Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Beckys_Mom

Capital Punishment - For or against?

171 posts in this topic

I do not consider legal capital punishment/ execution, after a trial within a democratic state, to be anywhere near the "same level" as a person who beats and kills women and children, or murders other people who did nothing to deserve their deaths.

Yet it is the taking of a human life - it is an eye for an eye. Someone always relishes the moment that life is extinguished, be it the victim's family or members of society who as an example scream "burn Bundy burn" or whoever the latest heinous serial killer at the "gallows" is. Much of society's views about the death penalty are coloured by vengeance, we can't just cover that up.

I do not even consider it to be near the same level as raping a woman or child or doing serious harm to other innocent people. There is no "divine" or other right to life. Our lives from conception to old age are held in the hands of the society we live in, and our continued survival quite rightly depends on our behaviour within our society, not on any inaliaenable, or god given, right to life no matter what we do to other people.

No it certainly does not appear that way. The road to hell is paved with good intentions though, we can always find someone to compare what we are doing and thinking to and say "I am no where near as bad for thinking as I do as that person was for acting as they do". Doesn't change the fact that we have found within ourselves the justification to take a life in cold blood, even after years of consideration and appeal we as a society turn around and say, nope still want that life to end, there is something inherently wrong with that, many can't quite put their finger on what exactly is wrong, heck often I can't but it grates like fingernails on a blackboard to clinically as a society agree to someone's death when what we are seeking justice for is how wrong it was for that someone to kill someone else.

The many many cases of innocents being put to death, not just in the western world which has robust justice systems, but the world over for what crimes an emotionally charged populace chooses to believe is enough to snuff out another's life over are a pretty strong sign of the slippery slope believing in the death penalty leads to. People will make the decision to end a life based on how emotionally invested they are by the crime that was done - from the Jury, the Judge and Prosecution onwards - that's what prosecutions do, appeal to people's emotions of abhorrence and hatred to enrage them to the point of believing death is justice.

As many people here have pointed out, painless execution is a mercy, and far less grievous than the man who continually beats his wife near to death, leaving her, after many years, with every rib and most other bones in her body broken. (And by the way, he was an FBI agent, and got away with it for so long because of the "fellowship" of law enforcemnt officers, and the fear he (like most such men) instilled in his wife if she thought of informing on him..

People do horrible things, blood lust and rage is a common curse in society. It is proof of how uncivilised as a society we truly are. Would this FBI agent be the horror he was if he was not enabled by the societal sense of "fellowship" he experienced? Is he a product of what is wrong with society or born "abhorrent" in his mindset?

Is he any less a danger for being locked away for life than for being killed? Is justice not served when we deny people the liberty to move amongst society to continue their crimes? The difference is no-one nor society as a whole had to entertain the ending of a life as one of the decisions that they have to then live with in their lives. I would spare anyone that, even if they are too emotionally charged to realise what it is that they are being spared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it Cap't Henry Morgan,one of the most famous Pirates,who was eventually pardoned and lived to an old age.

It could well have been him, as I said, I can't check it out because Becky has left the book back in school, and taken more books out since...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your having a giraffe.

You get the death penalty for witchcraft.

How can they justify putting Wiccans in front of a firing squad.

There's nothing at all satanic about what they do but tbh I thnk they are turning a blind eye.

That law if it exists is even more archaic than the treason one.

However on the flip side there is proper devil worshipping going on and black arts being practised.

There's also the imported practice from Africa called Muta.

Btw did you get that five year thing from Bronson's failed rehabilation in prison?

The last British person to be executed for witchcraft, and this may surprise you, was during WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of punishment is inextricably linked with our concept of justice. Indeed, without punishment it is almost impossible to relieve guilt.

Whether what society does when it puts someone in jail or fines them or executes them is "punishment" is arguable. If it is deterrence, the difference is indistinguishable. If it is for rehabilitation, then society doesn't seem to take its responsibility very seriously, probably because efforts at rehabilitation are so universally unsuccessful. If it is just to take the criminal out of circulation until they grow up, it does seem to work, except that so often the criminal learns to be a criminal while in jail.

I dont believe in prison at all.

Minor Crime - Fine them

Moderate crime or Repeat Offender - Torture but dont leave any lasting damage

Serious crime - Torture to death

Pain is far better at correcting peoples behaviour and punishing them than taking away their freedom. If you burn yourself on the iron you dont touch it again do you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe in prison at all.

