Capital Punishment?

[IceKing]

I'm not really a huge debater, but I felt this would be a good topic to debate on. I did a speech on this topic for Language Arts so if you guys want some resources to learn about the Death Penalty, here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Mstevens/410/410lect26.htm
http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu.


As most of you already know, death has been a common punishment for criminals since the very creation of Law and Order, but now with the world westernizing and changing, many countries have started to abolish the death penalty. Nearly all of Europe has abolished the death penalty, but the United States remains one of the few westernized countries in the world that still has the death penalty. My question to you is: should capital punishment be abolished from the United States?


My anwser:Yes. I think capital punishment is an old tradition that we need to be getting rid of. One doesn't send a good message to society by killing its own members. The majority of countries that still have the death penalty are theocracies like Saudi Arabia or are underdeveloped like Sudan. Should the united states be among those ranks? I say not. The death penalty is an avoidable murder when the prisoner can easily be incarcerated for life. I think death is letting criminals off too easily and that they NEED to suffer and pay for their crimes (and hopefully think about what they have done). Not all criminals have any chances for rehabilitation, but some still do and I think its best to let those who do have the chance for rehabilitation hopefully learn the horridness of their actions. And a common statement for pro death penalty is that we shouldn't have to pay to keep scum living, when actually the costs of death penalty trial parts cost in total 6x more than life incarceration of a prisoner (see first two sources)! Another arguement is that people are scared by the death penalty and may not commit a crime because of it, but how many murderers do you know think about the consequences of their actions? Plus, no studies prove it. I do not want the scumbags of society to be let off the hook or be let off easily, but rather to suffer in prison and that the government should not sink down to the murderers level by killing them as well. Are they any better than the actual killers by killing too? Vengeance is a blazing hot metal rod that we would love nothign to grasp as tightly as we can even if it means burning and cooking our flesh away. We cannot let vengeance be our guide!


"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind..."
-Mahatma Ghandi

[Carpetted!]

No, criminals can escape from jail and are wasting our resources staying in prison anyway. Not to mention, it serves them sauce!
Off Topic: I did a poll on this! :)

[Fiery Blaziken]

Yes, criminals can escape from jail and are wasting our resources staying in prison anyway.
Holy crap, I agree with Floored! =O
We're wating our time and money keeping murderers in prision. They should die for killing people. And there's always a chance they can escape and kill people again.

[JoshYEAH]

Meh, I'll say what I said in the chat, and supposing this debate picks up I'll add onto it when I'm feeling a bit better.

Sonic Sez: If someone tries to kill you for a crime that you have a possibility, however slim, of not commiting, that's no good. ;/

That is all.

-Josh

[Carpetted!]

Sonic Sez: If someone tries to kill you for a crime that you have a possibility, however slim, of not commiting, that's no good. ;/
So you're saying we should waste jail space, food, water, etc. on criminals just because of the off chance they're innocent?

[Fatal]

The death penalty is an avoidable murder when the prisoner can easily be incarcerated for life

Yes, but don't forget, our taxes are going to pay for their food, electricity and plumbing.

[JoshYEAH]

So you're saying we should waste jail space, food, water, etc. on criminals just because of the off chance they're innocent?

That and nobody deserves to die. Ever.

[Carpetted!]

No one deserves to die? Tell that to the person the criminal murdered... oh wait he's dead.

[IceKing]

So you're saying we should waste jail space, food, water, etc. on criminals just because of the off chance they're innocent?

I suggest you read my post. Death penalty proceedings cost SIX TIMES MORE THAN INCARCERATION. And it this century alone there were 25 people who were wrongly sent to the death penalty (I believe this is world wide...) and one of the worst things the law can do is send a man to his wrongful death! Death is final! It is the end! It is unnreversible! Try imagining being sentenced to death, knowing you are innocent. Imagine walking down that green mile and the horrible fear of the death you are about to receive for something you never did! Imagine facing that needle knowing you will die with the world remembering you for the crime you never commited!

Incarceration can take years off a persons life when corrected, but at least it didn't take away there life.

Edit:No one deserves to die? Tell that to the person the criminal murdered... oh wait he's dead.

So are we any better than the murderers? Who are we to say who can die and who can't? Killing is flatout WRONG. Yes, I myself will admit that if someone ever killed a member of my family I would like nothign better than to shove their face in a giant blender while having their flesh being gnawed away by locusts, but revenge blinds your sight and you cannot live by revenge

[JoshYEAH]

No one deserves to die? Tell that to the person the criminal murdered... oh wait he's dead.

That makes no sense. >_>
I said nobody deserves to die, therefore implying the victim didn't deserve it as much as the murderer doesn't deserve it. And there's always a chance of innocence aswell, however slim, except in some cases of course.

But the main point is, and I think you'll find most people will agree with me on this unless they share your fascist viewpoint:

Nobody Deserves to die.

[Carpetted!]

You have to keep in mind that people can escape from jail, even when sentenced to death; remember the Texas Seven?
Nobody Deserves to die.
Alright, imagine this:
Bob kills Sam.
Bob is put in jail for the rest of his life.
Sam dies, Bob lives. Sam is innocent, Bob is not. There's no justice in that!

[JoshYEAH]

You have to keep in mind that people can escape from jail, even when sentenced to death; remember the Texas Seven?
Great, but that doesn't mean they deserve to die.
Alright, imagine this:
Bob kills Sam.
Bob is put in jail for the rest of his life.
Sam dies, Bob lives. Sam is innocent, Bob is not. There's no justice in that!
Yes there is. Bob is punished for killing Sam in a humane way. He doesn't deserve to die as much as Sam didn't deserve to die.

[Carpetted!]

Great, but that doesn't mean they deserve to die.
Then you're giving criminals a chance to escape!
Yes there is. Bob is punished for killing Sam in a humane way. He doesn't deserve to die as much as Sam didn't deserve to die.
Aha! So Sam, the innocent, gets more of a punishment then Bob, the murderer?

[JoshYEAH]

Then you're giving criminals a chance to escape!
How about governments learning from their mistakes and oh, I dunno, upping security, like what has happened since all those years ago maybe? God you're arguements are suck.
Aha! So Sam, the innocent, gets more of a punishment then Bob, the murderer?
Bob is punished nonetheless, and equal punishment is a traied and failed method of justice. In that it is inhumane and futile. Like I said, nobody deserves to die.

[Meowth&Slash]

Nobody Deserves to die.
Everyone deserves to die, we all do die after all.


I vote more death penalty. It is too beurocratic now. Noone has been killed in NY state for years.

Some people are just scum. I say make it easier as well, as long as you're sure the person did it. Don't waste money of lethal injections when one bullet can do it.

[Carpetted!]

How about governments learning from their mistakes and oh, I dunno, upping security, like what has happened since all those years ago maybe? God you're arguements are suck.

The government thought their security was perfect back then, too. Yet they dug out with spoons. >_>
Bob is punished nonetheless, and equal punishment is a traied and failed method of justice. In that it is inhumane and futile. Like I said, nobody deserves to die.
An eye for an eye.

[JoshYEAH]

The government thought their security was perfect back then, too. Yet they dug out with spoons. >_>
Go try digging out of a prison with a spoon nowadays and see how far you get. Go on.
An eye for an eye.
Fascist.

[Carpetted!]

Go try digging out of a prison with a spoon nowadays and see how far you get. Go on.
*sigh* I'm saying, criminals will find a way out of jail someday. Why take that risk?
Fascist.
What's that?

[Meowth&Slash]

Why are euros always so quick to cry fascist? (sry josh)

[JoshYEAH]

*sigh* I'm saying, criminals will find a way out of jail someday. Why take that risk?
because capital punishment is inhumane and nobody deserves to die? >_>
What's that?
Look it up.

And this debate is going nowhere. So you can keep your views in all honesty, i doubt you'll be swayed, even though the evidence is pointing against you. If anyone else has a decent arguement then by all means post it, but Floored!, this debate is over methinks.

Why are euros always so quick to cry fascist? (sry josh)
Even if I wasn't a brit I'd still be saying it. ;/ Way to use stereotypes though. (y)

[Espeon]

This may cause an uproar, but I personally believe it should be closer to an eye for an eye. It is nature's justice system. It a person killed another person(s), then why should that person live off of society's money. I would say to not waste bullets or legal injections. Do it the old fashioned way, hang them. They are frowned upon by society and it is they that put themselves to death by their actions.

