|
|
| Is the Death Penalty justified? |
| yes, kill the jerks |
|
54% |
[ 6 ] |
| no, save the poor unloved murderers |
|
27% |
[ 3 ] |
| whatever |
|
18% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:32 pm
Here are some words of wisdom a friend once gave me. "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:37 pm
chaoticpuppet Part of the reason that there are repeat offenders is that there are few, if any programs, for prisoners to help reintegrate them into society. Furthermore, even fewer of those few programs are good. It works the same in a lot of situations. Take schools for example, those that are better at educating the young minds of the future, will, for the most part, have more successful students, than those schools that cannot educate well. We could even look at the public school system on the east coast of the U.S. In the North, the public schools are far better than those in the south. As such, the students from the public schools in the north, are more likely to become useful members of society. chaoticpuppet Tigress Dawn Heh..there's already cruel and unusual punishment going on in the prisons. You hear about it all the time from the guards, its just no one cares. The only time there was ever a case brought up is when some guard locked a guy who had forged his taxes in with a big a** raping prisoner. I'm not sure if they got in trouble for that or not. I'm pretty sure they played ignorance and got off. Afterall, how can they tell who a** rapes and who doesn't? Cells are randomly chosen. ninja That is not cruel and unusual punishment.
They also beat prisoners down with sticks and stuff too.chaoticpuppet Furthermore, there is one huge difference between the test animals, and the prisoners. The test animals are breed solely for the purpose of being tested on, in other words, had we decided "No testing on animals" those animals wouldn't even exist. Prisoners, are not, in any way, shape, or form, breed for the sole purpose of testing. chaoticpuppet Tigress Dawn They do some jobs, like making liscence plates and some other stuff. They get grunt jobs with no pay. There is a difference between community service and a "slave" job. Are you sure, these "grunt" jobs with no pay, are not jobs protected under the title "community service?" chaoticpuppet Tigress Dawn In all honesty I'm not for cruelty to other people. I think if someone really wants a guy to be sentenced to death, they should do it themselves. If they don't have the balls then they should stop bitching about how they want the guy fried. If they want him killed enough that they can do it themselves, then chances are they guy probably deserved it, because most normal people don't have it in them to kill another person unless in self defense. Honestly, I quite disagree with you. The serial killer has little, if any, good reason to kill the people he wants to kill. Furthermore, you have just justified murder. Your argument will be paradoxical, if you argue for such a thing as justified murder.
Sorry puppet. sweatdrop s**t. Lack of sleep does things to me...I swear. redface heart
Sadly, I didn't notice it until a few minutes ago... I don't know what I did and didn't delete in your post sweatdrop I fixed it for ya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:30 pm
Tigress Dawn Well, how would you going about reintegrating people back into society? I don't have the much of the necessary information to make such a decision. Quote: Its not the program's fault, its the persons. If they truely wanted to stay out of trouble and out of jail, they would shape up when and if they were given their second chance. Otherwise, why bother with them? Your right in part. But you must remember, 9 times out of 10 violence breeds violence. Quote: Erm...knowing a guy is going to a** rape a prisoner if you stick him in the same cell with him, then continuouly stick him in the same cell so he can be a** raped every night after the guy has clung to the railing pleading not to stick him back in there? Especially if this guy didn't do anything more than skip out on a few taxes. I'd say that's pretty cruel. So, these guards are psychic? If not, how do they know he will get a** raped? Furthermore, let me give you a little example. My sister was a** raped last night. Does my saying it make it true? Quote: They also beat prisoners down with sticks and stuff too. It is, unless they can prove there was a need to use the stick. Quote: Who's to say we can't wipe the prisoner from existance? If he has no friends or family, who will notice? How much do you value human rights? Quote: You can list any job done for free as community service. Not necessarily. I deal drugs for free, is that community service (you said any job). Quote: I'm talking about victims killing the killer. No the other way around. If someone is tried and proven for murder, the victims should have the right ot decide whether or not to kill or spare him. I knew you were, but your last sentence made for a rather strong inference, that a person who kills has a good reason to kill. Now, I would also like to ask, what kind