Jump to content

Home

Death Sentence - Best/Worst Alternative?


TriggerGod
 Share

Recommended Posts

Err, not sure what you mean, but I'll give it a shot.

It obviously is punishable, people are punished for it every day. Should it be puinshable? Yes, but to see how I think it should be done, read my earlier posts.

 

I have no link, but I have heard that in Japan people rarely commit crimes because of how they were treated in prision, if they committed a crime of course. They were punished, to what extent, I really have no idea. That is prevention and punishment. This is just what I have been told.

 

Japan is a special case, their culture, including their concept of honor makes them "naturally" lawfull. As for their legal system, it operates on the concept of you're guilty, not until proven innocent, just guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And I'd agree if that where the case, many can "get over" their actions while still feeling guilty. A bit like I can "get over" the death of my great granny, yet I still miss her.

 

 

 

 

That's different & normal. You did not killi your great granny.

 

 

...Did you?

 

Well you see, I think that they should still be punished. We see this with little kids all of the time. If a very young child hits someone they get punished to know that is right from wrong, and to know that what they did was wrong. I think that the same thing should be used for people that don't know what they are doing just maybe not as severly. I guess that it depends on what age they are, and what the situation was.

 

If someone is dead... I think it's safe to say it doesn't matter whether they learned their lesson.

Edited by Relenzo2
Because I felt like it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's different & normal.

 

How do you know being able to move on is not normal for murderers?

 

You did not killi your great granny.

 

No, but the point was I can miss her without doing it all the time.

 

Edit: Ryuu: what good does killing the guy do?

 

Anyway, it's getting late around here, and I have a 16 hour drive tomorow, so keep clucking without me.

Edited by mur'phon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Ryuu: what good does killing the guy do?

 

eliminating the possibility (or rather, likelihood, as statistical probability shows) of repeat offense. it has little to do with punishing the hypothesized murderer/rapist (though that is part of it), but rather preventing him from causing further harm and suffering to others. Incarceration might do that, but execution always does.

 

of course, the "death sentence" in the United States is more of a life sentence in prison, as people are rarely executed and granted endless appeals (hence the "high cost" of death row inmates as opposed to regular ones). The odds of them getting away on a technicality or the whims of activist judges are good, and that makes even execution an ineffective deterrent since potential criminals know that about the worst that'll happen to them in most cases is some prison time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eliminating the possibility (or rather, likelihood, as statistical probability shows) of repeat offense. it has little to do with punishing the hypothesized murderer/rapist (though that is part of it), but rather preventing him from causing further harm and suffering to others. Incarceration might do that, but execution always does.

 

Yet wouldn't it be better to use the criminals to try and find "treatment" that actually works and get those nasty statistics down ?

 

The odds of them getting away on a technicality or the whims of activist judges are good, and that makes even execution an ineffective deterrent since potential criminals know that about the worst that'll happen to them in most cases is some prison time.

 

Ah, so that's why abolishing the death penalty haven't had any effect on the crimerates:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err, not sure what you mean, but I'll give it a shot.

It obviously is punishable, people are punished for it every day. Should it be puinshable? Yes, but to see how I think it should be done, read my earlier posts.

Oh, sorry. I guess that I should have rephrased what I asked. But your shot was on target. Thanks.

 

I must say that your question is a little hard to answer as well. Why should we kill the murderer. It is a little hard to answer because it is so easy to say the wrong thing. I believe that everyone deserves a second chance, but as I said if you take the life (or are willing to take the life) of someone else you really should be able to give up your life, as I said before. I guess that is the most that I could break it down. For now, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed a couple hours, so here goes:

 

Well you see, I think that they should still be punished. We see this with little kids all of the time. If a very young child hits someone they get punished to know that is right from wrong, and to know that what they did was wrong. I think that the same thing should be used for people that don't know what they are doing just maybe not as severly. I guess that it depends on what age they are, and what the situation was.

 

Yet, children have the option of learning from that punishment and not doing it in the future. Those who are mentally ill are unable to do so.

