170 replies to this topic

[Mr Walker]

Kazahel, on 10 February 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

I already gave my thoughts on page 3 but I left out that I also believe people can change over time and so they should be given the opportunity to. Capital punishment takes away that chance.  

I do have a question though for people like Mr Walker and Mr Right Wing. When you say death and torture for drug dealers, do you mean just any dealers or the major drug importers?

Because many dealers are only dealing to support their habit. And their habit may of formed because of many reasons. So for example they might of been abused or had something very bad happen in their life and so turned to drugs as a form of escape. So to wish death or torture upon these people is extremely heartless, shortsighted and cruel. As I said above, people go through stages. They might be dealers/criminals one day but over time they can potentially change their lives around. So to take that chance away from someone is unwise imo. You are acting as if people are hopeless cases which doesnt show any faith/love at all in God or man.

I DO NOT believe in torture. One reason I am for the death penalty is because I believe effective gaol time over many years IS a form of torture. Any one who sells drugs to another should be punished severely, but i would leave the death penalty for  organised trafficking. Personally, i dont give a damn why someone chose to do something They HAVE a choice and need to be held accountable for that choice. If a drug dealer is threatening a family member and forcing a user to sell,  then that is a mitigating circumstance, but it needs to be established that this is actually happening.

Once upon a time, if you killed someone under the effects of drugs or alcohol, that was a defence in law, but now it is accepted,  in Australia at least, that in chosing to lose control of yourself  by drinking or taking drugs, you became accountable for what you did while out of control, even though you no longer have self control.. Ie in voluntarily relinquishing control you  do NOT  free yourself from responsibility while out of control.

I do not care as much for the offenders as for their victims. Like elderly people who are broken into, bashed and robbed, and sometimes killed by people trying to get money to feed addictions.  Or children who die or a brain damaged from environental effects (poor diet/malnutrion or bashing/neglect by druggie parents)

The sellers are as responsible as the users. So, kill or badly injure an elderly person  while 18 and taking drugs. It doesnt matter, if by age 40 "you" might have grown into a responsible loving parent. You are unable to give that person's life back to them, or to their family, and so your own is forfeit. Doesn't matter how long you live, or how good you become, you cant restore the wrong you have done. So there is no point in being given the chance to. It is not ABOUT "you" and your rights, but about the protection of others, and about justice.

[libstaK]

Mr Walker, on 11 February 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

While I can appreciate the value set underlying your position, I do not agree with it. Capital punishment is a legal consequence. It is not  vengeance and it is not an eye for an eye. In western society we take punishment and consequence out of the hands of families or victims and give it to an impartial judicial system for this very reason We have prosecutors and defenders and laws of procedure That is precisely why the death sentence is a logical  and reasonablee end product of this procedure.

These prosecutors and defenders of laws of procedure have proven far from reasonable in their analysis of the criminality of those they both prosecuting and defending.  The opportunity of the guilty to be set free because of the letter of the law and the innocent to be put to death for the same are far from rare. Have you seen the Innocense project's figures?

302 exonerated through DNA testing alone.  AKA: Where there is no DNA available to be tested how many innocent have failed to have their cases reviewed and overturned by extension?

Of those the number who were serving time on Death Row were = 18.  The number who faced a capital crime but were not actually sentenced to death = 15.

The number who pleaded guilty to a crime they did not commit aka: the attorneys had them strike a "deal" = 28.

Combined number of years served in prison for those exonerated (so far) is a staggering 4013.  Think about that - 4013 years of human life destroyed or damaged by a process of LAW.

And this is only SO FAR.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Quote

Punishment should ALWAYS be delivered in "cold blood" it is the only way to ensure it is nt based on emotion or feeling

Well naturally, let's not let emotion or compassion affect the decision on whether a punishment is just .

Quote

Your confusion can only exist if you equate the taking of a life by a murderer to that of the execution of that murderer. Of course ther IS no similarity The murderer took the life of an innocent He didso wth no regard t legal procedure there was no opportunity for pleading of a case or for a defence to be mounted. All the power was in the murderer's hands. And so on. No individual is sanctioned to kill women and children or in general anyone who is innocent of any wrong doing But a state is sanctioned to take a persons life in many ways; from abortion to euthanasia to sending them to war. Even a state has more legal limitations placed on it than a murderer.

