Jump to content


Photo

The Death Sentence...


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#16 ACEfanatic02

ACEfanatic02

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 12:42 AM

Metroid, I hate to say it, but you're being overly idealistic about this.

ANY system without checks and balance, any system without appeal, is inevitably going to be abused. It's too easy, and the rewards are so great. Murder cases, despite what is usually shown in TV drama, aren't as concise and predictable. Innocent people CAN be convicted, on weak evidence, or even circumstantial evidence. It happens. Most of them end up with either a mistrial, hung jury, or an aquittal, but the possiblity still exists. After all, you are relying on the judgement of ten ordinary John and Jane Doe's to make your decision. And nobody is perfect.

Honestly, the only reason for the death penalty in civilian cases is retribution. You said it yourself: the family wants them dead. Well, no $%^&*, but that doesn't mean the state should murder them.

The ONLY time death is appropriate is when the person is too dangerous to be kept alive. i.e. - Saddam was dangerous. Civilian criminals rarely reach that sort of threat potential. Even in those cases, my conscience squirms.

Should we lock them up? Yes, of course. Lock 'em down, make 'em work. But killing them is a waste, and damn dangerous. For all of us.

-ACE

#17 metroid_dragon

metroid_dragon

    ☢ Doomed Utopia Theorem ☢ (Law of Zeal)

  • NuneWorld Admins
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,233 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 12:58 AM

QUOTE(ACEfanatic02 @ Jan 3 2007, 02:42 PM) View Post
Metroid, I hate to say it, but you're being overly idealistic about this.


Very likely I am, but without idealists the world wouldn't change much now would it?

QUOTE
ANY system without checks and balance, any system without appeal, is inevitably going to be abused. It's too easy, and the rewards are so great. Murder cases, despite what is usually shown in TV drama, aren't as concise and predictable. Innocent people CAN be convicted, on weak evidence, or even circumstantial evidence. It happens. Most of them end up with either a mistrial, hung jury, or an aquittal, but the possiblity still exists. After all, you are relying on the judgement of ten ordinary John and Jane Doe's to make your decision. And nobody is perfect.
Ah, I agree. I did state in my first post:
QUOTE(me)
if you killed someone, and it's obvious, there is no need for a second, or third, or fourth (and so forth) trial. If it's a touchy murder, then yes, it needs to be examined


I'm sticking to pure and simple obvious trials in which the accused is near 100% guilty, which in today's society still undergo extensive processes' which are repetitive and do little. In a case where there are two clear arguments, then it does need to be looked at thoroughly.

QUOTE
Honestly, the only reason for the death penalty in civilian cases is retribution. You said it yourself: the family wants them dead. Well, no $%^&*, but that doesn't mean the state should murder them.
Although I stated this as one of my reasons, I stated a number of others, including:

1) To keep the general public safe: As in the case above, if someone threatened to kill you if they ever got out. Or say someone was at high risk to re-offend.

2) Deterrent: If the threat of being killed is real, people with nothing to lose other than their lives might think twice about committing crimes.

QUOTE
The ONLY time death is appropriate is when the person is too dangerous to be kept alive. i.e. - Saddam was dangerous. Civilian criminals rarely reach that sort of threat potential. Even in those cases, my conscience squirms.


I guess out conscience differ then, because I consider an accused murderer too dangerous to be kept alive. Other than that our thoughts are similar.

QUOTE
Should we lock them up? Yes, of course. Lock 'em down, make 'em work. But killing them is a waste, and damn dangerous. For all of us.


More dangerous than the possibility of their re-offending or escape? I don't think every crime should warrant a death penalty or anything, but the most heinous of crimes do deserve it (rape, murder, attempted murder, ect). The rest should be locked up and put to work.

#18 ACEfanatic02

ACEfanatic02

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 01:45 AM

How often does someone actually succeed at escaping from a maximum security prison? Not very often, if anyone does. There is the subject of parole, but anyone releasing a convicted murderer for parole needs their head checked. (Not saying they DON'T, just that it's a stupid practice that should be eliminated.)

Also, the most henious of murders, rapes, etc. are usually commited by people who don't much care about dying. The ones that are pure and simple trials, like you say, tend not to cover their tracks. Why? Because they're antisocial and probably a bit insane. Detterants tend not to work on these people.