 

 

I guess this is irrelevent, but who in the world would leave a loaded weapon accesable to a child?

It happens all the time, unfortunately.

No, I don't think that he/she should be treated as any 'normal' person. I know that this is exactly what you wanted me to say, and I said it. :)

 

That seems a bit heartless, though.. The kid is only 4 - his brain isn't even close to being fully developed yet. He can't realize the consequences of his actions - especially if it's his first contact with a firearm.

However, you can teach a 4 year old what is right and wrong. Someone that has the capacity of a six-year old and is a legal adult is the same as everyone else, in a certain point of view. I'm sure that one point in their life they have been told that they are no different than anyone else. If someone has the capacity of a six-year old and is an adult should have some sort of help. That, I think, would help prevent something bad from happening in the first place. They need, and deserve guidence.

 

Just because everyone who falls under the DSM IV 'should' have help (in terms of drugs, treatments, or aides) doesn't mean they always do. Sometimes, for a person to be recognized as needing help, they need to do something bad and be found.

I know that I am flip-flopping around here. I am sorry for that, but as I have said in my earlier post(s) it all depends on the situation. We are talking about the whether or not the death sentance is the Best/Worse alternative, not people that suffer from mental problems commiting crimes and/or how they should be punished, no?

 

It seems we're talking about both, however, you're right.

Oh, I know that. I wasn't calling you annoying, and you aren't being annoying at all Ender. ;) I was basically wanting you to educate me more on the subject.

:lol: This is a first :xp:

Well, I'm trying, nonetheless.

 

Someone in need of help most definately should recieve it. And who exactly are you refering to commiting the crime. If someone metally impared commits a "not severe" crime, they should be punished in some way to let them know that what they did was wrong.

What purpose would it serve? How would it be 'just'?

Would you say that murder should not be treated the same as someone that has shoplifted? IMO, no they should not be treated the same. I believe that it depends on the severity of the crime. I think that a reasonable punishment for someone that say, shoplifted could be community service. Then if the crime is committed again, the punishment should be more severe.

 

I was asking the first question, which I responded to your answer above. I agree with this, of course.

 

I agree. I think that a person that has a mental illness deserves (professional) help so that they can live somewhat of a 'normal-life'. I believe that they deserve this.

Then it seems we agree :D

 

Not much, but I have had interactions with some that do fall under the secifacations of DSM. In my interactions with them, it certainly seems that many of them know the basic right from wrong. They have said sorry when they know when they have done something wrong. But, these of just some of my experiances. ;)

 

I was referring to those of them who could actually plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in a court of law. It seems the ones that you're referring to would in fact not be able to use the defense for the same reasonings you're using. They are able to tell right from wrong.

 

I'm talking about those who cannot tell, and could use the defense.

 

Well, you see the person that committed murder had already ruined his/her life, IMO. They made their choice to kill that person. ;) Oh, and I really don't think that an eye for an eye is all that fair. ;)

 

Is it just?

 

EW:

I'd say for the good of the people, but essentially yes.

Isn't society just "people as a whole"?

Indeed it does, though I dislike their whole "holier than thou" atitude. Do what works, not what makes you feel good is my view, which isn't exactly compatible with theirs.

 

Doing what makes you feel good is Egoism. See: Ayn Rand. Doing what works is Utilitarian, yes. Kantians, on the other hand, would say "do the actions that are inherently right in themselves." They care about what the actions are, not what you feel about them.

 

Errr, so because the criminals life is ruined by guilt, it is okay for us to wreck it because it's allready ruined?

 

We're not wrecking it. It's already in a state of wreckage.

First off, many manage to live decent lives afterwards when given the chance.

Do they deserve the chance?

Second, what good does it do to wreck the criminals life?

Justice?

eliminating the possibility (or rather, likelihood, as statistical probability shows) of repeat offense. it has little to do with punishing the hypothesized murderer/rapist (though that is part of it), but rather preventing him from causing further harm and suffering to others. Incarceration might do that, but execution always does.

