|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:23 pm
ehhh no.
Besides "right and wrong" is relevent to perception saying its "right" to kill someone just cause they killed someone for whatever reason, OR were accused of killing someone. (they stopped executing people for a reason. <_< they werent always right.....)
ya looks bad as it is sticking kids or adults into jails for "crimes" only to find out someone else did it.
how do you think it would make the goverments look if they were killing children only to find out it was someone else?
and dont bother bringing up the DNA thing any murder higher then manslaughter should be easy to cover up.
pull off first degree and get caught?
well then your most likely an idiot or to insane to think anyway.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:45 pm
hermie_the_frog My question is, who the hell would want to execute a little kid? Do you really think an executioner is going to be able to strap down a preteen and inject them? Especially if they have a kid that age? In theory they know what they did was wrong, but...who's going to be the one to enforce the punishment? Can you imagine the kid's parents at their execution? Having to explain to their siblings that their brother/sister did something really really bad, so now they're dead because of it? Also, you have to keep in mind that our young brains don't fully develop until we're like, twenty. We still have some judgement and reasoning abilities to develop. Being a psychology minor, I'd say the most important years of brain development are WAY before 20 on average in this day and age, especially when it comes to comprehension! I don't know where you got your info, but the most important years in anyone's life is mostly during pre-adulthood. If they're psychotic before then, then it's evident that they'll remain that way. Rehabilitation might be an option if it's early enough, but if they're between 13 to 16? Forget it. Though you should realize by now that this generation and the coming generation's children are getting more and more "mentally" mature and "aware" at a younger age...strangely enough. It's the same issue with sex before the age of 10 occurring more and more often. It's not any different with murder. Kids are starting to "comprehend" things at a younger and younger age on average. Death penalty fits to take out children who would be a liability to this generation if they're far beyond the help of rehab. As for "real" cases of murder, the youngest age from what I've heard is age 6. Forget the CSI crap, this s*** is real. Dx Over exposure of violence and sex from the media have seriously been a major cause of these incidences occurring more and more rapidly. It's sad. Really sad. I don't know about the death penalty, as it IS a harsh punishment for children. Still, you can't help the fact that children's mentality for these things are growing fast in the coming generations. Even I wouldn't know what to do with these kinds of people. They're all so unpredictable now. I'd avoid the death penalty as well if I could, but what can we do? Put our tax dollars to use and put them in a prison facility for a good portion of their life to the point they have gone mad?! Even if they weren't insane at first, going to prison would do just the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:54 pm
argenti vulpis ehhh no. Besides "right and wrong" is relevent to perception saying its "right" to kill someone just cause they killed someone for whatever reason, OR were accused of killing someone. (they stopped executing people for a reason. <_< they werent always right.....) ya looks bad as it is sticking kids or adults into jails for "crimes" only to find out someone else did it. how do you think it would make the goverments look if they were killing children only to find out it was someone else? and dont bother bringing up the DNA thing any murder higher then manslaughter should be easy to cover up. pull off first degree and get caught? well then your most likely an idiot or to insane to think anyway. The death penalty is no different than the jail system. Even if they were innocent, merely putting them in jail drives them insane or suicidal in the worst case. Mistakes will happen, sadly enough. Death penalty wouldn't be any worse off, since we'd kill off more murderers than innocents that way. Letting murderers free after years of being in jail just to let them kill more innocents doesn't bode well. Death penalty sounds much better to prevent the death of innocents. Plus, it would save tax dollars. I know it sounds harsh, but jail is no better than death penalty, if you think about it. If an innocent person is either jailed or executed, they're screwed eitherway, and it would be the authorities fault for making that mistake. Still, you can't help it when there's a major flaw. Though corruption in the law system would be a major downer..........which I know there is. Hence the reason I try to stand neutral in these matters as much as I can. ._. We're screwed eitherway. Just have to be lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:17 pm
I think that it's absurd to kill anyone.
The purpose of the government should not be to 'dole out punishment' it should be to maximize the amount of freedom each person has.
For this reason, the government has to step in an prevent things like murders, and various other crimes, however their role is not to punish the criminals, it is to rehabilitate them so that they can become contributing members of society.