of charges you think should warrant killing in return? Should simple homicide (which may be either legal or illegal) be able to be punishable by death? What about manslaughter (Voluntary or involuntary)? Murder (all degrees)? What about other crimes? Should other crimes be punishable by death? Such as Treason/High Treason? etc. Now, also, let me ask you, which philosophy do you most closely follow: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself;" or "Do unto others as they have done unto yourself?" Now, how long do the victims have to decide? Are they able to do it on the spot, or do they have to wait a certain amount of time? While answering that, keep in mind, heat of the moment decisions are not always the best decisions we make. Furthermore, what about personal grudges from before the crime took place? Honestly, I think a jury of twelve members would be better suited. First of all, cahnces are, they have no ties to any member of the case at hand. Secondly, the crime was not done to them. And finally, there are twelve of them, usually randomly picked, and in most cases, who do not konw each other. Therefore, I am for objectivity, not personal decisions in such a matter. Furthermore, if the victim gives a statement to the court during the trial, they should be exempt from making any decision regarding the matter at hand. Would you find it fair, if in a debate (between you and me), I got to decide whether you died or not after you presented your side?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:13 pm
Quote: Quote: Its not the program's fault, its the persons. If they truely wanted to stay out of trouble and out of jail, they would shape up when and if they were given their second chance. Otherwise, why bother with them? Your right in part. But you must remember, 9 times out of 10 violence breeds violence. Quote: Quote: Erm...knowing a guy is going to a** rape a prisoner if you stick him in the same cell with him, then continuouly stick him in the same cell so he can be a** raped every night after the guy has clung to the railing pleading not to stick him back in there? Especially if this guy didn't do anything more than skip out on a few taxes. I'd say that's pretty cruel. So, these guards are psychic? If not, how do they know he will get a** raped? Furthermore, let me give you a little example. My sister was a** raped last night. Does my saying it make it true?
Your sister very well could have been a** raped. It could easily be proved by physical tests and questioning whether she truely was or not. As it could be by a prisoner if they made such a claim. However, rape cases aren't much looked into at a prison. Quote: Quote: They also beat prisoners down with sticks and stuff too. It is, unless they can prove there was a need to use the stick. Quote: Quote: Who's to say we can't wipe the prisoner from existance? If he has no friends or family, who will notice? How much do you value human rights? Quote: Quote: You can list any job done for free as community service. Not necessarily. I deal drugs for free, is that community service (you said any job).
I think you know what I mean by jobs. Something you could, under normal circumstances get paid for, but are doing for free to BENEFIT society.Quote: Quote: I'm talking about victims killing the killer. No the other way around. If someone is tried and proven for murder, the victims should have the right ot decide whether or not to kill or spare him. I knew you were, but your last sentence made for a rather strong inference, that a person who kills has a good reason to kill. Now, I would also like to ask, what kind of charges you think should warrant killing in return? Should simple homicide (which may be either legal or illegal) be able to be punishable by death? What about manslaughter (Voluntary or involuntary)? Murder (all degrees)? What about other crimes? Should other crimes be punishable by death? Such as Treason/High Treason? etc. Now, also, let me ask you, which philosophy do you most closely follow: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself;" or "Do unto others as they have done unto yourself?" Now, how long do the victims have to decide? Are they able to do it on the spot, or do they have to wait a certain amount of time? While answering that, keep in mind, heat of the moment decisions are not always the best decisions we make. Furthermore, what about personal grudges from before the crime took place? Honestly, I think a jury of twelve members would be better suited. First of all, cahnces are, they have no ties to any member of the case at hand. Secondly, the crime was not done to them. And finally, there are twelve of them, usually randomly picked, and in most cases, who do not konw each other. Therefore, I am for objectivity, not personal decisions in such a matter. Furthermore, if the victim gives a statement to the court during the trial, they should be exempt from making any decision regarding the matter at hand. Would you find it fair, if in a debate (between you and me), I got to decide whether you died or not after you presented your side?