And besides - which would YOU consider to be a worse deterant: endless labor in a prison, or death? Personally, I'd take death. It's over quicker.

-ACE

#19 metroid_dragon

metroid_dragon

    ☢ Doomed Utopia Theorem ☢ (Law of Zeal)

  • NuneWorld Admins
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,233 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:19 AM

QUOTE(ACEfanatic02 @ Jan 3 2007, 03:45 PM) View Post
How often does someone actually succeed at escaping from a maximum security prison? Not very often, if anyone does. There is the subject of parole, but anyone releasing a convicted murderer for parole needs their head checked. (Not saying they DON'T, just that it's a stupid practice that should be eliminated.


It's rare but it does happen, and I agree, parole is a moronic idea.

QUOTE
Also, the most henious of murders, rapes, etc. are usually commited by people who don't much care about dying. The ones that are pure and simple trials, like you say, tend not to cover their tracks. Why? Because they're antisocial and probably a bit insane. Detterants tend not to work on these people.
Ah, but think about the reason why the majority of these crimes are committed by antisocial and slightly insane people. It's because most sensible people are already deterred. Unfortunately not all are deterred yet, so increasing the deterrent would still drop the ratio of these crimes either way. And don't forget that it's even more important to protect the public from these kinds of people than from people that still have some elements of sanity and compassion left. Therefore the execution of these people are just as important if not more important than a typical murderer.

So by increasing the punishments and time required in easy trials, we systematically reduce the amount of more complicated trials.

QUOTE
And besides - which would YOU consider to be a worse deterant: endless labor in a prison, or death? Personally, I'd take death. It's over quicker.


Either way, the deterrent is worse than the current deterrents. I already said that I support both being implemented anyways so the endless labour threat will still be there, just with a realistic possibility of execution to scare those who care about that as well.

#20 Rogue Psychology

Rogue Psychology

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE(metroid_dragon @ Jan 4 2007, 08:23 AM) View Post
I'm not even sure where to begin shredding this post apart for problems.
If I was a homeless drunkard who raped and killed your mother and told you I was going to kill you if I ever got out, are you saying you would be content with me living my life with free food and drink, a free roof over my head, and overall a very stable existence? It's like I was being bloody rewarded. No, I think you would want me dead. I know I would want me dead if I was in you're position. People like to be all "love everyone! no death penalty!" until something happens to them or their family. Then their tune changes.

1) To keep the general public safe: As in the case above, if someone threatened to kill you if they ever got out. Or say someone was at high risk to re-offend.

2) Deterrent: If the threat of being killed is real, people with nothing to lose other than their lives might think twice about committing crimes.

Yes, the judge that is sentencing the murderer to death in order to protect you and your family is just as bad as the murderer that just killed your parents. Think before you speak.

Stick to facts, not religious crap.

I agree that the soldiers did what was needed of them, but soldiers in war are on a completely different spectrum than murderers on trial. Apples to oranges eh?

As for the Nazi's, I disagree, a very vast amount of Germans volunteered for the army, I would even say the majority did. They believed that their cause was right and just. Humans are very easily brainwashed, we are a weak race in the mind; easily tamed, easily confused and easily lead. They did it willingly.



1:no i would want you kept in prison. i would not say beacause you killed my parents i want you dead.

2:keep the bloody prisons secure.

3:people that are drug addicts and so on that have nothing in their lives dont really care if they die. why do people commit suicide? beacause they have nothing to live for.

4:oh i think. as i said i would not ask for your head, and keep the prisons secure.

5:i am not religous at all. i just beleive in god and reincarnation.

6:agreed.

7: half and half i over stated by saying most

#21 ACEfanatic02

ACEfanatic02

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:45 AM

Paradox Alert:
QUOTE(Rogue Psychology @ Jan 3 2007, 07:23 PM) View Post
5:i am not religous at all. i just beleive in god and reincarnation.

I'm not scientific at all. I just believe in evidence and experimentation...



Anyway.

Metroid: I think that merely by extending the sentence and making life sentences compulsory (unless later aquitted or pardoned) would acheive the same effect. But without dispensing with our morals. (Don't get me wrong about that, by the way. Morality =/= religion.)