Minor Crime - Fine them

Moderate crime or Repeat Offender - Torture but dont leave any lasting damage

Serious crime - Torture to death

Pain is far better at correcting peoples behaviour and punishing them than taking away their freedom. If you burn yourself on the iron you dont touch it again do you?

And what do you class as moderate crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you who are against the death penalty lost a child to murder? Imagine knowing that the monster that murdered your child is still alive fantasizing about what they did. The victims families should be the only ones who have a say in if they get death or life in prison, but if they do not want to make the decision they can leave it up to the courts to decide.

I believe people should be punished in accordance with what they have done and prison should only be for those who have committed horrible crimes and repeat offenders, not people who evade taxes, steal etc.

The safety and well being of those who do not commit crimes should be the top priority always, not the other way around as it is these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you who are against the death penalty lost a child to murder? Imagine knowing that the monster that murdered your child is still alive fantasizing about what they did. The victims families should be the only ones who have a say in if they get death or life in prison, but if they do not want to make the decision they can leave it up to the courts to decide.

No, I haven't lost a child to murder. If I did though, I'd be pretty angry with the person who did it. However, can I know with absolute 100% certainty that the person who did it is the person charged with the murder? Do I know with 100% certainty the motives he or she may have had, or that they are "fantasising" about what they did. Another way of putting it - would I feel comfortable with the State executing a person who was later found to be innocent of murdering my child? No. In the face of this, I could never in good conscience support the practical application of the death penalty, even if it were as close to my heart as my own child's death.

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you who are against the death penalty lost a child to murder? Imagine knowing that the monster that murdered your child is still alive fantasizing about what they did. The victims families should be the only ones who have a say in if they get death or life in prison, but if they do not want to make the decision they can leave it up to the courts to decide.

I haven't had a child of mine murdered.. As I am a parent who would die for her own kids, if faced with the fact my kids were murdered, and all evidence including a confession from the killer was put forward, I would hate to learn that he got off due to a technicality because he hired a creep of a lawyer .. I also wouldn't like it if he was released earlier than sentenced, knowing he could go after more children.. That alone would seriously tick me off

Ironically enough, there are quite a lot of people who will vote against the death penalty, out of compassion for the criminal, claiming he has rights, more so than they would the actual victims... One of the most ironic lines I have ever read on this subject is - "The death penalty is too harsh, I prefer to give him a more cruel sentence, like lock him up for life, he will hate that more, besides you are taking away his freedom to live, let him rot in prision " And yet locking him up for life isn't? .... Amazing the amount of people who fail to see the irony of that statement...Another is, - What if by chance we kill the wrong one? In that case, open up all the cells, set all prisoners free, just in case we have locked up the wrong ones ..Lets face it, if you convict say - a man in his 50's for murder and rape, he could end up dying in prison after a long sentence, and later you find he is innocent.. It's a lot worse. The what If off chance statements are weak considering DNA evidence is more positive in this day and age...

Edited by Beckys_Mom
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have the right to think that way and apply life in prison. However you should not have the right to choose what other families would do in that situation. There child was murdered and it should be there right to choose death if they so want it.

Edited by Betrayal of Humanity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have the right to think that away and apply life in prison. However you should not have the right to choose what other families would do in that situation. There child was murdered and it should be there right to choose death if they so want it.

I disagree. No one should have the Right to end the life of a human being who may one day be proven innocent of whatever crime they are accused. There is a massive difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "100% knowledge of truth". No one, EVER, can know 100% of the truth, and thus the possibility exists of a mistake to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what do you class as moderate crime?

Minor - Shop lifitng, speeding, offensive language, common assault, etc

Moderate - Burgulary, GBH, etc

Major - Rape, murder, drug dealing, paedos, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor - Shop lifitng, speeding, offensive language, common assault, etc

Moderate crime or Repeat Offender - Torture but dont leave any lasting damage

Many business owners like my husband HATE thieves, but you have classed this as minor crimes? really? A quick fine and off ya go mate? .... BUT if the thief breaks into your home, well that means - beat the living snot out of them, as long as you don't do much damage?..... It's OK slap on the wrist for stealing from peoples places of business but not OK to steal from peoples homes?.... Trolling is serious and causes trouble.. Tell me, where would you put trolls? Looking at your list of how you grouped certain criminals, I am curious where you would group on line trolls? Scare them with an education and therapy? Or worse, one of your not so minor categories ?