If I went and murdered someone, I think I would have already broken the do unto others as you want done unto you. So if someone killed me, it'd be justified. I personally wouldn't opt for killing a guy that say killed a close friend or family member, just because I wouldn't have it in me to kill anyone. But I would appreciat being able to decide whether or not he should live or die. I know some families that no longer feel the murderer should be killed come execution date, but they had already fought so hard for it and they can't go back now. Wouldn't it be nice if they could decide that he should live so he didn't have to be executed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:02 pm
Tigress Dawn That's not neccessarily true. I know plenty of people who were beat growing up as kids. They have yet to lay a hand on their child because they know remember what it felt like and don't want to repeat the cycle. I know people where born into nothing and had to claw their way to the top. Just because you happen to be born into unfortunate circumstances doesn't mean that you will repeat them. Would you have prefered if I had said "Chances are ...?" 9 times out of 10 doesn't mean everyone does it. Furthermore, in a situation such as this, it most appropriately means that it applies to a large enough portion. Quote: Its easy to tell which prisoner a** rape prisoners and which ones don't. It doesn't take a super slueth guard to figure it out after working there for a few weeks. Now a new guard, yes, I'd say it'd be a genuine innocence on his part, but as far as experienced guards, they know the trouble makers and the ones that stay out of trouble. So, you have then worked in as a prison guard, in a prison? Especially as the guard for men-who-a**-rape-other-men-and-the-other-men-who-get-a**-raped? Secondly, is it easy to tell between the faker who consented and the genuine a**-raped victim? Quote: Your sister very well could have been a** raped. It could easily be proved by physical tests and questioning whether she truely was or not. As it could be by a prisoner if they made such a claim. However, rape cases aren't much looked into at a prison. Quote: Tests will not prove she was a**-raped. They will show there was an excellent chance she was involved in an act of a**l sex or not. Few tests can prove rape. These tests are those such as polygraphs, are you suggesting my sister get polygraphed? Furthermore, the polygraph is not fool proof, it can be beat. Nothing other than the rapers valid confession will prove my sister was a** raped. Everything else will prove there was (insert some variation of good - but nothing related to perfection - here) chance she was/was not. Quote: There's always a "Legit" excuse to beat them down with sticks, doesn't mean the guards are always telling the truth. I've heard about plenty of cases where guards will beat a prisoner for insolence or touching one of the prisoners that is in good favor with them. Ahh, much like the a** rape victim. Quote: Well, the man could either spend the rest of his life rotting in jail or as a something that could benefit mankind. I'd say the latter seems like a good alternative. I would only have it instituted on people who have committed capitol offenses and have life without parole. Personally, I don't think people in jail should have rights outside of being fed enough to survive and staying in a sanitary environment. If we could cure serious diseases by ridding ourselves of a few people who only make society worse anyway, then I say that their sacrifice was for the better good. I know of no one, who can tell the future accurate enough, to tell me which prisoners will and will not be able to get reintegrated into society. Secondly... I hope you do not mean to justify the holocaust. Quote: xd Now THAT'd be something worth putting under your tax deductions.
I think you know what I mean by jobs. Something you could, under normal circumstances get paid for, but are doing for free to BENEFIT society. It'd be in and out of the IRS faster than any other document from them. So, then why did you say "any job could be community service?" Not all jobs benefit society. e.g. Researching for the origins of the universe. Quote: I agree with the 12 jury members finding his guilt. Because that would (in most cases) determine whether or not he was truely guilty. His execution date would still be within the next ten or twenty years, which would give the victim enough time to truely think about the descision and weigh all options. If they still felt after 20 years he should be killed, then go for it. Still did not answer the personal grudges question. Quote: If I went and murdered someone, I think I would have already broken the do unto others as you want done unto you. Depends. Do you want to be murdered? If so, then you, in no way violated the philosophy. Quote: So if someone killed me, it'd be justified. Not without someone to kill them, and another person to kill that person, and so on and so forth. Quote: I personally wouldn't opt for killing a guy that say killed a close friend or family member, just because I wouldn't have it in me to kill anyone. But I would appreciat being able to decide whether or not he should live or die. We all like power, don't we? We all lust for it. Even with the law there, you still are able to decide whether he is able to live or die. It's just that, currently, you killing him, is most likely, seen as not worth the consequences. Quote: I know some families that no longer feel the murderer should be killed come execution date, but they had already fought so hard for it and they can't go back now. Why not? Legal complications, financial issues, or to save face? If it's to save face, then these people would disgust me. Quote: Wouldn't it be nice if they could decide that he should live so he didn't have to be executed? No. It is not the families job to decide that. They are far too closely tied, there is likely to be some kind of emotional involvement. Objectivity, in this case is the best option. Secondly, it wasn't a familial law that was broken, it was a state law/federal law that was broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:45 pm
Quote: Would you have prefered if I had said "Chances are ...?" 9 times out of 10 doesn't mean everyone does it. Furthermore, in a situation such as this, it most appropriately means that it applies to a large enough portion. Quote: So, you have then worked in as a prison guard, in a prison? Especially as the guard for men-who-a**-rape-other-men-and-the-other-men-who-get-a**-raped? Secondly, is it easy to tell between the faker who consented and the genuine a**-raped victim? Quote: Tests will not prove she was a**-raped. They will show there was an excellent chance she was involved in an act of a**l sex or not. Few tests can prove rape. These tests are those such as polygraphs, are you suggesting my sister get polygraphed? Furthermore, the polygraph is not fool proof, it can be beat. Nothing other than the rapers valid confession will prove my sister was a** raped. Everything else will prove there was (insert some variation of good - but nothing related to perfection - here) chance she was/was not. Quote: I know of no one, who can tell the future accurate enough, to tell me which prisoners will and will not be able to get reintegrated into society. Secondly... I hope you do not mean to justify the holocaust.