Is it immoral to murder in cold blood? Yes, of course it is. But it is also immoral to kill said killer.

Does execution reduce crime? Well, yes. That does not change the fact that it is barbaric. A civilized society should NEVER embrace it. At all. If our criminals are so far below us to be unworthy of living, why should we drop to their level?

And yes, it is dangerous. Anytime you give a government power of life and death of the common citizen, we are ALL in danger. Because the long repeated pattern through history is one of governmental abuse.

Let's learn from our mistakes, shall we?

-ACE

#22 Iroquois Pliskin

Iroquois Pliskin

    NW's Sexiest Male 07

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:02 AM

I think some people have committed crimes so horrible that they should be slaughtered...you're telling me that if a man raped your wife you wouldn't want him dead...there's nothing to discuss, there are monsters in the world and they should be killed.

#23 BreakTheReflection

BreakTheReflection

    Sylvia Plath

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,979 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:13 AM

QUOTE(Iroquois Pliskin @ Jan 3 2007, 07:02 PM) View Post
I think some people have committed crimes so horrible that they should be slaughtered...you're telling me that if a man raped your wife you wouldn't want him dead...there's nothing to discuss, there are monsters in the world and they should be killed.


I agree.

(I don't believe in loooooooooong posts, sorry)

#24 ACEfanatic02

ACEfanatic02

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:27 AM

QUOTE(Iroquois Pliskin @ Jan 3 2007, 08:02 PM) View Post
I think some people have committed crimes so horrible that they should be slaughtered...you're telling me that if a man raped your wife you wouldn't want him dead...there's nothing to discuss, there are monsters in the world and they should be killed.

A 'monster', like anything else, is subjective.

Perhaps a rapist deserves to die. I've never personally been in a relavent situation, so I really could not comment. However, more than each case, one must consider the PRECENDENT being set.

Some day, not too far off, sedition could be treason.

Just something to mull over.

-ACE

#25 Iroquois Pliskin

Iroquois Pliskin

    NW's Sexiest Male 07

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:31 AM

You and I both know that people deserve death...you think these things through in the wrong way ACE...just something to mull over

#26 ACEfanatic02

ACEfanatic02

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:48 AM

QUOTE(Iroquois Pliskin @ Jan 3 2007, 09:31 PM) View Post
You and I both know that people deserve death...you think these things through in the wrong way ACE...just something to mull over

Possibly.

I'm a liberal. In the traditional sense -- that is, I prefer the government to go !@#$ off in a corner.

So, I don't trust government. Checks and balances exist for a reason. And that includes the checks between civilians and the judiciary.

And, frankly, I think that killing people is barbaric. Sorry, but it is. For such an 'advanced' and 'enlightened' society, we have few objections to getting down and dirty and ignoring all the progress of morality.

Retribution is not enough of a reason to kill someone. End of story. If vengence was government policy, where would we be?

Capital punishment is a grave issue. But, for all it's seriousness, it is perched on the verge of an even more important issue. Tread lightly -- Orwell was only wrong about the date.

-ACE

#27 Iroquois Pliskin

Iroquois Pliskin

    NW's Sexiest Male 07

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:55 AM

Sometimes barbaricaction is a necessity and retribution is always a reason...and it always will be, it's human nature nothing can stop that.

#28 ACEfanatic02

ACEfanatic02

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:58 AM

QUOTE(Iroquois Pliskin @ Jan 3 2007, 09:55 PM) View Post
Sometimes barbaricaction is a necessity and retribution is always a reason

Could that not also be true for the criminal himself?

Indict them both.

-ACE

#29 RubberDuck32

RubberDuck32

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:58 AM

Our government is better than most, I think you're overreacting just a bit about the implications of killing criminals. Killing those who deserve to die isn't barbaric, it's called justice. I'm positive that if someone were to kill your family you would want them dead, that kind of retribution is plenty enough reason to execute the murderer. Once you take a life(for the wrong reasons), you forfeit yours, plain and simple.

#30 Iroquois Pliskin

Iroquois Pliskin

    NW's Sexiest Male 07

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:59 AM

^Thank you




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users