You say that a sane person who kills someone should be killed. What about the executioner? Aren't they a sane person who killed someone? What is the difference between regular murder and government sponsored murder? The government doesn't have any more moral authority then I do. They can institute the death penalty for anything that they want, from serial murder in Texas to being a Jew in Nazi Europe.
If there was a magic gun that made a murderer incapable of murdering ever again, but also made them very happy, then the 'punishment' for murder should be a shot with that magic gun. Unfortunately there isn't, so the solution should be incarceration, with therapy and social work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:19 pm
Guardian TK argenti vulpis ehhh no. Besides "right and wrong" is relevent to perception saying its "right" to kill someone just cause they killed someone for whatever reason, OR were accused of killing someone. (they stopped executing people for a reason. <_< they werent always right.....) ya looks bad as it is sticking kids or adults into jails for "crimes" only to find out someone else did it. how do you think it would make the goverments look if they were killing children only to find out it was someone else? and dont bother bringing up the DNA thing any murder higher then manslaughter should be easy to cover up. pull off first degree and get caught? well then your most likely an idiot or to insane to think anyway. The death penalty is no different than the jail system. Even if they were innocent, merely putting them in jail drives them insane or suicidal in the worst case. Mistakes will happen, sadly enough. Death penalty wouldn't be any worse off, since we'd kill off more murderers than innocents that way. Letting murderers free after years of being in jail just to let them kill more innocents doesn't bode well. Death penalty sounds much better to prevent the death of innocents. Plus, it would save tax dollars. I know it sounds harsh, but jail is no better than death penalty, if you think about it. If an innocent person is either jailed or executed, they're screwed eitherway, and it would be the authorities fault for making that mistake. Still, you can't help it when there's a major flaw. Though corruption in the law system would be a major downer..........which I know there is. Hence the reason I try to stand neutral in these matters as much as I can. ._. We're screwed eitherway. Just have to be lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:47 pm
Good as in Awesome You say that a sane person who kills someone should be killed. What about the executioner? Aren't they a sane person who killed someone? What is the difference between regular murder and government sponsored murder? I hate this agrument. -_- Everyone is supposed to have the right to life. But if a sane person takes the right to life from another person, they've forfeited their own right to life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:04 pm
Good as in Awesome You say that a sane person who kills someone should be killed. What about the executioner? Aren't they a sane person who killed someone? What is the difference between regular murder and government sponsored murder? Actually, on this one I'm going to quote Kenshin Himura (from Samurai X) "A man who feeds on his brother is not a man any more. He is a mad dog, and should be dealt the same fate" Also... who said a sane murderer should be killed? The death penalty should be reserved for the most extreme of cases. Mass murders, clinical insanity (such as cutting some women's arms and legs off with a katana because God told you to), serial rapists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:12 pm
Good as in Awesome Guardian TK argenti vulpis ehhh no. Besides "right and wrong" is relevent to perception saying its "right" to kill someone just cause they killed someone for whatever reason, OR were accused of killing someone. (they stopped executing people for a reason. <_< they werent always right.....) ya looks bad as it is sticking kids or adults into jails for "crimes" only to find out someone else did it. how do you think it would make the goverments look if they were killing children only to find out it was someone else? and dont bother bringing up the DNA thing any murder higher then manslaughter should be easy to cover up. pull off first degree and get caught? well then your most likely an idiot or to insane to think anyway. The death penalty is no different than the jail system. Even if they were innocent, merely putting them in jail drives them insane or suicidal in the worst case. Mistakes will happen, sadly enough. Death penalty wouldn't be any worse off, since we'd kill off more murderers than innocents that way. Letting murderers free after years of being in jail just to let them kill more innocents doesn't bode well. Death penalty sounds much better to prevent the death of innocents. Plus, it would save tax dollars. I know it sounds harsh, but jail is no better than death penalty, if you think about it. If an innocent person is either jailed or executed, they're screwed eitherway, and it would be the authorities fault for making that mistake. Still, you can't help it when there's a major flaw. Though corruption in the law system would be a major downer..........which I know there is. Hence the reason I try to stand neutral in these matters as much as I can. ._. We're screwed eitherway. Just have to be lucky. It's only because of that it seems like it wastes as much money, when in reality it isn't. I'm not in my thinking mode though, so I can't explain how it is, but I know it is cheaper in terms of the factors involved if it were a different case. In the long run, it saves the government a LOT more money, indirectly. Remember to take that factor into consideration. The case in your argument with the lifetime sentence being the same as the death penalty is a good question indeed. Though it always varies on differing factors. Though say in most cases it isn't life sentence, and they're put back on the streets just to kill again. What then? More tax dollars to put them back into jail? Bail to let them out of jail just to let them rape/abuse/kill more? As for your argument about the executioner, many philosophers say that it is a justified person that takes on the task in the name of society that wishes to see the end of said person that's to be executed, hence it is more of an avenger/convictor/etc in the name of the people. The supposed embodiment of justice. Funny when it used to be referred more as the corrupted justice back in the days when the innocent were executed through corruption of the justice system. @Val: I'll have to agree with you there. The death penalty should be reserved for the more extreme cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:57 pm
Good as in Awesome I think that it's absurd to kill anyone.