I am not at all confused, I disagree with "State sanctioned execution".  My reasons are not confusing. The "State" is actually made up of individuals who are not particularly evolved in their understanding of true reason.  Refer again, the figures from the Innocence Project alone which is working in the USA.  And a reminder - 18 spent time on death row.

There have been 10 cases since 1976 where prisoners have been exonerated POSTHUMOUSLY after being put to death.

http://www.deathpena...icle.php?id=560

That is those cases that have been allowed appeal and review - what of those who have not had a chance at such a review or the issues of missing / tampered evidence that have denied so many a review?

Quote

It doesnt matter why a person rapes kills or harms. Unless they are seriously mentally ill, they understand consequence and they know they are doing harm and how much it will hurt others. And so they must accept the consequences of their behaviour. We have to do this because we can do it. We KNOW right from wrong and thus must be held acountable for tha t knowledge.
LAck of understanding of consequence would be one factor which would prevent the death penalty being applied.

I agree, if one is capable of committing a crime upon society, then society is best served by that individual being removed from the opportunity to do so ever again.  This can be achieved without death.

The fact is, amongst those that are capable of such crimes - comprehension of consequences is not quite as profound as it is for those who would never consider such acts due to the consequences being so heinous, primarily for the potential victim but also for family and friends of both the victim and perp.  Criminals minds have not shown the comprehension required to be productive and socially reasonable members of society, hence the existence of prisons.

Quote

There are a number of insurmountable problems with life time incarceration. First if it is done in a way to truly limit a persons fredom it is considered cruel and unusual punishmnet and cannot legally be aplied Most prisoners are fed sheltered and cared for  well in prisons Far beter than millions of othe rhumansveer get to be cared for Loss of liberty alone is not an adequate punishmnet for many crimes And in a way it serves no pupose criminals adjust and become acclimatised to life in prison to the point where it may be little hardship at all If all deserving criminals were imprisoed for life we would need far more prisons Most are lt out before they die

Rubbish to the first part.  Our legal systems incarcerate people for the term of their natural life all the time.  The notion that they are treated better than the innocent poor is one that needs to be flipped on it's head. Why do we neglect our poor?  They deserve to be treated better than our prisoners.

Quote

Finally to keep a prisoner in a humane condition in gaol costs a fortune Personally i do not think it reasonable for a society to bear those costs  There are about 80000 prisoners in solitary confinement in america. The UN has already officially complianed tha this is cruel and unsual punishment
http://www.guardian....ongress-prisons I dont know the costs in America but it costs about 100000 dollars per year to keep ONE prisoner in a general prison  in australia Solitary confinement would be more than this. So 8,000,000,000 dollars to keep those prisoners in solitary confinement EVERY YEAR? Maybe it is the economy of scale or maybe american prisons are a lot less amenable than  australian ones, but i just discovered that it only costs 25000 to keep an american prisoner in the general population for a year, but 80000 for  solitary confinement.

It costs a fortune to keep a prisoner in prison but only about $35 a month to keep a child out of poverty in the 3rd world.  The problem is clearly the profitability associated with the privatised prison system and the bleeding bureacrasy associated with the government owned prisons.  Fix the system, the system is the problem.

Quote

That brings the figure down to 640,000,000 dollars per year for those american prisoners in solitary confinment. It still seems a terrible waste of resources to me.

My final comment has to be that money is the root of all evil, we equate all views on what is with and without merit by it's "cost" in the final analysis, this is a problem with society and the world as whole.  Again, it is the belief system and the values applied that are broken, fix that instead of judging whether a life is worth a particular sum of money.

[Zaphod222]

I am agnostic on the topic. My only reason to be in favour of the DP would be that it is a hell of an incentive not to repeat the crime.... like a 100% incentive.

[EllJay]

Quote

Capital Punishment - For or against?

I'm for to be against it.
The most vile act a state can carry out against a man.

[Mr Walker]

libstaK, on 11 February 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

These prosecutors and defenders of laws of procedure have proven far from reasonable in their analysis of the criminality of those they both prosecuting and defending.  The opportunity of the guilty to be set free because of the letter of the law and the innocent to be put to death for the same are far from rare. Have you seen the Innocense project's figures?

302 exonerated through DNA testing alone.  AKA: Where there is no DNA available to be tested how many innocent have failed to have their cases reviewed and overturned by extension?

Of those the number who were serving time on Death Row were = 18.  The number who faced a capital crime but were not actually sentenced to death = 15.

