, and want them to just stop, we'd be hiring murderers to kill murderers. If you ask me, that's a bit out of control. If anything, prisons should keep people for longer but the prisons are overflowing. But that's another story. Murder is murder... it doesn't matter if it's revenge or serial killing. Unless it is done in self-defense, taking the life of one who could either be imprisoned or neutralized is murder. It doesn't matter if it's a serial murderer or an innocent who is the victim... the question is not if one deserves to die... it's whether another has to right to kill. I'm not a supporter of legal executions, but I know that there are individuals who are too extreme a threat to simply be imprisoned. I would rather limit the number of executions to ONLY the limited number who are considered too extreme a threat to simply imprison. As for how to determine who meets to criteria is another issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnseyy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Murder is murder... it doesn't matter if it's revenge or serial killing. Unless it is done in self-defense, taking the life of one who could either be imprisoned or neutralized is murder. It doesn't matter if it's a serial murderer or an innocent who is the victim... the question is not if one deserves to die... it's whether another has to right to kill. I'm not a supporter of legal executions, but I know that there are individuals who are too extreme a threat to simply be imprisoned. I would rather limit the number of executions to ONLY the limited number who are considered too extreme a threat to simply imprison. As for how to determine who meets to criteria is another issue. Though, you have seen how small crimes have been overexaggerated and big crimes have been underexaggerated. The right to kill? We kill everyday. People have said we're the intelligent species, but we still kill animals. And if someone says 'animals aren't as important as people' then just go away -.-' People have a very strange idea of what's right and wrong. Kind of like most alcohol being cheaper than water, but it still happens. I'd want something bad to happen to murderers, but I don't know what. Prison just doesn't seem to justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I'm not a supporter of legal executions, but I know that there are individuals who are too extreme a threat to simply be imprisoned. I would rather limit the number of executions to ONLY the limited number who are considered too extreme a threat to simply imprison. As for how to determine who meets to criteria is another issue. Alright, here's one for you, happened just a day ago. Guy gets on bus, totally normal guy, rides bus all day, doesn't say anything to anyone, considering most people aren't chatty on a bus, this is no big deal. He ends up with some young person(19) sitting next to him, still nothing. Part way through the bus trip, he starts stabbing the guy. Not with rage or insanity, but just robotically, 40-50 times, the people evacuate the bus and this guy goes about butchering the body. Goes so far as to behead the kid and drop the head near the door to the bus where the people have locked him in. He then returns to continue carving up the body. Eventually the cops(in this case, mounties 'cause it's in Canada), and the guy breaks a window and tried to get out, and is quickly captured. source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080731/Manitoba_bus_080731/20080731?hub=TopStories Obviously, this guy isn't right in the head, but at the same time, he must be right in the end enough to distinguish right from wrong long enough to not simply murder any person who comes near him. From the way it's described, it's not insanity, he appeared to be fully aware of what he was doing, including the whole dropping the severed head in front of the people blocking the door. Frankly, I don't know what to do with the guy. The death penalty to me seems most fitting for psychopaths and guys who do horrible things with malice and hate and all that. This guy? I dunno, if he's got some trigger in his head that can switch him from nice neighbor to murderer, then he shouldn't be around people, but I don't know if just locking him away is enough. Logically for only one murder he'll get out in 25 years or something, what's to say he won't kill then, or while in prison? Obviously it's not a predictable sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Web Rider - Eye for an Eye...or in this case...Head for a Head Simple, easy, to the point...but that is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Web Rider - Eye for an Eye...or in this case...Head for a Head Simple, easy, to the point...but that is just my opinion. Yes, let's just apply the Code of Hammurabi because it's an easier and simplier way to answer a hard to understand and complicated situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 hard to understand and complicated situation. So what's hard to understand about the situation exactly? Oh, and why is it complicated...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Web Rider - Eye for an Eye...or in this case...Head for a Head Simple, easy, to the point...but that is just my opinion. ....Very retributivist. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 ....Very retributivist. QFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 So what's hard to understand about the situation exactly? Oh, and why is it complicated...? Why did he kill the teenager? What was he thinking? What happened on the bus? He got up thinking that he would kill someone today? If not, why did he had a knife with him on the bus? Even the investigators don't know what prompted the murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Yes, let's just apply the Code of Hammurabi because it's an easier and simplier way to answer a hard to understand and complicated situation. Actually, the Codes of Hammurabi are very complicated and deal with everything from personal rights, self defense, inheritance, divorce, marriage and an assortment of other things. It was actually very progressive at the time. Women had some semblance of rights! It always annoys me when it all gets boiled down to "An eye for an eye." The law didn't actually say that you could take the other guy's eye if he took yours, it said that you are free to defend yourself up to the amount that the guy did to you, and then beyond that, now you're in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Well I think that if you are going to kill someone, you should be prepared to be killed yourself. Yes, I value human life, but some crimes should have harsher punishments. If you kill someone, and you maybe get 25 years in prison. You killed someone! I will assume that in this situation that this victim is innocent. You have taken the life of an innocent person, and you only get 25 years. I just don't think that is fair. Yes, situations vary, but I think that America should be a lot harder. There is a lot of crime. I guess that it depends on the situation though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Why did he kill the teenager? What was he thinking? What happened on the bus? He got up thinking that he would kill someone today? If not, why did he had a knife with him on the bus? Even the investigators don't know what prompted the murder. Ok, we can work with this Take the assumed fact that the kid was innocent at face value. Now, postulate - he either acted in passion or it was premeditated. Why does one of these make the death penalty "wrong" but the other adjective makes the death penalty "right"? Or, do you assert that the death penalty is wrong no matter if the murder was premeditated or not? In that case, then the facts of the case are irrelevant, and you're just throwing us off He's (on the surface) guilty. So why (as in, what is your argument) is the death penalty "immoral" or "unethical" or "wrong" if that's what Canada sentences him with? (I know this happened in Canada, and they obviously don't use capital punishment, but let's change the facts in order to facilitate this discussion.) _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Why did he kill the teenager? What was he thinking? What happened on the bus? He got up thinking that he would kill someone today? If not, why did he had a knife with him on the bus? Even the investigators don't know what prompted the murder. First 2 points...What does it matter what he was thinking? Is there a just reason in your opinion to kill someone sitting next to you on the bus that is sleeping? 