The purpose of the government should not be to 'dole out punishment' it should be to maximize the amount of freedom each person has.
For this reason, the government has to step in an prevent things like murders, and various other crimes, however their role is not to punish the criminals, it is to rehabilitate them so that they can become contributing members of society.
You say that a sane person who kills someone should be killed. What about the executioner? Aren't they a sane person who killed someone? What is the difference between regular murder and government sponsored murder? The government doesn't have any more moral authority then I do. They can institute the death penalty for anything that they want, from serial murder in Texas to being a Jew in Nazi Europe.
If there was a magic gun that made a murderer incapable of murdering ever again, but also made them very happy, then the 'punishment' for murder should be a shot with that magic gun. Unfortunately there isn't, so the solution should be incarceration, with therapy and social work. When you kill someone innocent, you take away their right to live. And in doing so, you forfeit all rights granted to you. When you kill a murderer, they no longer have that right to live. In doing so, your mind gets screwed over, but other consequences aren't there. Oh, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If this magic gun did exist, per say, there would be no negative consequence. People wouldn't have any reason not to kill anybody except for the fact that they'd only be able to do it once. And then they'd be made happy. End result, more people go out and kill people. And then get rewarded for it. Meanwhile, if the threat of actually dieing was placed over the head of a murderer, they'll be less likely to go out and kill people. It's not 100%, but negative consequence keeps people from killing people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:58 pm
I'm pro death penalty, so I say yeah. I have a bit of issues with the 9 year old, but with the teenagers and such, yeah. I mean teenagers are all about being treated "as adults" so they should get adult punishments, just like everybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:01 am
From the perspective of someone who was a ******** up kid who probably would have committed a couple murders had he thought he could have gotten away with it, I'm going to say no. Circumstances people, one kid shot another. Well ********, maybe you feel like he deserves death. What are you going to say if you put him to death and then find out he shot that kid because he was being bullied and beat up on a regular basis? Still guilty of murder, but is it still as wrong? I'd have to say no. What if a child killed an adult? Well, not every child is insane, what if he or she was sexually abused or beaten? You should applaud the kid in that case. These things aren't always so clear cut, and you're all acting like it's black and white. That would be fine if this were a world where people who committed crimes were always bad people. But it's not like that, and honestly, I don't think the law covers enough grey as it is. So no, I don't think they should put kids up to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:44 pm
Etherealsage From the perspective of someone who was a ******** up kid who probably would have committed a couple murders had he thought he could have gotten away with it, I'm going to say no. Circumstances people, one kid shot another. Well ********, maybe you feel like he deserves death. What are you going to say if you put him to death and then find out he shot that kid because he was being bullied and beat up on a regular basis? Still guilty of murder, but is it still as wrong? I'd have to say no. What if a child killed an adult? Well, not every child is insane, what if he or she was sexually abused or beaten? You should applaud the kid in that case. These things aren't always so clear cut, and you're all acting like it's black and white. That would be fine if this were a world where people who committed crimes were always bad people. But it's not like that, and honestly, I don't think the law covers enough grey as it is. So no, I don't think they should put kids up to death. I've already made the argument that if they're beyond the help of a psychological rehab institution...death penalty should apply. I agree, not every case should be treated the same. The only difference is, whether they are aware or not of their own doing. Would it be right to let loose a clinically determined psychopath loose to kill again another day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:33 am