The number who pleaded guilty to a crime they did not commit aka: the attorneys had them strike a "deal" = 28.

Combined number of years served in prison for those exonerated (so far) is a staggering 4013.  Think about that - 4013 years of human life destroyed or damaged by a process of LAW.

And this is only SO FAR.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Well naturally, let's not let emotion or compassion affect the decision on whether a punishment is just .

I am not at all confused, I disagree with "State sanctioned execution".  My reasons are not confusing. The "State" is actually made up of individuals who are not particularly evolved in their understanding of true reason.  Refer again, the figures from the Innocence Project alone which is working in the USA.  And a reminder - 18 spent time on death row.

There have been 10 cases since 1976 where prisoners have been exonerated POSTHUMOUSLY after being put to death.

http://www.deathpena...icle.php?id=560

That is those cases that have been allowed appeal and review - what of those who have not had a chance at such a review or the issues of missing / tampered evidence that have denied so many a review?

I agree, if one is capable of committing a crime upon society, then society is best served by that individual being removed from the opportunity to do so ever again.  This can be achieved without death.

The fact is, amongst those that are capable of such crimes - comprehension of consequences is not quite as profound as it is for those who would never consider such acts due to the consequences being so heinous, primarily for the potential victim but also for family and friends of both the victim and perp.  Criminals minds have not shown the comprehension required to be productive and socially reasonable members of society, hence the existence of prisons.


Rubbish to the first part.  Our legal systems incarcerate people for the term of their natural life all the time.  The notion that they are treated better than the innocent poor is one that needs to be flipped on it's head. Why do we neglect our poor?  They deserve to be treated better than our prisoners.

It costs a fortune to keep a prisoner in prison but only about $35 a month to keep a child out of poverty in the 3rd world.  The problem is clearly the profitability associated with the privatised prison system and the bleeding bureacrasy associated with the government owned prisons.  Fix the system, the system is the problem.

My final comment has to be that money is the root of all evil, we equate all views on what is with and without merit by it's "cost" in the final analysis, this is a problem with society and the world as whole.  Again, it is the belief system and the values applied that are broken, fix that instead of judging whether a life is worth a particular sum of money.

If you spend $640,000,000 keeping 80000 humans in gaol every year, that money is not available to save the lives of others. Money is simply a bartering system of exchange. Privatised prisons cost the tax payer less, which is why in general govts approve them. It would appear that they are run far more cheaply in the us than in australaia. Part of the problem is that one canot simply incarcerate and forget a human being.
Even in prison they have human rights for the term of their life and must be properly cared for so that their treatment is humane. It is philosophically correct to want both, but practically impossible.

And if 18 innocent lives are lost that is bad but not as bad as thousands of innocent lives lost either by ineffective law and order, eg victims of crime or by failure to spend money to feed and clothe them eg victims of poverty.  Why should a killer be cared for for life, while an innocent young person starves or dehydrates to death; or dies because they can't get the medical assistance provided to every prisoner.

Again, philosophically, to have both would be good, but look at the sums just for solitary confinement in america.

Australians do care for prisoners reasonably well ,and it costs  nearly 100000 dollars per year just to confine a person in  a general wing. If america confined all its prisoners as humanely, their cost would be in the billions of dollars.

This is not a dig at you but the illogic and hypocrisy of many people amazes me They are prepared to keep rapists and killers alive at great cost, but see hundreds of thousands of unborn killed and many more young (and elderly) people die of abuse neglect and disease where far less cost could save them..
Also, innocent and guilt do not go to the nature of punishment.
Rather guilt should be correctly established in every case. You quote the innocent convicted, but no one knows how many guilty are aquitted to offend again, or simply to live out their lives without consequence for their crime. If no innocent should be punished then, equally, no guilty should be allowed to go unpunished just to assure this. In my, admittedly rather unusual opinion,  it is better to have a few innocents punished, rather than allow many guilty to go free.

I would maintain this even if I was innocent and charged with a crime, but then I would never commit a crime in the first place and thus would be highly unlikely ever to be considered as a perpetrator of one.. If i did kill another person unlawfully, I would expect to be punished  what ever my reasons, and I would prefer death to life imprisonment. It would be fairer on me and on society.

Edited by Mr Walker, 11 February 2013 - 10:32 PM.