What does the holocaust have to do with anything? Prisoners have been tried and convict by a jury of 12 peers, they have been given appeals. Evidence still adds up to their crime. The Jewish people had done nothing wrong. They had no trials before being shipped off. They had no appeals or someone to defend them before being murdered. I'm talking about tried and convicted prisoners, not innocent victims who could have benefitted society had they been left alone. Quote: It'd be in and out of the IRS faster than any other document from them. So, then why did you say "any job could be community service?" Not all jobs benefit society. e.g. Researching for the origins of the universe. Quote: Depends. Do you want to be murdered? If so, then you, in no way violated the philosophy. Quote: Not without someone to kill them, and another person to kill that person, and so on and so forth. Quote: We all like power, don't we? We all lust for it. Even with the law there, you still are able to decide whether he is able to live or die. It's just that, currently, you killing him, is most likely, seen as not worth the consequences. Quote: Why not? Legal complications, financial issues, or to save face? If it's to save face, then these people would disgust me. Quote: No. It is not the families job to decide that. They are far too closely tied, there is likely to be some kind of emotional involvement. Objectivity, in this case is the best option. Secondly, it wasn't a familial law that was broken, it was a state law/federal law that was broken.
Now technically you're right, its not technically not a familial law. However, like I said he really hasn't done much to the state of the rest of society. Therefore it should be the family that decides his fate, with the help of a state trial.
Objectivity is best when proving his innocence or guilt. Past that, he made wounds, let him pay reperation for them. Mabey then people planning murdering will see what could happen to them and decide not to do it if they know that they'll have the family execute them should they be proven guilty. As far as the people holding a grudge, if a family grudge went so far as to get another killed, then let them settle the score. Its fair. Then mabey after seeing they both lose when murdering, they'll decide that bloodshed really isn't worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:54 am
Tigress Dawn Like I said, its not too hard to tell the trouble makers from the rest. are you sure? I?d like to think I could tell the difference, but unless I?ve been there I really wouldn?t say and I don?t see a lot of credibility in someone else that wasn?t there. Tigress Dawn The life without parole part might be good indication that they're not being put back into society anytime soon.
What does the holocaust have to do with anything? Prisoners have been tried and convict by a jury of 12 peers, they have been given appeals. Evidence still adds up to their crime. The Jewish people had done nothing wrong. They had no trials before being shipped off. They had no appeals or someone to defend them before being murdered. I'm talking about tried and convicted prisoners, not innocent victims who could have benefitted society had they been left alone. people can still be good for society in prison. People in prison are still consumers, which in a capitalistic society, is definitely useful. Prisons help run prisons, thus lowering the cost of maintaining them, which is also useful for society. As for the holocaust comment, I think chaoticpuppet meant that forcing people to be experimented on is a violation of human rights severely. Tigress Dawn He hasn't directly offended or hurt the state by murdering someone. I'm not affected when I see that some random stranger has been killed on TV, and I doubt you are either. The only people affected by the murder are the victim, the family and friends, and perhaps a few traumatized witnesses. Therefore, it really isn't a state offense, but a family one. He wronged the family. He wronged the state by breaking its laws, but ultimately he didn't do any damage to teh way the state functions and runs.