speeding

Speeding is dangerous, not just for the driver but those he or she can seriously hurt or kill.. I would stick them in the same catagory as drunk drivers and I would not fanny about with a mere fine, I would jail them and remo

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a skeptic and atheist I do not think that capital punishment has any place in modern world. Moreover, I firmly believe that prisons are not a form of punishment, but rehabilitation. The reasoning behind committing crime should be discovered on individual basis, and solutions formed. Additionally, I believe that every person after prison term should be given time to adjust to society under supervision of responsible experts, and after certain time of proven good behavior their conviction papers should be hidden from potential employers, banks, and other institutions. It is despicable that a graphitti conviction at age of 16 (which is a felony in many places, including New York City) can close doors to colleges, jobs, opportunities, etc. to a 40 years old respectable member of society. It's plainly sick.

But, I have realistic expectation from society: easy way to eradicate a human being, even if he/she is innocent, and place together criminals, so together they ponder on how to better commit crimes in the future. However, it makes people feel better for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor Crime - Fine them

Moderate crime or Repeat Offender - Torture but dont leave any lasting damage

Serious crime - Torture to death

And I don't doubt there would be plenty willing to volunteer to do the torturing? You?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe in prison at all.

Minor Crime - Fine them

Moderate crime or Repeat Offender - Torture but dont leave any lasting damage

Serious crime - Torture to death

Pain is far better at correcting peoples behaviour and punishing them than taking away their freedom. If you burn yourself on the iron you dont touch it again do you?

So you believe that if you take in a hardened criminal, torture him for some time, and then release him back into society that this will pacify things? ...interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe that if you take in a hardened criminal, torture him for some time, and then release him back into society that this will pacify things? ...interesting.

My guess is, if you take in a criminal and torture him, then later toss him back into society, chances are he will take it out on the innocent and then some... He could make innocent people suffer because he was arrested and tortured..

Edited by Beckys_Mom
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last British person to be executed for witchcraft, and this may surprise you, was during WW2.

Well the Nazis were into all types of mysticism and sorcery through their SS wing.

You could well be going on about Lord Hee-Haw who might have been sent to the gallows.

Edited by Medium Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is, if you take in a criminal and torture him, then later toss him back into society, chances are he will take it out on the innocent and then some... He could make innocent people suffer because he was arrested and tortured..

Exactly. Prison itself makes some bitter; this would make them all bitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet it is the taking of a human life - it is an eye for an eye. Someone always relishes the moment that life is extinguished, be it the victim's family or members of society who as an example scream "burn Bundy burn" or whoever the latest heinous serial killer at the "gallows" is. Much of society's views about the death penalty are coloured by vengeance, we can't just cover that up.

No it certainly does not appear that way. The road to hell is paved with good intentions though, we can always find someone to compare what we are doing and thinking to and say "I am no where near as bad for thinking as I do as that person was for acting as they do". Doesn't change the fact that we have found within ourselves the justification to take a life in cold blood, even after years of consideration and appeal we as a society turn around and say, nope still want that life to end, there is something inherently wrong with that, many can't quite put their finger on what exactly is wrong, heck often I can't but it grates like fingernails on a blackboard to clinically as a society agree to someone's death when what we are seeking justice for is how wrong it was for that someone to kill someone else.

The many many cases of innocents being put to death, not just in the western world which has robust justice systems, but the world over for what crimes an emotionally charged populace chooses to believe is enough to snuff out another's life over are a pretty strong sign of the slippery slope believing in the death penalty leads to. People will make the decision to end a life based on how emotionally invested they are by the crime that was done - from the Jury, the Judge and Prosecution onwards - that's what prosecutions do, appeal to people's emotions of abhorrence and hatred to enrage them to the point of believing death is justice.

People do horrible things, blood lust and rage is a common curse in society. It is proof of how uncivilised as a society we truly are. Would this FBI agent be the horror he was if he was not enabled by the societal sense of "fellowship" he experienced? Is he a product of what is wrong with society or born "abhorrent" in his mindset?

Is he any less a danger for being locked away for life than for being killed? Is justice not served when we deny people the liberty to move amongst society to continue their crimes? The difference is no-one nor society as a whole had to entertain the ending of a life as one of the decisions that they have to then live with in their lives. I would spare anyone that, even if they are too emotionally charged to realise what it is that they are being spared.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/19/solitary-confinement-congress-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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

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 :unsure2: .

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.deathpenalty.org/article.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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capital Punishment - For or against?

I'm for to be against it.

The most vile act a state can carry out against a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :unsure2: .

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.