[libstaK]

Mr Walker, on 11 February 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

This is not a dig at you but the illogic and hypocrisy of many people amazes me They are prepared to keep rapists and killers alive at great cost, but see hundreds of thousands of unborn killed and many more young (and elderly) people die of abuse neglect and disease where far less cost could save them..

Those are separate problems, they don't belong together in the same argument.  There is no hypocrisy, who says that those who value life believe it is okay for those things to occur?  Life, however, is defined by sentience.  When it is proven that a fetus is individuated and sentient/aware the paradigm surrounding abortion will change - that evidence has not arisen it seems.

Quote

Also, innocent and guilt do not go to the nature of punishment.
Rather guilt should be correctly established in every case. You quote the innocent convicted, but no one knows how many guilty are aquitted to offend again, or simply to live out their lives without consequence for their crime. If no innocent should be punished then, equally, no guilty should be allowed to go unpunished just to assure this. In my, admittedly rather unusual opinion,  it is better to have a few innocents punished, rather than allow many guilty to go free.

It ALL speaks to the endemic corruption of facts which can forever change a person's life.  If we as a race had a robust and definable means of establishing the true facts and level of guilt/culpability in each case then we may have matured enough to revisit something like the death penalty.  Quite frankly, if we are ever that enlightened as a society in it's process, notwithstanding individual's varying level of intelligence we probably would have moved way beyond the need for the death penalty but that's just my opinion.

I do not believe any innocent ever should be subject to corruption within the machinery of the law - it is a huge flaw and needs to be rectified, otherwise it is Justice that is the epitomy of hypocrisy in society and that is truly sad.

Quote

I would maintain this even if I was innocent and charged with a crime, but then I would never commit a crime in the first place and thus would be highly unlikely ever to be considered as a perpetrator of one.. If i did kill another person unlawfully, I would expect to be punished  what ever my reasons, and I would prefer death to life imprisonment. It would be fairer on me and on society.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the option should be given to the prisoner - life without hope of parole or death if they wish, I think that is workable but it is as far as I am prepared to go within the flawed systems we operate under.

[Jeremiah65]

A few years ago...maybe a decade...this would have been an easy answer, I would have said a flat "yes, I am for it".

Now, as I get older and hopefully wiser, I am not so sure anymore.

First and foremost...we live in a place where the judicial system and justice in general...is not always right or fair.  There are too many "criminals" that have been exalted...too many times when getting a "prosecution" and a "case closed" was all that mattered and if an innocent person took the fall...they did not care.

In light of this, my views slowly began to change.  There are some folks out there that I am sure the world would be a better place without...but it is not my place to make that judgement.

I doubt I could sit on a jury and sentence someone to death.  In fact, sometimes death is an easy way out for the most heinous offenders.  I am not against making the worst of the worst bust rocks with a sledgehammer on a chain gang all day though...extreme acts of violence should be punished accordingly.  When we don't place an appropriate penalty on a crime, there is less fear of repercussion.  But to some, death is what they are expecting and they should not be given it.

[HavocWing]

libstaK, on 11 February 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

I do not believe any innocent ever should be subject to corruption within the machinery of the law - it is a huge flaw and needs to be rectified, otherwise it is Justice that is the epitomy of hypocrisy in society and that is truly sad.

Sad but true.

[EllJay]

Jeremiah65, on 11 February 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

A few years ago...maybe a decade...this would have been an easy answer, I would have said a flat "yes, I am for it".

Now, as I get older and hopefully wiser, I am not so sure anymore.

First and foremost...we live in a place where the judicial system and justice in general...is not always right or fair.  There are too many "criminals" that have been exalted...too many times when getting a "prosecution" and a "case closed" was all that mattered and if an innocent person took the fall...they did not care.

In light of this, my views slowly began to change.  There are some folks out there that I am sure the world would be a better place without...but it is not my place to make that judgement.

I doubt I could sit on a jury and sentence someone to death.  In fact, sometimes death is an easy way out for the most heinous offenders.  I am not against making the worst of the worst bust rocks with a sledgehammer on a chain gang all day though...extreme acts of violence should be punished accordingly.  When we don't place an appropriate penalty on a crime, there is less fear of repercussion.  But to some, death is what they are expecting and they should not be given it.