Perhaps I should talk more on the philosophical side of this later.

[Meowth&Slash]

This may cause an uproar, but I personally believe it should be closer to an eye for an eye. It is nature's justice system. It a person killed another person(s), then why should that person live off of society's money. I would say to not waste bullets or legal injections. Do it the old fashioned way, hang them. They are frowned upon by society and it is they that put themselves to death by their actions.

Perhaps I should talk more on the philosophical side of this later.
In some ways you make even more sense. Should they have to suffer as well? A bullet is quick. Lethal injection you probably don't even feel. Hanging is more like torturing.

Should executions be public?

[Carpetted!]

Go Espeon!
because capital punishment is inhumane and nobody deserves to die? >_>
Like I said before, if no one deserves to die, and someone is murdered, shouldn't the murderer deserve to die, also?
Btw, I'm not a nazi!

[JoshYEAH]

Like I said before, if no one deserves to die, and someone is murdered, shouldn't the murderer deserve to die, also?

Okay I'm going to break that last post with this one. Pay attention because it is relevant. And make sure you link up the following four words to what you have just said.

Nobody Deserves To Die.

If nobody deserves to die and someone is murdered, then shouldn't the murderer deserve to die.

No, because nobody deserves to die.

Have a nice day Floored!
Oh and btw, you are sharing a fascist viewpoint if you agree with Capital Punishment.

-Josh :)

[Espeon]

I am extreme on this case, I know, but I believe they should just be hanged. It would reflect how they murdered their victims. I am not as extreme as some cultures in history, but I believe they should just be hanged.

I do not believe that execution should be public. As long as they die then that is fine.

I can explain the other side of this if anyone wishes to hear.

[Fiery Blaziken]

No, I don't belive that they should be exeucuted publicly, and I don't think we should hang them. Execution should be quick and painless, not painful and long. Being killed is punishment enough.

[Shun]

I realize Death Penalties and the like do serve a purpose and if you didn't have all the money wasting parts it would likely be cheaper as well.

However, I am most definately against public executions. Executions in general is a way to breed hatred and other negative feelings. Now if we could only lock them all in a compound on the moon. Then they can't escape back into society(at least not easily).

[Espeon]

I do not see why we should make death painless. Punishment is not meant to be comfortable. We are not going to tie people to be ripped apart by chariots or any form of torture. The reason hanging was so popular was because it is effective and not expensive. Some people do not deserve to be treated humanely.

[Carpetted!]

I have to agree with Espeon. What the criminal did could be a lot worse, like bombing nurseries (I think this one guy did that)

[Espeon]

If we do ban capitol punishment, which should be renamed to get rid of an unwanted member of society instead since punishment is not usually death, the we can get rid of all forms of punishment as well. If that happens, then it would be chaos.

[Meowth&Slash]

I agree with you two as well. Hanging now sounds like the best option to me. Why pay for a gun when you could just buy a rope? There's no reason to waste money on these people.

I think that hanging is still an option in one state!! One state has firing squad i think. Idaho?

[Ice Tyranitar]

I think that hanging is still an option in one state!! One state has firing squad i think. Idaho?

I think it's New Jersey and... one other where hanging is an option (the convict's choice). Utah banned firing squad in the '80s iirc, and in the '70s someone actually chose that.

Anyway, I think death penalty should be kept, but used for only very serious crimes and when there is almost no doubt of guilt, and whn these requirements are fulfilled and you get through appeals and such, they should die right away. Less than how much it is and quicker than what it is in the US today in other words. I think it should be painless, because as morbid as it sounds, the only reason to keep it should be to save money (not a lot will be, but some.) In America, the inprisoned population just keeps growing and growing. Every one sucks tax money away from other things. The "No one deserves to die." argument is nice, but it doesn't work. You can't keep everyone there.

[LiLi]

About lethal injection:
Medical ethics preclude doctors from participating in executions. However, a doctor will certify the inmate is dead. This lack of medical participation can be problematic because often injections are performed by inexperienced technicians or orderlies. If a member of the execution team injects the drugs into a muscle instead of a vein, or if the needle becomes clogged, extreme pain can result. Many prisoners have damaged veins resulting from intravenous drug use and it is sometimes difficult to find a usable vein, resulting in long delays while the inmate remains strapped to the gurney. (Ecenbarger, 1994 and Weisberg, 1991)

About electrocution:
A jolt of between 500 and 2000 volts, which lasts for about 30 seconds, is given. The current surges and is then turned off, at which time the body is seen to relax. The doctors wait a few seconds for the body to cool down and then check to see if the inmate's heart is still beating. If it is, another jolt is applied. This process continues until the prisoner is dead. The prisoner's hands often grip the chair and there may be violent movement of the limbs which can result in dislocation or fractures. The tissues swell. Defecation occurs. Steam or smoke rises and there is a smell of burning. (Hillman, 1992 and Weisberg, 1991)
"...the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire....Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan (Ecenbarger, 1994)

About the gas chamber:
The prisoner is instructed to breathe deeply to speed up the process. Most prisoners, however, try to hold their breath, and some struggle. The inmate does not lose consciousness immediately. According to former San Quenton, California, Penitentiary warden, Clifton Duffy, "At first there is evidence of extreme horror, pain, and strangling. The eyes pop. The skin turns purple and the victim begins to drool." (Weisberg, 1991)
Caryl Chessman, before he died in California's gas chamber in 1960 told reporters that he would nod his head if it hurt. Witnesses said he nodded his head for several minutes. (Ecenbarger, 1994)
According to Dr. Richard Traystman of John Hopkins University School of Medicine, "The person is unquestionably experiencing pain and extreme anxiety...The sensation is similar to the pain felt by a person during a heart attack, where essentially the heart is being deprived of oxygen." The inmate dies from hypoxia, the cutting-off of oxygen to the brain. (Weisberg, 1991)

About a firing squad:
The prisoner dies as a result of blood loss caused by rupture of the heart or a large blood vessel, or tearing of the lungs. The person shot loses consciousness when shock causes a fall in the supply of blood to the brain. If the shooters miss the heart, by accident or intention, the prisoner bleeds to death slowly. (Hillman, 1992 and Weisberg, 1991)

About hanging:
Immediately before the execution, the prisoner's hands and legs are secured, he or she is blindfolded, and the noose is placed around the neck, with the knot behind the left ear. The execution takes place when a trap-door is opened and the prisoner falls through. The prisoner's weight should cause a rapid fracture-dislocation of the neck. However, instantaneous death rarely occurs. (Weisberg, 1991)
If the inmate has strong neck muscles, is very light, if the 'drop' is too short, or the noose has been wrongly positioned, the fracture-dislocation is not rapid and death results from slow asphyxiation. If this occurs the face becomes engorged, the tongue protrudes, the eyes pop, the body defecates, and violent movements of the limbs occur. (The Corrections Professional, 1996 and Weisberg, 1991)


Just wanted to give some details on those.

My problem with capital punishment is that I don't agree with the 'eye for an eye' logic. I can understand why people would, but personally, I don't see taking life -- any life -- as being a good thing.

[Orgasmo]

Nobody Deserves To Die At The Hands Of Another Human.Just thought I'd fix it :)

[Meowth&Slash]

Just wanted to give some details on those.

My problem with capital punishment is that I don't agree with the 'eye for an eye' logic. I can understand why people would, but personally, I don't see taking life -- any life -- as being a good thing.
Those descriptions were disturbingly gruesome!!! :o I didn't realize that eyes pop out so frequently. But I'm afraid that is what some people deserve.

[Orgasmo]

You honestly think somebody deserves to die at the hands of another human?
*shakes head*

[Meowth&Slash]

You honestly think somebody deserves to die at the hands of another human?
*shakes head*
Yes, I do. Its not that I don't have any mercy. It's just that sometimes you need to say enough is enough.

[Orgasmo]

Yes, I do. Its not that I don't have any mercy. It's just that sometimes you need to say enough is enough.So murder justifies more murder?

[Meowth&Slash]

So murder justifies more murder?

Its easy to say that you want all this peace and harmony until you are in a situation that brings out the vengeance in yourself.