Now technically you're right, its not technically not a familial law. However, like I said he really hasn't done much to the state of the rest of society. Therefore it should be the family that decides his fate, with the help of a state trial.
Objectivity is best when proving his innocence or guilt. Past that, he made wounds, let him pay reperation for them. Mabey then people planning murdering will see what could happen to them and decide not to do it if they know that they'll have the family execute them should they be proven guilty. As far as the people holding a grudge, if a family grudge went so far as to get another killed, then let them settle the score. Its fair. Then mabey after seeing they both lose when murdering, they'll decide that bloodshed really isn't worth it. you do not think that the punishment for an equal crime should be equal for everyone? And what if the victims family really didn?t like purple people, and a purple person was convicted of the murder, then that family would be much more inclined to off that purple person, where if that person was blue, like the family themselves, the would turn the other cheek. Does that promote equal rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:20 am
Kalorn Tigress Dawn Like I said, its not too hard to tell the trouble makers from the rest. are you sure? I?d like to think I could tell the difference, but unless I?ve been there I really wouldn?t say and I don?t see a lot of credibility in someone else that wasn?t there.
Even a new guard could tell which ones were going to cause him trouble because prisoners like to test out new guards to see how they'll fit into the prison structure. Once he had been there a few weeks would start to be able to pick out which ones generally cause trouble and which ones generally start the fights and which gangs cause the most ruckus. You tell simply by observing their behavior. Guards are trained to deal with problems that prisoners may cause.Quote: Tigress Dawn The life without parole part might be good indication that they're not being put back into society anytime soon.
What does the holocaust have to do with anything? Prisoners have been tried and convict by a jury of 12 peers, they have been given appeals. Evidence still adds up to their crime. The Jewish people had done nothing wrong. They had no trials before being shipped off. They had no appeals or someone to defend them before being murdered. I'm talking about tried and convicted prisoners, not innocent victims who could have benefitted society had they been left alone. people can still be good for society in prison. People in prison are still consumers, which in a capitalistic society, is definitely useful. Prisons help run prisons, thus lowering the cost of maintaining them, which is also useful for society. As for the holocaust comment, I think chaoticpuppet meant that forcing people to be experimented on is a violation of human rights severely.
Something you need to understand about prisoners is that they are NOT civilized people sitting calmly in a room with bars. They're not honorable and mellow like they're portrayed in the Shawshank Redemption movie. The slightest affront to a prisoner could result in death. It doesn't take much to set them off, and it doesn't take much for a person to start a prison riot. It wouldn't be just taking a poor person who can't fend for themselves and doing experiments on them whilst they are whimpering and pleading. No, it'd be more along the lines of take some violent person who is in there for a damned good reason not to get parole, who'd be sitting there trying to attack you and possibly kill you before you thought of doing experiments on him.
Not only that, but prisoners help clean and do the laundry and stuff (which really doesn't cost the state much money for supplies) but as far as maintaining top notch security, no. There needs to be money to pay the guards otherwise you get understaffed prisons where the guards are severely outnumbered and prisoners can escape easier. The most prisoners can really do to benefit society outside a prison is to get some vocational training for a job they might like. This only really affects them if they will be released within the next 10 years. Otherwise, learning new jobs and learning something to benefit society will be a rather pointless task. So really, these guys without parole aren't very useful to society or anything else for that matter.Quote: Tigress Dawn He hasn't directly offended or hurt the state by murdering someone. I'm not affected when I see that some random stranger has been killed on TV, and I doubt you are either. The only people affected by the murder are the victim, the family and friends, and perhaps a few traumatized witnesses. Therefore, it really isn't a state offense, but a family one. He wronged the family. He wronged the state by breaking its laws, but ultimately he didn't do any damage to teh way the state functions and runs.
Now technically you're right, its not technically not a familial law. However, like I said he really hasn't done much to the state of the rest of society. Therefore it should be the family that decides his fate, with the help of a state trial.
Objectivity is best when proving his innocence or guilt. Past that, he made wounds, let him pay reperation for them. Mabey then people planning murdering will see what could happen to them and decide not to do it if they know that they'll have the family execute them should they be proven guilty. As far as the people holding a grudge, if a family grudge went so far as to get another killed, then let them settle the score. Its fair. Then mabey after seeing they both lose when murdering, they'll decide that bloodshed really isn't worth it. you do not think that the punishment for an equal crime should be equal for everyone? And what if the victims family really didn?t like purple people, and a purple person was convicted of the murder, then that family would be much more inclined to off that purple person, where if that person was blue, like the family themselves, the would turn the other cheek. Does that promote equal rights?