 

So justice has no bearing on punishment? It's all about the utilitarian standpoint on deterrence?

of course, the "death sentence" in the United States is more of a life sentence in prison, as people are rarely executed and granted endless appeals (hence the "high cost" of death row inmates as opposed to regular ones). The odds of them getting away on a technicality or the whims of activist judges are good, and that makes even execution an ineffective deterrent since potential criminals know that about the worst that'll happen to them in most cases is some prison time.

Irrelevant. This has to do with the application, not the morality, of capital punishment.

 

Yet wouldn't it be better to use the criminals to try and find "treatment" that actually works and get those nasty statistics down ?

 

So maybe there's a better option out there somewhere. For now, we're stuck arguing the morality of the death penalty :xp:

 

 

Ah, so that's why abolishing the death penalty haven't had any effect on the crimerates:D

 

....Maybe that affects the Utilitarian views here, but the deontological arguments still hold.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thought about this all evening. It has been one of the main things that I have been thinking about, and it seems that my opinion on the matter has somewhat changed. That, and I really don't feel like quoting and responding to Ender's post when I am just going to say the same thing. :xp: Those that have mental illnesses are somewhat different than a "normal" person. Mentally, of course, otherwise I don't think that they are any different than 'us'. Sometimes those with mental illnesses cannot be responsible for a lot of what they do. Not always can they judge what is right from wrong, and all that accompanies that. Here are some interesting facts and other stuff about executions of the mentally impaired. Here is a list of all viewpoints on the Death Penalty. My opinion has not only changed with the mentally impaired, but overall on the death penalty. I have read....some stuff...and my opinion on the matter has changed. ;)

 

Thanks

 

*the links aren't that recent, but I still think that it helps the discussion.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thought about this all evening.

That's really cool to hear, and I think it's what this forum is all about. :)

My opinion has not only changed with the mentally impaired, but overall on the death penalty. I have read....some stuff...and my opinion on the matter has changed. ;)

Just to make it clear, what is your current opinion on the death penalty as a whole?

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really cool to hear, and I think it's what this forum is all about. :)

Yeah, I seriously think about most of the threads in Kavar's. Threads that make you do that, often address a serious question and almost makes you think about it all day long. :D

Just to make it clear, what is your current opinion on the death penalty as a whole?

 

_EW_

Dispite what many 'believe' in, I knew that there were scriptures about execution in the Bible. I just didn't know where, so I looked them up. I know that I jumped to conclusions without research. Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:43-45, John 8:1-11 are several.

 

The next is a non-"religious" (I only say that because I am not a "religious" person ;)) view, I guess. Just thinking about it, what would I want in a situation like that? Would I want a second chance? Yes, I would want a second chance. Putting yourself in another's shoes helps me quite often. I believe that many deserve a chance at redemption. However, I do not believe that they should go unpunished. Essentially, those are the reasons why. I have really been thinking about it. Sometimes thinking really helps. :xp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I seriously think about most of the threads in Kavar's. Threads that make you do that, often address a serious question and almost makes you think about it all day long. :D

 

Dispite what many 'believe' in, I knew that there were scriptures about execution in the Bible. I just didn't know where, so I looked them up. I know that I jumped to conclusions without research. Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:43-45, John 8:1-11 are several.

 

The next is a non-"religious" (I only say that because I am not a "religious" person ;)) view, I guess. Just thinking about it, what would I want in a situation like that? Would I want a second chance? Yes, I would want a second chance. Putting yourself in another's shoes helps me quite often. I believe that many deserve a chance at redemption. However, I do not believe that they should go unpunished. Essentially, those are the reasons why. I have really been thinking about it. Sometimes thinking really helps. :xp:

 

Very nice post, Rev7. :)

 

It's good that you went to go research it yourself. That's a great habit to get into.

 

Matthew 7:1 is another good one (and one of the ones I can recite, in fact):

"Do not judge, lest you be judged."