Like if a group of men broke into your families house when you weren't home. They rape, beat, and mutilated the bodies of all of your relatives. They were tortured for HOURS until they were finally killed. What would you think then?

[Orgasmo]

Its easy to say that you want all this peace and harmony until you are in a situation that brings out the vengeance in yourself.

Like if a group of men broke into your families house when you weren't home. They rape, beat, and mutilated the bodies of all of your relatives. They were tortured for HOURS until they were finally killed. What would you think then?I would pity them. Plus Australia doesn't have the death penalty anymore. They would get life inprisionment.

[Meowth&Slash]

I would pity them. Plus Australia doesn't have the death penalty anymore. They would get life inprisionment.

ok, well just pretend death penalty was an option.

You would pity them, that's it? You wouldn't want them to suffer the way your family members have. That's all your family members lives are worth? Just a simple, bad boy now go to prison and sit there!

[Eszett]

I cannot agree with capital punishment, even if it is being used on murderers. As Mohandas Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", which verily sums up my beliefs on it.

Anyways, there isn't much of a point to it either; I think most criminals would find the prospect of imprisonment worse than death.

[Meowth&Slash]

Anyways, there isn't much of a point to it either; I think most criminals would find the prospect of imprisonment worse than death.

Not necessarily. In prison your mind and perspective would change. These people are rotten to begin with.

[Orgasmo]

ok, well just pretend death penalty was an option.Sorry can't do that :/You would pity them, that's it? You wouldn't want them to suffer the way your family members have. That's all your family members lives are worth? Just a simple, bad boy now go to prison and sit there!Excuse me did I say that? Plus if my family was murdered I don't think they would want their murderers, murdered."an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"Nice quote :)

[Meowth&Slash]

:/Excuse me did I say that?

Well I'm just going to assume that you love your family very much.

I find it hard to believe that you would just let go so easily.

[Orgasmo]

Well I'm just going to assume that you love your family very much.I wouldn't go that far :pI find it hard to believe that you would just let go so easily.Because it's not my position to judge someone.

[Meowth&Slash]

Because it's not my position to judge someone.

...so can you even form your own opinion on something? IMHO that's pathetic and weak.

[Orgasmo]

...so can you even form your own opinion on something?Actually, suprise suprise, I can :oIMHO that's pathetic and weak.Shows what you know >_>

[Meowth&Slash]

Actually, suprise suprise, I can
So explain to me what the difference is

[Orgasmo]

So explain to me what the difference isI form my opinions based on my beliefs :o

[Meowth&Slash]

I form my opinions based on my beliefs :o

So you form the belief right off the bat, and never have any leeway?

And how do you go through life never judging anything? Explain

[Orgasmo]

So you form the belief right off the bat, and never have any leeway?My beliefs are based off my religion.And how do you go through life never judging anything? ExplainAs I said. It's not my position to judge. I am not God.

[Meowth&Slash]

My beliefs are based off my religion.As I said. It's not my position to judge. I am not God.
Well, this changes the situation quite a bit, doesn't it!

I felt that you were undermining yourself and your ability to think. Congratulations.

[Shun]

In the situation described I would also not call out for death. I would be ******... but anger and those negative motions are not always right to give in to.

Throw him in jail for life. Who knows if he reforms I may even have it in me to forgive him, though I doubt that. I can hold a grudge pretty well.

If you wonder where I get this... I get this from the fact that history tends to show that violence only spawns violence. That loop must be broken by someone, and the criminals are obviousally not man enough to do it. So I guess that leaves it to us non-criminals to be the real man(or woman I guess).

[Eszett]

Not necessarily. In prison your mind and perspective would change. These people are rotten to begin with.Why would anybody want to spend their lives in miserable conditions with no access to the outside world when they could simply forget it all? Those with life sentences have barely any hope of getting out of jail, and if they ever do, they would be forced to live a life of seclusion from the police.

[Thunder Child]

I say abolish it. How anybody can be in favour of state-sponsored murder is beyond me.

[The Big Al]

As I have said many times, the death penalty is excessive and permant. If you throw a man (or woman) in jail and find out he's innocent, you can let him out. If kill them, then it really doesn't matter.

That's why Michigan was the first state to ban the death penalty. A man was hanged and later they learned he didn't commit the crime he was convicted of.

[PokeProphet]

I wonder if someone on the pro-death penalty side can explain me something. How does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong? And if murderers should be killed, doesn't that mean that the executioners (who are, technically speaking, also murderers) should be executed too, and their executers too, and so on?

[The Big Al]

I wonder if someone on the pro-death penalty side can explain me something. How does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong? And if murderers should be killed, doesn't that mean that the executioners (who are, technically speaking, also murderers) should be executed too, and their executers too, and so on?
It's about revenge. I heard many family members of two police officers shot in Detroit. They were basically "that b*stard killed my (insert relation here) and should ide for it". Every reasonable arguement for the death penalty has been debunked. It's simply our thirst for violence.

[Ice Tyranitar]

I say abolish it. How anybody can be in favour of state-sponsored murder is beyond me.I wonder if someone on the pro-death penalty side can explain me something. How does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong? And if murderers should be killed, doesn't that mean that the executioners (who are, technically speaking, also murderers) should be executed too, and their executers too, and so on?

You know that forn every single sickness a prisoner gets, every time they use electricity or plumbing, it costs tax money. There's a huge amount of covicts and they all suck taxes during their whole stay. If someone kills 30 people, or say planned a terrorist attack that involved mustard gas, and if you kill them by, I don't know, putting to sleep for instance, it's no where near an eye for an eye. You can't kill someone twice, saying that capital punishment is an eye for an eye is bullshi*. (And yes, TBA, the scenario was meant for when there is little doubt of guilt.)

[The Big Al]

Too bad they don't treat the death penalty with any tighter restrictions than prison sentences.

[PokeProphet]

It's about revenge. I heard many family members of two police officers shot in Detroit. They were basically "that b*stard killed my (insert relation here) and should ide for it". Every reasonable arguement for the death penalty has been debunked. It's simply our thirst for violence.
Agreed, but I think that as a civilized species, we should (already have) outgrow(n) that thirst for blood. Let go of negative emotions like hatred and need for revenge. Nothing you can do to murderers is going to bring the people they murdered back. If it would, I would be in favor of capital punishment.

You know that forn every single sickness a prisoner gets, every time they use electricity or plumbing, it costs tax money. There's a huge amount of covicts and they all suck taxes during their whole stay.
And tax money is worth more to you then a human life?
Money is something we humans made and make. It is simply something that serves as an alternative for direct trading of goods. And it has NO universal value! What, you need the money or anything? You want a human being to die so you can buy yourself a playstation? There is no amount of money that equals a human life, not even that of a murderer.

If someone kills 30 people, or say planned a terrorist attack that involved mustard gas, and if you kill them by, I don't know, putting to sleep for instance, it's no where near an eye for an eye.
You kill someone for killing or wanting to kill someone else. How is that not an eye for an eye?

You can't kill someone twice, saying that capital punishment is an eye for an eye is bullshi*.
Non multa sed multum. And taking somebody's life because he tried to take someone else's life is an eye for an eye. You may consider it whatever you want, but it simply is.

(And yes, TBA, the scenario was meant for when there is little doubt of guilt.)
Errare humanum est. Who tells you when there is little doubt? Who really knows? Evidence has to be interpreted. Witnesses can lie, or be manipulated. There is no case, no case whatsoever, where there is absolutely no doubt whether someone did something.

[Carpetted!]

Agreed, but I think that as a civilized species, we should (already have) outgrow(n) that thirst for blood. Let go of negative emotions like hatred and need for revenge. Nothing you can do to murderers is going to bring the people they murdered back. If it would, I would be in favor of capital punishment.
Letting the murderer stay the rest of his life in a jail cell, it's a risk. There's the chance he'll break out, and kill someone else before police find him. With capitol punishment, there'll be no need to... worry.
You kill someone for killing or wanting to kill someone else. How is that not an eye for an eye?

They killed many people, you kill one person. They kill in a disgusting way, you kill them in a humane way. Heck, death sentence allows the criminal to have a final meal of whatever he wants. How is that not humane?
Non multa sed multum. And taking somebody's life because he tried to take someone else's life is an eye for an eye. You may consider it whatever you want, but it simply is.
How about several lives? Will the releatives of those several dead people have the heart to forgive him? Or to let him stay in jail for the rest of his life, eating food payed by our tax money?
As usual, I don't understand the last bit, so could someone explain it to me?