No, I don't think that everyone should have equal treatment or punishments for the same crime. That's like saying that everyone who has lost a loved one to murder or has had a loved one raped should react the same way. They don't react the same way. Some people get depressed, while other get over it quickly and forgive, whilst others demand reperation.
Because of that, the punishment of the convicted person shouldn't be equal either. It should be based on how the family is affected. If the family forgives him, fine, he's off the hook as far as execution goes. If the family is enraged, well he dealt the first blow, let him suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:40 pm
Tigress Dawn Kalorn Tigress Dawn Like I said, its not too hard to tell the trouble makers from the rest. are you sure? I'd like to think I could tell the difference, but unless I've been there I really wouldn't say and I don't see a lot of credibility in someone else that wasn't there. Not with the deadly accuracy one would want. Furthermore, I am a huge fan of not prejudging. I would rather make that decision after I got to know the person in question. Quote: Even a new guard could tell which ones were going to cause him trouble because prisoners like to test out new guards to see how they'll fit into the prison structure. Once he had been there a few weeks would start to be able to pick out which ones generally cause trouble and which ones generally start the fights and which gangs cause the most ruckus. You tell simply by observing their behavior. Guards are trained to deal with problems that prisoners may cause. So, then, are you implying that prejudice is good? We all saw the 9/11/01, would that justify us, treating any muslim with prejudice? Quote: Tigress Dawn The life without parole part might be good indication that they're not being put back into society anytime soon.
Quote: Rights are violated all the time in prisons. Guards are assaulted and killed, so are the prisoners. So why not violate the human rights in a productive way. Instead of beating the prisoner down for insolence, throw him in a room to be tested on for a cure for a disease?
One, two wrongs do not make a right.
Secondly, if human rights are going to be violated in a prison system, then you cannot logically believe in human rights for a population of people outside prison. In other words, you don't believe in human rights. In which case, I would ask you why you would even have started a Religious Tolerance Guild on Gaia?
Quote: Something you need to understand about prisoners is that they are NOT civilized people sitting calmly in a room with bars. They're not honorable and mellow like they're portrayed in the Shawshank Redemption movie. The slightest affront to a prisoner could result in death. It doesn't take much to set them off, and it doesn't take much for a person to start a prison riot. It wouldn't be just taking a poor person who can't fend for themselves and doing experiments on them whilst they are whimpering and pleading. No, it'd be more along the lines of take some violent person who is in there for a damned good reason not to get parole, who'd be sitting there trying to attack you and possibly kill you before you thought of doing experiments on him.
I've toured through a prison before, and honestly, it was very contradictory to what you just said. The prisoners held in there were civilized. Maybe I was in there on an off day?
Secondly, that should be a tipoff that prison's are not doing what they are supposed to. Think about it, when your parents punish you for doing something bad, do you often come out of that punishment willing to beat your parent over the head with a blunt object? Or do you usually see the error in your ways?
The prisoners, don't see the errors in their ways, that is what needs to be changed.
Quote: Not only that, but prisoners help clean and do the laundry and stuff (which really doesn't cost the state much money for supplies) but as far as maintaining top notch security, no. There needs to be money to pay the guards otherwise you get understaffed prisons where the guards are severely outnumbered and prisoners can escape easier. The most prisoners can really do to benefit society outside a prison is to get some vocational training for a job they might like. This only really affects them if they will be released within the next 10 years. Otherwise, learning new jobs and learning something to benefit society will be a rather pointless task. So really, these guys without parole aren't very useful to society or anything else for that matter.
So, are you trying to imply if your sentence is longer that 10 yrs, your screwed?
"Damnit, I got an 11 yr sentence, I won't be able to be reintegrated into society."
How wonderful for that person, huh?
Those guys without parole do a lot of jobs in the prison system cuasing costs of labor (which are typically astronomical) to be lower. Would you rather have a prisoner cook for close to free, or pay a cook for the astronomical price they would ask for? Oh, and don't forget, that cook would want some sort of, excellent, health insurance coverage, would probably want to be as safe as possible (meaning, hire more guards, simply to guard the cook), etc. There is, often, a lot more to such economic problems than the immediate costs of supplies.