Guardian TK Etherealsage From the perspective of someone who was a ******** up kid who probably would have committed a couple murders had he thought he could have gotten away with it, I'm going to say no. Circumstances people, one kid shot another. Well ********, maybe you feel like he deserves death. What are you going to say if you put him to death and then find out he shot that kid because he was being bullied and beat up on a regular basis? Still guilty of murder, but is it still as wrong? I'd have to say no. What if a child killed an adult? Well, not every child is insane, what if he or she was sexually abused or beaten? You should applaud the kid in that case. These things aren't always so clear cut, and you're all acting like it's black and white. That would be fine if this were a world where people who committed crimes were always bad people. But it's not like that, and honestly, I don't think the law covers enough grey as it is. So no, I don't think they should put kids up to death. I've already made the argument that if they're beyond the help of a psychological rehab institution...death penalty should apply. I agree, not every case should be treated the same. The only difference is, whether they are aware or not of their own doing. Would it be right to let loose a clinically determined psychopath loose to kill again another day? I didn't even get instintutionalized, lol. Personally, I think I'd be more ******** up if I was, as I know someone who was, and they did not have pretty stories. But I guess that more of a problem with the system than the theory, I guess. I don't think death penalty should apply. I would be more likely to opt for surveillance of the kid, let him or her live freely to a degree, perhaps with counseling, and evaluate whether they should be put to death by the time they're 24. Reasoning for letting them live a semi-normal life is my own experience. I wouldn't be the decent person I am had I not been able to live life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:14 am
Etherealsage Guardian TK Etherealsage From the perspective of someone who was a ******** up kid who probably would have committed a couple murders had he thought he could have gotten away with it, I'm going to say no. Circumstances people, one kid shot another. Well ********, maybe you feel like he deserves death. What are you going to say if you put him to death and then find out he shot that kid because he was being bullied and beat up on a regular basis? Still guilty of murder, but is it still as wrong? I'd have to say no. What if a child killed an adult? Well, not every child is insane, what if he or she was sexually abused or beaten? You should applaud the kid in that case. These things aren't always so clear cut, and you're all acting like it's black and white. That would be fine if this were a world where people who committed crimes were always bad people. But it's not like that, and honestly, I don't think the law covers enough grey as it is. So no, I don't think they should put kids up to death. I've already made the argument that if they're beyond the help of a psychological rehab institution...death penalty should apply. I agree, not every case should be treated the same. The only difference is, whether they are aware or not of their own doing. Would it be right to let loose a clinically determined psychopath loose to kill again another day? I didn't even get instintutionalized, lol. Personally, I think I'd be more ******** up if I was, as I know someone who was, and they did not have pretty stories. But I guess that more of a problem with the system than the theory, I guess. I don't think death penalty should apply. I would be more likely to opt for surveillance of the kid, let him or her live freely to a degree, perhaps with counseling, and evaluate whether they should be put to death by the time they're 24. Reasoning for letting them live a semi-normal life is my own experience. I wouldn't be the decent person I am had I not been able to live life. Well, remember that I've mentioned before, as well as Val, that it should be a case by case basis. Evaluation on whether the individual is mentally stable or salvageable is one thing. I agree though, that putting a sane person into a psychological institution would drive that person insane in common cases. Even so, the only reason we'd put them into an institution like that is if they're already evaluated as insane. You're right. It'd be the problem behind the system, not the theory. It's the same case behind jail though. Think about it. Jail is no different than a psychological institution. As for the age, it would have to be determined by the "adult" age standard of each according state. For Florida, 21 is legal adult age. I don't agree with the monitoring though, as it is just... unrealistic for a theoretical solution to this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:53 pm
Lol, with technology that can keep track of any person's location, surveillance technology that is almost invisible, and a societal system that documents anything relevent about a person to anybody, technology is easily up to par with the task of keeping track of a minority of children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