[LiLi]

Letting the murderer stay the rest of his life in a jail cell, it's a risk. There's the chance he'll break out, and kill someone else before police find him.

Not a good enough reason for me personally to agree to take someone's life. Up the security and delete the risk. Why don't we seperate the prisons themselves from society? Place them in an area where it will be more than a little difficult to travel out of alone. Heck, stick it in the middle of a desert and they'll die of dehydration before they ever escape anywhere. Stick it in the middle of an ocean and, provided they even know how to swim, they'd still die of exhaustion, dehydration, and starvation. A person would only be able to survive things like that in extraordinary circumstances, but I really doubt very many of our current convicts are that extraordinary.

They killed many people, you kill one person.

Killing one person in the name of government justice is better than killing any people in the name of the murderer's own justice, then? Say the convict actually believes he was doing the right thing, and that him killing those victims was him dealing out justice. Hell, say the convict is Batman, and he just killed the entire mafia. Silly example, but still.

Also, it does sound like you're putting more value on more lives, when a few of us probably believe that each life has the same value in and of itself, disregarding quantity. Maybe that's where the fork in the road of this debate really starts.

They kill in a disgusting way, you kill them in a humane way.

Did you read my quotes the last time I posted here? Check it out, yo. Execution isn't exactly humane.

Heck, death sentence allows the criminal to have a final meal of whatever he wants. How is that not humane?

I don't know... maybe because you're taking the guy's life afterwards? I honestly don't see how an awesome last meal is going to make up for that.

How about several lives? Will the releatives of those several dead people have the heart to forgive him?

Who are we to assume what the dead feel? That seems like a silly point. Unless you say this because someone previously said that the dead would somehow have the hearts to forgive, anyway. Either way, we can't exactly assume in either direction.

Also, I think you're not looking at the complete picture, as a convict has a family, too -- it's not just the victims' families that suffer. Everyone suffers, and depending on what the victims' families believe, they may suffer more if the convict is executed. My family, for instance, would never want anyone to be executed, even should a man kill off a bunch of us. To us, there is more strength and peace in forgiveness than there is in getting even, so executing someone because they've killed my family would cause us more harm than good.

Or to let him stay in jail for the rest of his life, eating food payed by our tax money?

I don't see how saving money is worth ending lives over, no matter how horrible you may think these lives are. Like I think I said before, I can understand eye for an eye -- I just don't subscribe to the belief myself. In my opinion, there is no honor in taking a life.

[Espeon]

Regular punishments for crimes is not going to do anything. Society's reply would be,"You have to stay in jail because we are angry with you, and it would make us feel better if you suffer." That can be seen as the entire idea of justice. Having justice served is a human instinct. It is nature's way of keeping order. If capital punishment is wrong and useless, then why not get rid of all forms of punishment since the past could not be changed?

[Ice Tyranitar]

And tax money is worth more to you then a human life?
Money is something we humans made and make. It is simply something that serves as an alternative for direct trading of goods. And it has NO universal value! What, you need the money or anything? You want a human being to die so you can buy yourself a playstation? There is no amount of money that equals a human life, not even that of a murderer.

I'm sorry if I'd rather give that money to healthcare or welfare or education than to the scum of the Earth's living expenses.

You kill someone for killing or wanting to kill someone else. How is that not an eye for an eye?

Sending thousands to die horrible slow deaths compared to you getting off painlessly and quickly. Eye for an eye indeed.


Non multa sed multum. And taking somebody's life because he tried to take someone else's life is an eye for an eye. You may consider it whatever you want, but it simply is.

Where did I say attempted murder is worth the death penalty?

Errare humanum est. Who tells you when there is little doubt? Who really knows? Evidence has to be interpreted. Witnesses can lie, or be manipulated. There is no case, no case whatsoever, where there is absolutely no doubt whether someone did something.

And?.. There is NOTHING we are 100% sure about. But there are times where there is no reasonable doubt. You could have a confession and DNa evidence, motive and opputunity, and hell, they were carrying the weapon right next to where they left the body (which is where they were hiding too). That's pretty damn sure.

And go ahead, say we should be absolutely sure...

[PokeProphet]

Letting the murderer stay the rest of his life in a jail cell, it's a risk. There's the chance he'll break out, and kill someone else before police find him. With capitol punishment, there'll be no need to... worry.
And how about the risk of putting someone innocent to sleep, and letting the murderer run free while everyone thinks he's dead? Isn't that a risk too?

They killed many people, you kill one person. They kill in a disgusting way, you kill them in a humane way. Heck, death sentence allows the criminal to have a final meal of whatever he wants. How is that not humane?
Humane? You call the electric chair and the gas-chamber humane? The nazi's used gas-chambers to kill Jewish people! Were they humane? The vietcong used electricity to torture American prisoners? Were they humane? If you think so, I'm afraid we have quite a different opinion about what is humane. Lethal injection is the only way of execution I consider humane, but still killing someone to show that it is wrong to kill someone fails every kind of logic.

How about several lives? Will the releatives of those several dead people have the heart to forgive him?
They may or they may not. But the point is that executing the murderers will not give them back what they have lost. Instead it takes away someone else, from another family. And will those people have the heart to forgive the people who condemned the person they love to death? Death sentence is not justice, it is cold-hearted revenge, the start of a circle that will only lead to more hatred and destruction.

Or to let him stay in jail for the rest of his life, eating food payed by our tax money?
Oh boohoo. First of all, you are thirteen, so you don't pay any bloody tax money. Second, do you expect me to feel sorry for some American kid just because 'his' tax money is taken from him? While people in Africa and Asia are starving to death? Think again.

As usual, I don't understand the last bit, so could someone explain it to me?
Well, like I said, taking someone's life because he took somebody's life is absurd. It is an eye for an eye. I just don't see how people here aren't able to see that.

Regular punishments for crimes is not going to do anything. Society's reply would be,"You have to stay in jail because we are angry with you, and it would make us feel better if you suffer." That can be seen as the entire idea of justice.
Well, not to me. I think the idea of justice (in the case of murder) is not to make someone suffer, but to make sure that they don't do it again. Sure, that can be accomplished by death sentence. But sentencing someone to life in jail is sufficient to, so there is no need for capital punishment.

Having justice served is a human instinct. It is nature's way of keeping order.
Getting yourself out of a buring building, if neccesary at the expence of other people, is a human instinct too. Or sleeping with somebody else when you're in a relation with someone else, so your genes will be spread. Even killing is caused by the human instinct sometimes. Does that mean that those are good things? The whole idea of humanity as an intelligent species, is that we can outgrow our instincts. We have the ability, the intelligence to surpress them. If we keep making decisions based on human instinct, what's the use of our gaint brains?

If capital punishment is wrong and useless, then why not get rid of all forms of punishment since the past could not be changed?
Nobody here who's against capital punishment will argue that you never need to punish someone when he does something bad. If you don't, they will never learn that their behavior is wrong (behaviorism). But didn't you (or PsyUmbreon, I can't recall) once say that hell is not punishment, because you have no chance to redeem yourself? How does that apply to capital punishment then?

I'm sorry if I'd rather give that money to healthcare or welfare or education than to the scum of the Earth's living expenses.
1. Which is why I'm quite sure that you give all the money you don't need for your life-needs to charity. Because you wouldn't tell people to give money to use their money for education and welfare while you don't do so yourself, right? That would make you a hypocrite or something.
2. You live in a country that spends billions on a years basis to fly big useless heaps of scrap to the moon and maybe Mars, just to plant a flag. 0.5% (Yes, zero point five percent) of the U.S.A.'s military budget would be sufficient to make world hunger nothing but a nasty memory. I hardly see you *****ing for using tax money on those things. But you want to save it by executing fourty people per year? You need to pick priorities.
3. And not all murderers are 'the Earth's scum'. Little rich boys don't have to go out robbing people. Poor, desperate people that can't get a job have to. That doesn't mean that if someone get's killed in such a robery isn't a bad thing. But it also doesn't mean that the robber is an evil man, for trying to get some money to feed his family.