Lastly, Kalorn is right, in a capatilistic society, we are dependent upon the consumer, keeping the consumer alive, is far better than giving him the chance of death. One more live consumer means more money floating around our economy, which means we have more capital, which means businesses can stay alive longer.
Quote: Tigress Dawn He hasn't directly offended or hurt the state by murdering someone.
That is completely wrong. By commiting a crime any criminal hurts the state.
How well do you know the social contract theory (set forth by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, et al.)?
Quote: I'm not affected when I see that some random stranger has been killed on TV, and I doubt you are either.
Doesn't matter whether or not you or I are effected.
Quote: Therefore, it really isn't a state offense, but a family one. He wronged the family. He wronged the state by breaking its laws, but ultimately he didn't do any damage to teh way the state functions and runs.
He hurt the family, yes, I will grant you that. But, he hurt the state more.
You and I are not the state, the person unconnected to the victims, are not the state. The state is no one person, nor is it a person. The state is represented by the people of it.
[quoteNow technically you're right, its not technically not a familial law. However, like I said he really hasn't done much to the state of the rest of society. Therefore it should be the family that decides his fate, with the help of a state trial. Once again, how good are you with the social contract theory? Quote: Objectivity is best when proving his innocence or guilt. Past that, he made wounds, let him pay reperation for them. Mabey then people planning murdering will see what could happen to them and decide not to do it if they know that they'll have the family execute them should they be proven guilty. As far as the people holding a grudge, if a family grudge went so far as to get another killed, then let them settle the score. Its fair. Then mabey after seeing they both lose when murdering, they'll decide that bloodshed really isn't worth it. It'd be against the social contract theory (which if not upheld, completely destroys any legitimacy the current government may have), not to have a universal punishment for a certain crime. Allowing the families to decide punishment is not universal. Some may opt away from death, giving the man 20 yrs. while others may opt towards death. Quote: The man should have taken that up into consideration before he shot the family up. If he knew they didn't like purple people, then why is he a purple person going and killing them? Its his own undoing. Ah, yes, because it is blatantly obvious who is prejudice and who is not. Quote: No, I don't think that everyone should have equal treatment or punishments for the same crime. That's like saying that everyone who has lost a loved one to murder or has had a loved one raped should react the same way. They don't react the same way. Some people get depressed, while other get over it quickly and forgive, whilst others demand reperation. On the contrary, they often do. And yet again, social contract theory. Quote: Because of that, the punishment of the convicted person shouldn't be equal either. It should be based on how the family is affected. If the family forgives him, fine, he's off the hook as far as execution goes. If the family is enraged, well he dealt the first blow, let him suffer. Honestly now, how do you expect centralized rule to be kept under these situations? Quote: If the proof weighs more towards the rape, then it proves she was raped. There is never a 100% beyond a doubt certainty that something truely happened, including murder trials. There is never a 100% certainty on anything, even the sun rising. Sure we can say based on proof that it will rise again tommorow morning. However, by freak accident the sun could blow up and obliterate the planet and life as we know it. Since that is not likely the proof gathered by repetition proves that it will, not beyond a doubt, but it does prove that the sun will rise. On the contrary, there are things that are 100% proven. The statements (when communicated in some fashion): "Everyone lies (with or without, 'all the time')" is nessarily false. "At least one person lies" is necessarily true. Furthermore, I can, obviously, prove that I exist (however, I can do this only to myself). Quote: What does the holocaust have to do with anything? Prisoners have been tried and convict by a jury of 12 peers, they have been given appeals. Evidence still adds up to their crime. The Jewish people had done nothing wrong. They had no trials before being shipped off. They had no appeals or someone to defend them before being murdered. I'm talking about tried and convicted prisoners, not innocent victims who could have benefitted society had they been left alone. Before I answer the question regarding the holocaust, please, understand, these are not my views. I am only doing this, and only arguing from this standpoint to make a point. Have you read Mein Kampf? You are clearly wrong about the Jewish people doing nothing wrong; the fact is, they did do wrong. Hitler shows what they did wrong, and as he fully believes what he is saying, I suggest you read what he had to say on the matter, it would be far better than my own musings on the matter (as I, in no way, believe Hitler was right). Hitler had his reasons. These reasons where good enough for him and the rest of his followers. These reasons, therefore, are right and just to him and his followers. If you fail to accept that you then are completely contradicting yourself, by saying that Justice is objective, thus requiring equal punishment for equal crime (which, you are against). Quote: If I murdered someone, and the victim's friend or family murdered me in turn, then we would be square because I traded my life for the victim. No, no, no, no, no. It doesn't work that way. You are arguing the opposite philosophy "treat others the way you are treated." (where you means a group of people). The only way, the muderer can be killed and not violate "treat others the way you are treated." Is if the dead victim killed the murderer, and then, only if the dead victim wanted to be murdered, as well as the murderer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 9:52 pm