 

_EW_

Edited by EnderWiggin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice post, Rev7. :)

 

Matthew 7:1 is another good one (and one of the ones I can recite, in fact):

"Do not judge, lest you be judged."

 

_EW_

I'm sure that there are others as well....and thank you.

 

Just looking back at it a little bit, and I really jumped to conclusions. I'm glad that I took that time to think about it and actually do the research. Thanks for your time Ender. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't society just "people as a whole"?

 

Yup, though it apears a lot of people think of it as the state, just wanted to clarify.

 

Doing what makes you feel good is Egoism. See: Ayn Rand. Doing what works is Utilitarian, yes. Kantians, on the other hand, would say "do the actions that are inherently right in themselves." They care about what the actions are, not what you feel about them.

 

I know, sorry for oversimplifying.

 

We're not wrecking it. It's already in a state of wreckage.

 

In some cases, yes, in others, no. Trashing everyone because of those who are "wrecked" goes against the idea of breaking something allready broken, while trashing only those truly wrecked seems to go against your idea of justice.

 

Do they deserve the chance?

 

In my mind, yes.

 

Justice?

 

Is not something I'm terribly worried about, feel free to show me why I should be. As an aside, would you mind saying where you stand philosophically? Would make it easier for me to understand what you put into things like justice.

 

...Maybe that affects the Utilitarian views here, but the deontological arguments still hold.

 

Sure, but that wasn't directed at them. Anyway pherhaps a Deontology vs Utilitarian could be intersting? It seems like that is where we get stuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but that wasn't directed at them. Anyway pherhaps a Deontology vs Utilitarian could be intersting? It seems like that is where we get stuck.

If you make the thread, I'll post in it.

 

As for where I stand? I don't know if it can be classified into one category. In this thread, I'm just using the viewpoints of Kant to argue back and forth.

 

I'm against the death penalty, however.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people have the wrong perspective on this argument, personally. I don't see execution as justice via revenge, but rather it's an act of self-preservation. I personally see state ordered execution as something that should be reserved after heavy debate and review of realistic possibiities.

 

 

Anyway, at this point in time we do not currently have the means to actively pursue full rehabilitation efforts and tests. While it sounds cruel, it is more effective and beneficial to both parties to continue with State ordered execution. However should needless arrests for petty drug charges and the like cease, then we may look at a higher capability to pursue even more humane efforts in self-preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, at this point in time we do not currently have the means to actively pursue full rehabilitation efforts and tests. While it sounds cruel, it is more effective and beneficial to both parties to continue with State ordered execution. However should needless arrests for petty drug charges and the like cease, then we may look at a higher capability to pursue even more humane efforts in self-preservation.

 

OK, since you have asserted that the Death Penalty is in fact moral, let's go with that assumption. Now we're talking about whether or not it's effective or practical to use it in present day society.

 

My question is - what's "beneficial" about the death penalty? Especially "to both parties"? You think it's the best option - why is it better than life imprisonment?

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, since you have asserted that the Death Penalty is in fact moral, let's go with that assumption. Now we're talking about whether or not it's effective or practical to use it in present day society.

 

My question is - what's "beneficial" about the death penalty? Especially "to both parties"? You think it's the best option - why is it better than life imprisonment?

 

_EW_

 

Alright, we'll start with first point.

The death penalty does in fact prevent re-occurance of the crime, by state ordered prisoner. Now, it's entirely possible that a first and single occurance murderer could be rehabilitated, and I support this fully. I actually strongly believe in treating the problem with as little negative recourse as possible. However I also understand and must accept that there are limitations. Some of these can be financial, some of them simply based on what is truely possible to happen.

 

Currently our nation is in so much debt that we can't afford to focus on saving a mass-murderer/repeat killer, not to mention many of these people take up violent action in prison. While a lot can and is curbed by prisons that are starting up rehabilitation efforts (gardens, rebuilding cars for police auction, etc.), most of that does not include many eligible for the death penalty as these are people that have and will likely kill again. Many are those who within their first ten minutes in prison, kill another inmate.