3rd and 4th points...Sounds like it...he got on a bus and was carrying a carving knife (think this is the right one, but at any rate the witnesses said it was a large kitchen knife if I recall correct, please correct if I'm wrong). Ooo, maybe he was a traveling knife salesman... ...kidding aside...no reason to have a knife like that on a bus. What prompted the murder is somewhat moot. He killed someone he didn't even know (assumption, yes, but pretty sure it's a safe assumption). Now if we do assume that they knew each other, what would justify one killing the other? Now that the act is done, for the good of everyone this guy ever meets he should be put to death...sooner than later. Edit... Yes, situations vary, but I think that America should be a lot harder. QFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 One question, was it premeditated? I mean Web Rider said that this guy sat on the bus all day...? Or was this guy just insane? But yes, on the surface, this guy is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 One question, was it premeditated? I mean Web Rider said that this guy sat on the bus all day...? Or was this guy just insane? But yes, on the surface, this guy is guilty. I don't think we know at this point - but does it matter? How does that affect the moral rightness of capital punishment? The evidence of him bringing a knife on a bus is pretty conclusive to me, but I'm not aware of the inner workings of the case, obviously. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I don't think we know at this point - but does it matter? How does that affect the moral rightness of capital punishment? The evidence of him bringing a knife on a bus is pretty conclusive to me, but I'm not aware of the inner workings of the case, obviously. _EW_ Well yes. I guess that it really doesn't matter. The act was done. I don't think that the punishment should be lighter just because someone is insane or has any mental problems. They still committed the crime. What makes them (anyone with mental issues) any better than the rest of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Well yes. I guess that it really doesn't matter. The act was done. I don't think that the punishment should be lighter just because someone is insane or has any mental problems. They still committed the crime. What makes them (anyone with mental issues) any better than the rest of us? ....It doesn't make them better, it makes them less accountable for their actions because of the legal concept of culpability. When someone is completely incapable of realizing the consequences of their actions, (or perhaps are seriously unable to resist the urge they have to commit a crime) they are not 'culpable' and no one will benefit from their punishment. Often, when someone is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect they receive help in mental facilities. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 ....It doesn't make them better, it makes them less accountable for their actions because of the legal concept of culpability. _EW_ Yes. That is what I meant, but I know where you are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Yes. That is what I meant, but I know where you are going. You'll have to present a counterargument that details why you think they should receive normal punishment if you disagree, otherwise I'm not sure how to convince you _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 You'll have to present a counterargument that details why you think they should receive normal punishment if you disagree, otherwise I'm not sure how to convince you _EW_ Well, I guess that my thoughts are simple. Like I said, it depends on the crime commited. For some crimes I think that they should get some help, while for other crimes I do not think that they should recieve help. I am not exactly sure how much this 'help' would 'help' them other than just keeping them out of trouble. If someone seriously has mental problems, there, as far as I know (I have limited knowledge in this area), they cannot be 'fixed', so to say. I guess that I could get cut from both sides because of what I think. However, we really cannot truly get into their mind to know why they would do something like this. But to simply answer your question, I don't think that they should be treated any different than a 'normal' person just because they have mental issues. They really are no different than the rest of us. As I just said, I know that I can get cut from both sides because of my thoughts. I guess that it is a little hard to explain. But yes Ender, educate me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnseyy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Well I think that if you are going to kill someone, you should be prepared to be killed yourself. My point exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Well I think that if you are going to kill someone, you should be prepared to be killed yourself. My point exactly. Even if the person has no understanding of what they are doing and/or the ramification of what they are doing? However, we really cannot truly get into their mind to know why they would do something like this.[/Quote] I can’t either, but that is the reason there are people that are in the mental health profession and that is why there are hearings where evidence is presented to decide if the person is mental competed to stand trial. Yes, people sometimes plead insanity that are not insane, but there is a procedure in place to deal with that. But to simply answer your question, I don't think that they should be treated any different than a 'normal' person just because they have mental issues.[/Quote] What if it was a four year old picking up a loaded weapon and shooting his/her father? Do you believe that child should also be punished just as any other normal person? The reason we don’t is because a four year old does not have the mental ability to understand what they have done. The same can be said of some adults that have mental disabilities. It is up to the courts to decide if the person can even stand trial and we cannot execute anyone without a trial, can we? They really are no different than the rest of us. [/Quote] Really? Is someone that has the mental capacity of a six-year old the same as a normal forty year old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.