I seriously do believe in human rights and that every human should be treated with a certain sense of dignity and respect, even people I despise. I was playing devils advocate in this arguement to make the thread more interesting. But now I've run out of arguements and I'm just repeating myself. Sorry if you got seriously upset over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:13 pm
Tigress Dawn I seriously do believe in human rights and that every human should be treated with a certain sense of dignity and respect, even people I despise. I was playing devils advocate in this arguement to make the thread more interesting. But now I've run out of arguements and I'm just repeating myself. Sorry if you got seriously upset over it. I try not to let debates upset me. If my words expressed that I was angry, it was only because I was baffled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:59 pm
First of all, to be in favour of the death penalty, one would first and foremost need to agree with the following statement:
"IT IS OKAY TO KILL A HUMAN BEING".
If you answer "no", then you can't logically be in favour of the death penalty. If you answered "yes", then keep reading:
By agreeing with the idea that the state can murder people based on an evaluation, you're putting a hell of a lot of trust in government. I don't trust the government to mail my grandmother a letter, let alone be able to murder people! The government cannot be trusted to be responsible about killing people.
And what of innocents? The Death Penalty Information Centre places the number of innocents exonerated from death row since 1973 at 123 people.
If but one innocent man or woman is killed, then you, the supporter of the death penalty, become a murderer. And, by your own rules, you deserve to die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:56 pm
I'm undecided when it comes to many things, including the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:42 pm
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Punishing killers by killing them just seems kind of, well, ridiculous doesn't it?
To my point...our society condemns killing other humans as a heinous crime. And yet a majority of our population believes that the death penalty is a necessity. It's an oxymoron, isn't it? Punish the killer by killing him? It's a double standard to say they can't kill and if they do the government is going to kill them in turn.
In my personal opinion, murder is the most heinous of all crimes you could commit. Taking a human life is inexcusable, whether it's done with a gun in a dark alley or in a penitentiary with a needle. Killing is killing.
This is not to say that I believe murderers and other terrible criminals should be set free or excused of their crimes, by no means am I implying this. On the contrary, why not just let them sit in an 8 x 8 concrete cell with bars for the rest of their natural lives? Wouldn't death be welcomed if that's what you were facing? The better way of dealing with such people is to remove them from society, where they can cause harm to others, and let God(s) or whatever lies beyond, judge their actions in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:02 am
In truth, I thinkperhaps instead of killing off criminals that have committed crimes that by law warrent a death penalty, I think we need to come up with punishments that would cause said criminals to indeed suffer for thier crimes. I feel that on the whole, our government's system of punishing criminals is getting much too weak. Criminals have everything they need in prison and are well cared for, even murderers, rapists and child molesters. Crime is on the rise because criminals aren't afraid of being punished. Prison = lifestyle where all basic needs are met, and money is not needed. Personally, I'd like to throw all serial killers, serial rapists and child molesters/killers into a room with no lights, one toliot, one shower and food being dropped in from a very high cieling and just leave them in there for the rest of thier lives. Some people would complain about this idea as being inhumane, violating the rights of these criminals. Let me tell you something. If you go out and murder several people, rape several people, or violate and/or kill children, you should have NO RIGHTS. Some people are beyond redemtion, plain and simple. Those who can be redeemed, that can be helped so they can return to society and live a new and better life, by all means those people should be helped. But people who have committed such heinous crimes and have no real regret for what they have done should be punished in ways that would truly make them regretever being born, nevermind regretting what they had done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