 

So now not only are we confronted with the safety of society, but the safety of those we're claiming we want to save by abolishing the state ordered execution. A large majority of prisoners are in fact rather innocent parties serving time for petty drug charges, young adults that were caught with an ounce of pot and a pipe or something, but they're getting stabbed, beaten, and raped by truely violent offenders. Not only that, but with everyone knowing about that "You know what they do in prison, right?" thing, everyone goes in trying to make sure they aren't the ones playing the part of the puppet in Prisonyard Pals. This means more violence and more generalized aggression that has to be managed.

 

All of this means time and energy, time and energy people are not willing to invest. And this is already occuring, take out the death penalty and we're looking at an ever expanded issue. While many might not think 5 or 10 extra prisoners per rotation (season guards and particular inmates are held at any one penitentiary), that's anywhere from $5,000 each to $50,000 each. The change in this can be caused by medical necessities (many serial killers infact end up needing quite an interesting bit of medical attention), personal care as dictated by state, county, and individual prison, and general upkeep for the area these prisoners are held in.

 

So to round off what I was discussing, I would love to be able to rehabilitate each prisoner and bring back a productive member of society. However unfortunately at this time mankind as a whole is not ready to make such a humanitarian effort. There are others that we need to focus salvation on, as they will likely be our future, and in effect the possible future of these prisoners. At this time our finances will be better placed into saving those in the African continent, eastern Europe, the former Soviet States, and Vietnam/Thailand/Laos/Etc.

And not to mention our own society at large.

 

 

 

Not to mention prisoners now that are placed through a rehab program and let back out into the world are not given the necessary means to make their rehabilitation work, therefore they are essentially forced back into a life of crime. We'll need to fix that before we can even think of rehabilitating those who earn a State ordered execution.

 

I just view it as a responsibility. With our most violent of criminals being killed (by the state) we're preventing comparatively innocent prisoners from being killed, other citizens from being killed, and we're saving a bit that can be spent on other humanitarian efforts. Although we all know it's going into BS warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, we'll start with first point.

The death penalty does in fact prevent re-occurance of the crime, by state ordered prisoner. Now, it's entirely possible that a first and single occurance murderer could be rehabilitated, and I support this fully. I actually strongly believe in treating the problem with as little negative recourse as possible. However I also understand and must accept that there are limitations. Some of these can be financial, some of them simply based on what is truely possible to happen. [/QUOtE]

 

Ok, that all sounds good.

Currently our nation is in so much debt that we can't afford to focus on saving a mass-murderer/repeat killer, not to mention many of these people take up violent action in prison. While a lot can and is curbed by prisons that are starting up rehabilitation efforts (gardens, rebuilding cars for police auction, etc.), most of that does not include many eligible for the death penalty as these are people that have and will likely kill again. Many are those who within their first ten minutes in prison, kill another inmate.

Ok, this sounds good too. Although, it might be feasible to argue that they kill another inmate in order to earn respect and not be raped every day. But that's irrelevant, so let's continue.

So now not only are we confronted with the safety of society, but the safety of those we're claiming we want to save by abolishing the state ordered execution. A large majority of prisoners are in fact rather innocent parties serving time for petty drug charges, young adults that were caught with an ounce of pot and a pipe or something, but they're getting stabbed, beaten, and raped by truely violent offenders. Not only that, but with everyone knowing about that "You know what they do in prison, right?" thing, everyone goes in trying to make sure they aren't the ones playing the part of the puppet in Prisonyard Pals.

Oh, you seem to have made this point too. Oops. :)

All of this means time and energy, time and energy people are not willing to invest. And this is already occuring, take out the death penalty and we're looking at an ever expanded issue. While many might not think 5 or 10 extra prisoners per rotation (season guards and particular inmates are held at any one penitentiary), that's anywhere from $5,000 each to $50,000 each. The change in this can be caused by medical necessities (many serial killers infact end up needing quite an interesting bit of medical attention), personal care as dictated by state, county, and individual prison, and general upkeep for the area these prisoners are held in.