Have a look at the perverted farce and kangaroo court that the trial and convictions of the West Memphis Three was. It leaves you with a sour mouth, of throwing up in it. Imagine that anyone can actually be sucked up in a nightmare like this and end up with getting a death sentence on bull**** evidence and a mob-rules kinda pleasing-the-crowd travesty of the rule of law. If you get the chance see the 4 documentaries made over a 16 year period ( Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills, Paradise Lost 2: Revelations  , Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, West of Memphis  following this case from the beginning (1993) through the dodging, evasion, obfuscation and political clownery of the judge and the prosecutor as well as the state of Arkansas, to late 2011. 16 years of their life was wasted away in prision on this judicial sham, and it almost costed the life of one of them, condemned to death for this.

This is where a capital punishment can almost end up killing an innocent..

Edited by EllJay, 12 February 2013 - 01:19 AM.

[caussius]

Hi guys. A quick reading of this discussion on death penalty gave me the ideia that the foremost spoken argument against it, would be the one that considers the potencially innocent people unfairly killed. My thoughts on this topic are that innocent kills are only a very specific part of the matter.

The existence of justice and therefore the penal system shouldn't be based on brutal punishment or vengeance. When one commits a crime and he's condemned for some years of enclosure, it should be all about regretting and reeintegration on society. This away people pay in some manner for their crimes and could even be again a contibuting member of the society.

If you sentence someone to death, what good can come from that? If that person killed another one, is it fair and racional that you kill her only because it should be "tooth for tooth"?

[mysticwerewolf]

what good can come from that. well lets see my first thought is that they can't fool the well intended person that is deciding if they should be freed . if freed many if not all will commit criminal offences again and again . Executing them will stop that and save money and space for those who Might be savable. I could be wrong but that is how i see it.

Edited by mysticwerewolf, 12 February 2013 - 11:12 AM.

[ouija ouija]

caussius, on 12 February 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

Hi guys. A quick reading of this discussion on death penalty gave me the ideia that the foremost spoken argument against it, would be the one that considers the potencially innocent people unfairly killed. My thoughts on this topic are that innocent kills are only a very specific part of the matter.

The existence of justice and therefore the penal system shouldn't be based on brutal punishment or vengeance. When one commits a crime and he's condemned for some years of enclosure, it should be all about regretting and reeintegration on society. This away people pay in some manner for their crimes and could even be again a contibuting member of the society.

If you sentence someone to death, what good can come from that? If that person killed another one, is it fair and rational that you kill her only because it should be "tooth for tooth"?

I must be getting old. I just read the statement that I've made bold above and I thought: " You know what? WHY NOT? WHY EFFING NOT?"

[Kazahel]

I read before the question was asked  "Have any of you who are against the death penalty lost a child to murder?"

A follow up question I wonder though is how many of you who support capital punishment would still support it if your child was to be punished in this way?

I cant imagine any parent supporting that punishment on their own child. To do so would take a rather cold heart and a merciless love of the law. So I would assume most would not want this punishment on their own child, so wanting it on someone elses child shows a lack of.. neighborly love.

Edited by Kazahel, 13 February 2013 - 02:42 AM.

[mysticwerewolf]

Luckily or unluckily as it may be, i don't have kids.and at this stage in my life i never will. However i was raised in a family that told me time and again " If You Eff up your on your own, I'm Not Bailing You Out. if you can't do the time don't do the crime." i still live by that. Some people  think they have the right or ability to avoid the punishment, or that they are above punishment, or they just don't care, or whatever.

Edited by mysticwerewolf, 13 February 2013 - 03:10 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Kazahel, on 13 February 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

I read before the question was asked  "Have any of you who are against the death penalty lost a child to murder?"

A follow up question I wonder though is how many of you who support capital punishment would still support it if your child was to be punished in this way?

I cant imagine any parent supporting that punishment on their own child. To do so would take a rather cold heart and a merciless love of the law. So I would assume most would not want this punishment on their own child, so wanting it on someone elses child shows a lack of.. neighborly love.

I can only speak hypothetically, but my value lines inform me that if a child of mine sold heroin to others, or raped a person or killed someone without just cause, then not only would i expect them to be put to death as the most humane punishment for those crimes,but i would do it myself, if that was the only way to prevent the child doing further harm. And yes i would expect that punishment for any child of mine after proper judicial process,

Why should my child (or I) be treated any differently to how I expect all/others to be treated? This does not apply to children too young to understand cause and effect and consequence, but for any "'adult" children and for many teenagers, there should not be any differentiation from an adult in serious crimes.

Ps i would continue to love and forgive, both my child if they killed, and someone who killed my child; but i would expect justice and punishment to be applied to both, equally.