Sending thousands to die horrible slow deaths compared to you getting off painlessly and quickly. Eye for an eye indeed.
The electric chair? The gas chamber? Painlessly and quickly? Sorry, we must be talking about different things. And how you kill someone is not the issue here. Whether killing someone is a justified way to punish someone for killing someone is.

Where did I say attempted murder is worth the death penalty?
Here:
or say planned a terrorist attack that involved mustard gas, and if you kill them by, I don't know, putting to sleep for instance,

And?.. There is NOTHING we are 100% sure about. But there are times where there is no reasonable doubt. You could have a confession and DNa evidence, motive and opputunity, and hell, they were carrying the weapon right next to where they left the body (which is where they were hiding too). That's pretty damn sure.

And go ahead, say we should be absolutely sure...
Nope. Because I don't care whether it is absolutely sure. Because like you said, there is nothing we are 100% sure about. But even if we would be 100% sure about something, killing someone to show that it is wrong to kill someone fails every kind of logic.

[bass_forte]

I'm against it. I just find the fact that humans can believe that they can control the lives of others is despicable. That goes both ways, though; for the criminals and their punishers. Going any further into my views would turn this into a religious debate, so I'll stop here.

[The Big Al]

Regular punishments for crimes is not going to do anything. Society's reply would be,"You have to stay in jail because we are angry with you, and it would make us feel better if you suffer." That can be seen as the entire idea of justice. Having justice served is a human instinct. It is nature's way of keeping order. If capital punishment is wrong and useless, then why not get rid of all forms of punishment since the past could not be changed?
The death penalty isn't a punishment. Throwing a person in a box for 25 years is a punishment. The death penalty is simply violence answering violence. Who are we to take another's life into our hands?

And again. What if we kill an innocent man? Doesn't that make the state a murderer?

You disgust me. You're trying to justify the unjustifiable. It solves nothing. It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't solve the problem, it only feeds the venomous hatred.

[Ice Tyranitar]

1. Which is why I'm quite sure that you give all the money you don't need for your life-needs to charity. Because you wouldn't tell people to give money to use their money for education and welfare while you don't do so yourself, right? That would make you a hypocrite or something.

The IRS makes itself a pain in the as* every April for a reason you know. And anyway, I'm sure with all your talk about no one deserves to die at the hands of another human that every minute you're not at school/work/job, you're flying to Africa and helping everyone there and solving all of its problems.

2. You live in a country that spends billions on a years basis to fly big useless heaps of scrap to the moon and maybe Mars, just to plant a flag. 0.5% (Yes, zero point five percent) of the U.S.A.'s military budget would be sufficient to make world hunger nothing but a nasty memory. I hardly see you *****ing for using tax money on those things. But you want to save it by executing fourty people per year? You need to pick priorities.

And you're saying that if I didn't have that choice I wouldn't mulitilate all those things budgets ASAP? Do you seriously think I don't notice how we're wasting our money with all the billion-dollar toys we give generals? That I think that there's actually a point to manned spaceflight? Why would I even bring those things up anyway, this is about capital punishment, not where the government should spend all its money.

3. And not all murderers are 'the Earth's scum'. Little rich boys don't have to go out robbing people. Poor, desperate people that can't get a job have to. That doesn't mean that if someone get's killed in such a robery isn't a bad thing. But it also doesn't mean that the robber is an evil man, for trying to get some money to feed his family.

Someone who killed 15 women after raping them for no reason at all isn't what you'd call scum? Someone who wants every Westerner on the planet to die a painful, slow death and has done that to more than a few? Someone who lynched 5 people in the '60s and got away with it?

Here:

I meant a terrrorist attack that happened and that the person in my scenario planned.

Nope. Because I don't care whether it is absolutely sure. Because like you said, there is nothing we are 100% sure about. But even if we would be 100% sure about something, killing someone to show that it is wrong to kill someone fails every kind of logic.

Hence the term "beyond reasonable doubt". There are cases like this. Hell, even evolution, helio-centric solar system, and a round Earth we aren't 100% sure about, but we consider them fact. I never said that the death pelalty is a form of punishment, I'd say I'd rather die now than spend the rest of my life jail anyway.

[PokeProphet]

The IRS makes itself a pain in the as* every April for a reason you know. And anyway, I'm sure with all your talk about no one deserves to die at the hands of another human that every minute you're not at school/work/job, you're flying to Africa and helping everyone there and solving all of its problems.
No, I'm not. But I'm not the one suggesting to kill people so we have more money for other things.

And you're saying that if I didn't have that choice I wouldn't mulitilate all those things budgets ASAP?
No. I'm saying that it's useless to worry/debate about the few million dollars spend on the basic life needs of prisoners, when you have much bigger things to worry/debate about. That's all I'm saying.

Someone who killed 15 women after raping them for no reason at all isn't what you'd call scum? Someone who wants every Westerner on the planet to die a painful, slow death and has done that to more than a few? Someone who lynched 5 people in the '60s and got away with it?
Of course I would cal them scum. No question. But not everyone recieving the death penalty did horrible things like that. Those are just the extreme cases, and in America death sentence is applied to much more then only the extreme cases.

I meant a terrrorist attack that happened and that the person in my scenario planned.
Okiedokie.

Hence the term "beyond reasonable doubt".
Once again, I don't care about whether there's doubt or not. It doesn't matter. Killing someone to show it's wrong to kill someone fails every kind of logic.

I never said that the death pelalty is a form of punishment, I'd say I'd rather die now than spend the rest of my life jail anyway.
I understand, but that may not apply to a whole lot of other people. And think about your family. Would they want you to die right now, instead of having the chance to visit you know and then in jail, and still have contact with you?

[Ice Tyranitar]

No, I'm not. But I'm not the one suggesting to kill people so we have more money for other things.

Oh, sorry then. I didn't know that a difference ibn opinion led to complete moral superiority.

No. I'm saying that it's useless to worry/debate about the few million dollars spend on the basic life needs of prisoners, when you have much bigger things to worry/debate about. That's all I'm saying.

And I'm saying that if I said all that it'd be off-topic and I'm just replying to what is the topic.

Of course I would cal them scum. No question. But not everyone recieving the death penalty did horrible things like that. Those are just the extreme cases, and in America death sentence is applied to much more then only the extreme cases.

And in my first post I said it should be used only in extreme cases. *gasp* An deathpenalty supporter with a conscience?!

Once again, I don't care about whether there's doubt or not. It doesn't matter. Killing someone to show it's wrong to kill someone fails every kind of logic.

And it does, which is why I'm saying that that I don't think it should be meant for punishment.

I understand, but that may not apply to a whole lot of other people. And think about your family. Would they want you to die right now, instead of having the chance to visit you know and then in jail, and still have contact with you?

If I was one of those extreme cases, my family would want to forget me as fast as they could.

[PokeProphet]

Oh, sorry then. I didn't know that a difference ibn opinion led to complete moral superiority.
1. I never said that I was morally superior to you. Moral is a matter of opinion, and no opinion is superior to another one.
2. I was pointing out that if you're not willing to spend a few bucks of tax-money on death-convicts because you want to spend it on better things, you should give the right example. Facias ipse quod faciamus suades. Since I would be willing to spend those bucks, that argument doesn't go for me.

And I'm saying that if I said all that it'd be off-topic and I'm just replying to what is the topic.
Trying to save money on a few death-convicts doesn't help much if you compare it to the costs of the military and the NASA. Therefore the argument of saving money is not valid.

And in my first post I said it should be used only in extreme cases. *gasp* An deathpenalty supporter with a conscience?!
Sorry for not recalling your first post. In that case, I understand your point a lot better. But I never said that supporters of death penalty have no conscience. I disagree with them, but like I said, it is a matter of opinion. And don't add things like *gasp* to posts directed towards me. I don't give a flying **** whether a boy at the other side of the globe gasps or not.

And it does, which is why I'm saying that that I don't think it should be meant for punishment.
So it is only for saving money? How much does money mean to you?

If I was one of those extreme cases, my family would want to forget me as fast as they could.
They would still miss you.

[Ice Tyranitar]

2. I was pointing out that if you're not willing to spend a few bucks of tax-money on death-convicts because you want to spend it on better things, you should give the right example. Facias ipse quod faciamus suades. Since I would be willing to spend those bucks, that argument doesn't go for me.