 

What about the cost for the numerous appeals that each inmate uses? This, plus the cost it takes to imprison them on 'death row' means more per prisoner.

So to round off what I was discussing, I would love to be able to rehabilitate each prisoner and bring back a productive member of society. However unfortunately at this time mankind as a whole is not ready to make such a humanitarian effort. There are others that we need to focus salvation on, as they will likely be our future, and in effect the possible future of these prisoners. At this time our finances will be better placed into saving those in the African continent, eastern Europe, the former Soviet States, and Vietnam/Thailand/Laos/Etc.

And not to mention our own society at large.

 

A very compelling point.

 

 

I just view it as a responsibility. With our most violent of criminals being killed (by the state) we're preventing comparatively innocent prisoners from being killed, other citizens from being killed, and we're saving a bit that can be spent on other humanitarian efforts. Although we all know it's going into BS warfare.

 

It's really unfortunate that we can recognize a problem and are unable to correct it.

 

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the cost for the numerous appeals that each inmate uses? This, plus the cost it takes to imprison them on 'death row' means more per prisoner.

 

Actually, this brings the most interesting scenario. Most prison systems actually have the prisoners use money they earn ($0.40 - $0.50 per hour from doing yard chores, the rehab centers (gardens give produce for food, can be sold or used by the prison to save money on food), and random chores to provide them with their appeals attorney. Often state assisted when a serious investigation takes place, as they may actually be getting out.

 

But still, this is for people who are able and display capability of reform. After all, anyone that can play the part half-assedly can be taught to instictively act in a more civilized manner. I won't get too much into the scenario by scenario basis of mental disability vs. conscious choice, but I can tell you everyone is capable of recognizing what they do, it's the ability to react upon this that we must judge and find value in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay, but I had a fairly busy weekend.

Well you see, I think that they should still be punished. [/Quote] I’m all for locking them away to prevent future murders, I’m just not prepared to use the death penalty as a punishment for a severely mentally handicapped person.
We see this with little kids all of the time. If a very young child hits someone they get punished to know that is right from wrong, and to know that what they did was wrong. [/Quote] And what is a mentally handicapped person going to learn from being put to death?
I think that the same thing should be used for people that don't know what they are doing just maybe not as severely. I guess that it depends on what age they are, and what the situation was. [/Quote] Yes, I’ll agree with this. I’m for locking them away so that they cannot harm another. I just don’t believe a death sentence is appropriate for someone that does not have the mental capacity to understand their actions.

I guess this is irrelevant, but who in the world would leave a loaded weapon accesable to a child?[/Quote] Irrelevant, but people do it every day or how else do you explain the accidental shootings involving children.

However, you can teach a 4 year old what is right and wrong. Someone that has the capacity of a six-year old and is a legal adult is the same as everyone else, in a certain point of view. [/Quote] What point of view is that?

I'm sure that one point in their life they have been told that they are no different than anyone else. [/Quote]I’m sure they were. I tell my cousin that every time I see her, but that does not make it true.

If someone has the capacity of a six-year old and is an adult should have some sort of help. That, I think, would help prevent something bad from happening in the first place. They need, and deserve guidence.[/Quote] There is help out there, but that does not prevent bad things happening. While every effort needs to be made to treat this people as normal as possible, I just do not believe holding them to the same standard as I would myself is fair. I also believe killing someone that cannot understand what they have done is both cruel and unusual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I myself cannot support the death penalty.

 

In 1994 a good friend of mine was sentenced to 11 years for kidnap, torture and absconding.

 

He was not only innocent, apart from escaping, he was also set up.

 

If the death penalty was in place there is a good chance he would have got it.

 

While I'm against the death penalty for similar reasons, the fact he only got 11 years suggests it wasn't a serious enough crime to warrant death.

 

Also how do you know your friend was innocent? Has he since been declared innocent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...