I gave examples. And it's a few bucks we're talking about here. Someone gets life at 25 years old, let's say. It could be that for the next 70 years every time they flush, flip a switch, take medication, and let's say they need 10 surgeries in that time. All at taxpayers expense. In America, your average law-abiding citizen doesn't even get that from the government. Why should the worst crooks we have get them?

Trying to save money on a few death-convicts doesn't help much if you compare it to the costs of the military and the NASA. Therefore the argument of saving money is not valid.

We're not talking about NASA or the military though, we're talking about capital punishment. And besides, you want to try and save money in a lot of ways, not just ways that save a lot of it. The money you would spend elsewhere in my scneario would add up over time.

So it is only for saving money? How much does money mean to you?

There are much better things to spend it on. It can't be for punishment, you'd have to go into torture for it to be considered something like "eye for an eye."

They would still miss you.

They still wouldn't want to brag about being related to a serial killer/terrorist/neo-Nazi though.

[Espeon]

Nobody here who's against capital punishment will argue that you never need to punish someone when he does something bad. If you don't, they will never learn that their behavior is wrong (behaviorism). But didn't you (or PsyUmbreon, I can't recall) once say that hell is not punishment, because you have no chance to redeem yourself? How does that apply to capital punishment then?

It is called punishment, but I believe it is really about getting rid of those people whom society believe they are dangerous. If someone had been in and out of jail 10 times, would it be better to get rid of them rather to recapture that person each time? Doing so can eliminate some bad things.

[PsiUmbreon]

I am opposed to capital punishment. Not only is it costly and inefficient, not to mention inhumane, but, there is no way to make 100% certain that someone committed a capital crime. Meaning that it is possible to execute an innocent person. Not only is this a possibility, but it has occurred before as well.

Death penalty cases also end up costing us more than life in prison sentences. The lengthy appeals and trial costs of a death penalty case end up costing us more than if we just put someone away for a life sentence. If you want, I can produce sources to back this up. I researched this for a school project, k?

Furthermore, punishment does not equate to revenge. There is a lesson to be learned with punishment, and not necessarily so with revenge. Who are we to judge whether or not a person deserves to die? Punishment is not revenge. We are a civilized society, not a bunch of brutes that live by "an eye for an eye". If it were an eye for an eye, everyone would be blind. XD

The death penalty also has no deterrent effect. Crime rates are the same, if not higher, in states where the death penalty is active as where the death penalty has been abolished.

Lastly, there is a desensitization effect with the death penalty. Using death as punishment sends a message to society that killing someone for retaliation is acceptable. Murder rates are actually higher in the time immediately following and preceding a publicized execution.

[Dilasc]

Personally, I am both for, and against the death Penalty. It really should be based on a personal level of the criminal.

First, why am I against? Well, there's a simple word I like to call rehabilitation. Rather than letting someone rot in a jail where they'll likely worry about the soap (which can feel MUCH worse than death), every criminal should have a chance to be rehabilitated.

What if a man who commits a murder can be rehabilitated into a good samaritan. He could go on to do good things, like become a doctor or a lawyer... okay, so lawyer's a bad example. Still, if this murderer, after having killed one man, can be cured of the urge to kill again, and can go on to better himself, and society in general, then certainly justice has served to better all humanity, has it not?

On the other hand, multiple time criminals really only take up space in society. Yes, I feel that if someone is unrehabilitable, and really will serve life in jail anyway for a crime that is at least 85% certain to have been his or her doing, then off with his head, or rather, implode his innards with needles... which is, for some fudged up reason, humane. I mean, a quick and painless death ends their reign of carbon breathing, which in it of itself, is helping the environment on a global scale.

All in all, justice is very blind, and the truth is not always easy to see. Still, everyone deserves a second chance to try and do what the law deems to be benevolent, do they not? If they suceed, then all is well, and they have gotten redemption. Seriously, after having just watched on A&E about how a guy's in jail for LIFE a crime that even DNA proves he did not commit, it sickens me to even think that justice is served even half of the time it is claimed to be.

[Meowth&Slash]

I wonder if someone on the pro-death penalty side can explain me something. How does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong? And if murderers should be killed, doesn't that mean that the executioners (who are, technically speaking, also murderers) should be executed too, and their executers too, and so on?

It teaches people that killing is wrong because it shows the murderer that they will get an equal punishment compared to the crime that they committed.

Forget "An eye for an eye," I say, "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself" (i notice you all forgot about that quote conveniently)

[Eszett]

It teaches people that killing is wrong because it shows the murderer that they will get an equal punishment compared to the crime that they committed.

Forget "An eye for an eye," I say, "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself" (i notice you all forgot about that quote conveniently)But what about in mass murder situations? If someone is guilty of killing 26 people, they can only be killed once. Just a technicality I would like to point out.

Anyways, I don't see the rationale beind capital punishment that makes it any better of an option than simply putting the criminal in prison. By imprisonment, they are being placed in a dank, forlorn travesty of a place where they receive little sunlight and other luxuries. They must spend a lifetime in there or, if they try to escape, they must remain in hiding from the law. Moreover, they can be an asset to our society through such programs as making license plates, whereby if money is squandered on chemicals or fuelling an electric chair we are not only wasting resources, but also manpower and lives.

[Meowth&Slash]

But what about in mass murder situations? If someone is guilty of killing 26 people, they can only be killed once. Just a technicality I would like to point out.

whereby if money is squandered on chemicals or fuelling an electric chair we are not only wasting resources, but also manpower and lives.

That isn't a technicality at all. Tell me, how does it make more sense if you would give them 26 lifetime sentences? O.o

---------------------------

It disposes of them. IMO, I would like people killed simply like by hanging or a bullet. I do not think money should be wasted. And btw, you are using money to justify keeping people alive, when all this time everyone else on your side of the argument has been stating that money can't equal a life. I'd just like to point that out.

[LiLi]

Oh my lordy, that's an incorrect usage of 'do unto others' if I ever saw one.

The "Golden Rule" basically means that you should do to others what you would like for yourself. If you want people to treat you nicely, you should do the same. It does not apply to murder, because the intent of the saying is to have people treat others with kindness and respect -- not as a reason to use when trying to defend things like capital punishment. Simply put, the "Golden Rule" is about positive reinforcement, not negative.

I figure I should point that out should this start to be used by others as a good defense for pro capital punishment. It's the wrong saying to use for it, really.

Anyway, I already said my opinion on it, so carry on. *goes back to lurking*

[Carpetted!]

Really? HOw about other proverbs (or whatever they're called) such as, "what goes around comes around" or treat your neighbor the way you would like to be treated?" The 1st one isn't all about positive things, and the second one was the moral for the fable, The Fox and The Stork. They're not all about positive things, and they still make sense.

[Meowth&Slash]

Simply put, the "Golden Rule" is about positive reinforcement, not negative.




So, "an eye for an eye" is only used for negative reinforcement. My argument should therefore be just as valid.

[Ice Tyranitar]

I am opposed to capital punishment. Not only is it costly and inefficient, not to mention inhumane, but, there is no way to make 100% certain that someone committed a capital crime. Meaning that it is possible to execute an innocent person. Not only is this a possibility, but it has occurred before as well.

Again though, there's no denying that there are some cases that are "beyond reasonable doubt" of guilt. If you restrict it to these cases when the crimes are extreme, I don't see a problem with it.

Death penalty cases also end up costing us more than life in prison sentences. The lengthy appeals and trial costs of a death penalty case end up costing us more than if we just put someone away for a life sentence. If you want, I can produce sources to back this up. I researched this for a school project, k?

So you'd rather be more certain about a death penalty case than one with a life sentance? If not, trials for both would be about the same, only difference being, when there's a death penalty there's a cap to the prisoner's stay.

Furthermore, punishment does not equate to revenge. There is a lesson to be learned with punishment, and not necessarily so with revenge. Who are we to judge whether or not a person deserves to die? Punishment is not revenge. We are a civilized society, not a bunch of brutes that live by "an eye for an eye". If it were an eye for an eye, everyone would be blind. XD

The death penalty also has no deterrent effect. Crime rates are the same, if not higher, in states where the death penalty is active as where the death penalty has been abolished.

And I'd agree with you here.

Lastly, there is a desensitization effect with the death penalty. Using death as punishment sends a message to society that killing someone for retaliation is acceptable. Murder rates are actually higher in the time immediately following and preceding a publicized execution.

Well, and? When a taxi company gets anti-lock brakes on all their cars, crashes go up because the drivers feel more confident and are more careless. Said brakes aern't going to be banned anytime soon.

[LiLi]

Capital punishment is a negative thing, isn't it? I thought that the very least we'd all agree on is that the taking away of a life is a negative thing in general -- even if one does believe certain lives deserve to be taken away.

[Meowth&Slash]

Capital punishment is a negative thing, isn't it? I thought that the very least we'd all agree on is that the taking away of a life is a negative thing in general -- even if one does believe certain lives deserve to be taken away.
Stop trying to guilt us over.

[Ice Tyranitar]

Capital punishment is a negative thing, isn't it? I thought that the very least we'd all agree on is that the taking away of a life is a negative thing in general -- even if one does believe certain lives deserve to be taken away.

Well in general, Neuton's Laws function perfectly. In special cases, they are incorrect.

[Eszett]

That isn't a technicality at all. Tell me, how does it make more sense if you would give them 26 lifetime sentences? O.oAccording to your interpretation of the Golden Rule, shouldn't that person have to be killed 26 times?It disposes of them. IMO, I would like people killed simply like by hanging or a bullet. I do not think money should be wasted.Well, I must commend that you're thinking in a cost-effective manner. Were I to support capital punishment I would likely have the same mentality on the subject.And btw, you are using money to justify keeping people alive, when all this time everyone else on your side of the argument has been stating that money can't equal a life. I'd just like to point that out.Some sort of money must be used to keep them alive; there is no doubt about that. However, I feel that convicted felons should contribute back to society by making license plates or assisting in community service or something of that nature. It's more than fair considering the crime they committed and the food and lodging they are given.

[Meowth&Slash]

According to your interpretation of the Golden Rule, shouldn't that person have to be killed 26 times?
Shouldn't that person have to be kept alive 26 times. XD We're both stuck on this one. (and no, not necessarily, once you kill one person it doesn't get any worse, therfore punishment can't get any wores- i suppose!)


Well, I must commend that you're thinking in a cost-effective manner. Were I to support capital punishment I would likely have the same mentality on the subject. correctamundo

Some sort of money must be used to keep them alive; there is no doubt about that. However, I feel that convicted felons should contribute back to society by making license plates or assisting in community service or something of that nature. It's more than fair considering the crime they committed and the food and lodging they are given.
But at the same time why should we have to pay even that much for them when the cost could just as easily be taken care of with the purchase of merely a rope?

[PsiUmbreon]

Again though, there's no denying that there are some cases that are "beyond reasonable doubt" of guilt. If you restrict it to these cases when the crimes are extreme, I don't see a problem with it.
Yes, but ALL murderers are convicted when the jury finds the defendant guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". But "beyond reasonable doubt" is still not 100%. You cannot take away the fact that innocent people have been executed in the past when convicted "beyond reasonable doubt". Mistakes happen. And you cannot undo death. At least with a life sentence, if we find the person innocent, we can let them go and stuff.


So you'd rather be more certain about a death penalty case than one with a life sentance? If not, trials for both would be about the same, only difference being, when there's a death penalty there's a cap to the prisoner's stay.
Yes, but the death penalty is still a waste of money, when the convicted murderer can be instead made to make license plates or join a chain gang or something, and instead, do something productive for society to pay for the crime he/she has committed.

Well, and? When a taxi company gets anti-lock brakes on all their cars, crashes go up because the drivers feel more confident and are more careless. Said brakes aern't going to be banned anytime soon.
O_o no they don't. Well, ok that was a bad example, but I see sorta where you were going with that. Nonetheless, my point still stands that having the death penalty sends the message that killing people in retribution is acceptable.

[Infinite Master Sceptile]

First, why am I against? Well, there's a simple word I like to call rehabilitation. Rather than letting someone rot in a jail where they'll likely worry about the soap (which can feel MUCH worse than death), every criminal should have a chance to be rehabilitated.

What if a man who commits a murder can be rehabilitated into a good samaritan. He could go on to do good things, like become a doctor or a lawyer... okay, so lawyer's a bad example. Still, if this murderer, after having killed one man, can be cured of the urge to kill again, and can go on to better himself, and society in general, then certainly justice has served to better all humanity, has it not?
Thank you for saying that.
The penal system was originally based on rehabilitating criminals. A very small number of criminals are inherently dangerous. It's ironic that many of the strongest supporters of the death penalty are devout Christians, considering that Jesus said that when someone slaps you, turn the other cheek. Whatever happened to redemption? Why is revenge so prevalent today in modern society? It is my opinion that any society that supports the death penalty is morally corrupt. Two wrongs can never make it right. The only way to end the pain is to forgive those who wronged you. Revenge can only hurt you. Killing them is not going to bring your loved ones back, or give you any closure.

It teaches people that killing is wrong because it shows the murderer that they will get an equal punishment compared to the crime that they committed.
You clearly have absolutely no hope for humanity. Nowadays, when people hear of executions, they are not afraid. It just makes them angry at the system. Making an example of someone no longer works. Somehow, people have generally become more rebellious, less respectful of government, especially in the U.S.
Oh, and is executing a retarded person going to deter others? NO!
A sixteen-year-old? NO!
Incarceration is also highly flawed. But I will talk about that later.

[Eszett]

Shouldn't that person have to be kept alive 26 times. XD We're both stuck on this one. (and no, not necessarily, once you kill one person it doesn't get any worse, therfore punishment can't get any wores- i suppose!)As I see it, someone can serve 26 life sentences overlapping each other. He's still serving for life whether he serves 1 life sentence or 26 life sentences; he's just serving them simultaneously. However, you can't kill someone 26 times, since once you kill them once, they're dead for good. Death needs life to satiate itself.But at the same time why should we have to pay even that much for them when the cost could just as easily be taken care of with the purchase of merely a rope?License plates must still be made. I simply believe that the manpower that a criminal can provide should be tapped as opposed to simply killing perfectly able bodies that deserve to contribute back to society. For example, felons from Louisiana prisons were immensely helpful in providing aid to those victims of Hurricane Katrina. They ought to assist the community they hindered rather then having their lives stolen, leaving us to deal with their dead bodies.

[Ice Tyranitar]

Yes, but ALL murderers are convicted when the jury finds the defendant guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". But "beyond reasonable doubt" is still not 100%. You cannot take away the fact that innocent people have been executed in the past when convicted "beyond reasonable doubt". Mistakes happen. And you cannot undo death. At least with a life sentence, if we find the person innocent, we can let them go and stuff.

If your guilt is deemed beyond reasonable doubt, you'd have to have huge amount of physical evidence against you, plus a very good motive and oppurtunity. It's all a show, but you don't get there without something. Besides, if your case is deemed beyond reasonable doubt, its highly unlikely that any new evidnce would come up before you die anyway. If there was any, people might ignore it anyway becuase the court came to that conclusion.

And you can't 100% sure about anything, so saying so here isn't going to help anyone.

Yes, but the death penalty is still a waste of money, when the convicted murderer can be instead made to make license plates or join a chain gang or something, and instead, do something productive for society to pay for the crime he/she has committed.

And eventually the costs of their all their medical procedures, and other living expenses would offset the worth of the labor they did.

O_o no they don't. Well, ok that was a bad example, but I see sorta where you were going with that. Nonetheless, my point still stands that having the death penalty sends the message that killing people in retribution is acceptable.

It works the same way. If you're car has anti-lock brakes, if you're using a hands-free cell phone reciever, you think that you can less careful and thus so cause more accidents. I didn't deny what you said, I was just saying that the same thing happens elsewhere.

[Meowth&Slash]

As I see it, someone can serve 26 life sentences overlapping each other. He's still serving for life whether he serves 1 life sentence or 26 life sentences; he's just serving them simultaneously. However, you can't kill someone 26 times, since once you kill them once, they're dead for good. Death needs life to satiate itself.License plates must still be made. I simply believe that the manpower that a criminal can provide should be tapped as opposed to simply killing perfectly able bodies that deserve to contribute back to society. For example, felons from Louisiana prisons were immensely helpful in providing aid to those victims of Hurricane Katrina. They ought to assist the community they hindered rather then having their lives stolen, leaving us to deal with their dead bodies.
Wow, I'm sorry but that's a stretch. If that's the case then you are saying it is so horrible that you don't even need to do it more than once, well so is death. And you can't do either more than once anyway... just drop this argument, its going nowhere.

I'm sure we can find someone to make our license plates. Why don't we just tap into our endless supply of illegal immigrants!

[Eszett]

Wow, I'm sorry but that's a stretch. If that's the case then you are saying it is so horrible that you don't even need to do it more than once, well so is death. And you can't do either more than once anyway... just drop this argument, its going nowhere.Yesh, I just wanted to raise it as a technicality. Nothing too important.

I'm sure we can find someone to make our license plates. Why don't we just tap into our endless supply of illegal immigrants!Technically they're felons as well. ;/

[Meowth&Slash]

Yesh, I just wanted to raise it as a technicality. Nothing too important.

Technically they're felons as well. ;/

But its not a technicality since it got cancelled out.

Hopefully they're not elligible for the death penalty. You don't think that I want ALL criminals executed do you?

[Horn Drill]

Well, I might as well put in my two cents.

I'd have to say that the death penalty needs to go. We don't live in the Old West anymore, and no criminals are "too dangerous to be kept alive" in our day and age. Who is the one criminal death penalty supporters would like to die? Think of whoever it is, and imagine if they were released into society again. How likely is it that they would be able to repeat their crimes with all of our modern security? How likely is it that they'll escape from prison? Criminals can provide us with information about their crimes, the crimes of others, and criminal organizations. No one deserves to die before their time, especially by the hand of another human being. Sustaining the few criminals who some would consider to be worthy of death in prison is not all that expensive. The death penalty is not needed in our civilized era.

[The Big Al]

We've executed about 1,000 people since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in '77. In that same time, more than a hundred death row inmates were proven innosent after sentencing and released. Most have come in the last 15 years with the improvements of DNA evidence.

[Eszett]

But its not a technicality since it got cancelled out.Nevertheless I wanted to gain some understanding of it.

Hopefully they're not elligible for the death penalty. You don't think that I want ALL criminals executed do you?I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is a combination of three matters:

- Nobody deserves to be killed, even if they had killed other people. Our society should not punish killing with killing; that only promotes more killing.
- Living felons should contribute back to the society they hampered by making license plates, engaging in community service, etc. rather than being killed and the living having to deal with his body.
- Killing somebody is not a be-all, end-all panacea for punishing murderers. For all we know, we could be killing innocent people. Felons should always have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their guilt or innocence.

[PsiUmbreon]

If your guilt is deemed beyond reasonable doubt, you'd have to have huge amount of physical evidence against you, plus a very good motive and oppurtunity. It's all a show, but you don't get there without something. Besides, if your case is deemed beyond reasonable doubt, its highly unlikely that any new evidnce would come up before you die anyway. If there was any, people might ignore it anyway becuase the court came to that conclusion.

And you can't 100% sure about anything, so saying so here isn't going to help anyone.
That doesn't matter. Mistakes can still happen in the criminal justice system. And when you equate the death penalty into it, life and death mistakes. And yes, this has happened before that new evidence has surfaced in a case exonerating a person.
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/factsheets/kevinCooper.html
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/factsheets/RodneyReed.html
an example of what I'm talking about.



And eventually the costs of their all their medical procedures, and other living expenses would offset the worth of the labor they did.
Not necessarily so. I'd still say that there is a positive net contribution. Is it not profitable for corporations to employ people and pay them wages and provide for their medical insurance?


It works the same way. If you're car has anti-lock brakes, if you're using a hands-free cell phone reciever, you think that you can less careful and thus so cause more accidents. I didn't deny what you said, I was just saying that the same thing happens elsewhere.
Hmm... http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm
second paragraph down.

Now prove that anti-lock brakes on cars have increased the accident rate. Kthnx.

[Meowth&Slash]

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is a combination of three matters:

- Nobody deserves to be killed, even if they had killed other people. Our society should not punish killing with killing; that only promotes more killing.
- Living felons should contribute back to the society they hampered by making license plates, engaging in community service, etc. rather than being killed and the living having to deal with his body.
- Killing somebody is not a be-all, end-all panacea for punishing murderers. For all we know, we could be killing innocent people. Felons should always have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their guilt or innocence.

How does it promote more killing?

The overwhelming majority of felons will still be living. You only murder the murderers and the like.

I suppose they do deserve the benefit of the doubt. BUT their guilt or innocence has been determined in courts. What you need is a court restructuring!

[Ice Tyranitar]

That doesn't matter. Mistakes can still happen in the criminal justice system. And when you equate the death penalty into it, life and death mistakes. And yes, this has happened before that new evidence has surfaced in a case exonerating a person.

[url]//www.nodeathpenalty.org/factsh...odneyReed.html
an example of what I'm talking about.

Let's take a close look at the first one:
Kevin Cooper had no motive for committing these brutal murders and none was established at trial. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, having just escaped from a minimum security institution where he had been serving a sentence for a nonviolent offense. Police found him an all-too easy target.
No motive. Whenever someone's supposed to be convicted, it's supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt, but to avoid a hung jury every time, you almost never get this. If he had an obivous motive, obvious oppurtunity, and a huge amount of physical, forensic, and circumstanial evidence against him,that would be closer to it.

Second one:
Although semen found in Stites’ body matched Reed’s DNA, witnesses were available to testify that Reed, a black man, was having an affair with Stites, a white woman. The jury never heard them. There is no evidence that he killed her.
No evidence. According to this, that isn't beyond reasonable doubt.

Not necessarily so. I'd still say that there is a positive net contribution. Is it not profitable for corporations to employ people and pay them wages and provide for their medical insurance?

If they payed them for work that gets them less then minimum wage and had to pay every little expense, it would be very close.

Hmm... http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/ab...argument1b.htm
second paragraph down.

Now prove that anti-lock brakes on cars have increased the accident rate. Kthnx.

I said I read it somewhere, so I can't link to an article. However, why do you think this happens? It saids a message that solving murderers with murder is okay. What message would banning it send? That murderers get off easier. What message do anti-lock brakes send? That being more careless will be canceled out by the added safety the brakes bring.

[katiekitten]

I have had to write an essay on this, I am so glad I can talk about it. :)

Personally, I tend to lean more on to the Death Penalty side. Not for all cases, but for major ones, such as Rapists and Serial killers. They are animals, they don't care who they attack, as long as they get that feeling of power, of domination over their victims. People like that, I believe should be put down, for what good is it to pack them away in a prison for the rest of their lives, where they will not get what they lust for? It is far better to put them out of their misery, the sooner the better. I am not saying kill anyone who kills someone, for a great percentage of murders are spur of the moment. Due to circumstance, that is how the appropriate punishment be decided.

Another point, Executions may cost a lot of money, but even though life imprisonment costs less, it is no excuse. To say that is to compare someones life to money. As the monwy comes from the people, I am sure victims families would rather their hard earned cash goes towards removing such dangerous threats from society, then supporting the murderers in Prison; where they get cable TV.

You can not use violence as an excuse, either. "Execution gives kids the wrong idea, encourages violence." Is not American Football violent? Rugby? Besides, a lot of these 'innocent' children watch high rated horror or thriller films, that are filled with much more terrifying and horrific scenes then someone lying in a chair being injected. They don't make it a public spectacle, they do it the center of the jail, in a small cell.

How would you feel if christmas came around, and there was an empty arm chair by the fire, one that was once filled by a loved one, a seat now taken up in prison where the person responsible is living out their life with no worries; no job, free food. A study in 1985 showed that one execution dettered 18 murders. 18 more people able to make it safely home and live out their lives in peace and happiness. Prisons are filling up, we are running out of room. Once long life sentences are shortened to make more space for new prisoners. Despite the fact that some of them have a complete disregard for human life, they are released back into the modern world.

More people are killed by escaped, paroled or released prisoners than innocent people on the chair. Many of those lives could have been spared if we had done what was right and removed such threats from society, ensuring our children a safe world to grow and prosper, without always having to look over their shoulders at the shadows that stalk behind.

Now I have got to go right another Essay, this time on religion... :(